How Do We Define "Limited Atonement" per the Bible?

[JesusFan]

How Do We Define "particular/definite" Atonement" per the Bible?

Think that as Christians, especially "baptist" ones...

need to come to a common definition of just what that term means, as per the biblical concept!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Think that as Christians, especially "baptist" ones...

need to come to a common definition of just what that term means, as per the biblical concept!

Now I think you are merely trying to fan the flames of discord between Calvinists & Non-Calvinists.

You know as well as I do that the term "Limited Atonement" is misapplied in theological circles, wrongly suggesting that the death of Christ was of limited value......and Ive explained this misunderstanding ad nauseam in another thread recently.

Rather than reference LI, I suggest you evaluate & debate what terms like "definite atonement" or "particular redemption" really stand for. OK :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Think that as Christians, especially "baptist" ones...

need to come to a common definition of just what that term means, as per the biblical concept!

There is no "biblical" concept of a limited atonement, the scriptures say Jesus died for all (100%) men.

2 Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ restraineth us; because thus we judge, that if one died for all, then all were dead:

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

[JesusFan]

Now I think you are merely trying to fan the flames of discord between Calvinists & Non-Calvinists.

You know as well as I do that the term "Limited Atonement" is misapplied in theological circles, wrongly suggesting that the death of Christ was of limited value......and Ive explained this misunderstanding ad nauseam in another thread recently.

Rather than reference LI, I suggest you evaluate & debate what terms like "definite atonement" or "particular redemption" really stand for. OK :thumbs:

that sounds really good!
lets do a "option call" here and switch out to discussion on those terms than!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

that sounds really good!
lets do a "option call" here and switch out to discussion on those terms than!

Rather why not look at your recent positngs you yourself put up....Please Explain 1 John 2 "Jesus propiation For Sins Of Whole World!" Posts 63, 64 etc Similar topic/ been there, done that:laugh:

 

[Winman]

Where Calvinism goes wrong (IMO), is that they read into scripture what is not said. For example, when Jesus said, "I lay down my life for the sheep" the Calvinist will interpret this to say, "I lay down my life ONLY for the sheep". That is how Calvinists interpret this, but that is not an accurate interpretation of this verse.

It would be like this, suppose the President passed a bill that reduced everyone's income tax by 50%. Now he goes to California and makes a speech and says, "I reduced every Californian's income tax by 50%!"

Is that a true statement? Yes. But does that mean he only reduced the income tax for Californians alone? NO.

But that is how Calvinists often interpret many scriptures, they read these verses to be exclusive of others when that is not necessarily the case.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Where Calvinism goes wrong (IMO), is that they read into scripture what is not said. For example, when Jesus said, "I lay down my life for the sheep" the Calvinist will interpret this to say, "I lay down my life ONLY for the sheep". That is how Calvinists interpret this, but that is not an accurate interpretation of this verse.

It would be like this, suppose the President passed a bill that reduced everyone's income tax by 50%. Now he goes to California and makes a speech and says, "I reduced every Californian's income tax by 50%!"

Is that a true statement? Yes. But does that mean he only reduced the income tax for Californians alone? NO.

But that is how Calvinists often interpret many scriptures, they read these verses to be exclusive of others when that is not necessarily the case.

Well these are some strong theological options you have Winman :laugh:

Others like Charles Spurgeon might have his own difference of opinion with you however.... after reading this sermon (below) that its actually folks like you that deny particular redemption that are the ones who actually limit Christs atonement. Spurgeon said:

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.

Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question--Did Christ die as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, 'No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if"--and then follow certain conditions of salvation.

Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, 'No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.' We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.

You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

 

[Skandelon]

Well these are some strong theological options you have Winman :laugh:

Others like Charles Spurgeon might have his own difference of opinion with you however.... after reading this sermon (below) that its actually folks like you that deny particular redemption that are the ones who actually limit Christs atonement. Spurgeon said:

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.

Yet, that very argument is rejected by many Calvinistic scholars.

As Calvinistic scholar, Richard Muller, explains, "Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ’s work for the faithful alone–and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only."

Some neglect to understand the difference between this classical view of the Reformed faith which clearly affirmed universal satisfaction of Christ's work and the more modern approach of 'limited atonement.'

 

[Winman]

I understand what Spurgeon is saying, but believe his argument error. He ASSUMES that LA is unconditional. The scriptures never say that. The scriptures say one must BELIEVE to be saved, they must RECEIVE God's grace.

If atonement is limited (which it is not), then it cannot be said to be limited by God, but by man's refusal to accept God's free gift.

A fellow can ask a girl to marry him and offer her an engagement ring, the girl can refuse it and say no.

And that is how salvation is often compared, to marriage. When we say yes, we receive the Holy Spirit that seals us much like the engagement ring.

And if the girl refuses to marry the man, she also refuses all he offers such as a nice home, or a large fortune.

I wouldn't call this limited atonement, I would call it "rejected" atonement, but folks can play with words any way they desire.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well then you've got two possible scenarios I'm thinking

1. Christ died for all, but not all get saved. or

2. Christ did not die for all, but all for whom he died will be saved.

Those are your selections......Loraine Boettner has compared the situation to two bridges. One is a very broad bridge, but it only goes halfway across the chasm. The other is a narrow bridge, but it goes across the divide.

Which would you prefer .... obviously the one that reaches all the way to salvation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What is the "modern approach of 'limited atonement."?

 

[preacher4truth]

What is the "modern approach of 'limited atonement."?

It's anything that differs with whatever he pulls out of a theological writing, no matter how old that writing which contradicts him may be. If it contradicts what he is using, it's a "modern approach." If you state he's using theologians out of context, he'll ask you to quote a scholar that says he's using them out of context. It's a never ending cycle. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Skandelon]

What is the "modern approach of 'limited atonement."?

Once again, Calvinists of old (16th/17th century) didn't exactly use the terms 'limited' and 'universal' in regard to the atonement in a way represented by modern Calvinists...(nor did their opponents of that time). As I brought up, the issue was more concerning the ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate wasn't really about if Christ’s satisfaction was 'limited' or 'universal.' Everyone believed Christ's work was sufficient to pay the price for every single sin ever committed and the Reformers of that day believed it to be 'efficient' only for those who believed and were saved. I think you would agree with me so far on this point, right?

The REAL question was about the identity of those who were saved and the grounds of the limitation -- God’s choice or human choice (i.e. free will vs. pre-regenerated - Which is more about "Irresistible Grace" than "Limited Atonement). So, both Calvin and his opponents believed and taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all; and to Calvin's credit both affirmed the universal preaching of the Gospel based on this shared biblical belief. It just appears to me that SOME modern Calvinists have shifted the grounds of God's limitations from one point (those "effectual called") to another (limited atonement - whose sins have been satisfied and whose haven't?). In other words, that which limited the number saved was God's elective purposes made manifest through who was effectually called to faith, not whose sins have been satisfied by the work of Christ and whose haven't...as if He just suffered so much for just so many. I think that is a modern twist added into the Calvinistic system that the more classical Reformers would have rejected.

BTW, as pointed out before, I believe Calvinistic scholar, Richard Muller, supports these findings.

 

[Skandelon]

If you state he's using theologians out of context, he'll ask you to quote a scholar that says he's using them out of context.

No, actually, I just request that you provide the context and the argument showing that what I've claimed is inconsistent.

I WELCOME you to look at ALL the quotes from these Calvinistic scholars that I've presented and show how they are not supporting my claims contextually. I would LOVE, absolutely LOVE to see just one of you take the time to actually support that accusation...JUST ONCE. What you will find instead is that I'm quoting them verbatim within their context. And if you objectively and honestly studied their quotes and those of other Reformers you would see the distinction of these scholars approach from others. You would see that SOME believe that 'Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all.' (R. Muller), and others believe His work only made satisfaction for the elect. Then you would apologize to me for false accusations and deal with the distinctions drawn by differing Reformed approaches to this doctrine. I doubt that would happen, but one can always hope.

 

[Iconoclast]

Where Calvinism goes wrong (IMO), is that they read into scripture what is not said. For example, when Jesus said, "I lay down my life for the sheep" the Calvinist will interpret this to say, "I lay down my life ONLY for the sheep". That is how Calvinists interpret this, but that is not an accurate interpretation of this verse.

It would be like this, suppose the President passed a bill that reduced everyone's income tax by 50%. Now he goes to California and makes a speech and says, "I reduced every Californian's income tax by 50%!"

Is that a true statement? Yes. But does that mean he only reduced the income tax for Californians alone? NO.

But that is how Calvinists often interpret many scriptures, they read these verses to be exclusive of others when that is not necessarily the case.

Where you go wrong is basically you do not understand these things at all.
This post is ridiculous. All over the bible believers are Gods sheep...ezk34.

In your twisted post it means something else somehow ,because you resist truth everyday,every post.....it is at a point that you just resist because you want to.

 

[Winman]

Where you go wrong is basically you do not understand these things at all.
This post is ridiculous. All over the bible believers are Gods sheep...ezk34.

In your twisted post it means something else somehow ,because you resist truth everyday,every post.....it is at a point that you just resist because you want to.

Where did I say the sheep are not God's people? Show where I said anything like that. You can't, because I said no such thing. You are either a poor reader, or you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote. Which is it?

The point I was making is that when Jesus said he laid down his life for the sheep, that is not necessarily saying he laid down his life ONLY for the sheep, excluding all others, but that is how a Calvinist will interpret scripture, they read into scripture what is not said.

 

[Rippon]

Scripture Cited Is From 2011 NIV

The point I was making is that when Jesus said he laid down his life for the sheep, that is not necessarily saying he laid down his life ONLY for the sheep, excluding all others, but that is how a Calvinist will interpret scripture, they read into scripture what is not said.

The Lord laid down His life for the sheep alone -- not the goats as well.

In John 10:11 it says that "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." Does that mean :"Well the sheep yes,but everyone else is included too." ? Certainly not. Believe the Word of God.

When Jesus repeats Himself in verse 15 he says "I lay down my life for the sheep." Did He really mean to say --BTW,everyone else is covered too. I laid down my life fore them too." ? Of course not. Do not doubt the Holy Word of God.

In verse 28 Jesus says "I give them [my sheep]eternal life." He is giving only His sheep eternal life --no one else. The goats are not included.

Go to Matthew 25:31-46. It is speaking of the division of the sheep and the goats. Look at verse 32,33:"All the nations will be gathered before him,and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." Only the ones on His right[the sheep] will enter into glory according to verse 34. The goats on His left enter eternal fire according to verse 41.

Go to Acts 20:28c :"The church of God which he bought with own blood." Does that mean something different like :Oh,I really intended to say He purchased the church of God with His blood,but everyone else too." I think not Winman. Believe the Scriptures.

Go to Ephesians 5:25 and notice what Paul said about the sacrifice of the Lord:"Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." That does not mean :"In my haste I don't want to imply that Christ also gave Himself up for everyone else as well." Absolutely not. Chriswt doed for the Chhurch of God. He died for His Bride --no one else.

You are guilty as charged, for reading into the Bible that which is not there Winman.

 

[Winman]

I disagree with you Rippon, Jesus DID NOT say he laid down his life for the sheep ONLY, you are reading that into scripture because you approach this statement with the assumption that Limited Atonement is true.

If I said that in 1973 I drove from Florida to California (which is true), does that mean the ONLY place I drove my car in 1973 was to California? NO, and nobody with common sense would make such an ASSUMPTION. Fact is, I drove to many other places in 1973, not just California ONLY.

You cannot prove Limited Atonement from Jesus saying he laid down his life for the sheep. If Jesus said he was going to lay down his life for the sheep only, and specifically states that all others are excluded, then you would have support for LA, but that is not what Jesus said.

 

[preacher4truth]

Where you go wrong is basically you do not understand these things at all.
This post is ridiculous. All over the bible believers are Gods sheep...ezk34.

In your twisted post it means something else somehow ,because you resist truth everyday,every post.....it is at a point that you just resist because you want to.

Bro, this is status quo for him. As long as I've been a Baptist, I've never seen a person have as many interpretational problems as winman, and as many misconstrued conclusions as he has.

One point of concern I have for him is he'll begin arguing about something with a person a subject or issues which they've never brought up as though they did bring them up or mention them.

It is clear that when Jesus says He would lay down His life for His sheep, He was being concisely specific about whom He would die for. Interpreting this passage in this manner is employing a solid hermeneutical method.

Here's winmans problem: he literally believes he can take each and every pasage that backs up DoG and refute each and every one of them. This is the case no matter if he has to use differing methods of interpretational rules (his own rules mind you) for the differing passages of Scripture. He employs whatever rule he wants per passage, whichever of his rules works there, then he'll use them.

For instance, this passage is very specific: "His Sheep". Now in other passages winman will argue about the specificity of words being the dogma therein, and forcing us to interpret it this way "It says specifically this...!" But in the passage at hand, winman must pull out another method and make the specificity of "His sheep" mean the whole world. This shows how inconsistent he is. Whatever works to bring the passage to say what he wants it to mean.

If winman were to write a set of commentaries others would certainly take them to task over this inconsistent hermeneutical practice.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Bro, this is status quo for him. As long as I've been a Baptist, I've never seen a person have as much interpretational problems as winman, and as many misconstrued conclusions as he has.

One point of concern I have for him is he'll begin arguing about something with a person they've never brought up.

It is clear that when Jesus says He would lay down His life for His sheep, He was being concisely specific about whom He would die for. Interpreting this passage in this manner is employing a solid hermeneutical method.

Here's winmans problem: he literally believes he can take each and every pasage that backs up DoG and refute each and every one of them. This is the case no matter if he has to use differing methods of interpretational rules (his own rules mind you) for the differing passages of Scripture. He employs whatever rule he wants per passage, whichever of his rules works there, then he'll use them.

For instance, this passage is very specific: "His Sheep". Now in other passages winman will argue about the specificity of words being the dogma therein, and forcing us to interpret it this way "It says specifically this...!" But in the passage at hand, winman must pull out another method and make the specificity of "His sheep" mean the whole world. This shows how inconsistent he is. Whatever works to bring the passage to say what he wants it to mean.

If winman were to write a set of commentaries others would certainly take them to task over this inconsistent hermeneutical practice.

Just makes us stronger in our Belief System Convictions my brothers....we should be thanking him :applause: