Is this what Limited Atonement means?

That's the limited atonement that Calvin himself believed. That's not exactly what many Calvinists themselves believe.

 

What do you think "many Calvinists themselves believe"?

 

Christ died only for the elect. His blood was shed only for the limited number of people who would receive Him. A common Calvinist treatise is:

http://www.tbcamarillo.org/collegestudyhelps/limitedatonement.htm

 

That is not true, Scott. Notice what this guy said: The limitation in the atonement is one of scope, not power. Indeed, had the Father desired it, one drop of his blood would have been powerful and efficacious enough to save the men and women of a million million worlds. That is limited atonement: Sufficient for all; efficient for the elect. That is what Calvin said above when he said that the death of Christ "paid" for thee sins of those who believe. It did not pay for anyone else's sins. That is too often missed.

Much of it depends on how one understands the "huper" idea .. Died for. It was substitutionary ... taking the death of, or dying in the place of. For those "for whom" Christ died, they will not die again eternally. Christ took their death. All who die eternally are one "for whom" Christ did not die.

But don't misunderstand. Christ did die for the sins of the world. All creation benefits from the death of Christ, but not all are saved by it. That is what limited atonement addresses.

 

Hi Larry;

Maybe this is what Calvin and you claim but it is never the less wrong.
My proof is the twisting of scripture that goes on in this paragraph.

You will notice he says this, not scripture. Not God, but the author of this. says this. who is he, that we should believe him? No one at all. He's not one of the disciples, He certainly isn't Paul, but all he is is a man with an idea that he can't prove. He is just making claims yet scriupture plainly tells us All is exactly who is being talked about in Jn 3:16.
If what someone says doesn't line up with scripture then we don't need it. The changing of the meaning of the words of scripture to make it fit such a doctrine is ridiculous.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

If the whosoever wasn't atoned for then this passage would be a lie because this one says;


Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

The next verse says that if we are drawn we will be raised up on the last day.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Then Calvinist apply this to a special elect who they can't explain how they got elected in the first place with out God being a respecter of persons. If it's random then our Salvation isn't up to God but up to "Chance"

The sins of all men have been paid for regardless of what Calvin says or for that matter what you say. It's what scripture says, that counts. Not what men say.

Orwell would have called this double speak. It is but it isn't .
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

That may be ... but I was addressing what Scott said.

And that is why we must reject your position. What he says about the meaning of "all" in Scripture is dead right. He may have applied it wrongly in the verses, but it is blatantly clear that "all" does not always mean "all men without exception." That has been proven beyond doubt here before.

Great point ... The whosoever of this verse is most certainly atoned for. We all believe that. All who believe in Christ have been atoned for. That is true whether you believe in limited atonement or not. But the key word is "believe." The sins of those who "believe" are atoned for.

Did you read the context? The context was about whether Greeks could "see" Jesus. Therefore the "all" (men is not in the Greek) ... the "all" is speaking of nationalities, not individuals.

Calvinist don't believe it is random. (Yet again, you show that you don't know what you are fighting against.) People are elect because God chose them for his own glory. That is not random. But John 6:44 is clear ... You can't come without being drawn, and those who are drawn will be raised up at the last day.

I doubt Orwell would have liked anything about the atonement of Christ, no matter what one thinks of it. BUt it isn't doublespeak. It is simply what God says in his word.

He has done it in his word. All you need to do is abandon your own beliefs and believe what he said.

 

By your last sentence do you imply that God's grace is not applied to ALL, but only to those who believe?

If yes, then how did anyone prior to the Christ ever have God's Grace? Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord! Are you saying that he was saved before God looked upon him as a righteous man. How did Noah grow up if God did not already provide his Grace to all mankind, that allows man to live in spite of being a sinner?

How is it that "For by grace are ye saved....", if first you must believe, "be born again", in order to receive God's grace?

Friends, That is a complete obfuscation of BIBLICAL Grace which is God's Grace. You see, God's grace is universally applied to all men, though man does not universally accept God's grace for the reason God provides it. But the good and bad alike are under God's grace!

And No, it is not God's grace that saves man. It is God who saves man, and he only saves those who come to faith in God while God's grace is universally present for ALL!

Our "receiving" God's grace is not dependent upon the death of the Christ, but rather the LIFE of the Christ! It is for the benefit of the Living Christ that God remains in his State of Grace. State of Grace as I use it means God's behavior toward man!

It is convoluted thinking to make God's grace dependent upon human belief.

 

Hi Larry;

Really when was that? The term "All Men" is without exception unless the exception is mentioned. It seems you are seeing things that aren't there because you refuse to accept truth.
Who applied it wrongly?
I hope you not trying to cast doubt on the quality of God's word. If you don't believe the way it's written then why believe it at all?

When it comes down to scripture you disregaurd it's value. So now it seems, the Bible that's wrong.

You going to have to convince me that men are more right than the Bible. It's obvious that your not relying on the light of the Word.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Does Jesus include Himself in that? If no then you have a limited 'all'.

The term "All Men" is without exception unless the exception is mentioned.

I mention Jesus can I?

johnp.

 

The term "All Men" is without exception unless the exception is mentioned.

Where did this rule come from? You just made that up?

johnp.

 

Several time. Monergist has brought up several examples as have others.

"Men" isn't a part of the "term." It only says "all." You don't get to make up your own rules.

Not at all.

You did.

I do believe it the way it is written. That is why I believe what I do. I have shown several places where you have rejected it.

NOt at all. It is the inerrant infallible revelation from God. It is true in all its parts and in the whole.

I don't think so.

Why? I don't believe that. I accept the word of God as truth over all things men say.

That is simply untrue. I am merely trying to get you to believe Scripture.

 

Hi Larry;

Yeah I've read them and and not one of the false claims they made, proved anything. Just plain nonsense

It's intresting Larry how you always manage to find fault even when there is none.
It doesn't say All Calvinist either.
It does say "all" and all is all there is. The word is not limited yet you would have us believe it is.
Here's the verse again;

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Where is the "all" limited show me.

The point isn't whether the word is never used in any other way, but how it's used here.

I did! I just showed you a verse and you haven't proven anything you've said is correct. You just claim your right. Your claims are worth much to me Larry with out proof.
For a pastor you never use much scripture do you? You just tell people there wrong because they disagree with you, never offering any proof.

No Larry you don't believe it as it is written. I wish you did. You want to claim that the "All" in Jn 12:32 is limited in how it is written and it is not. I don't care what Monergist claims or any other Calvinist here or any where else none of you have proven anything about the All in this verse being limited in any way. We All know that the word can be used in a lot of ways but when there is no other word to limit it, there is no other way it can be taken, except to mean all inclusive.
The all in this verse isn't limited either;
Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

We all labor and we are all heavy laden with sin. And that's why Christ paid that debt for the "world" Which isn't limited either in Jn.3:16

Who you trying to convince me or your self ?

Yet you rarely used any scripture to prove your point. When you prove the all in Jn. 12:32 is limited to a few then I'll believe you.

May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Actually I think the original quote is stating just the opposite. That human belief is dependent solely on God's grace. And that those who profess faith in Christ are the one's in which the death of Christ spiritually awakened them. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry NateT, but I read that original post through about 15 times before I decided to comment. Pay particular attention to the last sentence in Post number 1 of this topic.

 

The guy the link references says, "The doctrine of limited atonement is this: Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of a limited number of people through his shed blood on the cross. He did not die for every single individual human being who ever walked the face of the planet, nor did he redeem them all. He died and redeemed only those whom the Father elected to save." This is different from the limited atonement that Calvin wrote about. My point still stands. You may not agree with the guy, but most Calvinists I've spoken to do not believe that Jesus Christ died for, say, Adolf Hitler. I believe, though, that He did.

 

ScottEmerson.

Did His death by it's very nature cover the sins of all mankind or are you saying that Jesus died in particular for Adolf.
If He died in particular for Adolf then why did Jesus do something vain?
If His death covers the sins of all mankind why are all mankind not saved? What causes any to go to Hell?
That His death is not sufficient for any but that we must add something?
If we must add something what is it and why did Jesus do something vain for so many?
What was the intention of Jesus going to the cross. Was it just to make it possible for people to be saved or to be saved?
What is it that sent Adolf to Hell, if he went there, after Jesus died for his sins?

johnp.

 

YOu are in direct denial of Scripture. Those occasions of "all" had nothing to do with salvation. They were clear examples of "all" that didn't mean all without exceptiont. You are either mistakenly referrignt o something different than I am, or you are in direct denial of Scripture.

In the context of John 12. REad it. It is about Greeks who want to see Jesus and Jesus says, Not yet. When I am crucified then all (Jews and Greeks in context ) will be drawn. AT the point, Jesus is seeing only Jews. Later, it will be others as well. The context shows how clear this is. YOu just need to read it and accept it.

I showed you from the context. What else do you want?

I have probably used way more than you have, with the added benefit that I use it correctly.

I don't want to claim that; I hae to because that is what the text says. REad it ...

You, for some reason, simply won't accept Scripture. I don't know why. You say you want God's light to shine, but you won't accept it. 2 Peter 1 talks of paying attention to the lamp that shines in a dark place. That is the word. Open your eyes and accept it.

 

Hi Larry;

More correctly I'm in direct denial of Larry's view of scripture.

It is not about Greeks but about the Jews and how the resurrection of Lazrus had such an powerful effect on there belief . When this happened they believed because only God has power over life and death. Simply some of the Jews could no longer justify there rejection of Him.
It still doesn't limit the "ALL" in verse 32 in fact it confirms that the drawing isn't limited at all. Now what you are trying to say is that it is limited to just the Jews and Greeks. Truth is, Salvation has never been limited not even to the Jews.

More correctly you attempted to prove the unprovable. Then you stand back and claim victory. Your claim doesn't line up with scripture and is false.

Now it seems your just trying to save face in an argument. I don't believe you have anymore ability than anyone else Larry. It seems your tripping over your own pride here. Pride of a traning that is failing even you.

Your the one who questioned the word "All" to begin with Larry. Then you try to convince me that the text is limiting the word it self. Not so Larry. I have read and reread the text I think it's your turn to take an honest look at it your self. What you see there is what you've wanted to see. Not what it actually says.

The light you are shinning isn't the Light Of Christ. The light shinning in the darkness is not in 2nd Peter 1. Actually the chapter is more about making your calling and election sure. and about the things one needs to do in order that your calling is sure. These things, if we do, will make it unlikely to fall from Grace.
As a pastor I would think you would know better. I'm really disapointed that you just proved of your self what you say of me. You keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Any one here can tell you don't know your self.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Did He die to atone for whosover would not believe?