Limited Atonement and Cause and Effects

[BobRyan]

HP
That leads us to the examination of an absurd contradiction found in the theology of many men. Some try to have their cake and eat it too, by claiming that man has absolutely no role or obligation in achieving salvation or keeping salvation, yet try and say they do not believe in a limited atonement. To try and support such a view is preposterously absurd and contradictory. If man has no role in his salvation, and can do nothing to keep his salvation, those that are saved and kept are indeed the product of a limited plan of salvation, INSPITE OF WHAT THEY TRY AND CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY.

True. It is Limited Gospel, Limited Salvation, Limited Love, Limited God and it is a DOWNSIZED Word of God where terms like "ALL" and "WORLD" and "Not willing for ANY to perish" etc all have to be downsized when not completely ignored.

It is a logical fallacy to deny a limited atonement if one indeed takes the position that man has nothing to do with their salvation, and has nothing to do with keeping their salvation.

Preach it! Also the ALL the "PERSEVERANCE" and "WARNING" texts of scripture are pure nonsense since NO appeal to motivation for the lost or the saints to DO something makes any difference at all - NOTHING they do makes any difference AT ALL!

Furthermore IMAGINE how an evangelistic sermon on such a Calvinist planet would proceed.

"NOTHING you do - NOTHING you choose - NOTHING you decide here tonight makes any difference at all when it comes to the gospel. You can go home right now - at the very start of this message and the result is EXACTLY THE SAME".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As I have stated many times on this board - when I post against Calvinism it is usually the 4 Point Calvinists that I most oppose - then the 5 Point Calvinists and lastly (and almost never) oppose the 3 Point Calvinists.

Having said that - HP is posting an objection to the 3 Point view that rejects Limited Atonement. HP's argument is that "salvation is ALL of God" is so basic and foundational to Calvinism that all hold to it and that means that the 3 pointers are caught in a logical fallacy.

As much as I thoroughly post in favor of the 3 point position (when it comes to ACCEPTING Perseverance and REJECTING Limited Atonement) - I have to agree with HP. This is a conflicted position for three pointers to hold given the baseline tenant of Calvinism for "Salvation is ALL of God and NONE of man" being defined as "nothing you say or do determines the outcome". By holding to such a glaringly obvious contradiction inside Calvinism that even the Arminians can clearly see it the 3 point group is exposed to some criticism from both sides.

----------------------

having said that - I find it facinating because you see the SAME thing happen INSIDE the Arminian camp. Inside that camp FREE WILL is the BASIC point for all flavors of Arminianism which means that OSAS is a conflicted position for those Arminians who hold to BOTH Free Will AND to OSAS. Not only is this point raised by the two groups INSIDE the Arminian camp but often you will find Calivnists observing the discussion and saying that they too see the point that Arminians can not "logically" and "consistently" Hold to BOTH free will AND to OSAS. They simply "do it anyway".

In any case - might as well point out how BOTH Arminians and Calvinists have this "kind" of problem inside their own camps.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry is arguing for 3 Pt Calvinism and against Limited Atonement??

I am arguing for neither, as you should know. Seriously, Bob, so many of your errors (repeated here again) are because you don't read very closely. Your errors have been easily shown before and refuted. It is no different here. You misrepresent the fact that I and others preach the gospel faithfully and clearly, as it is given in Scripture. We do not change it fit conveniences or desired beliefs.

Hopefully one day you will accept that and quit this foolishness.

 

[BobRyan]

your posts - substantive as usual.

I had hoped for a reponse to the points.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I have refuted all your points numerous times in the past. You have offered nothing new that has not been soundly shown to be incorrect. Your only resort of is misrepresentation. Why should I respond to something I don't even believe? Why dignify these silly things with a response?

Think about your post. You said I was arguing for 3 point Calvinism and against limited atonement. That is absolutely crazy. Being a five pointer who believes in limited atonement as the Bible teaches it (as opposed to what some people say), why would I argue for 3 point Calvinism and against limited atonement? You should have read more closely before you made that statement.

 

[BobRyan]

Pastor Larry - I appreciate that you want to claim a supposed victory "some place else" and that this should spare you from actually having to "do the math" here.

I get that part.

You say you are 5 point Calvinist - and I accept it sir.

But you posted this - and I had hoped that this meant some light was shining in that area for you and that you had considered going to a 3 point position.

Originally Posted by Pastor Larry
My objection is that God as the sole cause of salvation is not related necessarily to limited atonement. One can hold to an unlimited atonement and still believe that God is the sole cause of salvation.

I simply raised it as a "possibility" and said 'we will watch and see". Your response in your usual gracious style - was sufficient to slam that door -- as usual.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Pastor Larry]

First, what do you mean by "supposed victory"? It was clear in other places that you did not refute what I believed, but I was rather easily able to demonstrate that your position was flawed. You see, one of the major problems is that you don't actually address what we believe. This is a common thing, so it is by no means new. It is disappointing.

Secondly, why would I consider going to a three point position given the weight of Scripture that supports what I already believe? Would you really ask me to deny God's word?

The light has shone, and that is why I believe what I do.

However, I have been far more gracious with you than you have been with me. When you make things up about what I believe, and misrepresent my position, that is hardly gracious. I have chosen not to respond to it here.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Larry

No it doesn't. The fact that Bill Gates can buy himself and me a new house, (prop 1) but chooses not to (prop 2), and no one can force him to (prop 3) has no reference on the sufficiency of his money to do both. He has simply chosen not to.

Then Bob said

Bob

This point always comes up and is always immediately answered by the fact that once GOD DOES claim to have provided "the Atoning sacrifice for OUR SINs and NOT for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2 (NIV) we are well beyond the "hypothetical" argument "God had the sovereign right NOT to promise such a thing".

that point is moot since HE DID take that position ALREADY.

As I said - this answer has been given repeatedly.

But then I added that it appeared from your previous post that you may be backing off of limited Atonement"

Bob said
But since PL seems to be taking a view opposed to limited atonement - I will not press it.

As per your request your resolution to continue with Limited Atonement is noted -- so you may consider the point you are still ignoring "pressed" instead of "dropped"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

[/color][/size][/font]

True. It is Limited Gospel, Limited Salvation, Limited Love, Limited God and it is a DOWNSIZED Word of God where terms like "ALL" and "WORLD" and "Not willing for ANY to perish" etc all have to be downsized when not completely ignored.

[/color][/size][/font]

Preach it! Also the ALL the "PERSEVERANCE" and "WARNING" texts of scripture are pure nonsense since NO appeal to motivation for the lost or the saints to DO something makes any difference at all - NOTHING they do makes any difference AT ALL!

Furthermore IMAGINE how an evangelistic sermon on such a Calvinist planet would proceed.

"NOTHING you do - NOTHING you choose - NOTHING you decide here tonight makes any difference at all when it comes to the gospel. You can go home right now - at the very start of this message and the result is EXACTLY THE SAME".

In Christ,

Bob

GE:

The ugliest and most untalented graffitti from a man who hates something so much he has his wits scared out of him by it!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:

"It is Limited Gospel, Limited Salvation, Limited Love, Limited God and it is a DOWNSIZED Word of God where terms like "ALL" and "WORLD" and "Not willing for ANY to perish" etc all have to be downsized when not completely ignored."

GE:

Indeed, a 'limited' Gospel, by the furthest reaches of the grace of God -- and of His holiness. Beyond that, even the Good News spells damnation to the ungodly.

But Bob Ryan thinks that is unjust. So he inflates the Gospel beyond its limits so that it will puff into nothing at the prick of the tiniest needle of his intellect.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Scripture: 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

HP: GE, not according to this and other verses. The atonement affects all sin, not the elects only……..IF we will but hear, and open the doors of our heart in willing obedience to the conditions God has set forth.

God is it who is the Moving Agent "in us" to 'open the door'; God is it who "digs an ear" to hear; who affects the inclination or 'willingness': THESE ARE THE 'CONDITIONS God has set forth': In Christ, the Alfa -Author, "the Beginning of the creation OF GOD" -- of 'obedience', of the new man, the regenerate, the elect, the child of God.
It begins with God's unlimited love for this whole world as represented or limited by His elect; and it ends with this same God and with the same elect only.

Great theologians (like Karl Barth (with tongue in the cheek) and Juergen Moltmann (enthusiastically) are quite able to grasp the consequences of a limited atonement, but refuse its offence, and surrender to apokatastasis. Where do we mortals come from to think we can do better?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Pastor Larry:

"....It was clear in other places that you did not refute what I believed, but I was rather easily able to demonstrate that your position was flawed. You see, one of the major problems is that you don't actually address what we believe. This is a common thing, so it is by no means new. It is disappointing."

GE:

BobRyan thinks of himself too much; that's his problem simply. He worships the ossified stagnant sterile dogmas of his church. He is too well informed to even READ anyone else's posts. Well mine in any case. I specifically, for example, put 2Peter2:38 to him in proper perspective. You think he would answer back? Just "ignored" it (to use one of his cliches). Not worthy his attention! Must have thought, the poor stupid GE!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: You might as well have told me that just because we see the sun shinning does not necessitate its existence, as to tell me that. My mind absolutely will not allow such contradictions to reside in my mind at the same time concerning the same issues.

Can we pray one for another that God will open our eyes to the truth and that we will accept it as such regardless of the cost? Oh Lord, Help me to see your truth!!

GE:

I lift up my hands with you, to God, in this matter.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If we Protestants would but read the Reformers and the Puritans, who really changed the world with their proclamation of the pure Gospel of Christ!
We 'Protestants' have grown LAZY! and complacent and too 'considerate'; but worst of all, LAZY!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The hall-mark of every conceivable and inconceivable variation on the one string of Arminianism, is its monotony, its lifelessness. 'Free-will theory' truly represents its inventor, the human mind at its dullest and most boring, because at its most self-conceited and self-satisfied.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: The hall-mark of every conceivable and inconceivable variation on the one string of Arminianism, is its monotony, its lifelessness.

HP: I beg to differ with your here. I have had the wonderful opportunity to be raised in a family with an Arminian mother that was as full of spiritual life as one can get. I was nursed at the breast and sat at the feet of a women of great spiritual and moral capacity, full of the Holy Spirit and life abundant!! A saintly prayer warrior with a burning love for God and man that absolutely radiated to others around her.

She was far from alone in Arminian brothers and sisters in the Lord that I had the great fortune of being raised around. I have witnessed heaven come to earth many a time in the prayer tents of those old summer campmeetings and church services. I have witnessed numerous pastors and teachers, evangelists and lay persons, filled with the Holy Ghost and the life of Christ. You could not be further from the truth by your depiction of their ranks.

 

[Andre]

ANDRE:
But it would seem the "sufficient for all" vs "effectual for some" distinction, while perhaps useful in some technical theological sense, gives us no useful information.

PL:
Sure it does. It addresses the value of the atonement. It is the ground of common grace and is directly referenced in many passages.

ANDRE:
What do you really mean by the phrase "common grace"? If Fred is not a member of the elect, then it is impossible for Fred's ultimate destiny to be influenced by this allegedly "common" grace. So this grace is not really common after all. If someone suggests that the grace is "common" as in "common to all persons", one has to wonder exactly in what sense it indeed applies to those who are not elect. I think this is simply not a coherent position to hold and I would like to hear a counterargument.

In order for one to reasonably say that grace is common to all, it has to be the case that this grace has the in principle possibility of actually doing that which grace does - rescue us from destruction. And yet only the elect can be rescued under the view that I understand you to hold.

Whether or not I have misundestood what you (PL) believe, if someone says something like "Christ made a payment for all, but only applies it to the elect", I think they are clearly making an incoherent statement. The statement has a ring of plausibility but that ring fades away on analysis of the concepts involved in the statement.

If Christ's payment is a payment for all, then it is a payment for the non-elect. But the very nature of the concept "making a payment for Fred" necessarily entails the possibility that the payment will become effectual. Now it doesn't have to actually become effectual - there is nothing incoherent in taking the position that a payment is made for Fred, but Fred does not accept it.

What would not be an incoherent claim would be the claim "There is an elect yet Christ's payment is of such a 'magnitude' that it could cover the sins of all people". But of course, there is an elect, so it can't be applied to all. So it is not really a payment for all.

 

[Brother Bob]

Didn't Jesus present all of His blood to the Father for sin and God adds to the church daily who should be saved?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: I beg to differ with your here. I have had the wonderful opportunity to be raised in a family with an Arminian mother that was as full of spiritual life as one can get. I was nursed at the breast and sat at the feet of a women of great spiritual and moral capacity, full of the Holy Spirit and life abundant!! A saintly prayer warrior with a burning love for God and man that absolutely radiated to others around her.

She was far from alone in Arminian brothers and sisters in the Lord that I had the great fortune of being raised around. I have witnessed heaven come to earth many a time in the prayer tents of those old summer campmeetings and church services. I have witnessed numerous pastors and teachers, evangelists and lay persons, filled with the Holy Ghost and the life of Christ. You could not be further from the truth by your depiction of their ranks.

GE:

I have not said it against or about persons. I also have a family of saints, one could say, almost all, Arminian in their convictions.
I say it about Arminianism as an ideology of the human mind, and still say it, people's justification or status in redemption in the eye of God, regardless.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre:

".... "making a payment for Fred" necessarily entails the possibility that the payment will become effectual. Now it doesn't have to actually become effectual - there is nothing incoherent in taking the position that a payment is made for Fred, but Fred does not accept it."

GE:

True, IF, taken generally; humanly-speaking. But not true, If keeping in mind it is a Divine truth; irresistable, over-empowering, unfailing.
Then read: Having made the Divine payment for Fred necessarily entails the veracity that the payment shall become effectual, that it in fact has to actually become effectual. There is nothing incoherent in taking the position that if the Divine payment has been made for Fred, that Fred must and shall, accept it.