Originally posted by Hardsheller:
So then you do believe in a "limited atonement."![]()
HardshellerOriginally posted by john6:63:
Then your definition must differ from those that follow Calvinism strictly as defined by Calvin, as the theory that the death of Jesus Christ was strictly limited in any and all of it’s aspects only to the elect or saved ones. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the unsaved to the non-elect people of the world.
So according to this view of Calvinism, the unsaved friend I invited to church with me, who eventually will not be saved in his lifetime, my preacher can not tell him that Christ died for his sins. Christ died for the sins of the elect only and not for the sins of the non-elect. Nothing I can do about it. God has predestined him for Hell.
It’s unscriptural!
But, I would guess that your definition of limited atonement is a weak one and very different from the strict reformed and Presbyterian traditions and from what Calvin taught. Your view probably says that Christ’s death was sufficient for the whole world, but efficient or effective only for those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior. This is correct and scripturally sound, but it’s not the proper definition according to the founders of this philosophy of Calvinism. If you believe this, then you’re not a believer in limited atonement and therefore, you’ve just abandoned the entire system of Calvinism.
Which of the above definition do you stand by?