Limited Atonement: God's Power to Save

[Humble Disciple]

Neither Calvinist nor Arminian. To me it is just to be Biblical. Using the five points as a templet. A view of a total depravity. Conditional but wholly unmerited on the elect's part. A general redemption where Christ secured redemption for the elect and to be Judge of the lost. Because of depravity many resist the sanctification of the Spirit. And as to those whom God saves He keeps. I have been a Christian since the summer of 1962.

Based on the above description, it would seem you lean more towards Arminianism. That's okay. What do you mean that election is conditional but unmerited on the elect's part? That seems like a contradiction.

 

[Humble Disciple]

If your apartment building was burning down, and a firefighter died while saving you but not your neighbor, what would your proper response be?

Should you gripe and grumble about how unfair it was that the firefighter gave up his life for you, but not your neighbor? Or should you be thankful for his sacrifice?

There is nothing unfair about God’s sovereignty in election. (Romans 9:21) No one who desires to be saved will be turned away. (John 6:37) If you sincerely care about your salvation, that’s a sign you are among God’s elect.

 

[1689Dave]

Limited atonement is the hardest doctrine of Calvinism to accept. For this reason, there are four-point Calvinists:
What is Amyraldism / Four-Point Calvinism? | GotQuestions.org

Everyone limits the atonement in some way. Those who believe in unlimited atonement limit the atonement’s power, that Jesus died for people who end up in hell.

Those who believe in limited atonement limit its extent, that Jesus died only for His elect, who will without fail be saved, so not a drop of Jesus’ blood was wasted.

In His torture and death, Jesus suffered the full measure of God’s wrath for sin. Limited atonement means that not an iota of Jesus’ suffering was endured in vain.



If you truly care about the salvation of the lost, you should support evangelism, since the preaching of the Gospel is the means God has ordained to awaken faith in His elect. Some of the greatest missionaries have been Calvinists.

Until they repent and believe, it's impossible to tell who God's elect might be, so the Gospel must be preached indiscriminately. Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, Luke 14:23

Limited Atonement is the only position to avoid salvation by works.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Limited Atonement is the only position to avoid salvation by works.

and exactly how do you arrive at this? I believe in a universal death of Jesus Christ, as did John Calvin, and neither of us believe in "salvation by works".

 

[Van]

John 10
15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep

Through the shedding of His blood, Jesus purchased His sheep, the elect. To the non-elect Pharisees, He said "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."

Utter fiction. No verse says Jesus only purchased those to be saved, but 1 Peter 2:1 says Jesus purchased those never to be saved. Nothing in John 10 supports the false doctrine of Limited Atonement.

 

[37818]

On the judgment day, every knee shall bow to Jesus Christ and confess that He is Lord, whether they are saved or unsaved

That is per the general redemption view, Romans 14:9.
". . . For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. . . ."
Also Romans 8:34, ". . . Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, . . ." But tnen goes on to say, ". . . yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. . . ."
In affirming a general redemption I do not deny Christ's death and resurrection where Jesus contented in John 10:15, ". . . I lay down my life[soul] for the sheep. . . ." [Isaiah 53:10]. It is not an either or. John Owen had argued in his denial of the general redemption, "To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?" Which is the case.

 

[Mikey]

If there weren't so many anti-Calvinists mislabeling us as heretics, there wouldn't be such a need to clarify what Calvinism actually teaches.

Yeah but you really don't do that very well. You also keep posting the same video in every one of your threads.

 

[37818]

If nonbelievers suffer in hell for sins that Christ already paid for on the cross, wouldn't that be double jeopardy?

Not if that ". . . shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned." Romans 14:9, ". . . For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord . . . ."
Philippians 2:10-11, ". . . That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. . . ."

 

[37818]

The word "Trinity" isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible, yet we believe in the Trinity because of numerous passages in favor of the doctrine. Passages like Deuteronomy 6:4 apparently contradict the Trinity, and Christians throughout

No. Because God is not made up of parts. The Persons who are God are not parts of God, each are the whole 100% God. Deuteronomy 6:4 refers to there only being the One LORD [Self-Existent One].

 

[37818]

Based on the above description, it would seem you lean more towards Arminianism. That's okay. What do you mean that election is conditional but unmerited on the elect's part? That seems like a contradiction.

That I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian goes to understanidng John 15:1-6 and Revelation 3:5 and being born again per Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 and that little children that had died as little children having their names in the book of life (Revelation 20:15 being the sole reason souls perish).
As to the condition in order to be of the elect is not to merit being the elect. Compare Matthew 7:22.

 

[Humble Disciple]

I believe I've made pretty much every Biblical and historical argument for Calvinism on this forum that one can possibly make.

As Jesus would say, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." My only intention has been to counter anti-Calvinist prejudice, that we are heretics rather than lovers of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

 

[Van]

There are no "biblical arguments" for Calvinism, only claims that ambiguous words and phrases mean other than their historical/grammatical meanings. But yes, once again we have been subjected to many historical arguments from off the shelf articles that have been rebutted time and again.

 

[Humble Disciple]

If limited atonement is true, then Jesus' suffering will unfailingly save everyone it was intended to save, so not a drop of His blood was shed in vain. For anyone who has ears to hear, let them hear.

 

[Van]

If limited atonement is true, then Jesus' suffering will unfailingly save everyone it was intended to save, so not a drop of His blood was shed in vain. For anyone who has ears to hear, let them hear.

If Calvinism's mistaken view of limited atonement were true, Christ would not have become the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2. If Calvinism's mistaken view of limited atonement were true, God would not have given His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish, but have everlasting life, John 3:16. If Calvinism's mistaken view of limited atonement were true, Christ would not have laid down His life as a ransom for all, 1 Timothy 2:6. If Calvinism's mistaken view of limited atonement were true, Christ would not have purchased those heading for swift destruction, 2 Peter 2:1.

Conclusion? The Limited Atonement point of the TULIP is unbiblical and mistaken and wrong.

 

[37818]

If Calvinism's mistaken view of limited atonement were true, Christ would not have laid down His life as a ransom for all, 1 Timothy 2:6.

Actually if the Calvinist view of limited atonement was true the phrase "ransom for all" would only refer to the ones for whom Christ mediates, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, ". . .
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ." And the same meaning for 1 John 2:1-2, ". . . we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ." For whom He medidates.

 

[Van]

Actually if the Calvinist view of limited atonement was true the phrase "ransom for all" would only refer to the ones for whom Christ mediates, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, ". . .
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ." And the same meaning for 1 John 2:1-2, ". . . we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ." For whom He mediates.

Yes, unrelated verses can be cobbled together to create something never intended. 1 Timothy 2:6 is preceded by 1 Timothy 2:4 where God desires all people to be saved. Thus adding a phrase to limit the scope in the face of verse after verse presenting the whole of humanity as the scope is false doctrine. 2 Peter 2:1 precludes claiming Christ died only for the elect. It is a lock.

1Tmothy 2:1-6

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

1John 2:1-2

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the means of salvation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Note 1 John 2:1-2 explicitly teaches Christ died not only for our sins, but for those of the whole of humanity.

 

[Humble Disciple]

 

[Van]

Here is a snippet from an early post (#2):

That last verse is very profound, speaking of God's works, your particular salvation is His work which was done before time began.

The judgement there on them was experienced in time, but the decision before time.

Acts 15:18
“Known to God from eternity are all His works.

But here is the NASB95 rendering:
Act 15:18
SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.

These things refers to the fact "the rest of mankind may seek the LORD." Compare Isaiah 45:22.

Two very different statements. Which one reflects the inspired message?

Apparently the CT simply reads "known from long ago" whereas the Majority Text reads
“All of God’s works are known to him from eternity."

And the TR (KJV) renders it, "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

So for the timing we have three claims, know from at least the time of Isaiah, or known from the time of creation, or know from before creation.

And as for who something was known, we have (1) anybodies guess, (2) at least some people familiar with scripture, and (3) known to God. But that third seems a little problematic, as God would of course know His works.

 

[37818]

Yes, unrelated verses can be cobbled together to create something never intended. 1 Timothy 2:6 is preceded by 1 Timothy 2:4 where God desires all people to be saved. Thus adding a phrase to limit the scope in the face of verse after verse presenting the whole of humanity as the scope is false doctrine. 2 Peter 2:1 precludes claiming Christ died only for the elect. It is a lock.

1Tmothy 2:1-6

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

1John 2:1-2

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the means of salvation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Note 1 John 2:1-2 explicitly teaches Christ died not only for our sins, but for those of the whole of humanity.

I do not think you really understand the notion, if the Calvinist view of limited atonement was true.

I think we both agree that notion is not true. I believe an only "limited atonement" view disallowing an "unlimited atonement" to be absurd. Matthew 20:16, Matthew 22:14. The idea God would call any that Christ had not spilled one drop of His blood for.

 

[Van]

First a false strawperson argument is hoisted, i.e. anyone who disagrees with Calvinism claims to know all the answers and is prejudice against the false claims of Calvinism. Next, those who disagree with Calvinism's false doctrines does not love God.
These are the things of Cultism, not Christianity.