No one deserved to be saved. Why the angst with Particular redemption?

[SovereignGrace]

I have had many talks with many different ppl. From Calvinists, to non-Calvinists, to Arminians, and probably semi-Pelagians. I have yet to have one say they deserved to be saved, and in fact, they have said God had every right to pass them by. This is something I agree with. Yet...

When they hear a sermon from a Calvinist, or read an article written by one that emphasizes particular redemption/limited atonement, they go

Now, if God had every right to pass them up, and they did not deserve to be saved to begin with, then why the angst to particular redemption/limited atonement, when no one deserved to be saved?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have had many talks with many different ppl. From Calvinists, to non-Calvinists, to Arminians, and probably semi-Pelagians. I have yet to have one say they deserved to be saved, and in fact, they have said God had every right to pass them by. This is something I agree with. Yet...

When they hear a sermon from a Calvinist, or read an article written by one that emphasizes particular redemption/limited atonement, they go

Now, if God had every right to pass them up, and they did not deserve to be saved to begin with, then why the angst to particular redemption/limited atonement, when no one deserved to be saved?

They don't like to be told that Salvation isn't about them. Its a "Control" thing.

 

[InTheLight]

Is that your definition of particular redemption? No one deserves to be saved?

I thought it meant that Christ's death was only efficacious for the elect.

 

[Deacon]

"According to limited atonement, Christ only bore the punishment due for the sins of the elect alone. Consequently, no one else can or will receive the saving benefits of His death. This term will be used as a synonym for “definite atonement, ”particular redemption,” and “strict particularism.”

In limited imputation, the sins of the elect only were substituted for, atoned for, or imputed to Christ on the cross.

In unlimited imputation, the sins of all of humanity were substituted for, atoned for, or imputed to Christ on the cross.

Infinite or universal sufficiency, when used by strict particularists, means that the death of Christ could have been sufficient or able to atone for all the sins of the world if God had intended for it to do so. However, since they think God did not intend for the death of Christ to satisfy for all, but only for the elect, it is not actually sufficient or able to save any others. When used by Dualists and non-Calvinists, the term means that the death of Christ is of such a nature that it can actually save all men. It is, in fact (not hypothetically), a satisfaction for the sins of all humanity. Therefore, if any people perish, it is not for lack of an atonement for their sins. The fault lies totally within themselves.

…those who reject a strictly limited atonement, believe God’s saving design in the atonement was dualistic: (1) He sent Christ for the salvation of all humanity so that His death paid the penalty for their sins, and (2) Christ died with the special purpose of ultimately securing the salvation of the elect. The classic Arminian and non-Calvinist view of the intent of the atonement is that Christ died equally for all men to make salvation possible for all who believe, as well as to secure the salvation of those who do believe (the elect).

Excerpts from Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism by David L. Allen & Steve W. Lenke (2010)

 

[Iconoclast]

Is that your definition of particular redemption? No one deserves to be saved?

I thought it meant that Christ's death was only efficacious for the elect.

ITL
When I read this several questions come to mind.
Are any non elect persons ever going to be saved, if so how?

If we are told Jesus accomplished redemption by a perfect sacrifice that nothing can be added to.....do you believe everyone intended by God will be saved, or was it not up to God in the first place?

If God does not save every person is that okay?

Can God make that choice on His own, and indeed does scripture indicate that He has indeed made that choice with perfect judgment. ?

If men are indeed dead in Adam and not subject to obey God and His word......what makes some change......what changes their evil heart of unbelief?

 

[revmwc]

I have had many talks with many different ppl. From Calvinists, to non-Calvinists, to Arminians, and probably semi-Pelagians. I have yet to have one say they deserved to be saved, and in fact, they have said God had every right to pass them by. This is something I agree with. Yet...

When they hear a sermon from a Calvinist, or read an article written by one that emphasizes particular redemption/limited atonement, they go

Now, if God had every right to pass them up, and they did not deserve to be saved to begin with, then why the angst to particular redemption/limited atonement, when no one deserved to be saved?

It limits the Grace of God! Thus it places limits on the payment made by the True Sacrifice for sin. God is unlimited His Grace is part of His attributes and yet to limit His mercy and grace is to put limits upon Him. Thus He would not be Omnipotent.

 

[TCassidy]

It limits the Grace of God!

Wrong.

Thus it places limits on the payment made by the True Sacrifice for sin.

Wrong again. Sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect (those who believe).

to limit His mercy and grace is to put limits upon Him. Thus He would not be Omnipotent.

Exactly. To say that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything) to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help.

 

[revmwc]

Wrong.

Wrong again. Sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect (those who believe).
Exactly. To say that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything) to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help.

So you find fault with Christ, John 3.16-18 saying we must believe? Or is that you also find fault with Paul telling the Philippian jailer when he ask Paul and Silas as recorded in Acts 16:30-31, "sirs what must I do to to be saved" and they replied, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Or maybe Paul was wrong when he told the Romans in his epistle "whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved." Were they wrong? Did they mean something else? Did they mean to say God will regenerate you so you can be saved and believe? Or maybe it was meant that you can be saved once you are regenerated and believe, is that what they meant?

 

[TCassidy]

So you find fault with Christ, John 3.16-18 saying we must believe?

Please post where I found fault with any statement made by Christ.

Or is that you also find fault with Paul telling the Philippian jailer when he ask Paul and Silas as recorded in Acts 16:30-31, "sirs what must I do to to be saved" and they replied, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

Please post where I found fault with any statement made by Paul.

Or maybe Paul was wrong when he told the Romans in his epistle "whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved."

No, Paul is right. It is you who is wrong.

Were they wrong?

No, you are.

Did they mean something else?

They meant what they said. The problem is that you don't understand what they said.

Did they mean to say God will regenerate you so you can be saved and believe?

They meant to say exactly what they said.

Or maybe it was meant that you can be saved once you are regenerated and believe, is that what they meant?

The very fact that you ask such silly questions then refuse to listen to the answers only confirms my rather low opinion of your capacity for understanding.

 

[revmwc]

Please post where I found fault with any statement made by Christ.
Please post where I found fault with any statement made by Paul.

No, Paul is right. It is you who is wrong.


No, you are.
They meant what they said. The problem is that you don't understand what they said.

They meant to say exactly what they said.

The very fact that you ask such silly questions then refuses to listen to the answers only confirms my rather low opinion of your capacity for understanding.

You stated
"To say that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything) to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help."

Jesus said in John 3:
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Notice He said they must believe and you say "To say that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything) to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help." Is Christ saying that "God cannot save you without your help" because he definitely stated "whosoever believeth in him" and further He said " He that believeth on him is not condemned." Salvation according to Christ requires one to believe that would that be finding fault with His statement that is He said "Believe" and you say if someone states "that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything)" is " to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help." That seems as if you are findung fault with anyone who says you must believe and Jesus definitely said that.

And you stated "that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything) to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help."

Paul and Silas told the Phillipian jailer when he asked "sirs what must I do to to be saved" and they replied, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." and you said anyone who says "that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything) to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help." So again it seems that you are finding fault with Paul and Silas as well as Jesus saying someone must "believe" aren't they saying one must believe and thus you say that they are saying "that God cannot save you without your help."

 

[revmwc]

No, Paul is right. It is you who is wrong.


No, you are.
They meant what they said. The problem is that you don't understand what they said.

They meant to say exactly what they said.

The very fact that you ask such silly questions then refuse to listen to the answers only confirms my rather low opinion of your capacity for understanding.

You say I am wrong but I only quote what scripture says, Jesus said "Whosoever believes in Him" and I say whosoever believes in Him will not perish. Paul and Silas Told the Philippian jailer, after being asked "sirs what must "I" do to be saved" and they said "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." I say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved and thy house. Paul said "whosoever shall call upon the lord shall be saved" I say whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved, you say Jesus and Paul were right and I am wrong, so why do you see me having a low capacity to understand? Am I reading what they said wrong? Or do you believe they were wrong since I am quoting exactly what they said?

 

[Iconoclast]

We also believe what those verses teach....everyone believing will be saved.

 

[revmwc]

We also believe what those verses teach....everyone believing will be saved.

Except tc said anyone who says you must believe is saying that you are saying "that God cannot save you without your help."

 

[revmwc]

We also believe what those verses teach....everyone believing will be saved.

So the whole rub is we both see each other limiting God.

 

[Iconoclast]

Except tc said anyone who says you must believe is saying that you are saying "that God cannot save you without your help."

He said what we all say....everyone God regenerates believes and will continue to believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

We do not limit God at all. He saves e v eryone He can save.

 

[revmwc]

He said what we all say....everyone God regenerates believes and will continue to believe.

Show where he said that in this statement, maybe I missed it, "To say that you have to do something (believe, repent, accept, pray the sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, anything) to add to Christ's finished word is to limit the Omnipotence of God. It is to say that God cannot save you without your help."

 

[TCassidy]

Am I reading what they said wrong?

You are failing to understand what they said.

Or do you believe they were wrong since I am quoting exactly what they said?

They were right. You are wrong.

Except tc said anyone who says you must believe is saying that you are saying "that God cannot save you without your help."

I did not say that and it is dishonest to say I did.

 

[revmwc]

We do not limit God at all. He saves e v eryone He can save.

He saves the whosoever's that will come. The thing is I believe that the whsoevers are everyone in this world but I also believe not all will come, they can come, salvation is there for all, but not all will believe.

 

[Greektim]

It limits the Grace of God! Thus it places limits on the payment made by the True Sacrifice for sin. God is unlimited His Grace is part of His attributes and yet to limit His mercy and grace is to put limits upon Him. Thus He would not be Omnipotent.

Can God not have limits? There are plenty of things God cannot do and is thus limited. God can't deny himself. He can't sin or lie. He can't create another god just as he is. He can't create a squared-circle. God has limits.