Quotes On Limited Atonement

[Brandon C. Jones]

Andy, I'm inclined to say yes as long as the implications of the distinction between unconditional and conditional election for atonement and redemption are rightly maintained and drawn out. If that doesn't happen, then the dualist falls prey to Spurgeon's famous remarks about who really "limits" the atonement and like arguments.

 

[David Lamb]

As to the other, let's look at the judgment seat from which they go there, shall we? First off (Rev 20:11-14) that the LOST are resurrected to bodies from hades. Do you see that? Why/How can this be? They died on account of sin -- surely they are not resurrected on account of sin!

They aren't -- they're resurrected on account of SIN PAID FOR!

But if their sin is paid for, why do they go to hell? There is a hymn by Toplady that includes the following two verses:

Complete atonement thou hast made
And to the utmost farthing paid,
Whate'er thy people owed;
How then can wrath on me take place
If sheltered in thy righteousness,
And sprinkled with thy blood?

If thou hast my discharge procured
And freely in my place endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety's hand
And then again at mine.​

Do you really believe that Jesus paid the penalty for unsaved sinners' sins, and that those same unsaved sinners have to pay for the sins themselves in hell, or have I misunderstood you?

And so the UNBELIEVERS in Christ die again.
skypair

But unbelievers are not in Christ. Perhaps you are thinking of 1 Corinthians 15.22:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.​

But it would surely be unbiblical to take that as meaning that every human being ever born is in Christ. Rather, by looking at the 80 or so occurrences of the phrase "in Christ" in the bible, we find that the phrase is always applied to Christians, not to unbelievers. For example, 2 Corinthians 5.17:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.​

Can you provide just one bible reference to the phrase "in Christ" definitely refering to unbelievers?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry -- you're focusing on the wrong issue! There is eternal hell because men reject any relationship with the eternal God. It isn't sin that has eternal consequences -- it's choosing or failing to choose Christ!

Failing to choose Christ is a sin. It has eternal consequence,s just like all other sin does.

Basic question, Lar -- are you going to heaven because you are elect and your sins paid for or because you chose Jesus Christ?

Yes.

He died for SIN, Larry. ALL SIN.

What do you mean by "for"?

Hell is eternal because those who go there chose NOT to believe on Christ and have an eternal relationship with God. It's really that simple. Where else would one go -- there's either with God eternally or separated from Him eternally.

They are there because of their sin, according to the Bible. It's really that simple.

Do you believe that unbelief is a sin? If yes, then was it paid for? If yes, then why do people go to hell for a sin that was paid for?

If no (unbelief is not a sin), then why do people go to hell for something that isn't even wrong?

 

[skypair]

Do you really believe that Jesus paid the penalty for unsaved sinners' sins, and that those same unsaved sinners have to pay for the sins themselves in hell, or have I misunderstood you?

Apparently you didn't get to ALL that posts. Welcome to our humble dialogue, David.

No, they aren't paying for sins in hell -- they are living the life they chose apart from God. Do you know what I think the burning is? I believe it is an eternal burning within the spirit as a man's heart might burn for the woman of his dreams. The disciples on the Emaus Road -- they're hearts were said to "burn within them" as they listened to Christ in that they had such desire to what He was saying. They don't know till later that He is Jesus but their hears burned -- longed deeply -- for what they heard. I think that is at least part of it, don't you?

But unbelievers are not in Christ.

You're right. It would better be "those who don't believe in Christ die again."

skypair

 

[skypair]

Failing to choose Christ is a sin. It has eternal consequence,s just like all other sin does.

Yes, it is the "UNPARDONABLE SIN" which you also don't acknowledge. It is the one sin Christ said that wouldn't be pardoned. So all sin is pardoned but the one Jesus told us wasn't. The fact that Jesus excluded that sin is, to me, good enough.

What do you mean by "for"?

What does "is" mean, Mr President? What kind of a "pit" are you trying to lay for me with your non-understanding of common words? For means "paid in full," Lar. It means the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us was nailed to His cross," Lar.

They are there because of their sin, according to the Bible. It's really that simple.

At first, everyone who died was in sheol. Why? The Sacrifice for sin hadn't been "paid in full." What happened when it was "paid in full," Lar? The souls of those who BELIEVED went to heaven! Of course, that doesn't prove my case except there's 1John 2:2 -- "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Now twist that like a pretzel (as I know you will what with the fact that already the word "world" is in there), but I find more evidence for my belief than for yours.

If no (unbelief is not a sin), then why do people go to hell for something that isn't even wrong?

We went at this as if it weren't a sin -- we been at this as if Jesus excepted it from pardonable sins. However we couch it, believers don't go to hell and unbelievers do. My side just doesn't have such an arcane, scripturally muddled way of explaining that truth.

skypair

 

[convicted1]

RE: Limited Atonement

I believe that when Jesus hung, bled, and died on the cross, He did it for ALL men! That being said, He knew who would and wouldn't receive Him as Lord and Saviour. But without Him doing this GLORIOUS act, we would all die and be condemned to hell.....no ands, ifs or buts about it. The gentiles(we) had no chance for heaven without this.

 

[Andy T.]

Brandon,

Are you familiar with Eric Svendsen's view of the atonement? Do you think his view is a 4th option, or would you put him in with Dabney and the dualist view? Here are some articles by Svendsen:

http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/we-interrupt-this-broadcast.html

http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2004/12/christmas-calvinist-surrejoinder.html

There are also some other articles under the sidebar "Dialogue on the Extent of the Atonement".

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Hello Andy,

I've not heard of him but after reading his brief treatment I see no substantive difference between his view and the Dualist view (i.e. Dabney). He mentions that he differs from "4 point Calvinists" because they don't include Christ's intent. Well, if that is his .5 difference, then his position is dualist because a dualist view does deal with intent. He just coins a new term for it IMO. Thanks for the link.

BJ

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, it is the "UNPARDONABLE SIN" which you also don't acknowledge.

You see, this is one reason I quit talking to you. You are too often dishonest, and here is an example. I do acknowledge the unpardonable sin, and I have explained very clearly what I believe it is. It is dishonest and unethical for you to say that I don’t acknowledge it.

It is the one sin Christ said that wouldn't be pardoned. So all sin is pardoned but the one Jesus told us wasn't. The fact that Jesus excluded that sin is, to me, good enough.

Then Jesus didn’t die for all sin, which kind of blows your whole idea, doesn’t it?

: What do you mean by "for"?

What does "is" mean, Mr President? What kind of a "pit" are you trying to lay for me with your non-understanding of common words? For means "paid in full," Lar. It means the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us was nailed to His cross," Lar.

You see, a smart aleck response like this shows just how unreasonable you are and how unqualified you are to have this discussion. Let’s talk English first.

Consider the following:
I went to the store for a box of cereal.
I went to the store for my wife.
I went to the store for about an hour.

Now they clearly have different meanings. So it’s not like “is” in the least.

Now consider Greek: peri, huper, gar, anti: They have all different aspects. Which one are you referring to?

You see, until you ask a good question, I can’t really give you an answer. Of course, as dogmatic as you are on this, how do you not know this? How can you be so dogmatic and yet fail to be familiar with even these basic things, like the fact that “for” has a number of different meanings. I am not laying a trap for you. I am trying to avoid one by finding out what you are asking.

But in your smart aleck response, you did walk right into a trap, the trap of not recognizing that “for” has different meanings depending on the context.

Of course, that doesn't prove my case except there's 1John 2:2 -- "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Now twist that like a pretzel (as I know you will what with the fact that already the word "world" is in there), but I find more evidence for my belief than for yours.

Where have I ever twisted a verse, much less with the word “world” in it? My contention about 1 John 2:2 is that whatever Christ did for us, he did for the whole world. Now, the question is what did he do for us?

I think there are better verses for a universal atonement. I do affirm that Christ died for all. But I deny that he died for all in the same sense.

We went at this as if it weren't a sin -- we been at this as if Jesus excepted it from pardonable sins. However we couch it, believers don't go to hell and unbelievers do. My side just doesn't have such an arcane, scripturally muddled way of explaining that truth.

So if unbelief is a sin, and Jesus paid for all sin, then why do people go to hell? You don’t have an arcane, scripturally muddled way of explaining it. The fact is that you don’t have an explanation at all … at least one that you have put forth.



In the end, I think the atonement is much simpler than people make it. The death of Jesus is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect--those who believe. It was not intended to save anyone but those who it saves. It did not pay for the sins of any except those who are saved. Whoever believes will be forgiven, and those who don't will not.

 

[skypair]

You see, this is one reason I quit talking to you. You are too often dishonest, and here is an example. I do acknowledge the unpardonable sin, and I have explained very clearly what I believe it is. It is dishonest and unethical for you to say that I don’t acknowledge it.

Ah! You're right. I do remember you stand -- and it is an orthodox one. It could only be done when Jesus was here, blah, blah, blah. Sorry.

Then Jesus didn’t die for all sin, which kind of blows your whole idea, doesn’t it?

So you wouldn't object if unbelief WEREN'T a sin but was damnable? Ergo, Jesus didn't die for it. Have it your way. Belief we are accountable for is still not faith we are given.

I think there are better verses for a universal atonement. I do affirm that Christ died for all. But I deny that he died for all in the same sense.

Which is exactly the "target" for my "potshot!" "Died FOR..." means different things in different contexts to you. How can you possibly, FROM SCRIPTURE - NOT CALVINISM, draw these distinctions?? Did He not die and did die both at once?

I'm not being "smart aleck" with you without cause. You're like Nicodemus -- "you are a master of [the church] and knowest not these things?" Same sarcasm Jesus used to say, "You really do know them but you haven't put the scriptures together to recognize them yet."

So if unbelief is a sin, and Jesus paid for all sin, then why do people go to hell? You ... don’t have an explanation at all … at least one that you have put forth.

I only don't have an argument because you/we haven't agreed how to handle the issue of "belief-unbelief."

In the end, I think the atonement is much simpler than people make it. The death of Jesus is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect--those who believe.

That's unscriptural. If was intended for ALL, Larry. Regardless of whether we call unbelief a sin or an unmet condition of salvation, it was intended for ALL -- and scripture says so! Your construct regarding belief-unbelief begs the issue of human cuplability and the believableness of God's promises.

Whoever believes will be forgiven, and those who don't will not.

There you go. Human responsibility and salvation conditioned on his/her choice! Don't YOU make it harder.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

So you wouldn't object if unbelief WEREN'T a sin but was damnable? Ergo, Jesus didn't die for it. Have it your way. Belief we are accountable for is still not faith we are given.

Sin is damnable; nothing is damnable except sin. This makes a distinction where none exists.

Which is exactly the "target" for my "potshot!" "Died FOR..." means different things in different contexts to you. How can you possibly, FROM SCRIPTURE - NOT CALVINISM, draw these distinctions?? Did He not die and did die both at once?

The distinction is based on the Scripture taken as a whole, in its context.

I'm not being "smart aleck" with you without cause. You're like Nicodemus -- "you are a master of [the church] and knowest not these things?" Same sarcasm Jesus used to say, "You really do know them but you haven't put the scriptures together to recognize them yet."

Yes, I know these things. That is why i am able to have this conversation. I know them, and I have put them together.

I only don't have an argument because you/we haven't agreed how to handle the issue of "belief-unbelief."

What? So far, your argument seems to be that unbelief is not a sin but is damnable. That makes no sense at all.

That's unscriptural. If was intended for ALL, Larry. Regardless of whether we call unbelief a sin or an unmet condition of salvation, it was intended for ALL -- and scripture says so! Your construct regarding belief-unbelief begs the issue of human cuplability and the believableness of God's promises.

Salvation was intended to save all? So God failed in somthing he intended to do? Or the blood of Christ failed to do what it intended to do?

Human responsibility and salvation conditioned on his/her choice! Don't YOU make it harder.

Humans are responsible and must believe for salvation. That is what Calvinism teaches. It is not harder than that.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I believe that when Jesus hung, bled, and died on the cross, He did it for ALL men! That being said, He knew who would and wouldn't receive Him as Lord and Saviour. But without Him doing this GLORIOUS act, we would all die and be condemned to hell.....no ands, ifs or buts about it. The gentiles(we) had no chance for heaven without this.

Typical Bible Baptist reasoning, which is totally unscriptural.

 

[mima]

Firm believe in " limited atonement" makes the Lord Jesus Christ a respecter of persons. Does it not?

 

[whatever]

Firm believe in " limited atonement" makes the Lord Jesus Christ a respecter of persons. Does it not?

It does not. What are you thinking that "a respecter of persons" means?

 

[mima]

Where the Bible speaks of God being no respecter of persons, I believe it refers to God treating everyone equally. And to do so he would've had to die for all sins, everybody's, and to do less would make him a respecter of different people, thereby failing to treat all people equal.

 

[TCassidy]

Firm believe in " limited atonement" makes the Lord Jesus Christ a respecter of persons. Does it not?

Do you believe the atonement applies to demons? How about the Devil? If not then, you too, believe in "limited atonement." Does that make you, or Christ, a "respecter of persons?"

I believe the atonement is only applied to believers. That does not make me, or Christ, a "respecter of persons." It makes me a bible-believer.

 

[whatever]

Where the Bible speaks of God being no respecter of persons, I believe it refers to God treating everyone equally. And to do so he would've had to die for all sins, everybody's, and to do less would make him a respecter of different people, thereby failing to treat all people equal.

Check the context of those passages and I think you will find without exception that they refer to nationalities, the idea being that God has not restricted salvation to any particular people group. You'd have a hard time defending the belief that God treats all people equally. Just think about the people that you know and the circumstances that they were born into and are living in, and I think you will agree that God does not treat all people equally.

 

[Jarthur001]

Where the Bible speaks of God being no respecter of persons, I believe it refers to God treating everyone equally. And to do so he would've had to die for all sins, everybody's, and to do less would make him a respecter of different people, thereby failing to treat all people equal.

This phrase always, speaks of judgement of the nations. No nation, or people from that nation, is off he hook. All will be judge, without respect of person.

It is never linked to election, which of course would not make sense, nor is it linked to Limited Atonement.

 

[David Lamb]

Originally Posted by convicted1
I believe that when Jesus hung, bled, and died on the cross, He did it for ALL men! That being said, He knew who would and wouldn't receive Him as Lord and Saviour. But without Him doing this GLORIOUS act, we would all die and be condemned to hell.....no ands, ifs or buts about it. The gentiles(we) had no chance for heaven without this.

Typical Bible Baptist reasoning, which is totally unscriptural.

I think the words "Bible Baptist" must have a different meaning where you are. I am a Baptist, and I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired Word of God, but I certainly would not agree with "Convicted1". I find it impossible to see how Isaiah 53.11 could say that Christ would see the labour of His soul and be satisfied if just one for whom He died were to end up in hell, or how God could have "saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began" (2 Timothy 1.9) if Convicted1's belief is true.

And his or her statement that gentiles would have had no chance for heaven without the sacrificial death of the Lord Jesus Christ, though true, is not complete; No one can enter heaven without Christ.

But, in spite of the many caricatures, belief in the "doctrines of grace" does not make us robots or puppets. Jesus' words in John 6.37 provide the balance between God's sovreignty and man's responsibility:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out."​

 

[skypair]

Sin is damnable; nothing is damnable except sin.

Well, all sin must NOT be damnable since you and I aren't going to hell, right? You've left something out just in making that statement, haven't you. The cross, right? How do you derive that some sin was not on the cross?

[/quote]What? So far, your argument seems to be that unbelief is not a sin but is damnable. That makes no sense at all.[/quote] So far what I am trying to do is come to some scriptural point of reconciliation between you and me. If you don't think I'm right and I don't think you are right but we both can study scripture, it's likely we both have some flaw in our view.

Like the differences I discussed previously -- soul vs. spirit, belief vs. faith, sovereign over our decisions vs. sovereign over their outcomes, "effectual call" vs. a common to all hearing "onscience,"etc. All of these I've learned the flaws in my own thinking but, Lar, I don't see any effort at all on your part to address the spiritually revealed truth vs. the Calvinist truth. I don't know if you just enjoy this "tension" in the body of Christ or can't learn or are afraid to change on account of your situation or what.

But it occurs that when scripture says that the Word is able to separate in asunder the soul and spirit, that we ought to be able to discover 1) what soul and spirit are and 2) how scripture works that way. But you're not even trying. Your reaction is "no difference." So I am left with trying to "rub your nose in it." raying:

Salvation was intended to save all? So God failed in somthing he intended to do? Or the blood of Christ failed to do what it intended to do?

YES! Because it is NOT in His character to make people love Him! Calvinism proposes that no one would believe if God didn't make them. That's the justification for "irresistible grace." Does not the fact that people can distinguish good from evil in every other area of their lives not suggest to you that a conscience is at work that could choose God? or not choose Him?

Humans are responsible and must believe for salvation. That is what Calvinism teaches. It is not harder than that.

Only for Calvinism IS it harder than that! For y'all, it is God responsible that you believe, not "humans."

skypair