The Significance of Limited Atonement

Frankly, if one is not a Calvinist, then he has no Biblical basis for believing in eternal security.

Watch it!! You are labeling what God said in His Word with a man who came along way way after God said it. Calvin, Spurgeon and the rest of them are NOT the ones who wrote the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches eternal life, by the way, Security is not a Bible term, You know like altar calls?

He may be basing it on sentimentality, or wishful thinking, but certainly not on the Bible. If man is responsible for getting himself born again by his free will, then man is responsible to keep himself by his free will all the way to heaven - a task at which he will always fail. And man can never be born again by his free will - it's a fallen, depraved will.

Man is responsible for how he responds to God.He can't save himself he can only accept what Christ has done for him, and the faith and repentance is granted by God.

Again, look at the Scripture verses I gave on Agrippa, and Acts 7:51--they resisted the Holy Ghost! You can not deny that it can be done when you look at Scripture. He is so sovereign, He will put them in Hell for not responding to the call of the Holy Spirit.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org</font>[/QUOTE]Not a spurgeonite,

A Follower of Christ.

 

First, let me encourage you to use the quoting function properly. It will make your posts much easier to read. I will try to answer this one. In the future, I probably won’t even read them.

I will address any verse you put forth. Put them forth one or two at a time. However, it would probably be better to do a search and see what has already been said about it. We agree that God speaks through his word. That is why I hold the position I do. I will run from no textual or exegetical question. Fire away.

We do persevere because of him. No one denies that. We are not holding on for dear life. We are continuing in the faith (Col 1; 2 cor 13; 1 John 1-5; James 2; etc.). That is not a perfect life (which you seem to misunderstand). It is about the direction of life and the sensitivity of one to sin and the Spirit. If one continues in sin, 1 John says that they are not saved. No Calvinist thinks that man doesn’t have a will before salvation. Having a will is part of being in God’s image. However that will has been affected by sin.

As I said, terms like this are useless in this discussion. I am a Bible-believing Baptist in the tradition of Baptists through the centuries. I too witness to anyone who will listen and I call them to repentance. If someone does not do that, they are disobedient. It is not their belief system that prevents them; it is their sinfulness. If someone doesn’t believe in passing out tracts, I am not going to question their commitment to souls. I am not convinced it is the best way to go about it though I have no problem with it.

Then it is wrongly based. However, you should go to the thread about Dave Hunt versus Charles Haddon Spurgeon and read the article that is linked to there. It will delineate some things that you may not have thought of. Spurgeon holds the traditional position on this issue.

I don’t agree that God “obviously wanted to save him.” What part of that passage are you basing that on? The guy said, What do I need to do? Christ told him what to do. He said basically, Give up everything you have and follow me. The man refused. I wouldn’t read any more into than that.

 

Thanks. I have listened to some of the Spurgeon sermons there, but I did not know about Edwards and Calvin.

Ken

 

Actually, the Bible teaches eternal security for all of His people. God gave the church great preachers and teachers like Augustine, Whitfield, Edwards, Boyce, Spurgeon, and others to help us to understand His Word. To ignore the help of fellow Christians and say that one is going to read the Bible and interpret it on his own, especially with the difficult passages, is very, very arrogant.

Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org

[ August 17, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

I am sorry to have to tell you that the two dozen or so Calvinist that I know don't say what you say. They cling to Spurgeon for dear life. And it seems to me that if he and Jesus Christ had been contemporaries, many of them would have followed Spurgeon or Calvin instead.

I did not learn all that I have said from anti-Calvinist books. Dear friend, I have all but quoted these folks that I have dealt with one on one. I am getting my info from self acclaimed calvinist; I didn't label them as such. You say that is incorrect, but I don't study after Spurgeon. I read his books and have really enjoyed some. But if you read and follow after man, then brother, you are incorrect.

I sense a very arrogant spirit in these discussions when people are berated for calling themselves Bible believing Christians. That may be considered useless to a debate, but I don't want to be identified with mere men. I want to be identified with Christ. I've heard it all now, Spurgeonite??Just who are we commanded to follow?
I am not above getting help from men of God of old or those here now, but I've never seen an element in this doctrine that would give me a greater burden for souls, make me pray for lost family, and carry the gospel to all men. What I have seen is precious people sit and wonder, 'Am I elect? If I'm not, there's nothing I can do about it. So, I'll just do nothing because no matter what I do, I can't change it.' These folks go on and live in careless sin thinking that if it is to be, it will be. That's fatalism dear friend. And I certainly don't believe something like Calvinism can successfully be preached to sinners when the message sent is clear: God will save some, and some He will not.

On the other hand the people I have met that are self acclaimed 2 pointer, 4 pointer, full blown 5 pointer, don't even see the need to see souls saved. How sad.

I can not see anywhere in the Scriptures where God chose some to go to heaven and the rest to go to Hell. God wanted restored fellowship with all mankind, that is why he brought restoration to a fallen race. He is desirous of us, and not because we are worthy in any sense. Remember, we are made in His image. Everyone of us. He wanted fellowship with mankind, so He made a way.

Dear brethren, I was saved by grace like anyone else. And you implied a bit much by saying that I did not understand that our life was not a sinless life, when I plainly stated that I knew people could get out of the will of God. Perhaps you should do a little survey and find out what so called Calvinist believe. I actually had one tell me that man does not have a will until they are saved!

You don't believe that God wanted to save the rich young ruler, or Agrippa or that crowd in Acts 7:51? You make think I am reading too much into, but the passages speak for itself. At least I am not overlooking what it obviously says.

I read a good bit of Tozer, Dr. Harold B. Sightler, Rice, Oliver B. Greene, Ironside, but I dare not call myself a Sightlerite, a Greenist, or such like. I will not label myself after any one man but Christ.

As far as Scripture goes, all the ones I have been posting and noone has answered yet. As I am a mother of three homeschooled children, I don't have anymore time left, but you can look back and see what they are.

 

That is wonderful. May God bless you in your efforts.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

YOur little computer programs and the like don't carry a good analogy. But understand it this way. The sufficiency of the atonement is unlimited. When we say "unlimited" that is generally what we mean, the sufficiency. Had God decided to save everyone no more would have been required. However, the efficiency -- the accomplishment -- is limited to the elect. I told a 5 point reformed baptist this and he said that was what he always believed and was taught. He couldn't believe that any thought anything else.

If God decreed to save every man who ever lived is Christ's death enough? If you answer yes, you believe in unlimited atonement as I have described it. If you answer no ... well there's a whole passal of other problems</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry:
I have a high regard for you and so I would like to say I have no intention of maliciously locking horns with you or anyone else for that matter.
I have no wish to "troll" anybody.
That being said, I simply meant that for things to lock and work logic and syntax have to be correctly thought of and laid out.
I wanted to point out that "unlimited atonement" seems to be an incorrect syntax because the logic points to "universal redemption" which contradicts particular redemption a.k.a. election.
However, since you introduced the word sufficiency which I believe, with my limited English vocabulary, to be synonymous to efficacy then I will accept your explanation, but not call it unlimited atonement.
I will agree that had God decided to save the entire human race then the blood of Christ is more than sufficient and efficacious, but since he did not, then His blood atonement is limited to His elect.

 

Ken Hamilton,

If you trusted in the Holy Spirit as indicated in John 14:26, meaning get your understanding from Him rather than fleshly, human, depraved, and yet redeemed men like Augustine through Boyce, you would be more in keeping with the Word of God.

 

What chapter and verse in the Bible says that Five Point Arminians are not allowed to believe that all saved persons presently have everlasting life in God?

In John 10 Jesus Himself tells His people that they 'will never perish . . . ' Every Christian has the right to believe His truth.

We believe God rather than the views of earth, bound men and women's views.

 

Then this is simply what we mean when we say "unlimited atonement." Now I can't speak for others but most of the Cavlinists I know hold this position. We simply mean that the merit is unlimited.

Referencing your computer programs and syntax, syntax and grammar are often very precise, they are often used imprecisely as well. I think a phrase like "unlimited atonement" probably just caught on over time. It used to be particular and general atonement of which I would be a particularist.

Words words words ... wierd things they are ...

 

This is very close to crossing the line. Let's watch it. The same could be said about your position. In the end it comes down to what Scripture says.

 

I don't think its a matter of permission as much as it is a matter of inconsistent. We are not claiming that some of you don't believe it; we are merely suggesting that you do not have a good basis for believing it.

 

Pastor Larry,

We are consistent in what we believe. If the Bible says that all who believed in Jesus received everlasting life then we take His statements as fact and more than reliable. Should we think otherwise?

 

I beg to differ. If you are consistent that man got into salvation by his own will, then you should believe that man can get out of it by his own will. If you believe that Christ's salvation only made salvation possible, then it is up to something else (namely man's choice to believe) to secure that salvation. Therefore if he disbelieves or stops believing, he no longer has salvation, if you are consistent. We believe that Christ's death accomplished salvation and therefore, what his death purchased can never be undone. Therefore we are consistent in what we believe.

 

After accepting Christ, one's will is transformed by the power of Christ. Therefore, man will never WANT to not believe. That's why it works.

 

After accepting Christ, one's will is transformed by the power of Christ. Therefore, man will never WANT to not believe. That's why it works.</font>[/QUOTE]If it takes th power of Christ to make a person want to stay, why does it not tkae the power of Christ to make a poerson want to get "in" in the first place?

 

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:

Then the salvation of this person does not conform to what the Bible says in Romans 5:6
and 8 -

because he was with strength to be able to dominate his dead, weak, nature and come to Christ, which is a good work in the eyes of God.

 

And, in your view, why does one need his will transformed if his will was in sufficiently good shape to get him saved in the first place?

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

And, in your view, why does one need his will transformed if his will was in sufficiently good shape to get him saved in the first place?

Ken
A Spurgeonite</font>[/QUOTE]Because man's will is sinful. The redemption of Christ allows man to be holy once and for all. It is because of this salvation that we are to live a life holy and acceptable to God. Simply because man can choose God by the Holy Spirit does not mean that his will is sufficient enough NOT to need sanctification.

Those are your words, not Scripture. Where does it say in the Bible that salvation requires man to "dominate" his nature? From what I read, God is the only one who can change a man from a sinner to a holy saint. Man just has to ask him to do it. He's NOT changing himself - he's relying upon God to do it.

 

"Because man's will is sinful. The redemption of Christ allows man to be holy once and for all. It is because of this salvation that we are to live a life holy and acceptable to God. Simply because man can choose God by the Holy Spirit does not mean that his will is sufficient enough NOT to need sanctification."

So you hold that man is so sinful that he can not sanctify himself, but not so sinful that he can't justrify himself through his own will to beleive?

On what basis do you make the distinctions implicit in this idea?