Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I hope the Calvinists here will address this, which seems like a very practical and worthwhile point - although maybe it's been discussed here many times before - I wouldn't know.Originally posted by tfisher:
I'm still not sure I understand. This is kind of new to me. I thought it was simply the belief that Jesus only died for the elect and not for everyone. I guess I didn't completely understand it. What I was afraid of was this: If this is true and I share the gospel with someone and say, "Jesus died for you." I could be bearing false witness against God if Jesus in fact did not die for that person. How would I know who Jesus died for since I cannot see into the future? I would not be sure how to share the gospel since it is kind of difficult to share the gospel without telling someone about Jesus dying to pay for his sins.
Because you don't see the other thief asking Jesus to have mercy. One thief asked & recieved, the other thief asked not, so he recieved not.Originally posted by tyndale1946:
I don't know what all you other brethren feel about this but the crucifiction of the two thieves with Jesus gives a great illustration of the doctrine of election and limited atonement. One of those thieves went to paradise... This day shalt thou be with me in paradise!... What happened to the other thief?... Why don't we hear Jesus say to the other one if you believe in me and pick me as your Savior you can go to? Did I step on some free willer toes?... Brother Glen![]()
Both thieves started off insulting Jesus and one changed without Jesus saying anything to either of them. Why? Some say free will. I say free grace.Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
Because you don't see the other thief asking Jesus to have mercy. One thief asked & recieved, the other thief asked not, so he recieved not.
Both thieves started off insulting Jesus and one changed without Jesus saying anything to either of them. Why? Some say free will. I say free grace.Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Curtis:
Because you don't see the other thief asking Jesus to have mercy. One thief asked & recieved, the other thief asked not, so he recieved not.
Now, comparing scripture with scripture, we find in Matthew 1 these words from the angel (messenger, if you will) of the Lord to Joseph:John to the seven churches which are in Asia (fixes
a specific and therefore definite and non-generic geographical and demographical location)...... and from Jesus Christ (which means his words and message are the words and message of the Son of God)....
unto Him that loved us (again, a definite word. If the washing of the blood was universal, the Holy Spirit would have used, in His exactness, the more generic 'mankind' or 'humankind')from our(here,as in the word 'us', the Revelator includes himself, yet he is not Asian, as Asians are known in that century, and geographically, is not in that part of the world known as Asia in his time, therefore in full accord with Paul's 'to the Jew first, and also to the Greek, expressions, denoting that God's people are among both Jews and Gentiles) sins in his own blood. - Revelation 1:4-6
There are other scriptures that teach or point to limited atonement. But, the most eloquent speakers or the most astute teachers can expound on these all they want and if the hearer's ears have been stopped by the Lord, the hearer will not hear.........And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Note again that he shall save a specific group of humanity whom he calls his people.
Yeah reallyOriginally posted by tfisher:
I can't see that the two thieves could be used to prove free will or Calvinism since Jesus is omniscient. The problem is when I am between two thieves, how to present the gospel.
If you mean by convict, to regenerate, then they would both be saved. If you are talking about broadcasting the gospel in a general way, and not the effectual call, then some will be saved and some won't be saved. We must take the gospel to all as we human messengers are not told who the elect are.Originally posted by tfisher:
Both of them fall under conviction from the Holy Spirit. One of them gets saved and the other never does.
It seems that the Holy Spirit would not try to convince someone that Jesus is willing to save him/her if in fact the person is not to be saved.
Here is an article that will explain what is involved in the doctrine of limited atonement. It also, I think, explains how a genuine offer of the gospel can be made to any person.Again, I am not trying to argue for or against "limited atonement". It is something that is new to me and I am trying to draw logical conclusions about it.
The word "limited" was used to fit in the the TULIP acronym. It is better stated as particular redemption or definite atonement. Calvinists do not limit the value or sufficiency of Christ's blood. We teach that He had particular people He was redeeming with His blood.Originally posted by Robert J Hutton:
When talking of limited atonement I like to define what is meant by "limited
If you do it as Charles Haddon Spurgeon did, you will have no reason to be afraid. From his sermon on "Particular Redemption":Originally posted by tfisher:
What I was afraid of was this: If this is true and I share the gospel with someone and say, "Jesus died for you."