The Unlimited Atonement.

[Dave G]

Dave, I honestly did not know that some Calvinists have that take on that parable.

I'm not a Calvinist, but many here consider me to be one.
I keep telling them that I don't take my understanding of the Scriptures from men, but hardly anyone believes me.

So, I suffer the label.

As for my "take" on that parable, it just came to me slowly over the years...that last part came together just now.

I appreciate the explanation.

You're welcome, my friend.
May God bless greatly you in your studies of His word.

 

[DaveXR650]

Well, I think what causes a lot of confusion is that most Calvinists take the position that the call was somewhat of a general call, first to Jews and then to gentiles. They really were invited and the problem with the guy with no wedding garment was more to do with the fact that he had not "put on Christ" as some say or come by faith but deliberately tried to get in some other way. A preacher might say by works or a false faith, etc. But your take on it is that the lack of garment meant that he was not elect?

 

[Dave G]

But your take on it is that the lack of garment meant that he was not elect?

Yes, but it all relates.

God's elect are the "whosoever believeth", from the heart ( Romans 10:8-10 )
They are the ones who do not fall away under trials and tribulations, they are the ones kept by the power of God through faith, ready to be revealed in the last time ( 1 Peter 1:5 ),
They are the sheep, the "lively stones", the ones who bear true spiritual fruit, the "called", the ones that have "ears to hear" ( as opposed to those who only hear the word of God with their physical ears and reject it ) and eyes to see,
They are the beloved, and everything else that God's word describes one of His precious children as.

They are the overcomers, and they are the ones who have the gift of faith ( Ephesians 2:8 ).

They are the "righteous" in the Psalms, and the "wise" in the Proverbs...
The love Him because He first loved them ( 1 John 4:19 ).

They are a total mess in the flesh ( but they grow in grace and knowledge ), but their spirits have been made pure by the power of God...
They hate this world, and love him and His ways.

They are the saved, and they will be with Jesus Christ and follow Him and Him alone ( a stranger they will not follow ).

If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature my friend...
Good evening to you.

 

[DaveXR650]

Thanks Dave G. And my apologies to 37818 for getting off topic. I just sometimes feel we are talking past each other and I'm trying to get my head around where everyone is coming from.

 

[37818]

I have never heard anyone argue that the person who came to the wedding without a garment was cast out because the atonement was limited. Is that what you are saying or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?

That is a conclusion you yourself came to. You see if limited atonement is true at the exclusion of unlimited atonement any arguments I might make will not make what is not true to be true.

Now my persuasion is if limited atonement is true, the mere fact that more are called than for whom Christ would have died, makes any general call to those for whom Christ did not die evil. So I must believe in an unlimited atonement because God is good. I am persuaded the Holy Scripture teaches an unlimited atonement. 1 Timothy 2:6.

 

[DaveXR650]

That is a conclusion you yourself came to. You see if limited atonement is true at the exclusion of unlimited atonement any arguments I might make will not make what is not true to be true.

Well, that's a conclusion that I came to with good evidence. There are scores of people who wright on that parable and I have not seen anyone claim that the man was cast out because the atonement was limited. By the way, a lot of theologians think it is a stretch to apply that parable to the gospel - it was meant for Jewish people at that time period.

 

[37818]

Well, that's a conclusion that I came to with good evidence. There are scores of people who wright on that parable and I have not seen anyone claim that the man was cast out because the atonement was limited. By the way, a lot of theologians think it is a stretch to apply that parable to the gospel - it was meant for Jewish people at that time period.

There is an interpertation that all the invited guests are provided a wedding garment. There was no excuse not having it on. ". . . And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. . . ." My view, unlimited atonement, he was proved the wedding garment, he failed to put it on. The lost fail to trust in the finished work of Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

Now my persuasion is if limited atonement is true, the mere fact that more are called than for whom Christ would have died, makes any general call to those for whom Christ did not die evil. So I must believe in an unlimited atonement because God is good. I am persuaded the Holy Scripture teaches an unlimited atonement. 1 Timothy 2:6.

Now you have a good point here and Calvinists have wrestled with this for years. They would say first of all that the 5 points have to be taken as an integrated system. If men are by nature dead in sin then without God's intervention no one would be saved (and this is very important - because they would not come to Christ). They would then say that God decided to intervene on behalf of people who he chose - but not everyone. (Notice - no injustice has been done by God to anyone at this point.) Then the "L" for limited atonement means that God because he knew who he was going to intervene for means that the atonement would be limited to them only. The key point here - and this is huge - the "limited", which even Calvinists say is an unfortunate term does not mean that people are saved of not saved at that point. Why does it make a difference? Because if you don't understand this you think that the reason some people won't be saved is that they weren't atoned for. No, the reason was because they are unrepentant selfish sinners with no interest in God and they refuse if they hear the gospel or are raised in church even. In other words they are just like all of us before God intervenes on our behalf and we come to Christ.

You will hear the term "offer" of the gospel. I believe it is real for the above reasons. Many Calvinists do not believe the offer of the gospel is real - they would correct me and say - only if they are elect. I disagree with them and your argument I quoted above is a valid argument against them. I hope some of them on this site would comment on this.

When a verse says "many are called" it just means that they are in the group or time period where a gospel call is going out. Like when the call goes out to the gentiles in Acts. If you are at a large church and the gospel is preached everyone there hears the call to repent and believe in Christ but most won't. I do not believe the reason they don't is that the atonement does not include them. Some Calvinists do but some don't.

 

[DaveXR650]

There is an interpertation that all the invited guests are provided a wedding garment. There was no excuse not having it on. ". . . And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. . . ." My view, unlimited atonement, he was proved the wedding garment, he failed to put it on. The lost fail to trust in the finished work of Christ.

The idea that he was provided a wedding garment and chose not to put it on is what I understand also. G.Campbell Morgan goes further and says he deliberately chose not to wear the garment. That's why most Calvinist theologians use it as a warning to professing Christians not to deceive themselves and come without true faith in Christ. I wish Calvinists on this site would explain if they believe the garment refers to the atonement. Dave G did post on that.

 

[agedman]

Now you have a good point here and Calvinists have wrestled with this for years. They would say first of all that the 5 points have to be taken as an integrated system. If men are by nature dead in sin then without God's intervention no one would be saved (and this is very important - because they would not come to Christ). They would then say that God decided to intervene on behalf of people who he chose - but not everyone. (Notice - no injustice has been done by God to anyone at this point.) Then the "L" for limited atonement means that God because he knew who he was going to intervene for means that the atonement would be limited to them only. The key point here - and this is huge - the "limited", which even Calvinists say is an unfortunate term does not mean that people are saved of not saved at that point. Why does it make a difference? Because if you don't understand this you think that the reason some people won't be saved is that they weren't atoned for. No, the reason was because they are unrepentant selfish sinners with no interest in God and they refuse if they hear the gospel or are raised in church even. In other words they are just like all of us before God intervenes on our behalf and we come to Christ.

You will hear the term "offer" of the gospel. I believe it is real for the above reasons. Many Calvinists do not believe the offer of the gospel is real - they would correct me and say - only if they are elect. I disagree with them and your argument I quoted above is a valid argument against them. I hope some of them on this site would comment on this.

When a verse says "many are called" it just means that they are in the group or time period where a gospel call is going out. Like when the call goes out to the gentiles in Acts. If you are at a large church and the gospel is preached everyone there hears the call to repent and believe in Christ but most won't. I do not believe the reason they don't is that the atonement does not include them. Some Calvinists do but some don't.

This view is validated (imo) in the parable of the sower and seed.

the seed is sown by believers indiscriminately; however, the dirt that has been prepared (good soul) is the only dirt that the seed is raised to harvest.

So I have ask the threads when the topic of limited or unlimited atonement is discussed, “Who is in charge of the dirt?”

Not the seed sowers, not the dirt itself, but the owner (God), and He purposes the use according to His plans.

While I do firmly hold the Blood removed all iniquity, I cannot find in the Scriptures the dead and resurrection a benefit to unbelievers.

If any man can “scarcely be saved,” how much less the dirt unprepared by the angels of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

Agedman. I agree and would add that since I came to agree with most of what is now called Calvinism I have noticed a danger, especially in the reformed camp. We tend to start viewing the scriptures as raw material with which to argue and assert our theological viewpoints whereas most scripture I think has as it's main purpose to assist us in life. When I read that the cares of this life choked out the plants it scares me to death and makes me want to try not to let that happen in my own life - at that point I don't care what the theology is behind it.

 

[agedman]

The idea that he was provided a wedding garment and chose not to put it on is what I understand also. G.Campbell Morgan goes further and says he deliberately chose not to wear the garment. That's why most Calvinist theologians use it as a warning to professing Christians not to deceive themselves and come without true faith in Christ. I wish Calvinists on this site would explain if they believe the garment refers to the atonement. Dave G did post on that.

That can certainly be a valid interpretation, but I like the thinking that it refers to the hypocrites.

Matthew, being primarily written through the eyes of a Jew and primarily for the Jews, needs to be interpreted through a Jewish perspective.

The audience is also made up of the religious righteous of that day who are hypocrites as Christ called them.

Considering the law sufficient, they are without the wedding garment necessary, and are speechless because they do not think they were unprepared for the feast, but could come having the authority of the Law.

By the law no person is justified, and the wedding garment and feast are for the justified.

 

[agedman]

Agedman. I agree and would add that since I came to agree with most of what is now called Calvinism I have noticed a danger, especially in the reformed camp. We tend to start viewing the scriptures as raw material with which to argue and assert our theological viewpoints whereas most scripture I think has as it's main purpose to assist us in life. When I read that the cares of this life choked out the plants it scares me to death and makes me want to try not to let that happen in my own life - at that point I don't care what the theology is behind it.

The opening chapters of the revelation churches express a similar thinking..

 

[37818]

. . . the revelation churches . . . .

The seven letters to the seven churches are addressed first to the seven individuals, that is to each "angel," messenger, Pastor of each of those churches. Most interperters miss this.

 

[37818]

Everyone who comes to a genuine faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ for their forgiveness of their sins does so from the testamony originating from our New Testament and it's proclaimtion of Christ's payment for everyone's sins and the testamony of God's Spirit in our hearts. 1 John 5:9-13, Titus 1:2.

 

[agedman]

The seven letters to the seven churches are addressed first to the seven individuals, that is to each "angel," messenger, Pastor of each of those churches. Most interperters miss this.

Certainly, but the messages were also not to be kept secret from the people of all churches. Therefore, the messages do pertain to all.

 

[37818]

Certainly, but the messages were also not to be kept secret from the people of all churches. Therefore, the messages do pertain to all.

We might not all agree on how the seven letters pretain to all.

 

[37818]

The mere denial of "Unlimited Atonement" has not refuted it. There is no explicit teaching in the word of God against it's truth. Nor can the word of God teach against it's own explict teaching.

 

[AustinC]

The mere denial of "Unlimited Atonement" has not refuted it. There is no explicit teaching in the word of God against it's truth. Nor can the word of God teach against it's own explict teaching.

To hold to unlimited atonement you have to be willing to say that either all humans will ultimately be in heaven or there is at least one sin (unbelief) for which Jesus atoning sacrifice was unable to pay the ransom which frees humans from hell.

 

[MB]

To hold to unlimited atonement you have to be willing to say that either all humans will ultimately be in heaven or there is at least one sin (unbelief) for which Jesus atoning sacrifice was unable to pay the ransom which frees humans from hell.

There is no sin unforgivable during our lives.When sin is unforgivable it's because they have not asked, or repented.

Mat_7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
MB