TULI doctrines not found in scripture

[Van]

Limited Atonement: John 3:16, 10:11, 10:15, Romans 5:12-19

Calvinism falsely claims Christ's death on the cross reconciled the elect and did not provide reconciliation for all mankind. The Biblical doctrine teaches that (1) Christ provided reconciliation for all mankind, and (2) only those who "receive" the reconciliation are actually reconcilied.

John 3:16 says God so loved the world. Now John uses the word translated "world" in only two ways, to refer to fallen mankind, and to refer to the corrupt system of fallen mankind. In John 3:16 John's inspired word is saying "for God so loved fallen mankind...." Therefore the verse supports Christ died for all mankind.

John 10:11 says Jesus lays down His life for "the sheep." Does the verse define "the sheep" as individuals elected before creation? Nope. So that meaning is simply poured into the verse.

John 10:15 again says Jesus lays down His life for "the sheep" leaving "the sheep" meaning undefined. I can say the sheep refers to all mankind, and support the assumption from 1 John 2:2.

Romans 5:12-19 actually supports unlimited reconciliation, "even so, through the one act of righteousness, [Christ's sacrifice] there resulted justification of life to all men." This does not say all men received the justification, but rather Christ's sacrifice provided the opportunity of justification to all men. But only those who receive the reconciliation, receive the justification.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I just prefer scripture to speak for me these days.

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." :godisgood:

 

[Jim1999]

True calvinism teaches that the work on the cross was sufficient for ALL, but efficient for some (elect).

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jedi Knight]

Calvin or no Calvin one of my favorate scriptures that God choose me is John 15:16 "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." And yes I do see other passages that say whosoever will.....! So what do I do to determin which side to lean on? Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.:wavey:

 

[jbh28]

Limited Atonement: John 3:16, 10:11, 10:15, Romans 5:12-19

Calvinism falsely claims Christ's death on the cross reconciled the elect and did not provide reconciliation for all mankind. The Biblical doctrine teaches that (1) Christ provided reconciliation for all mankind, and (2) only those who "receive" the reconciliation are actually reconcilied[sic].

What do you mean by "reconciliation for all mankind"? If you mean that the death of Christ is sufficient to pay for all mankind, then Calvinists would agree with you.

From the Cannons of Dort, Head 2 Article 3
"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."(emphasis mine)

John 3:16 says God so loved the world. Now John uses the word translated "world" in only two ways, to refer to fallen mankind, and to refer to the corrupt system of fallen mankind. In John 3:16 John's inspired word is saying "for God so loved fallen mankind...." Therefore the verse supports Christ died for all mankind.

I agree that "world" here means everyone, but it doesn't teach for whom did Christ die here. In fact I would argue that it teaches that Christ died for those that would believe.
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son," Why?
"that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." It was intended for the believers.

John 10:11 says Jesus lays down His life for "the sheep." Does the verse define "the sheep" as individuals elected before creation? Nope. So that meaning is simply poured into the verse.

It's called how the term "sheep" is used throughout the gospels.

John 10:15 again says Jesus lays down His life for "the sheep" leaving "the sheep" meaning undefined. I can say the sheep refers to all mankind, and support the assumption from 1 John 2:2.

I John 2:2 doesn't mention sheep. Sheep is always in reference to the elect(or all that believe) and goats to those that are non elect(or don't believe). You say that the term "sheep" is defined in the passage, well then we must go to a passage that does define "sheep" and not something that doesn't mention sheep.

Romans 5:12-19 actually supports unlimited reconciliation, "even so, through the one act of righteousness, [Christ's sacrifice] there resulted justification of life to all men." This does not say all men received the justification, but rather Christ's sacrifice provided the opportunity of justification to all men. But only those who receive the reconciliation, receive the justification.

Calvinism teaches that, "the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

 

[jbh28]

Unconditional Election: John 6:37, 6:39, 10:29; Romans 8:28-29, 9:10-23; Ephesians 1:11

Does John 6:37 say why God gives folks to Christ? Nope. So no actual support for giving unconditionally. Yet the verse is cited as if it did. Who knew?

Does John 6:39 say why God gives folks to Christ? Nope. So no actual support for giving unconditionally. Yet the verse is cited as if it did. Who knew?

Does John 10:29 say why God gives folks to Christ? Nope. So no actual support for giving unconditionally. Yet the verse is cited as if it did. Who knew?

Does Romans 8:28-29 say why God gives folks to Christ? Well actually it does. God gives to Christ those that love God. Is that unconditional? Nope. So the very passage cited to support unconditional election actually supports conditional election. Who knew?

Does Romans 9:10-23 say why God gives folks to Christ? Nope. It does support the unconditional election, if we pass over the prophecy that the older would serve the younger, for a purpose of God, but not an unconditional election for salvation in Christ. What this passage demonstrates is that God can unconditionally elect folks for His purpose, but it does not support that God unconditionally elects folks for salvation. Who knew?

Actually, that's a great support. There are no conditions given. Pretty good assumption then that there are non...hence...unconditional.

Does Ephesians 1:11 say why God gives folks to Christ? Nope. So no actual support for giving unconditionally. Who knew?

Actually it does. " according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." Also says in verse 5, "according to the purpose of his will. " So yes, it does support it here very well.

But if you look down to Ephesians 1:13 we find we are "in Him" after (1) listening to the message of truth, the gospel of our salvation, and (2) having believed as determined by God crediting our faith as righteousness, we were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit. In other words, we hear the call, we respond to the call, God credits our response as righteousness, then God puts us spiritually in Christ and seals us with the Holy Spirit. That is what is actually found in scripture.

God Bless

yep

 

[Van]

Calvinism plays word games to avoid the obvious. Did Christ die for all mankind? Calvinism says no. The Bible says yes. So rather than admit the obvious, they play games with sufficient and efficient.

John 3:16 says God so loved the world, not foreseen believers in the world. Anyone can rewrite the text so it says what their manmade doctrine asserts. But if we look at it objectively God so loved the world, fallen mankind, that He gave His one of a kind Son so that whoever believes in Him, from out of the world, would not perish but have eternal life. The verse places no limit on who can believe, or who God loved. None, zip, nada.

Is sheep alway used for the elect? They all like sheep have gone astray does not refer to the elect, but to fallen mankind.

If sheep only referred to the elect, why would qualifiers like "of My sheep" and my sheep, and not of my sheep be found.

1 John 2:2 says Christ became the propitiation for the whole world, and therefore supports Christ died for mankind, not just the elect, and therefore when scripture says Christ laid down His life for "the sheep" logical necessity requires "the sheep" to be the whole world.

Next, the logical absurdity is put forth that the absense of support supports the assertion because this verses do not rule it out. I kid you not, that was the argument.

Lots of verses rule out limited atonement. 1 John 2:2 for one. Then the one that says, Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, etc, etc. I was dealing with the verses that supposedly support the false doctrine and demonstrated they provide no actual support.

Next we have the falsehood plainly put forth that "according to the purpose of His will" means unconditional election. This again is simply pouring the doctrine into scripture. The purpose of His will could be conditional election. We must stick with what scripture says, not what is unsaid, and supplied by man-made doctrine.

 

[jbh28]

Calvinism plays word games to avoid the obvious. Did Christ die for all mankind? Calvinism says no. The Bible says yes. So rather than admit the obvious, they play games with sufficient and efficient.

It's not a word game. Is the death of Christ sufficient for all? Yes. Will it be efficient for all? No, not all are saved. It's that simple.

John 3:16 says God so loved the world, not foreseen believers in the world. Anyone can rewrite the text so it says what their manmade doctrine asserts. But if we look at it objectively God so loved the world, fallen mankind, that He gave His one of a kind Son so that whoever believes in Him, from out of the world, would not perish but have eternal life. The verse places no limit on who can believe, or who God loved. None, zip, nada.

hmmm I don't think you read what I wrote now did you?

Is sheep alway used for the elect? They all like sheep have gone astray does not refer to the elect, but to fallen mankind.

If sheep only referred to the elect, why would qualifiers like "of My sheep" and my sheep, and not of my sheep be found.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

1 John 2:2 says Christ became the propitiation for the whole world, and therefore supports Christ died for mankind, not just the elect, and therefore when scripture says Christ laid down His life for "the sheep" logical necessity requires "the sheep" to be the whole world.

No, that's eisegesis. You cannot do that. The sheep are the believers. And is God propitiating for everyone? Nope, not all are saved.

Next, the logical absurdity is put forth that the absense[sic] of support supports the assertion because this verses do not rule it out. I kid you not, that was the argument.

HUH? I have no clue what you are referring to. Use the quote feature. It helps.

Lots of verses rule out limited atonement. 1 John 2:2 for one. Then the one that says, Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all, etc, etc. I was dealing with the verses that supposedly support the false doctrine and demonstrated they provide no actual support.

And he is a ransom for all. All that believe. Those that don't believe will have to pay for their sins.

Next we have the falsehood plainly put forth that "according to the purpose of His will" means unconditional election. This again is simply pouring the doctrine into scripture. The purpose of His will could be conditional election. We must stick with what scripture says, not what is unsaid, and supplied by man-made doctrine.

Unconditional election is based on multiple passages. If it is "according to the good pleasure of his will" it stands to reason that it's not "according to looking ahead in the future" or "looking at who does it and then choosing to save them)conditional. Unconditional election doctrine is built on looking at multiple passages on election and seeing that there are not any conditions placed on man to be elect.

 

[Skandelon]

It's not a word game. Is the death of Christ sufficient for all? Yes. Will it be efficient for all? No, not all are saved. It's that simple.

Efficient is defined as: "Acting directly to produce an effect"

So, you must ask yourself. Did Christ's act of dying directly produce an effect for someone who dies in their unbelief?

Unless you believe that He only died for a select few, the answer must be YES. The effect is not salvation, but there is an effect nonetheless. The effect is provisional atonement. Atonement is provided for them and a genuine appeal is made for them to be reconciled through faith in Christ's atoning work, which is an "effect," just not an efficacious one. You create a false dichotomy by suggesting that someone must be efficaciously saved if indeed something is to be consider efficient.

And is God propitiating for everyone? Nope, not all are saved.

Providing propitiation for everyone doesn't equate into universalism if God puts a condition or a provision on it. For example, the snake Moses put up on a stick in the wilderness to protect the people from venomous bites. Here are the three types of atonements illustrated by the snake analogy:

1. UNIVERSAL: If the lifting up of the snake automatically saved everyone. (Universal - which is what you incorrectly accuse us of).

2. LIMITED/PARTICULAR: If he put it up only for the Levites and it effectually saved all the Levites, that would be equal to a limited atonement (Calvinism).

3. PROVISIONAL: If he put it up for whosoever looked upon it, it would be provisional atonement (Arminian).

In the story of the snake, as in the actual atonement, the 3rd option is the most biblically supported.

Those that don't believe will have to pay for their sins.

Actually they will pay for their unbelief, not for their breaking of the law. The law was fulfilled once and for all.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Earth wind and fire...

Earth wind and fire...

I said...(regarding Vans post)

I agree with you 100%.

Eternal security is completely true.

All of the other "points" of Calvinism are completely false, imo.

And you responded....

Yes it is evident that you always have an opinion & your extremely vocal in it.

What in the world are you talking about??? Extremly (((vocal)))??

I posted 3 short statements that describe my view of this. Nothing even remotely close to being inflamatory.

Opinions are apart of our human character & like other parts of our anatomy, everyone has one.

What???

As I side note, noted you didn't add the "H" in there either. No great surprise.

What..in..the..world..is wrong with you?

H? What does "H" have to do with anything? :laugh:

Goodness....

 

[Van]

Irresistible Grace: John 6:44, 10:4, 10:27; Ephesians 2:4-9

Lets finish this off with a look at the so-called support for the false doctrine of irresistible grace.

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me, draws Him, and I will raise Him up on the last day. What Calvinism does to this verse is to say it says "I will raise up on the last day those the Father draws. Thus to be drawn is to be saved forever. Total fiction, and yet another example of pouring man-made doctrine into scripture. What the verse actually says is a person cannot come to Jesus, unless drawn, and those that come to Jesus after they have been drawn, a second conditional, I will raise up.

If we look at verse 45, we see that everyone who has (1) heard and (2) learned from the Father comes to Me. Does "drawing" equate with "learning?" No. If we are drawn, something or some one is influencing us, we are being acted upon, but learning is internal, something we are doing in response to something external. Therefore being drawn equates with hearing the gospel of Christ and learning equates with believing and trusting in the message of the gospel, which is to say, believing in Christ.

In summary, John 6:44-45 provides no support for the doctrine of irresistible grace when contextually considered.

John 10:4 and 10:27 also provide no support. These verse refers to people who have been saved, who have entered through the "door of Christ" and are spiritually "in Christ" e.g are Christ's sheep, those that belong to Christ. What Calvinism does is say people (the elect) became "Christ's sheep" before creation. So yet another fiction supported by a fiction. All this verse actually supports is that once a person becomes "My sheep" they hear Christ's voice and follow Him. But it provides no support for the underlying premise, that people are "My sheep" before they enter through the door, before God credits their faith in Christ as righteousness and spiritually places them in Christ. The kindest thing that can be said is using this verse is an example of circular reasoning.

Ephesians 2:4-9 again is addressing born again individuals. saying there were made alive together with Christ, saved by grace when God spiritually placed them in Christ. The passage says that our salvation was not of ourselves, it was a gift of God. It does not say our faith in Christ was compelled by irresistible grace. The so called "gift of faith" is yet another fiction (irresistible grace by another name) and no support whatsoever is found in this passage.

In summary, like the other false doctrines, this on has no actual support in scripture, but is supported by taking ambiguous passages and pouring the doctrine into the passage. But this one (using Ephesians 2:8-9) to support the gift of faith is so flagrant a foul that even Dr. D. Wallace says it should not be used to support the doctrine. Who knew?

 

[Van]

Providing propitiation for everyone doesn't equate into universalism if God puts a condition or a provision on it.

Christ becoming our propitiation, but not only for us, but for the whole world, provides the opportunity for salvation to all mankind. But only when God credits a person's faith as righteousness and spiritually places them in Christ, does the person receive the benefits of Christ's provision.

So in a sense, Christ died for all, and Christ died for the church. It is not either/or, it is both, He provides the means of salvation for all, and provides salvation for those God gives to Him after crediting their faith in Christ as righteousness.