Unlimited Atonement

[TomVols]

Ulimately, I'd agree with the OP quote in spirit: anyone who truly believes in a unlimited atonement without qualifiers is heretical. God does not save all universally. Thus, the atonement is limited somehow. The question is, how? To what extent? Those who go out of their way to argue against limited atonement have some 'splainin to do. Of course, some will deny this. But there are many on this board who flirt with universalism and are squarely in an open theistic camp and are blind to this. I have no problem with those of more an Amaryladian bent or those who are less thorough in their Reformed stance. But those who say the atonement is not limited stand in opposition to Scripture.

 

[jbh28]

Oh yeah, but now they will come back and say I misrepresented Piper's own words. Or they will say I am not smart enough or spiritual enough to understand what he was saying, or that in the Greek he really said... :laugh:

It is easy to see why this doctrine is becoming popular again. Who wouldn't like to think that God prefers him over others?

you did. You said it was outside of Christ, something of which Piper would disagree.

You see, God chose him.[ It has nothing to do with his faith in Christ,

Correct

it has nothing to do with Christ at all,

incorrect and Piper never said that

those are simply the effects of being chosen, but simply that God chose him, John Piper.

The result of being chosen is that we will be saved, adopted, sanctified, glorified.

I think you are smart enough and spiritual enough. you just interpret passage differently from me. That's fine. I would never tell someone that I'm smarter than them because I believe differently from them. I might be totally wrong. If I am, then I'll find that out in my studying of the Scriptures. But you could be wrong too. Or we both are wrong.


btw, you still haven't answered my question. When were you chosen?

 

[jbh28]

Calvinist are quick to say that they aren't chosen BECAUSE they are better (unconditional election), but you are right in that being elected would "make them better," so either way you look at it, Calvinist have to believe "we are better" if they are consistent with their views.

I guess we are better off than if we were never saved. I'm sure am glad to be on the Lords side and not the Devils!

 

[jbh28]

Yet they use the verse that says God loved Jacob and hated Esau as one of their proof texts for election. So apparently, they do believe God loves them and hates others, which makes them better than others.

I see it more of a proof text that God doesn't love every individual exactly the same. At least that is how I look at it. I would use passages like John 6:37 and Ephesians 1:4-11 and I Peter 1:1-9 and others as text for supporting election.

 

[Rippon]

Calvinist are quick to say that they aren't chosen BECAUSE they are better (unconditional election), but you are right in that being elected would "make them better," so either way you look at it, Calvinist have to believe "we are better" if they are consistent with their views.

Was Israel chosen because they were better than all the other nations in any respect.No. Now of course every individual of Israel was not saved --but it was considered God's elect nation.

They are parallels with salvation of any person --Jewish and Gentile alike.

 

[Rippon]

You see, God chose him. It has nothing to do with his faith in Christ, it has nothing to do with Christ at all, those are simply the effects of being chosen, but simply that God chose him, John Piper.

So slander Piper now, will you? Have you listened to his sermons? Have you read any of his books? How dare you say that he doesn't place his faith in Christ! Stop your falsehoods now.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, I was mistaken, and I apologize. I would never intentionally misrepresent anyone. I don't need to do that.

At this present time there is a thread where I was said to be profoundly ignorant. Another suggests I am a liar. This is common.

I personally don't care about these insults. It just proves to me that you cannot answer my arguments, so you attack me personally.

I have to say that you do intentionally misrepresent on a regular basis.

You have been factually wrong about beliefs that you attribute to Calvinists theologically and historically.

 

[jbh28]

So slander Piper now, will you? Have you listened to his sermons? Have you read any of his books? How dare you say that he doesn't place his faith in Christ! Stop your falsehoods now.

I laughed a little when reading the comment about Piper, except that it was sad to misrepresent him in such a way. Obviously he has never really read Piper or at least actually listened to him. To say that Piper believed that Christ had nothing to do is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[The Archangel]

You see, God chose him. It has nothing to do with his faith in Christ, it has nothing to do with Christ at all, those are simply the effects of being chosen, but simply that God chose him, John Piper.

Post the source, if you've got the courage.

 

[David Lamb]

Yeah, just blindly take David's word without looking yourself. He either didn't look that hard or has selective reading. Maybe before falsely accusing someone you should do your own homework.

Sorry, Webdog, if you thought that I in any way expected people to take my word for anything (apart, perhaps, from personal matters like what my beliefs are - but on the BB we all have to do that).

I'm not sure which of my posts you had in mind. I assume it's one on this thread.

In Post 66, I asked Winman for examples of posts where anyone has claimed to be more intelligent or more spiritual than anyone else, as he had stated that there were hundreds. I was asking, not telling people blindly to follow me. You replied to that post, suggesting I go through recent posts from Luke2427 and Preacher4truth for examples. I responded in Post 73, saying: "I think it better if I leave Luke2427 and Preacher4Truth to reply to this if they wish. I cannot speak for them in saying whether or not they really intended to claim to be more intelligent and spiritual than non-Cals..." My Post 74 was just a note of thanks to Winman for some kind words.

In Post 80 on this thread, I did question what Winman meant when he talked about a thread started by Luke suggesting that Calvinism needs more intellect and spirituality than non-Calvinism. I asked him if he meant the thread: "Does Calvinism require a higher spiritual intellect, spirituality, and... " I then said that if so, that thread had been started by R. Lawson, not Luke - a matter of fact easily checked. I also said that I could not see one thread started by Luke in which he made the proposal that "Calvinists are both more intelligent and spiritual than non-reformed."

Kyredneck thanked me for the "labor" of finding that out, and my Post 83 just explained that there was hardly any labour involved. Kyredneck then wrote suggesting that such checking might stem the flow of Winman's "spouting of falsehoods" (Kyredneck's words, not mine). I responded in Post 85 saying that perhaps it was a simple mistake on Winman's part, because although the "Does Calvinism require..." thread was not started by Luke, it was based on a post of his from another thread.

My final post before this one (on this thread) was Post 88, just an answer to an enquiry about my surname. That post is the only one where I would expect the other BB members to "take my word for it" (though I could send a copy of my birth certificate to anyone who doubts it :laugh: ).

So I am not at all sure where I am supposed to have expected anyone to "blindly take my word" for something.

 

[Jerome]

Did you miss Luke's OP gem where he wrote:

It doesn't matter if logic demands it. They don't care. They don't want to EVEN CONSIDER what may be true beyond this point.

Calvinists are the ones who keep thinking at this point- and they are able to go the next step. . . .Arminians are handicapped by irrational emotionalism. They are thus left in the dark on this matter.

Or this Luke post:

it is true that [Calvinism] requires a certain level of intellectual, spiritual and theological maturity.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So I am not at all sure where I am supposed to have expected anyone to "blindly take my word" for something.

All right me lad, for your penance say 5 Our Fathers & 3 Hail Marys & I noted your quite a tall Boyo so don't be bumpin your head on way out of the confessional now..... the last ting the parish needs is a nother blinkin lawsuit I'll be thinkin, saints preserve us. :godisgood:

 

[Luke2427]

Did you miss Luke's OP gem where he wrote:



Or this Luke post:

And it does. Those are solid remarks, and I stand by them.

What you are good at, Jerome, is taking remarks out of context. You are forever misrepresenting Spurgeon this way, for example.

Calvinism is complex. It is deep and it requires deep meditation.

It is also based on truths that humans find unpalatable- so one must be spiritually mature to go against their fallen nature to receive these particular truths of Scripture that Calvinism systematizes.

Its complexity and depth and anti-man nature means that one must indeed have reached a certain level of intellectual and spiritual maturity to grasp it.

That should be offensive to no one.

I also further clarified in antecedent posts that Arminianism also requires a certain level of spiritual and intellectual maturity to grasp.

But I noticed you did not bother to copy and paste those remarks of mine so that you might represent me more honorably.

 

[Luke2427]

Post the source, if you've got the courage.

It is actually a baptistboard rule- he is supposed to cite his sources or he is in violation of the rules, if I recall.

 

[Jarthur001]

What you are good at, Jerome, is taking remarks out of context. You are forever misrepresenting Spurgeon this way, for example.

I believe everyone will agree with this. Which begs the question..."who is he trying to fool?

1) God maybe?
It can't be done.

2)A calvinist that knows the context, because he has read Spurgeon?
Most likely this will not happen.

3) A non-Calvinist?
No. Not if they look up the quotes.

4) Himself?
Ok...now maybe we are on to something.

 

[Jerome]

Prime example:

God has not appointed salvation by enquiry-rooms. . . . For the most part, a wounded conscience, like a wounded stag, delights to be alone that it may bleed in secret.
Charles Spurgeon

Which Spurgeon sermon you got that passage from?

 

[Jarthur001]

Prime example:



Which Spurgeon sermon you got that passage from?

These are two quotes from: The Forgotten Spurgeon

The full context follows...

In this way seeking souls were directed to God alone, and while the members of the Tabernacle were expected to be always looking out for those needing spiritual help, there was no outward or physical sign required of those who were under concern. It was just at that point, Spurgeon knew, that Arminianism works havoc by calling attention to the human action instead of the Divine. ‘Go home alone’, he would say, ‘trusting in Jesus. "I should like to go into the inquiring-room." I dare say you would, but we are not willing to pander to popular superstition. We fear that in those rooms men are warmed into a fictitious confidence. Very few of the supposed converts of enquiry-rooms turn out well. Go to your God at once, even where you now are. Cast yourself on Christ, now, at once, ere you stir an inch!’ These words were spoken before the enquiry-room had fully developed into the modern system of appeals and decisions; how sadly Spurgeon would have viewed such a development it is not hard to imagine. He recognized that once such things became a part a evangelism, men would soon begin to imagine that they could be saved by doing certain things or that these things would at least help to save them - ‘God has not appointed salvation by equerry-rooms’ becomes a recurring warning in his later sermons.

Man has made a connection between coming forward after an appeal and ‘coming to Christ’, but Spurgeon would have strongly repudiated any such connection. Not only does such an evangelistic method not exist in scripture, it vitiates what scripture does teach on coming to Christ: ‘It is a motion of the heart towards Him, not a motion of the feet, for many came to Him in body, and yet never came to Him in truth,... the coming here meant is performed by desire, prayer, assent, consent, trust, obedience.’ Furthermore, Spurgeon had enough experience of the powerful working of the Spirit to know that these human additions to preaching the gospel were not justified by their supposed helpfulness: the man genuinely convicted by the truth may be the last to desire to comply with the public actions which an ‘appeal’ would force on him: ‘For the most part, a wounded conscience, like a wounded stag, delights to be alone that it may bleed in secret. It is very hard to get a man under the conviction of sin; he retires so far into himself that it is impossible to follow him.’ The practice at the Tabernacle was entirely in harmony with these convictions. At the close of services the congregation of 5,000 would be bowed in solemn stillness with no organ or other music to break the silence, and then members of the church would be ready to speak to any strangers who might be sitting near them and desiring help.

I believe this book is online.

I hope this helps.


BTW...do you recall this post?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1621192&postcount=60

Posted by Jerome….
"We believe in the five great points commonly known as Calvinistic; but we do not regard those five points as being barbed shafts which we are to thrust between the ribs of our fellow-Christians." —Charles Spurgeon

 

[webdog]

Replied to the wrong thread...

 

[Winman]

you did. You said it was outside of Christ, something of which Piper would disagree.
Correct incorrect and Piper never said that The result of being chosen is that we will be saved, adopted, sanctified, glorified.

He would disagree, but he would be wrong because he believes he was elected before faith in Christ. He said his election was not based on his faith. And all Calvinists I've seen deny that election is based on foreseen faith. Without faith you are outside Christ.

btw, you still haven't answered my question. When were you chosen?

I was elected before the foundation of the world according to God's foreknowledge of my faith in Christ. And as Amy correctly pointed out, it is Jesus who is God's elect, I am only elect because when I believed I became a member of his body. This is very different from what Piper believes.

Election must be according to foreknowledge because no one is actually in Christ until they believe, otherwise you would be born saved.

Paul shows this in Romans 16:7 when he speaks of Andronicus and Junia which he said, "who also were in Christ BEFORE me"

So, no one is "in Christ" until they believe in time.

Nevertheless, God can foreknow who will believe and elect them. But they are not elected outside of faith in Christ as Piper teaches.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I was elected before the foundation of the world according to God's foreknowledge of my faith in Christ......

So, the inevitable conclusion of your statement is that God looked down thru time and saw that you, despite your sin nature, will have faith in Christ, therefore, there is good in you, right ? And because of the good that is in you, he elected you.

What, then, are you going to do with these words of the Creator God Himself, as Jesus:

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Mark 10:18...

or this:

They are all gone aside , they are all together become filthy : there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalm 14:3