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!
Yes, I am saying that (again). Check out Rev. 7:9-10:Originally posted by All about Grace:
Are you saying it is a misrepresentation of limited atonement to say that there is a strong possibility a believer's children may not be covered by the sacrifice? What is the misrepresenation?
I'd say there is a strong possibility that a believer's children will also be part of that multitude that no one could number. I don't know why you all like to think that the number of the redeemed will be small. The Bible clearly says otherwise.After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"
If there are 1-3 billion people on earth now and there are that many within that range, if only 200 million are saved who are living on earth right now, that is relatively a small percent of people being saved unto eternal life.
Read Matthew 7:14 where Jesus is saying that at the end of human history '. . . few will find the narrow way,' in which salvation can only come through acknowledging and believing in Jesus.
The whole upper tier of Africa especially is 98% Muslim. The are more Christians in the area of west Africa but in case no one has told you yet, Christians are losing the battle in converting the world to our Lord. [End Quote}
Ray
Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Dan,
The practical outworkings of Calvinism clearly suggests that some people in all of our families are destined by God ultimately to the Lake of Fire.
Do you think all of your family is saved? This is an honest question. I hope they all are saved or come to know the Lord, but probably a few, possibly distant relatives were predetermined, autocratically by the Lord for the realm of the damned.
This is well within the parameters of the tenants of Calvinism. When it is written down on paper it sure does not portray a God of love and justice.
Now John 3:16 and I John 5:13 both uphold the fairness of the Lord and the Father's great love in sending His Son to save sinners.
You cannot believe the determinism or the doctrine s of fate, without the practical outworkings of your alleged God who autocratically operates by Himself totally apart from the free agency of sinners who have been convicted by the Spirit of God.
Who is "you all"??? My stripes differ from the cats on both sides of this discussion. Don't categorize so hastily.I'd say there is a strong possibility that a believer's children will also be part of that multitude that no one could number. I don't know why you all like to think that the number of the redeemed will be small. The Bible clearly says otherwise.
Since you jumped into this thread "not taking sides" you have tried to emphasize the "few". Now you don't want to talk about "few" any more, and that's fine, but you gotta back up what you say.Originally posted by All about Grace:
Who is "you all"???
I don't have Showtime so I don't know what you mean, but the vastness of the atonement seems clear to me.I find it a bit ironic that someone who embraces the big "L" word (not the Showtime series either) is defending the vastness of the atonement. I am usually operating in the opposite direction -- discussing with L-defenders why God's grace exceeds what our human systems will allow.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the presupposition upon which limited atonement is built". Could you clarify?Regardless of how "many" or "few" are at the end, the underlying premise still remains the same, and that is what you have yet to address. It does not matter what the odds are for a believer's child to be among the elect, the presupposition upon which limited atonement is built is shaky at best. Yes the big L makes sense within a 5-point system created by humans to try and explain salvation, but it does not answer all of the questions raised by other obvious passages which seem to teach otherwise.
Why would the unsaved ever defend anything about atonement? I think I don't understand what you are getting at. I defend an idea of atonement that does what it intends to do, and is frustrated by no one - not Satan, not people, not anyone.It is amusing at times to watch 5-pointers defend the "limits" of God's atonement with an attitude of chivalry that would definitely be absent if those same people were not a part of the club. It is always easier to rejoice over the limits when you are an insider.
???? We are not talking about verses. We are talking about the natural implications of a limited atonement (as defined within Calvinism). Remember limited atonement fits within a broader system. It is a point in a human system that is necessary for 5-point Calvinism to stand.Which reminds me - which of the verses in the OP "prove Jesus did not die for you"?
I don't have it either, but I do stay in touch with what my generation is watching, listening to, etc....beside the point.I don't have Showtime so I don't know what you mean, but the vastness of the atonement seems clear to me.
See above. I would simply remind you that the "L" fits within a system. It does not stand alone.I'm not sure what you mean by "the presupposition upon which limited atonement is built". Could you clarify?
It is just a bit ironic to me that only insiders can embrace Calvinism. I know many unbelievers who understand the gospel clearly, but they simply choose not to embrace it at this time. Yet I know no unbelievers who understand TULIP -- only the insiders. Just an interesting observation to me. Calvinism is a knowledge evidently reserved for the club.Why would the unsaved ever defend anything about atonement? I think I don't understand what you are getting at. I defend an idea of atonement that does what it intends to do, and is frustrated by no one - not Satan, not people, not anyone.
???? We are not talking about verses. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you're having memory problems. This thread is titled "Verses that PROVE Definite Atonement". Here's the very first thing you posted in the thread:Originally posted by All about Grace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Which reminds me - which of the verses in the OP "prove Jesus did not die for you"?
I don't blame you for acting like you didn't post that, but it's there for anyone to see. So, which verses were you talking about?Without taking sides in this argument, could we not entitle this thread "verses that prove Jesus did not die for you".
The only alternatives I can see are that everyone is saved, or that some people's sins are covered but they are not saved anyway. Which alternative do you hold to, and why?Originally posted by All about Grace:
The implication is that the atonement does not cover the sins of a certain portion of people (few or many -- take your choice). That is the issue.
My initial response simply illustrates the natural implications of limited atonement as defined with the 5-point system (which is why I keep referring back to this point).I don't blame you for acting like you didn't post that, but it's there for anyone to see. So, which verses were you talking about?
You see either/or ... I see more both/and in the sense that I simply do not believe the extensiveness of the sacrifice or the atonement itself can be exhaustively defined with a human system. There is a mystery element to the atonement (as made clear in passages like 2 Cor 5.19) that we cannot "limit" to a system like Calvinism. It is a mistake in my opinion to pigeonhole all the of the aspects of the atonement to one particular view or understanding. That is why God is God and we are not. Do you truly believe we can wrap our minds around the extent or nature of something as divine and mysterious as the atonement?The only alternatives I can see are that everyone is saved, or that some people's sins are covered but they are not saved anyway. Which alternative do you hold to, and why?
But what of the implications if Jesus did die for the sins of some who will wind up in hell? If His death and resurrection is not the determining factor in my justification then what is?Originally posted by All about Grace:
If only the elect are called and only the sins of the elect are forgiven, then it naturally follows that Jesus did not die for the sins of a certain portion of the world, thus the original jab at the L within the system.
The implications are clear. Calvin did not deny or run from them. Neither should those Calvinists who embrace the whole system.
With this I agree. There is a sense in which Christ is the Savior of all men. I think that has to do with potential salvation - if they would turn to God from their idols then they would be saved. But Christ is especially the Savior of those who believe - those who will be finally and actually saved.You see either/or ... I see more both/and in the sense that I simply do not believe the extensiveness of the sacrifice or the atonement itself can be exhaustively defined with a human system. There is a mystery element to the atonement (as made clear in passages like 2 Cor 5.19) that we cannot "limit" to a system like Calvinism.
Of course not. Do you think we should not try?Do you truly believe we can wrap our minds around the extent or nature of something as divine and mysterious as the atonement?
Do you mean "sufficient for all, efficient for those who believe/the elect"? I know of Arminians and Calvinists who agree with that statement. It really doesn't say that much. Maybe you mean something else, though.However if I had to be pinned down to a view that would help define my view as I understand it, I would fall into the more sufficient-efficient camp.
It is, but justification/reconciliation goes far beyond my individual salvation. The Western Church has individualized salvation to the point the atonement has become all about me and me alone (or the elect and the elect alone). But that is another discussion for another day.If His death and resurrection is not the determining factor in my justification then what is?
As long as the "effort" is not elevated to the status of absolute, comprehensive, propositional truth (which often happens in systems like Calvinism). We must always remember the effort is a human effort to explain a divine mystery that cannot be fully grasped by the human mind.Do you think we should not try?
Yet it says enough to say that what Jesus did was more than enough to cover the sins of the "world" as described in certain passages and yet effective enough to cover the sins of those who embrace Him through faith.It really doesn't say that much.
I believe it is unfair to prescribe to God human categories of "knowing" and "intention". God's purpose will be fulfilled. The means by which they will be fulfilled cannot be thwarted. Yet the means by which God fulfills his salvific purposes cannot be restrained to a human explanation either.did God intend to save those whom He knew would never believe?