Verses that PROVE Definite Atonement

[2BHizown]

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question--Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if..." --and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ's death; we say, "no my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."
Charles Spurgeon

 

[King James Bond]

2BHizown,

Superb!

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

KJB

 

[King James Bond]

HanSola2000,

Don't worry, we can forgive you and Charles.

KJB

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
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.

Now just a minute. I'm arguing that salvation is completely from, by and through what God alone has done and is doing and will do, and you say that makes it "all about me and me alone"? I just don't get that at all. It is the other side, the "what God did for one He must have done for all, so now it is up to what you do" crowd that typifies the "it's all about me and me alone Western Church".

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.

But both Arminians and Calvinists agree with every word of that. It adds nothing to the debate. It is like suggesting that snow is white.

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.

But when God assigns those categories to Himself surely it cannot be wrong to agree with Him.

If we cannot wrap our minds around what happend in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, I am not sure we should be so dogmatic on the "limits" or "definiteness" of the atonement. Again it fits well within a nice, cut-and-dry, 5-point system. But does it capture the whole image of reconciliation/atonement/salvation described throughout Scripture? No.

If you really believe that then you cannot have any certainty of your salvation.

Remember God did not leave us a systematic theology textbook. He did not leave us a question-answer workbook. He left us a story -- His story, a story of God's interaction with human beings. That story invokes human language, illustrations, life situations, poems, songs, etc. to try and help us capture the relationship between God and humans. It is a divine story inspired by God, but its format leaves us with a mystery element with which we must wrestle and struggle. Simply put, it reminds us God is God and we are not.

Thanks, I had almost forgotten. Seriously, of course there are many things that we do not know and cannot explain. But when the Bible says "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" then surely we are allowed to assert the truth of that, whether we can understand and explain it or not. And surely we are also allowed to ask whether by that same offering He has also perfected those who will never be sanctified because of their refusal to repent and believe. And I see no reason to answer in the affirmative.

 

[King James Bond]

These are just some observations;

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.

The atonement is about the elect. Salvation applies to individuals. These individuals make up a group which are known as; "Church", "His Body", "Believers", "Sheep" or "His Bride".

Atonement is not all about "me" but applies to a family consisting of many brothers and sisters from all over and of the world.

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.

And what may I ask is wrong with finding and knowing absolute, comprehensive truth? Are you sure that no one can fully grasp these so called mysteries? Just because you do not understand these things how can you be sure others don't?
Out of your entire congregation are you telling me there exists not one of you who understands these things?

Have you not read in Scripture;

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

And you are a pastor....have you not read;

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Now you know how the elect are born again. God gives them new life and Christ has taken on everything they deserve while they receieve the free gift of eternal life. Because they are reconciled (atoned for). You might not understand this and say something like;

"How can this be?"

"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

The "L" I embrace is "Limited Understanding" which reminds me that no human system has it all figured out. There are aspects of the atonement and its final implications that we will never grasp.

Why in blazes do you embrace limited understanding? How do you know other people can't figure things out just because your mind is limited and you do not have it figured out?

If you can't understand so many things why should people listen to a man with no understanding? Why are you teaching us that we can't or should not understand? It does not make sense. How do you know the limits of what we have been given in understanding? If you were at last trying to understand it may make some sense......but you claim you cannot see, you embrace that, and somehow proclaim that just because you can't see no one else must either.

Scripture says;

But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

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.

Good job! Yes, those that are born again will embrace Jesus and all others will not. Again good job!

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.

Knowing and intention are attributes of God. Good job on His will not being thwarted! Yes, His will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. I hope since you are a pastor that you are capable of explaining salvation to those that are among your flock.

The atonement obviously goes far beyond our individualized understanding of it because as I pointed out before, God is reconciling the world to himself. Our human qualifiers cause us to fit such statements in the context of our theological systems, but I am not sure any of us truly grasp what verses like 2 Cor 5.19 mean.

What you are unsure of does not prove others are not sure of. Is there one person among your entire congregation that can explain 2 Cor 5:19? I sure hope there is! My advice would be to study to show yourselves approved!

I would say unbelievers can have a large impact on a flock of believers.

If we cannot wrap our minds around what happend in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, I am not sure we should be so dogmatic on the "limits" or "definiteness" of the atonement. Again it fits well within a nice, cut-and-dry, 5-point system. But does it capture the whole image of reconciliation/atonement/salvation described throughout Scripture? No.

Try to wrap your minds around it. Wash your minds constantly with the Word of God.

KJB

 

[All about Grace]

Now just a minute. I'm arguing that salvation is completely from, by and through what God alone has done and is doing and will do, and you say that makes it "all about me and me alone"? I just don't get that at all. It is the other side, the "what God did for one He must have done for all, so now it is up to what you do" crowd that typifies the "it's all about me and me alone Western Church".

You missed the point. There is a tendency among 5-pointers to focus on defending the insiders (elect) ... which is a direct correlation to doctrines such as limited atonement. But again, that is another discussion.

It adds nothing to the debate.

But it presents the biblical view -- which teaches both.

But when God assigns those categories to Himself surely it cannot be wrong to agree with Him.

Exactly -- which takes us back to your previous assertion. Where do we find in Scripture the exact details of the exact nature and extent of such doctrines as the atonement and election? If these details were provided, we would not be having this discussion. God has revealed certain aspects of His knowledge and intentions, but He has not revealed every intricate detail. That is why systems such as Calvinism are developed. They are a human attempt to explain a divine reality. I am not saying that is wrong. It is absolutely necessary. But we must always keep them in perspective and remember what systems such as Calvinism are and what they are not.

If you really believe that then you cannot have any certainty of your salvation.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying there is no level of certainty related to the atonement (what was accomplished through the death and resurrection). What I am saying is that salvation itself goes beyond what we can fully comprehend or articulate. It is called faith. We believe what God has revealed, but we also recognize that at the end of the day, He is sovereign. And as a Sovereign, All-Loving God we have yet to comprehend the magnitude of his salvation and reconciliation.

2 Cor 5.19 is a classic example. What does it mean that God is reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them? Interpret this verse w/o applying a Calvinistic grid to your interpretation.

Evidently God's salvation/reconciliation has worldwide implications that we have yet to comprehend or fully grasp. This does not mean we cannot know anything about salvation or reconciliation (the extreme KJB wants to jump to). It simply means we attempt to understand reconciliation as it is articulated in key passages but we also acknowledge the limits of our knowledge when God says He is reconciling the entire world to himself in Christ.

But when the Bible says "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified" then surely we are allowed to assert the truth of that, whether we can understand and explain it or not. And surely we are also allowed to ask whether by that same offering He has also perfected those who will never be sanctified because of their refusal to repent and believe. And I see no reason to answer in the affirmative.

And when the Bible says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (insiders), and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (outsiders)" then surely we are able to assert that truth whether we can fully understand or explain it or not.

You make my point very well. Thanks.

Certain passages simply do not fit in the system. But that is okay. God is bigger than any system we create to explain him. If He were not, He would not be the Omniscient-Omnipotent Creator we claim to worship yet often limit to our own boxes of understanding.

 

[All about Grace]

KJB,

Are you stalking me???

Why in blazes do you embrace limited understanding?

This is the only point in your post I will address b/c most of it is based on a misunderstanding of what I am saying.

I embrace limited understanding b/c I am a human being operating on at best 10% of my brain (some operate on less -- but I am not pointing fingers -- just kidding of course). On the other hand, the God I worship is absolutely infinite.

Let's see -- infinite God vs finite human operating on 10% -- I am going to say with my "limited understanding" perspective.

Some of us simply believe we do not have all the answers on every subject related to God and how he works. That has nothing to do with how I present the Gospel. The Gospel message remains simple and clear (with or without our added petals): Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

 

[Ray Berrian]

hamricba,

The conviction and convincing of a sinner of his or her need of Christ [John 16:8-10] is much different than that person being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. John 3:16 is a call to believe and trust in Jesus. God does not autocratically regenerate people without a human response of faith. He is not a Divine puppeteer.

As to Titus 3:5 Bob and I agree with the verse as it stands and is clearly stated. We are saved by Christ's righteousness, mercy, cleansing of His blood for our sins, and thankfully, the regenerating power of God the Holy Spirit.

God still demands faith for this miraculous act to be done from His realm above. Acts 2:21 and Acts 16:31 requires and demans a belief in Jesus.

I am sure Bob will have his own explanation of the facts.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[King James Bond]

AllaboutGrace,

Of course I am stalking you! I am your cuzin Eddie!

LOL

I am not trying to say you should know everything......only I know everything! (and I am kidding on that also)

Since none of us know everything it is good for us not to lean on our own understanding of things. We can listen to others. We can see if what they say is in line with other portions of Scripture also.

I was mostly trying to make the point that just because you claim atonement is a mystery to you and you do not understand it with your human mind.....that is no way some sort of proof that others have not been given a gift of understanding it.

We all know we are humans. I would not try to say we are some sort of gods or have minds that are better or worse than anyone else

So just because a person (use me for an example) does not understand limited atonement, it does not mean that limited atonement is not understandable.

As a pastor you should be able to explain many things.....just like we would expect an eye doctor to know very much about eyes, a pastor should know very much about the Word of God.

There must be someone in your entire congregation that could search and find the intended meaning of the author in 2 Cor 5.19.

I would suggest asking the believers in your congregation to study it with a real devoted effort. Be honest with them and tell them you have trouble understanding it. Let them use all kinds of sources for their study.....Bibles.....internet.....commentaries......studies of others.....from all angles and sides.

But more to the helpful point in understanding it is a good dictionary with definitions of words.

What does it mean that God is reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them?

Actually it is quite clear when other portions of the Bible are used along with what is being said.

I have found that for people to have a real understanding of the Gospel message they really need to have a real understanding of their sin nature.

It sure seems that alot of people are saved and have never thought of themselves as lost.

Look at Rays posts for example.....there is a man who really thinks that it is man that is the determining factor in salvation.

That kind of mindset is very dangerous. His idea is that God only offers salvation. His idea is that God is powerless to save anyone if all people resist.

The problem he does not see is that by nature all people resist because people loved darkness over light. He does not see his sin or blindness.

These are the people that teach other people "Jesus Saves" but deny the very power that saves!

Paul tells us: (2 Timothy 3:1-5 NIV)

{1} But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. {2} People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, {3} without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, {4} treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God -- {5} having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

These people will claim that Jesus saved them but when you get down to the nitty gritty it is they that saved themselves!

To many of them Jesus is a tool and not a rescuer. They knew which way to choose they only needed the tool. They attribute glory to their own minds and their own wisdom in making the right choice.

I would have to say if a man made the right choice it is because God blessed him with a mind to do so.

To many of us we deny ourselves completely! Before you and mighty God above I declare I am a sinner saved ONLY by the grace of God.

That means that everything about my salvation is about Him and nothing about me. I must become less while He becomes greater and greater!

The LORD answered Moses, "Is the LORD'S arm too short?

God bless you AaG! Cuz Eddie!

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
You missed the point. There is a tendency among 5-pointers to focus on defending the insiders (elect) ... which is a direct correlation to doctrines such as limited atonement. But again, that is another discussion.

No, you missed the point. 'L' is not about defending the insiders. It is about defending the work of Christ.

Originally posted by All about Grace:
And when the Bible says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (insiders), and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (outsiders)" then surely we are able to assert that truth whether we can fully understand or explain it or not.

I assert the part of that statement that the Bible asserts. If the Bible included those parenthetical comments then I would be asserting those too.

I also believe this, even though I cannot fully understand or explain it - "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." But we also know from scripture that God does count trespasses against some. So maybe reconciliation does not mean what we think it does; or maybe it was just a temporary reconciliation; or maybe, just maybe, "the world" doesn't include "outsiders" in this verse. Or maybe there's another explanation. But surely we aren't supposed to just throw our hands up and walk away not knowing what in the world it means. Do you think Paul knew what it meant?

 

[All about Grace]

I was mostly trying to make the point that just because you claim atonement is a mystery to you and you do not understand it with your human mind.....that is no way some sort of proof that others have not been given a gift of understanding it.

Wrong. I am not saying certain aspects of the atonement cannot be understood. I have studied and written on the multiple views and theories of the atonement ... which proves my point. There are multiple theories related to the atonement for a reason, i.e., we can't wrap our finite minds around the magnitude of what happened on Calvary.

And for that very reason, we cannot contain salvation within a system such as Calvinism that defines salvation within certain man-made boundaries and interpretations.

There must be someone in your entire congregation that could search and find the intended meaning of the author in 2 Cor 5.19.

Actually we cannot put ourselves in Paul's mind so we will never know with 100% certainty the exact intended meaning. We can speculate and offer reasonable arguments and positions in light of context, etc., but at the end of the day, we cannot fully grasp what it means for God to reconcile the world to Himself through Christ.

I can offer a reasonable explanation, but it is still limited to my own perspective and interpretation. These are simple rules of hermeneutics. You do practice hermeneutics don't you?

Actually it is quite clear when other portions of the Bible are used along with what is being said.

Your words support my point.

 

[All about Grace]

No, you missed the point. 'L' is not about defending the insiders. It is about defending the work of Christ.

You say potato - I say potato ... same difference. It sure sounds more spiritual at least to say you are defending the work of Christ (as if it needs defense).

I also believe this, even though I cannot fully understand or explain it - "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." But we also know from scripture that God does count trespasses against some. So maybe reconciliation does not mean what we think it does; or maybe it was just a temporary reconciliation; or maybe, just maybe, "the world" doesn't include "outsiders" in this verse. Or maybe there's another explanation. But surely we aren't supposed to just throw our hands up and walk away not knowing what in the world it means.

So at the end of the day you affirm what I have been saying (at least that is what you do here). And no I don't think you throw your hands up and walk away, but neither do you hold dogmatically to man-made explanations or theories to the point the theories are held as highly as revelation itself.

I noticed you did not address several important points from my previous post, so I will assume you have no response to them or you affirm what I was saying.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Here is one facet of Scripture that is supposed to prove Calvinism correct. 'Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.' This, of course, has nothing to do with matters of a salvific nature.

The true story of the Rich Young Ruler disproves Calvinism. The passage under investigation is Mark 10:17-22.

Here was a young man who was sincere and came and bowed his knees in front of the Lord. You know his statement as to what he must do to receive eternal life and the Lord's response.

We know the end of the real event where the Bible says, 'And he was sad at that saying (of Jesus) and went away grieved, because he had great riches.

Probably he never returned to the Lord for salvation although the Word is silent about this matter. In the light of his clear rejection of Jesus one would imagine that a Calvinist would say he was destined for eternal punishment. His rejection sealed His eternal destiny and some might say it was predestined in this man's life. He was a kind of alleged 'Esau' who was hated as Calvinists view the Scripture.

Here is the problem for Calvinists. We Biblicists believe the Bible as Mark penned these pictorial words, 'Then Jesus beholding him loved him . . .'

My point is obvious. Jesus loved this sinner but his riches moved him to use his volition in the wrong way, which led him to eternity without the Lord in his life.

Scripture assures is that the Lord God loved this sinner, but his rebellion and will kept him out of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Review this event in the life of Jesus.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by All about Grace:
You say potato - I say potato ... same difference. It sure sounds more spiritual at least to say you are defending the work of Christ (as if it needs defense).

Yep, all we want to do is sound more spiritual. Right.

So at the end of the day you affirm what I have been saying (at least that is what you do here). And no I don't think you throw your hands up and walk away, but neither do you hold dogmatically to man-made explanations or theories to the point the theories are held as highly as revelation itself.

I'm really not sure what you think I've affirmed here that I haven't affirmed anywhere else. Revelation is clear. Christ came to reconcile the world to God, and He did so. That has certain implications for those who are not reconciled to God and will never be. There's nothing man-made about it.

I noticed you did not address several important points from my previous post, so I will assume you have no response to them or you affirm what I was saying.

Don't assume too much. We aren't that far apart, I think, but I just don't like long posts.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Here is the problem for Calvinists. We Biblicists believe the Bible as Mark penned these pictorial words, 'Then Jesus beholding him loved him . . .'

My point is obvious. Jesus loved this sinner but his riches moved him to use his volition in the wrong way, which led him to eternity without the Lord in his life.

Hey Berrian, Th.D.,

Please clarify - how is that a problem for Calvinists? Thanks.

whatever, B.S. (And only in Mathematics)

 

[Ray Berrian]

Check your Mathematics and go back to October 26 at 11:20 p.m. It is 2 posts above yours. You will recognize the numbers.

I explained your problems and erring views. Your job now is to defend your Calvinistic theory and position coming from Mark 10:17-22.

Peace and love through Christ,
"Ray"

 

[King James Bond]

Ray Berrian,

You are wrong. It proves that all are destined for Hell unless God intervenes and saves.

God loves sinners and hates sinners and that is something you probably do not understand.

If you think it is your will or your merit that brings you to heaven you are sadly mistaken.

If you think it is your own heart, your own wisdom, your own mind, your own will-power......then you just keep patting yourself on the back and give glory where you think it is due.

And just as the rich man would not give up his riches, are you certain you have walked away from all of your faults? Would you say that there are no sins at all that you just cannot walk away from?

Maybe the sin of self-righteousness? Pride? Self glory?

If we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive them.

Has not God put it in your heart to see yourself at His utter mercy?

Has not God put it in your heart the ability to understand that those saved were saved while they were helpless?

You just keep patting yourself on the back that you were so good in saving yourself.

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself:

'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

'But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Yup....you just keep patting yourself on that back!

As for myself, I find that God has put it in me to understand that I am no better than any other man. I deserve hell and all its fury for my sin. I was saved by the PURE GRACE of GOD and not one thing more. If He never would have rescued me I would never have wanted Him.

We love Him because He loved us first.

KJB

 

[King James Bond]

AllaboutGrace,

Wrong. I am not saying certain aspects of the atonement cannot be understood. I have studied and written on the multiple views and theories of the atonement ... which proves my point. There are multiple theories related to the atonement for a reason, i.e., we can't wrap our finite minds around the magnitude of what happened on Calvary.

All of that study and writing and still so mixed up? Stop seeking theories and seek the truth!

It may be best if you stop speaking for everybody with your "we" words unless you had a mouse in your pocket during all that study and writing.

There must be someone in your entire congregation that could search and find the intended meaning of the author in 2 Cor 5.19.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually we cannot put ourselves in Paul's mind so we will never know with 100% certainty the exact intended meaning. We can speculate and offer reasonable arguments and positions in light of context, etc., but at the end of the day, we cannot fully grasp what it means for God to reconcile the world to Himself through Christ.

I can offer a reasonable explanation, but it is still limited to my own perspective and interpretation. These are simple rules of hermeneutics. You do practice hermeneutics don't you?

Proves my point that some people should not be teachers and pastors.

I guess you are not capable of knowing anything. Oh but you are....your not....you are....your not again.

Your earlier posts claim that atonement is a mystery...and then you claim;

There are aspects of the atonement and its final implications that we will never grasp.

The atonement obviously goes far beyond our individualized understanding of it because as I pointed out before, God is reconciling the world to himself. Our human qualifiers cause us to fit such statements in the context of our theological systems, but I am not sure any of us truly grasp what verses like 2 Cor 5.19 mean.

I understand atonement. It is very clear. I understand 2 Cor 5:19 also. I truly grasp the intended meaning.

Now you may be without understanding in many aspects of atonement and 2 Cor 5:19..........but just because after years of study and writings you still can't get it........that is not proof that other people do not understand what you just cannot wrap you mind around!

Einstien wrapped his mind around things that MANY people just cant wrap their minds around......but just because MANY cannot see what he could see does not prove he cannot see what he can see.

Do you comprende?

So if you are lost on the topics of atonement and 2 Cor 5:19.....stop teaching others that being lost and unable to understand these things is some sort of virtue to "embrace".

Just because you are limited......who are you....and why would you teach people on things you claim you do not understand!

Like duh.

KJB

 

[Faith alone]

whetstone,

Could you define what you mean by "definite atonement" in some detail?

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Hi whetstone,

I asked you a question earlier regarding what you meant by "definite atonement." I knowthat by this expression you mean that Christ's atonement/death applies to specific elect individuals, and not to all mankind, in general. But I would like to see how you define it.

Also, I appreciate the list of verses you've prepared and the study you've gone to on this. Always better to do the work ourselves. But I would like to see more than just some words boldened, but an explanation of why you see definite atonement (limited atonement) there.

FYI, I've done a brief study on this myself. Think I'll ist the verses I've compiled along with my reasoning for any who would like to discuss it.

Also, I have a couple of quotes by Calvin regarding unlimited atonement, FWIW. I do not believe that he supported definite atonement. In his commentary on Romans 5:18, he said...

He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him.

You see, I know that Luther did not accept limited atonement - the starter of the reformation. And I also have some serious doubts as to whether Calvin himself accepted it. Of course, that is neither here nor there, as we are concerned about the truth from God's Word. Nevertheless, it is interesting...

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world."

The question is what does KOSMOS (world) mean here? In general it refers to the world system when used by John, and in his gospel the basic idea of KOSMOS is that of the sum total of all humans - considered separated from God. So "the world" represents mankind in its fallen state and alienated from its Creator.

You might find it interesting that John Calvin says of this verse: "He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."


The most obvious verse regarding unlimited atonement is John 3:16...

John 3:16 For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

And you can look it up in any Greek lexicons... they all acknowledge that KOSMOS ("world") here denotes mankind, not the "world of the elect."

And if we take John 3:16 in context, we see even more regarding unlimited atonement.

John 3:14, 15 Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in Him will have eternal life.

And if we go to that incident mentioned above in Numbers 21 we see that the people were getting bitten by poisonous snakes and dying. God told Moses to set up a bronze snake in the middle of the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked up at it, he experienced physical deliverance. Jesus was saying (or John) that anyone could look at that bronze snake (though some probably didn't - and died), and that similarly Jesus would be raised up on the cross, and not just for the elect.

And if we look at AT Robertson's Word Pictures comments on this text...

... The world (ton kosmon). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God's love appears also in 2 Corinthians 5:19; Romans 5:8. ...

And how about the woman at the well? (Trying to come up with a text not usually used here.)

John 4:42 And they told the woman, "We no longer believe because of what you said, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this really is the Savior of the world."

Now obviously when these Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect, the Jews!


Here's another thought not often expressed on this topic. Consider John 8:12...

John 8:12 Then Jesus spoke to them again: "I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life."

Now think about it... the imagery here is of the sun, which illuminates all of the physical world - not just some countries. Similarly, Jesus is saying that He is the light of the spiritual world. No way they would have understood Him to be referring to just the elect.




Deliverance from hell was not dependent on the atonement itself but on receiving the gift by faith. The gift has still been offered, even if not received. Eternal life is offered as a gift to be received by faith. I've heard it illustrated that a person could starve to death sitting in front of a table full of food - if he does not receive the food offered.

Because the nonbeliever refuses to accept the death of Christ as his own, the benefits of Christ's death are not applied to him. He is lost, not because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God's offer of forgiveness for his sins.

But the part that bothers me is that if I believe in limited atonement, then I cannot honestly say to someone I may meet that Christ has died for him... how do I know that he is of the elect? I then cannot say "Let's put your name in here in John 3:16. For God so loved Billy that..." I have to be general... "God loves sinners," or "Christ died for sinners, and I'm one." The counselor can be confident that he is a sinner for whom Christ died, but not that the person whom he is counseling is one. Very sad.

Anyway, that's how I see it. Of all of the points of the TULIP, this one bugs me the most.

Incidently, I've got a few more texts I've studied on this topic, but I've learned that if I make my posts too long... no one reads it all anyway!

FA