We Do Not Limit Atonement!

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by JGrayhound:
You know what I mean.

The question is: all men or all men who believe?

And you knew what I meant but that did not stop your asinine response to me.

Sturgman, you ask for intellectual discussion but you are not leading by example! It seems what you are looking for is discussion you can agree with.

[ February 18, 2003, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Do the lilies of the field sin?

What about nasturtiums, or the lambertia formosa, otherwise known as the mountain devil?

 

[sturgman]

What do you want to know Yelsew? I wasn't adding anything to the discussion, yes. But my comment was not to add to the discussion it was to refocus it to the discussion at hand.

You however seem to get off the point frequently. Ask me anything Yelsew and I will be willing to answer.

 

[Yelsew]

Do you think the "mountain devil" npetreley mentioned sins?

No, that may be too difficult! let's try this one:

From God's perspective, Who did God establish salvation for?

 

[rufus]

tyndale1946, AMEN! Thanks for a simple, clear post on this issue.

rufus

 

[William C]

Originally posted by sturgman:
Now Bro Bill, is that the right way to respond? I expect that kind of wineing from Yelsew, but you seem a little more educated of an Arminian then him. We both could act that petty if we wanted too. I have heard no calvinist try to rewrite scripture. Nor have I ever heard one say that they would like too. Many would say that arminians leave a bunch out, but never would we try to rewrite it. Let's not get petty here with out debate. Let us argue intellectually.

My point is this. I've never known a Calvinist that was not careful to cut out or explain away anything that seems to include an act of man's will. Scripture doesn't do that. Man's ability seems to be assumed throughout the texts except when Hardened Israel is being discussed. I think that's a valid point worth mentioning. It doesn't PROVE anything, its just an observation.

Bill

 

[romanbear]

Hi tyndale;

A quote from you
-----------------------------------------------
We say Christ 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... C.H. Spurgeon
-----------------------------------------------
Actually this is what Spurgeon believe about it a quote from him.

"If I am to preach faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated,then the man being regenerated,is saved already,and it an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him,and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already,being regenerate.Am I only to preach faith to those who have it?.Absurd,indeed!Is this not waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine?This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to the sinner."

Seems spurgeon wasn't nearly as Calvinist as you would like to make him out to be..
Romanbear

 

[sturgman]

Romanbear, that quote is all too calvinistic. Unless you believe that no calvinist believes in evangelism? Being calvinist, I believe in evangelism so much that I am an evangelist.

Spurgeons quote does not make him arminian, it makes him a proper calvinist. To preach to the nations of the gospel of Christ. It is to be completely obedient to God.

 

[tyndale1946]

Just a note on election... It is a biblical doctrine... Not invented by John Calvin... To say that believing for a non elect will save him... Let me run this by you who try to make it something it is not... Jesus of Nazareth why are thou come to torment us before our time... These were demons and devils speaking... They confessed with their mouth who he was... Were they of the elect... NO!... But the way some of you brethren talk they had that chance?... The devils believe and tremble.

Gods elect are just that his elect... Elected according to his own will and purpose... You brethren who think election is unfair and God wouldn't do that better underline... His own will and purpose... Another thing you were not born yet... And did not will it or work in time to become elect. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God.

Brother Bill on your post on Feburary 18, at 12:18 AM... You stated this is what the Bible would say about election if Calvin wrote it. Guess what... That is what the Bible does say and Calvin is not the author... Btw if election is dependent upon the creature to believe or not to believe even the Prince of Darkness Satan has a chance ... If thou be the Son Of God!... Did Satan know who Jesus was?... You betcha!... Chew on that one!... Brother Glen

 

[William C]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
if election is dependent upon the creature to believe or not to believe even the Prince of Darkness Satan has a chance ... If thou be the Son Of God!... Did Satan know who Jesus was?... You betcha!... Chew on that one!... Brother Glen

Does Satan have a "chance?" Not if Satan has been hardened.

This is where you Calvinist miss the boat. A man doesn't become "unable" to respond to God until he has rejected God. Israel was hardened because of their continual rebellion. The Gentiles had not "refused" to follow God's law because it wasn't made know to them, therefore they are not "hardened" as your teaching of Total Depravity assumes. The Gentiles unlike the Hardened Israel will listen. (Acts 28:28)

Satan already had his "chance" to follow God and he blew it in rebelling against God, thus he was hardened in order that God's Glory could be made known through his destruction.

HEAR THIS! GOD DOES NOT HARDEN ANYONE UNTIL HE FIRST ENDURES THEIR REBELLION WITH GREAT PATIENCE, IF THEY CONTINUE IN REBELLION HE WILL HARDEN THEM AS VESSELS OF DESTRUCTION AND USE THEM FOR OBJECTS OF HIS GLORY.

Chew on that!

 

[4study]

A quote from stugman on this thread;

Because if you believe that Jesus died for all men unlimited, then all the world would be saved.

Most believe the atonement itself removes guilt and thus forgives sin. If this were true the statement above is valid. However, this view renders faith irrelevant. If the atonement removes sin, faith is unnecessary for the forgiveness of sins.

The Atonement is simply the application of Christ's blood. Yet God is not obligated to forgive sin as a result of the application.

Due to God's nature, where sin is, there must be a remission (removal). Remission is not forgiveness.

Atonement is unlimited because it appeases for all sin.

 

[tyndale1946]

Brother Bill I wouldn't by that in a multitude of Sundays... As that makes the election... Non election!... Dependent upon the creature... You can't make a non elect... Elect!... Sheep are sheep and goats are goats... I'm glad that Jesus Christ knows his sheep... And will save every elect sheep that God gave him!... The Bible say it... I believe it... And that settles it!... Brother Glen

 

[Yelsew]

The barrier has been thrown up? The mind and spirit are closed!

 

[sturgman]

It appeases what for all sin 4study?

I assume you answer will be the wrath of God, right?

If God's wrath has been appeased, then why is there hell?

If God pours out his wrath on those in Hell, then why did he pour out his wrath on Calvary?

Even Arminians limit atonement, to a decision to put faith in Christ, right? Do you not say that unless you put faith in Christ, God does not make atonement for you?

 

[sturgman]

Yelsew, I am sorry you feel that way, but if you ever change your mind, you are more than welcome to join in again.

 

[romanbear]

Hi tyndale;
Your right the bible say's a lot of things you claim. It just doesn't say all that you claim. Like unconditional election irresistable grace being regenerated before we have faith.These are all lies from Augustine and the Catholic Church.It also doesn't say that we should murder those who disagree with us it doesn't say that the Church should be a government passing laws to prohibit other religons.This all in the name of Calvin and Calvinism. Just like his mentor a murder of thousands of Christians who wouldn't agree with him
Romanbear

 

[William C]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Brother Bill I wouldn't by that in a multitude of Sundays... As that makes the election... Non election!... Dependent upon the creature... You can't make a non elect... Elect!... Sheep are sheep and goats are goats... I'm glad that Jesus Christ knows his sheep... And will save every elect sheep that God gave him!... The Bible say it... I believe it... And that settles it!... Brother Glen

Hello, Glen, you totally avoided the argument by saying "the Bible says it and that settles it!" The bible also says that Israel was hardened and the Gentiles were not. The bible also says that God chose or elected for the gospel to go to the Gentiles and not just the Jews. The bible also has within its pages and geniune calling for all men to faith and repentance. That Gospel is said to be the power of God unto Salvation.

Please answer the argument instead of just saying, "that's what the bible says." That's just your interpretation of the scripture, which is the debate here.

Bill

 

[4study]

sturgman,

My post does not concern the wrath of God.

I'm not claiming God's wrath has been appeased.

Yes, Arminians limit atonement as well but not the way you've suggested. Faith does not keep the atonement from being made. Atonement is made regardless of it.

I interpret your usage of the term atonement to mean "forgiveness of sin". IMO, atonement does not necessitate "forgiveness of sin".

 

[4study]

sturgman,

Atonement appeases for sin. Appeasement does not mean forgiveness.

 

[sturgman]

No, I take the atonement to be an appeasing of the wrath of God. See Romans 3:25-26. You see God had already forgiven sin. But this without the appeasment of His wrath seems to make God unjust. So Christ on the cross appeased the wrath of God so as to make God just, and the one who justifies.

So for your post to be about atonment and not about apeasing the wrath of God is a contradiction. What after all is the atonement? Why does sin need to be forgiven after all if it is not the apeasment of the wrath of God?