We Do Not Limit Atonement!

[Yelsew]

Yelsew and his fellow Arminians

WRONG, Yelsew is not of either Arminian or Calvinist mold! Yelsew is not Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, or any other denominationalism.

Yelsew is Christian, with a strong dislike for labels that others assign to him. Labeling one whom you have not met face to face is pure demogogary. IT IS SIN!

Yelsew and his fellow Arminians would like to make it read and say once for all men, when the writer to the Hebrews obviously meant once for all sacrifices and offerings.

From the earliest sacrifice offered by Abel, sacrifice has been made by man for the sins of man! Sacrifice is about man. To say "once for all men" is quite accurate because the Christ Sacrificed himself Once for all men. To think otherwise, places us at the point of re-crucifying the Christ over and over and over again.

Atonement is limited

If atonement is limited, then your God is limited! Since the God of the bible IS NOT LIMITED in any way whatever, then your concept of God is limited. It is UNLIMITED God who provides UNLIMITED Atonement. It is limited man who declares limited atonement.

Only universalist don't believe that atonement is limited. Calvinist believe it is limited to "the elect." Arminians beleive it is limited to those who believe the gospel. This should not be the real focus of the debate, unless we are debating Ken, who is a universalist.

This is evidence that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, I do not agree with either of those dogmas

[ February 22, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Only universalist don't believe that atonement is limited. Calvinist believe it is limited to "the elect." Arminians beleive it is limited to those who believe the gospel. This should not be the real focus of the debate, unless we are debating Ken, who is a universalist.

This is evidence that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, I do not agree with either of those dogmas </font>[/QUOTE]So you're a universalist, then? Strike that - you don't like labels. So you believe everyone will be saved?

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Only universalist don't believe that atonement is limited. Calvinist believe it is limited to "the elect." Arminians beleive it is limited to those who believe the gospel. This should not be the real focus of the debate, unless we are debating Ken, who is a universalist.

This is evidence that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, I do not agree with either of those dogmas </font>[/QUOTE]So you're a universalist, then? Strike that - you don't like labels. So you believe everyone will be saved? </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you limit God's options to:
one is a Calvinist
or one is Armenian
or one is universalist?

You limit God by placing that kind of labels on people. You see we are not constrained by your foolish labels. Our believes are not molded by you, nor are our persons constrained to your understandings.

You are nothing but human, and how you want to see yourself in comparison to all others, is of course up to your free will. You are placing unwarranted limits upon yourself. My recommendation to you is that you cease this foolishness and accept whatever God has done for you. It matters not whether you agree with Calvin, or Armenius or whomever. Agreement simply means that you arrived at the same conclusions that someone else arrived at. It does not mean that your conclusions are correct.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
That is A FALSE CONCLUSION!

From God's perspective, our unredeemed spirit is dead. That is a relationship issue, and not a physical or spiritual reality. Scripture says that the life of the flesh is spirit. If the spirit is dead, the flesh is dead too! If the flesh lives, that is ample evidence that the spirit lives, and is therefore redeemable.

No its not. You simply are uninformed about theology if this is what you believe. And the burden falls on you to tell us what is dead. There are only two parts to man ... the material and the non material. If somethign is dead, it must be the non-material. This is what the verses say. It is you who seems to have the problem here.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Yelsew is Christian, with a strong dislike for labels that others assign to him. Labeling one whom you have not met face to face is pure demogogary. IT IS SIN!

No it's not. You need to lighten up. When we talk about soteriology, there are two broad categories. You are either arminian or calvinist. To accept that label does not mean that you agree with every little point but it means you agree with the major points of the system. You are an arminian becuase of your denial of the sovereignty of God in salvation. That is okay; it is simply what you are in the broad categories. It is not something you should take offense at and it is most certainly not sin.

If atonement is limited, then your God is limited! Since the God of the bible IS NOT LIMITED in any way whatever, then your concept of God is limited. It is UNLIMITED God who provides UNLIMITED Atonement. It is limited man who declares limited atonement.

Everyone except theunivesalist limit the atonement. You limit God's power in the atonement by refusing it the power to atone. You require something else to make the atonement effectual. That limits the atonement.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Only universalist don't believe that atonement is limited. Calvinist believe it is limited to "the elect." Arminians beleive it is limited to those who believe the gospel. This should not be the real focus of the debate, unless we are debating Ken, who is a universalist.

This is evidence that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, I do not agree with either of those dogmas </font>[/QUOTE]What in the world do you believe then?? If you don't believe it is limited to the elect and if you don't believe it is limited to those who believe of their own free choice, then what in the world do you believe??

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
bla bla bla...Agreement simply means that you arrived at the same conclusions that someone else arrived at. It does not mean that your conclusions are correct.

So I take it you're not going to answer my question then.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
If you don't believe it is limited to the elect and if you don't believe it is limited to those who believe of their own free choice, then what in the world do you believe??

Yelsew, I was wondering the same thing. I didn't know there was another option.

If Christ atoned for the sins of everyman then it would be unjust for God to punish men for sins that have already been atoned for. It would be like our judicial system sentencing two different people to death for the same crime. Jesus paid for it once and then an unbeliever pays for it again? That doesn't make sense. Please explain.

With Respect,
Bill

 

[Yelsew]

What in the world do you believe then?? If you don't believe it is limited to the elect and if you don't believe it is limited to those who believe of their own free choice, then what in the world do you believe??

I believe that Atonement is God providing the propitiation for the sins of the world (mankind). The atonement is the sacrificial shedding of blood of "the perfect Lamb of God", done once for all mankind by God. It is a gift given to mankind while God's Grace prevails for all mankind. It is while Grace prevails that man is able to hear the Gospel, and believe in Jesus unto salvation. Hence "for by grace are ye saved through faith, and not of yourselves is it a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast". The Atonement is not dependent upon man, therefore man cannot limit Atonement.

Now then, It is up to man to believe. For the man that does not believe, atonement has no value, because he does not believe on the perfect lamb of God who atoned for the mans sins. Atonement does not save man!

For the man that does believe in Jesus, Atonement provides justification before the throne of God. Justification that the sins of the man have already been paid for by "the blood of perfect Lamb of God". Thus there is nothing owed by the man. The slate for the believer is clean, and sins are atoned for.

There is nothing in Christ's atonement that man has any control over, PERIOD! Atonement is a done deal. Man's acceptance or rejection has no bearing on atonement whatever.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So if Christ's atonement actually atoned for sin's and man's rejection doesn't matter, then on what basis does a just God send people to hell for sins that are already atoned for??

 

[Yelsew]

You should know this already but since you asked the one and only thing man can do regarding salvation and not being sent to hell is BELIEVING ON THE LORD JESUS, THE SON OF GOD, THE MESSIAH!

That's right, an individual's belief in Jesus the Son of God, the messiah is what makes the difference between the individual being welcomed in heaven or being sent to hell!

 

[npetreley]

Emphasis mine:

15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

He's talking about more than just the sin of unbelief, yet he keeps saying it results in death...

 

[William C]

Oh, I think I see what you are getting at Yelsew. You're saying that Christ died for all sins except for the "unpardonable" sin. Which is blasphmy of the Holy Spirit. Or as some scholars teach the ignoring or turing away of the Holy Spirit's call. Which would ultimately be the sin of "unbelief." Right?

That would definiately make a sin unpardonable if Christ never atoned for it.

I've never really thought of it that way before, but I'll do some reading on it.

Thanks,
Bill

 

[Yelsew]

Unbelief is the fatal sin. Unbelief prevents one from seeking forgiveness. Who would the unbeliever seek forgiveness from?

You seem to overlook the oft repeated "you have been set free". Paul is teaching, "there is no reason to continue in the slavery from which one has been set free", and that to do so would lead one to fall away into death.

To be effective, belief in Jesus must cause one to want to "join the team" and to "walk as Jesus walked", repenting from the sinful lifestyle.

If one chooses to continue in sin, regardless of a professed belief, one will eventually revert to unbeliever. forsaking the faith. I have witnessed this happen to Pastors and new converts alike. I have worked with people who when we first met were truly "high" on their belief in Jesus, but who because they were not repentent in the face of conviction for sins they committed soon died on the vine. Many of you have witnessed similar things happen, some in your congregations.

 

[William C]

Yelsew, I'm not disageeing with you as much as I'm trying to understand.

Do you consider the "unpardonable sin" spoken of in scripture as being the sin of unbelief?

And do you think that someone's reverting back to sin, like the pastors and other believers you mentioned, are doing kinda like what the Israelites did when they rebelled against God?

Could those who continue in sin be "cut off" as Roman 11 warns us could happen? Could they be "hardened" in a sense by continually allowing sin to reign in their bodies?

Again, I'm not arguing, just seeking to understand your views.

Thanks,
Bill

 

[Yelsew]

Oh, I think I see what you are getting at Yelsew. You're saying that Christ died for all sins except for the "unpardonable" sin. Which is blasphmy of the Holy Spirit. Or as some scholars teach the ignoring or turing away of the Holy Spirit's call. Which would ultimately be the sin of "unbelief." Right?

That would definiately make a sin unpardonable if Christ never atoned for it.

I've never really thought of it that way before, but I'll do some reading on it.

Bro Bill, I do not say it exactly as you did, but the reality is that Atonement is for the "sins of the world". Atonement is something that man has no power over, and can do nothing about.

In Noah's day, there was no atonement, and the sins of the world did not go unpunished. All but 8 humans perished in the flood. The population of the world perished in their sins. Nothing similar has happened in recorded history since that event, and the promise is that water will not be used again to destroy mankind.

Yelsew, I'm not disageeing with you as much as I'm trying to understand.

Do you consider the "unpardonable sin" spoken of in scripture as being the sin of unbelief?

And do you think that someone's reverting back to sin, like the pastors and other believers you mentioned, are doing kinda like what the Israelites did when they rebelled against God?

Could those who continue in sin be "cut off" as Roman 11 warns us could happen? Could they be "hardened" in a sense by continually allowing sin to reign in their bodies?

Again, I'm not arguing, just seeking to understand your views.

If one does not believe in the ONLY Son of God, how is it possible to be saved by God? Unbelief is rejection of the Holy Spirit's message and conviction of the human condition. If one rejects the message, is one not also rejecting the messenger? If one rejects the messenger how can one get any other messages? This is not what I refer to as passive rejection, but it is active rejection. Like that of the infidel Voltaire. Passive rejection is ignoring the knocking at the door until it stops. This form of rejection is not the same as the active rejection.

As for Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, it is denial that the Holy Spirit exists. If one denies the existence of the Holy Spirit, there is no way for the one to be saved, and sin wins!....at least for that one.

If one comes to belief in Jesus. yet doesn't break with sin, what evidence is there that one believes? Paul teaches that by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Bill,

I think we have stumbled upon something that would fit into your theology.

I believe the unpardonable sin was one particularly speaking of Israel. Does scripture say the unpardonable sin is 'rejecting the Holy Spirit?' Or is it rather attributing the work of the Spirit to 'Beezebulb?'

I beleive the later, as is the case with the Pharisees whom Jesus is addressing. Remember, Jesus came to his own, nationally offered himself as King, they rejected Him. In truth they rejected the Trinity didn't they?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Bro. Bill,

I think we have stumbled upon something that would fit into your theology.

I believe the unpardonable sin was one particularly speaking of Israel. Does scripture say the unpardonable sin is 'rejecting the Holy Spirit?' Or is it rather attributing the work of the Spirit to 'Beezebulb?'

I beleive the later, as is the case with the Pharisees whom Jesus is addressing. Remember, Jesus came to his own, nationally offered himself as King, they rejected Him. In truth they rejected the Trinity didn't they?

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

Nice theory, but the unpardonable sin is one that each individual human being is capable of doing, and not as you indicate a single or group or nationalistic sin that many did simultaneously.

Yes, If one attributes the work of the Holy Spirit to an unholy spirit, that is the same as rejecting the Holy Spirit!

 

[Frogman]

Surprise!! I agree with you Yelsew. At least somewhat. I do believe that others beside the Jews were capable of committing the unpardonable sin. But none of the elect are able to do so. Not even of the Jews.

I was merely stating fact of Scripture that this particular sin was addressed to the Pharisees, and no where, to my knowledge to Gentiles, not to mention it's absence among believers.

I think then it was predominantly a sin of Israel.

John 15.22-25: "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, they hated me wihout a cause."

These words are addressed to Israel, because it is in fulfillment of that which is written in the Law of Israel.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

10-4 good buddy! But I would not hasten to attribute the unforgiveable sin only to the Jews. Any one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit suffers the same fate.

 

[William C]

Dallas,

I see your point. But I believe that the Gentiles will suffer the same fate as Israel does if they follow their example.

Look at Romans 11:21:
"For if God did not spare the natural branches [Israel], he will not spare you [Gentiles] either."

Gentiles who contiually reject the calling of the HS through the gospel will eventually be hardened just as the Jews were.

So too, if the Gentiles reject the HS or blaspheme HS they will suffer the same fate as the Jews.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Bill