We Do Not Limit Atonement!

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Let's see if I can't put this question in terms that we can all understand.

There are two ways of loking at the extent of the atonement. One is to look at the question of whom it is INTENDED to be effective for. The other is to simply look at it in terms of who it actually saves.

You must first prove that atonement equals salvation, and you have not! Therefore your premise is faulty from the start!

So that leaves us with 4 options:

1) Believe that the Atonement is limited in its intent and in terms of the number of people it saves.

2) Believe that the Atonement is intended for all, but that only some get saved through it.

3) Believe that the intent of the atonement is universal and so is its effect.

Now, only universalists beleive 3). Universalists may be Calvnaist or arminian.

Arminians tend top believe 2) So do many Calvanists.

The other Calvanists beleive in 1) .

Now Yelsew, which do you believe? [/QB]

NONE OF THE ABOVE! First Atonement is not salvation, yet you equate it to salvation. A fallacious doctrinal error! Second, you left out option 4 which I shall add:
4) Believe that atonement is for all mankind but only believers in Jesus Christ avail themselves of it, because believers in Jesus Christ are the ones who do not face the second death because of it. Their Salvation is due to their belief in Jesus, and not His atonement for the sins of the world.

If you would exert the energy in reading your bible that you do in typing on this BBS you would know the truth, and it would set you free.

 

[Bible-belted]

Roamnbear,

The Bible is clear that is the elect who comprise the "any man" who comes. This is a very shallow argument often refuted.

Bro. Bill,

Nice to know we can agree on somthing.

Now just a clarification. (3) also supports (2).

4 point calvanism is also a internally consistent in its logic.

I think since Calvanists can also speak of unlimited atonement to make the issue rise and fall on limited atonement is fruitless.

BTW, the case HAS been made fro ttoal inability, your sloth in seeing it notwithstanding.

Yelsew,

You must first prove that atonement equals salvation, and you have not! Therefore your premise is faulty from the start!

My presentation allows for both possibilities. The flaw is only in your head.

Your supposed option for is really option 3.

Read it with a fair mind and you'll see.

 

[romanbear]

Biblebelted;
A quote from you;
--------------------------------------------
Roamnbear,

The Bible is clear that is the elect who comprise the "any man" who comes. This is a very shallow argument often refuted.
-------------------------------------------
Then prove it. Don't you have a scripture that says so.It's your argument that is shallow
Romanbear

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Roamnbear,

The Bible is clear that is the elect who comprise the "any man" who comes. This is a very shallow argument often refuted.

Bro. Bill,

Nice to know we can agree on somthing.

Now just a clarification. (3) also supports (2).

4 point calvanism is also a internally consistent in its logic.

I think since Calvanists can also speak of unlimited atonement to make the issue rise and fall on limited atonement is fruitless.

BTW, the case HAS been made fro ttoal inability, your sloth in seeing it notwithstanding.

Yelsew,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You must first prove that atonement equals salvation, and you have not! Therefore your premise is faulty from the start!

My presentation allows for both possibilities. The flaw is only in your head.

Your supposed option for is really option 3.

Read it with a fair mind and you'll see. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not accept your pigeonhole attempts, they are fallacious and disingenuous.


Two possibilities do not exist. Atonement has but one purpose and that is payment in full for what is being atoned. Scriptures clearly state that Jesus death on the cross and the shedding of his blood onto the earth, is for the atonement of sins of the world, a once-for-all sacrifice in the same manner that the Old Testament sacrifices were made to atone for the sins of the one bringing the sacrificial animal to be slaughtered.

Just as in the Old Testament, there is no salvation in sacrifice, there is no salvation in the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross! Just as in the Old Testament, it is individual faith in God that saves, in the New testament it is individual faith in Jesus that saves. I challenge you, prove me Wrong!

 

[Bible-belted]

Romanbear,

As I aid, the argument has often been refuted. Your persistnece in puting forth the argument anyway tells me that, making the charitab;e assumption that oyu understand the refutation, you merely are stubborn in refusing to accept correction.

There is no point in reproducing the proofs therefore; you won't accept them.

No doubt you will go of on some little tirade about hw this rpoves there is no answer blah blah. That is simply another shallow response.

Hopefull you will prove me wrong.

I doubt it.

Yelsew,

If you don't want to be fairmindded, that's your affair.

The presentation Igavce you is logical and accurate. There are only two places in which to limit the atonement. From God's end and from ours.

God's end speaks to intent. Either God intends the atonement for all or only a few. That is, either God decreed that the Cross CAN BE effective for all humanity or only the elect, by its very intent.

Our end speaks to effect. What is the actual impact of the atonement? It either saves everyone or it doesn't.

Now you are not, by your own admision, a universalist. That means you limit the atonement from our end. It also dedicates you to the idea that the atonement is unlimited from God's end.

That is precisely my option three.

You want to ignore that, then fine. You DO limit the atonement. We all know it. Your refusal to admit it is of no consequence.

 

[William C]

I think since Calvanists can also speak of unlimited atonement to make the issue rise and fall on limited atonement is fruitless.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. This is the point I was agreeing with you about.

Calvinism is not dependant on "Limited Atonement," which is why I always get frustrated when the debate goes there.

I was trying to point out that the other four points rest on "Total Inability" which IMO has no scriptural foundation.

Rom. 8:5-8 and Eph. 2 are the only proof text that have been offered as support for "Total Inability."

Eph. 2 : Calvinist must assume the word "dead" means "totally unable to respond to the call of the gospel by faiht," which is a big leap to take especially in light of the fact Paul uses the word "dead" in Rom. 6:2 in order to discribe beleivers condition to sin, yet we are not "totally unable" to sin, are we?

Rom. 8:5-8 : This passage speaks of man's inablity to submit to the law and his inability to please God in the sin nature, but nothing is said about how one recieves the Spirit. Nor is anything mentioned about man's ability to have faith or respond to the gospel's calling. That is all supplied for us by the Calvinistic dogma.

Don't yall have anything with more substance to back up the FOUNDATION for your entire system????

 

[Yelsew]

Yelsew,

If you don't want to be fairmindded, that's your affair.

You say, "fairminded", but it comes across as "feableminded", which I am not.

The presentation I gave you is logical and accurate. There are only two places in which to limit the atonement. From God's end and from ours.

TOTALLY FALSE! There is no way whatsoever that man can limit atonement! Atonement is not under the control of man and never has been from before the foundation of the world. Atonement is what God did for man. Unless God alters Atonement, which He will not do, because atonement was completed in the Death of His only begotten son on the cross, there can be no limitations placed on it.

God's end speaks to intent. Either God intends the atonement for all or only a few. That is, either God decreed that the Cross CAN BE effective for all humanity or only the elect, by its very intent.

AGAIN TOTALLY FALSE! God said that His "Intent" for sending His only son to die on the cross is for the atonement of the sins of the world. You cannot get more complete and total than that! Since Atonement is a finished event, there is no limiting it.

Our end speaks to effect. What is the actual impact of the atonement? It either saves everyone or it doesn't.

AGAIN TOTALLY WRONG! We don't have an end, and never did have an end in Atonement. Atonement is a UNILATERAL act of God that benefits mankind. There is no Salvation in Atonement! Therefore no man can be saved by atonement!

Now you are not, by your own admision, a universalist. That means you limit the atonement from our end. It also dedicates you to the idea that the atonement is unlimited from God's end.

NO, that means that I am not susceptible to your lies, false doctrines, and phony accusations. And Since I am a finite man, there is no way that I can limit an act of Infinite God...neither can you!

That is precisely my option three.

You want to ignore that, then fine. You DO limit the atonement. We all know it. Your refusal to admit it is of no consequence.

You have not proven your case, nor have you proven that atonement is susceptible to manipulation by man. You have not given one example of a man being able to manipulate God's atonement for man's sins. If you can prove either, we may have cause for discussion of your proof. Until you do prove either your case or that atonement is manipulable by man, all you are capable of doing is spewing your false doctrine.

 

[Bible-belted]

Yelsew,

When you have a clue, call me.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Bible-belted:
Yelsew,

When you have a clue, call me.

When you have proof, call me!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Eph. 2 : Calvinist must assume the word "dead" means "totally unable to respond to the call of the gospel by faith"

I'll make you a deal, Brother Bill. Whenever you can show me a dead corpse rise out of a coffin by its own power I will cease to be a Calvinist and will admit that you are right.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Eph. 2 : Calvinist must assume the word "dead" means "totally unable to respond to the call of the gospel by faith"

I'll make you a deal, Brother Bill. Whenever you can show me a dead corpse rise out of a coffin by its own power I will cease to be a Calvinist and will admit that you are right.

</font>[/QUOTE]How about Lazarus. Jesus called him, gave him the ability to come out and he, by his ability got up and walked out. I don't deny God gave him the ability, but I also don't deny that God gives us the ability to believe as well.

Show me where the call of the Spirit through the gospel wouldn't have the power to enable anyone to be spiritually awakened through faith in what they hear.

GOD NEVER CALLS SOMEONE TO DO THAT WHICH HE HAS NOT MADE POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO DO.

 

[Yelsew]

Wow, Bro. Bill you won another convert from Calvinism! Welcome Ken.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
How about Lazarus.

Could Lazarus not have come out of the tomb? Can you imagine Lazarus hearing the voice of Jesus and being filled with power to come forth just laying there in the tomb and thinking, "Nah, I'll just stay here."?

What a silly argument, Brother Bill, what a silly argument. Your case was in bad shape from the moment you started posting in this forum and it is getting weaker post by post.

But, please keep posting. You may eventually become a Calvinist once you realize the basis for your Arminianism is terribly flawed.

 

[Bible-belted]

Yelsew,

The proof has often been given. Your denials do not alter reality.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
How about Lazarus.

Could Lazarus not have come out of the tomb? Can you imagine Lazarus hearing the voice of Jesus and being filled with power to come forth just laying there in the tomb and thinking, "Nah, I'll just stay here."?

What a silly argument, Brother Bill, what a silly argument. Your case was in bad shape from the moment you started posting in this forum and it is getting weaker post by post.

But, please keep posting. You may eventually become a Calvinist once you realize the basis for your Arminianism is terribly flawed.

</font>[/QUOTE]You made the challenge Ken, you stated what you would do if the condition you stipulated was met, now you are backing out on what you committed to? Ho hum!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
you stated what you would do if the condition you stipulated was met, now you are backing out on what you committed to? Ho hum!

Yelsew, you are incorrigible.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
How about Lazarus.

Could Lazarus not have come out of the tomb? Can you imagine Lazarus hearing the voice of Jesus and being filled with power to come forth just laying there in the tomb and thinking, "Nah, I'll just stay here."?

What a silly argument, Brother Bill, what a silly argument. Your case was in bad shape from the moment you started posting in this forum and it is getting weaker post by post.

But, please keep posting. You may eventually become a Calvinist once you realize the basis for your Arminianism is terribly flawed.

</font>[/QUOTE]Why is that so silly? I know people who do this all the time spiritually. They see the things of God and even understand them enough to have deep theological discussions with you but refuse to come out of their graves. They think the grave is fun and they refuse to come out. They are hardened to the things of God and they don't want to come out. God gave them the ability to come when they heard the message, but they refused to obey his call. This is not silly at all, this is the reality that I see from those who continually refuse the things of God on a daily basis.

What is silly is denying that this exists in our world!

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Ken H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yelsew:
you stated what you would do if the condition you stipulated was met, now you are backing out on what you committed to? Ho hum!

Yelsew, you are incorrigible. </font>[/QUOTE]What is incorrigible is making challenges with promises you have no intention of fulfilling.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Why is that so silly?

You tried to make your point using the physical resurrection of Lazarus. He did not raise himself by his own power from the dead.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
What is incorrigible is making challenges with promises you have no intention of fulfilling.

Prove to me where the challenge has been met. Did Lazarus raise himself from the dead by his own power? I do hope you know that he did not.