What does "The Limited Atonement" actually proclaim? What are the Scriptural Proofs?

[Martin Marprelate]

The bible is clear that Christ was the ransom for all. Don't you believe that? Did the Holy Spirit get it wrong?

I think I asked the question first, so you answer mine and then I'll answer yours.

Why is it that calvinists have such a hard time understanding scripture or is it that you just have to twist it all to make it fit your theology?
Christ has provided the means of salvation to all but man still has to freely trust in Him before they are saved by God.

But that's not what your text says, is it? It says that God is the Saviour of all men? If you don't believe it, why bring the text up?

There you go twisting scripture again. What does the bible say? Do you not believe it?

Of course salvation is limited, if you do not believe then while the atonement was universal {Rom_6:10, 1Jn 2:2} salvation is not. {Joh 3:16}

Christ death made atonement for all of humanities sins but each person has to humble themselves and trust in God for their salvation.

Thank you. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? We both believe that salvation is limited. The difference between us is that you don't believe that God loves anyone enough to save him, whereas I do. You believe that men save themselves by believing, whereas I believe that God saves them (Matthew 1:5).

Were those believers at one time lost sinners? Of course they were, so Christ died for them just as He died for you and I and all sinners. It is the false theology of calvinists that want to limit what Christ did by denying clear scripture. So when I say someone does not believe the bible it is because they do just that when they deny what the Holy Spirit inspired.

[/QUOTE]
What you mean is that anyone who does not believe what YOU want the Bible to mean is lost, which is, I think, against the rules of the board

Did I say that "all" had to always mean every single person, NO. But then again I do not alter the meaning of "all" to mean "elect" as some are want to do.

Your accusation rings rather hollow when you are the one that has chosen to deny clear scripture

I do not suggest that 'all' is synonomous with 'elect.' The meaning of any word is dependent on the context. If Christ is the ransom for all, meaning every person who ever lived, then all those people are ransomed, which we both know is not the case. Therefore it must mean that He ransomed all kinds of people: rich and poor, 'wise' and foolish, male and female, black and white and so forth. But He ransomed them! He didn't offer to ransom them. He paid the price for their redemption, and
'Payment God cannot twice demand;
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.'

It is a definite redemption. All of Him, none of me! Praise the Lord!

 

[Brightfame52]

No place in the word of God is grace associated with limited atonement..

In your mind that may be true

 

[DaveXR650]

Arminianism teaches and hold though that God common graces all sinners equally, so that they can chose to exercise the free wills to receive that offered salvation, but that presupposes though that being spiritually dead on their sins, we still have the ability to somehow freely chose to received Jesus to save us.

Arminianism is a spectrum, like Calvinism or Autism. Even today, non-Calvinism ranges from the idea that man in his natural state has the ability to choose to come to Christ to the idea that man must be awakened and convicted yet still has the ability to reject this grace. If you read Arminius himself, or Helwys, the early General Baptist, you find this:

"But that man hath any free will or power in himself to work his own salvation or to choose life, we utterly deny...Thus Christ offering himself, man hath power and doth reject Christ, put the Word of God from him, resist the Holy Ghost, and freely, of his own will work his own condemnation. But he hath no power to work his own salvation, and so much only to clear ourselves from that gross and fearful error of free will, from the which the Lord in great mercy hath freed us". Thomas Helwys

So I think God gives grace in some measure to everyone who hears the gospel, but not equally to all. That would not be necessary because everyone is different, with different degrees of previous hardening. What is interesting is that some Calvinists claim something very similar in that the general call goes out to everyone and of course the effectual call is for the elect. But they insist that the general call is enough to leave those who reject it with real and actual guilt. That to me is somewhat of a play on words. Of course if a call results in salvation it is effectual. If it does not result in salvation it is not effectual. But if the difference is the call itself, and not in any way the fault of the one who receives the call then I don't see why a "general call" has any meaning. See the WCF.

 

[JesusFan]

Arminianism is a spectrum, like Calvinism or Autism. Even today, non-Calvinism ranges from the idea that man in his natural state has the ability to choose to come to Christ to the idea that man must be awakened and convicted yet still has the ability to reject this grace. If you read Arminius himself, or Helwys, the early General Baptist, you find this:

"But that man hath any free will or power in himself to work his own salvation or to choose life, we utterly deny...Thus Christ offering himself, man hath power and doth reject Christ, put the Word of God from him, resist the Holy Ghost, and freely, of his own will work his own condemnation. But he hath no power to work his own salvation, and so much only to clear ourselves from that gross and fearful error of free will, from the which the Lord in great mercy hath freed us". Thomas Helwys

So I think God gives grace in some measure to everyone who hears the gospel, but not equally to all. That would not be necessary because everyone is different, with different degrees of previous hardening. What is interesting is that some Calvinists claim something very similar in that the general call goes out to everyone and of course the effectual call is for the elect. But they insist that the general call is enough to leave those who reject it with real and actual guilt. That to me is somewhat of a play on words. Of course if a call results in salvation it is effectual. If it does not result in salvation it is not effectual. But if the difference is the call itself, and not in any way the fault of the one who receives the call then I don't see why a "general call" has any meaning. See the WCF.

The offer made to all lost sinners is real and legit, but those who reject it are condemned for choosing their own darkness over the light of Christ that came into the world

 

[JonC]

Arminianism teaches and hold though that God common graces all sinners equally, so that they can chose to exercise the free wills to receive that offered salvation, but that presupposes though that being spiritually dead on their sins, we still have the ability to somehow freely chose to received Jesus to save us.

Close, and probably right with "arminianism" (what Calvinists would call Arminianism today....which encompassespretty much anything not Calvinism). But Calvinism and Arminianism are real philosophies in their own right, without broadening their meanings.

Arminianism is based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius. At the time of his death his doctrine was considered to be within orthodox Calvinism. Just as Calvinists define their position on this issue through the Five Points (a response to the Remonstrance) Arminians define their position by the Five Articles.


The 3rd and 4th Articles of Arminianism addresses the point you are trying to make:

"That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing. . . . all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.

So men may resist, but they cannot of their will believe.

Calvinists simply misrepresent not resisting as self-salvation.


Note: I'm not arguing for Arminianism. I believe both Calvinism and Arminianism to be unbiblical.

 

[DaveXR650]

The offer made to all lost sinners is real and legit, but those who reject it are condemned for choosing their own darkness over the light of Christ that came into the world

The problem is that some people don't accept the logic that the offer is truly real and legit - if it is by definition different in itself from an effective offer. It doesn't have to be equal for all. The apostle Paul was blinded and spoke to, while Bill Smith may just hear the gospel preached and believe but if it is truly a real and legit offer it has to be such that God in his wisdom judges that the lack of response is truly blamable. And it is up to God. Someone who rejects the gospel does not have a right to claim that had they been blinded and spoken to they would have believed. But in some way it has to be true that a real and legit offer of the gospel has to be powerful enough that it should have resulted in belief were it not for the obstinance of the hearer. Not that God owes any such offer to us. He would be perfectly in his rights to give no offer to anyone and also he is perfectly within his rights to offer to some or all in any fashion he chooses. But the question is what does he indeed do. And a lot of people believe that he indeed gives real and legit calls to many people who it turns out refuse to come to Christ. There are scriptures which support that concept too. It is not blasphemy to say so.

In my opinion when I read the WCF or the London Baptist Confession 1689 I am satisfied with their efforts to explain all this and balance God's grace and his sovereignty. I think though they were in both cases trying to keep peace in a group of churches and not just do theology. As a result some of the statements on this subject are a little vague.

 

[Silverhair]

I think I asked the question first, so you answer mine and then I'll answer yours.

What did you miss when I said “The bible is clear that Christ was the ransom for all.”

Prayer is to made in for all men 1Ti_2:1-2 because;

1] salvation was intended for all, regardless of rank, station, race, or nationality 1Ti_2:3-4

2] there is one God and one Mediator for all 1Ti_2:5 not one for each group;

3] there is but one ransom for all “who gave himself a ransom for all.” 1Ti_2:6

Christ as our Mediator paid the penalty which God's law demanded, thereby rendering satisfaction. He gave himself as “a substitute-ransom” for all.

Is that clear enough for you?

But that's not what your text says, is it? It says that God is the Saviour of all men? If you don't believe it, why bring the text up?

So you still will not accept what the Holy Spirit has said. Why is that? Are you so committed to your calvinism that you hold it over the word of God?

1Jn 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

We see two thoughts pointed out in this verse

1] Jesus' sacrifice {Christ shed His blood}

2] the extent of this sacrifice {for the whole world}

Now you jump to the silly argument that if His sacrifice was for the whole world then all must be saved. Your wrong but that has never stopped a calvinist from making that claim.

Thank you. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? We both believe that salvation is limited. The difference between us is that you don't believe that God loves anyone enough to save him, whereas I do. You believe that men save themselves by believing, whereas I believe that God saves them (Matthew 1:5).

If you have read any of my posts you should be well aware that salvation is limited to those that freely trust in God for their salvation. God loves everyone so much that He desires that all come to repentance but you say He only loves a small group that He picked out before the foundation of the world and He has condemned the rest to hell.

I believe that man has to freely trust in God which is just what the bible says.

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Rom 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Eph 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

It does seem that you struggle with understanding these verses but they show that man has to believe in God before He will save them

What you mean is that anyone who does not believe what YOU want the Bible to mean is lost, which is, I think, against the rules of the board

You ignore the rest of my comment as it points out the error of your theology. Were those believers at one time lost sinners? Of course they were, so Christ died for them just as He died for you and I and all sinners.

Your calvinism has twisted the word of God so that God does not love His creation and really does not desire that all be saved.

Calvinists do not like it when the light of truth is shown on their false teachings. I will continue to trust the bible and you can continue to trust calvinism.

I do not suggest that 'all' is synonomous with 'elect.' The meaning of any word is dependent on the context. If Christ is the ransom for all, meaning every person who ever lived, then all those people are ransomed, which we both know is not the case. Therefore it must mean that He ransomed all kinds of people: rich and poor, 'wise' and foolish, male and female, black and white and so forth. But He ransomed them! He didn't offer to ransom them. He paid the price for their redemption, and
'Payment God cannot twice demand;
Once at my bleeding Surety's hand,
And then again from me.'

It is a definite redemption. All of Him, none of me! Praise the Lord!

You continue to ignore scripture and import your calvinism in to the text. You really should do a bit of study into the history of calvinist thought and see what the foundation of those view are.

 

[Brightfame52]

The offer made to all lost sinners is real and legit, but those who reject it are condemned for choosing their own darkness over the light of Christ that came into the world

What offer ? What's offered to a spiritually dead, lost , God hating sinner ?

 

[JesusFan]

What offer ? What's offered to a spiritually dead, lost , God hating sinner ?

The Gospel is legit offered to lost sinners, as I do not hold to hyper calvinism which states only given out to the very elect, as I do not know who those are

 

[JesusFan]

The problem is that some people don't accept the logic that the offer is truly real and legit - if it is by definition different in itself from an effective offer. It doesn't have to be equal for all. The apostle Paul was blinded and spoke to, while Bill Smith may just hear the gospel preached and believe but if it is truly a real and legit offer it has to be such that God in his wisdom judges that the lack of response is truly blamable. And it is up to God. Someone who rejects the gospel does not have a right to claim that had they been blinded and spoken to they would have believed. But in some way it has to be true that a real and legit offer of the gospel has to be powerful enough that it should have resulted in belief were it not for the obstinance of the hearer. Not that God owes any such offer to us. He would be perfectly in his rights to give no offer to anyone and also he is perfectly within his rights to offer to some or all in any fashion he chooses. But the question is what does he indeed do. And a lot of people believe that he indeed gives real and legit calls to many people who it turns out refuse to come to Christ. There are scriptures which support that concept too. It is not blasphemy to say so.

In my opinion when I read the WCF or the London Baptist Confession 1689 I am satisfied with their efforts to explain all this and balance God's grace and his sovereignty. I think though they were in both cases trying to keep peace in a group of churches and not just do theology. As a result some of the statements on this subject are a little vague.

If one holds to the gospel is to be given forth to just the elewct and not to all, that would be Hyper Calvinism

 

[David Lamb]

The bible is clear that Christ was the ransom for all. Don't you believe that? Did the Holy Spirit get it wrong?

Where does the bible teach that Christ was the ransom for all? Over and over, the Scriptures speak of particular or definite people who are saved. It never says that Christ paid the ransom for everybody without exception. Take that well-known verse John 3:16:

“"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)

It doesn't say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everybody should not perish but have everlasting life."

Why is it that calvinists have such a hard time understanding scripture or is it that you just have to twist it all to make it fit your theology?
Christ has provided the means of salvation to all but man still has to freely trust in Him before they are saved by God.

There you go twisting scripture again. What does the bible say? Do you not believe it?

Of course salvation is limited, if you do not believe then while the atonement was universal {Rom_6:10, 1Jn 2:2} salvation is not. {Joh 3:16}

Yes, it's limited to those who believe. But why do some believe and some not? Again, the bible is clear on this matter, it is because of God's grace, His undeserved favour. It isn't some kind of "reward" for believing. As for twisting Scripture, you mention Romans 6:10, which says:

“For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.” (Ro 6:10 NKJV)

The words "once for all" translate one Greek word ἐφάπαξ ephapax which I am told means "once", "all at once" or "once for all". That last is simply an emphatic way of saying "once." Indeed, some English translations translate it simply as "once," such as this in the Geneva Bible{


10 For in that he died, he died once to sin but in that he liveth, he liveth to God.

It doesn't mean that He died for everybody.

Christ death made atonement for all of humanities sins but each person has to humble themselves and trust in God for their salvation.


Were those believers at one time lost sinners? Of course they were, so Christ died for them just as He died for you and I and all sinners. It is the false theology of calvinists that want to limit what Christ did by denying clear scripture. So when I say someone does not believe the bible it is because they do just that when they deny what the Holy Spirit inspired.

Did I say that "all" had to always mean every single person, NO. But then again I do not alter the meaning of "all" to mean "elect" as some are want to do.

"Elect" is another word for "chosen", and both are used in the bible of those whom God saves.

“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,” (Eph 1:4 NKJV)

Your accusation rings rather hollow when you are the one that has chosen to deny clear scripture

It's a pity you choose to accuse people who disagree with you on this matter of "denying Scripture." Rather, we understand Scripture differently.

 

[David Lamb]

The Gospel is legit offered to lost sinners, as I do not hold to hyper calvinism which states only given out to the very elect, as I do not know who those are

I agree. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who definitely espoused Calvinism, was once asked why he preached the gospel to the elect and the non-elect indiscriminately. He replied, "If God had painted a yellow stripe up the backs of the elect, I'd go around London lifting up coats and preaching only to them. As He has not , I will simply preach the Gospel to all, and let God bring in His own."

 

[Brightfame52]

@JesusFan

The Gospel is legit offered to lost sinners,

No its not offered, but its preached to them, yet if they are lost sinners the Gospel preached to them is foolishness

18 For the preaching[not offering] of the cross is to them that perish[are lost] foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The Gospel preached only benefits spiritually them that are saved, to them its the power of God

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The bible is clear that Christ was the ransom for all. Don't you believe that? Did the Holy Spirit get it wrong?

If Christ is (not 'was') the ransom for all, then all are ransomed. But they're not, are they? The Holy Spirit gets nothing wrong. Christ died to ransom all kinds of people - rich and poor, male and female, Jew and Gentile etc. If 'all' here means that He is the ransom for every single person who ever lived, then God the Father must have rejected our Lord's ransom because it is plain that not all people are saved.

Why is it that calvinists have such a hard time understanding scripture or is it that you just have to twist it all to make it fit your theology?
Christ has provided the means of salvation to all but man still has to freely trust in Him before they are saved by God.

[/QUOTE]
It is you that are twisting Scripture to fit your own theology. Nowhere in Scripture is it said that Christ died to 'provide the means of salvation. Matthew 1:5 again: 'He shall save His people from their sins.' Not 'He shall provide the means of salvation' or 'he shall offer salvation. 'He shall save!' So who are His people? Those who were given to Him to save by the Father before the world began. "And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Every single one of those given to Christ by the Father will infallibly be saved (John 6:39; c.f. John 17:24). You will doubtless want to say that John 6:40 says something different, but it doesn't. "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." The ones whom the Father gave to the Son, and the ones who believe are one and the same. No one who trusts in Christ for redemption will be turned away (John 6:37), but no one will trust in Christ unless God opens his heart to do so.

There you go twisting scripture again. What does the bible say? Do you not believe it?

Of course salvation is limited, if you do not believe then while the atonement was universal {Rom_6:10, 1Jn 2:2} salvation is not. {Joh 3:16}

Christ death made atonement for all of humanities sins but each person has to humble themselves and trust in God for their salvation.

If that were so, then Christ's atonement would be a failure. He made atonement for all humanity's sins, but it didn't work.

Were those believers at one time lost sinners? Of course they were, so Christ died for them just as He died for you and I and all sinners. It is the false theology of calvinists that want to limit what Christ did by denying clear scripture. So when I say someone does not believe the bible it is because they do just that when they deny what the Holy Spirit inspired.

It is your theology that is incorrect (I won't be so gross as you and accuse you of 'false' theology). The Lord Jesus suffered and died for real people - not many wise, not many mighty, and certainly not those who are so clever that they can believe without God opening their hearts. The Gospel is 'the power of God unto salvation.' Your arguments deny its power by claiming that you didn't need it.

Your accusation rings rather hollow when you are the one that has chosen to deny clear scripture

Yeah, right! I've had enough of you and your accusations. You bring out the worst in me, and I'm not going to let you do it any more. You're on ignore