The Gross Error of Limited Atonement

[Johnny_B]

have u heard of the elect in Christ theory? some say that in ephesians where it reads that we were predestined in Christ it means the body of Christ was predestined and when people enter into that, they are then elect.

kinda like old testament u had ruth enter into israel as a gentile. israel was called God's elect.

i think that makes sense.

but i must also be honest with u guys here and say when i first read ephesians i didnt read it that way. i read it to say that we were predestined to be saved. in fairness to u guys is how i read it

Here is something to think about, when you hear presideny elect, do you think he placed himself as president and became elect when he did that?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Augustine was teaching the same thing a thousand years earlier. The attitude of "Calvin invented it" is just so common place its sad.

Yes, Calvinism is essentially Augustinianism, since Calvin came out of the RCC but failed to question the interpretations of Augustine (and neither did Luther). Now that Five Point Calvinism is entrenched in Reformed Theology, that's the way it is. But those who hold to these false beliefs refuse to give them up even after they see Scriptures which refute and repudiate this nonsense. Interestingly enough, the RCC calls Calvinism heresies.

 

[vic1980]

Yes, Calvinism is essentially Augustinianism, since Calvin came out of the RCC but failed to question the interpretations of Augustine (and neither did Luther). Now that Five Point Calvinism is entrenched in Reformed Theology, that's the way it is. But those who hold to these false beliefs refuse to give them up even after they see Scriptures which refute and repudiate this nonsense. Interestingly enough, the RCC calls Calvinism heresies.

Due that Calvin protested the RCC and help push against popery , the followers are consider heritics according to RCC council of trent document. Just as we are consider heritics due to there canon laws that uphold popery as a god .

 

[ColoradoGal]

Limited atonement is utter cruelty. The more I learn about Calvinism, the more I dislike it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Limited atonement is utter cruelty. The more I learn about Calvinism, the more I dislike it.

Saving a multitude of rebellious God-hating ppl from their sins is cruel? That's a new one to me.

 

[Rokurac]

Limited atonement is utter cruelty. The more I learn about Calvinism, the more I dislike it.

I feel. I dislike.

I dont like it, thats why its not true!

Remember the love that was in display when David numbered the people? 2 Samuel 24:1-17 check that out. Is that true?

If you wanna say that limited atonement is not true, just provide the scriptural evidence.

 

[Nehemiah6]

If you wanna say that limited atonement is not true, just provide the scriptural evidence.

It has already been provided and ignored. John 3:16 and 17 should really suffice since they are the very words of Christ.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

And here is how the Calvinist reads it:
For God so loved the ELECT, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the ELECT; but that the ELECT through him might be saved.

Is that not called tampering with the text (Q)

 

[trofimus]

It has already been provided and ignored. John 3:16 and 17 should really suffice since they are the very words of Christ.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

And here is how the Calvinist reads it:
For God so loved the ELECT, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the ELECT; but that the ELECT through him might be saved.

Is that not called tampering with the text (Q)

And here is how arminians read it:

For God so loved the UNBELIEVERS, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the UNBELIEVERS to condemn the UNBELIEVERS; but that the UNBELIEVERS through him might be saved.

 

[Nehemiah6]

And here is how arminians read it:

For God so loved the UNBELIEVERS, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the UNBELIEVERS to condemn the UNBELIEVERS; but that the UNBELIEVERS through him might be saved.

Since the world is full of unbelievers until they are saved, what's you point? Were you not an unbeliever before you were saved?

 

[Acarpenter]

"Re: The Gross Error of Limited Atonement Quote Originally Posted by trofimus View Post Well, first, if you want to refer about the limited atonement, you should refer to its definition in official documents, not to put together "famous preachers" sayings. Second, I am not sure why, if this one point is wrong, other points must fall apart completely. You did not prove it by anything. Third, the ultimate authority for Christians is not the Bible, but God. (I know its hard for you, the KJV Only, to accept). Fourth, your attack on the limited atonement stands on various verses using the word "all" or "world", which is nothing new and Calvinists have very good responses to that. uh 'scuse me there, but does God appear to you and tell you all about Himself apart from the Bible? when someone makes a Bible translation of equal import as the original and inspired writers, it truly boggles the mind as to how they can then continue to say that the Bible is not the final authority; God is file under: contradiction why oh why is a debate in here referred to as an attack? this is a discussion forum. people will disagree. so childish" --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHY OH WHY IS A DEBATE IN HERE REFERRED TO AS AN ATTACK? I share your dismay. It's because it's human nature to do so. I have learned through hard experience that when I offer something contrary to another person's preconceptions, they often feel attacked. It's now a well known fact in psychology, and it must become well known in Christianity.

 

[preacher4truth]

Limited atonement is utter cruelty. The more I learn about Calvinism, the more I dislike it.

So God is obligated to die for everyone's sin and give all persons a chance or he's not fair? More Romans 9:20 absurdity.

God doesn't succumb to your ideal of fairness and you really don't want his fairness, dear.

The more I learn about your idea of how God should be in your non-biblical theory the more I dislike it, and the more I read scripture the more glaring your errors appear.

 

[Nehemiah6]

"Re: The Gross Error of Limited Atonement Quote Originally Posted by trofimus View Post Well, first, if you want to refer about the limited atonement, you should refer to its definition in official documents, not to put together "famous preachers" sayings.

It really does not matter, but here is what is stated in the Westminster confession of Faith where unconditional election (U) is tied in with limited atonement (L) in TULIP.

CALVINISTIC ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter III

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

CALVINISTIC LIMITED ATONEMENT
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VIII

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

Of course, if you simply dismiss all the Scriptures provided, then "you did not prove anything". But when you stand before God and give account, He will ask you if you took His Word to heart, or simply dismissed it as irrelevant.

Now regarding the question of whether if one domino falls, will all the rest also fall with it, the answer should be obvious. If Christ did indeed die for the sins of the whole world [as Scripture clearly states], and if all men are indeed commanded to repent and believe the Gospel [as Scripture also clearly states], then there can be no such thing as "limited atonement" (L) "unconditional election" (U) or "irresistible grace" (I). And if all sinners can respond to the Gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit, then there can be no such thing as Calvinistic "total depravity" (T). As to the "perseverance of the saints" (P) there is no such term in Scripture. The saints are "kept by the power of God".

 

[7seasrekeyed]

And here is how arminians read it:

For God so loved the UNBELIEVERS, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the UNBELIEVERS to condemn the UNBELIEVERS; but that the UNBELIEVERS through him might be saved.

of course God loved the unbelievers who were dead in their trespasses and sin

what incredible twisting of the text

who on earth do you think Jesus came to save?

don't bother with a label, because many outside of Calvinism do not see the need of one other than Christian

Christian as in saved by the blood of Christ

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I feel. I dislike.

I dont like it, thats why its not true!

Remember the love that was in display when David numbered the people? 2 Samuel 24:1-17 check that out. Is that true?

If you wanna say that limited atonement is not true, just provide the scriptural evidence.

actually, I have to agree with her. and the title of this op

you don't have to like it and we don't have to like your posturing and mockery

but let me help you with your reading skills. she said the more she LEARNED about Calvinism, the more she disliked it

Originally Posted by ColoradoGal

Limited atonement is utter cruelty. The more I learn about Calvinism, the more I dislike it

apparently, she is arriving at a greater dislike the more she LEARNS

gotta say that makes sense

 

[valiant]

actually, I have to agree with her. and the title of this op

you don't have to like it and we don't have to like your posturing and mockery

but let me help you with your reading skills. she said the more she LEARNED about Calvinism, the more she disliked it




apparently, she is arriving at a greater dislike the more she LEARNS

gotta say that makes sense

But who does she learn it from? Someone who twists is? Thats the question.

 

[valiant]

Originally Posted by Snoozy

have u heard of the elect in Christ theory? some say that in ephesians where it reads that we were predestined in Christ it means the body of Christ was predestined and when people enter into that, they are then elect.

kinda like old testament u had ruth enter into israel as a gentile. israel was called God's elect.

i think that makes sense.

but i must also be honest with u guys here and say when i first read ephesians i didnt read it that way. i read it to say that we were predestined to be saved. in fairness to u guys is how i read it

If the passage is read as a whole Paul is clearly saying that the people he is writing to (Christians) are chosen. The other is a theological get out.

 

[valiant]

It really does not matter, but here is what is stated in the Westminster confession of Faith where unconditional election (U) is tied in with limited atonement (L) in TULIP.

CALVINISTIC ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter III

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

The highlighted bit is correct. ALL men were doomed to eternal death through Adam, but some are chosen out of it.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

AMEN

CALVINISTIC LIMITED ATONEMENT
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VIII

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

So Jesus was a calvinist? lol

Now regarding the question of whether if one domino falls, will all the rest also fall with it, the answer should be obvious. If Christ did indeed die for the sins of the whole world [as Scripture clearly states], and if all men are indeed commanded to repent and believe the Gospel [as Scripture also clearly states], then there can be no such thing as "limited atonement" (L) "unconditional election" (U) or "irresistible grace" (I).

Nonsense. Being commanded and doing it are two very different things.

And if all sinners can respond to the Gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit,

But they can't. Many blaspheme the Spirit,

then there can be no such thing as Calvinistic "total depravity" (T).

Do you not believe that every part of us is tainted with sin before coming to Christ,? That is what total depravity means

As to the "perseverance of the saints" (P) there is no such term in Scripture. The saints are "kept by the power of God".

what is the difference?. God never fails,

 

[Iconoclast]

=Nehemiah6;

Deliberate MISINTERPRETATION in order to accommodate false doctrine.

Actually that is what the text really says. You cannot understand it...so I am somehow wrong? I see.

However, this one Scripture (Acts 17:30) totally demolishes your interpretation.

Not at all...I believe all thescriptures...I like Acts 17:30

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Now are you going to twist this into a pretzel, or are you honestly going to back off from your false interpretation?

I believe this verse...it does not change my view at all...I use this verse all the time.

 

[Iconoclast]

Nehemiah6

This is a very apt description of those who cling to the man-made doctrines of Calvinism, which actually came from a Catholic bishop -- Augustine.

This is a lame response...any more lame, and your friends will cut a hole in the roof and lower you in for a healing

 

[Grandpa]

actually, I have to agree with her. and the title of this op

you don't have to like it and we don't have to like your posturing and mockery

but let me help you with your reading skills. she said the more she LEARNED about Calvinism, the more she disliked it




apparently, she is arriving at a greater dislike the more she LEARNS

gotta say that makes sense

1 Corinthians 1:19-29
[FONT=&quot]19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.


[/FONT]