I do not understand what you mean by this; could you please clarify? Thank you 
PS: welcome to CC! I hope you enjoy your time with us
PS: welcome to CC! I hope you enjoy your time with us
The Gross Error of Limited Atonement
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
thanks for the welcome. I was just saying that your preference for using the term free will and my preference for using the term free choice are not a cause of division between us.
Nonsense.
Their sins were paid for no matter what they've done or will do: They're paid for (according to your misapplication of the atonement and Scripture).
No matter what you say, in your tradition, there is no way around it: Jesus paid for the sins of those in hell suffering for their sins, which have been paid in full. The Father accepted this payment, in full, through the work of his Son.
It's senseless on your part, and the intent is for you to hold onto tradition, not properly exegeted Scripture. I've been mistaken and where you are now in the past, but then came to terms with Scripture via proper understanding.
Their sins were paid for no matter what they've done or will do: They're paid for (according to your misapplication of the atonement and Scripture).
No matter what you say, in your tradition, there is no way around it: Jesus paid for the sins of those in hell suffering for their sins, which have been paid in full. The Father accepted this payment, in full, through the work of his Son.
It's senseless on your part, and the intent is for you to hold onto tradition, not properly exegeted Scripture. I've been mistaken and where you are now in the past, but then came to terms with Scripture via proper understanding.
Reading through this topic it is evident that the way people view atonement is different.
I think it would be of great help to define what one means by atonement, because I see many different views on it.
The reformed position is that if Christ died for you, its a done deal there is no way out of it. As to the requirement of repentance, yes but this is all part of the redemption process caused by God when He replaces the stony heart with a flesh heart.
The common position I believe is that Christ atoned for the sins of everyone, died for all, yet it is not applied to you until you exercise faith.
I hope I did not misrepresent either side in explaining how they feel the atonement works, or is.
I think it would be of great help to define what one means by atonement, because I see many different views on it.
The reformed position is that if Christ died for you, its a done deal there is no way out of it. As to the requirement of repentance, yes but this is all part of the redemption process caused by God when He replaces the stony heart with a flesh heart.
The common position I believe is that Christ atoned for the sins of everyone, died for all, yet it is not applied to you until you exercise faith.
I hope I did not misrepresent either side in explaining how they feel the atonement works, or is.
Not all men But as many as the father gave to the Son will come . He is the cause we are the affect. Theapostate Jews turned that upside down .taking away the understanding of God making the word of God without effect.
Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that "framed it", He had no understanding?
Salvation is limited to the I wills I hads.(cause and affect) Not according to the will of man natural man
But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.Eze 36:21
Why do despite to the Spirit of grace limiting it to our will?
Isaiah 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that "framed it", He had no understanding?
Salvation is limited to the I wills I hads.(cause and affect) Not according to the will of man natural man
But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went.Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.Eze 36:21
Why do despite to the Spirit of grace limiting it to our will?
True, but I do not prefer the term free will, but self will. It makes more sense to me and is also more Biblically correct in my view Out of the natural will of man comes the pride of life and rebellion toward God. It is self centered and not God centered
Out of the natural will of man comes the pride of life and rebellion toward God. It is self centered and not God centered
No switcheroo it was never about what the eyes see .We walk by faith the unseen.
It would seem you are trying to make the flesh of a Jew count for something. Even the Son of man replied His flesh profits for nothing. It's the pouring out of His unseen Spirit which alone could profit.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Some of the Jewish disciples were hoping their flesh could profit for something .They were offended and therefore they could not accept His gift of mercy and they walked away in unbelief .(no faith)
It would seem you are trying to make the flesh of a Jew count for something. Even the Son of man replied His flesh profits for nothing. It's the pouring out of His unseen Spirit which alone could profit.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Some of the Jewish disciples were hoping their flesh could profit for something .They were offended and therefore they could not accept His gift of mercy and they walked away in unbelief .(no faith)
Nonsense.
Their sins were paid for no matter what they've done or will do: They're paid for (according to your misapplication of the atonement and Scripture).
Their sins were paid for no matter what they've done or will do: They're paid for (according to your misapplication of the atonement and Scripture).
ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. . . Right?
But that atonement and reconciliation is applicable ONLY to those who believe . . . Right?
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto ALL and upon ALL them that believe . . . all with distinction, i.e. them that believeTo declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Did not God say that all who believe have everlasting life? Did not God say that the wrath of God abides on the one who does not believe?
There is nothing senseless on my part. In what scripture that I posted have I not properly exegeted scripture? And if I have misused scripture, show me, instead of just telling me that what I said is "senseless."
it is such a beautiful story, isn't it? the more so because it's true!
i mean, i'm trying to approach this from a logical perspective. (ha!)
Pharaoh certainly would have rejected such an idea; who can say what every Egyptian would have done?
(gotta wonder about the 'mixed multitude', though. what the reasons were, idk.)
my point was that if God has to be 'fair', by human standards, why not at least give the Egyptian people the opportunity? why only make a covenant with the children of Israel? (because, Abraham, i know, lol, but still, why him?)
ya know? i don't think i'd better try using logic anymore.
better leave that to Max; he's actually good at it!
i mean, i'm trying to approach this from a logical perspective. (ha!
)Pharaoh certainly would have rejected such an idea; who can say what every Egyptian would have done?
(gotta wonder about the 'mixed multitude', though. what the reasons were, idk.)
my point was that if God has to be 'fair', by human standards, why not at least give the Egyptian people the opportunity? why only make a covenant with the children of Israel? (because, Abraham, i know, lol, but still, why him?)
ya know? i don't think i'd better try using logic anymore.
better leave that to Max; he's actually good at it!
Nonsense.
Their sins were paid for no matter what they've done or will do: They're paid for (according to your misapplication of the atonement and Scripture).
No matter what you say, in your tradition, there is no way around it: Jesus paid for the sins of those in hell suffering for their sins, which have been paid in full. The Father accepted this payment, in full, through the work of his Son.
It's senseless on your part, and the intent is for you to hold onto tradition, not properly exegeted Scripture. I've been mistaken and where you are now in the past, but then came to terms with Scripture via proper understanding.
Their sins were paid for no matter what they've done or will do: They're paid for (according to your misapplication of the atonement and Scripture).
No matter what you say, in your tradition, there is no way around it: Jesus paid for the sins of those in hell suffering for their sins, which have been paid in full. The Father accepted this payment, in full, through the work of his Son.
It's senseless on your part, and the intent is for you to hold onto tradition, not properly exegeted Scripture. I've been mistaken and where you are now in the past, but then came to terms with Scripture via proper understanding.
The Calvinist will never see the magnitude of Gods grace. Magnitude of Gods grace even to those who will ultimately reject the Precious Lamb of God.
For the cause of Chrisst
Roger
it is such a beautiful story, isn't it? the more so because it's true!
i mean, i'm trying to approach this from a logical perspective. (ha!)
Pharaoh certainly would have rejected such an idea; who can say what every Egyptian would have done?
(gotta wonder about the 'mixed multitude', though. what the reasons were, idk.)
my point was that if God has to be 'fair', by human standards, why not at least give the Egyptian people the opportunity? why only make a covenant with the children of Israel? (because, Abraham, i know, lol, but still, why him?)
ya know? i don't think i'd better try using logic anymore.
better leave that to Max; he's actually good at it!
i mean, i'm trying to approach this from a logical perspective. (ha!
)Pharaoh certainly would have rejected such an idea; who can say what every Egyptian would have done?
(gotta wonder about the 'mixed multitude', though. what the reasons were, idk.)
my point was that if God has to be 'fair', by human standards, why not at least give the Egyptian people the opportunity? why only make a covenant with the children of Israel? (because, Abraham, i know, lol, but still, why him?)
ya know? i don't think i'd better try using logic anymore.
better leave that to Max; he's actually good at it!
[SUP]13 [/SUP]God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years. [SUP]14 [/SUP]But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions.
Those who deny Christ are already condemned, so free will is the option to make the right decision not the wrong one. If you're hanging off a cliff you're eventually going to die, its inevitable (you'll run out of strength), but if someone extends their hand to save you (think Jesus), you can with your free will choose to be saved. You really aren't choosing to die if you don't accept salvation (in the analogy), you're simply accepting your inevitable demise.
This means that salvation isn't an ultimatum of choice, but circumstance. It isn't "choose me or die", its "you're dying, choose me." So then we go to the Gospel, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the world.
1 John 2:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
If He is the propitiation for our sins, believers, and "not for ours only", then who else? "For the sins of the whole world", and if that be the case, and it is (according to scripture), then there is a means of applying that propitiation. God's desire is for all to be saved. However, what does scripture say?
John 3:17-19 King James Version (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Notice, "he hath not believed" which lays responsibility upon the world to believe in Christ, in order for Him to be their propitiation. In order for them to "turn in the check", as it were. This means that salvation is for all, but not all shall be saved. Just like oxygen is for all, but a man under water drowning cannot breath. He can't even swim, he needs a lifeguard. Jesus is the lifeguard in this analogy, He saves the man giving him oxygen, giving him life. The man has no power to save himself, his demise is inevitable, yet a lifeguard comes and if the man surrenders his will into the hands of his savior, he may live.
Jesus is the savior of the world, and the world may be saved if only they believe.
This means that salvation isn't an ultimatum of choice, but circumstance. It isn't "choose me or die", its "you're dying, choose me." So then we go to the Gospel, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the world.
1 John 2:2 King James Version (KJV)
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
If He is the propitiation for our sins, believers, and "not for ours only", then who else? "For the sins of the whole world", and if that be the case, and it is (according to scripture), then there is a means of applying that propitiation. God's desire is for all to be saved. However, what does scripture say?
John 3:17-19 King James Version (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Notice, "he hath not believed" which lays responsibility upon the world to believe in Christ, in order for Him to be their propitiation. In order for them to "turn in the check", as it were. This means that salvation is for all, but not all shall be saved. Just like oxygen is for all, but a man under water drowning cannot breath. He can't even swim, he needs a lifeguard. Jesus is the lifeguard in this analogy, He saves the man giving him oxygen, giving him life. The man has no power to save himself, his demise is inevitable, yet a lifeguard comes and if the man surrenders his will into the hands of his savior, he may live.
Jesus is the savior of the world, and the world may be saved if only they believe.
I find it disturbing that you fail to acknowledge the necessity of repentance and belief Such an omission also translates into a shocking lack of logic, as well as a failure to build doctrine line by line, precept upon precept.
Such an omission also translates into a shocking lack of logic, as well as a failure to build doctrine line by line, precept upon precept.
What I am driving out is that your stance on what the Christ is errorenous. Those who crucified Him were fulfilling the Father's will.
it is such a beautiful story, isn't it? the more so because it's true!
i mean, i'm trying to approach this from a logical perspective. (ha!)
Pharaoh certainly would have rejected such an idea; who can say what every Egyptian would have done?
(gotta wonder about the 'mixed multitude', though. what the reasons were, idk.)
my point was that if God has to be 'fair', by human standards, why not at least give the Egyptian people the opportunity? why only make a covenant with the children of Israel? (because, Abraham, i know, lol, but still, why him?)
ya know? i don't think i'd better try using logic anymore.
better leave that to Max; he's actually good at it!
i mean, i'm trying to approach this from a logical perspective. (ha!
)Pharaoh certainly would have rejected such an idea; who can say what every Egyptian would have done?
(gotta wonder about the 'mixed multitude', though. what the reasons were, idk.)
my point was that if God has to be 'fair', by human standards, why not at least give the Egyptian people the opportunity? why only make a covenant with the children of Israel? (because, Abraham, i know, lol, but still, why him?)
ya know? i don't think i'd better try using logic anymore.
better leave that to Max; he's actually good at it!
I recently watched the fifties classic, "The Ten Commandments." Anyways, why Abraham? Because he listened. He had faith. He believed. He even saw the day of Christ's coming, and was glad. By human standards, in the natural man especially, God may not make sense. However, my faith and understanding make perfect, logical sense to me