The heresy of limited atonement refuted

  • 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.
S

Shwagga

Guest
#21
#21
Phil, you told me before you didn't even believe in limited atonement. I believe your words were "why would I argue for something I don't hold to".. That's a paraphrase but if you don't recall I am sure I can find it if you don't remember. So I'm just curious if you just like to argue for the sake of it?
 
S

Shwagga

Guest
#22
#22
1 John 2:2
But what about 1 John 2:2, “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the whole world“? The apostle John was a Jew writing to Jewish believers.
John is saying that Christ is the propitiation not only for the sins of the Jews.
Click to expand...
First of all, your entire bible was written by Jewish people with the exception of possibly one. So using your logic, were they addressing ONLY Jews? No..

We have absolutely no evidence at all John was writing to ONLY Jews, just some Calvinist theory.

Now I am sure you don't really expect people to reply to all of your numerous objections, do you? I shouldn't say your objections though.
 
Last edited:
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#23
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#23
Shwagga said:
Phil, you told me before you didn't even believe in limited atonement. I believe your words were "why would I argue for something I don't hold to".. That's a paraphrase but if you don't recall I am sure I can find it if you don't remember. So I'm just curious if you just like to argue for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

it certainly is a paraphrase and a very loose one at that. I hold to a reformed positon of limited/unlimited.

Phil
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#24
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#24
Shwagga said:
First of all, your entire bible was written by Jewish people with the exception of possibly one. So using your logic, were they addressing ONLY Jews? No..

We have absolutely no evidence at all John was writing to ONLY Jews, just some Calvinist theory.

Now I am sure you don't really expect people to reply to all of your numerous objections, do you? I shouldn't say your objections though.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a another type of ignorant argument. let me just say you are obvioulsy not well read in who holds to what??

It is not just a Calvinist theory regardint (1 John), in fact there are as many Arminians who hold to this also ;)

Before you make comments please learn the facts or else, you just end up embarressing yourself.

And as I said the post is not mine but an Article.. it do you well to read it and understand the argument befre commenting. Im not asking you to return on all what it says but to give it a read, instead of staying ignorant.

And just to finnish, no one is debating who wrote the bible. That you would start your post with that really shows you have not fully grasped what is being said.

So who is it that says John was writing to a mainly jewish audience (in its original content) are you sure that is just a Calvinist theory???


Phil
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#25
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#25
phil36 said:
it certainly is a paraphrase and a very loose one at that. I hold to a reformed positon of limited/unlimited.

Phil
Click to expand...

Just a note, I would certainly agree more with limited atonement rather than a works based soteriology, which is precisely what arminianism is.. it relies on the person to do something.

Phil
 
S

Shwagga

Guest
#26
#26
phil36 said:
it certainly is a paraphrase and a very loose one at that. I hold to a reformed positon of limited/unlimited.

Phil
Click to expand...
Phil, let me get the exact quote, hold on.


Originally Posted by Shwagga
Phil you are missing my point, you say there is no one to blame except yourself because you sinned, I agree. But do they have the ability to repent? Do they have the ability to believe in Jesus? No they don't and this is why you won't answer any of my objections because you believe God ordained them to live the lifestyle they are living. So on Judgment Day, they can walk up to God and say I did EXACTLY what you ordained me to do.

Edit: and EVEN if they DID have the ability to believe and repent it would not matter, because "JESUS DID NOT DIE FOR THEM"! (limited atonement)
Click to expand...
You replied:

What happened to the gentiles, in the OT?

and you see not all reformed are limited atonement??? learn the theology then debate??? reformed is as diverse as Arminian,, I cant speak for anyother persuasion.

Phil
Click to expand...

--
So could you please clarify what exactly you do believe?
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#27
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#27
Shwagga said:
Phil, let me get the exact quote, hold on.




You replied:



So I specifically asked you if you held to limited atonement and you said "I have to laugh at guys like you who think reformed theology is TULIP I think you need to learn abit more shwagga. "
--
So could you please clarify what exactly you do believe?
Click to expand...

Yes you did ask and I answered you. I said i hold a reformed position of limitied/unlimited atonement.. but more closely to limited.

Now that is not your whole point, you went on, and rambled very ignorantly to which I have answered and you are failing to answer that.

The arminian view of soteriology is not biblical. you made ignorant comments about how John writing to mainly a jewish audience as a Calvinist teory, which clearly is not true.

Now would please like to comment on your folly?

Phil
 
S

Shwagga

Guest
#28
#28
Phil, I am almost confident you are just arguing for the sake of argument. So I will step out of the conversation and ask you to please examine what you are actually trying to accomplish here. Are you trying to get the Truth out or are you trying to make the reformed faith look good?

On that note, שלום shalom!
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#29
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#29
Shwagga said:
Phil, I am almost confident you are just arguing for the sake of argument. So I will step out of the conversation and ask you to please examine what you are actually trying to accomplish here. Are you trying to get the Truth out or are you trying to make the reformed faith look good?

On that note, שלום shalom!
Click to expand...

Well, im sorry you feel that way.. I have told you twice now what I believe, I have an inkling that you just are ignorant to what I mean??

You are bowing out because you made a foolish assumption regarding the letter of 1st John and now you can't answer and you won't retract.

I know you know it was made from a lack of understanding of who believes what, I have done it myself, but when I am wrong, atleast I am man enough to apologise and I have done so on here even publicly in a new thread.

Phil
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#30
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#30
But I dare say you did not read the site and who the authors where? just the usuall google search and I am sure to find something?
Click to expand...
When you're looking for scripture the authors who posted them there does not matter. It's scripture.
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#31
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#31
MahogonySnail said:
When you're looking for scripture the authors who posted them there does not matter. It's scripture.
Click to expand...

It does dependong on the spin they put on Scripture.

Phil
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#32
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#32
At the last supper Jesus tells His disciples that His blood is poured out “for many“: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mt. 26:28). Jesus did not die for all or for just a few, but for the many—the elect.
Click to expand...

What is highlighted in bold is a heresy. See the many scriptures posted in the first couple of posts in this thread. It raises all sorts of issues when we say that Jesus's blood did not pay the price for every person. Jesus is often compared to Adam. If death spread to the whole human race through Adam, then life must spread to the whole human race through Christ. Not just some or many, but all.

What Matthew Henry says about "the many":

It is shed for many. Christ came to confirm a covenant with many (Dan_9:27), and the intent of his death agreed. The blood of the Old Testament was shed for a few: it confirmed a covenant, which (saith Moses) the Lord has made with you, Exo_24:8. The atonement was made only for the children of Israel (Lev_16:34): but Jesus Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1Jo_2:2.

1 John 2:2 is the clearest and most difficult verse to dispute - which says that Christ died for all people.

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.



FYI Phil, this topic is not about sovereign grace or other aspects of Calvinism. It's about limited atonement. I guess the beauty of it is that once one point of 5-point Calvinism is easily toppled, the rest fall as well. Jesus is the only Rock on which our faith and doctrine must stand. 5-point Calvinism is a shakey foundation no matter which way we look at it.




 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#33
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#33
Oh deary me Mahogony,

I can almsot se you sittng behind your computer with a big smile on your face, saying to yourself'''' I have shown them Calvinists''. However you have not proven anything. Did you read the article I posted? obviously not.

Here is something a bit more easier to read for you, that I have psoted on another thread:

phil

“I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love . . . Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect . . . “

—D. A. Carson

I would also love your thoughts on the other thread I have on Romans???
​
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#34
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#34
Yes I read the article but could go no further when I encounter heresies that say things like JEsus not dying for the whole world. That article is NOT from God.
 
phil36

phil36

Senior Member
#35
Feb 12, 2009
8,260
2,111
113
51
#35
What is highlighted in bold is a heresy. See the many scriptures posted in the first couple of posts in this thread. It raises all sorts of issues when we say that Jesus's blood did not pay the price for every person. Jesus is often compared to Adam. If death spread to the whole human race through Adam, then life must spread to the whole human race through Christ. Not just some or many, but all.
Click to expand...
I think Mahogony that you are using double standards whe accusing of heresy. As you have concluded that through the new Adam (Christ) all will be saved.

So id all will be saved, why do we need to be born again from a dead spiritual state?


Phil
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#36
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#36
I'm being factual accurate when I call it heresy. Because the early church never believed in it. They believed Christ died for all.

My point with Adam was this verse:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It is universal. It means all shall be raised from the dead by Christ.
 
S

Shwagga

Guest
#37
#37
phil36 said:
Well, im sorry you feel that way.. I have told you twice now what I believe, I have an inkling that you just are ignorant to what I mean??

You are bowing out because you made a foolish assumption regarding the letter of 1st John and now you can't answer and you won't retract.

I know you know it was made from a lack of understanding of who believes what, I have done it myself, but when I am wrong, atleast I am man enough to apologise and I have done so on here even publicly in a new thread.

Phil
Click to expand...
Actually Phil there is absolutely nothing you did from this post, to the previous post to prove that John was writing to only Jewish believers or even predominantly Jewish believers. It's just a theory you hold to which you use to support your doctrine with no biblical support which is quite ironic you'd have to lean on reformed scholars to prove your points when you are believe Sola Scriptura. False points at that, since we don't have any evidence supporting your theory.

I am "bowing out" because you are either seeking after the truth of the matter and haven't found it yet (which I encourage you to keep doing), but I don't believe you are doing that. I believe you are just unstable in your doctrines of atonement and ultimately, not sure what you believe. I don't even think you know what you believe.

If I could just make this as clear as possible:

God's word
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

man's word
Jesus did not die for the whole world and is not the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

Folks, if you can not see how this is twisting the scripture in it's plainest most natural sense, then please continue to re-read over and over again until you see it's twisting the Scripture.

I am very very confident that you are also NOT seeking the truth and wanting the truth to come out Phil, you are just sticking up for Calvinism and glorying in the 5-pts of Calvinism - very sad.

2 Peter 3
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.


People...

Romans 3:4
"Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar..."
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#38
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#38
It is universal. It means all shall be raised from the dead by Christ
Click to expand...
My point being - if all shall be raised from the dead by Christ, then Christ died for all. Not just many, not just some.
 
H

HumbleSaint

Guest
#39
#39
phil36 said:
Hi Humble Saint, your above statment is wrong if your are referring to reformed theology. your axiom is of center in this denate.


I would like to hear you tell all the people who go to hell, that you honestly thought God was full of grace and living all the world.

How do you think they might respond to your comments above?

People often think that God has changed or is a different God from the Old Testament God. Don't be so easily fooled. He was a God of pure Love and grace then also.

The big difference now is that, he has postponed His righteous judgment. so don't fool yourself thing there is no wrath in God.

So according to your above comment, all the world has a gripe against God if they go to hell??

Not so, can you explain all the nations in the Old Testament.. what happened to them... ?????

Phil
Click to expand...



Your talking to the wrong person. That was not my post that was snails. I just added a couple of verses to the ones that he put down. The ones that a put in are written in red.
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#40
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#40
Yes I said that. It's an honest question. How can you (TULIP Calvinist) as representing a God who is loving and graceful and merciful, look an unbeliever in the eye and tell them that God chose them before they were born to suffer an eternity in hell fire.?


It's interesting that a Calvinist is drawing from old testament Judaism to prove their points and not the new testament. It's much easier to show God as unloving from the old testament isn't it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.