Is "limited atonement" real?

[justacountryboy]

Theres no such thing as limited atonement. Thats "religion", not Christ. NOTHING can be added to, or taken away from.the cross. Works added to grace makes it works, and is an insult to the cross (as if to say "his blood wasnt enough")A fallen creation has nothing to offer a perfect creator on its own merits. It is by faith alone, relying solely on the cross, and Jesus finished work, and HIS merits, that we can be reconciled to God. Works have nothing to do with Grace, or salvation. It is the free gift of God. Eph 2:8

 

[feedm3]

Theres no such thing as limited atonement. Thats "religion", not Christ. NOTHING can be added to, or taken away from.the cross. Works added to grace makes it works, and is an insult to the cross (as if to say "his blood wasnt enough")A fallen creation has nothing to offer a perfect creator on its own merits. It is by faith alone, relying solely on the cross, and Jesus finished work, and HIS merits, that we can be reconciled to God. Works have nothing to do with Grace, or salvation. It is the free gift of God. Eph 2:8

I dont think they are arguing for works, they are arguing that the blood of Christ was only shed for a limited group, the elect who were chosen by God, with no freewill involved on their part.

But addressing the "Faith alone" I strongly disagree. The Bible does not teach Faith alone, in fact it tells us by works a man is justified and NOT by faith only. But I guess its all about how you define faith. If you mean it is simply believing, then I disagree. If you believe faith is an action, that can be seen, and consists of one who obeys God, i.e. repenting of a life of sin, then I agree.

 

[tribesman]

Theres no such thing as limited atonement. Thats "religion", not Christ. NOTHING can be added to, or taken away from.the cross. Works added to grace makes it works, and is an insult to the cross (as if to say "his blood wasnt enough")A fallen creation has nothing to offer a perfect creator on its own merits. It is by faith alone, relying solely on the cross, and Jesus finished work, and HIS merits, that we can be reconciled to God. Works have nothing to do with Grace, or salvation. It is the free gift of God. Eph 2:8

You say that NOTHING can be added to, or taken away from the cross. But I am sure that you will say that this is all CONDITIONED on that MAN has to use his "ability" in "free will" to benefit from.

If you believe that, then THAT is doing exactly what you condemned. You have added, or taken away, from the cross.

Did it ever CROSS your mind what Christ actually accomplished at the cross? That He redeemed HIS people and that none that He redeemed will be lost?

John.6

[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
[38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

 

[Red33]

You say that NOTHING can be added to, or taken away from the cross. But I am sure that you will say that this is all CONDITIONED on that MAN has to use his "ability" in "free will" to benefit from.

If you believe that, then THAT is doing exactly what you condemned. You have added, or taken away, from the cross.

Did it ever CROSS your mind what Christ actually accomplished at the cross? That He redeemed HIS people and that none that He redeemed will be lost?

Our free volition was given to us to agree with God or we can reject what God reveals to us concerning His Son. When we are in darkness and the light comes to shine upon us, we either receive what the light has to offer or we remain in darkness, blinded in our heart with unbelief. This is very simple and God has made it so. When you get theological you start messing up faith in the blood of the unlimited atonement and messing up the simplicity that is in Christ through grace and truth. The blood that was shed has to be for the remission, propitiation and justification for the sins of the world and not just for those that have believed. If God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, why would He offer His Son as the Lamb to take away just the sins of those who would believe. The blood was shed for all who have sinned but can only be effective in those who believe in the one that shed it. Even John the baptist knew why the Lamb had come...

Jn 1:29
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the WORLD.

The 'WORLD' mentioned here is not EXCLUSIVE to Israel, the church or the world of believers. It is INCLUSIVE to all who have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

2Cor 5:19
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the WORLD unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

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

You can not rationalize these scriptures with your theology to mean something else then what they are testifying to concerning the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God. With this understanding you can go out and preach the gospel to EVERY creature and not just SOME creatures. Not ALL will believe but ALL can hear the message and those that hear and believe will be saved and that is a promise from God who can not lie.

 

[Grandpa]

John 3:17-21
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.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Two groups. Saved and condemned. Men condemn themselves by not believing in Jesus and coming to the light. Therefore they are not atoned for, they are condemned. Simple, straightforward, language of the bible.

Now, are the condemned relegated to that position forever? That we cannot answer, only God can.

Since only God can answer if the condemned remain condemned then He can also only answer whether Limited Atonement is fact in eternity.

We can, without doubt, say Limited Atonement is real down here. Because we have two groups of people. Believers and un-believers. Un-believers obviously are not atoned for as they must have faith in the one who atones prior to the atonement.

Seems pretty simple to me...

 

[shininglight]

John 3:17-21
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.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Two groups. Saved and condemned. Men condemn themselves by not believing in Jesus and coming to the light. Therefore they are not atoned for, they are condemned. Simple, straightforward, language of the bible.

Now, are the condemned relegated to that position forever? That we cannot answer, only God can.

Since only God can answer if the condemned remain condemned then He can also only answer whether Limited Atonement is fact in eternity.

We can, without doubt, say Limited Atonement is real down here. Because we have two groups of people. Believers and un-believers. Un-believers obviously are not atoned for as they must have faith in the one who atones prior to the atonement.

Seems pretty simple to me...

It is that simple, but simple is boring. Humans have to over complicate things to keep ourselves entertained.

 

[tribesman]

Our free volition was given to us to agree with God or we can reject what God reveals to us concerning His Son.

In reality there is no "free volition" for dead men. That idea comes from philosophy as a "solution" to the theological problem "why some and not others".

When you get theological you start messing up faith in the blood of the unlimited atonement and messing up the simplicity that is in Christ through grace and truth. The blood that was shed has to be for the remission, propitiation and justification for the sins of the world and not just for those that have believed.

If God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, why would He offer His Son as the Lamb to take away just the sins of those who would believe. The blood was shed for all who have sinned but can only be effective in those who believe in the one that shed it. Even John the baptist knew why the Lamb had come...

Your views also comes from a school of theology, although you might not be fully aware of it. The potential of the atonement is by no means being denied. But the emphasis is being laid on what the atonement actually ACCOMPLISHED. And I am sure even you would not deny that. In the end it all comes down to WHAT it is that makes the difference between salvation and damnation for sinners. Either we agree with Paul that it is the work of Christ alone that makes that difference or we do not agree with Paul and say that it is the work of the sinner that makes the difference.

A gospel which says "God has done ALL for your salvation through Christ ... you just need to do this and that" is simply not the same gospel which says "God has done ALL for your salvation through Christ - period".

Jn 1:29
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the WORLD.

The 'WORLD' mentioned here is not EXCLUSIVE to Israel, the church or the world of believers. It is INCLUSIVE to all who have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

The word "world" as understood by the israelites at that time did not mean every-person-everywhere-on-earth-that-ever-lived-and-ever-will-live. Who are we to put our anachronisms into the Bible?

2Cor 5:19
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the WORLD unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

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

You can not rationalize these scriptures with your theology to mean something else then what they are testifying to concerning the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God. With this understanding you can go out and preach the gospel to EVERY creature and not just SOME creatures.

I have never denied that the gospel should be preached to EVERY creature and not just SOME creatures. The gospel should be indiscriminately offered to all. But neither has literally "all" heard the gospel, nor will literally "all" hear the gospel.

Not ALL will believe but ALL can hear the message and those that hear and believe will be saved and that is a promise from God who can not lie.

And the difference between why some hear and not others do not lie in that these people who hear are smarter than the others in and by themselves, but in what is spoken of in John 6:37-38, 44.

 

[Red33]

John 3:17-21
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.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Two groups. Saved and condemned. Men condemn themselves by not believing in Jesus and coming to the light. Therefore they are not atoned for, they are condemned. Simple, straightforward, language of the bible.

Now, are the condemned relegated to that position forever? That we cannot answer, only God can.

Since only God can answer if the condemned remain condemned then He can also only answer whether Limited Atonement is fact in eternity.

We can, without doubt, say Limited Atonement is real down here. Because we have two groups of people. Believers and un-believers. Un-believers obviously are not atoned for as they must have faith in the one who atones prior to the atonement.

Seems pretty simple to me...

Tell me Grandpa, do we tell those that are lost and live in unbelief that Jesus paid for their sins with His own blood or not? Is that part of the good news of the gospel or not? Before you believed did Jesus shed His blood and pay for your sins through His own death on the cross? He paid for mine and I believed Him and that blood cleansed me and purged my conscience instantly when I believed. No special process needed, just faith in the blood of Christ and I was justified completely. If Christ had not put away my sin before I believed through being the propitiation for sin, faith in His blood could never have justified me and I would still be in my sin looking for salvation through works and not by promise through faith in the blood.

God has imputed all sin to His Son and does not impute any sin to the world of sinners. He can not take that back and it provides the basis for the sinner to be justified freely by faith. This justification and blood atonement is available to every sinner through faith and is not limited in anyway through sin or election or predestination. All can FREELY receive because it is FREELY given (Rom 3:34, 8:32, 1Cor 2:12, 2Cor 11:7, Rev 21:6). This is the gospel and there is no other and all we do is believe it and we are justified because sins have been atoned for through Christ on the cross...

1Cor 15:1-4

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Rom 5:8-11

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

2Cor 5:18,19

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

 

[BananaPie]

Okay, first of all, “limited atonement” has nothing to do with Google definitions, Yahoo forum boards or Wikipedia opinions.

Second, while my peers were learning the A, B, C and counting by two’s, Yours Truly was learning about “limited atonement” directly from the pews and practiced at home. LOL.

In a nutshell, “limited atonement” is basically the Bible doctrine that although Jesus Christ DID die to save ALL sinners, only those responding to the call to be saved are their sins atone for; they are redeemed.

In other words, everybody is invited to the party, but only those who actually show up for the party get cake. That’s where the “limited atonement” is applied: to those redeemed is salvation applied, but to those refusing to be redeemed salvation is NOT applied although salvation is still available to them.

BTW, I'm not a Calvinist; I'm only a sinner saved by God's grace.

 

[hhhlga89]

In other words, everybody is invited to the party, but only those who actually show up for the party get cake. That’s where the “limited atonement” is applied: to those redeemed is salvation applied, but to those refusing to be redeemed salvation is NOT applied although salvation is still available to them.

I'm not sure that's a good analogy, sure everybody is invited (even though LA would say it's a formality, UA would say it's genuine), but the person inviting to the party is really giving some a fake invitation -one they could never use and wouldn't want to because they hate him (I guess the one throwing the party wanted to seem generous). The cake, already has a predetermined number of slices because the one throwing the party (God) already knew who would come, he knew that he sent out some bad invitations, and the ones he gave the good invitations to are those he wanted to manipulate to come.

But two questions arise:
Why didn't he manipulate those who ending up not comming to come? (Since those coming hated him just as much as those who didn't [come], before their manipulation, and it is just as easy to change the hearts of those whom he gave fake invites to.)
Why did he fool them with a fake invite?

Note: Both invitations are identical to the human eye.

 

[Red33]

Would anyone care to explain these verse of scripture, one in (2Pt 2:2)...

2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Are we to conclude that these false teachers that brought in damnable heresies into the church were saved by the blood of Christ? If they are saved then what would the swift destruction represent in terms of the justice of God? You need to be able to explain these.

and the other in (2Pt 1:9)...

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Is this referring to a saved believer that lacks those things mentioned in (v.1-8) and has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins (which refers to the sins of the old man Rom 6:6) or is it referring to an unsaved man that is blind and has forgotten the message of the gospel? You decide. Is being bought with the blood of Christ and being purged from sins from the old man the same thing or are do they apply differently?

Did not Jesus make atonement for the sin of the world through the shedding of His blood and was it not made available to all men before they even believed? If that is true then, whether a man receives the atonement or not does nothing to limit it to those who believe. When we believe we receive the benefits of the atonement but before we believed we were covered (propitiation) by the blood of atonement that was shed and evidenced by the fact that our sin was imputed by God to the body of Christ on the cross and not to the world.

Don't get upset, it's just food for thought.

 

[BananaPie]

But two questions arise:
Why didn't he manipulate those who ending up not comming to come?
Why did he fool them with a fake invite?

Well, what does the Bible say?

Remember how the Lord Jesus explained this to His disciples and the people hearing Him on shore?

24Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;
25 but while men slept, His enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

So, God is not the "bad guy" after all.

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

It's always best to believe what the Lord Jesus has to say, for He alone knows and understands what God is talking about.

 

[BananaPie]

(2Pt 2:2)...

2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Are we to conclude that these false teachers that brought in damnable heresies into the church were saved by the blood of Christ?

Negative. Salvation is for the remission of sin, not to plant sin among the saints.

You bring up a very good example of how the Blood of Christ would work effectively on those "false prophets" had they repented, but because those "false prophets" did not repent, instead "even denying the Lord", then the damnation remained with them.

Remember, we are all initially in a state of damnation and decay by definition of human. This is why we desperately need redemption and a Savior.

 

[BananaPie]

and the other in (2Pt 1:9)...

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.


Is being bought with the blood of Christ and being purged from sins from the old man the same thing or are do they apply differently?

As I read your post, the words of the Lord came to mind regarding the parable of the seed falling along the road. Hence the importance of making the Lord Jesus priority in one's life on a daily-continuum, for the enemy is always seeking to devour those easily distracted.

Being purchased by the Blood of Christ is being purged from one's sins. Sin is no longer cover by blood as it was in the OT, but now in the NT sin is forgiven and also removed (purged).

I believe the forgiving part is done upon one's repentance, but the purging is done, I believe, upon the return of Jesus Christ when our body will, in effect, be transformed.

In that transformed-purged state, I believe, we shall be presented before the Judgement throne in which Christ is to justify believers; "there is, therefore, now no condemnation for whose who are in Christ Jesus."

 

[Red33]

Negative. Salvation is for the remission of sin, not to plant sin among the saints.

You bring up a very good example of how the Blood of Christ would work effectively on those "false prophets" had they repented, but because those "false prophets" did not repent, instead "even denying the Lord", then the damnation remained with them.

Remember, we are all initially in a state of damnation and decay by definition of human. This is why we desperately need redemption and a Savior.

The whole phrase is 'even denying the Lord, THAT BOUGHT THEM'! If they were not saved and they denied the Lord that bought them, would that not refer to the fact that their sins has been atoned for through the blood of the Lamb, but denied that through unbelief? They denied that Christ had paid for their sin through the shedding of His own blood. The blood was the purchase price that was shed for their sin on the cross but they denied that blood and denied the purchase power of that blood that put away their sin so that they could be redeemed, cleansed and justified by that blood. That was the damnable heresy that they preached. They did not preach the blood of Christ which was the very thing that the Lamb of God came to shed for the remission of their sins.

There are many preachers that will preach Christ but will not preach the blood of Christ, nor the propitiation and atoning work of that blood. They have made the blood a spiritual matter and not a literal one. When the blood purges the conscience, it is not a spiritual thing that takes place but a literal purging. When Christ put away our sins it was a literal thing that He did, so that we would not remember our sins any longer. When Christ went to the cross it was literal and His blood was literal, He died, was buried and rose again and it was all literal. He ascended to the right hand of the father and that is literal.

In redemption we do not remember our sins and God does not deal with us according to our sins either because they have been put away and are gone forever. People like to bring up sin but God does not. People like to judge and accuse others of sin but God does not. People like to wallow in their sin but God doesn't want that for their life. He wants them to reckon themselves to be dead to sin and alive unto God. Stop being fearful about sin. Stop being worried about sin. Stop living in depression because of sin. Stop being oppressed about your sin. Stop letting sin reign in your mortal body and the effects of that sin. Reckon it all dead because you have been crucified with Christ and the life you live in your flesh you are to live by the faith of the Son of God who died and gave His life for you. You are not your sin and God has made you a new creature in Him. Be alive unto God and forsake the memory of your sin.

 

[BananaPie]

The whole phrase is 'even denying the Lord, THAT BOUGHT THEM'! If they were not saved and they denied the Lord that bought them, would that not refer to the fact that their sins has been atoned for through the blood of the Lamb, but denied that through unbelief? They denied that Christ had paid for their sin through the shedding of His own blood.

The accusation in 2 Peter 2 is on grounds of heresy which Peter does not detail what the heresy is; the heresy is not about denying that the Lord "bought them", but the heresy is denying the Lord Himself.

After all, Lord did not "buy" anybody in the sense as paying money for a person. The clause "the Lord that bought them" is referring to the Lord having randsome power not purchasing power as in buying merchanize.

The reader is to believe Peter's word at-face-value that the accusation of heresy is true; therefore, those who Peter is referring to are, indeed, false prophets.

 

[Red33]

The accusation in 2 Peter 2 is on grounds of heresy which Peter does not detail what the heresy is; the heresy is not about denying that the Lord "bought them", but the heresy is denying the Lord Himself.

After all, Lord did not "buy" anybody in the sense as paying money for a person. The clause "the Lord that bought them" is referring to the Lord having randsome power not purchasing power as in buying merchanize.

The reader is to believe Peter's word at-face-value that the accusation of heresy is true; therefore, those who Peter is referring to are, indeed, false prophets.

Listen with your ear very carefully, 'even denying the Lord that bought them'. Did you hear it? This is one phrase giving a complete thought. They deny that the Lord had shed his blood for the purpose of redemption or for paying a ransom, which ever you prefer. The point is they did not believe in the unlimited atonement or in the power of the blood of atonement that was shed for the propitiation of sins through the death. burial and resurrection of Christ. This was their heresy and is was damnable just as is the doctrine of a limited atonement. The blood of Christ has paid for sin and put away sin before any sinner has a chance to even believe. Christ did this to sin so that it would be all according to mercy and grace and all by faith and not according to any works or effort or merit on the part of man. It would be according to the merits of Christ and the blood that was shed and not according to another thing. Did you hear it?

 

[feedm3]

Listen with your ear very carefully, 'even denying the Lord that bought them'. Did you hear it? This is one phrase giving a complete thought. They deny that the Lord had shed his blood for the purpose of redemption or for paying a ransom, which ever you prefer. The point is they did not believe in the unlimited atonement or in the power of the blood of atonement that was shed for the propitiation of sins through the death. burial and resurrection of Christ. This was their heresy and is was damnable just as is the doctrine of a limited atonement. The blood of Christ has paid for sin and put away sin before any sinner has a chance to even believe. Christ did this to sin so that it would be all according to mercy and grace and all by faith and not according to any works or effort or merit on the part of man. It would be according to the merits of Christ and the blood that was shed and not according to another thing. Did you hear it?

II Pet chapter two, is a death blow to both your doctrine and banana's doctrine.

You have to read the whole chapter, it reveals to us two very essential points, that both of you are missing.

First, "even denying the Lord that bought them" does not mean "denying that the Lord bought them", why because the wording does not fit. Neither does it fit in the rest of the context that does go into detail about the false prophets.

Your error, basing salvation on belief alone - which is refuted as I will show below in II Pet 2.

Banannas error, thinking that the blood of Christ is limited, then these that Peter speaks of could not have ever been saved, or escaped the world. Which is refuted in the context of II PET 2.

Here is a question:
Start at this verse: II PET:
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage

Who are "they" that are being referred to in the passage. Follow the pronouns all the way back, and obviously it is speaking of the false prophets that are denying the Lord in the very first verse of II PET:
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction

Once you see this, read verse 20 and "they" are continued being discussed. These passages refute both of your beliefs.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lordand Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire

Look at the conditions of these false prophets, and notice the implications of these statements:

vs 20 - They had "escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ".
If they had escaped, through the knowledge of the Lord then they were once saved.

vs 20b "They are entangled again". Implication: they were once untangled by the knowledge of Lord. Not just hearing, that does not escape us from the world, but doing, as they must have done at one time, because they escaped and were untangled.

vs 21a They would have been better off not knowing the way of righteousness and then turn from it.
vs 21b The proverb "the dog is turned to his own vomit AGAIN" fits them. Implying that they once were cleansed of their vomit, but returned to it.

This proves two things.
1. Banana - The blood of Christ is for all, and not without freedom of OUR choice, because, if that were the case then they resisted the will of God in saving them.

2. Ress33 - It does take effort on our part to be saved, that effort is staying in the light. Staying on the way of righteousness, not turning from the commandment, and not returning to our own vomit (the pollutions of the world).

Now I know both of you will probably go immediately to "they were never saved to begin with". Yet this goes against everything Peter just said concerning their state, before they decided to "turn from the holy commandment".

If they were not saved then:
They escaped the world by the knowledge of Christ - yet were still not saved
The were cleansed of their vomit, yet still not saved.
They knew the way of righteousness, once lived by the Holy commands, before they "turned from it", yet were not saved.

This would not make any sense. You both continue to run into problems like this, and have to explain away passages and as Banana you said II PET 2 is meant to be understood at face value. I agree, the question is do you agree with what you said? Because face value shows us a people, who were once cleansed by the knowledge of our Lord, and returned to sin - i.e. their false teaching promising them liberty, having eyes full of adultery. Close to what many teach on here concerning continuing in a life of sin, putting many adulterers at liberty through Christ, with no repentance.

The meaning is plain, I hope both of you will remove the scales of your eyes and look at what the Bible teaches.

 

[GreenNnice]

II Pet chapter two, is a death blow to both your doctrine and banana's doctrine.

You have to read the whole chapter, it reveals to us two very essential points, that both of you are missing.

First, "even denying the Lord that bought them" does not mean "denying that the Lord bought them", why because the wording does not fit. Neither does it fit in the rest of the context that does go into detail about the false prophets.

Your error, basing salvation on belief alone - which is refuted as I will show below in II Pet 2.

Banannas error, thinking that the blood of Christ is limited, then these that Peter speaks of could not have ever been saved, or escaped the world. Which is refuted in the context of II PET 2.

Here is a question:
Start at this verse: II PET:
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage

Who are "they" that are being referred to in the passage. Follow the pronouns all the way back, and obviously it is speaking of the false prophets that are denying the Lord in the very first verse of II PET:
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction

Once you see this, read verse 20 and "they" are continued being discussed. These passages refute both of your beliefs.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lordand Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire

Look at the conditions of these false prophets, and notice the implications of these statements:

vs 20 - They had "escaped the pollutions of the world by the knowledge of Christ".
If they had escaped, through the knowledge of the Lord then they were once saved.

vs 20b "They are entangled again". Implication: they were once untangled by the knowledge of Lord. Not just hearing, that does not escape us from the world, but doing, as they must have done at one time, because they escaped and were untangled.

vs 21a They would have been better off not knowing the way of righteousness and then turn from it.
vs 21b The proverb "the dog is turned to his own vomit AGAIN" fits them. Implying that they once were cleansed of their vomit, but returned to it.

This proves two things.
1. Banana - The blood of Christ is for all, and not without freedom of OUR choice, because, if that were the case then they resisted the will of God in saving them.

2. Ress33 - It does take effort on our part to be saved, that effort is staying in the light. Staying on the way of righteousness, not turning from the commandment, and not returning to our own vomit (the pollutions of the world).

Now I know both of you will probably go immediately to "they were never saved to begin with". Yet this goes against everything Peter just said concerning their state, before they decided to "turn from the holy commandment".

If they were not saved then:
They escaped the world by the knowledge of Christ - yet were still not saved
The were cleansed of their vomit, yet still not saved.
They knew the way of righteousness, once lived by the Holy commands, before they "turned from it", yet were not saved.

This would not make any sense. You both continue to run into problems like this, and have to explain away passages and as Banana you said II PET 2 is meant to be understood at face value. I agree, the question is do you agree with what you said? Because face value shows us a people, who were once cleansed by the knowledge of our Lord, and returned to sin - i.e. their false teaching promising them liberty, having eyes full of adultery. Close to what many teach on here concerning continuing in a life of sin, putting many adulterers at liberty through Christ, with no repentance.

The meaning is plain, I hope both of you will remove the scales of your eyes and look at what the Bible teaches.

Yes, powerful refute, feed. ^

Red, excellent discernment too.

 

[Grandpa]

Tell me Grandpa, do we tell those that are lost and live in unbelief that Jesus paid for their sins with His own blood or not? Is that part of the good news of the gospel or not? Before you believed did Jesus shed His blood and pay for your sins through His own death on the cross? He paid for mine and I believed Him and that blood cleansed me and purged my conscience instantly when I believed. No special process needed, just faith in the blood of Christ and I was justified completely. If Christ had not put away my sin before I believed through being the propitiation for sin, faith in His blood could never have justified me and I would still be in my sin looking for salvation through works and not by promise through faith in the blood.

God has imputed all sin to His Son and does not impute any sin to the world of sinners. He can not take that back and it provides the basis for the sinner to be justified freely by faith. This justification and blood atonement is available to every sinner through faith and is not limited in anyway through sin or election or predestination. All can FREELY receive because it is FREELY given (Rom 3:34, 8:32, 1Cor 2:12, 2Cor 11:7, Rev 21:6). This is the gospel and there is no other and all we do is believe it and we are justified because sins have been atoned for through Christ on the cross...

1Cor 15:1-4

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Rom 5:8-11

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

2Cor 5:18,19

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

I am not arguing against the Power of the Lords Atoning Blood or what He can do for us, sinners.

I am simply stating that there are two groups of people. Believers whose soul has been atoned for by the Lord. And un-believers who are condemned by their unbelief.

This doesn't change the gospel message one bit. From our point of view All can receive Salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But not all choose to have faith in the Lord. These that choose not to have faith in the Lord are condemned, possibly for a short time while God deals with them or possibly for a much longer time, God only knows.