Is the doctrine of limited atonement biblical?

[Timothy5378]

I understand that claiming miricales posses a problem for some..but if they are true...its a good thing to do...and 1 John is clear that Jesus died for all and just not the elect...its how he did it to prove the Way was there for all who want it...limited atonement...like soul sleep is just not taught...yet a few believe it..

 

[garee]

You rarely make sense..this is another one of those times

By the way, TULIP is merely a memory device. There are better phrases that summarize the differences between the two.

TULIP was a response to the Remonstrants ; the followers of Arminius. They had five points that they were in disagreement with Reformed theology.

T - total depravity - radical corruption would be better - all of man's being is radically corrupted in the Fall
U - unconditional election - unconditional grace
L - limited atonement - actual atonement would be better
I - irresistible grace - effectual calling would be better
P - perseverance of the saints - preservation of the Holy Spirit

What it all boils down to - God is sovereign over all things, including salvation, and he accomplishes his purposes. He is not some old man wringing his hands in the corner, wondering if the person is going to respond, but he actually changes the rebel's nature so that they do respond.

Free-willer theology portrays God as some weak, anemic god who cannot accomplish his purposes. He tries to save all, but can't save all...in fact he can only save a few.

Sorry, I was hoping to support you. Tulip is a great way of offering our private interpretation or personal commentaries. .What I was trying to say is that which some attribute spelling to Calvin . Calvin would had to come to the future and find the English spelling. He spelled it tulpe .

Why make it about what men say as if we did seek their approval? I would think as apologists those who defend the faith that works in them as it defends them. And not as if it was of our own self. .He gives it as it is written, as our armor . No armor for the back He is also the rear guard

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Sorry, I was hoping to support you. Tulip is a great way of offering our private interpretation or personal commentaries. .What I was trying to say is that which some attribute spelling to Calvin . Calvin would had to come to the future and find the English spelling. He spelled it tulpe .

Why make it about what men say as if we did seek their approval? I would think as apologists those who defend the faith that works in them as it defends them. And not as if it was of our own self. .He gives it as it is written, as our armor . No armor for the back He is also the rear guard

Calvin didn't actually develop TULIP. It was subsequent Reformed people. The principles are found within Calvin's writings, though, or all but one.

The moniker was developed in response to the Remonstrants after Calvin died.

 

[garee]

I understand that claiming miricales posses a problem for some..but if they are true...its a good thing to do...and 1 John is clear that Jesus died for all and just not the elect...its how he did it to prove the Way was there for all who want it...limited atonement...like soul sleep is just not taught...yet a few believe it..

God is not served by the corrupted hand of mankind .He moves men according to the good pleasure of His soul

I would think if we are seeking after sign and wonders gospel we are not walking by faith, the unseen eternal. Jesus called it the evil generation "no faith".

If we would attribute the unseen work of the power of the gospel to the hands of corrupted mankind . Then we have blasphemed the name of the unseen eternal God . The reason the apostles tore their clothes.

We walk or understand the things not seen by a work of Christ faith a labor of His love that works in us. Not of us. . lest any man boast in false pride.

The gospel the unseen power of God, from faith (the unseen) to the same unseen . Comparing the spiritual unseen to the same.. . as it is written

In the parable below God as many times uses impotency to show where potency comes from .Using walking to represent understanding .leaping, as one given the faith enabling them to get up and walk praising God

And there they preached the gospel. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, Acts 14 :7-14

The people who saw the work of God (not of the apostles) did not "mix faith" the unseen eternal will in what they did hear or see, they received no rest their hearts remained hard. ( Hebrews 4)

 

[garee]

Calvin didn't actually develop TULIP. It was subsequent Reformed people. The principles are found within Calvin's writings, though, or all but one.

The moniker was developed in response to the Remonstrants after Calvin died.

Thanks, that is how I understand also.

 

[Timothy5378]

Oh my He said we would work greater works than Him...because He went up and the HS came down...all these verses people don't want the faith for...you walk as Christ you get faith mega...faith comes by hearing hearing by the Word of God

You read and study for more truth and do it and exercise faith and love and work constantly to win souls you might find that was Paul P/C...no but he did the miricales and they do show that we are saved...Mark Ch 16...things that show a person is saved..
A list

 

[ForestGreenCook]

I agree that P/C doctrine is not so good...but when you got cancer for example it's good to have people who believe in miricales...God has sent me across P/C areas and then other end like MacArthur...neither is NT...both have truth and error...limited atonement is just total error 1 John is clear...Jesus died for not our sins only but of the whole world...thats it...conversation over...

The English language is very difficult for other countries to understand, because the English language attaches many different meanings to one single word in many cases. Just as the word "many" in my previous sentence, does not mean "all". When the word of God was translated from the Greek and Hebrew language into the English language, it came with the same words, in some cases, meaning several different meanings. This makes it necessary to separate them according to their meaning by keeping them in context with the topic, and to keep them in harmony with the rest of the scriptures.

1 John 2:2, And he is the propitiation for our (the group of people that John is speaking to) sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the world (of believers). The word "world" in this scripture has reference to the world of believers, and also the same "world" in John 3:16. Why would God tell us not love the "world" (all mankind) in 1 John 2:15, that he says that he "so loves" in John 3:16? That's because they have reference to two different worlds.

Matt 26:28, For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for "many" for the remission of sins, which does not mean "all". John 17:2, As thou hast given him power over "all flesh"(all mankind), that he should give eternal life to "as many as" (not all mankind) thou hast given him.

If these English translated words are not separated into their right meaning according to context, you will never understand the truths of the doctrine of Jesus. There is "a limited atonement", and it is taught in harmony of the scriptures.

There are many different interpretations of the scriptures that people come up with. I stick to the doctrine that tends to harmonize more closely with all of the other scriptures. There are many scriptures that the Holy Spirit, within me, has not saw fit to reveal to me, as of yet, but the ones that he has revealed to me seem to harmonize more closely, with the other scriptures, than all of the doctrines I have heard of.

 

[Timothy5378]

I'm sorry but you are in error...
God died for humankind...the world...not our sins only(believers) but the sins of the whole world(everyone)...there is a clear distinction...you can't have both being the same group...

THE ENGLISH IS FINE...WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO GET INTO REWRITING THE BIBLE INTO LIES...WHEN THE KING JAMES MEN KNEW THE ORIGINAL LAUNGUAGES WELL...IF GOD SAYS IF YOU HAVE 2 COATS...GIVE ONE...SO HOW MANY COATS SHOULD WE HAVE LOL

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Oh my He said we would work greater works than Him...because He went up and the HS came down...all these verses people don't want the faith for...you walk as Christ you get faith mega...faith comes by hearing hearing by the Word of God

You read and study for more truth and do it and exercise faith and love and work constantly to win souls you might find that was Paul P/C...no but he did the miricales and they do show that we are saved...Mark Ch 16...things that show a person is saved..
A list

As I have mentioned before, If we do not divide the same word, as to their different meanings, according to the context, we will never be able to harmonize the scriptures.

There is a "faith" of man, and there is a spiritual "faith"that is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. The natural man, 1 Cor 2:14, does not have spiritual faith, until he has been regenerated, and given the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Hearing, and understanding spiritual things only comes to those that have been born of the Spirit, and have spiritual faith. His sheep (God's elect) hear his voice. The natural man does not hear, and understand, spiritual things,

Mark, chapter 16 is referencing the elect, and not the natural man.,

 

[ForestGreenCook]

I'm sorry but you are in error...
God died for humankind...the world...not our sins only(believers) but the sins of the whole world(everyone)...there is a clear distinction...you can't have both being the same group...

THE ENGLISH IS FINE...WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO TO GET INTO REWRITING THE BIBLE INTO LIES...WHEN THE KING JAMES MEN KNEW THE ORIGINAL LAUNGUAGES WELL...IF GOD SAYS IF YOU HAVE 2 COATS...GIVE ONE...SO HOW MANY COATS SHOULD WE HAVE LOL

I am sorry, But you can harmonise the scriptures with your belief of the scriptures.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

Ah ok. So you believe that election is just Gods foreknowledge of the person’s own “free will” choice?

How does a person, enslaved to sin and a hard heart, generate faith and repentance using this enslaved heart of stone?

That’s the essence of the problem.

The solution? God gives the person a heart of flesh which can exercise faith and repentance. They are spiritually resurrected from spiritual death through the resurrecting power of the Holy Spirit.

Read Ephesians 2:1-10. Read John 3 along with Ezekiel 36:26-27. And don’t give me the dispensational nonsense that regeneration is only for the Jews

___________________________-

As always, you still do not answer the question about man making the decision of own free will.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

We have free will and our faith is in that....He did all the payment...but we have to put our faith in Him....the people...97% of the current population by research is not born again and does not want to believe in Jesus and go to Him...to repent which is also a choice and a requirement...people are free willed and God wants all to repent...but most don't...the road is narrow and difficult and few fund it....and the few just are not all that strong and great that's why they don't
Make others very good or at all....the church is lukewarm...thats why we are arguing over whether the Devil is a fallen angel and limited atonement etc...

--------------------------

Timothy5378, you are wasting your time indulging in a conversation with unitedwithchrist. I had and ongoing discussion with him and this is what I have noticed... 1) he does not truthfully weigh a position contrary to his because he is set in his mind that he is right and you are wrong, he is impressed with a doctrine of man that teaches God chooses to eternal life and God sends to hell, 2) he does not respond to questions that puts him in a position that he cannot answer and that is because the doctrine of man he was impressed with, he deliberately does not want to escape it, 3) others had problems with him, 4) he wants to show how knowledgeable he is in his distorted teachings, 5) he fabricates false statements that were not made and if you tell him to prove that the statement he made was said he does not respond because he cannot prove it.

Again, you are wasting your time with him and if you decide not discuss the topic with him any more just tell him why. To say that God chooses certain people to eternal life and sends others to eternal damnation not given them the chance to repent it is not only not scriptural, but a false doctrine as well.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

First, I understanding exactly what you are saying otherwise tell you and you do know what I am talking about which is why you throw in John 17:2 and the reason why you do not fully understand that verse is because you go into the Scriptures trying to interpret God's word instead of allowing the Spirit of God to enlighten you with the truth of God's word, what God made clear when he first spoke.
Please read carefully...

Matthew 28:18,19, where is says, and Yeshua came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He also said in Mark 15:16, “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature and in Luke 24:47 it says, in His name repentance and forgiveness of sins will be proclaimed to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. These three verses clearing show that you are distorting John 17:2 because you are trying to interpret it to fit your false teachings.

Matthew 24:22 says, and except those days should be shortened, there should NO FLESH BE SAVED: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. This verse absolutely makes it clear.

Luke 3:6 says, and all flesh shall see the salvation of God which does not mean that all flesh will be saved, why, because one will decide after God's Spirit quickens them if they will accept Yeshua. This verse absolutely makes it clear.

In John 17:2, it is the high priestly prayer of Yeshua and in this prayer he says unto God the Father, that he (Yeshua) should give eternal life to as many as He (the Father) has given him. Question, how many did the father give him? If you continue reading this is talking about the disciples and in verse 12 Yeshua makes it clear who they were that the Father gave him while he was with them in the world and that none of them is lost, but one son of perdition; that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

It is clear that John 17:2 Yeshua is talking about the disciples that God has given him at that time. Verse 18, now Yeshua sends them into the world, for what? You can continue reading to the end of the chapter, but he sends them into all nations to preach the Gospel of Salvation.

One more thing... In John 17:2, Yeshua appears to be talking like the substance of thinks hoped for, the evidence of things not seen will come to past.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

I do think, that I understand what you are putting on the table, but I do not think that you are understanding what I am putting on the table, such as, John 17:2, or you would not be asking who Jesus gives eternal life to, and who he does not give eternal life to.

Yes, God did choose an elect people, and they are the ones that he draws, calls, and regenerates to a spiritual life. God gave mankind the freedom to choose how he wants to live his life here on earth, and all of mankind choose not to seek God. God, then, choose an elect people out of "those that choose not to seek him" and regenerated them to a spiritual life, so that, those he regenerated, would seek him.

Yes, God "did not choose", as his elect, all of mankind, but only choose a portion of all mankind out of those that would not seek him. I do not understand why God did not choose all of mankind, as his elect, because God's ways are higher than my ways. I have many question to God, as to why he does and does not do things, but he chooses not to reveal the answers ro me.

God regenerates everyone that he regenerates in the same manner, whether they are newly born babies, people in the Old testament, or people today, and that is by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Isaiah 63"11, Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock (sheep=God's children)? Where is he that "put his Holy Spirit WITHIN him? All of the Old testament saints responded to the call, because they had been born again, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the same as do those that respond to his call today.

------------------------------

What I forgot to add, is John 17:2 where it says as many as thou has given Yeshua, is it talking about the disciples or future, even though God draws them to Yeshua and it is up to man to decide after God ministers to them. If he is talking future then why didn't Yeshua say, "as many as thou will give me"? Instead he you as many as thou has given (something that took place), and though God can speak as it is, verse 12 appears that Yeshua was talking about the disciples.

Now, I will get into the original and get back to you and you will have to do the same.

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

Assuming Yeshua is talking futures, as stated that God speaks as coming into existence prior to it existing. As many, in my previous post I gave reference that God wants no man to lose their soul. I will look more into it.

My question to you does Yeshua want all men to be saved or just as many as the father will bring to him?

 

[SUNDOWNSAM]

Read this carefully and don't just assume that you understand what it is being said, tell God to let you truly understand what is being said...

Even though Yeshua is declaring his deity in John 17, he is talking to his Father as a man to God the Father, but knowing that his Father is the Omniscient God and in God's omniscient the Father knows the number of people that will be saved among men, but he spoke as a man which is why he said as many.

Just like when Yeshua said, but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but he Father, now the Yeshua sits at the right hand of the Father with the majesty and holiness and with the transcendent glory of God.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

------------------------------

What I forgot to add, is John 17:2 where it says as many as thou has given Yeshua, is it talking about the disciples or future, even though God draws them to Yeshua and it is up to man to decide after God ministers to them. If he is talking future then why didn't Yeshua say, "as many as thou will give me"? Instead he you as many as thou has given (something that took place), and though God can speak as it is, verse 12 appears that Yeshua was talking about the disciples.

Now, I will get into the original and get back to you and you will have to do the same.

In John 6:39, the "all which he hath given me", is this referring only to his disciples? "Hath" puts it in past tense, so, when were they given to Jesus? Does this giving in the past tense, have reference to those in the future?, if so, why didn't Jesus say "all that thou will give me"? When Jesus says "of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing", Does not that mean that none that he died for will be lost in hell? In John 17:2, When God gave Jesus "power over ALL flesh" did he have reference only to the Apostles flesh ? Does it not actually have reference to the flesh of "all mankind? Can you give me an answer of "yes' or "no" on these 7 questions, and explain your answer?

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Assuming Yeshua is talking futures, as stated that God speaks as coming into existence prior to it existing. As many, in my previous post I gave reference that God wants no man to lose their soul. I will look more into it.


My question to you does Yeshua want all men to be saved or just as many as the father will bring to him?

Because God gave mankind the freedom to choose how he wants to live his life here on earth, and the fact that no one choose to seek him, no, not one, Psalms 53:2-3, He wants only those that he choose before the foundation of the world, from among those that would not seek him, to regenerate them to a new spiritual life so that he would have a people to seek and serve him. If God would not have had the foreknowledge to see this, then, all mankind would have died and went to hell.

 

[John146]

Because God gave mankind the freedom to choose how he wants to live his life here on earth, and the fact that no one choose to seek him, no, not one, Psalms 53:2-3, He wants only those that he choose before the foundation of the world, from among those that would not seek him, to regenerate them to a new spiritual life so that he would have a people to seek and serve him. If God would not have had the foreknowledge to see this, then, all mankind would have died and went to hell.

As per your private interpretation...

 

[John146]

In John 6:39, the "all which he hath given me", is this referring only to his disciples? "Hath" puts it in past tense, so, when were they given to Jesus? Does this giving in the past tense, have reference to those in the future?, if so, why didn't Jesus say "all that thou will give me"? When Jesus says "of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing", Does not that mean that none that he died for will be lost in hell? In John 17:2, When God gave Jesus "power over ALL flesh" did he have reference only to the Apostles flesh ? Does it not actually have reference to the flesh of "all mankind? Can you give me an answer of "yes' or "no" on these 7 questions, and explain your answer?

Jesus is definitely praying for his twelve disciples in John 17. This is not a reference to some "elect" group.