The Gross Error of Limited Atonement

  • 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.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,425
383
83
#21
it's my belief Spurgeon was talking about believing as a work one must do.
believing is necessary, it's just not something we can take credit for.
The real issue is that he denied that Christ died for all men.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,883
255
83
#22
uh

'scuse me there, but does God appear to you and tell you all about Himself apart from the Bible?

when someone makes a Bible translation of equal import as the original and inspired writers, it truly boggles the mind as to how they can then continue to say that the Bible is not the final authority; God is

file under: contradiction

why oh why is a debate in here referred to as an attack?

this is a discussion forum. people will disagree. so childish
You are too sensitive. Something is an attack, something is a defense. I think these terms are quite understandable.
 
Last edited:

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
11,317
364
83
#23
What I don't understand is that it is the people who think it takes their work and belief to get into Heaven that also say that limited atonement is a lie.

If the Atonement is not limited then everyone is saved regardless of their work or belief.

Why is this so hard to understand? Do we just not understand what Atonement is???

Apparently we need a discussion on the meanings for 'sufficient' and 'efficacious' as well.
This is the one statement that contributes to the heart of the disagreement. God has never said that the atonement is limited to only a select group. In the OT the lamb was sacrificed for the sins of all the people but only those who acknowledged the sacrifice before Jehovah had their sins covered. When God delivered Israel from Egypt some had faith and gladly applied the blood to the doorway of their house. Some believed half heartedly and still applied the blood and were passed over. Some did not believe and did not apply the blood these were judged and had no effect upon the others.

That many will not receive does not diminish the great supply that the blood provides. God is not doing things according to the wisdom of man but according to the goodness of God.

Apparently the error of modern Calvinism has corrupted the glorious plan of salvation created by God ever before man was on the earth.

Limited atonement is no more biblically correct than universalism.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,425
383
83
#24
The key is to the limited, as to whose names written that will be found in the lambs book of life (the elect)... is the word “many “

It is one thing to say that all will not obey the Gospel, so "all" becomes "many" or even "few". It is quite another thing to say that Christ died only for the elect.
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
3,430
254
0
#26
The real issue is that he denied that Christ died for all men.
then the question becomes, what was the atonement? did what Christ did actually accomplish anything?
was atonement for sin made? were sins paid for? and whose?

if it was a real atonement, sins were paid for, so if Christ died for all men without exception, all men's sins were paid for and no one should be in hell, right?
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
5,571
116
63
#27
[/COLOR]It is one thing to say that all will not obey the Gospel, so "all" becomes "many" or even "few". It is quite another thing to say that Christ died only for the elect.

I think the few is in respect to the many.

He gave His Spirit life in jeopardy of His own Spirit (called drinking blood) for the many who will arise to new spirit life on the last day. They will receive their new bodies.

Its limited to those who have a new spirit and a new heart. He is the cause we are the affect .Let there be and there is...

Those who will not arise to new spirit life are not part of the many that will come as the father draws them.Other wise none would come.
 
Last edited:

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,425
383
83
#28
...if it was a real atonement, sins were paid for, so if Christ died for all men without exception, all men's sins were paid for and no one should be in hell, right?
That's not right, and this is where all the fallacies begin. Although all men's sins were paid for, there are still TWO CONDITIONS which God has established in order for the atonement to become effective -- repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). In other words OBEDIENCE TO THE GOSPEL (called the obedience of faith). Only those who obey the Gospel can be saved. And if all would obey the Gospel, all would be saved. This is clearly stated by the Lord Jesus Christ in the third chapter of John (vv 14-21):

ALL CAN BE SAVED
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

ONLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE ARE SAVED
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.

WHY SOME WILL NOT BELIEVE
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
 
Jan 21, 2017
647
28
0
#29
then the question becomes, what was the atonement? did what Christ did actually accomplish anything?
was atonement for sin made? were sins paid for? and whose?

if it was a real atonement, sins were paid for, so if Christ died for all men without exception, all men's sins were paid for and no one should be in hell, right?
Calvinist mind games in full effect right thurr.

Heres what the atonement did: The atonement justified God's mercy. Now we can repent and go to God's throne with boldness and have our conscience purified of dead works by the blood of Jesus.

Yall keep making the same errors of thinking that once atonement is made, everything is automatically fine. How many times must you be shown from the bible how the day of atonement worked? The atonement was made for all of Israel:

Leviticus 16:34
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If you interpret this like the calvinists playing mind games this means that all Israel was automatically saved by that sacrifice, all sins for the entire year was atonened for. No ifs and buts about it. Unfortunately reality strikes again:

Leviticus 23:28-29
And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.

There we go. Looks like the atonement that was made for ALL ISRAEL, yet all Israel's sins wasnt wiped away (or covered since they could never take away sins) automatically for the year just because atonement was made. Calvinists will never preach on this because it refutes their doctrines and stops their mind games.

You can read the other translations on those verses too since i know yall dont rock with the KJV, the other ones say humble yourself or deny yourself, the point still stands.
 
Last edited:

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
3,430
254
0
#30
Calvinist mind games in full effect right thurr.

Heres what the atonement did: The atonement justified God's mercy. Now we can repent and go to God's throne with boldness and have our conscience purified of dead works by the blood of Jesus.

Yall keep making the same errors of thinking that once atonement is made, everything is automatically fine. How many times must you be shown from the bible how the day of atonement worked? The atonement was made for all of Israel:

Leviticus 16:34
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If you interpret this like the calvinists playing mind games this means that all Israel was automatically saved by that sacrifice, all sins for the entire year was atonened for. No ifs and buts about it. Unfortunately reality strikes again:

Leviticus 23:28-29
And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God.
For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.

There we go. Looks like the atonement that was made for ALL ISRAEL, yet all Israel's sins wasnt wiped away (or covered since they could never take away sins) automatically for the year just because atonement was made. Calvinists will never preach on this because it refutes their doctrines and stops their mind games.

You can read the other translations on those verses too since i know yall dont rock with the KJV, the other ones say humble yourself or deny yourself, the point still stands.

why was atonement made for all Israel? why not the Hittites or the Amorites?

you didn't really answer my questions as to Christ's atonement, but never mind.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,384
492
83
#31
So you don't think a teaching which makes God and Christ liars, and contradicts Bible truth is "gross error"? I wonder what would really disturb you when the salvation of souls is at stake?




I was making a joke.




Debate Forum - The Beauty of Being Offended.

1. If I make debate points that are sharp, logical, and IMPERSONAL, the opposition still takes PERSONAL offense.

2. If my statements are more gracious, gentle, and diplomatic, the opposition is STILL offended, but then MY SIDE is offended too for being nice to the other side!

3. If I skip the debate entirely, argue with no one, and just make a harmless joke... everyone is still offended.


Ya know... it might just lead you to believe people ENJOY being offended.








 
Last edited:

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,384
492
83
#32
And if that's true...

then it's just far too amusing to stop making jokes.


: )







 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
5,900
89
0
#33
then the question becomes, what was the atonement? did what Christ did actually accomplish anything?
was atonement for sin made? were sins paid for? and whose?

if it was a real atonement, sins were paid for, so if Christ died for all men without exception, all men's sins were paid for and no one should be in hell, right?
We said.

Of course the arminian view of salvation has 'I' as the decider if the cross actually paid for my 'I' sins. The logical conclusion of the arminian view is that of universalism. That said they have to do some jiggery pokery to make it not universalism.

All views limit the atonement. Biblically the atonement was as Gandpa pointed out was sufficient and to achieve its aim, it was efficacious to His sheep. The Arminians limit the atonement based on the dead (in sin) man's decision. Man decides the outcome of redemptive His-story.
 

preacher4truth

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2016
5,976
218
63
#34
then the question becomes, what was the atonement? did what Christ did actually accomplish anything?
was atonement for sin made? were sins paid for? and whose?

if it was a real atonement, sins were paid for, so if Christ died for all men without exception, all men's sins were paid for and no one should be in hell, right?
"Christ's atonement isn't efficacious until a human applies it to himself by choosing his way into heaven!" :D

"And stop with the truth that those in hell are paying for their sins, which were already paid in full!" ;)
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
11,317
364
83
#35
then the question becomes, what was the atonement? did what Christ did actually accomplish anything?
was atonement for sin made? were sins paid for? and whose?

if it was a real atonement, sins were paid for, so if Christ died for all men without exception, all men's sins were paid for and no one should be in hell, right?
why was atonement made for all Israel? why not the Hittites or the Amorites?

you didn't really answer my questions as to Christ's atonement, but never mind.
Gods justice demands satisfaction. Christ's atonement is vicarious as He had no sin of His own that required atonement.

If any Egyptians would have applied the blood to their doorposts they would have been passed over just like Israel. Gods grace is extended to all who believe and receive.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
1,394
151
63
#36
Of course the arminian view of salvation has 'I' as the decider if the cross actually paid for my 'I' sins.
No, the cross really did pay for the sins of all men. The Arminian view understands that man has free will, and requires that a man decide to believe the gospel.

The logical conclusion of the arminian view is that of universalism.
No it is not. Universalism is the belief that all men will be saved, whether they believe the gospel or not. It is a false belief.

That said they have to do some jiggery pokery to make it not universalism.
No "jiggery pokery" is required at all.

If a person hears the gospel but decides not to believe it, he will not be saved. Simple.

All views limit the atonement.
In a sense that is true.

Biblically the atonement was as Gandpa pointed out was sufficient and to achieve its aim, it was efficacious to His sheep.
And ANYONE can choose to become one of His sheep. That's why we are to preach the gospel, to give people a chance to hear it and decide to believe it.

The Arminians limit the atonement based on the dead (in sin) man's decision. Man decides the outcome of redemptive His-story.
That is true. Those dead in sin (which we all were..) can freely decide to believe the gospel and become saved.

Calvinism is not true.
 

PJW

Banned
Oct 6, 2017
859
5
0
#37
WHAT CALVINISTS BELIEVE
Calvinists mistakenly believe that they alone understand, preach and teach pure Bible truth. Yet they promote the gross error of limited atonement, and their whole theology rests on this false teaching. Once this error is recognized and exposed, Five Point Calvinism falls apart completely.
The "lifeboats", (atonement), are for everyone, but not all men will get in them.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,425
383
83
#38
Of course the arminian view of salvation has 'I' as the decider if the cross actually paid for my 'I' sins.
After seeing all the Scripture which refute and repudiate limited atonement, is the the best you can come up with? Are you actually denying that sinners must repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved? If so, you are in opposition to the true Gospel and the Bible.

Just forget about the "Arminian view" and show us the Scriptures which support the false doctrine of limited atonement and that no one needs to obey the Gospel.
 
Feb 21, 2012
3,675
145
63
#39
What I don't understand is that it is the people who think it takes their work and belief to get into Heaven that also say that limited atonement is a lie.

If the Atonement is not limited then everyone is saved regardless of their work or belief.

Why is this so hard to understand? Do we just not understand what Atonement is???

Apparently we need a discussion on the meanings for 'sufficient' and 'efficacious' as well.
Is faith a "work"? When someone believes, is fully persuaded, and places their trust in something, is that a "work"?

If I believe and am fully persuaded that on a sunny day the sun is shining - Is that a "work"? If I believe and am fully persuaded that 2+2=4 - Is that a "work"? ETC. . . .
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
119
63
#40
After seeing all the Scripture which refute and repudiate limited atonement, is the the best you can come up with? Are you actually denying that sinners must repent and believe the Gospel in order to be saved? If so, you are in opposition to the true Gospel and the Bible.

Just forget about the "Arminian view" and show us the Scriptures which support the false doctrine of limited atonement and that no one needs to obey the Gospel.
efficacious atonement is limited to all who believe