Is "Limited Atonement" doctrine in Calvinism satanic heresy?

[posthuman]

Two completely different things. Apples and Oranges.

The Atonement is what Christ did and man has nothing to do with it. He cannot change it, effect it in any way, It is an historical event that was completed 2000 years ago.

However there was a purpose for God creating man, and when man lost the ability to fulfill that purpose, God sent Christ to redeem man and the world from the power of Satan, the power of death and sin.

Now that redemption is complete, every human being is being called to enter into a relationship with Christ. When we do, His promise is the gift of eternal life. Rom 6:23. Now, if one either does not believe, or leaves his relationship he can be condemned for his sin.

Eternal life is attained through fait working with the Holy Spirit to perfect ourselves in becoming conformed to Christ's Image. It is all about being made perfect. It is about being healed.

The issue here is that you are conflating what Christ did with man's response or the reason why Christ reversed the fall.

it seems like what your saying here is that the "redeemed" may still be condemned. that doesn't seem like any sort of effective "redemption" so much as a chance for redemption that's been passed up. an open door out of a prison that one doesn't bother walking through.

don't we 'enter in' to said relationship through Christ, by that very redemption?
so that to deny Him, to forsake this invitation, is to reject the offer of redemption? (i.e. to reject that graceful atonement by which we may be redeemed?)

 

[Cassian]

it seems like what your saying here is that the "redeemed" may still be condemned. that doesn't seem like any sort of effective "redemption" so much as a chance for redemption that's been passed up. an open door out of a prison that one doesn't bother walking through.

don't we 'enter in' to said relationship through Christ, by that very redemption?
so that to deny Him, to forsake this invitation, is to reject the offer of redemption? (i.e. to reject that graceful atonement by which we may be redeemed?)

Being redeemed has nothing to do directly with our relationship. It is what makes the relationship possible. You cannot reject the atonement. What good does that do, it is an completed historical event. It's like saying we can reject the American Revolution. The ONLY thing we can reject is God's offer of eternal life, or the spiritual relationship in this life and the next.

You have been, as all men have, redeemed from death and sin so that God can offer union with Him.

 

[Cassian]

not my metaphor, friend. Christ's.
have a look at Matthew 25 again.

now "redemption" in the Greek is apolutrosis - right?
meaning literally to buy back what has been forfeited, removing it from the market? as though a thing had been pawned, and you go back to the pawn shop, turn in your ticket, pay the fee, and remove it from the premises. it is no longer for sale.

the simile here is with slavery, right?
so we are no longer slaves to sin - as though on the market, ready to be handed over to whatever transgression would have mastery over us. right? for we have a new master, who has given us power to become sons and heirs with Him, by adoption, not birthright - being freely justified through our faith by His grace.

so if all mankind has received redemption, then all mankind is no longer a slave to sin - right?
this is universalism, and it is not Biblical, as far as i know. even my eyes can see those people in the world who remain in chains as it were - isn't it plain?
now i am a young man, not studied in seminary, not up on _____-ism's etc, so for sure, correct me. but i honestly don't care about Calvinism or Armenianism or _______-ism, but about the Truth

but i do not think that my basket here is of mixed fruits. the gospel i received, the salvation i received, is having been redeemed, no longer a slave to sin but to righteousness, and i am persuaded that those who have not put their trust in the atonement of Christ Jesus do not share such redemption, but still stand condemned already, slaves to iniquity and having no righteousness whereby they might be justified before God.

all mankind may have their sin propitiated, for sure. however those who do not believe, have not received - don't we agree about that?

so while atonement is universally available, it is not universally applied, not being universally believed, not being universally received, not being universally acknowledged. and without acknowledging God - it is just as though the blood had not been applied to the lintels of the doors, and so that angel will not pass over that house, but enter in with righteous judgement. yes?

how does this sound,

"limited application" ?

not so good i guess.
i understand that the language has connotation that without much thought make it sound as though the Lord's hand is shortened. it is not.

posthuman,

so if all mankind has received redemption, then all mankind is no longer a slave to sin - right?
this is universalism, and it is not Biblical, as far as i know. even my eyes can see those people in the world who remain in chains as it were - isn't it plain?
now i am a young man, not studied in seminary, not up on _____-ism's etc, so for sure, correct me. but i honestly don't care about Calvinism or Armenianism or _______-ism, but about the Truth

no man is a slave to sin except now by his own choice.
What you and others are missing, primarily because you hold to Original Sin theory, is that man was condemned to death. Man lost life, an eternal existence. Man would return to dust permanently Gen 3:19, unless Christ restores life to mankind and the world. As long as we remained under the condemnation of death, sin would be irrelevant. Now that Christ has restored life to the world, sin becomes a factor in every man's life. Now, it is a choice that has consequences.
Another way of portraying the atonement, Christ freed all men from the bondage of death and sin. This is why Christ needed to defeat death, the power of Satan, Heb 2:14 and I John 3:8.
This is explained clearly in Rom 5:15-18 and again Paul uses the same equation in I Cor 15:12-22. Vs 17 states quite clearly that if Christ does not raise all the dead, then even those who believe would perish. Faith cannot and does not grant life to man and the world. ONLY Christ the giver of Life can restore Life to the world. He did that through His Incarnation and resurrection. It has nothing to do with faith, with belief, or our relationship with Christ. He reversed the fall of man which is also why He is called the Second Adam. That comparison is shown in that same equation of I Cor 15:22.

all mankind may have their sin propitiated, for sure. however those who do not believe, have not received - don't we agree about that?

Yes, it is called a sacrifice for sin. Christ is the sacrifice for sin. There is no automatic forgiveness just because He became a sacrifice for sin. In fact, He cannot forgive sins until He is seated on God's right hand, and becomes our mediator and High Priest. He cannot and was not a High Priest on the Cross or by His death. He was the sacrifice for sin. But that is only half of the atonement, and the secondary one at that. Without His resurrection, and a sacrifice does not require a resurrection, there would be no life. He raised our mortal natures to life, an eternal existence. That now validates the sacrifice.

This is not Univeralism which holds that all men will eventually receive eternal life as well. Without redemption of all men, God could not call all men to repentance.

so while atonement is universally available, it is not universally applied, not being universally believed, not being universally received, not being universally acknowledged. and without acknowledging God -

Yes and no. Respective of the sacrifice, forgiveness of sin will ONLY occur for those that repent and confess their sin so that they might be able to have a relationship with God in this life. But respective of life, it is imposed on every human being. Do you have a choice whether or not you will be raised from the dead?

 

[Sophia]

It is not a denomination. It is taught by the Church Christ established with the Apostles at Pentecost. Today that Church is embodied in the Orhtodox Church.

Which one? Eastern Orthodox? Syrian Orthodox?

 

[Cassian]

Which one? Eastern Orthodox? Syrian Orthodox?

Eastern. However, all the Oriental Churches have effectively agreed to come back to the Orthodox Church. Its just a matter of time administratively.

 

[Nick01]

I never quite understand why Arminians get so hung up on arguing what Calvinists think of Christ dying for everyone. As I see it, they aren't that different from each other on that point.

Calvinists do not believe everyone will be saved. They believe that Jesus died in a sufficient sense for all, but only effectively for the elect.

Arminians do not believe everyone will be saved. They believe that Jesus died in a sufficient sense for all, but only effectively for the elect.

The difference is that Calvinists believe the elect is primarily a question of God's choice, Arminians believe the elect is primarily a question of man's choice. It is not a question ultimately of one group believing Jesus died for all, and the other only for some. 'All' and 'some' in this context depends entirely on which sense you mean Jesus to have died 'for everyone'

But neither believe that Jesus died in a saving sense for all, or all would be saved. If both believe in a God who knows all things, then they must also both believe that Jesus died knowing that not everyone would be saved by his sacrifice. The only people who are at least consistent on the literalist reading of "Jesus died for all' are the Universalists, for whom the wheels come off in a whole bunch of other areas.

 

[Cassian]

I never quite understand why Arminians get so hung up on arguing what Calvinists think of Christ dying for everyone. As I see it, they aren't that different from each other on that point.

Calvinists do not believe everyone will be saved. They believe that Jesus died in a sufficient sense for all, but only effectively for the elect.

Arminians do not believe everyone will be saved. They believe that Jesus died in a sufficient sense for all, but only effectively for the elect.

The difference is that Calvinists believe the elect is primarily a question of God's choice, Arminians believe the elect is primarily a question of man's choice. It is not a question ultimately of one group believing Jesus died for all, and the other only for some. 'All' and 'some' in this context depends entirely on which sense you mean Jesus to have died 'for everyone'

But neither believe that Jesus died in a saving sense for all, or all would be saved. If both believe in a God who knows all things, then they must also both believe that Jesus died knowing that not everyone would be saved by his sacrifice. The only people who are at least consistent on the literalist reading of "Jesus died for all' are the Universalists, for whom the wheels come off in a whole bunch of other areas.

In giving the view of three very distinct and all opposite view, you actually missed the one of scripture. Christ not only died for all, He died for the world. He saved, literally, the world from death and sin. There is a reason why He is called the Second Adam, and is the Savior of the world.

It is because He reversed the fall, the condemnation of death to all men, and the resultant sin, both powers of Satan, that God can again call all men to repentance so that the original purpose of creating man could be fulfilled, namely have union with man freely.

Really, one text clearly spells it out, I Cor 15:12-22. It is restated again in vs 52-54.

 

[Elin]

Any individual who is honest and reads that will know for certain that
Penal Substitution is false. The Bible utterly contradicts the Penal Substitution model.

Lotta' hat (assertion). . .and no cowboy (addressing Scripture presented).

I'll settle for addressing, being true to their words, just Isa 53:5-6; 2Pe 2:24 below. . .

The whole OT sin sacrifice (propitiation) system was substitutionary atonement.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. . .
the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:5-6)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree." (2Pe 2:24)



"And he is the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 2:2)

". . .he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 4:10)

"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (propitiation) through faith in his blood (death)."
(Ro 3:25)

Wounding--bruising--death (capital punishment) is penal,
our iniquity laid on him, bore our sins is substitutionary,
and propitiation is atonement.

 

[Galahad]

"In other words Penal Substitution teaches that it is God that has to change in the reconciliation process not man. God merely PRETENDS the sinner is innocent and righteous due to the double imputation legal exchange taught in the Penal Model."

Clarified. Good.

 

[Elin]

"In other words Penal Substitution teaches that it is God that has to change in the reconciliation process not man.

You must understand the meaning of penal substitution in order to refute it,
rather than refuting a straw man.

God merely PRETENDS the sinner is innocent and righteous

Nope. . .that righteousness is justification, which is a gift of God (Ro 4:17).

It is a declaration by God of the sinner's forgiveness through faith, giving him rightwise standing before God.

Character is not altered at that time, it follows in the process of sanctification/righteousness enabled by the Holy Spirit.

due to the double imputation legal exchange taught in the Penal Model."

No. . .it is due to faith, through which the benefits of Christ's atonement are applied to the born again (Ro 5:19).

And it was in God laying on Christ the iniquity of all his children (Isa 53:5-6)
and in Christ bearing our sin in his body on the tree (1Pe 2:24)
that our guilt was applied to Christ.

The "double imputation" is the clear teaching of Scripture.

You are refuting a straw man.

 

[Nick01]

In giving the view of three very distinct and all opposite view, you actually missed the one of scripture. Christ not only died for all, He died for the world. He saved, literally, the world from death and sin. There is a reason why He is called the Second Adam, and is the Savior of the world.

It is because He reversed the fall, the condemnation of death to all men, and the resultant sin, both powers of Satan, that God can again call all men to repentance so that the original purpose of creating man could be fulfilled, namely have union with man freely.

Really, one text clearly spells it out, I Cor 15:12-22. It is restated again in vs 52-54.

So run it by me briefly again so I'm clear - what, in your mind, did Christ's death and resurrection achieve?

 

[Cassian]

So run it by me briefly again so I'm clear - what, in your mind, did Christ's death and resurrection achieve?

Two things.

Life and sacrifice for sin.

You can use just two texts, Heb2:9, I John 2:2.

 

[tribesman]

Lotta' hat (assertion). . .and no cowboy (addressing Scripture presented)...

Indeed.....

 

[Nick01]

Two things.

Life and sacrifice for sin.

You can use just two texts, Heb2:9, I John 2:2.

Life for who/what? Atonement for sins for who/what? Do you think it is possible for a person to have neither life nor atonement, despite the cross?

 

[Cassian]

Life for who/what? Atonement for sins for who/what? Do you think it is possible for a person to have neither life nor atonement, despite the cross?

Christ redeemed, atoned, reconciled the world. It was the world that was condemned to death as well as man. Christ was Incarnated, became man as we are, took upon Himself our fallen mortal nature in order to defeat death and raise our mortal bodies to life immortality. Rom 5:18, I Cor 5:12-22, 52-54 make this very clear. John 6:39 also states that Christ will lose none and will raise all the dead in the last day.

Christ became the sacrifice for sin. That is all He did by His death for sin. When Christ ascended He became our mediator and High Priest. Now, when we confess our sins, He can forgive them. Sins are not forgiven unilaterally, but ONLY upon confession. It is how a believer remains IN Christ. Man is free to leave the covenantal relationship at any time. He can return to his old sinful habits at any time.

I don't know how anyone can be missed or any sin not atoned. He tasted death for every human being, Heb 2:9, gave life to every human being, Rom 5:18, all will be raised, He lost none, John 6:39. He atoned for the sin of the world, I John 2:2.
Do you think He missed someone?

 

[Nick01]

Christ redeemed, atoned, reconciled the world. It was the world that was condemned to death as well as man. Christ was Incarnated, became man as we are, took upon Himself our fallen mortal nature in order to defeat death and raise our mortal bodies to life immortality. Rom 5:18, I Cor 5:12-22, 52-54 make this very clear. John 6:39 also states that Christ will lose none and will raise all the dead in the last day.

Christ became the sacrifice for sin. That is all He did by His death for sin. When Christ ascended He became our mediator and High Priest. Now, when we confess our sins, He can forgive them. Sins are not forgiven unilaterally, but ONLY upon confession. It is how a believer remains IN Christ. Man is free to leave the covenantal relationship at any time. He can return to his old sinful habits at any time.

I don't know how anyone can be missed or any sin not atoned. He tasted death for every human being, Heb 2:9, gave life to every human being, Rom 5:18, all will be raised, He lost none, John 6:39. He atoned for the sin of the world, I John 2:2.
Do you think He missed someone?

I'm tracking with you so far. But, how do you read passages such as those in John 3 in your framework:

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.

and at the end of the chapter:

The Father loves the Son and has placed all things under his authority.The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.

 

[Hoffco]

The death of Jesus did not SAVE anyone, It made God willing to save the Whole world, and all would be saved if the repent trust and obey Jesus. Jesus' death covered God's wrath against sinners. God satisfied Himself by His Son's death for sinner, subsitutional . We know God's plan is to only save His "elect".

 

[Cassian]

Nick01,

I'm tracking with you so far. But, how do you read passages such as those in John 3 in your framework:

John 3 is all about the Kingdom. How one enters into Christ. This has nothing to do with the atonement, except that it makes it possible for God and man to again be united in a relationship.
None of this could take place unless Christ first redeemed the world. We were created to have union with God. Because Christ redeemed the world He can now call all men to repentance. It would not make much sense to call men to repentance that had no eternal existence and would simple die and return to dust.
Which is why Christ's redeemption is universal. Death and sin was universal and if Christ was going to defeat both, then it must be all or nothing. Christ defeated both universally because they were the tools and power of Satan. You cannot destroy Satan partially. It is all or nothing. Heb 2:14, I John3:8.

 

[Nick01]

Nick01,

John 3 is all about the Kingdom. How one enters into Christ. This has nothing to do with the atonement, except that it makes it possible for God and man to again be united in a relationship.
None of this could take place unless Christ first redeemed the world. We were created to have union with God. Because Christ redeemed the world He can now call all men to repentance. It would not make much sense to call men to repentance that had no eternal existence and would simple die and return to dust.
Which is why Christ's redeemption is universal. Death and sin was universal and if Christ was going to defeat both, then it must be all or nothing. Christ defeated both universally because they were the tools and power of Satan. You cannot destroy Satan partially. It is all or nothing. Heb 2:14, I John3:8.

So what, to you, is different in the outcomes between the hypothetical person who dies without the atonement at all, and the person with Christ having atoned but rejecting him? You have said that the atonement achieved life and sacrifice for sins for all people, so what does that look like for someone who rejects Christ?

 

[Cassian]

The death of Jesus did not SAVE anyone, It made God willing to save the Whole world, and all would be saved if the repent trust and obey Jesus. Jesus' death covered God's wrath against sinners. God satisfied Himself by His Son's death for sinner, subsitutional . We know God's plan is to only save His "elect".

Obviously, you hold to limited atonement which, when juxtaposed against scripture means Christ did absolutely nothing. All He did was suffer greatly, and was not risen from the dead. You make Him just an historical figure, a good teacher at best.

He either atoned for the sin of the world, or He failed to atone anything. He either was raised and gave life to our mortal bodies or He was not raised. There can be no partiality, it is an impossibility.

It may make a nice philosophical treatise but has nothing to do with scripture, or salvation the salvation of the world.