-
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.
I question the mind of someone who might even think that the Biblical Doctrine of Limited Atonenment is Satanic in the first place. They sure dont understand Calvinism (most arminians dont) or they would not post such Christ dishonouring garbage .
Per scripture in explaining the Incarnation and resurrection a limited atonement is impossible.
Calling it Satanic is bit strong possibly, but it is definitely a false teaching imposed upon scripture,
Limited Atonement is NOT a scriptural doctrine. It is a Calvinistic doctrine.
Per scripture in explaining the Incarnation and resurrection a limited atonement is impossible.
Calling it Satanic is bit strong possibly, but it is definitely a false teaching imposed upon scripture,
Per scripture in explaining the Incarnation and resurrection a limited atonement is impossible.
Calling it Satanic is bit strong possibly, but it is definitely a false teaching imposed upon scripture,
1) Jn 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Ro 8:28-39; Eph 1:3-14; 1Pe 1:20 where
God speaks of having chosen a great number and having sent Christ to save them.
2) Jn 10:15-18, 27-29; Ro 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1Jn 4:9-10; Rev 1:4-6, 5:9-10
where Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups, with the clear implication that
his death has secured their salvation.
3) Jn 17:9, 20 where before his sacrifice, Christ prayed only for those the Father had given
him, specifically excluding the "world" (the rest of mankind).
It is unconscionable that he would specifically exclude any for whom he intended to die.
And all in perfect agreement with the promise that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy
(Jn 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Ro 1:16, 10:8-13).
Elin,
Only one text, John 6:39 is addressing the atonement. The others are addressing the purpose of the atonement.
Again, a lot of conflation here. Rom 5:6-10 is universal. It is all sinners, all the ungodly. This is confirmed by the statement in Rom 5:12 where the condemnation of death is passed to all men. Rom 5:18 states clearly that life was given to all men. This happens to align with I Cor 15:12-22, 52-54 as well.
None of the others are dealing with the atonement directly.
typical proof texting. John 17:9 is directed at the disciples. If you really want to know what was given to Christ, Read Col 1:20. II Cor 5:18-19, Rom 3:24, Everything was given to Him. There is not a single exception in this created order that He did not redeem. The text of John 6:39 aligns with this because everything that was given to Him will be raised in the last day. He lost none. Kinda impossible to lose anyone when He assumed our mortal human nature for the express purpose of raising it to life by defeating death. The death of all men, Heb 2:9, Heb 2:14-17 tells us very plainly that He was Incarnated so that He could defeat death, which is the power of Satan. II Tim 1:10 says the same thing, as does I John 3:8.
Your texts have nothing to do with atonment itself. These also are showing the purpose of the atonement. Why Christ needed to defeat death and sin. Actually two texts summarize it very well. I John 2:2. He atoned for the sin of the world. Heb 2:9 He tasted death for all men. He is indeed the Savior of the world, John 4:42, I John 4:14.
There is no limitation of Christ in His atoning work. It is impossible that it could be limited. It is universal from beginning to end because death and sin are universal. He did not save individuals from the Cross. His work reverses the fall, so that God and man can be reunited in an eternal union. God is now calling all men to repentance. He could never do this if only some sin and only death for some were atoned.
The atonement is between God and Christ, which was for the purpose of God uniting with man. This was God's original intent in creating man. Christ recreated the world, so that this union could go forward. Death precluded man ever having an eternal existence.
So, by accident, only one text, though you incorrectly labled the text, deal with the atonement itself. They all deal with the why, the purpose of the atonement.
One could also summarize it in two words, sacrifice and life.
These are the Biblical facts you have to deal with in this regard:
1) Jn 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Ro 8:28-39; Eph 1:3-14; 1Pe 1:20 where
God speaks of having chosen a great number and having sent Christ to save them.
1) Jn 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Ro 8:28-39; Eph 1:3-14; 1Pe 1:20 where
God speaks of having chosen a great number and having sent Christ to save them.
) Jn 10:15-18, 27-29; Ro 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1Jn 4:9-10; Rev 1:4-6, 5:9-10
where Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups, with the clear implication that
his death has secured their salvation.
where Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups, with the clear implication that
his death has secured their salvation.
None of the others are dealing with the atonement directly.
) Jn 17:9, 20 where before his sacrifice, Christ prayed only for those the Father had given
him, specifically excluding the "world" (the rest of mankind).
It is unconscionable that he would specifically exclude any for whom he intended to die.
him, specifically excluding the "world" (the rest of mankind).
It is unconscionable that he would specifically exclude any for whom he intended to die.
And all in perfect agreement with the promise that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy
(Jn 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Ro 1:16, 10:8-13).
(Jn 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Ro 1:16, 10:8-13).
There is no limitation of Christ in His atoning work. It is impossible that it could be limited. It is universal from beginning to end because death and sin are universal. He did not save individuals from the Cross. His work reverses the fall, so that God and man can be reunited in an eternal union. God is now calling all men to repentance. He could never do this if only some sin and only death for some were atoned.
The atonement is between God and Christ, which was for the purpose of God uniting with man. This was God's original intent in creating man. Christ recreated the world, so that this union could go forward. Death precluded man ever having an eternal existence.
So, by accident, only one text, though you incorrectly labled the text, deal with the atonement itself. They all deal with the why, the purpose of the atonement.
One could also summarize it in two words, sacrifice and life.
S
The definition of "atonement" is 90% of this debate.
The actual theological divide is separate from the word "atonement",
but actually centers around God's Plan of Redemption:
Is it personal and preordained to the elect, or is it preordained as an existent group and universally available yet effective only to those who submit?
Is there any practical difference between these two groups,
or does human free-will trump all?
All this divide comes down to is predestination vs free-will.
The actual theological divide is separate from the word "atonement",
but actually centers around God's Plan of Redemption:
Is it personal and preordained to the elect, or is it preordained as an existent group and universally available yet effective only to those who submit?
Is there any practical difference between these two groups,
or does human free-will trump all?
All this divide comes down to is predestination vs free-will.
Last edited by a moderator:
Elin said:
These are the Biblical facts you have to deal with in this regard:
1) Jn 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Ro 8:28-39; Eph 1:3-14; 1Pe 1:20 where
God speaks of having chosen a great number and having sent Christ to save them.
2) Jn 10:15-18, 27-29; Ro 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1Jn 4:9-10; Rev 1:4-6, 5:9-10
where Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups, with the clear implication that his death has secured their salvation.
3) Jn 17:9, 20 where before his sacrifice, Christ prayed only for those the Father had given
him, specifically excluding the "world" (the rest of mankind).
It is unconscionable that he would specifically exclude any for whom he intended to die.
4) And all in perfect agreement with the promise that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy
(Jn 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Ro 1:16, 10:8-13).
1) Jn 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Ro 8:28-39; Eph 1:3-14; 1Pe 1:20 where
God speaks of having chosen a great number and having sent Christ to save them.
2) Jn 10:15-18, 27-29; Ro 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1Jn 4:9-10; Rev 1:4-6, 5:9-10
where Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups, with the clear implication that his death has secured their salvation.
3) Jn 17:9, 20 where before his sacrifice, Christ prayed only for those the Father had given
him, specifically excluding the "world" (the rest of mankind).
It is unconscionable that he would specifically exclude any for whom he intended to die.
4) And all in perfect agreement with the promise that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy
(Jn 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Ro 1:16, 10:8-13).
1) Only one text, John 6:39 is addressing the atonement. The others are addressing the purpose of the atonement.
2) Again, a lot of conflation here. Rom 5:6-10 is universal.
None of the others are dealing with the atonement directly.
3) typical proof texting. John 17:9 is directed at the disciples.
4) Your texts have nothing to do with atonment itself. These also are showing the purpose of the atonement.
So, by accident, only one text, though you incorrectly labled the text, deal with the atonement itself. They all deal with the why, the purpose of the atonement.
And you did not address, or give the meaning, being true to their words, of even one of them.
Last edited:
Read' em all again. . .they state precisely what I said they do.
And you did not address, or give the meaning, being true to their words, of even one of them.
And you did not address, or give the meaning, being true to their words, of even one of them.
Man is not even part of the atonement. It is something Christ does. The texts you are using is how it benefits man, or why Christ needed to die for the world.
If a text is NOT addressing the sacrifice, or His resurrection, and through the Incarnation it is not dealing with the atonement.
One other clarification, salvation and eternal life are two different things. The atonement is salvation from death and sin. It is a work solely completed by Christ. It is His great gift to the world of His love, grace and mercy. Rom 5: 15,17.
Its purpose was to enable God to offer eternal life to those that see, hear and believe. Rom 6:23.
S
They may have been what you say, but only two actually dealt with the atonement.
Man is not even part of the atonement. It is something Christ does. The texts you are using is how it benefits man, or why Christ needed to die for the world.
If a text is NOT addressing the sacrifice, or His resurrection, and through the Incarnation it is not dealing with the atonement.
One other clarification, salvation and eternal life are two different things. The atonement is salvation from death and sin. It is a work solely completed by Christ. It is His great gift to the world of His love, grace and mercy. Rom 5: 15,17.
Its purpose was to enable God to offer eternal life to those that see, hear and believe. Rom 6:23.
Man is not even part of the atonement. It is something Christ does. The texts you are using is how it benefits man, or why Christ needed to die for the world.
If a text is NOT addressing the sacrifice, or His resurrection, and through the Incarnation it is not dealing with the atonement.
One other clarification, salvation and eternal life are two different things. The atonement is salvation from death and sin. It is a work solely completed by Christ. It is His great gift to the world of His love, grace and mercy. Rom 5: 15,17.
Its purpose was to enable God to offer eternal life to those that see, hear and believe. Rom 6:23.
Limited Atonement is NOT a scriptural doctrine. It is a Calvinistic doctrine.
Per scripture in explaining the Incarnation and resurrection a limited atonement is impossible.
Calling it Satanic is bit strong possibly, but it is definitely a false teaching imposed upon scripture,
Per scripture in explaining the Incarnation and resurrection a limited atonement is impossible.
Calling it Satanic is bit strong possibly, but it is definitely a false teaching imposed upon scripture,
They may have been what you say, but only two actually dealt with the atonement.
Man is not even part of the atonement. It is something Christ does. The texts you are using is how it benefits man, or why Christ needed to die for the world.
If a text is NOT addressing the sacrifice, or His resurrection, and through the Incarnation
it is not dealing with the atonement.
If a text is NOT addressing the sacrifice, or His resurrection, and through the Incarnation
it is not dealing with the atonement.
One other clarification, salvation and eternal life are two different things.
The atonement is salvation from death and sin.
The atonement is salvation from death and sin.
Atonement is saved from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on the guilt of sin.
Only the saved have eternal life. . .now.
It is a work solely completed by Christ. It is His great gift to the world of His love, grace and mercy. Rom 5: 15,17.
Its purpose was to enable God to offer eternal life to those that see, hear and believe. Rom 6:23.
Its purpose was to enable God to offer eternal life to those that see, hear and believe. Rom 6:23.
Now address the Scriptures above, being true to their words and context, which present
God having chosen some,
Christ dying for particular, not all, groups, and
Christ specifically excluding "the world" (the rest of mankind) in his High Priestly prayer
immediately before his sacrifice of atonement.
The natural question for that assertion is: what about the OT Saints? Does the sacrifice of Christ have eternal benefit in both directions of time, or only future from the event?
If Universal atonement was Scriptural, everyone would be saved . Universal atonement makes God a liar . You promote doctrines of Demons . I suggest you read this as though your life depended upon it . This article has never been refuted in nearly 400 years http://undergroundnotes.com/graphics2/JohnOwen.pdf
However, because of universal redemption, God can again call all men to Himself to share eternity with Him, which in scripture is called eternal life.
Owens does not have a clue about the atonement. If a "limited atonement" actually could have happened, Christ is just an historical figure. It denies the Incarnation of man, Christ assuming our human nature for the express purpose of giving life to it by His resurrection. It denies that hell or heaven exist because it is either Christ defeated death or He did not. Limited says He did not. That is clearly stated in I Cor 15:12-22. It then, of course, denies the resurrection of all men and the establishment of a new heaven and New earth.
And then we have the sacrifice for sin. Could someone please explain just how a sacrifice could be limited? Did Christ only half die, thus a partial sacrifice for sin?
As to Owens being refuted, it has been refuted way back in the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Specifically all things Cavinistic was condemned by the Synod of Jassy in 1642 and was reiterated in the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.
The problem with Owens is he depended on Calvin who also had no understanding of Christ's atoning work. It fit well with his other false suppositions. Even now, you have no understanding between what Christ accomplished and man's response.
You have conflated salvation from death and sin, (atonement) with God's offer of eternal life to those that see and believe. Owes even has that aspect incorrect. There just is no scripture to support such a notion as "limited atonement.
The two singular texts that one could use categorically denies "limited atonement". I John 2:2, Heb 2:9.
S
Everyone is saved if one uses that term as scripture uses it. We all have been saved from death and sin. Both are powers of Satan who was defeated.
However, because of universal redemption, God can again call all men to Himself to share eternity with Him, which in scripture is called eternal life.
Owens does not have a clue about the atonement. If a "limited atonement" actually could have happened, Christ is just an historical figure. It denies the Incarnation of man, Christ assuming our human nature for the express purpose of giving life to it by His resurrection. It denies that hell or heaven exist because it is either Christ defeated death or He did not. Limited says He did not. That is clearly stated in I Cor 15:12-22. It then, of course, denies the resurrection of all men and the establishment of a new heaven and New earth.
And then we have the sacrifice for sin. Could someone please explain just how a sacrifice could be limited? Did Christ only half die, thus a partial sacrifice for sin?
As to Owens being refuted, it has been refuted way back in the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Specifically all things Cavinistic was condemned by the Synod of Jassy in 1642 and was reiterated in the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.
The problem with Owens is he depended on Calvin who also had no understanding of Christ's atoning work. It fit well with his other false suppositions. Even now, you have no understanding between what Christ accomplished and man's response.
You have conflated salvation from death and sin, (atonement) with God's offer of eternal life to those that see and believe. Owes even has that aspect incorrect. There just is no scripture to support such a notion as "limited atonement.
The two singular texts that one could use categorically denies "limited atonement". I John 2:2, Heb 2:9.
However, because of universal redemption, God can again call all men to Himself to share eternity with Him, which in scripture is called eternal life.
Owens does not have a clue about the atonement. If a "limited atonement" actually could have happened, Christ is just an historical figure. It denies the Incarnation of man, Christ assuming our human nature for the express purpose of giving life to it by His resurrection. It denies that hell or heaven exist because it is either Christ defeated death or He did not. Limited says He did not. That is clearly stated in I Cor 15:12-22. It then, of course, denies the resurrection of all men and the establishment of a new heaven and New earth.
And then we have the sacrifice for sin. Could someone please explain just how a sacrifice could be limited? Did Christ only half die, thus a partial sacrifice for sin?
As to Owens being refuted, it has been refuted way back in the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Specifically all things Cavinistic was condemned by the Synod of Jassy in 1642 and was reiterated in the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.
The problem with Owens is he depended on Calvin who also had no understanding of Christ's atoning work. It fit well with his other false suppositions. Even now, you have no understanding between what Christ accomplished and man's response.
You have conflated salvation from death and sin, (atonement) with God's offer of eternal life to those that see and believe. Owes even has that aspect incorrect. There just is no scripture to support such a notion as "limited atonement.
The two singular texts that one could use categorically denies "limited atonement". I John 2:2, Heb 2:9.
It is more than just reconciliation or available justification. Atonement, used Biblically, also deals with "covering sin".
You are off on a tangent because you have narrowed the atoning work of Christ to only one or two out of the 4 aspects of atonement.
If you want to keep your definition of atonement, then I am willing to rephrase "limited atonement" to be
"specific sanctification", (sanctification is not theosis even though the outcome is similar and the two are related. It means to be "set apart", "made holy", even "set apart unto holiness")
or perhaps "preordained personal propitiation".
Yes, I like alliteration.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong.
That explains your misunderstanding.
Believers die and believers sin.
Atonement is saved from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on the guilt of sin.
Only the saved have eternal life. . .now.
Only the saved have eternal life. . .now.
Vs 6-8 is Christ dying for sinners. Who do you know that is NOT a sinner. It says He died for the ungodly. Who of man is not ungodly. Then we get to vs 9 which states because Christ justified us all through His Blood, Col 1:20 reiterates this, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. This last phrase is those that see and believe John 6:40, those that believe John 3:16 and many others
The next verse reiterates it again. We, mankind, all sinners, all the ungodly were reconciled through His Blood, We can include Rom 3:24, II Cor 5:18-19 as well. Christ is reconciling the world to God. That is the atonement.
And by the way, God does not have wrath. That is an anthropomorphism. Man heaps upon himself wrath God simply sentences man according to his own desires.
God needs enabling?
Now address the Scriptures above, being true to their words and context, which present
God having chosen some,
Christ dying for particular, not all, groups, and
Christ specifically excluding "the world" (the rest of mankind) in his High Priestly prayer
immediately before his sacrifice of atonement.
God having chosen some,
Christ dying for particular, not all, groups, and
Christ specifically excluding "the world" (the rest of mankind) in his High Priestly prayer
immediately before his sacrifice of atonement.
Obviously, if Christ does not give man an eternal existence, there is no reason for anyone to believe. We would all still be condemned to death through Adam. Dust to Dust Gen 3:19. A "limited atonement" makes Christ a failure and we all simply die and cease to exist.
By the way Christ did not exclude the world in His High Priestly prayer. Vs 24-26 is for the world.
Last edited:
S
And here is the clincher: are we saved by faith, or by traditions/ceremonies?
They may be the traditions of great men, but still remain as traditions of men.
There are no sacraments. Obedience to the commands of Christ comes out of a changed heart.
It is from the INSIDE OUT, not from the outside in (as the work the sacraments claim to perform).
Being in Christ is not equivalent to being part of Christian culture. Participating in Church function does not save or bring eternal life.
They may be the traditions of great men, but still remain as traditions of men.
There are no sacraments. Obedience to the commands of Christ comes out of a changed heart.
It is from the INSIDE OUT, not from the outside in (as the work the sacraments claim to perform).
Being in Christ is not equivalent to being part of Christian culture. Participating in Church function does not save or bring eternal life.
Do you reject "imputed righteousness" to the elect entirely?
How do you render Romans 3 and 2nd Corinthians 5 without His righteousness being placed upon us through belief?
How do you render Romans 3 and 2nd Corinthians 5 without His righteousness being placed upon us through belief?
Christ put all men, the world into a correct relationship with God.
Believers are imputed righteousness by faith. Also called justification by faith. This is the beginning of one's relationship with God. When we are actually members of His Body through baptism, then we are imparted righteousness based on the righteous things we do, I John 3:7.
Rom 3 says a lot as does II Cor 5. Rom 3:24 is Christ reconciling the world again thus all men are being made righteous. The purpose then is explained in vs25, so that believes might be able to live IN Him. II Cor 5:18-19 is Christ reconciling the world, but vs 20 is Paul admonishing his hearers to be reconciled to God, which we do by faith. So you have both. Once again, while we are believers, it is an internal position, so thus we are imparted righteousness.
S
Depends on where you place the elect. When they are part of humanity, Christ imputes righteousness to every human being.
Christ put all men, the world into a correct relationship with God.
Believers are imputed righteousness by faith. Also called justification by faith. This is the beginning of one's relationship with God. When we are actually members of His Body through baptism, then we are imparted righteousness based on the righteous things we do, I John 3:7.
Rom 3 says a lot as does II Cor 5. Rom 3:24 is Christ reconciling the world again thus all men are being made righteous. The purpose then is explained in vs25, so that believes might be able to live IN Him. II Cor 5:18-19 is Christ reconciling the world, but vs 20 is Paul admonishing his hearers to be reconciled to God, which we do by faith. So you have both. Once again, while we are believers, it is an internal position, so thus we are imparted righteousness.
Christ put all men, the world into a correct relationship with God.
Believers are imputed righteousness by faith. Also called justification by faith. This is the beginning of one's relationship with God. When we are actually members of His Body through baptism, then we are imparted righteousness based on the righteous things we do, I John 3:7.
Rom 3 says a lot as does II Cor 5. Rom 3:24 is Christ reconciling the world again thus all men are being made righteous. The purpose then is explained in vs25, so that believes might be able to live IN Him. II Cor 5:18-19 is Christ reconciling the world, but vs 20 is Paul admonishing his hearers to be reconciled to God, which we do by faith. So you have both. Once again, while we are believers, it is an internal position, so thus we are imparted righteousness.
That doesn't synergize with Scripture.
And here is the clincher: are we saved by faith, or by traditions/ceremonies?
They may be the traditions of great men, but still remain as traditions of men.
There are no sacraments. Obedience to the commands of Christ comes out of a changed heart.
It is from the INSIDE OUT, not from the outside in (as the work the sacraments claim to perform).
It is from the INSIDE OUT, not from the outside in (as the work the sacraments claim to perform).
If one does not follow the commands, one does not have a changed heart.
Being in Christ is not equivalent to being part of Christian culture. Participating in Church function does not save or bring eternal life.
I think your definition of Church is skewered by your definition of what is actually the Church.
Last edited: