Doctrines like Limited Atonement - why?
- Thread starter LeeLoving
- Start date
-
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.
WE are grafted into them per PAuls letters.
So we are adopted into Israel. There is not two bodies, only one body.
Some think God loves the Church of Gentiles more than the people he chose from the beginning.
HMMM interesting...
some prrach God thinks the church deseres to be raptured but leaves ISrael behind to love through the tribulation
of course that is just westerners , many in other places in world been under tribulation for centuries.
So we all believe what we taught or read, but only GOD knows the truth,,,
So we are adopted into Israel. There is not two bodies, only one body.
Some think God loves the Church of Gentiles more than the people he chose from the beginning.
HMMM interesting...
some prrach God thinks the church deseres to be raptured but leaves ISrael behind to love through the tribulation
of course that is just westerners , many in other places in world been under tribulation for centuries.
So we all believe what we taught or read, but only GOD knows the truth,,,
-
1
- Show all
Romans 9:6-11, Not all of the nation of Israel were the elect. Gen 22:17 (concerning Abraham), I will multiply thy seed (descendents) as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore. verse 18, And in thy seed (descendents) shall all the "nations" of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Good to hear that you have included all of the believers from every "nation" as Israel, which is Jacob's name.
Good to hear that you have included all of the believers from every "nation" as Israel, which is Jacob's name.
Sometimes when the scriptures mention the wicked they are referring to the unsaved, but most of the time they are referring to God's children. Jesus paid for all of the sins, past present and future, of his elect, as pertaining to their eternal security is concerned, but even after we have been born again we do still carry the baggage of our fleshly nature with us which is totally depraved.
Here's a new article on limited atonement by Kevin DeYoung.
The reason why limited atonement is important is that it teaches an ACTUAL atonement, not a HYPOTHETICAL atonement.
Free-willers deny that the atonement actually has reconciled anyone to God, but has only provided a theoretical atonement. Reformed individuals teach that the atonement actually liberated specific individuals, and this atonement will be applied to them at the proper time.
In the free-willer view, Jesus really did not die for his sheep, but he died for all mankind. In other words, there are individuals who suffer eternal punishment whom his atonement applied to. They are being punished for their sins, even though Jesus paid the cost for them.
Note: the author has limited his words to 500 in this description, so it is not a comprehensive treatment.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-limited-atonement/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theological Primer - Limited Atonement
Kevin DeYoung
The doctrine of limited atonement—the L in TULIP—teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people “only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation” (Canons of Dort, II.8). As Ursinus explains in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Christ’s death was for everyone “as it respects the sufficiency of satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.” In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.
Particular redemption is often considered a more favorable term, because the point of the doctrine is not to limit the mercy of God, but to make clear that Jesus did not die in the place of every sinner on the earth, but for his particular people. The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11). This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people, and John 15:13 says for his friends, and Acts 20:28 says for the church, and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride, and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus.
The doctrine of particular redemption is worth defining and defending because it gets to the heart of the gospel. Should we say “Christ died so that sinners might come to him”? Or, “Christ died for sinners”? Did Christ’s work on the cross make it possible for sinners to come to God? Or did Christ’s work on the cross actually reconcile sinners to God? In other words, does the death of Jesus Christ make us save-able or does it make us saved?
If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism—Christ died in everyone’s place and therefore everyone is saved—or we have something less than full substitution. “We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ,” Spurgeon observed, “because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.” But, Spurgeon argued, it is the view of the atonement that says no one in particular was saved at the cross that actually limits Christ’s death. “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.”
Christ does not come to us merely saying, “I’ve done my part. I laid down my life for everyone because I have saving love for everyone in the whole world. Now, if you would only believe and come to me I can save you.” Instead he says to us, I was pierced for your transgressions. I was crushed for your iniquities (Isa. 53:5). I have purchased with my blood men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev. 5:9). I myself bore your sins in my body on the tree, so that you might infallibly die to sins and assuredly live for righteousness. For my wounds did not merely make healing available. They healed you (1 Pet. 2:24).
“Amazing love!” a great Arminian once wrote. “How can it be that you, my God, should die for me?!” Praise be to our Good Shepherd who didn’t just make our salvation possible, but sustained the anger of God in body and soul, shouldered the curse, and laid down his life for the sheep.
The reason why limited atonement is important is that it teaches an ACTUAL atonement, not a HYPOTHETICAL atonement.
Free-willers deny that the atonement actually has reconciled anyone to God, but has only provided a theoretical atonement. Reformed individuals teach that the atonement actually liberated specific individuals, and this atonement will be applied to them at the proper time.
In the free-willer view, Jesus really did not die for his sheep, but he died for all mankind. In other words, there are individuals who suffer eternal punishment whom his atonement applied to. They are being punished for their sins, even though Jesus paid the cost for them.
Note: the author has limited his words to 500 in this description, so it is not a comprehensive treatment.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-limited-atonement/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theological Primer - Limited Atonement
Kevin DeYoung
The doctrine of limited atonement—the L in TULIP—teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people “only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation” (Canons of Dort, II.8). As Ursinus explains in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Christ’s death was for everyone “as it respects the sufficiency of satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.” In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.
Particular redemption is often considered a more favorable term, because the point of the doctrine is not to limit the mercy of God, but to make clear that Jesus did not die in the place of every sinner on the earth, but for his particular people. The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11). This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people, and John 15:13 says for his friends, and Acts 20:28 says for the church, and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride, and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus.
The doctrine of particular redemption is worth defining and defending because it gets to the heart of the gospel. Should we say “Christ died so that sinners might come to him”? Or, “Christ died for sinners”? Did Christ’s work on the cross make it possible for sinners to come to God? Or did Christ’s work on the cross actually reconcile sinners to God? In other words, does the death of Jesus Christ make us save-able or does it make us saved?
If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism—Christ died in everyone’s place and therefore everyone is saved—or we have something less than full substitution. “We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ,” Spurgeon observed, “because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.” But, Spurgeon argued, it is the view of the atonement that says no one in particular was saved at the cross that actually limits Christ’s death. “We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.”
Christ does not come to us merely saying, “I’ve done my part. I laid down my life for everyone because I have saving love for everyone in the whole world. Now, if you would only believe and come to me I can save you.” Instead he says to us, I was pierced for your transgressions. I was crushed for your iniquities (Isa. 53:5). I have purchased with my blood men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation (Rev. 5:9). I myself bore your sins in my body on the tree, so that you might infallibly die to sins and assuredly live for righteousness. For my wounds did not merely make healing available. They healed you (1 Pet. 2:24).
“Amazing love!” a great Arminian once wrote. “How can it be that you, my God, should die for me?!” Praise be to our Good Shepherd who didn’t just make our salvation possible, but sustained the anger of God in body and soul, shouldered the curse, and laid down his life for the sheep.
-
1
- Show all
I will also add that the free willer concept of universal atonement takes away the personalness of the atonement, as Kevin alludes to, in his last sentences.
You can't have it both ways, folks.
Also, check out my thread on, is the doctrine of limited atonement biblical? if you want to see my scriptural support.
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...octrine-of-limited-atonement-biblical.187815/
You can't have it both ways, folks.
Also, check out my thread on, is the doctrine of limited atonement biblical? if you want to see my scriptural support.
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...octrine-of-limited-atonement-biblical.187815/
-
1
- Show all
Attached is a good article on misrepresentations of Reformed (Calvinist) theology that are commonly employed by free-willers.
It seems like Christians would be more conscientious about representing others' beliefs even if they disagree with them. But, unfortunately, I've found that some Christians are not conscientious in this regard and deliberately misrepresent the theology of their opponents in some cases. In other cases, it's a matter of ignorance and repeating the claims of other ignorant men. Dave Hunt would be an example of one such individual.
It seems like Christians would be more conscientious about representing others' beliefs even if they disagree with them. But, unfortunately, I've found that some Christians are not conscientious in this regard and deliberately misrepresent the theology of their opponents in some cases. In other cases, it's a matter of ignorance and repeating the claims of other ignorant men. Dave Hunt would be an example of one such individual.
