Limited Atonement?

Here's a point to ponder on this topic. There are several cities named in Genesis in the antediluvian world, so the population had to be at least several thousand if not more. We all remember that Noah built the Ark over the course of 120 years and he is described as a preacher of righteousness, and he was. He was spreading the word of a coming flood to people who had never seen rain. In the end, only eight people got on board the Ark and they were all from his family. Notice how the writer of Hebrews described what Noah did, "By faith Noah...prepared an ark for the salvation of his household...." (Hb. 11:7). The Ark wasn't big enough to accomodate the population of the entire world as it existed in those days. God knew that only eight would respond to the message and gave Noah the blueprints for the vessel that was designed for only the eight people who would climb onboard. Why is it so difficult to think that God knows the exact number of people who will respond to the gospel message and sent Christ to come and die for them?
 
Then use the right scripture. John 3:16 says He loved the world, there is nothing about atonement in that verse. As a matter of fact, "atonement" is an Old Testament term meaning "covering," and never actually appears in the NT. Jesus did not "cover" sins; He took them away. Jesus "purchased" his "church" which is a limited group (Acts 20:28). It says in Mt. 20:28 and again in Mk. 10:45 that He gave his life a ransom FOR MANY. It does not say "ALL." The word "many" in these two passages is a term that is never used with an all inclusive meaning. Think of it from the standpoint of God's omniscience: If God knew who would be his redeemed people before the world began, why would Christ die for the unsaved? That would mean that God exacted the penalty for sin twice, once on his Son and again on the sinner who is now in hell. Is that divine justice? If Christ died for all, what would stop an unsaved person from being admitted to heaven? If Christ paid the penalty for all of his sin, he couldn't be barred from Heaven. You might answer, "Yes, but he didn't receive Christ as Savior." Yes, but did Christ also pay the penalty for his rejection of Him, and if so, than all of his sin is gone and he can't be kept out.

Really Jack? GAVE HIS OWN SON, is not an atonement?
What does Paul say in Rom 3:24-26 Jack?
They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an atoning sacrifice by his blood, obtainable through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over previous sins. It was also to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
So according to your reasoning Jack, 2 Peter 3:9 is a lie? God is willing that at least some should perish? According to your reasoning, Jesus also lied because He said in John 10:9, WHOEVER enters by the gate. You're telling us he didn't mean WHOEVER, but only MANY? What about 1 John 1:7 Jack. Did John only mean many, not ALL?
I think most of us can see the flaw in your 'take' on scripture and on how you equivocate on words instead of seeing the big picture.
What does Paul state in Col 1:19 Jack?
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross.
Again you try to use your limited human reasoning AND eisegesis, to prove your doctrinal beliefs Jack, but it fails, as does ALL things in the light of what scripture says.
 
I'm not understanding your argument here. No one does know who the elect are! That's why Calvinists preach the gospel to the whole world. William Carey, the Father of Modern Missions, was a committed Calvinist and won many souls in India as did Adoriam Judson in Burma. The elect don't wear a label, "I'm one of the elect, evangelize me." Think of Ezekiel who stood before a valley of dry, dead, parched bones and was told to preach to them and he did. It was the Lord who gave them life and used the preaching of the Prophet. All the first generation Reformers--Luther, Malancthon, Knox, Calvin, Beza--were all Calvinists to the man. Luther wrote "The Bondage of the Will" which is the most Calvinistic book you can read and it was published long before Calvin came along. These men were responsible for the greatest Christian revival in the history of Europe. Jonathan Edwards is credited with starting the Great Awakening in colonial America and he was a committed Calvinist. Calvinists have been at the forefront of evangelism and missions, so I'm honestly not understanding your view here. We disagree over this view, and I'm fine with that. In my career, I've been on both sides of this issue and I see from both sides.


Actually Jack, scripture teaches us that ALL believers are the elect. That is how you become part of the elect, you become born again. No one is elect IF they are NOT born again.
 
Here's a point to ponder on this topic. There are several cities named in Genesis in the antediluvian world, so the population had to be at least several thousand if not more. We all remember that Noah built the Ark over the course of 120 years and he is described as a preacher of righteousness, and he was. He was spreading the word of a coming flood to people who had never seen rain. In the end, only eight people got on board the Ark and they were all from his family. Notice how the writer of Hebrews described what Noah did, "By faith Noah...prepared an ark for the salvation of his household...." (Hb. 11:7). The Ark wasn't big enough to accomodate the population of the entire world as it existed in those days. God knew that only eight would respond to the message and gave Noah the blueprints for the vessel that was designed for only the eight people who would climb onboard. Why is it so difficult to think that God knows the exact number of people who will respond to the gospel message and sent Christ to come and die for them?

We have advocated that before Jack in other threads which you have argued against, and now you agree that God knows WHO will accept His gift?
Your vacillation is amazing!
 
"These things I write unto you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life" (I Jn. 5:13). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (Jn. 5:24). Here are just two verses of several that tell us that eternal life is a present possession. John even says that he wrote his epistle in order that we might "know" that we have eternal life. Eternal life is life that will never end. Yes, I know I am saved because of where I have placed my faith and that is in the Son of the Living God who came to this earth and died for me. In the John 5 passage, Jesus even said that we who have heard his word and believed upon Him not only have [present tense] eternal life, but they are no longer moving toward judgment but have [aorist tense] passed from death unto life." I don't doubt for a moment that there are many people who think they are saved for all the wrong reasons. Paul asserts, "Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof...." The Pharisees in the gospels and Acts believed they were in tight with God because they had "done" all the right things. But in the process of doing things, they rejected the Messiah. They were very religious but lost.

Good Jack, now how about reading John 20:31 and tell us WHO the author is referring to? I asked you this on another thread which you ignored at that time.
 
Of course, I won't be burning in hell because I know the Lord Jesus as my Savior and Lord, and I hope you do too. So, your comment is way off base to start with. I'm not consciously dodging anything. Did I not answer a question or did I misunderstand something? I'd be more than happy to respond to it. What's the heart of the questions?

So you have ACTUALLY done what Paul teaches in Rom 10:9-11?
 
STAN: Really Jack? GAVE HIS OWN SON, is not an atonement? What does Paul say in Rom 3:24-26 Jack? They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an atoning sacrifice by his blood, obtainable through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over previous sins. It was also to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

JACK: The underlying word in Romans 3:25 is actually "propitiation" (satisfaction), the same term used in I John 2:2. The word "atonement" never actually appears in the NT and for good reason. The Hebrew for "atonement" means "covering," and Christ doesn't cover our sin, He takes it away.

STAN: So according to your reasoning Jack, 2 Peter 3:9 is a lie? God is willing that at least some should perish? According to your reasoning, Jesus also lied because He said in John 10:9, WHOEVER enters by the gate. You're telling us he didn't mean WHOEVER, but only MANY? What about 1 John 1:7 Jack. Did John only mean many, not ALL?

JACK: Not at all, Stan. If you had taken the time to read the context of 2 Peter 3:9 you would have seen that Peter addressed this to "...to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (1:1). It was written to Christians and God is not willing that any of us should perish and we don't. That's another reason I believe once saved always saved.

STAND: I think most of us can see the flaw in your 'take' on scripture and on how you equivocate on words instead of seeing the big picture.
What does Paul state in Col 1:19 Jack? For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross. Again you try to use your limited human reasoning AND eisegesis, to prove your doctrinal beliefs Jack, but it fails, as does ALL things in the light of what scripture says.

JACK: Again, the context of the passage you'll notice verse 21. "And although YOU were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds yet He has now reconciled YOU in His fleshly body through death...." He's talking to the believers in Colosse. Don't you ever read the beginning of Paul's epistles to see to whom they are addressed?
 
John 1:12-13
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
 
Actually Jack, scripture teaches us that ALL believers are the elect. That is how you become part of the elect, you become born again. No one is elect IF they are NOT
Actually Jack, scripture teaches us that ALL believers are the elect. That is how you become part of the elect, you become born again. No one is elect IF they are NOT born again.
Hey, Stan we completely agree on something.
 
We have advocated that before Jack in other threads which you have argued against, and now you agree that God knows WHO will accept His gift?
Your vacillation is amazing!

My position on that hasn't changed at all. God is all knowing omniscient and I've always advocated that.
 
So I guess then that based on posts 31 to 34, that you will, somewhere down the road, recant and say that atonement is not limited?
 
Good Jack, now how about reading John 20:31 and tell us WHO the author is referring to? I asked you this on another thread which you ignored at that time.
The way you worded your question, "...referring to" he is describing Christ. Do you mean who is he talking to? "and that believing YOU may have life in his name"? The first time the verb "believe" occurs in the verse it is subjunctive mood which is the mood of mild contingency or probability. The second time the verb appears, it is a present tense participle. He wrote this book in order that people might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and as they are believing in Him, they would have eternal life in his name. The verb "may have" life is also subjunctive. I would say these are both "hortatory subjunctive verbs." This was an encouragement to the believers.
 
So I guess then that based on posts 31 to 34, that you will, somewhere down the road, recant and say that atonement is not limited?
Everyone "limits" the atonement of Christ. Most people limit it in power thinking it is only potential. I believe the Scripture limits it in scope--it is only for the elect. So far, I so absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
 
The underlying word in Romans 3:25 is actually "propitiation" (satisfaction), the same term used in I John 2:2. The word "atonement" never actually appears in the NT and for good reason. The Hebrew for "atonement" means "covering," and Christ doesn't cover our sin, He takes it away.

It appears as I just showed you and one connotation is EXPIATION, which means atonement, just as propitiation is another word for expiation. You insistence on equivocating is getting quite tedious.
Of course you have no answer for my first question do you?

Not at all, Stan. If you had taken the time to read the context of 2 Peter 3:9 you would have seen that Peter addressed this to "...to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours" (1:1). It was written to Christians and God is not willing that any of us should perish and we don't. That's another reason I believe once saved always saved.

The context, the second coming, does NOT change the truth of what Peter said Jack. People were impatient and wanted to see Jesus' return. Peter rightly pointed out that God's timetable is NOT the same as our and He is NOT motivated like we are. Hence Peter's statement that God wasn't being slow to return but that He wanted to give mankind EVERY chance to be saved.

Again, the context of the passage you'll notice verse 21. "And although YOU were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds yet He has now reconciled YOU in His fleshly body through death...." He's talking to the believers in Colosse. Don't you ever read the beginning of Paul's epistles to see to whom they are addressed?

That is NOT THE context Jack, you just want it to be to suit your purposes of eisegeting scripture. The CONTEXT is Paul attesting to who Jesus really is and His purpose, which he states in v20. In your logic, the CONTEXT of Amazing Grace is the verse "I ONCE WAS LOST", BUT IT isn't. The context is AMAZING GRACE. The context is what Jesus did and WHO He did it for.... that would be ALL things!
If WE were to believe that YOU really believe your own logic here, YOU would not accept ANYTHING the Bible has to say because it isn't written to us, but I know that is NOT what you believe, so this is pure obfuscation and equivocation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone "limits" the atonement of Christ. Most people limit it in power thinking it is only potential. I believe the Scripture limits it in scope--it is only for the elect. So far, I so absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

NOT true Jack. On this thread so far, ONLY you.
 
The way you worded your question, "...referring to" he is describing Christ. Do you mean who is he talking to? "and that believing YOU may have life in his name"? The first time the verb "believe" occurs in the verse it is subjunctive mood which is the mood of mild contingency or probability. The second time the verb appears, it is a present tense participle. He wrote this book in order that people might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and as they are believing in Him, they would have eternal life in his name. The verb "may have" life is also subjunctive. I would say these are both "hortatory subjunctive verbs." This was an encouragement to the believers.

Very good, so if he is referring to Jesus then, and to come to know Jesus through those written words would mean ANYONE who reads it can. It is NOT as you assert in other places, addressed to believers. It is accepted as being addressed to unbelieving Jews.
ALL your grammatical wording aside, it was meant to convey Jesus as a means of salvation to the Jews. Does this mean it is NOT directed at ANY other unbelievers? I don't see ANY limitation here, other than IF a person DIDN'T actually read this gospel.
 
My position on that hasn't changed at all. God is all knowing omniscient and I've always advocated that.

You may have equivocally advocated that Jack, but NOT plainly nor clearly. Of course I'm sure if you were forced into clarifying this, you would turn it into pure Calvinsim.
 
Romans 6:10
For the death he died, he died to sin once for all.
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God.
Heb 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people; this he did once for all when he offered himself.
 
Back
Top