Limited Atonement?
- Thread starter Stan
- Start date
Sorry you feel you have to retreat instead of discuss, but that's up to you, Stan.
You appear to start threads for the sole purpose of arguing. Whether one believes in limited atonement, or not, the main thing is to preach the Gospel. If you don't believe there is an "elect", that's fine. Those who do believe in the "elect", preach the Gospel so that those whom God has "chosen" will awake from sleep and come to him. Why expend energy over and over again to argue against a doctrine you don't accept, rather than praising God for the privilege of preaching the Gospel in the first place? I've seen at least three threads now, all started with the intent of arguing against something some Christians believe. To be very honest, I just don't see the wisdom in that at all. Well, I've put in my two cents, and will refrain from posting more in this thread also.
I sure would like to see a thread about THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST, and discussing what a great and awesome savior and Lord we have! I think Ill' start one.
I sure would like to see a thread about THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST, and discussing what a great and awesome savior and Lord we have! I think Ill' start one.
You appear to start threads for the sole purpose of arguing. Whether one believes in limited atonement, or not, the main thing is to preach the Gospel. If you don't believe there is an "elect", that's fine. Those who do believe in the "elect", preach the Gospel so that those whom God has "chosen" will awake from sleep and come to him. Why expend energy over and over again to argue against a doctrine you don't accept, rather than praising God for the privilege of preaching the Gospel in the first place? I've seen at least three threads now, all started with the intent of arguing against something some Christians believe. To be very honest, I just don't see the wisdom in that at all. Well, I've put in my two cents, and will refrain from posting more in this thread also.
I sure would like to see a thread about THE GOOD SHEPHERD, or THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST, and discussing what a great and awesome savior and Lord we have! I think Ill' start one.
What exactly do you think Forums are for Fish? They are NOT mutual admiration societies. IF you KNOW what and why you believe then you should accept the premise of the scriptures you can see in my signature.
IF any doctrine is NOT validated or confirmed in scripture then it's a false one just as ALL writers of the Bible confirm. If you don't want to or feel intimidated then please feel free to NOT participate or bring your judgmental comments into ANY thread.
Do you NOT like any of the NT that teaches AGAINST false teachings or doctrines?
Personally, I think the whole purpose of any forum is to challenge our individual views, compare them with the views of others, and sharpen our own apologetics. I'm a college teacher and I rejoice when some of my students disagree with me and have enough working knowledge of a particular subject to mount a spirited and robust debate. If they can do that, I have succeed in getting them to think. Solomon wrote, "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another" (Pr. 27:17). Forums are not designed to be lectured to or be verbally slapped around. No one here is required to agree with anyone else.
God is good (Psalms 136:1). Hence He is not bad. Hence when we look at the Egyptian babies been killed, our first inclination must not be to judge Him as bad. Rather we should know that scripture = Jesus = truth = God is good to the maximum of our ability to judge Him (else He would have included disclaimers). Hence we need to look for more insight into the situation. Remember the devil did the same thing with Jesus when tempting Him.
God is light 1 John 1:5, God is holy 1 Pet 1:16, God is righteous Psalms 129:4, God is sovereign, God is just, God is fair, God is impartial
Do you not see how the statement ''God is partial'' does not fit in with the attributes of God? A just and fair God would be partial? A righteous God would be partial? A loving and good God would be partial?
Your attempted debunking of Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11 and James 2 is very weak (no offence). The math / logic does simply not add up. Example…God gives Peter a revelation that Gentiles and Jews can be His chosen race. But you assume this does not encompass all gentiles and ….Jews? You need to read more verses like Rom 2:5-8. It is not only those three places that say God is impartial you need to debunk. It is every scripture that says He is fair, just and good. Peter did not say ''Of a truth I perceive that God is impartial on Jews and gentiles but is partial on which Jews and gentiles are chosen''. He said plain and simply God is impartial. Rom 2:11 says plainly God is impartial. James 2:9 says plainly God sees partiality as a sin! You are adding an assumption that goes against the grain. If it was in the nature of God to be partial, He WOULD NOT have been impartial on Jews and gentiles / rich and poor!!
God is omniscient AND impartial at the same time. Sure our little brains may have a hard time computing that, but if we believe that Jesus was a man who is God and who died for our sins 2000 years ago. We can / should believe scripture describing attributes of God as literal. Or else God is a liar and He better keep us seeing through a glass darkly in heaven, as we will all judge Him as a fraud.
Last edited:
You were careful to note something you said wasn't meant as an offense, and it wasn't. I don't think anything you can write would offend me. I enjoy discussing theology and exchanging views no matter what. You've never lowered yourself to personal attacks, and I'm sure we disagree on many things and will probably continue to disagree.
I agree that God is Good. Our former pastor use to say that all the time and I concur, and He is not bad. However, that's not to say we understand everything He does. God had the ability and the means to keep my grandson from dying, but for whatever reason didn't. He had the ability to keep the tornadoes from striking Moore, Okalahoma, but He didn't and the reason is not revealed any place. Just because God is Good, and He is, doesn't mean some of his actions don't appear to be awful. We trust in the goodness of God though sometimes it is impossible to know why he does or allows certain things to happen.
To me the contexts of those passages are quite clear. In both Acts 10:34 and Romans 2:11, they are talking about the Jew/Gentile issue and God says Jews as well as Gentiles can be saved, He is not partial in that sense, and He's not. A person's nationality has no consideration when God saves him or her. I also see the context of James 2:9 saying that God is not partial between rich and poor. One of the problems in Judaism was that rich people were thought to be righteous because God had bestowed great material blessings upon them. Job faced that same prejudice. His friends thought because he lost everything that God must have been angry with him for some sin that his friends couldn't see. So they kept begging him to confess his sin. But James, who writes to Christians from a Jewish ethnicity, tells them that that is not true. God is impartial when it comes to a person's wealth.
If God is to be "fair," all have sinned and some short of the Glory of God and have earned hell. Praise God that He is not fair or you and I would be facing eternal fire. A "fair" God would send everyone to hell because they have all sinned. So, God isn't "fair" in that sense of word. He is a God of grace, and grace, because it is unearned, can't be considered fair. Grace is giving something good to someone that is unearned while mercy is withholding somethng bad that has been earned. He is both gracious and merciful in his salvation.
There are 57 varieties of Calvinism (like Heinz Beans), so there's no point in people projecting assumptions about everyone everywhere who might conceivably have a particular viewpoint relating to the sovereingty of God in the Gospel, as being what everyone else, supposedly Calvinist, supposedly holds, too.
(It's really just another way of saying: "I despise Calvinists; who do you despise?" and doesn't communicate much at all.)
(It's really just another way of saying: "I despise Calvinists; who do you despise?" and doesn't communicate much at all.)
Rusty: For what it's worth, I have read some of the characterizations and don't really think that they are all accurate.
Blessings.
The viewpoint is, Since there are so many varieties and interpretations of Calvinism, then it's hard to apply sweepingly assumptions about things; for example and with respect, Noah didn't preach the New Testament Gospel in any case, let alone as one who was conversant with Calvinist terminology; so I'm not sure what the notion that Noah wasn't a Calvinist really means.
I think I should bow out of this thread in any case.
Blessings.
The extent of the atonement (for whom did Christ die?) is actually established by the intent of the atonement (what was the purpose of Christ's death?). The potential redemptists (who believe Christ died for all the sins of all people), see his intent as potential. He didn't actually save anybody by his death, but he potentially saved everyone. The particularist (limited atonement) see his death as actually saving people. Which of these two views is taught by Scirpture? At the time of the birth of Christ, an angel spoke to Joseph and told him what his coming Son would do, and notice the angel's words. "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (Mt. 1:21). There is nothing potential in those words: "...will save His people from their sins." Who will be saved? "His people." If the death of Jesus was intended to save all of humanity and it actually resulted in only a small portion of humanity actually being redeemed, than God failed in his design. But if Jesus' death was for the purpose of saving "His people," then He did exactly what He intended to do; He fulfilled his mission. The question of the intent of Christ's redemptive work is important because God never fails at what He intends to do (Isa. 14:24).
Amen Rusty its rotten to the core. To mention partiality in the same sentence as the cross really sickens me.
We also see the gospel offered to the world. "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creatures." There are two reason behind that. First, we don't know who the elect are. They don't ware signs that they are the elect. Second, Christ commanded that the gospel be spread throughout the word. So, where do we differ on that point?
Well, so do I see the Gospel offered to the world. And I guess I know of plenty of people who happen to be called some sort of Calvinist who do too.
The matter is not so much whether the Gospel is offered to the world, 'to every creature' — which it manifestly is, Scriptural — but rather whether the cross secured the redemption of those who do believe, which is also Scriptural, I believe.
Blessings.
Jack if that were the case....why are you not killing babies?
Do we a) selflessly kill our babies before the age of accountability? or b) let them live on as we believe that they have a fair and equal chance of being one of the chosen or c) do nothing as we believe that God is so demented / sick and evil that He would send little babies to hell?
Nah, God succeeded in being good and impartial. Having a valid reason now for sadly sending many to hell. He does what pleases Him. He doesn't want to judge Himself as bad / partial. Or have us harassing Him for eternity on His partiality...if we can deduce it is wrong now...how much MORE in heaven!!! God will be in His own hell. I will make Him remove everyone from hell and do things properly
. But then He has already done it properly and fairly. Again Jack, imagine YOU are in hell. You have never sinned and feel like you deserve hell for it? Nobody who understands God's grace can ever say the worst of the worst has not got hope. No smart Christian would ever judge themselves as one of the 'chosen'. 1 Cor 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.Hi Farouk. You need to google / wiki 5 point Calvinism.
Because murder is sin--simple answer. I don't know if you believe a person can lose their salvation, but if a person believes that salvation can be lost, then as soon as they are saved, if you shoot them, you guarantee them heaven. So, why don't you lead someone to the Lord and then kill them?
Well, I've read various sources for 30 odd years...and I guess, like I suggested, there are 57 varieties..