Limited atonement?

[Anchor]

Random thought this morning:

Reviewing Mark 10:21 in a message last night it struck me that Jesus Christ clearly loved at least one of the non-elect--"Then Jesus beholding him loved him..."--as this man was clearly lost and remained in that state.

It also occurred to me that God/Jesus Christ absolutely and unconditionally proves His love in a very specific way. Scripture unconditionally states that the proof of love is  "in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Would one have to presume that this particular sinner would have to be one of those who, as a clearly identified recipient of God's love, is also a beneficiary of His sacrifice?

 

[Ransom]

If I'm reading your post correctly, you seem to be assuming that God's love is always of the same kind, i.e. he loves every person in the same way with equal intensity.

 

[christundivided]

If I'm reading your post correctly, you seem to be assuming that God's love is always of the same kind, i.e. he loves every person in the same way with equal intensity.

What a horrible assumption.........

 

[christundivided]

Random thought this morning:

Reviewing Mark 10:21 in a message last night it struck me that Jesus Christ clearly loved at least one of the non-elect--"Then Jesus beholding him loved him..."--as this man was clearly lost and remained in that state.

It also occurred to me that God/Jesus Christ absolutely and unconditionally proves His love in a very specific way. Scripture unconditionally states that the proof of love is  "in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Would one have to presume that this particular sinner would have to be one of those who, as a clearly identified recipient of God's love, is also a beneficiary of His sacrifice?

You can add the empathy Christ showed for Judas..

Mat 26:24  The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

 

[FSSL]

If the atonement was not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven.

 

[subllibrm]

If the atonement was not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven.

It took Rob Bell a whole book to make that point. 

 

[Ransom]

If the atonement was not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven.

Which is why you cannot consistently hold to a general atonement and a genuinely substitutionary one.

 

[rsc2a]

If the atonement was not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven.

It took Rob Bell a whole book to make that point. 

 

[Anchor]

John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Is there anything in the text of the Gospels that indicates that Christ's love as expressed above is substantially different (with more "intensity") than the love He expressed in Mark towards the rich young ruler where it is clearly stated under inspiration that Jesus "loved him"?

 

[christundivided]

If the atonement was not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven.

I'd say that is rather simplistic.

What is it with all the one liners and Calvinist doctrine?

Here lets just use your reasoning for a minute and apply it in several other places.

If Grace is not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven.

If God's Love is not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven

If God's mercy is not limited in its efficacy, then everyone is going to heaven....

If I said the above.... then you would certainly say there is more to the story. In like manner, a "one liner" doesn't tell the entire story. Most everyone will admit that the atonement, in one degree of another, is limited. HOWEVER, it is a entirely different matter as to how one applies such or establishes such.

 

[Liberty1]

Random thought this morning:

Reviewing Mark 10:21 in a message last night it struck me that Jesus Christ clearly loved at least one of the non-elect--[i]"Then Jesus beholding him loved him..."[/i]--as this man was clearly lost and remained in that state.

It also occurred to me that God/Jesus Christ absolutely and unconditionally proves His love in a very specific way. Scripture unconditionally states that the proof of love is  "in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Would one have to presume that this particular sinner would have to be one of those who, as a clearly identified recipient of God's love, is also a beneficiary of His sacrifice?

If it was agape' love, then it was unconditional love. There's no contradiction in God loving everyone and some dying lost if free will is understood.

 

[christundivided]

The question is not one of intensity. The question is "Did God love him from the beginning?" If it said that, then you would have something.

God loved mankind from the beginning. In this, God loved all men.

Why is it you Calvinist must insist God had you all in mind from the beginning?

God loved His Eternal Son from the beginning. God elected to create man in the image of His Eternal Son. You have nothing more than this and a bunch of inane arguments teaching that somehow God had you specifically in mind in predestination. That is not the Truth. God had His Son in mind. Not specifically you. Not specifically me. Not specifically anyone else. 

 

[christundivided]

Random thought this morning:

Reviewing Mark 10:21 in a message last night it struck me that Jesus Christ clearly loved at least one of the non-elect--[i]"Then Jesus beholding him loved him..."[/i]--as this man was clearly lost and remained in that state.

It also occurred to me that God/Jesus Christ absolutely and unconditionally proves His love in a very specific way. Scripture unconditionally states that the proof of love is  "in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Would one have to presume that this particular sinner would have to be one of those who, as a clearly identified recipient of God's love, is also a beneficiary of His sacrifice?

If it was agape' love, then it was unconditional love. There's no contradiction in God loving everyone and some dying lost if free will is understood.

I'd say his question is directed at those who deny the EFFICACY of freewill.

 

[christundivided]

I agree with those short, concise statements you posted above.

Of course there is ALWAYS more that can be said.

Realize that Amyraut admitted "that it made little practical difference, and did not press it in his last years."

Unless one is a full-blown Arminian, you still end up admitting that the atonement is efficacious and it must be limited.

5-pointers prefer not to defend a fuzzy, mushy concept of a general atonement when we all know it only benefits the elect.

I personally prefer your use of "benefit" as opposed to "efficacy". Even Arminians believe such. Its a vastly different story in how you establishing such.

How about we switch gears for a minute....

What about the incarnation of Christ? Did Christ only take upon Himself the form of the Elect? Would you say the incarnation was limited in its efficacy?

 

[christundivided]

How about we switch gears for a minute....

What about the incarnation of Christ? Did Christ only take upon Himself the form of the Elect? Would you say the incarnation was limited in its efficacy?

This is a very strange set of questions...

Might be strange to a Calvinist but its not an inherently strange question.

In what way is a nonelect person a different human than an elect?

You tell me? I never said there was a difference. In fact, that is exactly my point.

I don't see any efficacy in the incarnation. It was a state of being, not something we receive.

This world was gifted with the incarnation. It is something this world "received". I don't think I need to post all the verses related to the blessing proclaim through the incarnation.

Christ took upon Himself to form of humanity for a reason. I know you've read the book of Hebrews and the teachings concerning the "Great High Priest".

Would you agree with the statement that Christ's Priestly work is only efficient for the elect?

 

[subllibrm]

Who gets credit for the atonement of sins?

 

[FSSL]

This world was gifted with the incarnation. It is something this world "received". I don't think I need to post all the verses related to the blessing proclaim through the incarnation.

Let me put it another way: The incarnation is not a part of the ORDO SALUTIS. It is not efficacious, in itself.

 

[christundivided]

This world was gifted with the incarnation. It is something this world "received". I don't think I need to post all the verses related to the blessing proclaim through the incarnation.

Let me put it another way: The incarnation is not a part of the ORDO SALUTIS. It is not efficacious, in itself.

It should be part of the order of Salvation. Give me one good reason the "incarnation/advent of Christ" SHOULDN'T be considered?

Can you Calvinists not function apart from your own contrived system of beliefs?  ;D ( I say that in the nicest possible way.) You define the scope of ORDO SALUTIS and then never visit it again....

I would honestly like to know how in the world.... The atonement can be considered and the advent of Christ not be considered? Not only did Christ die for the Elect. He also took upon Himself the form of a man whereby to secure FOREVER those in Christ.

 

[christundivided]

I know what it is....why did you mention it comparison to the Atonement? Are you saying the Atonement is and the Advent isn't?

Calvin certainly help define the arguments for the order of salvation. This what I referenced.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

... because we were talking about atonement and you interjected your strange question about the incarnation.

I struggle to follow your train of thought and how those questions relate to the limited atonement.

The incarnation was limited, wasn't it?