Limited atonement?

[christundivided]

I know you guys often like having fun at my expense..... but you shouldn't be laughing at the comparison.

It's a valid question.

Christ took upon Himself the very form of humanity. In so many things you Calvinist try to LIMIT the scope of God's work to fit into your systematic belief. Why don't you in like manner make a case for the limited incarnation?

 

[FSSL]

I don't see how one demands the other. Why does the incarnation have to be limited if the atonement was limited? Can you tie that together for us?

 

[christundivided]

I don't see how one demands the other. Why does the incarnation have to be limited if the atonement was limited? Can you tie that together for us?

There are many ways in which they compare....

However, I am trying to focus on the aspect that Christ took upon himself the form of humanity. The form of both the Elect and the Damned equally. When it comes to Limited Atonement, the argument is Christ really only dying for the Elect. If.... He really died for all of mankind then all of mankind would be saved.

How does this square with the fact that Christ took upon Himself the form of the Damned? How can one ignore the equal parts in both the Elect and Damned we find in the Incarnation.... and how can one see a "Limited Incarnation" or a "Limited Advent"?

 

[subllibrm]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

 

[rsc2a]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

Hi there.  You must be new to the forums.  Welcome! 

 

[subllibrm]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

Hi there.  You must be new to the forums.  Welcome! 

Now I am hoping for a welcome from CU too! 

 

[christundivided]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

Don't be coy about it... Tell me what I have misrepresented from the side of "Limited Atonement"?

 

[christundivided]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

Hi there.  You must be new to the forums.  Welcome! 

Now I am hoping for a welcome from CU too! 

Both of you are often nothing more than instigators.

Here's your "welcome to the forum".....  8)

 

[T-Bone]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

Hi there.  You must be new to the forums.  Welcome! 

Now I am hoping for a welcome from CU too! 

Both of you are often nothing more than instigators.

Here's your "welcome to the forum".....  8)

What about me...can I be an instigator too? 

 

[subllibrm]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

Hi there.  You must be new to the forums.  Welcome! 

Now I am hoping for a welcome from CU too! 

Both of you are often nothing more than instigators.

Here's your "welcome to the forum".....  8)

What about me...can I be an instigator too? 

Is that anything like a troll?

 

[Bob H]

What about me...can I be an instigator too? 

It all depends on whether you're in the gator or tator family.

 

[subllibrm]

This whole thread reminds me of listing to talk radio.

Define the position of the other side and then argue against that definition, even if it is not what the other side holds to.

Don't be coy about it... Tell me what I have misrepresented from the side of "Limited Atonement"?

Here

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

Here

When it comes to Limited Atonement, the argument is Christ really only dying for the Elect. If.... He really died for all of mankind then all of mankind would be saved.

Or people's belief in general here

Prior to salvation my will was not free for it was captive to the shackles of my sin nature. Since salvation my will is not free for it is beholden to the One who bought me from the slave market of sin. My will was never free and as a child of God I am thankful that it never shall be.

It must feel good to blame God for your lack of freewill. I'm certain that God's children don't feel the same way.

and here

Don't be coy with it. Just come right out and say that the elect can choose and the damned have no choice.

here

I absolutely abhor every flavor of Calvinism that exists. All of them end up with the same result. They make people believe that there some predetermined "destiny" for every human that has ever walked the face of this earth. A destiny that is beyond their ability to choose. Parse the words every how you want to parse them.... it always ends up with the same result. Always.

All quotes of you telling me (or others here) what I (we) "believe". So yes, you have misrepresented my beliefs by defining them, not by anything I have said, but by your opinion of what you think I believe. Feel free to call me a moron now.

 

[christundivided]

All quotes of you telling me (or others here) what I (we) "believe". So yes, you have misrepresented my beliefs by defining them, not by anything I have said, but by your opinion of what you think I believe. Feel free to call me a moron now.

Tell you what... I'll leave "moron" out of this one...

I thought you said you wasn't a Calvinist?

If you are, then I will be glad to provide a defense for the statements you've referenced.

 

[rsc2a]

Then he can tell you why he is so much smarter than everyone else about everything.

 

[Bob H]

Oh the irony 

 

[ddgently]

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.

I was unable to respond to something you raised here before this thread took some odd twists and turns, but I wanted to try to bring it back up.

I think what you've stated highlights a real problem with the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory, in that as you say it more or less requires a limited atonement in order to avoid universalism.

But PNA also has a sort of a bizarre logic to it when you break it down and also runs into a problem with what we know of the nature of God's forgiveness.

The logic PNA (which I held for a long time, so don't accuse me of constructing a straw man) goes something like this:

(1) Man is sinful
(2) Sin must be punished
(3) Jesus was punished instead of (some) men with his death on the cross
(4) Those for whom Jesus paid the price are released from the punishment of their sin.
[correct me if I've been unfair here]

The logical problem with this goes to the question why? Why must sin be punished? Is God bound by a system of justice that is greater than he is?  Not to mention the fact that normally PNA doesn't work. Can I volunteer to go to jail for the bank robber, or the drug dealer who was sentenced in court yesterday?

But of course, sin doesn't have to be punished. We're told in Scripture that in addition to sinning against God, we sin against each other. And we're commanded to forgive freely.

So if I my friend lies to me, I don't get to punish him for it before I offer forgiveness. I certainly don't get to punish some innocent third party before I offer forgiveness. Rather, I'm called to forgive freely.

Likewise, we're taught by Our Lord that this is how God forgives. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." If we are not to require payment in exchange for our forgiveness, than neither does God.

No, there must be (and are) other, better explanations for what Christ accomplished at Calvary.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

BibleBeliever posted this in the Calvinism thread and no one has refuted it so I figured I'd post again and see if anyone has answers (specifically addressing the verses he uses.)
(I know BB likely copied and pasted this from another source but I'm still curious about how one can subscribe to Limited Atonement with these verses in mind - perhaps I don't understand Limited Atonement?)

And I will address one more of point in Calvin's system and that is the L for Limited Atonement.

Now this point in the system of calvinism is easily refuted in Scripture:

1 John 2:1-2
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


The passage says that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins and the sins of the WHOLE world.

1 Timothy 4:10-11
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

11 These things command and teach.


1 Tim. 4:10 clearly teaches that provision has been made to save all men. But appropriation only belongs to those who believe the Gospel.

It says clearly that God is the Saviour of ALL MEN. And not just the "elect."



And this next passage of Scripture really destroys the whole argument of calvinism:



2 Peter 2:1
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


Did you know that the atonement even paid for the sins of the false prophets? That is what 2 Peter 2:1 is teaching. The Lord bought them with His blood, in that His atonement is available for them, but they (the false prophets) have denied the Lord. Therefore, they do not receive the benefit or the application of the blood atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even though He paid for their sins. They still have to repent and believe the Gospel.


Therefore; once again, we see that Atonement has been made for all men. But the application of that atonement belongs only to those who believe. Therefore, the Atonement is not limited. But the application of that Atonement is limited.

Let us look at two more Scriptures that refute the idea of limited atonement:


2 Corinthians 5:14-15

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


Notice it says He died for all, and not just the 'elect.'



Isaiah 53:5-6
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)


5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The iniquity of us all was laid on Him, not the iniquity of just the elect.

 

[rsc2a]

BibleBeliever posted this in the Calvinism thread and no one has refuted it so I figured I'd post again and see if anyone has answers (specifically addressing the verses he uses.)

I didn't refute this in the Calvinism thread. I asked when he became a universalist.

 

[christundivided]

BibleBeliever posted this in the Calvinism thread and no one has refuted it so I figured I'd post again and see if anyone has answers (specifically addressing the verses he uses.)

I didn't refute this in the Calvinism thread. I asked when he became a universalist.

Not every argument concerning Calvinism turns into a "Calvinist versus Universalist" debate.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

BibleBeliever posted this in the Calvinism thread and no one has refuted it so I figured I'd post again and see if anyone has answers (specifically addressing the verses he uses.)

I didn't refute this in the Calvinism thread. I asked when he became a universalist.

I don't know what a Universalist is.
Is this your way of avoiding a question because you don't know the answer?