The Intent of the Atonement

ALAYMAN said:
That's interesting, because I'm not an Arminian, nor do I consider myself a Calvinist, but when I pray for the salvation of a soul I am confident and content with the sovereign choice of God and the decision of the lost person.
Click to expand...
You are confident... in the decision of the lost person?

Well, you may not like the labels, the theology is the most important. You have scrambled sovereignty and free will just like an Arminian. How is a lost person (dead in his trespasses) able to make a decision for God? On his own without divine miraculous intervention.?

How would that prayer sound? I've never heard anyone pray with confidence in a person's decision
 
Last edited:
FSSL said:
You are confident... in the decision of the lost person?
Click to expand...
I am confident that God is sovereign and I pray that He would save the individual. Pray that the individual hear the gospel and repent and believe. I try not to overcomplicate it.
FSSL said:
Well, you may not like the labels, the theology is the most important. You have scrambled sovereignty and free will just like an Arminian. How is a lost person (dead in his trespasses) able to make a decision for God? On his own without divine miraculous intervention.?
Click to expand...


I never said that God doesn't make a supernatural intervention. As far as being dead and trespassing sins, your definition of dead is bound by philosophic tenets that mean "completely unable", but faith is not a work, nor is it meritorious. Regardless of all that, my prayers doesn't involve technical aspects of soteriology and the ordo salutis.
FSSL said:
How would that prayer sound? I've never heard anyone pray with confidence in a person's decision?
Click to expand...

My prayer is with confidence in a sovereign God who loves sinners, and that the person prayed for will place their simple faith in the Son of God who died for their sin. I may not be able to understand it and all of the mystery of sovereignty and responsibility, that's why I leave it in His hands.
 
ALAYMAN said:
In the sense that he ultimately gave them the consequence of their own choice, in the balance of His perfect nature in Holiness and love, yes.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t He take a soul out of Gehenna if He still loves them as equally as a soul that made it to Heaven? The only difference is that one made the right choice and the other didn’t.
 
Creed said:
Why wouldn’t He take a soul out of Gehenna if He still loves them as equally as a soul that made it to Heaven? The only difference is that one made the right choice and the other didn’t.
Click to expand...
What allowed them though to make the "right choice?"
 
Baptist Renegade said:
Against my better judgment, I allowed myself to get "hornswoggled" into taking an "Assessing Calvinism" class which, truth be known, is an "anti-Calvinism" class!:rolleyes: It is my last official class before graduating this Spring and I thought it would be a breeze but since I am "Pushing Back," I need to do extra work in order to effectively support my position.

The person writing the "limited atonement" chapter did a pretty good job - far better than the "Unconditional Election" chapter that Leighton Flowers wrote.

TBH, I pretty much "pussy-foot" on this point taking more of an Amyraldian view. Yeah, call me a "confused Arminian" now!:ROFLMAO:

My position therefore is that the extent of the Atonement is sufficient for all who turn to Christ in repentance and faith - and yes, I am somewhat "Dodgy" with such a response but that is my position and I am sticking to it!

The Author of the textbook outlines the "Intent, Extent, and Application" of the atonement which I hadn't really been exposed to until now but I like how it breaks everthing out.

With the "Intent" of the atonement one asks - "For what purpose was atonement made?" Valid answers would therefore include:
  1. God intended to save ALL men
  2. God desires to save all men but intends only for the elect to be saved
  3. God desires and intends to save only his elect
  4. God intends and desires to save all who repent and believe the gospel (My "loosey, goosey, dodgey" position).
#4 was my response which I stated in my assignment but then I started really thinking about it and have come to the conclusion that THESE ARE ALL WRONG!!!

Think about it (and thanks in advance for bearing with me here), What is the overall, overreaching reason and purpose for ANYTHING That God does?

That's right! God's ultimate intended purpose for ALL THINGS is for his glory and good pleasure!

The problem with our thinking in matters such as this is it is often Anthrocentric rather than Theocentric!

And when I think of the matter more from a Theocentric standpoint, I see all of the silliness and foolishness in squabbling over such things! It is not about US, it is about HIM!

Therefore, I am revising my answer to the following:
  1. The Intent of the atonement is for God's ultimate glory and good pleasure (and let that land where it may)
  2. The Extent of the atonement is that it is sufficient to save all who believe (and make responsible those who do not)
  3. The Application of the atonement is limited to only those who believe
What think ye? Am I still in the "Calvinist" club or am I herewith kicked out, tarred and feathered, and condemned with Pelagius, Servetus, Alayman, and their ilk?🤪 😁
Click to expand...
That is pretty much Arminian.

God intended to save the elect.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
If you’re an honest Calvinist, you can’t tell every stranger you meet that God loves them. (Emphasis on honest.)
Click to expand...
He does. He just does not love everyone without distinction. He loves the world differently than he loves his elect. You can say that God offers to you eternal life if you will believe on Jesus Christ.
 
Bob Jones VI said:
He does. He just does not love everyone without distinction. He loves the world differently than he loves his elect. You can say that God offers to you eternal life if you will believe on Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate this answer, even if finding probable disagreement if it was completely fleshed out.
 
Creed said:
Why wouldn’t He take a soul out of Gehenna if He still loves them as equally as a soul that made it to Heaven?
Click to expand...

Because He's not a Universalist. 😉

On a more serious note, you equated God's love with efficacious saving power in that question. That leaves out faith.
Creed said:
The only difference is that one made the right choice and the other didn’t.
Click to expand...
No, one exercises saving faith. That's an accurate Biblical phraseology, unlike "made the right choice" (as if making the right choices is somehow meritorious).
 
ALAYMAN said:
Because He's not a Universalist. 😉
Click to expand...

Why not? Couldn't He be a universalist if He loves everybody equally? Is He going to spend all of eternally bummed out that the majority of people will be lost? He could save everyone regardless if He really wanted to.

ALAYMAN said:
On a more serious note, you equated God's love with efficacious saving power in that question. That leaves out faith.
Click to expand...

I would say that there are different kinds of love. General love may not necessarily be equal to saving love.

ALAYMAN said:
No, one exercises saving faith. That's an accurate Biblical phraseology, unlike "made the right choice" (as if making the right choices is somehow meritorious).
Click to expand...

What about for someone who was raised in an atheist household? Wouldn't it be an honest mistake that they believed their whole life that the Bible was nothing more than ancient literature from the bronze age?
 
ALAYMAN said:
I can appreciate this answer, even if finding probable disagreement if it was completely fleshed out.
Click to expand...
Its one way, for me, of making sense of John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son" and Eph 2 "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved" — I do not think you can say that the great love with which he loved those of us who are saved (Ephesians 2) is the same love that he loved the world (John 3). I think there are benefits of the cross that enure to unbelievers, called common grace, that are not saving benefits of grace. I'm sure someone will find fault with how I am saying it.
 
Last edited:
DrHuk&Duck said:
How can you prove what you say is true?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

Ransom said:
Jesus loved the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21) and yet his story ends with him walking away, rejecting Jesus's invitation to become his disciple. That's the last we hear of him.

Jesus also loved John (John 13:23), who was one of his closest disciples and wrote 20% of the New Testament.

All love is not the same, and even divine love is not equal for all persons or of the same kind. There is a sense in which God loves the whole world (John 3:16). What a Calvinist won't say is that God's love is always saving.
Click to expand...
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
How can you prove what you say is true?
Click to expand...
If he had the same love for everyone that he had for those mentioned in Ephesians 2, that is "Us," or "us believers," All would be saved. But we know that not all are saved. There will be many outisde weeping and gnashing teeth. Jesus loves his bride more than he loves the rest of mankind.
 
Bob Jones VI said:
If he had the same love for everyone that he had for those mentioned in Ephesians 2, that is "Us," or "us believers," All would be saved. But we know that not all are saved. There will be many outisde weeping and gnashing teeth. Jesus loves his bride more than he loves the rest of mankind.
Click to expand...
I should’ve been more specific. I was referring to Calvinism as a whole, not individual salvation.
 
Ekklesian said:
We tell them because we love them, and because we love the Gospel, and we delight in the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
True, but we also must remind ourselves that none will ever get saved apart from the working of the Holy Spirit towards and upon them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top