Limited Atonement or Atonement limited

[rhutchin]

Chappie
Elsewhere Chappie said--

…Perhaps you would assess the TULIP for me.
…Is limited atonement, limited? Does God chose some for salvation and deny the rest. Did he die for just the elect, and condemn everybody else before the world was. Does he love the elect and hate the rest. Please show me where I went wrong?

Let’s assume that the atonement is limited in the sense that not all will be saved (counter to what the Universalist believes).

The question is, How did the atonement get to be limited? Is it because God only choose to save some limited number of people or did God choose to save everyone but something happened to limit the number of people actually saved.

It must be true that God died for the elect. Chappie’s question is whether God died for “just” the elect.

It must be true that God loves the elect. Chappie’s question is whether God only loves the elect and hates the rest.

In order to show where Chappie went wrong, Chappie has to explain how it is that some people are saved and some are not saved and do so without introducing God as a determining factor in that outcome.

Can Chappie explain how he thinks this can happen?

[ih8censorship]

(ill be speaking of God and Jesus as 2 different beings even though there one and the same, because ill be refering to God in human form as Jesus and then otherwise just God)

ok. i dont think Jesus really knew how many people he was dying for. he was human after all and subject to temptation (tempted by the devil to turn stones into bread) and anger (in the temple when there were a bunch of people selling things) . unless he also had psychic abilitys in his ministry years i guess thats possible too, after all he did say things before they happened... but i think a lot of why jesus died is so people could have a chance to be redeemed, and if they took it that was good but if they dident take it- it was their desision and not anything Jesus or God did.

as for Gods Love, a verse popped into my head that i learned in vacation bible school when i was young. 1st John 4:8 "he that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love"

[GoBahnsen]

(ill be speaking of God and Jesus as 2 different beings even though there one and the same, because ill be refering to God in human form as Jesus and then otherwise just God)

ok. i dont think Jesus really knew how many people he was dying for. he was human after all and subject to temptation (tempted by the devil to turn stones into bread) and anger (in the temple when there were a bunch of people selling things) . unless he also had psychic abilitys in his ministry years i guess thats possible too, after all he did say things before they happened... but i think a lot of why jesus died is so people could have a chance to be redeemed, and if they took it that was good but if they dident take it- it was their desision and not anything Jesus or God did.

as for Gods Love, a verse popped into my head that i learned in vacation bible school when i was young. 1st John 4:8 "he that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love"

next

[Ormly]

Let’s assume that the atonement is limited in the sense that not all will be saved

You assume wrongly and you know what that does. Herein is your foundational flaw. Atonement should never viewed in such a way. To do so is to invite distortion. Where does the responsibility lie if one isn't saved since atonement is offered freely by God to all? Freely it was given and freely it must be accepted.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Let’s assume that the atonement is limited in the sense that not all will be saved

ormly
You assume wrongly and you know what that does. Herein is your foundational flaw. Atonement should never viewed in such a way. To do so is to invite distortion. Where does the responsibility lie if one isn't saved since atonement is offered freely by God to all? Freely it was given and freely it must be accepted.

There is no right or wrong to the assumption that I made. I make the assumption only to focus the argument and direct readers to think about the reason that only some are saved and not all. It was meant to avoid frivolous comments not addressed to the issue at hand and it seems to have failed to achieve that goal.

[Ormly]

Yes, I understand but you were going somewhere that would bring a wrong conclusion and that was clear to me. Being on an "objective journey" is the clear and honest way to arrive at honest objective conclusions.

[smaller]

A "universalist" atonement Christian can only make the following observations of "limited atonement:

A.) God is not willing to atone for all

B.) God is not "able" to atone for all

Those who see "not willing" do so in violation and twisting of multiple terms of "all" and "world" and "creation" into "some." Not "all" is all. The "world" is not the "world." Creation is only a portion, etc. You must of course "school" yourself a very long time to "limit God" while at the same time holding up Absolute Divine Sovereignty.

It is rather funny to see the supposed Sovereignty of God position (Calvinists) make God "limited" in the atonement. It amounts to saying God is SO SOVEREIGN He can make Himself "limited." yuk yuk yuk

Even Calvinists cannot claim God is not "able" yet they openly "disable" God (as if such a thing were even possible) and make the claim that their position has "defined" God's Limitations and Will.

My shortake of Calvinism: God is Absolute Sovereign but we know how His Will and His Abilities are "limited." lol

The "freewillers" have an even larger difficulties.

God made the "will" of man, but obviously made in such and insufficient manner that it is not capable of "performing" in nearly "all" cases.

The real question is who is really being put forth as God in nearly all cases???

Merely the individual subjectivity of each persons own minds. This is every man bowing to his own wood and stone (mind) carvings in his own tent. Nothing more than the 'high places' of Baal. Idolotry by any other name is still....

Hey, why don't we all take our "ear rings" and "finger rings" and find some "high priest" to form a "Golden Calf" out of all of this confusion that each man hears and writes, so that we can dance and sing around it and PARTY! Yeah!

lol

The answer to all confusions and separations is laid squarely at God's Own Feet. He made all things and He shows us what we are all bound with: Sin indwelling, and "sins works" are abundantly evident, especially in "the church."

The result of this "binding to disobedience" will result in each of us and all of creation receiving a "first hand" experience with Eternal Mercy from the Living God who Is Love.

Love overcomes all confusions and is served by all things.

The "resistors" who deliver the "shortness" of God message will be utterly destroyed, but the "resistors" are not the "same as" mankind. The "resistors" were always meant to be "discarded."

Let Light Shine from the Darkness was an "early Command."

Can you relate???

enjoy!

smaller

[Chappie]

Chappie
Elsewhere Chappie said--

…Perhaps you would assess the TULIP for me.
…Is limited atonement, limited? Does God chose some for salvation and deny the rest. Did he die for just the elect, and condemn everybody else before the world was. Does he love the elect and hate the rest. Please show me where I went wrong?

Let’s assume that the atonement is limited in the sense that not all will be saved (counter to what the Universalist believes).

The question is, How did the atonement get to be limited? Is it because God only choose to save some limited number of people or did God choose to save everyone but something happened to limit the number of people actually saved.

It must be true that God died for the elect. Chappie’s question is whether God died for “just” the elect.

It must be true that God loves the elect. Chappie’s question is whether God only loves the elect and hates the rest.

In order to show where Chappie went wrong, Chappie has to explain how it is that some people are saved and some are not saved and do so without introducing God as a determining factor in that outcome.

Can Chappie explain how he thinks this can happen?

Paying your debt, pays your debt. It does not put any money in your pocket. None but the righteous shall see God.. The atonement did not place man in right standing with God. It simply took him out of the red so to say…. The atonement was a necessary prelude to salvation, a debt that had to be paid before salvation could be offered. Who will be saved is not determined at the cross. It is determined through repentance, faith, justification & the new birth and sanctification.

The benefits of all these gifts of God are applied through faith... All men do not have faith because all men do not accept the gift. Why do not all men not accept the gift.

2 Thess 2:

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

They believed (no faith) not because they received not, but rather chose the pleasure of unrighteousness...

Why did some receive, when others did not receive. If I respond to that you will encumber me with the why to infinity solution... You will not stop asking "why" until the answer rests where you want it to rest...

Here is my solution, you will tell me that God is the cause that some accepted and others refused. I will ask you "Why", eventually we will end up that God acted according to his good pleasure. There you will ask me to accept your answer because the answer is shrouded in mystery. Who can know the mind of God....

Why do some men accept and others reject, shall we cut to the chase. They chose according to their good pleasure. The same answer as to why God did not choose otherwise applied to men will suffice. Who can know the mind of men save that man himself, God said in 2 Thess that man chose as he did because of a love of truth (accept) or a love for the pleasures of this world. (reject)

Why??? It has to be enough that God said that he did...
2 Thess 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

The fact that God said that he chooses according to his good pleasure resolves the "why's" that carnal minds can ask. The above passage resolves the issue as to why men choose as they do. God said it... I will not deal with “why” to the infinite power….

[Ormly]

The benefits of all these gifts of God are applied through faith... All men do not have faith because all men do not accept the gift. Why do not all men not accept the gift.

Because it is not a gift ---- for salvation.

[smaller]

Greetings Chappie

It is rather interesting that you would post 2 Thes. 2 and not see the lie that God sends the delusional

Here Paul says that the strong delusion is sent-
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Then Paul actuallys says what the delusion IS

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Do you believe the delusion Chappie??? Anyone else???

lol

[Chappie]

Greetings Chappie

It is rather interesting that you would post 2 Thes. 2 and not see the lie that God sends the delusional

Here Paul says that the strong delusion is sent-
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Then Paul actuallys says what the delusion IS

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Do you believe the delusion Chappie??? Anyone else???

lol

lol, what's the lol for? What's so funny?

What delusion, I don't see no delusion Mr. Smaller.... People that are deluded do not see the delusion.... Did I get it? If yes, Lol.... If not please cancel the lol.....

Is there a point to the pointer? What is your point?

[Alberta girl]

Let’s assume that the atonement is limited in the sense that not all will be saved (counter to what the Universalist believes).

Greetings Rutchin:
I am not a universalist, and I do not limit the atonement. When Christ gave up the ghost on the cross and said 'it is accomplished' He conquered sin and death. I am prepared to label the suggestion the the atonement is limited as a heresay.

[GoBahnsen]

Greetings Rutchin:
I am not a universalist, and I do not limit the atonement. When Christ gave up the ghost on the cross and said 'it is accomplished' He conquered sin and death. I am prepared to label the suggestion the the atonement is limited as a heresay.

Alberta did you mean hear-say? or heresy? Keep in mind, even those who believe Jesus came to die for more than those given to Him by His Father, still "limit" the effectiveness of the atonement to believers only. Only the heresy of universalism is bold enough to teach a truly unlimited Atonement.

[Alberta girl]

Alberta did you mean hear-say? or heresy? Keep in mind, even those who believe Jesus came to die for more than those given to Him by His Father, still "limit" the effectiveness of the atonement to believers only. Only the heresy of universalism is bold enough to teach a truly unlimited Atonement.

Greetings GoBahnsen: Christ's perfect sacrifice was imperfect? I was taught that a heresy either discredited Christ or added to the 'way' of salvation. Tell me, why is it so important to say that God's method to enable man to be restored to Him is so variable? Say, why don't you meet me over at 'GoBahnsen, I accept your offer'?

[GoBahnsen]

Greetings GoBahnsen: Christ's perfect sacrifice was imperfect? I was taught that a heresy either discredited Christ or added to the 'way' of salvation. Tell me, why is it so important to say that God's method to enable man to be restored to Him is so variable? Say, why don't you meet me over at 'GoBahnsen, I accept your offer'?

Hi there Alberta...No, it was a perfect sacrifice. It accomplished all that the triune God intended. To say that it accomplished nothing but the possibility for dead men to respond might be heresy, but we Reformed folk like to be gracious. Most of us that is.

See you at the other thread.