Limited Atonement?

[AGJ442]

My question has to do with the Calvanist's definition of Limited Atonement. Or the "L" in TULIP. The definition being that Christ only purposed to die and only died for the Elect. That the blood of Christ is limited only to Those that he chose to save.

Can some of you who hold this position provide scriptural support for it? I don't really find any. I'm looking for verses that apply directly to Limited Atonement. It is my humble contention that Limited Atonement is merely a logical conclusion of Unconditional Election and cannot be supported adequately. Of course I could be wrong, that's why I am posting this thread.

I am not trying to spark another free will debate here or trying to prove someone wrong. I'm just inerested in the validity of this point on it's own without the other four.

[The Plain Jane]

Can some of you who hold this position provide scriptural support for it?

I'm going to play the devil's avocate here (juuuuuust kidding Calvinists) and show you the only verse I think supports it. "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Many, not all.

I am not trying to spark another free will debate here or trying to prove someone wrong.

And don't worry; Lutherans believe in Unlimited Atonement and we don't believe in Free Will.

[AGJ442]

I'm going to play the devil's avocate here (juuuuuust kidding Calvinists) and show you the only verse I think supports it. "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Many, not all.

Fair enough. But in light of verses such as:

1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people

And many others. Wouldn't it be more correct to interpret the word "many" to be in comparison to The one (Christ)? "Many" does not give the idea of a specific number and could refer to simply a large number. It seems harder to redefine the word "ALL" in the other verses.

[The Plain Jane]

Fair enough. But in light of verses such as:

1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people

And many others. Wouldn't it be more correct to interpret the word "many" to be in comparison to The one (Christ)? "Many" does not give the idea of a specific number and could refer to simply a large number. It seems harder to redefine the word "ALL" in the other verses.

Dude, I never said I agreed with Limited Atonement. You asked for verses and I gave you one.

[seer]

And many others. Wouldn't it be more correct to interpret the word "many" to be in comparison to The one (Christ)? "Many" does not give the idea of a specific number and could refer to simply a large number. It seems harder to redefine the word "ALL" in the other verses.

Aren't all men many men?

[AGJ442]

Dude, I never said I agreed with Limited Atonement. You asked for verses and I gave you one.

Sorry, I wasn't Implying that you did. I was just responding to the verse. Thanks for the post.

[AGJ442]

Aren't all men many men?

[seer]

Yes, but even as an Arminian I don't believe it is necessary for my theology to believe that Christ died for all men. It could be that God, in His foreknowledge, knew who would freely respond to Him, and Christ could have died for them alone...

[RanRan]

The problem with limiting the atonement of God is that it also limits the fall.

'Some were not fallen and some were not redeemed.' Is not a truth statement and makes a mess of both the fall of man, and atonement of God. God cannot then be trusted to have placed all men under disobedience and to resurrect all men, respectively.

[AGJ442]

Yes, but even as an Arminian I don't believe it is necessary for my theology to believe that Christ died for all men. It could be that God, in His foreknowledge, knew who would freely respond to Him, and Christ could have died for them alone...

I suppose so. Theologically. However, I don't believe that scripture supports such a position. So that would be inaccurate theology if my premise is true.

[Trout]

The problem with limiting the atonement of God is that it also limits the fall.

Only if you address the issue with your preconceived nonsensical doctrinal holdings.

'Some were not fallen and some were not redeemed.' Is not a truth statement and makes a mess of both the fall of man, and atonement of God.

Right, but that's not the statement in question. Properly written it would go something like this:

All are fallen and some are redeemed.

God cannot then be trusted to have placed all men under disobedience and to resurrect all men, respectively.

And RanRan can't be trusted to espouse correct doctrine.

What does that even mean?

In ressponse to your initial query, AGJ442, I think the following verse helps the "L".

JOHN 10:14-15

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep.

[RanRan]

I suppose so. Theologically. However, I don't believe that scripture supports such a position. So that would be inaccurate theology if my premise is true.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Well, certainly scripture is not inaccurate and supports what I said. There is no other explanation for the universal resurrection of humanity - then that all had been redeemed from the curse. If that were not the case, then Christ could never be said to have conquered death - and that negation of His victory for eternity.

Some people here like to play God and restrict His mercy and grace - but I am with Paul - I can't see a bottom to the depth of it.

Of course 'better sinners' can, but I think what they're 'seeing' is more of a reflection of themselves.

[The Plain Jane]

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Well, certainly scripture is not inaccurate and supports what I said. There is no other explanation for the universal resurrection of humanity - then that all had been redeemed from the curse. If that were not the case, then Christ could never be said to have conquered death - and that negation for eternity.

Only those in faith are redeemed from the curse, those not in faith will experience "the second death."

AGJ442, this is a heretic. Well to be fair, I'll say a Christian in serious error. Trout has exposed him in several threads. He teaches all mankind is forgiven, contrary to the words of Christ.

He teaches that a perfect God needs to be atoned. He will not explain what he means by this, so don't ask.

And on top of this, if you disagree with him, get gets rather nasty, so treat everything he says as if God had spoken it Himself.

Some people here like to play God and restrict His mercy and grace - but I am with Paul - I can't see a bottom to the depth of it.

Of course 'better sinners' can, but I think what they're 'seeing' is more of a reflection of themselves.

And who might that be RanRan? Why don't you stop being a coward and come right and say who is on your mind? Is it me, who you put on ignore because I keep bugging you to explain and support your position?

[RanRan]

Can some of you who hold this position provide scriptural support for it? I don't really find any.

Nor will they. What they will find are eschatological passages dealing with that generation to fulfill scripture and remove them from their context and apply them in such a way as to support the anti-gospel "God first hates you."

It's the powers in place that come against Christ's Gospel - we see it here as a microcosm of the world.

[AGJ442]

In ressponse to your initial query, AGJ442, I think the following verse helps the "L".

JOHN 10:14-15

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep.

But couldn't this verse be true for Unlimited Atonement as well? I mean, Christ did lay down his life for his sheep either way. I see your point but this is almost an indirect reference. When there are other verses that speak more directly about it.