Limited Atonement?

[AGJ442]

Do you believe Jesus Christ died for Judas Iscariot?

In short...Yes. Even knowing that he wouldn't accept it. Based on the verses below, I have to go with a literal interpretation of the scriptures. These verses and others are why I would say that.

1 John 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some count slowness; but is patient with us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Tim 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth

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

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

[AGJ442]

Beware of anyone coming with a doctrine that "stands alone in Scripture!"

Every doctrine must harmonize with the entire teachings of God's Word.

I agree. I think sometimes though we get so focused on our own theological system that we are unteachable. Myself included.

My original contention however was that Limited Atonement was a Conclusion of Unconditional Election with not much scriptural support. I was posting to get some feedback. Please don't misinterpret my question as an attack.

[RanRan]

In short...Yes. Even knowing that he wouldn't accept it. Based on the verses below, I have to go with a literal interpretation of the scriptures. These verses and others are why I would say that.

1 John 2:2 And he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some count slowness; but is patient with us, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Tim 2:3-4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
who desires all people to be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth

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

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Good man! Now, beware of the dogs here who will deny your redemption but not theirs...it's going to get silly.

[The Plain Jane]

Good man! Now, beware of the dogs here who will deny your redemption but not theirs...

Who are the dogs RanRan? Why not be a man and tell us who the dogs are?

And Calvinists do not deny the salvation of Christians who are not Calvinists. This has been explained to you, and you continue to bear false witness of your brethern and show your ignorance of your brethern's theology.

[Reader]

In short...Yes. Even knowing that he wouldn't accept it.

But Jesus promised the Father that all He died for, would surely believe, and thereby be saved, and none would be lost. What in your thinking, nullifies the Holy Scriptures that say this?

How come Judas didn't believe?

How come Judas was not saved?

How come Judas was lost?

Do the promises of the Son, made to the Father, mean anything?

Or are the promises between infinite Father and infinite Son, and infinite Son and infinite Father, dependent upon the finite?

[The Plain Jane]

Reader: Your last post made an excellent point.

AGJ442: Why did you single out Limited Atonement? Why not discuss the whole TULIP?

[RanRan]

But Jesus promised the Father that all He died for, would surely believe,

Believe what, Reader? Verse, please.

[The Plain Jane]

Believe what, Reader?

I have explain this to you and you continue to bear false witness pretending that I haven't.

Verse, please.

I seem to remember asking you that very same question RanRan and it suited you not to answer it. I looked it up myself and found you had taken it out of context.

[AGJ442]

Reader: Your last post made an excellent point.

AGJ442: Why did you single out Limited Atonement? Why not discuss the whole TULIP?

Because it would take an eternity. We would be stuck in an endless free will vs. determinism debate. I mean, we could if you want. I was trying to narrow it down to a more direct subject. Haven't there been other threads dealing with the other topics. The entire TULIP is so broad. I'll admit that I wrote my original question with a presupposition, but I pretty much made that clear in my first post. What I'm getting as an answer from everyone in here is basically. "No. Not really." If you want to open the subject to the whole TULIP, we can. I singled out LA because it is the point that I have heard the least about from Calvanists and I was curious.

[AGJ442]

But Jesus promised the Father that all He died for, would surely believe, and thereby be saved, and none would be lost. What in your thinking, nullifies the Holy Scriptures that say this?

How come Judas didn't believe?

How come Judas was not saved?

How come Judas was lost?

Do the promises of the Son, made to the Father, mean anything?

Or are the promises between infinite Father and infinite Son, and infinite Son and infinite Father, dependent upon the finite?

Please give me a verse reference so that I can answer accurately. I don't remember a verse worded quite that way.

[Reader]

I singled out LA because it is the point that I have heard the least about from Calvanists and I was curious.

I think you were correct to center attention upon this point of doctrine.

After all, ~who~ Jesus shed His blood for, is totally significant and (supposedly) the basis for the justification of any individual soul . . .right?

[Trout]

In short...Yes. Even knowing that he wouldn't accept it. Based on the verses below, I have to go with a literal interpretation of the scriptures. These verses and others are why I would say that.

Those are good verses, they seem to back up your view.

I think it's important that either side realize that there are passages that seem to fit both views.

[Reader]

Please give me a verse reference so that I can answer accurately. I don't remember a verse worded quite that way.

Uh . . .I am asking you to provide YOUR explanation, belief, or Scripture at this point in the discussion . . .right?

You said you believed Jesus shed His blood for Judas Iscariot. I asked questions and you are supposed to provide foundation for your convictions, from the Word of God, at this point.

Waiting . . .

[RanRan]

Please give me a verse reference so that I can answer accurately. I don't remember a verse worded quite that way.

Reader, that's two us asking for the origin of your 'sciptural' text: "all He died for, would surely believe" Provide that scripture or admit that you are making it up. Your choice.

[Trout]

I didn't think that. Just be careful around here. The Gospel is fragile according to Luther. It goes from 'God first loves you' to 'God first hates you' in a heart-beat. It really comes down to choosing your 'gospel.' Be anything but niave - everything is at stake - as usual. ;-)

Yeah, don't be naive, believe like RanRan, that people who have been saved are suffering in Hell.

If Luther was around today he'd take you over his knee, RanRan.

Ah, the ego-centric gospel of the 20th century. All to the exclusion of your neighbor - whom God first hated...but not you...you're special. Stale air. The gospel of the big ego, and the bigger the better.

Yeah, don't believe the real gospel, believe like RanRan. That all are saved and forgiven, even those in Hell.