Limited Atonement

[Beoga]

I know that this is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect, but that is about all I know. I find it hard to believe this but I am still looking into it. Could anyone please explain this to me and give me scriptural backup.
Thanks!

[eutychus]

The philosophical way to solve the problem: Jesus died to save people, not to give people the opportunity to be saved. That's why he can be called the Savior.

Jesus referred to this when speaking of his sheep.
John 10: 14,18
I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.

John 10:25-30
Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.'

[rmwilliamsll]

Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another—"What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father's throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men's account, died to save them.

from: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm

from spurgeon the prince of preachers, i added the bolding

[Bulldog]

A better term migh tbe definite atonement, that Christ's death definitly accomplished the salvation of the elect, instead of just making it a possiblity for all. If Christ's death to not accomplish anyone's salvation, then there's the theoritical posibilty that none would be saved.

[Knight]

This is the single biggest hang up to people exploring Reformed Theology. The "Big L".

Everyone I've talked to who either struggled with RT or rejected it have done so because they could not understand Limited Atonement. I struggled with it at first too.

Regretably, this doctrine is either not well explained or not explained at all in many churches today. In fact, most theologies within RT are not even touched upon in many churches.

I cannot recall even one sermon that taught either divine election or eternal security in the church I grew up in.

It's sad......

[Bulldog]

This is the single biggest hang up to people exploring Reformed Theology. The "Big L".

Everyone I've talked to who either struggled with RT or rejected it have done so because they could not understand Limited Atonement. I struggled with it at first too.



So did I, but I;ve gotten over it now. I have seen some Calvinist just dismiss Limited Atonment and take the other 4 points. However, when you take a point out, the others really don;t seem to make much sense anymore.

[Foundthelight]

The hangup for many is the misconception that Limited Atonement means that God has chosen some for election to salvation and some for eternal punishment. God does not choose anyone for punishment. We deserve punishment. No one is righteous in himself. It is only through God's grace that some are saved. We do not know why God choses some for salvation and not others. That is a mystery that is best for us not to dwell on.

[Knight]

The hangup for many is the misconception that Limited Atonement means that God has chosen some for election to salvation and some for eternal punishment. God does not choose anyone for punishment. We deserve punishment. No one is righteous in himself. It is only through God's grace that some are saved. We do not know why God choses some for salvation and not others. That is a mystery that is best for us not to dwell on.
Bingo. That is precicely how I have explained it in the past.

The trick is getting people to look past their preconceptions.

[Bulldog]

The hangup for many is the misconception that Limited Atonement means that God has chosen some for election to salvation and some for eternal punishment. God does not choose anyone for punishment. We deserve punishment. No one is righteous in himself. It is only through God's grace that some are saved. We do not know why God choses some for salvation and not others. That is a mystery that is best for us not to dwell on.

Exactly. It'n not like God takes a bunch of nuetral people and chooses there destination, it's that God takes people worthy of destruction and saves them. The others, are left to destruction and wrath, but it is all deserved for them

It's deserved for all of us, actually.

[ArchaDl]

Too true. Most people believe however that the moment they set foot in church they are saved. They also refuse to believe that they could possibly be sinners. This is a sad state of affairs in that people could think theyre saved and leave it at that.

We need to see that salvation, although not deserved, cannot be earned but only found in the grace of God. Every one of us is at risk of damnation but i feel our biggest task on earth is to forget about ourselves and give everbody a chance of salvation.

[Flynmonkie]

That is a mystery that is best for us not to dwell on.
This is my view, as that we really have no idea what God means by this and I do not believe it is for us to know. It is his alone. This still remains a mystery. Who's to say that God is not making the statements to this effect to remind us, that HE is in charge and is in control of hearts. God is absolutely sovereign - Not us. The only thing we can be responsible for is ourselves in this world. So I just share the gospel that we are all sinners and come short of the glory of God, and pray. Because once we Belive, we are instantly justified, and enter into the process of sanctification.:)

[Beoga]

Thanks for your input, i will still look into it. It makes sense, but it also doesn't, probably because i grew up believing that Jesus died for everyone.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Maybe I am missing the gravity of your question, but I find limited atonement easy to fathom and accept.

God is sovereign, all whom the father gives to Jesus will come to him and none will be lost that the father gives. Knowing that it is God that opens a man's heart to believe the Gospel and to have faith in Jesus, I no difficulty in proclaiming that to those whom God has left in their sins, Jesus did not die for that person.

Now, does that mean I should go around questioning who Jesus died for and who he didn't? I think the answer is no. That is God's mystery. In obediance, God commands that I tell the Gospel to the people in my life. Paul planted, Appollos watered, but God gave the increase. I am not responsible for saving people, that is God's business.

[Foundthelight]

I am not responsible for saving people, that is God's business.
You said it very well. We are responsible for spreading the Word, call it Evangelizing if you will. But, as you said, it is God who saves through the Holy Spirit.

We must not take pride in the fact that someone came to the Lord after hearing us or attending our church, but rather, we should humbly stand in awe at the action of the Holy spirit and give all praise to God where it belongs.

[Buttermilk]

Exactly. It'n not like God takes a bunch of nuetral people and chooses there destination, it's that God takes people worthy of destruction and saves them. The others, are left to destruction and wrath, but it is all deserved for them

It's deserved for all of us, actually.So you are quite happy to believe then, that God has saved you by electing (selecting you) but He is willing and happy to send other members of your family to hell because they haven't been elected (selected). (I speak hypothetically here, and am in no way sugesting that any members of your family are going to hell, but I hope you understand my illustration).

How does that make you feel - honestly?

[Bulldog]

How does that make you feel - honestly?

Like I should be with them....

[Buttermilk]

Like I should be with them....
And the fact that you won't be...??

Or the fact that they won't be in heaven with you, not through their choice, but God's....??

How does that make you feel.....??

(Once again I am in no way sugesting they won't be, again I speak hypothetically)

[Bulldog]

And the fact that you won't be...??
....Shows how much God loves me

Or the fact that they won't be in heaven with you, not through their choice, but God's....??

This may sound harsh, but those who are punushed deserve so. They are recipients of God's justice and wrath. Those who aren't deserve so as well, but are recepients of God's unfathomable Grace and Mercy.

[Buttermilk]

....Shows how much God loves me

So God does not love the so called unelect then? :scratch:

Mmm, Sorry the but the God I believe in loves everyone unconditionally:hug: , not just a small selection of people.

[Bulldog]

So God does not love the so called unelect then?

od has a general love for all His creation, but saving love only for the elct.

[theseed]

I can, the fundmental problem you have is that atonement does not mean salvation, as so many Calvinists, and apparentlly Calvin himself thought/think

Atonement just means that Christ pays for the sins, and I can rightly say that he payed for the sins of the whole world, for every person, without exception.

If Christ had not, then God could not hold the unelect responsible for rejecting Christ.

Salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone. God has done this so that we must glorify him inorder to be saved. We must profess Christ as Lord and Savior with our lips and believe with our heart--to God's glory (Rom. 10.9-13, Phil. 2)

Here is a thread I started a while ago arguing my case, with some scripture

I quote Ryrie, a Bapist theologian

http://www.christianforums.com/t103469

Anyways, his atonement is unlimited in value, but limited in application. Christ is the coupon, but some refuse to cash in, and so they will pay up later.

[Hands and Feet of Jesus]

I'm a Calvinist, but I still have a lot of problems with this doctrine, Mainly because of 1 John 2:2, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." I have never had a satisfactory explaination of that verse in terms of Limited Atonement. Could anyone help?

[oworm]

So you are quite happy to believe then, that God has saved you by electing ? Absolutely !!

(selecting you) God doesnt select,its not as if he lifts a bag of humans and picks out the ones he likes......................If that were the case he may only have picked the black ones and left the rest :D

but He is willing and happy to send other members of your family to hell because they haven't been elected (selected).Hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. Not humans!! HE is not 'happy' and 'willing' that any should perish. Those outside of his plan of salvation are not willing to repent and have absolutely no desire to be redeemed or to humble themselves and accept his free gift of salvation.

If you want to continue to challenge our beliefs why dont you open a debate at http://www.christianforums.com/f182 or post questions in http://www.christianforums.com/f83 This is the reformed forum for those of us who hold to reformed theology to hang out and find fellowship.
I dont mean to sound abrasive and my intention is not to be argumentative but if you dont like the theological doctrines of the reformed faith then it would be better not to visit the reformed forum if you find the doctrines offensive or unpallatable.

[tigersnare]

it would be better not to visit the reformed forum if you find the doctrines offensive or unpallatable.

I second the motion. I think this was a big reason these forums were formed, in part so like minds could be edified without being sidetracked on every thread.

I could be wrong though...

[Buttermilk]

This is the reformed forum for those of us who hold to reformed theology to hang out and find fellowship.
So where better a place to find answers to my perfectly valid questions about your theology:P


I dont mean to sound abrasive and my intention is not to be argumentative but if you dont like the theological doctrines of the reformed faith then it would be better not to visit the reformed forum if you find the doctrines offensive or unpallatable.
:help: Could you please point out where I have actually said any of the above. I have carefully scanned my posts and can't find any of the above comments anywhere in them.

[oworm]

So where better a place to find answers to my perfectly valid questions about your theology:P


:help: Could you please point out where I have actually said any of the above. I have carefully scanned my posts and can't find any of the above comments anywhere in them.You and i both know from previous conversations what your position is. Ok you havent posted it here but dont insult my knowledge of your views since you know from indepth experience our previous discussions !!!

BTW everyone BUTTERMILK is a friend of mine :hug:

[Buttermilk]

I second the motion. I think this was a big reason these forums were formed, in part so like minds could be edified without being sidetracked on every thread.

I could be wrong though...
I can assure you that was never my intention.

Just for the record tigersnare I happen to be a member of the Church of Scotland - A Reformed Church, so I am quite at liberty to post in this forum.

My reason for posting is this (not that I should have to justify my reason) - I have a genuine issue with the idea of Limited Atonement, and am genuinely interested in people's answers to my questions, including your own opinion.

[theseed]

I'm a Calvinist, but I still have a lot of problems with this doctrine, Mainly because of 1 John 2:2, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." I have never had a satisfactory explaination of that verse in terms of Limited Atonement. Could anyone help?
They say that the "world" means only the elect. And that is a big stretch IMHO.

I find Ryries explanation to be the best. You can read it here.

http://www.christianforums.com/t103469

[vibrant]

ok... hopefully you don't mind a non-reformist asking a question, but when i was studying calvinism, i really didn't get the info that said that Christ's atonement only PARTIALLY atoned for sins (of the elect). can someone explain that?

[theseed]

ok... hopefully you don't mind a non-reformist asking a question, but when i was studying calvinism, i really didn't get the info that said that Christ's atonement only PARTIALLY atoned for sins (of the elect). can someone explain that?
That is not what Limited Atonement means--it means that Christ only atones for those people that God elected to salvation--and therefore not everbody.

However, I hold to the view that it is infinite in potential, but limited in application.

[tigersnare]

So God does not love the so called unelect then? :scratch:

Mmm, Sorry the but the God I believe in loves everyone unconditionally:hug: , not just a small selection of people.

Ok after reading your posts again here is my input.

I would ask where you have formed the idea of the God you believe, and what you do with verses like, "Jacob I loved but Eseu I hated".

You also want to know how I feel about LA?

I thank God for it everyday, I deserve to burn in hell, the fact that there is even a redemptive plan at all should bring on glorious praises from me continually.

[tigersnare]

I can assure you that was never my intention. My reason for posting is this (not that I should have to justify my reason) - I have a genuine issue with the idea of Limited Atonement, and am genuinely interested in people's answers to my questions, including your own opinion.

Well the part about you saying the God you believe in wouldn't do what our theology teaches was, hmm....questionable. But like I said, I could be wrong, always open to that.

[BronxBriar]

The hangup for many is the misconception that Limited Atonement means that God has chosen some for election to salvation and some for eternal punishment. God does not choose anyone for punishment. We deserve punishment. No one is righteous in himself. It is only through God's grace that some are saved. We do not know why God choses some for salvation and not others. That is a mystery that is best for us not to dwell on.
I agree with:

God does NOT choose anyone for punishment
We DESERVE punishment (because we sin right?)
It is through Grace we are saved.

I know you asked not to dwell on it..but...if I understand I am a sinner, acknowledge the fact that I deserve to punished, and I truly desire to be saved, to dwell among the elect, can I rest in some certainty that I will be?
If we live without any certainty that we are among the elect that would cause a certain amount of existential angst I would imagine..well at least in me it would.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. I am new to reformed theology, so please bear with any misstatements I may have made.

Regards,
Henry

[Foundthelight]

I agree with:

God does NOT choose anyone for punishment
We DESERVE punishment (because we sin right?)
It is through Grace we are saved.

I know you asked not to dwell on it..but...if I understand I am a sinner, acknowledge the fact that I deserve to punished, and I truly desire to be saved, to dwell among the elect, can I rest in some certainty that I will be?
If we live without any certainty that we are among the elect that would cause a certain amount of existential angst I would imagine..well at least in me it would.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. I am new to reformed theology, so please bear with any misstatements I may have made.

Regards,
Henry
Thanks for your question Henry.

A true desire to be saved is a sign that the Holy Spirit is working in you. We cannot have that true desire on our own. It is a gift from God.

The Canons of Dort is one of the great documents of the Reformed Church and does address this question. The below is from the Canons which date from 1619.



Article 12 - The Assurance of Election





The elect in due time, though in various stages and in different measure, are made certain of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation. They attain this assurance, however, not by inquisitively prying into the hidden and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unfailing fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God - such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, and a hungering and thirsting after righteousness.



Article 13 - The Value of This Assurance



The awareness and assurance of this election provide the children of God with greater reason for daily humbling themselves before God, for adoring the depth of His mercies, for cleansing themselves, and for fervently loving Him in turn who first so greatly loved them. It is therefore not true at all that this doctrine of election and the reflection on it makes them lax in observing the commands of God or falsely secure. In the just judgment of God, this usually happens to those who rashly presume to have the grace of election, or idly and boldly chatter about it, but refuse to walk in the ways of the elect.




I love the last sentence of Article 13. How many of us have met people like this?



The bottom line is:
Do you love the Lord and thirst after his word?


Do you walk in awe and fear of the Lord?
Are you striving to walk in the way of the Lord?
Is all this coming from the inner urging of the Holy Spirit?

Ps. I am not talking about Fanaticism here. We all feel this push in different ways and at different levels of intensity. We all have periods of backsliding. But, within those periods, there is the inner push to get back on the right road.



God Bless

Willis.

[BronxBriar]

Willis,

Thank you so much! I will certainly look into the Canons of Dort!

-Henry

[Buttermilk]

I would ask where you have formed the idea of the God you believe
:scratch: Er, em, let me think now - from the Bible :D

[tigersnare]

:scratch: Er, em, let me think now - from the Bible :D

I knew you would say this....hence why I put forth the rest of the sentence that you did not quote nor reply to.

[Buttermilk]

I knew you would say this....hence why I put forth the rest of the sentence that you did not quote nor reply to.
There are plenty of verses that state that God loves everyone and that Jesus died for, everyone

[Bulldog]

Do you believe God has a saving love for all?

[Buttermilk]

Do you believe God has a saving love for all?
Potentially, yes

[oworm]

There are plenty of verses that state that God loves everyone and that Jesus died for, everyone
Mind quoting a few?

[Bulldog]

Potentially, yes

I do not believe so. In fact, the Bible even tells us that those who do not believe do not believe because they are not part of God.

John 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

On the flip side, those who do believe believe because they are God's sheep.

John 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.

[Buttermilk]

Mind quoting a few?
Yes I do mind :P ;) :D

[oworm]

Yes I do mind :P ;) :D
Are you prepared to qualify your position or are you just gonna go around sticking your tongue out and winking ?:yawn:

[tigersnare]

There are plenty of verses that state that God loves everyone and that Jesus died for, everyone

So basically you ignore verses that say other wise?

Which is why I asked where you get your idea of God from, only from the verses you like, or from the whole of the bible?

[Buttermilk]

So basically you ignore verses that say other wise?

Which is why I asked where you get your idea of God from, only from the verses you like, or from the whole of the bible?
I am neither Calvinist or Arminian. I get my idea of God from the whole bible.

Calvinists and Arminians on the other hand both pick out the verses they like (that fit their doctrine) and ignore the verses that say otherwise IMHO.

[Bulldog]

Buttermilk,

If you would bring up verses from the Bible that you believe object to Calvinism, please bring them up, and we might be able to deal with them.

[tigersnare]

I am neither Calvinist or Arminian. I get my idea of God from the whole bible.

Calvinists and Arminians on the other hand both pick out the verses they like (that fit their doctrine) and ignore the verses that say otherwise IMHO.
Ok that's a fair assumption, on what verses do you base your position?

[Buttermilk]

Ok that's a fair assumption
It's not an assumption it is fact!!!

[Buttermilk]

on what verses do you base your position?On no single verses, but the Bible as a whole, after weighing up the verses that both the Calvinists and the Arminians quote to fight their corner, and which I believe they take out of context

[oworm]

On no single verses, but the Bible as a whole, after weighing up the verses that both the Calvinists and the Arminians quote to fight their corner, and which I believe they take out of context
Could you be more specific in regard to which particular verses. Maybe you could note the particular verses and put them into their proper context.

You have stated that you take your position from the Bible "as a whole" but you have not shown from scripture how you arrive at your conclusions. Surely you must have some sort of criteria with which to qualify your position:confused:

[tigersnare]

On no single verses, but the Bible as a whole, after weighing up the verses that both the Calvinists and the Arminians quote to fight their corner, and which I believe they take out of context

Perhaps you would like to give us an example(verse) and map out the context as to give us a fuller understanding?

[Bulldog]

Buttermilk, for a couple pages now you have said the Bible teaches what you claim.

However, not once on this thread have you provided scripture.

Please do, and we might be able to explain it to you.

[tigersnare]

Buttermilk, for a couple pages now you have said the Bible teaches what you claim.

However, not once on this thread have you provided scripture.

Please do, and we might be able to explain it to you.

I second the motion.


Bulltwinky, check it out man, they have an icon for Calvanist now!! :clap:

[Bulldog]

I know. I just don't really like how it looks. :P


But back on topic...

[tigersnare]

Maybe she's busy looking up verses ;)

[oworm]

Maybe she's busy looking up verses ;)
Lets hope so. :amen:

[Bulldog]

We'll just have to wait and see. :pray:

[Buttermilk]

:topic: The OP posted a question about limited atonement and I posted a similar and then subsequent questions on the topic. This thread has turned into a lets pick on BM thread and why she believes what she does. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions of the OP, and is unhelpful to the topic.

I am not the Mod on this forum, but am giving my Mod Hat a gentle tap just to put this thread back on topic.

Thank you.

[oworm]

This thread has turned into a lets pick on BM thread and why she believes what she does. .
Rubbish...............Please show where you are being picked on!! Pushed into a corner for the purpose of qualifying your position maybe,but picked on? I dont think so!!! You have made claims but have not as yet qualified your position!!! You havent actually shown yet why you believe what you do so how can anyone be picking on you?
Actually its the opposite.YOU have infact attacked the calvinist position by your own words but have not shown how you come to believe what you do.

No one here wants to attack any one,but when someone makes comments which refutes the beliefs of another then surely that person is obliged to show why they believe the position they are refuting is in error?

the thread has not went off topic IMO.

The OP originally posted : "LIMITED ATONEMENT.............................................I know that this is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect, but that is about all I know. I find it hard to believe this but I am still looking into it. Could anyone please explain this to me and give me scriptural backup."
As far as i can see every post has been within the context of the OP's and subsequent questions from other posters.

If you truly believe our position is in error then dont you feel as you have entered the discourse that you have an obligation to show us how and why you believe limited atonement is wrong?

[Cal]

Rubbish...............Please show where you are being picked on!! Pushed into a corner for the purpose of qualifying your position maybe,but picked on? I dont think so!!! You have made claims but have not as yet qualified your position!!! You havent actually shown yet why you believe what you do so how can anyone be picking on you?
Actually its the opposite.YOU have infact attacked the calvinist position by your own words but have not shown how you come to believe what you do.

No one here wants to attack any one,but when someone makes comments which refutes the beliefs of another then surely that person is obliged to show why they believe the position they are refuting is in error?

the thread has not went off topic IMO.

The OP originally posted : "LIMITED ATONEMENT.............................................I know that this is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect, but that is about all I know. I find it hard to believe this but I am still looking into it. Could anyone please explain this to me and give me scriptural backup."
As far as i can see every post has been within the context of the OP's and subsequent questions from other posters.

If you truly believe our position is in error then dont you feel as you have entered the discourse that you have an obligation to show us how and why you believe limited atonement is wrong?





I agree completely, Buttermilk it seem's like you are threatening to use your authority inapproprriately because you can not answer or defend your position from Scripture. This has got to be against the rules of this forum and should be reported by the "real" moderator for this thread.

[oworm]

littleapologist vbmenu_register("postmenu_7845771", true);

17 http://www.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Male.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/flags/United%20States.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/userinfo/Calvinist.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/buttons/bless.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/buttons/comment.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/usernote.php?do=viewuser&u=25133) http://www.christianforums.com/images/buttons/reputation.gif http://www.christianforums.com/images/misc/im_aim.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/t670664#) http://www.christianforums.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/private.php?do=newpm&stripquote=1&userid=25133)
Regular Member
Blessings: 489
Reputation: 198
Posts: 487


Limited Atonement

I know that this is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect, but that is about all I know. I find it hard to believe this but I am still looking into it. Could anyone please explain this to me and give me scriptural backup.
Thanks!

[Cal]

Buttermilk,

Yes let's start over and thank you for the e-mail and you're willingness to discuss this matter in your search for the truth.

As discussed in my reply to your e-mail, there are hundreds of verses where God speaks about specifically loving and predestinating certain people to salvation and hating certain people to their eternal damnation. There are so many verses that your entire denomination and at one time almost all of Scotland believed in limited atonement.

You said that is not the God of the bible. You said God loved everyone and wanted to save all unconditionally.

You asked how we would "feel" if God did not elect a member of our family. As if we could bring God and His revealed truths to the judgment bar of our "feelings."

How do you think Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac felt when they realized God hated Esau and had not elected him to salvation?

ROM 9:13 Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


ROM 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?

Well isn't that what you are saying? This is unfair and unjust with God!

But the Holy Spirit say's:

"May it never be!"

For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. ROM 9:15-18.

But, You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

And I will answer back, On the contrary, who are you, O woman, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

You see, when God did not elect Esau to salvation Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac did not shake their fists at God or tell Him how "they felt about it." As a sinner and rebel Esau was simply getting what he deserved and God's justice on him was fair and just.

What Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac were asking themselves though was why God was having mercy on them!?!

[Gabriel]

To all involved:

You simply cannot expect to post in a thread, disagree, not provide support for your disagreement and then expect that you would not be responded to directly.

[oworm]

As a sinner and rebel Esau was simply getting what he deserved and God's justice on him was fair and just.
What Jacob, Rebekah and Isaac were asking themselves though was why God was having mercy on them!?!
So the question then should be "Why does God save anyone?" Not "why doesn't God save everyone?"

[Foundthelight]

So the question then should be "Why does God save anyone?" Not "why doesn't God save everyone?"
Exactly. God chooses for His greater Glory. This is true of everything God does.

He chose to harden Pharaoh's heart so as to bring glory on Himself by freeing Isreal.

He chooses some for salvation for the same reason. His Glory. Who are we to question His reasons?

Job 36:22 Behold, God exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him?

Job 36:23 Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought iniquity?

[tigersnare]

Great Posts everyone!!

And when talking about LA, remeber we're not talking about "fairness"here, we're talking about mercy.

You want fair God to be fair? Fair is we all burn....

Mercy is God having a redemptive plan at all. Who are we to say he isn't saving enough? :bow:

[Gabriel]

Great Posts everyone!!

And when talking about LA, remeber we're not talking about "fairness"here, we're talking about mercy.

You want fair God to be fair? Fair is we all burn....

Mercy is God having a redemptive plan at all. Who are we to say he isn't saving enough? :bow:
When the issue of fairness comes into play people tend to look at it with the wrong definition. The world has come to believe that fair means "what is a good for all involved" I have a simple way of making people see the truth of the word fair. Timothy Mc Veigh killed alot of people when he bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. As a criminal he was tried, sentenced and executed. He was punished for what he did. Is that fair? Yes. But, was it good for him? No. It was most certainly bad for him, yet it was just and fair. The same goes for the reprobate. We all fall short (sin), the wages of sin is death. So if we ALL fall short and the payment for sin is death, what is fair for all of us? Death. But God in His love and mercy saves some of us. Fair is sometimes bad. I'll rejoice in mercy and give up my claim to fairness.

[rnmomof7]

I like to say if God was fair , we would all be in hell.

[Knight]

I recently heard a "Renewing Your Mind" broadcast about the doctrine of Limited Atonement. (Available for online listening at www.ligonier.org (http://www.ligonier.org) Just go to the past broadcasts.)

I favor R. C. Sprouls position. The term is better defined as Particular Redemption. It's more exact. Of course, this would render TULIP into TURIP. :)

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

So the question then should be "Why does God save anyone?" Not "why doesn't God save everyone?"

:amen:

Thump!! (That is the sound of your arrow hitting its mark right in the center)

I believe everyone else has expounded upon this well. Allow me to toss in my two cents.

Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

I think everyone here will agree that we are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God. As the above verse states, God is righteous to take vengence on those who have disobeyed his law. If God were fair, there would have been no saviour and we would all be destined for enternal wrath. Praise God that he did give us a saviour!!!!!

So why does God regenerate the heart of one man, and leave the next in his state?

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

According to the good pleasure of God's will!!! It was stated elsewhere that he has elected his sheep to give himself glory! Unfortunately, I think that we too often become man centered instead of God centered. It glories man to think that God is sitting on pins and needles hoping that John Doe makes the decision to follow Christ. It gloires man to say," I choose Jesus! Hooray for my free will." But it glories God when he takes a sinful wretch like me and saves me. If glories him when I say "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!"

[oworm]

Thump!! (That is the sound of your arrow hitting its mark right in the center)
THUMP!!! That was the sound of your arrow splitting mine

I think that we too often become man centered instead of God centered.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

THUMP!!! That was the sound of your arrow splitting mine

LOL!

[theseed]

I recently heard a "Renewing Your Mind" broadcast about the doctrine of Limited Atonement. (Available for online listening at www.ligonier.org (http://www.ligonier.org) Just go to the past broadcasts.)

I favor R. C. Sprouls position. The term is better defined as Particular Redemption. It's more exact. Of course, this would render TULIP into TURIP. :)
Yeah, some times I think John Calvin just likes flowers ;)

[Bulldog]

I personally think a better term would be definite atonement. Christ's death definitly accomplished the salvation of the elect, instead of just creating the potential.

[theseed]

I personally think a better term would be definite atonement. Christ's death definitly accomplished the salvation of the elect, instead of just creating the potential.
Well, all men and women will be asked what they did with the only Begotten of the Father. God holds all responsible, not just the elect, to have faith in Christ.

And God stops no one from comming to him, so all men and women are without excuse.

With that said, Christ blood has to have the potential to be applied to the sins of the whole world. God is glorified in not having the full potential of the atonement fullfilled because it is conditioned by faith. And God gets glorified by faith, which requires one to humble himself and admit is sin, and admit that only Christ is Lord and Savior.

So, we are warned against asking about fatalism and blaming God.
Romans 9
19 (37 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Rom.+9&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=2#crossref_658839340_37)) You will say to me then, "(38 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Rom.+9&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=2#crossref_658839340_38)) Why does He still find fault? For (39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Rom.+9&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=2#crossref_658839340_39)) who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, (40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Rom.+9&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=2#crossref_658839340_40)) O man, who (41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Rom.+9&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=2#crossref_658839340_41)) answers back to God? (42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Rom.+9&NASB_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=2#crossref_658839340_42)) The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

[seawolf_48]

To bulldog

Some theologians call it "particular atonement". But I like limited, it makes the Arminians hair stand up. Atonement is limited to God choise, and not everyone. John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that everyone who believes should not perish but have eternal life." Everyone who believes are the elect. Not whosoever, anyone anywhere anytime. The Good Shepard lays down His life for His sheep, not the goats. If Christ died for all then all would be saved. If Christ died for all and many are lost, then we can loose our salvation also. Heb 9:28 "Christ was offered to bear the sins of many", not all.

Also Christ is our propitiation, Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1Joh 2:2, 4:10. What is the propitiation? A full expiation of our sins, full pardon from wrath and now in good standing with God the Father. This is only the Elect. But not for our alone but also for the whole world. Meaning the elect in all countries thru all time, and not every person that ever lived. They are not pardoned, but we are, praise God!

[theseed]

Yes, in John 3.16, we see the subjuctive "should" it referes to a verb conjugation that implies a contigency. Another subjuctive is "might", and "may" and "necessaarily in the rightcontext"

So, God gave his Son so that whoever might believe, would not perish. However, not all believe.

Subjunctive mood (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjunctive%20mood) (Gram.), that form of a verb which express the action or state not as a fact, but only as a conception of the mind still contingent and dependent. It is commonly subjoined, or added as subordinate, to some other verb, and in English is often connected with it by if, that, though, lest, unless, except, until, etc., as in the following sentence: ``If there were no honey, they [bees] would have no object in visiting the flower.'' --Lubbock. In some languages, as in Latin and Greek, the subjunctive is often independent of any other verb, being used in wishes, commands, exhortations, etc.
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=web1913): Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[jbarcher]

But I like limited, it makes the Arminians hair stand up

Lol!

---

Er, one thing I'd like to bring up...people mentioned something about it being just for all of us to go to hell. I'm speaking of--"I like to say if God was fair , we would all be in hell." Well, there's an antitheistic argument that makes the case that 'just' and 'merciful' cannot go together. Stepping away from the position that "when we talk about the divine, it all ends in paradox, so we might as well give up", I'd like to point something out about this argument.

I don't think it scratches Christianity. Consider this:

1. If God maintained His holiness, then we would all go to hell, as punishment for our sins.
2. Christ is the atonement for our sins.
3. Therefore, God is both just and merciful.

The key idea is, there is more than one way to be just. And because of Christ, God is both just (the price paid), and merciful (God had no obligation to send Christ, before Genesis 3:15, that is ;) ).

But don't toss out that antitheistic argument yet. ;) It may be useful when dealing with other religions.

---

Now, back to the topic. I really need to set aside some time about the L...as it is, I think, the main thing preventing me from going all out Calvinist...:P Definite atonement....hm...

[Knight]

Yeah, some times I think John Calvin just likes flowers ;)
IIRC, Calvin did not invent the acronym. It was developed by others after Calvin in response to Arminiasm.

Check the broadcast I mentioned. I think that point is made there.

[theseed]

IIRC, Calvin did not invent the acronym. It was developed by others after Calvin in response to Arminiasm.

Check the broadcast I mentioned. I think that point is made there.
What is IIRC?

[theseed]

Sweetsoulsong, this reminds me of the "Angry God" sermon.

[QUOTE=Edwards] The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. /QUOTE]

http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm