Paul taught unlimited atonement

[FreeGrace2]

Psalm 145

A psalm of praise. Of David.

1 I will exalt you, my God the King;
I will praise your name for ever and ever.
2 Every day I will praise you
and extol your name for ever and ever.
3 Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise;
his greatness no one can fathom.
4 One generation commends your works to another;
they tell of your mighty acts.
5 They speak of the glorious splendor of your majesty—
and I will meditate on your wonderful works.
6 They tell of the power of your awesome works—
and I will proclaim your great deeds.
7 They celebrate your abundant goodness
and joyfully sing of your righteousness.
8 The Lord is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and rich in love.
9 The Lord is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made.
10 All your works praise you, Lord;
your faithful people extol you.
11 They tell of the glory of your kingdom
and speak of your might,
12 so that all people may know of your mighty acts
and the glorious splendor of your kingdom.
13 Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and your dominion endures through all generations.
The Lord is trustworthy in all he promises
and faithful in all he does.
14 The Lord upholds all who fall
and lifts up all who are bowed down.
15 The eyes of all look to you,
and you give them their food at the proper time.
16 You open your hand
and satisfy the desires of every living thing.
17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.
18 The Lord is near to all who call on him,
to all who call on him in truth.
19 He fulfills the desires of those who fear him;
he hears their cry and saves them.
20 The Lord watches over all who love him,
but all the wicked he will destroy.
21 My mouth will speak in praise of the Lord.
Let every creature praise his holy name
for ever and ever.


Seems clear.

Certainly does.

 

[FreeGrace2]

There have been 12 responses to the OP. 3 were in agreement. The rest were mostly just complaints about me and/or my "style". One poster did actually attempt to address the OP, but he got all confused by the difference between who Paul was writing to (believers) and who he was reminding those believers of what his initial message was that they believED. So he missed the whole point of the OP anyway.

The OP has not been refuted nor shown to be false in any way. Disagreement with my style or OP doesn't equate to a refutation.

Paul's gospel message to the masses who had never heard the name of Christ (per Rom 15:20) was that "Christ died for OUR sins". That's what he preached to the masses.

If Calvinism were true, his message would be untrue, since it would be false to preach that "Christ died for OUR sins" if He hadn't died for everyone's sins.

Because we know that his message was true, we know that Calvinism's fixation on limited atonement is untrue.

 

[Don Maurer]

There have been 12 responses to the OP. 3 were in agreement. The rest were mostly just complaints about me and/or my "style".

As usual, you failed to read the refutations and address them and then turn around and boastfully make absurd claims that no one responds and just complains. Certainly some complain about your continual boasting and refusing to actually work in a text. I am one of them that feels you are not honest in your replies.

One poster did actually attempt to address the OP, but he got all confused by the difference between who Paul was writing to (believers) and who he was reminding those believers of what his initial message was that they believED. So he missed the whole point of the OP anyway.

Others who refuted your view completely understood your shallow view of the text you mentioned. The focus was upon the pronoun "our." You insisted that it must include unbelievers, but offered no evidence from the context.

Others refuted your shallowness by pointing to the pronoun in the preceeding verses (vs 2). They also pointed to the beginning of 1 Cor, other evidence of your error could be pointed to. Let me give you an example.

The passage in verse 1 starts with the addressee, when Paul says...
"Moreover, BRETHREN."
Then the pronouns follow a pattern. He "declare to you." Who is the "you" in verse 1? Does that also include unbelievers? When then would Paul use the term "brethren?" Then he speaks to the brethren and says I preached unto "you." If they are unbeleivers at the time of the epistle, why would he address them as "brethren." Are unbelievers also his "brethren?" The next pronoun is "wherein you stand." Look at the "you" in that phrase." The brethen stand in what Paul was preaching, not unbelievers.

Of course then the warning comes in verse 2 in which some believed (false faith) in vain. Of course this false faith is the exception to the pronoun "you are saved." In verse 3, when the pronoun "our" occurs you suddenly interject your theology into the passage and completely ignore the previous context about the brethren, who are saved, and then suddenly the term "our" must include unbelievers because not everyone Paul preached to in the past at Corinth was saved.

In verse 3, it begins with the same pronoun "you." Paul even uses a similar term(not the same term but similar) to the term he used in verse 1. In verse 1 he declares unto you, and then in verse 3 he mentions how in the past he delivered unto them. The "you" must of course be the same group, the brethren.

The OP has not been refuted nor shown to be false in any way. Disagreement with my style or OP doesn't equate to a refutation.

Well, you are truly a waist of time. The statement above demonstrates it. The accusation no one refuted you and everyone either agrees with you or merely is disagreeing with your style is of course a lie. When you go to the extent of telling such falsehoods to claim no one refuted you, then you completed demonstrate you are a waist of time.

Your lack of honesty in such statements is the justification for all who complain about you. That of course is the real issue.

Paul's gospel message to the masses who had never heard the name of Christ (per Rom 15:20) was that "Christ died for OUR sins". That's what he preached to the masses.

How amazingly stupid of a statement. With such shallow statements, you obviously are not here to win Calvinists to your point of view. You claim to be here for "debate." Your statement assumes something so completely non-sequitur that it is amazing. Of course Paul preached to the unevangelized masses. How would that equate to Christ dieing for all those same unevangelized masses. In 1st Cor 15 Paul is speaking to the "brethren" that converted when he preached to those unevangelized masses.

If Calvinism were true, his message would be untrue, since it would be false to preach that "Christ died for OUR sins" if He hadn't died for everyone's sins.

It is common for Calvinists to proclaim that Christ died for our sins to unbelievers because of course we do not know who the elect are. If you understand what a Calvinist is saying, your would understand what Paul was doing. By the way, neither did Paul know who the elect were going to be.

The difference between you and Calvinists is your extremely limited view of the atonement, rather then the fuller view of Calvinists. The difference is (hypothetical possibility of salvation-- you). ( A true and full atonement--- Calvinists). You claim Christ shed his blood for those he never actually had any intent to save. So then, he died to make salvation available to those already in hell? Do you then believe that some of those in hell could get saved if it really makes it possible for them to get saved?

A full atonement saves us to the uttermost. It is a complete salvation that leaves nothing out. We come with empty pockets. Your claim is that we come with pockets full of our own faith. So then, you believe no more then a partial salvation, rather then a full and complete salvation.

Because we know that his message was true, we know that Calvinism's fixation on limited atonement is untrue.

Some Calvinists do not use the term "limited atonement." Some use the term "particular redemption." I heard some use "full atonement." If anyone has a "fixation" on the words, it would be people like you. The disappointing thing is that you do not understand the meaning of the term in its fulness and richness.

If you go back to the Remonstrants and their original statements, one thing is true about the term "unlimited atonement." The Remonstrants had a concept that Christ died not to save anyone, but to satisfy the justice of God. Hugo Grotius wrote about this. Once the justice of God is satisfied, then God can offer salvation to the whole world. That was called the "General" theory of atonement. Of course that stands in opposition to the "penal-substitutionary" view of the atonement that Calvinists took. The joke of all this is that people like you commonly try to straddle the fence by agreeing with a penal substitutionary theory of atonement, but then deny the particular redemption of Gods elect.

I love how the scriptures supports the penal substitutionary view by even the prepositions. In 1 Cor 15:3 the word "huper" is used. It means in behalf of or instead of. Christ paid the penalty in behalf of our sins. Nothing more is required for salvation. Yet you will say, more is required for salvation. We must have faith. By doing this, you make faith an addition to the shed blood of Christ for salvation. We have faith as being imparted to us because of Christs shed blood as the human requirement for justification.

Well, I have waisted too much time on someone who does not have ears to hear.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Sadly FG2 you're reading your assumption into the bible. If I were to preach before a mixed audience of believers and non-believers and at some point said; "Christ died for our sins", according to you that would have to mean I have a universal atonement in mind, but that would just be you pulling my strings. For you see, I could easily say "Christ died for our sins" without meaning that Christ died for everyone in the audience, I could say "Christ died for our sins" without even explaining it or my view, and yes there would be some that would misunderstand, but people read the Bible and misunderstand it every day! For you see, neither the apostle Paul, nor you or I knows who all God chose from all eternity and who He passed over, nor do we know the hour of the elect's calling. What is more, to think the Gospel is not for those on the “podium” is nonsense, it is especially and primarily for those on the “podium”, it is foolishness to those who are not, yet what was once foolishness may become wisdom for some of those among the foolish, even so, many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[FreeGrace2]

As usual, you failed to read the refutations and address them and then turn around and boastfully make absurd claims that no one responds and just complains.

you are in error. There were no refutations, just one failed attempt by the irrelevant point that Paul was writing to believers. His point in 15:1 was that he was reminding them of what he preachED and what they believED. And the others were just complaints; nothing of substance.

Certainly some complain about your continual boasting and refusing to actually work in a text. I am one of them that feels you are not honest in your replies.

So, where am I dishonest? Can you show me? Or is this just another complaint in order to deflect the fact that you cannot refute the OP?

Others who refuted your view completely understood your shallow view of the text you mentioned. The focus was upon the pronoun "our." You insisted that it must include unbelievers, but offered no evidence from the context.

You are in error again. The context was Paul reminding the believers of what he preachED and they believED. iow, he preachED before they believED.

I acknowledged the use of "our" as Paul including the masses to which he was preaching to.

Others refuted your shallowness by pointing to the pronoun in the preceeding verses (vs 2). They also pointed to the beginning of 1 Cor, other evidence of your error could be pointed to. Let me give you an example.

You are in error again. 1:1 isn't the context for 15:3. I made that very clear, as does the text in 15:1-11. But you are just not getting it.

Well, you are truly a waist of time.

Your futile attempt to refute me has been the real waste of time. You aren't even close.

How amazingly stupid of a statement.

Really? This is what I stated: "Paul's gospel message to the masses who had never heard the name of Christ (per Rom 15:20) was that "Christ died for OUR sins". That's what he preached to the masses."

Go ahead and dismiss Rom 15:20. But it's the truth and applies to 1 Cor 15:1-11.

With such shallow statements, you obviously are not here to win Calvinists to your point of view.

Not trying. I'm here to reveal the errors of Calvinism.

You claim to be here for "debate." Your statement assumes something so completely non-sequitur that it is amazing. Of course Paul preached to the unevangelized masses.

And he preached, of first importance, that "Christ died for our sins" to those masses.

How would that equate to Christ dieing for all those same unevangelized masses.

Seriously?? Because he preached to the masses that "Christ died for OUR sins". He was including those masses in his message of who Christ died for. Apparently you just don't want to see that.

In 1st Cor 15 Paul is speaking to the "brethren" that converted when he preached to those unevangelized masses.

Paul's message was what they heard and believED. They were unbelievers when he preachED that message.

It is common for Calvinists to proclaim that Christ died for our sins to unbelievers because of course we do not know who the elect are.

Not knowing is no excuse for telling those He didn't die for that He did. That's just dishonest. But He did die for everyone, which is why Paul preachED what he did.

If you understand what a Calvinist is saying, your would understand what Paul was doing. By the way, neither did Paul know who the elect were going to be.

Irrelevant. Paul knew that Christ died for everyone. 2 Cor 5:14,15.

The difference between you and Calvinists is your extremely limited view of the atonement

Now, that is hilarious! It's the Calvinists who have that limited view thing going on.

Well, I have waisted too much time on someone who does not have ears to hear.

That makes 2 of us.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sadly FG2 you're reading your assumption into the bible.

A rather odd comment, given that I have focused on what Paul actually wrote.

For you see, I could easily say "Christ died for our sins" without meaning that Christ died for everyone in the audience, I could say "Christ died for our sins" without even explaining it or my view, and yes there would be some that would misunderstand, but people read the Bible and misunderstand it every day!

So, in that sermon of yours, what exactly do you mean by "our" if not everyone in the audience?

For you see, neither the apostle Paul, nor you or I knows who all God chose from all eternity and who He passed over, nor do we know the hour of the elect's calling.

That's not even relevant. If Christ didn't die for everyone, you can't tell a mixed group that He died for "our" sins. The "our" is a first person pronoun and includes all the hearers, not just the elect ones.

What is more, to think the Gospel is not for those on the “podium” is nonsense, it is especially and primarily for those on the “podium”, it is foolishness to those who are not, yet what was once foolishness may become wisdom for some of those among the foolish, even so, many are called, but few are chosen.

Well, you have proven that you never read my posts more than about 1" deep. I never said it was only for those on the podium. I was making the point that Paul certainly didn't mean by "our" just those on the podium.

Please pay attention before you post.

 

[Don Maurer]

you are in error. There were no refutations, just one failed attempt by the irrelevant point that Paul was writing to believers. His point in 15:1 was that he was reminding them of what he preachED and what they believED. And the others were just complaints; nothing of substance.
Maybe english is your 2nd language and you could not read what others already posted? I repeated some of what they said and you continue to insist that no one refuted the OP.

So, where am I dishonest? Can you show me? Or is this just another complaint in order to deflect the fact that you cannot refute the OP?

Your statement.... "There have been 12 responses to the OP. 3 were in agreement. The rest were mostly just complaints about me and/or my "style"... is completely dishonest. When you say the rest were mostly just complaints, that is not true at all. Others posted some refuting points about the OP and you ignored them. How am I to consider you as a bonifide person who comes to debate when you make such dishonest statements?

You are in error again. The context was Paul reminding the believers of what he preachED and they believED. iow, he preachED before they believED.

Ahh, more dishonestly. You did mention the word "our" just as you do in your next statement. In fact you do in the very next statement.

I acknowledged the use of "our" as Paul including the masses to which he was preaching to.

Of course you refuse to recognize the difference between preaching to the masses and issues of atonement. It is the error of non-sequitur argumentation.

You are in error again. 1:1 isn't the context for 15:3. I made that very clear, as does the text in 15:1-11. But you are just not getting it.

Again, I am amazed at how you dishonestly change what was said. I stated that another poster mentioned 1:1. I did not mention it, except to quote him. Of course it is a part of the context of the book of 1 Corinthians.

Your futile attempt to refute me has been the real waste of time. You aren't even close.

It is certainly futile to bother with people like you that are self deceived. Your whole debate is all about saying you have not been refuted. In fact it is obvious you only read posts enough to get the vague just of what is being said, or course you obviously read the scriptures in the same way. Futility is bothering with people like you.

Really? This is what I stated: "Paul's gospel message to the masses who had never heard the name of Christ (per Rom 15:20) was that "Christ died for OUR sins". That's what he preached to the masses."

Go ahead and dismiss Rom 15:20. But it's the truth and applies to 1 Cor 15:1-11.

Again, such amazing deception. You accuse me of "dismiss" Romans 15:20 and then you do not have to respond to my statement that you are comparing non-sequitur things.

Not trying. I'm here to reveal the errors of Calvinism.

It is painfully obvious that your are completely self deluded here. If a Christian wanted to correct Calvinism, he would come in a spirit of grace and courteousness. He would do what he can to win Calvinists. You have been repeatedly graceless. Nothing is more obvious then that you did not come here for honest debate, or to reveal the errors of Calvinism, you came here for a brawl. Could you really be that self deceived to think you came to get anyone to see their error and talk the offensive way you do?

And he preached, of first importance, that "Christ died for our sins" to those masses.

Duhhh, and so do Calvinists say things like that. Yet when Calvinists speak to crowds of people in a Church and say "he died for our sins" they do not make the assumption that each and every person is saved without exception. Yet they are using the term "our" to speak of the elect brothers.

Seriously?? Because he preached to the masses that "Christ died for OUR sins". He was including those masses in his message of who Christ died for. Apparently you just don't want to see that.

No, he was not including unbelievers in the "Our" statement and more then he did in the "you" statements earlier in the immediate context. You obviously will not deal with my statements on the context and follow the flow of the context. You just going to assert the same thing over and over with degrading statements as you always do.

.... deleted some nonsense.....


Now, that is hilarious! It's the Calvinists who have that limited view thing going on.


That makes 2 of us.

So you do not even bother to deal with your limited view of the power of the atonement? You just skoff. Skoffing is your main argument. So you want to show Calvinists their error and when I point out that your view degrades the power of the atonement to save and is far more "limited" then the Reformed doctrine you only skoff? And that is supposed to win Calvinists to your point of view?

You present no content to your argumentation, only skoffing.

You are truly a waist of time. Please go somewhere else.

 

[FreeGrace2]

you are in error. There were no refutations, just one failed attempt by the irrelevant point that Paul was writing to believers. His point in 15:1 was that he was reminding them of what he preachED and what they believED. And the others were just complaints; nothing of substance.

Maybe english is your 2nd language and you could not read what others already posted? I repeated some of what they said and you continue to insist that no one refuted the OP.

None of your responses rose to the level of a refutation. In fact, you simply ignored my points altogether. Demonstrated by your appealing to ch 1:1.

Your statement.... "There have been 12 responses to the OP. 3 were in agreement. The rest were mostly just complaints about me and/or my "style"... is completely dishonest. When you say the rest were mostly just complaints, that is not true at all. Others posted some refuting points about the OP and you ignored them.

Well, obviously you never reviewed any of them. I commented on them and showed WHY they didn't refute anything.

How am I to consider you as a bonifide person who comes to debate when you make such dishonest statements?

I'm getting rather tired over your repeated statements that lack FACTS.

Ahh, more dishonestly. You did mention the word "our" just as you do in your next statement. In fact you do in the very next statement.

I can't help your misunderstanding of what that word indicates. Which is the whole problem with Calvinists. To do so refutes their doctrine of limited atonement. Soundly.

Again, I am amazed at how you dishonestly change what was said. I stated that another poster mentioned 1:1. I did not mention it, except to quote him. Of course it is a part of the context of the book of 1 Corinthians.

Here's the FACT: Paul wrote to believers, proven by 1:1. Paul REMINDED those believers of what he initially preachED to them BEFORE they were believers in 15:1-11. That's what you are afraid to face.

It is certainly futile to bother with people like you that are self deceived. Your whole debate is all about saying you have not been refuted.

When the OP has NOT been refuted, that's what I say.

In fact it is obvious you only read posts enough to get the vague just of what is being said, or course you obviously read the scriptures in the same way. Futility is bothering with people like you.

No, your "fact" is way off. You have obviously NOT read my posts, or you would see that I do comment on all of the posts. Not necessarily every single sentence, but the post in whole. So your comment is untrue.

Again, such amazing deception. You accuse me of "dismiss" Romans 15:20 and then you do not have to respond to my statement that you are comparing non-sequitur things.

So why don't you think Rom 15:20 relates to Paul's preaching style to Corinth? Please explain yourself to prove it's not related. You like to make claims, but you don't provide ANY support or evidence for them. Please start doing so.

It is painfully obvious that your are completely self deluded here. If a Christian wanted to correct Calvinism, he would come in a spirit of grace and courteousness. He would do what he can to win Calvinists.

This is a debate forum. Maybe you didn't know that. I bring FACTS which you have not refuted.

You have been repeatedly graceless.

I bring FACTS, and I'm direct. Is someone forcing you to "debate" me?

Nothing is more obvious then that you did not come here for honest debate, or to reveal the errors of Calvinism, you came here for a brawl.

Please look up the word "debate".

Could you really be that self deceived to think you came to get anyone to see their error and talk the offensive way you do?

Uh, seems that anyone who claims Calvinism is in error is way offensive to Calvinists. How can there be honest debate with that going on?

Duhhh, and so do Calvinists say things like that. Yet when Calvinists speak to crowds of people in a Church and say "he died for our sins" they do not make the assumption that each and every person is saved without exception. Yet they are using the term "our" to speak of the elect brothers.

Your error is revealed in the phrase "speak to crowds of people in a church". Paul didn't go to a church and speak to crowds. He went to where crowds were. There was no church in Corinth until Paul preached there for a while.

Would a 5 point Calvinist say what Paul did to a crowd of people who had never heard the name of Christ before? Yes or no.

No, he was not including unbelievers in the "Our" statement and more then he did in the "you" statements earlier in the immediate context.

Please look up the word "our" in order to understand what Paul meant by it when he spoke to that crowd of people who had never heard the name of Christ.

You obviously will not deal with my statements on the context and follow the flow of the context.

The truth is that you haven't done so. 15:1 tells us that Paul was reminding the believers of what his initial message was to them, which they believed (v.11). iow, they weren't believers when he preached to them.

You just going to assert the same thing over and over with degrading statements as you always do.

Please show me specifically what you consider to be "degrading" to you. I have no idea what you are referring to.

So you do not even bother to deal with your limited view of the power of the atonement?

You have a gross misunderstanding of my view. The power of the atonement is seen in the FACT that Jesus Christ PAID IN FULL for the sins of humanity (Jn 1:29, 4:42). How is that limited?

Further, the power of the atonement is seen in the FACT that He purchased eternal life (Heb 9:12) for everyone. How is that limited?

In FACT, Calvinism's view of the atonement is extremely limited by your claim that He died only for the elect, which is only a small portion of all of humanity.

You just skoff. Skoffing is your main argument.

Apparently you don't understand the meaning of the words you use. I point out errors. I bring Scriptural FACTS. Maybe that's "skoffing" to you, but you just don't know the word, then.

So you want to show Calvinists their error and when I point out that your view degrades the power of the atonement to save and is far more "limited" then the Reformed doctrine you only skoff?

Uh, I just refuted your "limited" view of my view. There is FAR MORE POWER in my view of the atonement than in yours. Your view is VERY limited in scope. Not mine.

And that is supposed to win Calvinists to your point of view?
You present no content to your argumentation, only skoffing.

Your complaint is noted and rejected. I bring FACTS, which you have not refuted.

You are truly a waist of time. Please go somewhere else.

No thanks. Since you are so troubled by my posts, why do you bother? You are free to ignore me. Why don't you?

I'm looking for honest debate with the FACTS of Scripture. You haven't done so.