Featured Actual Atonement vs Potential Atonement

Makes sense to me.

I’m still apprehensive about stating the atonement apart from the resurrection. I do see the opportunity for everyone to be saved, provided that they believe. But as many will not believe, I suppose in a manner of speaking the atonement is potential.

Based on election, however, it is not really potential because there is no atonement apart from faith. Election is not even potential for the non-elect – so that would make atonement not potential either.

Depends on how one looks at it, and if one actually feels the need to establish a firm doctrine on atonement apart from the completed work of salvation to the believer.

Amyraldianism is a form of Calvinism, and in regards to tradition and a literal interpretation of the Bible, many see it as a more legitimate form of Calvinism. Some view the disagreement of Limited Atonement as a misunderstanding on the part of “strict” Calvinists and consider limited redemption as closer to the third point – while some Calvinists reject this notion.

 

Not speaking for DaChaser1, but I have difficulty discerning what one believes when we call it definite or limited atonement.

I can see it two ways. First, that definite atonement means Christ came to atone for the sins of only the elect. I agree with this. Some see it as Christ is the atonement for only the sins of the elect. Here I would disagree. Calvin believed the first statement, but not the second. Beza believed both.

Which would you see as definite atonement?

 

I’m going to have to check that out - I think I found it online (is this the one with audio?). I would love to have the Logos program, but apart from all of you BB members making a donation to me – I don’t see that happening (I’m cheap when it comes to software).

I have some as additions to a wordsearch program that I occasionally use, but I find it difficult to study without a “real” book. Guess I’m just old; I usually end up pulling the interlinear off a shelf.

 

:thumbs:

I agree – the atonement was eternally sufficient. Atonement can be limited to those who believe, but Christ is eternal and it is unbiblical to limit the sufficiency of his death.

Christ came to save only those who would believe, all could be saved if they would believe, but only the elect would believe – faith is of God and not by works (as you have pointed out).

 

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

The “our” is Paul’s audience (some who may have believed in vain). Yet Christ died for us. Before you start turning this around to make some crazy remark – this verse does not say that everyone is saved or even that Christ atoned for the sins of everyone. Of course, as far as I know you are the only one who keeps bringing that up so you can say “Liar!...False Doctrine!...Lost in Space!..etc).

To suggest that men cannot be saved because all of Jesus’ blood was proportioned out to the elect is to introduce foreign doctrine into Christianity. It reflects not only a lack of understanding of Christ as the atoning sacrifice, but also of the Old Covenant sacrificial system.

The suggestion that more men could have been saved if God were just a little greater is heretical. God chooses who to save, he is not insufficient in the means. God is eternally sufficient, and Christ work on the cross is eternally sufficient.

1. You misuse and misinterpret 1 Cor 15:3

2. Lev 16:21 does not support the idea that the high priest of Israel would have been struck down if he thought the blood of atonement was for any other people besides Israel

3. Numbers 15:26 states that the sacrifice system also atoned for the “alien who sojourns among them.”

4. While your first statement introduces foreign doctrine into Christianity, it is the only one that has anything to do with the post.



We will never agree on interpretation because you seem to look to the Bible to support your understanding rather than deriving your understanding from the Bible. What saddens me most is that we actually hold to much the same doctrine (except I do reject the idea that Christ was insufficient in any manner or form to include His work on the Cross).

We do not have the same regard for Scripture. There is no need for you to post anything of me, or ask anything of me, because we will not see eye to eye until you place the Word of God above your understanding. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but in this type of forum I do not have time for people who disregard or misrepresent Scripture because, to me, it is disregarding and misrepresenting God. If we disagree, let it be a disagreement in our interpretion or reasoning - I can live with that. The Word of God is the standard for this type of argument - NOT your reasoning.

 

Yes, who was that? The letter is written to the Chruch of God which is at Corinith, to those who in every place call on the name of the Lord. But we were talking about the "us" in chapter 15, were we not?

I'll assume that you are correct - lets see how it goes. We'll just call us "the elect" and substitute "the elect" for these references.

Now I make known to you (the elect), the gospel which I preached to you (the elect), inwhich also you stand (the elect), by which also you (the elect) are saved IF you (the elect) hold fast to the word which I preach to you (the elect), unless you (the elect) believed in vain.

You are stating that Paul is telling the elect that they are saved if they believe, and if they hold fast to the gospel. If not they (the elect) are not saved, they have believed in vain. The moral of the story is that you cannot reach back 15 Chapters to define "us."

savedbymercy, this is where our interaction comes to an end. I have struggled with your “faith” as exhibited by your interactions on this board. If I wanted to engage these types of questions and issues in a secular environment, I would not have gone to a “Christian” board.You have called people liars, misrepresented what they said, accused them of teaching false doctrine, and blatantly misrepresented scripture in order to make a point. You have set people up, taken one part of what they said, to present their views as wrong and make an argument for you to attack. You have shown absolutely no love and no understanding.

I do not know your faith. I do not know if you are saved. One cannot know that of another. It is not for your doctrine (Christians can have diverse understandings), but because of your attitude and comments to others on this board that I personally have difficulty reconciling your words with Christ. Apart from your claims to be saved, it would not be evident by your interactions here. Your lack of Christian character is offensive, but as we interact I find myself becoming more argumentative toward you. As I will accept you are a brother in Christ based on your claim alone, I genuinely hope for you the best, but at the same time need to distance myself from your rhetoric. If we were to continue, I fear that I would be disregarding Eph. 4:16 and in that regards be equal to you in this matter.

I have prayed for you, that if you are not saved God will draw you unto Himself. That if you are saved, He will open your eyes and heart so that you can genuinely contribute to the work that is Christ Jesus instead of attacking brothers and sisters who disagree with your interpretations. I do not care if you agree with my theology, that does not matter and that is not the point. Please remember that every Christian you meet here or elsewhere has been redeemed by the blood of Christ. Post your views and disagree, but when you attack as you have, you are attacking the body of Christ.

 

DaChaser1

I checked out the program, by the way, and am planning on ordering the software. It looks interesting. – thanks for the reference.