Limited Atonement: Did Christ die for the whole world?

Helen, you are being disingenuous, for Palmer says in the same book - page 35 - "Contrary to what most people think, the Calvinist teaches that man is free - one hundred percent free - free to do exactly what he wants. God does not coerce a single one against his will."

 

You are once again laboring under a gross misconception Historically, limited atonement has never suggested that "the death of Jesus Christ was strictly limited <b>in any and all of it’s aspects</b> only to the elect or saved ones. It has nothing to do whatsoever with the unsaved to the non-elect people of the world."

Here is Phil Johnson:

But at the same time, there are universal aspects of the atoning work of Christ and historic Calvinism has always recognized this. There is a legitimate sense in which Christ is set forth as the Savior of the whole world. The Savior of all men, Lord of all. And the only one all men everywhere are commanded to believe in. And there’s another sense in which He is especially the Savior of those who believe. That’s exactly the meaning of 1st Timothy 4:10, which is the verse that I think, better than any in Scripture, settles this whole question. First Timothy 4:10, “We trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.” I think it was R.B. Kuiper, a classic Five Point Calvinist, who said he preferred to speak of Christ’s dying “specially for the elect rather than only for them.” And that seems to be a good Biblical perspective. To those who believe Christ is Savior in a special and particular sense. His death had a particular reference to them in the ultimate design of God.  And that is what Calvinists mean when they speak of particular redemption.

Here is Spurgeon: We believe that by His atoning sacrifice, Christ bought some good things for all men and all good things for some men. And that when He died He had a definite purpose in dying and that His purpose will certainly be effected.” (from "Good Cheer for Many Who Fear"

Your preacher can say that Christ died to save anyone who believes, and if he believes, he will be saved.

Nahh, his view is exactly within what Calvin taught and also what is historic Calvinism. If you still are doubting after the quotes above, I can find quotes from Charles Hodge and Lorraine Boettner.

 

It does interest me and I agree with it.

Now you're making a jump that the Calvinist doesn't make. This working out of God's will in every little detail of life (even the death of a sparrow and the number of hairs on my head) is not accomplished by programming, but by constant upholding of creation, frequent intervention within creation, and also decisive nonintervertion within creation. It coexists with free choice.

 

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

These inspired passages of God's word contradict your position. You have yet to offer a defense of your position with respect to these passages. These passages tell us that people go to hell for sin.

No Calvinist disagrees with the verse you cite. We believe them.

You still have yet to answer the question about the sin of unbelief. If Jesus died for all sin, then why is the sin of unbelief omitted? If he died for it, then no one goes to hell for that. If he didn't die for it, then we are saved by reforming our own sinful choices of unbelief.

Why not deal with that issue? Why keep avoiding it? It is a major problem for your view.

 

Isaiah chapter 53 is speaking of the future death of Jesus Christ. If you believe the pronouns in verses 5 and 6 refers to the Jew, then this would contradict the other teachings of the Bible relating to the death of Christ. I don’t believe Isaiah is referring exclusively to the Jews. Of course Isaiah was a Jew, but also a believer, and a member of the human race. So of us all verse 6, is referring to all mankind. </font>[/QUOTE]Did you stop to think that maybe it refers to true believers?? I don't believe Isaiah is referring strictly to Jews either. And I am not totally convinced that he does not have all mankind without exception in mind. My point was that it is not just as simple as a concordance search for "all." We have to identify the "of what" that "all" speaks of. we need to be better exegetes is what I am saying.

 

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

These inspired passages of God's word contradict your position. You have yet to offer a defense of your position with respect to these passages. These passages tell us that people go to hell for sin.

No Calvinist disagrees with the verse you cite. We believe them.

You still have yet to answer the question about the sin of unbelief. If Jesus died for all sin, then why is the sin of unbelief omitted? If he died for it, then no one goes to hell for that. If he didn't die for it, then we are saved by reforming our own sinful choices of unbelief.

Why not deal with that issue? Why keep avoiding it? It is a major problem for your view. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, those who are not born again will continue in their sins, and their sins mark them as unbelievers. What we see is the mark; God sees the heart. The Bible passage from Revelation deals with what we see in these people. Jesus has already said God judges the heart, as well as the fact that it is the unbeliever who is condemned.

There is one sin which cannot be forgiven. Why can't it be forgiven? What do you think it is? Answer that and you will have answered your own question about belief and unbelief that you asked me above.

 

Russell55, you are arguing A and non-A in the same breath. You can't have it both ways.

 

Christ told us that it was attributing the casting out of demons by Christ to the power of Satan.


That's only an example of it. If you read Romans 1, you will realize it is knowingly refusing the truth. Since Jesus said He IS THE Truth, that leads necessarily to refusing Him, and that is the unbelief that is the sin that cannot be forgiven.

If you look at it as a sort of picture, it is saying that forgiveness is to the north, and as long as you are in 'north' you are fully forgiven, but if you go 'south' then you have walked away from that forgiveness. Refusing forgiveness -- refusing Christ and His work -- refusing the Truth -- these are essentially all the same thing and this is what it is impossible (by virtue of logic, actually) to be forgiven.

 

If that's the case, then you ought to be able to put the argument in that form and prove it to me. Show me.

 

I already tried.

If God predestines man's eternal fate, then logically man has no say in the matter.

Free will means man can choose regarding this matter.

It is not a choice if more than one option is not 'doable' -- actually available to the person choosing.

Thus, predestination and free will are antithetical -- they are A/non-A. The only way the Calvinism can reconcile this is by saying that of course both have a choice, but re-defining the word choice to indicate only one option truly available, which then becomes no choice at all.

If I am falling down a cliff and a bird flies by me, the fact of flight does not mean that I have an option to fly. There is no choice I can make. I can only fall. The unregenerate are in that position according to Calvinism. "Well, if you really wanted to fly, you would be able to because God would have made you able to fly and you would have wings..."

Come on!

Choices mean you can really do one of two or more things. It does not mean that there are lots of possibilities in the world (or even two) but that you are stuck with one. That is NOT choice!

 

Remeber what I said about bringing your ideas to the text?? This is a prime example. You say "that's only an example of it." Christ said, "That is it." He said nothing about example. You need that to try to support your point.

But there is a clear contradiction with Scripture. At one time in our lives, all of us were in the state of unbelief. We knowingly refused the truth. And yet all of us that are saved repented of it and were pardoned. Therefore, knowingly refusing the truth, i.e., unbelief as you put it, is not unpardonable. All of us who were pardoned were pardoned from unbelief. That was clearly not what Christ was talking about.

Why not just look at it as Christ said it???

But remember, at one poit in your life, you refused the truth adn then later were pardoned for that. It is not unpardonable.

 

Then, Larry, you are saying that Paul's material in Romans 1 has nothing to do with the unforgivable sin? And yet God GIVES THEM OVER to the lie.

You must have more than one unforgivable sin in your list!

 

Only if predestination makes outcomes not only certain, but necessary.

I agree. Men choose. The predestination model of human history is really no different than the foresight model in this. Any outcome God foresees is certain. And yet most people would hold that God's foresight doesn't negate choice, because when it comes time to make a choice, both alternatives are truly open, even though it is certain which one will be chosen.

Ahhh....but both options are doable if the person should choose it. Both options are actually available, if the person should choose.

No, because while predestination renders a particular option the sure outcome, it leaves both options available up until the time the choice is actually made in time. Just like with God's foreknowledge.

Predestination is simply what God said will happen in history. And God saying that's the way its going makes it certain it will go that way.

I really don't know how well this example works, really, but I'm gonna try to use it anyway. Calvinism doesn't say the unregenerate are in the position of falling off a cliff and needing to fly in order to save themselves, but are in a hopeless position because they are without wings. Calvinism says that the unregenerate are jumping off a cliff, and they have good, functioning wings, more than adequate to fly them back up to the top again, but they refuse to use them because they have a twisted desire to keep on falling. They are hopeless because of their twisted desire, not because of their lack of flying ability.

 

Russell55, My husband just read your response and I agree with what he just said: "It's double talk. It's plastic enough to cover everything, just like evolution."

I guess you just don't see it for the double talk it is.

 

No, I am following what the SCripture says, Helen, as I always do. Christ said there was a sin (one) that cannot be forgiven. It was blasphemy of the Spirit by attributing the work of Christ in casting out demons to the power of Satan. That is strictly biblical. I am sorry you don't like it.

 

The problem you have Helen, as we ahve consistenlty pointed out, is that you do not take into account all of Scripture. Your theology is deficient because of it. Everything we have said is scripturally defensible. Your "logic" leads you to deny it because your "logic" is so important to you. There are a great many things in Scripture that you accept that aren't logical in the least. You reject this one because it goes right after the sovereignty and autonomy of man and that hits too close to home for humanity. This is a place where theology must be dictated by Scripture.

 

No, I am following what the SCripture says, Helen, as I always do. Christ said there was a sin (one) that cannot be forgiven. It was blasphemy of the Spirit by attributing the work of Christ in casting out demons to the power of Satan. That is strictly biblical. I am sorry you don't like it. </font>[/QUOTE]In that case, please, what was Paul talking about in Romans 1? Please explain.

As for your other post, I am not going to respond to your personal attacks. Thank you anyway.

 

If its double talk, then you ought to be able to show me.....

Is Isaiah 10 double talk when God says He's gonna send the king of Assyria up to destroy Israel, and then punish the king (and all of Assyria) for what he did? Was God wrong to use the word "send" as if it's an action He's somehow causing? Was God wrong to punish Assyria as if He had a choice in the matter? The king serves as God's "tool", and yet he is held responsible by God for his action. Is this double speak by God?