Limited Atonement

Yes.

The atonement of Christ was an act of love. He gave his life for us, for He loved us. I think it is funny that those who hate the doctrine base this on how they see the love of God. They see this doctrine as a attack on the love of God. Those that hold to this doctrine also hold to it because of the picture of Gods love. Gods love is most pure when seen in this doctrine.

1 Cor 13 tells us about pure love and therefore tells us about God.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

 

OH NO!! Please don't. I kinda over extended myself today and probably wont be able to do much again for a bit.

Please keep it up, if for nothing else than make sure of that which God has confirmed in you. Your doing a great job explaining yourself. :thumbs:

 

Very true, but you seem to always leave out that "It [love] does not insist on its own way;" (ESV) True love seeks only the good of others, it is unselfish. Leaving it out though is understandable to me since that would sound kinda strange coming from a Calvinist who insists otherwise.

 

Amy, I am only asking this for clarification, not to criticise you (or Allan, come to that) in any way, but have you abandoned the Reformed Theology you seemed to embrace when you started the thread New Meanings for Old Verses last October? Just wondering. (And sorry if this is wandering a bit from the thread)

 

You have been shown many times that this logic is folly. Why do you keep trying to push this idea when you know better?

It matters not that others could come into the nation Allan. We are talking about who the atonement is applied to. It is applied to NNE outside the nation. NONE. ZERO!!!

They could come to the nation yes...but if they did not come the blood was not meant for them. All people are invited to Christ, but do all come? NO!!

This is the same idea is seen in the Blood of Christ. It is for his people only, just as it was meant for Israel only.

Again poor logic

Isa 53...
12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

That makes no sense at all. It was for Israel and Israel only as the Bible clearly says, or it is was for all nations which is not found in the Bible. If in fact it was for all the nations, there would be no need to go to another nation when it also applied to all nations. This is folly.

I'll not waste my time with the rest of the post. It only goes downhill from here.

 

I hope I have misunderstood you Allan. Surely you are not saying that being a calvinist/belieing Reformed doctrines must make a person selfish?

 

That is a good question David. And once again, I am sticking my neck out for my head to be chopped off. :laugh:
I did embrace Reformed Theology for awhile. I thought I had discovered something so exciting. I threw myself into it and began to study lots of reformed or Calvinistic writings. But the more I studied, the more I found it just didn't line up with the teachings of the Bible.
It has been an exciting, frustrating and enlightening few months. I am glad that I went on this journey because I believe that I have found the truth. I know that you and my other reformed friends will be sad and disappointed in me. But this is what I believe God has led me to.
I love you all and hope that you will still love me. :saint:

 

Not at all.

The atonement is a act of Love. Christ gave himself, leaving His glory. Christ "emptied Himself" (Philippians 2:7)....

In other words as it it applies to this passage Christ did not seek the selffish ways but followed God the Fathers plan and went to the cross. The best picture of this is found in Luke 15 the loving Father (God the Father) of the Prodigal Son (the poor lost sinner) when the Father came running out to take all the shame away from the sinner and placed on Himself. That is what Christ does for us in his love.

 

I'm only teasing with you James but I do agree that the atonement is an act of Love.

I will make one correction though - The prodical son was not a poor lost sinner but he was already a son who went his own way for a time but 'returned back' to his Father. He was lost but now is found (or has now returned).

 

How was I taking 2 Peter 3:9 out of context? it says, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

That tells me that not only does God not want anyone to perish, but that He wants everyone to be saved. Unfortunately, not everyone will be because many will reject Him and His free gift of salvation. That is a personal choice.

God knows who will and who will not accept Him. He makes the offer to everyone, and everyone makes the choice to accept or refuse. Nothing anyone says will change my mind on that--just because no one here understands what "predestinated" means--including myself.

I do know that He says in Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

"Whom he did foreknow". NOT "Whom he did chose." He KNEW who would accept or reject Him. Simple as that. The only predestinating He did was to predestinate that those who come to Him will be saved and conformed to the image of Christ, and that those who reject Him will not. He has not chosen some to repentance and some to damnation. We choose that ourselves by accepting or rejecting Him. It is His will that ALL should be saved, but in His omniscience He knows that many will not accept Him.

Predestination is determined by His FOREKNOWLEDGE, and not on our merits of who is worthy to be saved and who isn't, because of NONE of us is worthy.

 

Sounds almost identical to my journey through the TULIP garden

 

Yes and the reason I point this out is that many (from the otherside) see the Calvinist view as a attack on Gods love. Not that you agree with our view, but you must admit our that we hold to a pure love of God just as others claim. Therefore we do not attack Gods love but uphold it.

We may need to start a thread on this. What you just said is held by many if not most believers. I however do not feel it is right. I see it as a story of salvation based on the full context. It goes hand in hand with the Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the Lost Coin which is found just before the parable of the Lost Son.

The passage is jam full of the salvation story. Its not a full picture of salvation, as in the doctrine of salvation, but it is clear that the story is about not one son but two sons. Both are sons are lost. One sees how lost he is and comes to God. The other in self-holiness remains lost in his sins of works.

 

Thanks for not taking offence, Amy. (None was meant). Rest assured, I won't be wielding an axe, nor am I sad or disappointed in you, and still count you a beloved sister in the Lord.

 

After reading my last post I feel I should point out something. When I say (from the outside), i'm not saying non-calvinist are from the twilight zone. Well....most are not.

 

I would be very surprised if any Calvinist jump all over you.

I'm sure it will be nothing like what you went though when you stated to study it on your own, and the name calling you got from the non-Calvinist. (ok..that was a bit of a slam....but I'm sure they can take it).

 

I wish also to add my voice of love and charity to you as my sister in Christ. I remember your acceptance of what is called Reformed Theology and the change I also noticed, but I just assumed you changed your opinion on the subjects.

Nor am I sad or disappointed in you. I only wish you to "..know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."

 

Thanks guys! You're really sweet. I try to remain teachable and I know that God is not done teaching me yet. I have learned a lot from you and appreciate it all! We all love the same Lord and Savior and that makes us brothers and sisters, no matter what else we disagree on.
And who knows? Maybe I'll be a Calvinist someday after all. :laugh: Like I said, God's not done with me yet! I am still open to learning.

:1_grouphug:

Ok. I'm done being all sappy! :laugh:

Back to the OP................Carry on!

 

Calvin wrote in his commentary on 1Jn2:2
Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world and in the goodness of God is offered to all men without distinction His blood being shed,not for a part of the world openly,but for the whole human race;for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation for the whole world,yet without exception He summons all to the faith of Christ,which is nothing else than the door unto hope.

Calvins commentaries were written after he wrote the institutes so at this point he did nor espouse limited atonement which would make him a four point calvinist as far as we know right now.

 

Provide the name calling incidents...or retract this.

 

this is a old debunked idea and only can be found on wed sites that hate calvinism and books that hate Calvinism. The truth is known to those that have read his books.

Why people feel they know better when they have not read, makes me wonder what they are thinking. If they had taken the time to see if in fact this were true, they would know it was not. But in their hate for Calvin they believe anything without looking.

On 1 John 2:2, "And not for ours only," a passage universalists love to quote, Calvin's comments are explicitly particularistic. We see above a quote by Calvin as if it is a perfect example of Calvin's views. But what not is quoted the fact that Calvin qualifies the sense in which he understand the formula in the following words:

Now if Calvin had accepted the idea of universalist sufficient redemption, he would not have been compelled to explain the true meaning of the biblical text, and show that contextually the words "world" and "all" should be understood in a particularistic manner. As it stands, he made that qualification repeatedly; and Calvin can only be bound into a universalist understanding of redemption if his qualifications are ignored, which Calvin haters do.