Limited Atonement

Allan, you are so articulate in espousing your views.

One of your comments refers to the "world" as all sinful and wicked men." In this instance, I think that view of "world" does not help your argument, since it is a direct allusion to those whose sins God will not impute to them.

You cannot have men going to Hell whose sins God will not impute to them. That leave the only alternative that I can see--that indeed, all sinful and wicked men do not have their sins imputed to them, have been reconciled and will go to heaven. In other words, universalism.

We both know that that can't be, since in v.20 Paul is beseeching people to be reconciled. That suggests, of course, that some are not yet reconciled, and it is clear that the scripture teaches that some never will be.

I believe this reinforces my argument that "world" cannot mean all men without exception, but all men without distinction .

Now, if I understand what you said, God, in Christ, reconciled the world, but some are not yet reconciled--such reconciliation completed through repentance and faith. If I've misunderstood, I trust you'll help me get it straight.

But this leave another problem--the rest of those whom God in Christ has reconciled, whose sins God will not impute to them, yet they are yet unreconciled to God. One might argue that they will, with certainty, eventually come to repentance and faith, and complete the reconciliation. That is, all wicked and sinful men (the world). I doubt if you want to argue that.

Or, one might argue that God, in Christ, has reconciled those would repent and believe--in God's mind, a completed event, therefore their reconciliation was a certainty from eternity. I doubt if you'd argue this either.

So we are left with your well-articulated argument, which I believe falls short in its efforts to separate the world from those whose sins are not imputed to them.

 

you still miss the point. Even if we take your view on this Allan I still ask..


Does the world mean every person?

lets add the "ing" to make you happy.

Is Christ reconciling every person that has ever been born?
Is Christ NOT imputing the sins of every person that has ever been born?

If so....all are saved.

If not, "world" does not mean all of mankind


which is it?

 

Whereby EVERYONE appears before His throne of judgment in a resurrected body. Yes, Tom -- He does reconcile everyone to Himself -- just not to the Father.

skypair

 

While Calvin's comments may be explicitly particularist the 1 John writings are not so.

In the Epistle of 1 John there are only two classes - "we" and the "whole world" which is shown by 1 John 5:19

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.​

Therefore I personally conclude that the propitiation of 1 John 2 is also sufficient for the "whole world" which is being held in wickedness (Lit. the wicked one).

Calvinist assume Calvin was being "particular" concerning the one passage but not the other.

However he probably meant (as the writings of his commentary seem to demonstrate) that the propitiation of the Atonement is sufficient for the whole world as well as proffered to the whole world (of both 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 5:19).

Even at that, I personally disagree with Calvin on this point and chose to believe that since Christ died for all and purchased all , and therefore the Father is satisified in His divine justice in relationship to the sin of all humanity, all then are Christ's to do with as He pleases, whether vessels of dishonor for eternal separation or vessels whom He regenerates.

People ask "then why does He condemn any since Christ died for all?" attributing my view as God being "unfair". However, our Father writes His own criteria of fairness.

He does whatever pleases Him with or without our permission.

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.​

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.​

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.​

HankD​

 

Excellent post :thumbs:

 

Conversely, that water that is not heated cannot boil...and cannot be held accountable for not boiling, but according to calvinism...it is.

That is the main problem with calvinism.

 

It is a semi-Calvinist post by someone that doesn't understand Calvinism and also seems to deny Trinitarian doctrine.

HankD and you should go and listen to this.

 

This is the weakness in analogy, they all eventually break down.

The "water" is by nature always "boiling" through it's inherited properties, that is, original sin, thus no-one is innocent of sin and it is only through a supernatural work by God that anyone is saved from the "boiling pot".

 

I am saying that faith is a gift of God throught which we are saved...... We have no faith aside apart from what God gives us.

 

Neither do you. Your will is subject to bondage of sin.

 

So you are saying that the soul that is not convicted by the holy spirit cannot be saved.... and therefore cannot be held accountable for not being saved?????????

 

Except you missed it, even though you referenced it:

John 10:27-28
V.27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

There is no "free will" in that verse - the elect will hear His voice, He will know them and they (we! ) will follow Him


oh, and don't miss vs 29 for why the elect will:

29"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

 

hi!

My point was that you seem to be saying Man has some, though limited, "free will" (limited free will??) to chose or not chose Christ. The fullness of the passage clearly teaches that the "free will" of Man is not the key factor. The giving of the Father, the calling, knowing and keeping of the elect by the Son - those are the central teachings.

 

Dear JD,

when all else fails, question the understanding of the one with whom you have an issue?

You have also publicly made an oblique ad hominem about me that I have denied the Trinity.

If you have an issue with any of my views or of the Scripture I used to support my position, why not put them forth for discussion rather than making unsubstantiated accusations?

For the record, there is one thing I don't understand: What is a "semi-calvinist"?

Also for the record, I am an orthodox Trinitarian which, if you wish, I would be glad to discuss in detail. However, since you have publicly challenged my beliefs, I also will ask you to defend your own Trinitarian doctrine yourself using only the Scripture as I will do.

As to understanding calvinism or any other teaching with a man's name attached to it, I really have no need:

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.​

HankD

 

So stilllearning is NOT saved, in your estimation? That, Tommy, is a "no-no" around here. raying:

skypair

 

Where are you getting this notion in John 10 that Christ's "sheep" are anything other than those who already believe on Him????? And the Pharisees merely unbelievers at that moment?

Where is the message hidden that some are "sheep" BEFORE they believe??

skypair

 

Certainly, HankD, my position on these doctrines are best summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, both conveniently linked here with versions containing the Scripture proofs. Is there somewhere I can go to better understand your confessed theological and scriptural position, so that I may interact with your stance as opposed to guessing? Or is it simply HankDism?

As far as ad hominem is concerned, I was simply making a pithy evaluation based on the contents of your posts - ad argumentum, not ad hominem. You seemed to be creating some non-Trinitatrian division between the will of God concerning the elect while acknowledging the sovereignty of God (or Jesus, as your post seemed to say) to do as He pleases, thus the "semi-Calvinist" comment.

Would it be simpler to start a new thread?