Verses that PROVE Definite Atonement

Without taking sides in this argument, could we not entitle this thread "verses that prove Jesus did not die for you". Same concept.

Or: "Good News (for me at least): God loves me more than He loves you."

Or we could personalize it further for parents and entitle it: "Honey -- here are verses that prove Jesus probably did not die for your sins, but don't worry God will be glorified while you are burning in Hell."

If we are going to believe and propogate limited atonement, let's at least be real to life and consistent with how we present it.

 

What a perfect invitation to the Calvinist Future Scenario!! (CSF)

That was very good All-about-Grace -- and it is just "begging" for a review of the CSF again.

Begging like that does not go unnoticed by this frequent poster - that's for sure.

But first - a mere "reference" to the post that like the one you just posted above - will go unnanswered by Calvinists when it comes to "the details".

To reference the Basic Calvinist future Scenario “posted” with details “ignored” by most Calvinists ON a thread about God not loving the lost – (JohnP will of course be glad to refer to God as the great monster/tyrant etc in the Calvinism he so joyfully proclaims)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1543/2.html#000015

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your proposed presentation is completely ridiculous. Do yourself a favor and go read Spurgeon on the topic.

 

Matt 13:11 -- Isn't Jesus talking to His chosen disciples/apostles. I don't think this is a blanket statement about all believers. Paul gave some mysteries as he was inspired of the Holy Spirit that were not obvious otherwise such as the rapture and the antichrist.

Matt 20:16 -- Look at the context. Isn't it talking about rewards. Some in "the kingdom" were murmuring because they didn't think they were payed "fairly" because they worked longer yet received the same wages. In this respect they were all called, but those few who were "chosen" were last, and these last were first. Maybe I misunderstood this passage, but that is what it says to me.

Matt 20:28; Mat 26:28; Mar 10:45; Mar 14:24 ("many") -- "Many is a relative term. It could mean "many instead of all" or "many instead of none".

Does this mean that "many" became sinners, but not all are? Who isn't a sinner? This means "many" as opposed to the "one"--Adam.

All die in Adam because all inherit his sin nature. Does this verse mean that all then become saved? This verse by itself would be hard to swallow by both Calvinists and Arminians (and anyone who is not "universalist"). I think in the context of this verse the "all" of the second part could be the "all" who believe.

I'll have to look at some more of those verses when I have time. Good compilation, though, but I don't see all of those verses as solid "proofs" of Limited Atonement.

 

As in Adam ALL die so in Christ JUSTIFICATION is available to ALL.

The ALL scope is THE SAME!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Dear Bob,

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."

Quote it right, brother. You know better than that. It doesn't say anything about "is available to all". The scope and the result are definite. You should be definite too.

Your friend,

whatever

 

All About Grace,

As you saw Calvinists don't like to think about the practical application of their ludicrous doctrines of disgrace.

Its o.k. to say God elects autocratically some for Heaven and Hell, but don't personalize it to their family.

Don't say my son was preordained to be a son fitted for destruction in the fiery flames of Hell forever.

That saw cuts to ways. Maybe some of the Calvinists who post material are the objects of His wrath, and no matter what religious writings they form into words, they are doomed the fate of the Devil himself. After all He is the Divine puppeteer Who allegedly walks some to Hell and to a happy place for eternity called Heaven.

The practical application of Calvinism does not look to God like when written down on paper with words.

Something to think about. I don't believe alleged theologians write down this nonsense and then manipulate themselves into believing godless doctrines. I was going to use the word beginning with c---but decided to inject the word 'nonsense.'

But then this is only my view. Yeah right!!

Wow--unto those who teach and preach false doctrine; their day of evaluation/judgment will find them ill prepared.

 

Hello Dr. Ray,

I trust God more than I trust my kids. I guess you don't. Maybe you would trust Him more if you would study His attributes.

whatever

 

Dan,

The practical outworkings of Calvinism clearly suggests that some people in all of our families are destined by God ultimately to the Lake of Fire.

Do you think all of your family is saved? This is an honest question. I hope they all are saved or come to know the Lord, but probably a few, possibly distant relatives were predetermined, autocratically by the Lord for the realm of the damned.

This is well within the parameters of the tenants of Calvinism. When it is written down on paper it sure does not portray a God of love and justice.

Now John 3:16 and I John 5:13 both uphold the fairness of the Lord and the Father's great love in sending His Son to save sinners.

You cannot believe the determinism or the doctrine s of fate, without the practical outworkings of your alleged God who autocratically operates by Himself totally apart from the free agency of sinners who have been convicted by the Spirit of God.

 

Dr. Ray,

You must be a fan of Ms. Clinton. This is exactly the kind of emotional argument that people like her build careers on. But emotionalism is a really bad way to build a theology.

The practical outworkings of Calvinism, of the verses than Dan posted, are that God is far more merciful to us all than we are to ourselves, and if the choice were left up to God then far, far more people would be saved than if the choice were left up to man. You act as if you think that God is less merciful to men than men would be to themselves. Again I encourage you to study the attributes of God. You will find Him far too merciful than to ever leave our eternal destiny up to us.

 

You are right to see this as one group trying to redefine "ALL" and "MANY" in the SAME chapter - SAME author- SAME context between one use and another -- (that would be Calvinism) -- while the other group (Arminians) need to solve the problem of "Justification" so that it does not result in universalism -- by consistently using the context of Romans 5.

If we simply CHANGE as needed in the middle of the chapter then we are no better than Calvinism.

So I will take a shot at it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Bob,

This verse is in 1 Corinthians 15, not Romans 5.

whatever

 

Paul starts with a specific instance of “justification past” – in this case it is the instance of the saints living in Paul’s day that ARE currently undergoing tribulation. This is not to say that all other saints in all other ages are not also justified. Indeed they were/are and those yet to be saved – certainly will be justified just as Paul points out. But in this case the context is that living saints undergoing tribulation that produced “perseverance” are in fact fully justified. (Justification past)

All of Calvnism’s favorite words to redefine – are here. WORLD, ALL MEN etc. And who can argue that ALL have sinned (not just the “elect”)?? Who can argue that the WORLD really does Not mean the Whole World has fallen under the domain of sin – for All have sinned. God appears to be using very “Arminian” terms here – once again.

Though it is granted that it can be shown “in some contexts” that “World” is specifically speaking of the “World of unsaved people”. (yet “never” can it be shown that the “world” means “all the saved people” for never does the Bible say “The World is saved” or “The Whole World will one day be saved”.)

The Same all-encompassing Many that were lost because of the one fall of the one man Adam are benefited by the One man Christ!!!

Here is a text that Calvinists will not be quoting this text to Arminians any time soon.

Rom 5:16-17 “Shows” that the same group condemned and subject to death – in that same context and to that same scope of humanity – there results “justification” and “the gift of righteousness”. Just as the condemnation to ALL – does not place ALL immediately in the lake of fire and brimstone nor does it preclude that ALL from later entering into Justification – SO the justification to ALL does not bring ALL immediately into heaven or make ALL believers having experienced justification past and currently enduring tribulation that produced perseverance. Rather in both cases the same group “humanity” is subject to condemnation AND to justification. But neither the condemnation nor the justification is “completed” for all can not be IN the lake of fire and fully justified at the same time – neither indeed is such a completed (ended) concept in mind for EITHER the “condemnation” mentioned or the “justification” mentioned.

Now we see again that the same ALL that were condemned by Adam’s fall – are in the scope of the benefit of Christ’s gift.

again - all men - same author, same subject, same reference as we see in vs 12 nailed down here again. All men condemned by Adam - and all men benefited by the one act of Christ – but NEITHER “result” (condemnation and justification) is fully matured-completed. This is very obvious in the case of the condemnation -- for NOBODY is now in the lake of fire and what is more ALL the saints who are in fact justified – saved – HAD to have been “condemned” and THEN justified (saved from that very condemnation). This is not possible if the condemnation is completed (hint: in the roasting of the lake of fire nobody gets justified) .

So this shows that the scope and domain of the condemnation is truly ALL just as is the case for Justification – but in both the case of condemnation and justification – the results are not yet completed. So when we say that condemnation applies to ALL and justification applies to ALL – is the same ALL and it is the same concept of an incomplete “result”. (Under condemnation – subject to condemnation – but not in fact experientially standing in hell). So all are under the umbrella of justification that is not brought “to the world” by “The savior of the World” but all are not in fact “justified” either at the time of Paul or even today since we have MORE yet to be saved justified and we have the fact that ALL do not “open the door” when Christ stands at the door and knocks.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is me referencing Romans 5.

 

Go read Spurgeon? That's your response.

I would rather you explain why the implications of "limited" atonement differ from what I suggested above.

Calvinist or non-Calvinist: you must accept the actual & practical implications of the doctrines you embrace ... the same can be said for those who do not believe the L.

This is exactly why system cannot supercede scripture. Systems have holes. Accept that.

 

If you had read Spurgeon then you would know why the implications of limited atonement differ from what you suggested above. You would learn why responses like this are pure nonsense:

Or, just go read the verses in the OP and tell me which one(s) prove that Jesus probably did not die for your sins.

 

Is it your position that the texts listed in the OP point to Limited Atonement - as in Christ NOT dying for "our sins and not our sins only but for the sins of the Whole World"? (which is the way most people here often define the entire process of atonement).

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess you are talking to me. It is my position that the texts in the OP do point to definite atonement. It is also my position that definite atonement is not in any way incompatible with 1 John 2:2.

 

As far as I know - nobody uses 1John 2:2 as "the definition of limited atonement" or definite atonement.

As far as I know the definition is also not given in any of the OP texts.