Limited Atonement: Did Christ die for the whole world?

You need to study Calvinism some more.

Most Calvinists I know believe:

1. God is Sovereign and Just.
2. God doesn't force any person to do something that person isn't willing to do.
3. A Man makes choices freely within the parameters of his own will.
4. People are in Hell not because of God but because of their own unbelief.
5. Evangelism is Necessary.

 

Too bad they all don't understand that!

 

Yelsew

I'm curious. What makes you think that?

In His Grace
KayDee

 

You didn't get this from looking into Calvinism. The love of God is not limited. God has only chosen to save some but the rest are damned by thier own sins, not because God made them do anything. It is not God's fault that they go to hell. It is their own.

This depends on what you mean by "die for." If by "die for" you mean, provide a sufficient payment, then yes, He died for the sins for the whole world. If by "die for" you mean actually secure the salvation of, then he only died for the elect. What Calvinists generally say is that the atonement is sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.

Would you mind giving a source for your quotation.

Who is the "us"?

But he must come, must he not? If he doesn't come, then what?? His sins aren't paid for.

Notice that this is directed towards everyone that believes. Those who don't believe are not included here.

1) Because God commands us to; 2) because God is calling out for himself a people for every tribe, tongue, people, and nation; 3) because witness is the way that God has ordained to spread his word.

Why would I? I would present the gospel to her and call her to repent, just as we are commanded to do. I have no idea who God is going to save and who he isn't.

That is an emotional argument without merit. That is not the gospel message. God loves the world and whoever believes in him will have eternal life. Those who do not believe will not have eternal life.

 

You sound as though you and others you know are *four point* Calvinists. Leading Calvinists authorities, however would consider you and the others as abandoning the entire system for leaving out the *fifth point* of limited atonement.

A.A. Hodge is quoted as saying that, if they (the critics of Calvinism) could prove that the love which prompted God to give His Son to die, as a sin offering…had for its objects all men, that Christ actually sacrificed his life w/ the purpose of saving all on the condition of faith, then the central principle of Arminianism is true.

David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas was quoted as saying: Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain sinners.

So these leading Calvinists, would disagree w/ your no. 2, 3, and 4, therefore 5 is unnecessary.

Why should one become a Preacher if what they do to Evangelize to the lost is doing no good, b/c God has preordained who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell, so their work is a moot. Seems to me that Jesus Himself instructed His disciples to go out and teach all nations. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope - 5 Points all the way.

Just like Charles Spurgeon.

 

Who here left out the fifth point? I affirm it and I am pretty sure that hardsheller does.

What in these quotes leads you to say that these men believe 2-5 are unecessary?? Are you sure you are not reading something into their quotes that is not really there??

This is a false premise. Their work is doing good. When you start with a false premise, it is virtually impossible to end up at a right conclusion.

Yes indeed and that is why Calvinism is a disciplemaking venture. We believe that.

 

So then you do believe in a "limited atonement."

 

You are confusing yourself by not making proper distinctions. You are practicing lump theology, lumping a bunch of stuff together with paying attention to what is being said.

No, I haven't. This just illustrates that you are not truly informed about it. I haven't left out limited atonement, (something I clearly told you but you chose to repeat anyway ... don't do that). I have not abandoned the entire system of Calvinism. What I, and most other Calvinists have done, is refuse to believe what you would like to pin on us.

Did you study what he said? Did you study the real issues? Of course not. Because if you had, you would not be making the arguments you are making here. Look up what Calvin said about the love of God.

Study what "free will" actually is. EVery man has it.

I am not sure "predestined to burn in hell" is langauge that I would use. Rom 9 does give some evidence of that though. The truth is that I already answered your question. Why repeat it here? Did you not read it above? Why are you asking again?? (I always feel a little uncomfortable havign to point out the obvious to people who should already know it. )

 

ALL sins were atoned for, since "God hath laid on him the iniquity of us all". It is not 'some of the iniquity of some of us' or 'the iniquity of some of us...' ALL is ALL.

Atonement is complete and universal where sinners of all times and places are concerned. This is the clear message and language of the Bible.

It is whether or not a man or woman is willing to receive that gift or not which counts. For those willing to receive, the gift of full atonement because of what Jesus did is theirs and fully efficacious. For those preferring life on their own terms, the gift is left untouched and therefore not meaningful for them.

But the gift remains available to all men from all time. Atonement is unlimited.

 

Aha! I see part of your confusion.

You equate predestination with programming. Calvinists don't do this. They see predestination and free choice as compatible.

You have some rudimentary understanding of Calvinism, but you are still harboring so many misconceptions about what Calvin and calvinists actually believe that's its hard to even discuss it with you.

Here is a page that might help. This one would help, too. I'm not giving these links to you in hopes of changing your mind, really, but to help get you into the debate.

 

Once again it depends on who you think the "us" is.

 

Russell55,
Maybe this quote from Edwin H. Palmer would interest you:

Foreordination means God's sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe. Nothing in this world happens by chance. God is in back of everything. He decides and causes all things to happen that do hapen....He has foreordained everything 'after the counsel of his will' (Eph. 1:11): the moving of a finger, the beating of a heart, the laughter of a girl, the mistake of a typist -- even sin.
[The Five Points of Calvinism, Baker Books, 1999, pp 24-25]


In other words, according to strict Calvinism, we are programmed down to the blinking of an eye.

 

ALL OF WHAT Why is that so hard????? Who is "us"?

I don't think most Calvinists would disagree with that in respect to sufficiency of the atonement, though we would prefer to be more precise in our language.

The truth is that if the atonement actually paid for all sins for all times even for those who do not get saved, then God is unjust for he sends people to hell for sins that have already been paid for. You have long maintained that people don't go to hell for sins but for unbelief. We have dutifully pointed out that (1) unbelief is a sin which must have been paid for at Calvary if all sins were paid for; and (2) that Scripture expressly contradicts you in Revelation 20 and 21 as well as 2 Thess 1 where deeds are the basis for hell.

Again, the text has to be more prominent than it is. We have a lot of homespun theology going on that is not strictly tied to what God actually said. That continues to be disappointing.

 

Here is my 'homespun' theology, Larry:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

In other words, condemnation is because of unbelief, not because of sin. At least, that is what that part of my 'homespun' theology says.