Limited Atonement: Did Christ die for the whole world?

If you read all of Isaiah 10, you will realize what God is saying: that He sent Assyria, but that Assyria did not stop at what the Lord sent them to do and has refused to acknowledge the Lord, and it is for THAT reason that the Lord has decreed the end to Assyria.

Unlike the Calvinism you are presenting, the Lord is very clear about what He is doing and why. Here:

Isaiah 10, in part:

Woe to the Asssyrian, the rod of my anger,
in whose hand is the club of my wrath!
I send him against a godless nation,
I dispatch him against a people who anger me,
to seize loot and snatch plunder and to trample them down like mud in the streets.
BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT HE INTENDS,
THIS IS NOT HWAT HE HAS IN MIND;
HIS PURPOSE IS TO DESTROY,
TO PUT AN END TO MANY NATIONS.
'Are not my commanders all kings?' he says.
'Has not Calno fared like Carchimish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad,
and Samaria like Damascus?
As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols,
kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria --
shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images
as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?'

When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes. For he says:

'By the strength of my hand I have done this,
and by my wisdom, because I have understanding.
I removed the boundaries of the nations,
I plundered their treasures;
like a mighty one I subdued their kings...'

...Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it,
or the saw boast against him who uses it?...

And what continues indicates the Lord's punishment of Assyria.

In other words, the Lord never punished Assyria for doing what the Lord had commanded them to do, but for other things. No double talk there.

You need to read it all, Russell55. Bible explains Bible.

You might also note that the King of Assyria certainly had a will of his own. He not only did as the Lord commanded, but he chose to do a lot else instead! The clear message here for Calvinists is that the Lord had NOT ordained what He was punishing Assyria for! For the difference between what the Lord had ordained and what Assyria did and would be punished for is very clear in Isaiah 10. Thank you for bringing it up!

 

Helen,

Russel55 was correct in his interpretation of Isaiah 10. God would use them as a tool (though they did not recognize this). Their sinful nature and arrogance would result in punishment by God.

The unfortunate consequence of your interpretation is that God would use this kingdom as a tool, but could not control their actions.

What kind of tool is that? If i endeavor to use a hammer, but the hammer acts on its own, I am no longer in control of it.

It would be a lie for God to say He will use Assyria if the Assyrians chose, by free will, to accomplish all their actions. That would make God claim credit fro work He did not truly do!

I am thankful that we serve a God that both purposes and and the power to fully accomplish His will!

 

God Himself makes a point of the difference between what He required them to do and what they did on their own, in addition to the attitude of the heart. There is also evidence in Isaiah 10 that they DID know God was using them, for they refer to the 'images' in Jerusalem.

Could not or would not? Of course He could! But He clearly was not out of control by allowing them to express the attitudes of their hearts in actions which then would remove all claim of injustice from God. Their actions showed He was perfectly just in His judgment. If their actions had been fully ordained and controlled by Him, then there would have been no justice in His response to them, for He would have been responding to HIS OWN forordained actions done by them.

Your hammer has no will of its own. Assyria did. But nevertheless, Isaiah likens them to that very hammer in accusing them of going against the wishes of Him who wielded them.

But they DID do what He had used them for. And then some. It's that 'then some' which they were to be judged for. It is also because they went on to claim credit for themselves and refused to give that credit to God! That is also in Isaiah 10.

Me, too. And I am doubly thankful that He is sovereign enough so that our free wills, a gift from Him, don't deter Him in the slightest, but do give us the opportunity to love and obey, which have meaning only if the will is free. We were created to love, if you look at Jesus' two foundational commandments, and that love requires the free will which chooses to commit or not to commit to the object of that love.

 

First, let me apologize to all for the sloppy typing in my previous post. I will try to do better.

Helen,

This may be covered in another forum, but what is your view of election? Does God know His own before they chose Him by free will?

 

Yes, of course. God is outside of time and thus, as someone mentioned (I think Brian?) in another post, all times are the same for Him and He knows it all. Where we differ, I think, is that I am quite sure He also knows all that might have been, not only had all gone according to His perfect will and there had been no sin, but also how things would have gone in the entire world's history given different decisions by any one of us at any time. Now THAT is sovereignty!

I mentioned before, in another post, and maybe you missed it since you are new here, that it was actually when I gave my own children choices that I was most in control. As a human parent, it was when they were off on their own and making up their own choices that I was in trouble! One (and I am not saying they can be numbered, please understand that!) of the differences between God and me is that no one is away from His given choices at any one time in the way that my kids could be away from mine. But given my experience with choices, and knowing that this is when I was most in control of the situation, whatever it was, it is not hard for me to understand that choices given to us by God do not escape His control/sovereignty.

 

Helen and John 6:63,

Thank you both for responding. (I would also like to say that, while I disagree with your views, I am impressed with the consistency of your logic. It seems the only intellectually honest position is to accept or reject Calvinism/Arminianism at every point.)

My view of election is somewhat different than yours. God has not given us choices, by which we are to respond positively or negatively with our free will. He has given us a commandment - that "all men everywhere" should repent, believe and be saved.

I also firmly believe He has chosen, from the foundation of the world, those He would draw into that repentance and faith.

Let me address the concern I'm sure you both have - How is that fair? Why would God command such things from people who are incapable? God is merciful and just. I have never heard the argument that God was unfair when gave 10 commandments that we are unable to follow. Why is this different?

I would agree that the Calvinist view of election is unjust - specifically because true justice would see us all in Hell. That God chose to save His own from that is not injustice because, had He not acted in love this way, we would all be lost anyway. That is what "condemned already" means. Condemnation is not a positive act of God, we did that ourselves.

This idea that election means God chose some for salvation and condemned others does not fit. We were all in the garden with Adam and chose condemnation - God intervenes to deliver His elect.

Let me explain this way. My wife and I are trying to adopt. There are many children in the world that need adoption - they are all in the same condition. If we find a child and love it and bring it into our family, we have done a good thing for that child. It simply does not follow that we have been unjust to those children we haven't chosen.

 

The only way your adoption allegory fits, sir, is if you are in actuality CAPABLE of adopting all children who need adoption and do not, or if God Himself was simply in 'your shoes' of not being capable of saving all.

 

AllofGrace,
If you consider that there are two covenants, would you say that both covenants existed from before the foundation of the world?

Under one covenant, Animals were slaughtered to atone for the sins of man so that man need not die for sins. Under the other covenant, a man, God's only begotten son, the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, was slaughtered in atonement of the sins of the world.

In the former covenant, the atonement was a practice of and for the Jews only, performed by the Jewish priesthood, while in the second covenant, It was a Jew who was slaughtered for the sins of the World in a once for all atonement of sin. If there was an elect established from the foundation of the world, it would be the Jews, God's chosen race.

However, He came unto his own and his own received him not! Back to the wedding banquet, the friends and neighbors of the Father and the groom were "elected" to come to the banquet, but found reasons why they could not, (old covenant). Then the Father of the groom opened the invitation to ALL who would come, (new covenant).

It's OK that you believe the way you do, however I believe you have missed God's intent.

 

The Lord didn't command Assyria to do anything. No, I take that back--the COMMAND from the Lord is for all nations to bless Israel. The king of Assyria was going against a clear command of the Lord.

And yet, Assyria was accomplishing God's purpose--the complete destruction of Israel (see 13:5) in judgment from God. He was serving as an instrument of destruction in God's hand, but he didn't know that. God says the king was only a tool (or weapon) in His hands, no more, no less. An axe God chopped with; a saw He wielded; a club He lifted...
He was unwittingly accomplishing exactly what God planned to happen, what God was working through Him, even though he thought he was just destroying in order to gain more power for himself. The king intended what he did for evil, but God intended it for a good purpose-- His righteous judgment of Israel.

Of course, His own decision, his own motives, and yet accomplishing God's purpose. I imagine the mechanism God used to accomplish this was unrestraining the king--arranging circumstances so that he could now (in God's perfect timing) actually do what he was already wanting to do. God was in control through selective allowance, but He was in such control that it can rightly be called God "sending" and God "wielding an axe", etc.

Yikes. You mean that God ordained something that didn't happen? That the king actually thwarted what God had destined to happen?

 

Please read the whole chapter, Russell55, and I think Isaiah explains it all quite clearly. Don't believe me, please. Read God's Word for yourself.