No greater love and limited atonement

Exactly. He says he gets it, but clearly he does not.

You also displayed why the phrase "limited atonement" is really a poor term. Everyone limits the atonement, except universalists. Terms like particular redemption, particular atonement, special atonement and such are better. Yet, limited atonement is far more commonplace.

 

There are several fallacies in these statements (and several of the others that have followed)

1. You believe that God's most pronounced characteristic is love.

In fact, love is only one of God's attributes. There are several passages in the Old Testament where God commands the Israelites to kill men, women, children, and even animals.

These episodes exhibit another of God's attributes: His justice. God's justice is exhibited in His judgment against sin and sinners.

Love and justice and a whole host of other immutable attributes co-exist in a co-equal way.

God is not defined by one attribute. Though one attribute seems (and it only seems that way) to take precedence from time to time, He must be defined by all of His attributes in total.

2. You are making the standard of God's love for man man's love for man.

In the John 15 passage, Jesus is clearly addressing His disciples. Now, by extension, He is addressing all believers (just as the command in Matt 28 to "make disciples" is not only for the 11 remaining disciples, but for all believers).

Jesus is talking about laying down His life for his disciples (friends in v. 13, 14). Jesus is not making this a blanket statement for all Jews or all peoples; He is addressing His disciples.

3. You assume mankind is foremost in God's affections.

Man is not foremost in God's affections. God is foremost in God's affections. God loves Himself and His own glory far more than He loves us. It is His grace that He included our salvation in the vindication of His own glory (the vindication having to take place because of His love and the subsequent passing over of sins of a few in the Old Testament)

1. You assume that everyone without exception is a child of God.

While mankind is created in God's image--and that has inherent qualities--after Adam and Eve were created, mankind (though still in God's image) was not "created" any longer. After Adam and Eve, mankind was pro-created and as a pro-created race we were brought forth in Adam's image. (See Genesis 5:3).

Therefore, we more closely resemble Adam (and all his inherent sinfulness) than we do God. We still bear the image of God (which is why the death penalty is instituted in Genesis 9. It would then be proper to say that Mankind as a race is created in God's image (to be His vice-regents...think "governor") and individuals are pro-created in Adam's image.

This is why Ephesians 2 calls us "dead in sin" and "sons of disobedience."

So, while all of your statements may not be strawmen, as has been suggested, your statements do betray your presuppositions and those presuppositions are problematic when dealing with a truly biblical theology.

The Archangel

 

As I understand the doctrine as Calvinist teach it, they would say it is sufficient for all mankind. Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect. We need to be careful not to misrepresent the doctrine you disagree with. If it is wrong, one should be able to accurately say what it is and say why they disagree with it.

apples and oranges. You would die to save your wife's life, as would I. Jesus died in our place of punishment. We have to remember that hell is punishment for sinners that we ALL deserve. It's not that Jesus is saving us from hell like we would save someone from something dangerous, Jesus is paying the price for our sin that we would be paying in an eternal hell.


Let me ask you this. Would you send your wife or children to hell? All those that reject Christ will spend eternity in hell. If your child disobeyed you and they refused to repent, would you send them to hell?

Hell is a place for sinners. It is punishment. God will send them there to pay for their sins. God is under no obligation to save anyone. Your argument acts like God is obligated to save and He is not.

 

Limited Atonement in it's actual historic sense can be understood by means of one of Jesus' parables (although it is not the actual interpretation of the parable - just provides a good illustration).

Mt. 13.44 - The man is looking through a field and he finds a treasure hidden in the field. Therefore, he rehides it, and goes and sells all he has and buys the field, thus buying the treasure.

Okay, did the man actually buy the field? Yes. Therefore, he does in fact own the field. However, what is the object of his buying the field? To buy the treasure.

There is a real sense in that Jesus did die for the entire world. This is the basis of his love for the whole world (lost and elect) as well as his genuine call for repentance for the entire world. Further, this is the basis for some things that I believe are more "universal aspects" of the atonement (common grace, restraining of sins, etc). This is also the truth elaborated in Phil. 2 and others in which every knee will bow to His Lordship.

However, the object, purpose, and design of His death was only to cover the sins of the elect. Therefore, the argument here is not one of sufficiency, ability of the atonement, or even the love of God. On the other hand, the question is one of purpose, design, and actual application. This is what Limited Atonement teaches. I would suggest reading some better sources on the subject and become more familiar with the classic, historic expression of the doctrine. Hodge provides a great overview, as well as Berkhoff. If you really want to delve into it, check out The Atonement Controversy, by Owen Thomas. (aval. at Banner of Truth)

Randy

 

Something else to keep in mind about all five points, really - but especially LA - is that even among Calvinists there is disagreement concerning the precise nuances of the doctrines. Therefore, that makes it a little precarious to say "Calvinists teach" or "Limited Atonement says..."

When someone says, "I am a 5 pointer (or 4, or whatever)," what they are actually saying is "I hold to a certain understanding of the 5 points." Even the example I just gave in the last post (the purchase of the field) will meet with disagreement on behalf of some. That's okay, because we have been trying to understand these issues for centuries.

It does someone really good to read the historical literature on the subject. It is rich and vast.

Randy

 

Webdog,

There is much smugness, biting, and sniping in this post (which I have chosen not to deal with) that has been gloriously absent from your most recent postings. I would, however, like to address the above statement.

As husbands, we are commanded to love our own wives as Christ loves the church. But herein lies the problem: You claim to be willing to lay down your life, sacrificially for your wife--which is awesome and commendable (may we all be willing and able if/when the time comes).

However, you are not required and you probably would not lay down your life for someone else's wife.

This is the essence of what we are discussing in limited atonement. We (who hold to LA) say that Christ died for His bride--the church. Not all humanity.

If anything, Ephesians (especially chapter 2:11-22) is showing that God is building a new humanity out of all peoples--Jews and Gentiles. This new humanity--Christians (those who believe in Christ)--was chosen before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

So, it is the case that you are suggesting that Christ did not die only for the church when we are told in Ephesians that it is only for the Church that He did, in fact, die--He gave Himself up for "her," the Church. Notice it is not said that it is not said that He died for all humanity.

Hopefully, that will be food for thought.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

To argue with a Calvinist is futile. Don't even try. If they cannot see the plain teachings of Scripture that says that Christ died for the world, it is hopeless to try to get them to see the error of this particular doctrine.

When someone at church starts talking this nonsense, I just smile and enjoy watching them attempt to fit this false belief into the teachings of Scripture.

After many years you just hear the same old semantics over and over again. Now if you really want to anger them, just quote the Scripture and watch their reaction.

 

Webdog said;

I agree with you Webdog. I think it is ridiculous when Calvinists say God is not obligated to save anyone.

If I was by a swimming pool and saw a small child fall in and begin to drown, and I am a good swimmer, am I obligated to jump in and try to save the child? Of course. And even if I could not swim, I could attempt to throw a life preserver in, or hold out a stick or tree-limb they could grab, or at the very least run and try to find someone who could save the child.

But Calvinists teach that God is under no such obligation. God can sit back and watch men perish. And most incredibly, they teach that God does this for his pleasure. If I watched this child drown when I could have easily helped them, I would be judged by the world as a very wicked, sick, and depraved person, but Calvinists teach God can act like this and it is no sin.

And Calvinists see no problem with this view. Astounding.

If that is not misrepresenting the God of the Bible who gave his only Son to save us, I do not know what is.

 

So who put God under this obligation? Sorry, but God was not obligated to save anyone. The difference is that now God has said he would save through faith. Now, because of the obligation He has placed on himself, he is obligated to saved. But without God putting himself there, He was under no obligation to save.

Not even close to the same. Hell is not like a swimming pool. Hell is a place God sends people because of their sin. Hell is the deserved punishment. You and I both deserve Hell. God in his mercy saved us, but he didn't have to. He could have given us both what we deserved, but He didn't. He sent His Son Jesus to die in our place. He promised to save those that believe, but He didn't have to make that promise.

God is the one sending them there. It's punishment.

don't know of any Calvinist that teaches this.

So, if you saw a child drowning and you said, believe me and the child said no, would you let the child drown? You see how your argument isn't the same?

They do have a problem with you misrepresenting of the doctrine. If they are wrong, you don't need to misrepresent.

It is misrepresent the doctrine. Again, if Calvinists are wrong, you should be able to represent the doctrine accurately and not continue to say things that you know are not true.

Let me repeat again. Is God now obligated to save? Yes, those that believe because He said that He would. Was God obligated to say that? No, he could have let every man die in his willful sin and go to hell. Saying God is obligated to save is saying that somehow we deserved our salvation.

 

4 pointers would, but there is a difference in dying for and the sufficiency of the death. I don't know of any Calvinist that says that the death of Christ wasn't sufficient to save all. It is limited in its intent, God came to save his elect. That was the purpose, though it is sufficient.

I'm still working through this one my self, but want to accuratly portray the doctrine.

The difference is that you and I deserve hell. God would be perfectly right in sending us to hell. Per winman's example, it would be bad if we allowed someone to drown if we could help. But it isn't wrong for God to punish sinners. So when God saves anyone, it is an act of mercy. He wasn't obligated, except now that He has promised. But He didn't have to make that promise.

Agreed, better example. Are you obligated to pay the penalty for your son? Now, if you promised to pay the penalty, you would be. If you told your son to believe you, and you would pay, then you would then be obligated. Same thing with God. God isn't obligated to save us. He is perfectly just in giving us our deserved punishment.

The wages of sin is death. People do go to hell because they are sinners. It is a place of punishment. Yes, God is now obligated to save because He said he would, but he didn't have to say that. He could have just let us all die in our sins.

Um, yes it can. It's called an antagonym.
here's a list of them
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/antagonym.html
world can mean the worldly system and it can mean people. Be not of the world is not saying be not of the people(we are people in the world) but not of the wordy system.

- So Christ didn't die for believers? Are believers not part of the world(in the sense of the people)?

That's a good idea.

Lets see the Scriptures that say that the purpose of the atonement was to die for the whole world. I believe we all agree that it is sufficient to save all but only efficient for the elect(those that believe or will believe). But do we have any that say God died for the unelect. Do we have any that say that God died for the elect. Do we have any that say God died for every single person, thought knowing that many would reject Him?

 

God said he is not willing any should perish. By his own nature he is obligated to save everyone he can. Can God deny himself?

2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

How can a person be responsible for sin if they are born dead in sin? Do we punish blind people because they are born blind? Do we beat a person who was born crippled because they cannot walk?

By your doctrine, man has no control whatsoever. He cannot choose God. God has all the power to easily save every man but chooses to let billions upon billions of men die as sinners and be tortured forever in hell. This is worse than watching a child fall in a pool and drown, it is equivalent to pushing them in, and then holding them under when they try to come up for air.

I am sorry, but this doctrine is plain sick, and anybody who cannot see that is not firing on all cylinders.

 

What in the world kind of answer is this?