Featured The Limited Atonement

Biblical.

Biblical.

Agree.

 

God does not swear in Himself or provide a promise to the non-elect for them to be saved as He does for the elect. He only conditionally desires the salvation of the non-elect - why is it God's failure if they fail the condition, it's their failure alone. If God had unconditionally taken up ownership of the saving of these non-elect, then yes, He can be seen as having failed or being weak. But He sovereignly laid the ownership upon the creature alone to contrast His ways against the creatures' - and we get to now conclude that God alone is good and none other are worthy of any glory whatsoever.

I didn't fully grasp this point. But I'm going along to say that I too wouldn't find such an opportunity of a free rejection to be a requirement in any sense of God's sovereignty - it's just that He's revealed it to be so by expressing His desire that the non-elect too repent and live, which would be in contradiction with a predestined decree of condemnation.

 

I agree. In fact, I hold that those falling away in Hebrews too are purchased by our Lord.

I'd say the sense is in distinguishing between why God purposed the shedding of blood over Passover and the shedding of blood on the Day of Atonement as two separate events. Couldn't God have simply used the Passover lamb to be the atonement too or vice versa? These were distinct feasts in the OT meant to foreshadow distinct events in our NT. And I see Christ's purchasing of all by a price, which is His blood, as our Passover. But many shall be destroyed in the wilderness. Only those who endure in faith to the end receive the atonement by the High Priest to enter into His promised rest. But all this that spans all of human time is accomplished by Christ on the cross - and I suppose we are stumbling over the specifics of all that He's done there.

I'm not sure if that's exactly what I implied but I'll come to know if you have further objections.

I too am saying Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. That fact does not change. Just as the fact that He is the light of the world - people remaining in darkness does not change this fact, neither does it imply that none are in darkness any longer. This isn't worded incorrectly in itself, I just pick up more data from other parts of Scripture on this.
Rom 3:25 (Christ Jesus): Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,.....

So I derive a composite from Scriptures that God has set forth Christ to be the propitiation through faith in His blood for the sins of the whole world. Note, the conditional faith in His blood is what negates universal atonement having occurred already for me. Do you see this differently?

I agree on Sola Scriptura completely. I seek logical and Scriptural consistency. What I meant was that I am not absolutely certain in all my conclusions on the atonement - there are a couple of possibilities which could conclude differently but neither are contradicting my overall premises. It's the specifics that I may be wrong about but not the larger truths.

So for instance, I don't know if when Jesus or Stephen prayed to God to forgive that sin of their murderers, whether Jesus' blood was shed to remit that sin. I'm saying, either way, I can still hold on to limited atonement for they could still be condemned for their many other sins which they could die in. I'll expand more if needed.

 

Then why did Peter say they denied the Lord who bought them? It's so explicit.

 

No, but I'm reading your comments. I would surmise that if the article was clear, you'd be able to convey its argument.

But I'm getting to the point where I don't think there is an argument. It appears this passage is an anomaly that doesn't fit into anyone's system. (I scanned the above, and again, don't see a good or even logical answer that explains Peter's words).

 

All of us were already judged as being found guilty in Adam, so God election was for to those whom he intended to save out, a faithful remanant!

 

God can desire all sinners to be saved, but none will be until and unless he directly works on their behalf!

 

Okay? Don't know how you're relating this to Jude 1:5 - but who would you say were saved out of Egypt? The elect, the non-elect or both?

 

I haven't, in fact I don't have a complete doctrine built yet on this topic. I'm still thinking it through. I'm basically in the mystery category.

My concern is, you've built a doctrine that covers a lot of ground, but completely dismisses and disregards explicit verses that don't fit within it. I think that's problematic.

 

Peter expresses God's Sovereign decree regarding these false prophets.
Notice that these false prophets have been marked out for destruction long before they lived.

2 Peter 2:3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

2 Peter 2:17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.

 

Then why did Peter say our Lord "bought them"? Why didn't he just say what you said?

 

This is the problem I have with Calvinism in general. They build a theology on a couple of verses then ignore many other verses that fly in the face of their theology. When you point it out they end up arguing, "that word means something else than the usual meaning", or "that verse is not addressed to the people you claim it is", or some other argument from my list in my sig.

 

2 Peter 1:19-21 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Does Peter say that the false prophets master is God?

2 Peter 2:1 Lexicon: But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

 

Does Peter not say, false prophets were bought by our Lord?

 

I don't know that this is exclusive to Calvinists. I think many of many different disciplines will tweak definitions of words when they don't quite fit in the system. Every calvinist is different in the way they formulate their arguments, but this is true with just about everyone of every persuasion.

I've come to the point, I'm content with mystery, and not being able to reconcile everything. I'm even willing to hold a contradictory view, knowing it's perfectly clear in God's mind.

 

"even denying the Lord who bought them"????

 

I agree, BTW. I don't believe salvation can be lost, nor to I believe salvation is universal.

So I'm left with the only possible resolution: salvation and atonement are not synonymous. That's all I can come up with without completely denying what Peter said.

So you're saying we can't trust Peter because of your logical argument above? Or we have to take Peter as meaning the opposite of what he said for the sake of logic?

You keep making these logical/theological arguments instead of just explaining how this text fits into your theology. But maybe you should tweak the theology before the text.