Verses that PROVE Definite Atonement

Yes, I am saying that (again). Check out Rev. 7:9-10:

I'd say there is a strong possibility that a believer's children will also be part of that multitude that no one could number. I don't know why you all like to think that the number of the redeemed will be small. The Bible clearly says otherwise.

 

Whatever,

As I study the Bible I believe your first paragraph is exactly the truth.

Sure God the Spirit enlightens, convicts and tries to convince people of their need of Christ, but more than often 'the god of this world' {Satan} cleverly deceives many, many sinners.

Adam and Eve had a will and we as sinners can turn from the right course leading to Heaven. When we receive Christ, we, of course, are adopted into the family of God. To believe and trust in Jesus for our hope of Heaven places us in the family of the Lord.

Ray

 

The statement was made, 'I'd say there is a strong possibility that a believer's children will also be part of that multitude that no one could number. I don't know why you all like to think that the number of the redeemed will be small. The Bible clearly says otherwise.'

 

Sorry about that I was trying to qoute a specific line it enede up quoting the entire thing. I have no problem with the fact that some of my family is condemned, for if that be God's will than that makes me all the more thankful for my salvation. It is funny how non-calvinists always try to make us feel bad with this argument. When it is the truth. Us reformed believers do not have a problem with it so quit trying to use it to show that there is a problem.

 

timothy27,

You have never studied the Attributes of God. Probably your unsaved unloved ones think you are 'touched in the head' and there is enough of the 'image of God in man' [James 3:9]left that they know you are wrong in your philosophy about the Lord's love and Divine justice toward all people.

Dr. Berrian

 

Unfortunatley for you Ray I have studied the Nature of God extensively, and have found nothing to make me believe otherwise. What is the nature of God in the Old Testament? If you believe it is different from the one in the new then that is your first mistake. God's election is intertwined all over the Old testament, so is His condemnation of the unchosen people of Israel. I suppose you think that is unloving and unjust also.

 

Who is "you all"??? My stripes differ from the cats on both sides of this discussion. Don't categorize so hastily.

I find it a bit ironic that someone who embraces the big "L" word (not the Showtime series either) is defending the vastness of the atonement. I am usually operating in the opposite direction -- discussing with L-defenders why God's grace exceeds what our human systems will allow.

Regardless of how "many" or "few" are at the end, the underlying premise still remains the same, and that is what you have yet to address. It does not matter what the odds are for a believer's child to be among the elect, the presupposition upon which limited atonement is built is shaky at best. Yes the big L makes sense within a 5-point system created by humans to try and explain salvation, but it does not answer all of the questions raised by other obvious passages which seem to teach otherwise.

It is amusing at times to watch 5-pointers defend the "limits" of God's atonement with an attitude of chivalry that would definitely be absent if those same people were not a part of the club. It is always easier to rejoice over the limits when you are an insider.

Just some observations.

 

Atonement is limited. It is limited to those elected to salvation.

The word atonement was invented by William Tyndale. It has the distinct meaning of being reconciled or ‘at one with.’

If all people are reconciled that means there exists no more offence.

But we are sinners and our offence has been satisfied by the One that has reconciled us.

That means those that go to hell are not reconciled. Christ did not atone for them because they themselves will be paying the price of their own sin. Their offence still exists.

If every single person (whole world) has been reconciled to God there is no more offence and everyone will end up in heaven.

Unbelief is offence also. With reconciliation all offence is gone. God takes away the sin of unbelief from those He has elected to save.

If God has been satisfied why would He hand out punishment for what has been satisfied?

If people are going to hell it must be reasonable to conclude that they must not be atoned for or reconciled to God.

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy." (1 Peter 2.9-10)

The difference between the elect and the non-elect is not something in themselves, it is in God's divine will.

"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin." (Romans 3.9)

How much more could a man be humbled than that?

Limited atonement. All according to God's will.

KJB

 

Since you jumped into this thread "not taking sides" you have tried to emphasize the "few". Now you don't want to talk about "few" any more, and that's fine, but you gotta back up what you say.

Which reminds me - which of the verses in the OP "prove Jesus did not die for you"?

I don't have Showtime so I don't know what you mean, but the vastness of the atonement seems clear to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the presupposition upon which limited atonement is built". Could you clarify?

Why would the unsaved ever defend anything about atonement? I think I don't understand what you are getting at. I defend an idea of atonement that does what it intends to do, and is frustrated by no one - not Satan, not people, not anyone.

 

Great concise, crystal clear explanation of the atonement, KJB! Just great, so biblical, so easy to understand! Thanks!

 

???? We are not talking about verses. We are talking about the natural implications of a limited atonement (as defined within Calvinism). Remember limited atonement fits within a broader system. It is a point in a human system that is necessary for 5-point Calvinism to stand.

The implication is that the atonement does not cover the sins of a certain portion of people (few or many -- take your choice). That is the issue. It does not matter if you believe in the few or many at the end. What matters is the theological foundation upon which this thesis is built, i.e., a certain portion of people are not elected, thus are not called, thus are not covered by the atonement. It is a system that demands a process. Calvin was not an idiot. He was a philosopher who created a system to defend his soteriology.

I don't have it either, but I do stay in touch with what my generation is watching, listening to, etc....beside the point.

And once again how many are left standing at the end is not the issue here.

See above. I would simply remind you that the "L" fits within a system. It does not stand alone.

It is just a bit ironic to me that only insiders can embrace Calvinism. I know many unbelievers who understand the gospel clearly, but they simply choose not to embrace it at this time. Yet I know no unbelievers who understand TULIP -- only the insiders. Just an interesting observation to me. Calvinism is a knowledge evidently reserved for the club.

And just to clarify -- I do not believe the atonement can be frustrated either. Everyone outside of universalists "limit" the atonement at some level. That is not the point.

 

2BHizown,

You are much too kind.

I have been reading your posts as well as posts from whatever.....I have to say you both do a superb job in defending truth.

What kind of God is this that these people in here speak about? One with no power to save anybody? Oh how fooled they are!

Their god is powerless against Satan. I have read their words in here and acoording to them Satan can steal souls away from God? How absurd!

Their god relies on the will of sinful men to save sinful men. All the while He hopes that Satan will not steal souls away.

And if they claim God has the power to rescue people from the clutches of Satan.....why is it He does not rescue all men?

“And she will bear a son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins”

God saves! It is all of God!

A mighty fortress is our God, a trusty shield and weapon;
He helps us free from every need that hath us now overtaken.
The old evil foe now means deadly woe; deep guile and great might
Are his dread arms in fight; on Earth is not his equal.

With might of ours can naught be done, soon were our loss effected;
But for us fights the Valiant One, Whom God Himself elected.
Ask ye, Who is this? Jesus Christ it is.
Of Sabbath Lord, and there’s none other God;
He holds the field forever.

Though devils all the world should fill, all eager to devour us.
We tremble not, we fear no ill, they shall not overpower us.
This world’s prince may still scowl fierce as he will,
He can harm us none, he’s judged; the deed is done;
One little word can fell him.

The Word they still shall let remain nor any thanks have for it;
He’s by our side upon the plain with His good gifts and Spirit.
And take they our life, goods, fame, child and wife,
Let these all be gone, they yet have nothing won;
The Kingdom ours remaineth.

(Words by Martin Luther)

“And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us;
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph through us.”

Happy (Oct 31) reformation day!

KJB

 

???? We are not talking about verses. </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you're having memory problems. This thread is titled "Verses that PROVE Definite Atonement". Here's the very first thing you posted in the thread:

I don't blame you for acting like you didn't post that, but it's there for anyone to see. So, which verses were you talking about?

The only alternatives I can see are that everyone is saved, or that some people's sins are covered but they are not saved anyway. Which alternative do you hold to, and why?

 

My initial response simply illustrates the natural implications of limited atonement as defined with the 5-point system (which is why I keep referring back to this point).

If only the elect are called and only the sins of the elect are forgiven, then it naturally follows that Jesus did not die for the sins of a certain portion of the world, thus the original jab at the L within the system.

The implications are clear. Calvin did not deny or run from them. Neither should those Calvinists who embrace the whole system.

You see either/or ... I see more both/and in the sense that I simply do not believe the extensiveness of the sacrifice or the atonement itself can be exhaustively defined with a human system. There is a mystery element to the atonement (as made clear in passages like 2 Cor 5.19) that we cannot "limit" to a system like Calvinism. It is a mistake in my opinion to pigeonhole all the of the aspects of the atonement to one particular view or understanding. That is why God is God and we are not. Do you truly believe we can wrap our minds around the extent or nature of something as divine and mysterious as the atonement?

However if I had to be pinned down to a view that would help define my view as I understand it, I would fall into the more sufficient-efficient camp.

 

But what of the implications if Jesus did die for the sins of some who will wind up in hell? If His death and resurrection is not the determining factor in my justification then what is?

With this I agree. There is a sense in which Christ is the Savior of all men. I think that has to do with potential salvation - if they would turn to God from their idols then they would be saved. But Christ is especially the Savior of those who believe - those who will be finally and actually saved.

Of course not. Do you think we should not try?

Do you mean "sufficient for all, efficient for those who believe/the elect"? I know of Arminians and Calvinists who agree with that statement. It really doesn't say that much. Maybe you mean something else, though.

Here's a question for you - did God intend to save those whom He knew would never believe?

 

It is, but justification/reconciliation goes far beyond my individual salvation. The Western Church has individualized salvation to the point the atonement has become all about me and me alone (or the elect and the elect alone). But that is another discussion for another day.

As long as the "effort" is not elevated to the status of absolute, comprehensive, propositional truth (which often happens in systems like Calvinism). We must always remember the effort is a human effort to explain a divine mystery that cannot be fully grasped by the human mind.

The "L" I embrace is "Limited Understanding" which reminds me that no human system has it all figured out. There are aspects of the atonement and its final implications that we will never grasp.

Yet it says enough to say that what Jesus did was more than enough to cover the sins of the "world" as described in certain passages and yet effective enough to cover the sins of those who embrace Him through faith.

I believe it is unfair to prescribe to God human categories of "knowing" and "intention". God's purpose will be fulfilled. The means by which they will be fulfilled cannot be thwarted. Yet the means by which God fulfills his salvific purposes cannot be restrained to a human explanation either.

The atonement obviously goes far beyond our individualized understanding of it because as I pointed out before, God is reconciling the world to himself. Our human qualifiers cause us to fit such statements in the context of our theological systems, but I am not sure any of us truly grasp what verses like 2 Cor 5.19 mean.

If we cannot wrap our minds around what happend in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God, I am not sure we should be so dogmatic on the "limits" or "definiteness" of the atonement. Again it fits well within a nice, cut-and-dry, 5-point system. But does it capture the whole image of reconciliation/atonement/salvation described throughout Scripture? No.

Remember God did not leave us a systematic theology textbook. He did not leave us a question-answer workbook. He left us a story -- His story, a story of God's interaction with human beings. That story invokes human language, illustrations, life situations, poems, songs, etc. to try and help us capture the relationship between God and humans. It is a divine story inspired by God, but its format leaves us with a mystery element with which we must wrestle and struggle. Simply put, it reminds us God is God and we are not.

 

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

In summary I see 1 Tim 4:10 more to the point in telling us about the outward calling of all men with the effectual call to those men He saves.

What I mean is that the outward call is to all men. The outward call is in regard that all men may know of Him as the Savior of all men, but especially of those that believe.

I see it as saying all men are called (outward calling) to be saved by Jesus Christ the Savior of all men.

The fact remains that no men are ever by nature willing to come to be saved. So although the calling out of "Jesus Christ is Savior" is towards all men, and since no men are willing by nature to come to Him, but rather all men by nature are bound and disposed to rejection, sin, blindness, and death, willingly.......He is the Savior especially to those that believe in Him which would be those that were unwilling in their first nature but made willing by the inward effectual call of God to come to Him.

Just my meager 2 cents worth.

KJB

 

whatever,

I have this feeling that you probably already know this but 2 Cor 5:19 is not some sort of non-understandable text. Nor is limited atonement some sort of strange mystery.

They are very understandable concepts for the human mind to grasp. That does not mean that every human mind can understand such things.

I would simply remind readers to go to 2 Cor 1:13 and it proclaims; For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.

Actually all of 2 Cor is quite understandable.

KJB

 

My postskeepbeing removedfor "infalmmatory language and personal attacks".

I personally attacked no one. I called Calvinism for what Charles Wesley said it was and it--a hellish blasphemy.