The Bible Teaches Limited Atonement

[Cole]

Johnny,

The dreadful error of hyper-Calvinism is that it involves God in coercing sin. This does radical violence to the integrity of God’s character. The Reformed view teaches God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. - R.C. Sproul

[DisposableSoul]

Read R.C. Sproul’s book “Chosen By God” where he explains the two sides to God’s decree. He believes God PERMITS sin by passing over it and witholding his mercy. This is what the Creeds are saying.

At the pinnacle of Romans 11, you have God showing mercy upon all. God most certainly allows for people (however long it lasts) to be in their sin. But, if you say God doesn’t show mercy to everyone, then I think you have some great reasons to think so, and you haven’t shown us said reasons.

What are your thoughts on this, especially with God not showing partiality to anyone?

–Nick

[Cole]

Read R.C. Sproul’s book “Chosen By God” where he explains the two sides to God’s decree. He believes God PERMITS sin by passing over it and witholding his mercy. This is what the Creeds are saying.

At the pinnacle of Romans 11, you have God showing mercy upon all. God most certainly allows for people (however long it lasts) to be in their sin. But, if you say God doesn’t show mercy to everyone, then I think you have some great reasons to think so, and you haven’t shown us said reasons.

What are your thoughts on this, especially with God not showing partiality to anyone?

–Nick

Romans 9 tells us that God has mercy on whomever He wills and hardens whomever He wills. God also has a common grace. But He also has a saving grace. He is the Savior of all - ESPECIALLY them that believe.

God is no respector of persons in the sense of race, gender, nationality, etc. He has a chosen race from the Jews as well as the Gentiles. The whole world.

[JaelSister]

Johnny,

The dreadful error of hyper-Calvinism is that it involves God in coercing sin. This does radical violence to the integrity of God’s character. The Reformed view teaches God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. - R.C. Sproul

Cole, does He or does He not have us born tainted with sin? Original sin. Have us born unable to respond to Him unless He allows it? Whatever semantics Sproul, who I respect, plays with this, the result is still a God who purposely creates people who will sin and have no recourse within themselves to do better or repent. That He then will punish for all eternity.

My problem is that this contradicts what the scripture says about goodness. Forgiving your enemies, repaying evil with good, etc. Like in the parable where then man is given over to the gaoler till he has paid all. After which he is released. The Calvinistic interpretation of God contradicts what God Himself calls good in scripture and what He calls justice in scripture. Thus they put up a God of poor character, not by my own assessment of what constitutes poor, but by scripture’s own testimony.

Also, where are the scriptural proofs for common grace versus saving grace? What does that even mean practically? How is common grace a grace at all? And where are the scriptural proofs for continual sinning and punishment in hell? This is surely a theodicy to make the Calvinistic God not sound as bad as He does. But it seems to be added onto scripture, not found within it.

Of course, we all probably add our own ideas on to scripture. But the reformed crowd tend to be such sticklers for verses as their final authority, they really ought to provide some for these beliefs if that is what they’re going to pin their colours to, so to speak.

[Username1]

Sherman, JaelSister

You make some excellent points.

The purpose of election is so that the non-elect might be saved. The elect are chosen as ministers of reconciliation. And even among the elect some are chosen as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers so that all the elect might be equipped in the ministry of reconciliation.

“Ministers of reconciliation”. I really like that definition of election!

Also, where are the scriptural proofs for common grace versus saving grace? What does that even mean practically? How is common grace a grace at all? And where are the scriptural proofs for continual sinning and punishment in hell? This is surely a theodicy to make the Calvinistic God not sound as bad as He does. But it seems to be added onto scripture, not found within it.

Bullseye, JaelSister. The whole Calvinist “common grace vs saving grace” thing is unBiblical tosh. It’s a piece of desperate metaphysical skullduggery designed to lend a veneer of theological respectability to an abhorrent man-made doctrine.

Same thing with the continual punishment and sinning in hell red herring. As you so tellingly point out, it’s a puzzling enigma that Calvinists, whose mantra is ‘sola scriptura’, are quite prepared to play fast and loose with the Bible when it suits them?

Shalom

Johnny

[Username1]

Cole

Johnny,

The dreadful error of hyper-Calvinism is that it involves God in coercing sin. This does radical violence to the integrity of God’s character. The Reformed view teaches God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not coerce them to sin. They sin by their own choices. - R.C. Sproul

This is Sproul talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, in classic Reformed fashion. There is not a hair’s breadth of meaningful difference between the ‘hyper-Calvinist’ doctrine of double predestination and the ‘Reformed’ doctrine of single predestination. The bottom line is that under both doctrines the reprobate, the damned, call them what you will, have no *choice *whatsoever. They end up in hell because that is where God, according to the unsearchable counsel of his will, places them.

Shalom

Johnny

[Cole]

Rev. 22:11 - Let the evil doer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.

Rev. 16:10 - 11 - People gnawed their tongues in anguish and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.

Scripture on God’s common grace:

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.

[Username1]

Cole

You don’t give up easily do you?

Scripture on God’s common grace:

But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.

Where, pray, does this verse say *anything *about God’s *common *grace, in contrast to His *saving *grace? You’re reading the common/saving grace thing into it, because you *have to *if your Calvinist theology isn’t to fall apart.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Shalom

Johnny

[Cole]

Johnny,

It’s the part that says God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust alike.

The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. - Psalms 145:9

But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Luke 6:35-36

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, **specially **of those that believe. - 1 Tim. 4:10

God has a common grace and a special grace.

[Matt_Wiley]

Michael, are you trying to say that you believe some will be saved now, in this life/age, and all the rest later? If so, then we’re in agreement, but if not, then you seem pretty conflicted man, going back and forth between Calvinism and Universalism…
Whatever the case, may God lead you and guide you and give you peace, bro

[rvallimont]

Michael,

If I understand your comments correctly, you are saying that

1. God’s pervasive grace is poured on all humankind (giving and providing for life).
2. In the face of this pervasive grace, humankind, all humankind, chooses to sin.
3. However, among those who sin there are some who respond to the pervasive.
4. The ones who do respond to the pervasive grace God offers a saving grace.
5. The ones who receive the saving grace are the elect, a chosen people.
6. They come from people, every language and nation (not every individual).
7. To those who have responded to God’s pervasive, a saving grace is offered.
8. To those who respond to the saving grace, eternal grace is offered.
9. But to those who have no response to pervasive grace, any additional grace is fruitless.
10. To these God will withdraw even the pervasive grace to render a judgment of reduced grace (perhaps even merciless).
11. This judgment is continuous and everlasting.

I also understand that the idea of divine grace upon grace is the classic Calvinist system. God initiates through pervasive grace, first love. To those who respond God gives a greater grace, greater love. God’s election is in choosing a relationship based on grace upon grace (as opposed to choosing by caste, ethnicity or some other preordained systems).

Michael, if summary is incorrect or missing something you are welcomed to clarify.

RVallimont

[Andy]

Sherman, JaelSister

You make some excellent points.

The purpose of election is so that the non-elect might be saved. The elect are chosen as ministers of reconciliation. And even among the elect some are chosen as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers so that all the elect might be equipped in the ministry of reconciliation.

“Ministers of reconciliation”. I really like that definition of election!

Hi johnny:

It’s from 2Cor. 5.

When you bear that glorious passage in mind, re-read Eph. 1, and it puts election/predestination in its true… and totally awe-inspiring… context, which is what I believe Sherman was so eloquently proposing.

"…In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

I don’t believe the Calvinists are so much wrong about election/predestination being a reality as they are about what the elect are being elected to do. They see election as an end in itself, when what Paul is clearly (at least to me!) telling the Ephesians is that predestined election is part of **the means **for God’s “… plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

Peace and blessings,

Andy

[Melchizedek]

He will save His people from their sins - Matt. 20:28

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep - John 10:11

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood - Acts 20:28

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor - Eph. 5:25-27

He who did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? - Rom. 8:32-34

Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish. He did not say this of His own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad - John 11:50-53

And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open it’s seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation - Rev. 5:9

Ephesians would like a word with you…

[JasonPratt]

Ephesians would like a word with you…

Michael converted to Eastern Orthodoxy not long afterward, so I gather he doesn’t believe LimAtone anymore.

[Username1]

I don’t believe the Calvinists are so much wrong about election/predestination being a reality as they are about what the elect are being elected to do. They see election as an end in itself, when what Paul is clearly (at least to me!) telling the Ephesians is that predestined election is part of the means for God’s “… plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.”

With you all the way on that one, brother.

Shalom

Johnny

[stuartd]

He will save His people from their sins - Matt. 20:28

It is true that salvation was to be offered to the Jews (His people) first but when they rejected the message of salvation it became open to all:
and just like the Jews the Christians have rejected the message also but perhaps GOD designed it this way from the beginning as his way of firstly saving the entire world.

“He came unto His own and His own received Him not, but as many as received Him to them gave He power to become the son’s of God.”
“His people” are now the ‘whosoever will’.

It’s pretty easy to post a bunch of proof-texts, Cole. But if you want to make 'em stick, you have to follow up with at least some exegesis. Otherwise a fellow could make the mistake that you were just being provocative for the sake of being provocative.

now now whats wrong about being provocative
Wow! I hope I’ve given enough exegesis - you’re getting me worried Johnny but it’s past our bedtime.
Sweet dreams my friend.

[sven]

I think the bible taught actually limited atonement, UNTIl the point of Peter’s vision as described in Acts 10

Universalism is fully revealed in Paul’s letters in my opinion though there are hints in the gospels