ECT A challenge to Calvinism on limited atonement

Sonnet · Apr 25, 2016

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul is forthright in his warning against the preaching of Gospels other than that which the Galatians accepted:

Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

So it is helpful, then, that Paul provided a summary of the Gospel in his letter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Now the consistent Calvinist claims that such a Gospel was not and is not to be preached to the unsaved - otherwise it would mean telling them that, 'Christ died for our sins', thus contradicting their doctrine of limited atonement (that Jesus did not die for all men). They further support this by emphasising that Paul's letter is only addressed to the believing Corinthian church.

However, the Christian, mindful of Paul's curse, would be wise if he decided to use Paul's Gospel summary verbatim whenever he preached the Gospel since then he could never be accused of preaching a different Gospel. After all, he's only following Paul's warning isn't he?

If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

The Gospel preached must be the same as the Gospel accepted.

Now I challenge Calvinists to give a reason why a Christian should not preach Paul's Corinthian Gospel to unbelievers?

Sonnet · Apr 25, 2016

Please address the specifics of the OP so that the thread isn't derailed.
Thanks.

Crucible · Apr 25, 2016

Limited Atonement is known as 'Particular Redemption'.

Instead of a person being saved through believing in Christ, he rather believes in Christ because he is saved.

It is a doctrine that is immune to refutation, because it is a direct mirror to your presumptions.

Lon · Apr 25, 2016

Sonnet said:
Spoiler

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul is forthright in his warning against the preaching of Gospels other than that which the Galatians accepted:

Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

So it is helpful, then, that Paul provided a summary of the Gospel in his letter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Now the consistent Calvinist claims that such a Gospel was not and is not to be preached to the unsaved - otherwise it would mean telling them that, 'Christ died for our sins', thus contradicting their doctrine of limited atonement (that Jesus did not die for all men). They further support this by emphasising that Paul's letter is only addressed to the believing Corinthian church.

However, the Christian, mindful of Paul's curse, would be wise if he decided to use Paul's Gospel summary verbatim whenever he preached the Gospel since then he could never be accused of preaching a different Gospel. After all, he's only following Paul's warning isn't he?

If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

The Gospel preached must be the same as the Gospel accepted.

Now I challenge Calvinists to give a reason why a Christian should not preach Paul's Corinthian Gospel to unbelievers?

Not a different gospel:

I've got to address the greater accusation and will leave it to another to address your more specific concern about any limitation concerning atonement.
It isn't a change in the gospel. It is a change in the 'scope' of the gospel. The gospel is that Christ died to save sinners, and all who call on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ being saved. A pre-evangelized person who knows and understands the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, will need really only know this. One who doesn't know what He did or what it has to do with them, will have to have it explained.

The difference? Only the 'elect' will respond to such, however "ALL" Christians believe these are called the elect.

Limited Atonement: As to a 'limitation' only those who are 'made right' with God are 'atoned for' and that truth addresses, I think, a clear limitation. Only those made right are atoned.

beloved57 · Apr 26, 2016

crucible

Instead of a person being saved through believing in Christ, he rather believes in Christ because he is saved.

I agree with that statement. One must first be saved in order to believe. The Gospel is hid to them that are lost 2 Cor 4:3

³But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

Crucible said:
Limited Atonement is known as 'Particular Redemption'.

Instead of a person being saved through believing in Christ, he rather believes in Christ because he is saved.

It is a doctrine that is immune to refutation, because it is a direct mirror to your presumptions.

But none of this refutes the OP.

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

Lon said:
Not a different gospel:

I've got to address the greater accusation and will leave it to another to address your more specific concern about any limitation concerning atonement.
It isn't a change in the gospel. It is a change in the 'scope' of the gospel. The gospel is that Christ died to save sinners, and all who call on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ being saved. A pre-evangelized person who knows and understands the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, will need really only know this. One who doesn't know what He did or what it has to do with them, will have to have it explained.

The Gospel, 'Christ died for our sins' is not the same as 'Christ died for the elect'. Honesty demands that when speaking to the public on matters concerning what one considers to be the good news of what Jesus did - that one tells it candidly. To tell your audience that Christ died to save sinners without revealing your view that he did not die for all is disingenuous.

The difference? Only the 'elect' will respond to such, however "ALL" Christians believe these are called the elect.

Limited Atonement: As to a 'limitation' only those who are 'made right' with God are 'atoned for' and that truth addresses, I think, a clear limitation. Only those made right are atoned.

1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

The Gospel Calvinists preach is, de facto, a different Gospel. Paul and the Apostles preached the Gospel of 1 Corinthians 3-8. Paul also cursed those who preached a different Gospel.

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

The Christian who is mindful of Paul's curse on those that preach a different Gospel CANNOT then be criticised for preaching word for word as Paul did (in 1 Cor 15:3-8) whenever he shares the good news. He is just following Paul's warning. Doing so entails telling unbelievers, 'Christ died for your sins.'

So, if you disagree, please explain why he should not do so?

Lon · Apr 26, 2016

Sonnet said:
The Gospel, 'Christ died for our sins' is not the same as 'Christ died for the elect'. Honesty demands that when speaking to the public on matters concerning what one considers to be the good news of what Jesus did - that one tells it candidly. To tell your audience that Christ died to save sinners without revealing your view that he did not die for all is disingenuous.

Romans 4:25 Romans 8:29-30 Same book, right?

Sonnet said:
1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Understood and appreciated. Personally, I simply tell people Christ died for sin. Even the Arminian might say at that point: "For your sin? If you accept it and call upon His name." There is a 'condition' or 'limitation.' The basic point of contention there is that we are granted repentance, imho. So what are we arguing? We are only arguing the reason one might accept or reject. It doesn't change the fact of acceptance/rejection.

Sonnet said:
The Gospel Calvinists preach is, de facto, a different Gospel. Paul and the Apostles preached the Gospel of 1 Corinthians 3-8. Paul also cursed those who preached a different Gospel.

1) Then we are heretics and you can ignore us 2) We are not, but you think that. I'd not want you to mistake your rejection against all of Christendom. I 'think' Paul gives both your statements above side-by-side in Romans, as given. Prove me wrong. I'm okay if you can. I would stop being a Calvinist if it was proven untrue in a fairly tenable manner.

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

And we know that Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers - Romans 15:20:

It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

What did Paul preach:

1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

Lon said:
Romans 4:25 Romans 8:29-30 Same book, right?

Yes.

Understood and appreciated. Personally, I simply tell people Christ died for sin. Even the Arminian might say at that point: "For your sin? If you accept it and call upon His name." There is a 'condition' or 'limitation.' The basic point of contention there is that we are granted repentance, imho. So what are we arguing? We are only arguing the reason one might accept or reject. It doesn't change the fact of acceptance/rejection.

Not quite following you Lon.

1) Then we are heretics and you can ignore us 2) We are not, but you think that. I'd not want you to mistake your rejection against all of Christendom. I 'think' Paul gives both your statements above side-by-side in Romans, as given. Prove me wrong. I'm okay if you can. I would stop being a Calvinist if it was proven untrue in a fairly tenable manner.

Not sure why you are quoting Romans 8. Those foreknow God predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son - God decided in advance that those who placed their faith in Christ would be transformed to be 'holy and blameless in his sight.'

Would appreciate you addressing the specifics of the OP.

Lon · Apr 26, 2016

Sonnet said:
Yes.

Good, so Paul gives an expression that 'looks' like election and predestination and another that looks like Christ's work is effectual for all (I agree but with a Calvinist understanding).

Sonnet said:
Not quite following you Lon.

In brief, we both see Christ's work as effectual, but see problems in the way another sees the application of that work. I'd simply say "Christ died to remove sin and save sinners." After that it "Believest thou this? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." I water, another plants, and ONLY God gives the increase.

Sonnet said:
Not sure why you are quoting Romans 8. Those foreknow God predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son - God decided in advance that those who placed their faith in Christ would be transformed to be 'holy and blameless in his sight.'

Quoting it to show that we are predestined. You were drawing both sentiments and setting them together as if they were opposed. I gave two scriptures that are in sync.

Sonnet said:
Would appreciate you addressing the specifics of the OP.

I believe that is exactly what I was doing, but continuing:

Sonnet said:
And we know that Paul preached the Gospel to unbelievers - Romans 15:20:
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

What did Paul preach:
1 Corinthians 15:11
Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

Yep. At the end of the conversation, we both agree that the one who calls on the name of the Lord is saved. "Our" is only effectual, whether you call or Christ enables you to call, by theology consideration, What I mean is this:
If you claim that Christ died for everyone, yet only those who call on the Name of the Lord are saved, there is no numerical difference between those who called/will call on the name of the Lord. An unbeliever is responsible for his/her calling or lack thereof. Functionally, it doesn't matter if you believe Christ died for him/her or not, it simply is a way to best understand how scripture fits together with other scriptures. That we disagree on the fitting? Undoubtedly. We Calvinists are not that many and I appreciate there are many who disagree with us. My goal is never 'to make a Calvinist' but to encourage others to read well their scriptures. Because I'm a Calvinist, I believe God is in charge of growing believers in His image, or rather vise versa - Ephesians 2:10 I truly believe, to whatever extent God is seen as involved in our lives and as we interact with Him, that is what informs our systematic theologies. I think too, because it is what we experience and understand about God from scriptures, that we are basically where that systematic theology takes us.

In a nutshell, I'm a Calvinist because I don't think God left me alone ala Romans 8:28 and Hebrews 12: 5-8 etc. Luke 19:10 says Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. Respectively, we either believe He couldn't save some, or that He was completely successful. 2 Peter 3:9 We will read this verse latching onto the same words, but understanding them differently based on whether we think there is a 'specific number and persons' or rather a general love that depends on man's responses. All we are arguing over is whether this lands in God's or man's court. I think we 'can' acquiesce a few points on either side of the discussion. Jesus Christ is the chief Cornerstone or the stone of stumbling respectively for every man and woman.

Crucible · Apr 26, 2016

Sonnet said:
But none of this refutes the OP.

It does refute the OP. By default.

God imputed righteousness on Abraham, as he was predestined- Calvinist doctrine conquers your interpretation :idunno:

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

Crucible said:
It does refute the OP. By default.

Instead of a person being saved through believing in Christ, he rather believes in Christ because he is saved.

Assertion.

It is a doctrine that is immune to refutation, because it is a direct mirror to your presumptions.

Which you haven't proven.

God imputed righteousness on Abraham, as he was predestined - Calvinist doctrine conquers your interpretation :idunno:

Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Nothing you have written actually deals with the specifics of the OP. This is a short version:

The Christian who is mindful of Paul's curse on those that preach a different Gospel CANNOT then be criticised for preaching word for word as Paul did (in 1 Cor. 15:3-8) whenever he shares the good news. He is just following Paul's warning. Doing so entails telling unbelievers, 'Christ died for your sins.'

Please explain why he should not do so?

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

Lon said:
Quoting it to show that we are predestined. You were drawing both sentiments and setting them together as if they were opposed. I gave two scriptures that are in sync.

Still not following you.

I believe that is exactly what I was doing

But I'm asking you to give a reason why a Christian should not preach Paul's Gospel verbatim? He (the Christian) is very aware that Paul has pronounced a curse on those that preach a different Gospel. He (the Christian) is just being careful. That's all.

What do you say to him?

, but continuing:

Yep. At the end of the conversation, we both agree that the one who calls on the name of the Lord is saved. "Our" is only effectual, whether you call or Christ enables you to call, by theology consideration, What I mean is this:
If you claim that Christ died for everyone, yet only those who call on the Name of the Lord are saved, there is no numerical difference between those who called/will call on the name of the Lord. An unbeliever is responsible for his/her calling or lack thereof.

If Christ didn't die for you then your only option is to fulfil the law. You are going to hold him responsible for that?

Functionally, it doesn't matter if you believe Christ died for him/her or not,

Really? For me, if it is a FACT that Christ died for me (and everyone) then I am compelled to acknowledge it. It DEMANDS a response. One might still reject it but it does grab one's attention.

The notion that Christ died for an elect, however, is something quite different. For me it demonstrates a flawed God.

it simply is a way to best understand how scripture fits together with other scriptures. That we disagree on the fitting? Undoubtedly. We Calvinists are not that many and I appreciate there are many who disagree with us. My goal is never 'to make a Calvinist'

I could never have faith in the Christ of Calvinism.

but to encourage others to read well their scriptures. Because I'm a Calvinist, I believe God is in charge of growing believers in His image, or rather vise versa - Ephesians 2:10 I truly believe, to whatever extent God is seen as involved in our lives and as we interact with Him, that is what informs our systematic theologies. I think too, because it is what we experience and understand about God from scriptures, that we are basically where that systematic theology takes us.

In a nutshell, I'm a Calvinist because I don't think God left me alone ala Romans 8:28 and Hebrews 12: 5-8 etc. Luke 19:10 says Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost. Respectively, we either believe He couldn't save some, or that He was completely successful. 2 Peter 3:9 We will read this verse latching onto the same words, but understanding them differently based on whether we think there is a 'specific number and persons' or rather a general love that depends on man's responses. All we are arguing over is whether this lands in God's or man's court. I think we 'can' acquiesce a few points on either side of the discussion. Jesus Christ is the chief Cornerstone or the stone of stumbling respectively for every man and woman.

I still cannot see how a man remains responsible if Christ did not die for him. He has no options. Yes, he is depraved. But God simply passed by him and chose others in your theology.

Sonnet · Apr 26, 2016

Crucible said:
It does refute the OP. By default.

God imputed righteousness on Abraham, as he was predestined- Calvinist doctrine conquers your interpretation :idunno:

Did Paul and the Apostles preach 1 Cor 15:3-8?

Lon · Apr 26, 2016

Sonnet said:
what do you say to him?

"Christ came to seek and save that which was lost. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and what He did, ad you will be saved." I wouldn't say "Christ died to save you" in those words.

Sonnet said:
If Christ didn't die for you then your only option is to fulfil the law. You are going to hold him responsible for that?

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." What are they believing? That Christ paid the penalty for sin. That all who call on the Name of the Lord will be saved. That when He saves us, we become a new workmanship, a new creation.

I can tell an unbeliever all of that.

Sonnet said:
Really? For me, if it is a FACT that Christ died for me (and everyone) then I am compelled to acknowledge it. It DEMANDS a response. One might still reject it but it does grab one's attention.

That is why the gospel message is given universally. The only point I'd disagree on is that "Christ died for your sin." It is true of everyone who calls on the name of the Lord, but I've no idea which person that is. God is not willing that any should perish. We can both give the message as we understand it, and I think the sinner will know what it means to be saved.

Sonnet said:
The notion that Christ died for an elect, however, is something quite different. For me it demonstrates a flawed God.

It is looking back from the 'end of history' as it were at all "who were saved" thus were called "the elect." Even Arminians hold to this kind of notion, they are seeing God as foreknowing who will come. Calvinist's go further and say God is more tenacious than that. He will even compel those resistant, like Saul2Paul to come.

Sonnet said:
I could never have faith in the Christ of Calvinism.

There aren't many that do. Fewer, I think, however. are those who have animosity toward us. Well, at least that's what I thought before I became one. I had a few friends who were Calvinists. They didn't shove it too hard. Just told me to read scriptures, perhaps read a few who I admired and call to personal attention that they were all Calvinist. I was actually surprised how many I liked that were Calvinists like J.I. Packer, Charles Spurgeon, Stephen Charnock, Busewell (systematic theology) and John Piper.

Sonnet said:
I still cannot see how a man remains responsible if Christ did not die for him. He has no options. Yes, he is depraved. But God simply passed by him and chose others in your theology.

Some Calvinists are more Calvinistic than others. It is, I think, important to realize even among us, we don't all agree. There is a scripture: Matthew 5:45 Act 4:11 Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:7-9 Then also John 3:19-21 Our Lord Jesus Christ came and I think both the Calvinist and others describe these scriptures the same way. In a sense, we are discussing and categorizing what God knew, how He knew it, and when He knew it and why. Most of us aren't debating that He does indeed know who, what, when, where, and why.

Crucible · Apr 26, 2016

Lon said:
Some Calvinists are more Calvinistic than others.

lain:

↓

Crucible · Apr 26, 2016

TULIP is the gospel- after you have been given the insight therein, you have no excuse in your rejection of it.

Crucible · Apr 26, 2016

^
You lose, automatically, by ~epic beard~

ECT A challenge to Calvinism on limited atonement

New member

New member

BANNED

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

BANNED

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

BANNED

BANNED

BANNED