ECT A challenge to Calvinism on limited atonement

[chrysostom]

No.

what is paul's gospel?

 

[Totton Linnet]

I don't believe in Limited Atonement, but I do believe in Particular Redemption.

The cross is a sweet savour to those who are being saved but the stench of death to those who reject it.

Thar's folk out there who are the devil's children, no wait a minute, they are not out there, they are right among us...the tares [sown by the enemy] were right in among the wheat.

The church gets so bogged down trying to reason with them and save them she wearies herself and evangelism comes to a grinding halt.

Just announce the gospel...let GOD sort out who will be saved by it.

 

[Nang]

Nothing from anyone, so far, to convince our Christian preacher not to quote Paul's Gospel verbatim. Quoting Paul word for word ensures he never falls foul of Paul's curse.

'Christ died for our sins' is not the same as 'Christ died for the elect'.

Nonsense . . .

You are advocating a superstition which is witchcraft, by reducing the gospel message given by Paul, to just a few words to chant to ward off a supposed curse.

And you are doing this on an exclusively Christian forum, where the Gospel is considered to be all the words of promise from God.

Matthew 4:4

 

[Crucible]

It's funny how Catholics hold to Particular Judgement, but shy away from Calvin's Particular Redemption (Limited Atonement).

 

[Tambora]

Genesis 22:8
Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”

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

Right.

Abraham believed the word of God and trusted that God would work out all the details.
If Abraham's son, Isaac, was to be killed, then it was up to God to find a way to fulfill the promise, not Abraham.
Abraham did not refuse to offer (kill) Isaac, even though it seemed to be in opposition of God's promise.

God told him Isaac was the promised one.
God told him to offer Isaac.
Abraham did not say, "But but but, won't that be against your promise, Lord?"
He left it up to God to fulfill the promise.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Abe was testifying to the resurrection

 

[Tambora]

Abe was testifying to the resurrection

I agree, in that Abe would leave it up to God as to how Isaac would be given life so as to fulfill the promise.

 

[Sonnet]

what is paul's gospel?

It would vary but 1 Cor 15:3-8 has the essentials.

 

[Sonnet]

I don't believe in Limited Atonement, but I do believe in Particular Redemption.

They are the same.

 

[Sonnet]

Nonsense . . .

You are advocating a superstition which is witchcraft, by reducing the gospel message given by Paul, to just a few words to chant to ward off a supposed curse.

Then you have misunderstood me. Paul describes 1 Cor 15:3-8 as the gospel and he preached it.

And you are doing this on an exclusively Christian forum, where the Gospel is considered to be all the words of promise from God.

Matthew 4:4

Right. And?

 

[Totton Linnet]

They are the same.

They are not the same, It was the shedding of Christ's blood which enabled God to send the Holy Ghost, IMPOSSIBLE before for He would have had to instantly slay every appearance of sin. Man is created from one blood...Christ shed His blood to the last drop.

....unlimited atonement allows God still to have mercy on men and women even while they are in sin. I mean for example hospitals, medicine and welfare. Unlimited atonement has lifted all society.

.....and I believe in the wider mercy

 

[Lon]

lain:

↓

:doh: I was tired last night. Apologies. I meant that we vary as Calvinists.

 

[Lon]

I meant, what would you say to the preacher who considered it wise to preach Paul's Corinthian Gospel VERBATIM so that he (the preacher) could never fall foul of Paul's curse?

Well, you and I disagree who his audience was.

No, if Christ didn't die for them then they are unable to believe because they wont be regenerated. They're stuffed aren't they?

It'd be mutual: they don't want God, God didn't regenerate them. You'd think man was innocent the way most anti-Calvinists see it?

But, de facto, it's a different Gospel. Under inquiry, you'd be forced to admit that Christ did not die for all. That is totally different.

No. "de facto" means according to fact. I think you are meaning by implication, but implication doesn't mean guilt.

In fact, isn't it actually the Arminian position that "Christ died for you" (I know of no scripture that says this as clearly as it would need to be said to refute a Calvinist understanding). Do I accuse you of preaching another gospel? No, I'll leave that accusation off the table.

Paul could have resisted. Acts 26:19.

:think: Romans 9 "For who can resist His will?"

Ok.

I needed to correct 'some Calvinists more Calvinist than others.' It was late. I meant that there is not agreement across board among us.

Actually, Dort has it that God did not elect because he foreknew:

Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of every saving good. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, “He chose us” (not because we were, but) “so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

Agreed.

 

[Sonnet]

They are not the same, It was the shedding of Christ's blood which enabled God to send the Holy Ghost, IMPOSSIBLE before for He would have had to instantly slay every appearance of sin. Man is created from one blood...Christ shed His blood to the last drop.

....unlimited atonement allows God still to have mercy on men and women even while they are in sin. I mean for example hospitals, medicine and welfare. Unlimited atonement has lifted all society.

.....and I believe in the wider mercy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement :


Limited atonement (or definite atonement or particular redemption)................

 

[Sonnet]

Well, you and I disagree who his audience was.

Sorry? The audience for a preacher?

So are you alluding to the argument that Paul's letter was for believing Corinthians? Again, that leads to two gospels.

My argument was in the context of any Christian preacher.

It'd be mutual: they don't want God, God didn't regenerate them. You'd think man was innocent the way most anti-Calvinists see it?

I have already said that I consider men to be depraved.

No. "de facto" means according to fact. I think you are meaning by implication, but implication doesn't mean guilt.

In fact, isn't it actually the Arminian position that "Christ died for you" (I know of no scripture that says this as clearly as it would need to be said to refute a Calvinist understanding). Do I accuse you of preaching another gospel? No, I'll leave that accusation off the table.

Paul said: 'This is what we preach' - present tense. Quite simply, Paul had been, was at the time, and would continue to preach the Gospel. That Gospel would include words to the effect that 'Christ died for our sins'. His auditors are told and understand that Christ died for their sins. It explains what actually occurred. Those that have never heard of Christ would want to know such information.

Anyone who makes a material change to the Gospel, including the provision of Christ's death, Paul curses.

'Christ died for you' equates to 'Christ died for our sins'.

:think: Romans 9 "For who can resist His will?"

In context - who can resist God's will in choosing to provide salvation through Jesus Christ RATHER THAN THE EFFORTS OF MEN THROUGH WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. In Romans 9 - Paul addresses such Israelites who thought they could fulfil the law.

Just look at Paul's summary of all that he wrote there:

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

I needed to correct 'some Calvinists more Calvinist than others.' It was late. I meant that there is not agreement across board among us.

No problem.

Agreed.

Dort has conflated faith and 'good quality' - faith is not a work.

 

[Sonnet]

Nonsense . . .

You are advocating a superstition which is witchcraft, by reducing the gospel message given by Paul, to just a few words to chant to ward off a supposed curse.

Not at all. The exact words don't have to be used. Let's not forget that when a preacher is confronted with someone who has never heard of Jesus, then the preacher would want to explain what He (Christ) did. Part of that process would involve words to the equivalent of 'Christ died for our sins.'

The preacher, who when asked, 'Did Christ die for all men?', and replied in the negative, would not be delivering the same Gospel as Paul preached.

Are you denying that Paul and the Apostles preached the equivalent of 1 Cor 3-8 (plus, of course, other details about Christ's life)? Yes or no?

Whether, then it is I or they, this is what we preach and this is what you believed.

 

[Lon]

Sorry? The audience for a preacher?

So are you alluding to the argument that Paul's letter was for believing Corinthians? Again, that leads to two gospels.

Cutting to the chase, even if there were two gospels, there is only one now so it is a bit moot.

My argument was in the context of any Christian preacher.

I can say "Christ died for sinners." Though you are comfortable with an equivocation of your understanding to be "Christ died for you," I don't believe it is necessary in conveyance. A man or woman, hearing the gospel, will only ever respond in one of two ways.

I have already said that I consider men to be depraved.

Thanks. If this is the case, and all men are without excuse (Romans 1:20), is there any scenario that could truly be an indictment against God? We Calvinists get this indictment all the time as if men truly did or do have 'an excuse.' If not, we may not understand election, but it cannot logically, imho, be unjust. I understand fully it can look that way and often does to one not wrestling, but logically, I don't think it the necessary derivative (again 'if' men are guilty and without excuse).

I too, realize that's Arminian and other non-Calvinist goals as well. That is why I'm not too overtly hung up on disagreements here. We are using our brains to try and balance scriptures in such a way that we see the fault lying with sinful man, and not God. For me, the actual concerns that we are trying to address greatly levels the playing field. We are contesting which theological position best meets the needs of those concerns. I 'think' Calvinism tenable to the scriptures, even with a few misgivings on the cursory or display-view of another. I think I understand those misgivings and even appreciate I may not adequately resolve them for another but I do think the Calvinist position is explainable and adherent to scripture, and I do find that it exemplifies the love of God, especially if 'there is none righteous' or innocent.

Paul said: 'This is what we preach' - present tense.

Yes, but note he isn't given a "direct quote" there. He is simply describing what he preaches, not giving 'what to preach' or 'what he preaches' word for word. That is, he is given the content without dictation. I don't believe I see "died for your sins" as part of that expression. I realize you do, but I think it an imposition, at least potentially I'd hope you can see, upon the text.

Quite simply, Paul had been, was at the time, and would continue to preach the Gospel. That Gospel would include words to the effect that 'Christ died for our sins'. His auditors are told and understand that Christ died for their sins. It explains what actually occurred. Those that have never heard of Christ would want to know such information.

Again, I'm making a differentiation between what he is telling and instructing his Christian audience concerning, and what the content is for the gospel rather than a word for word dictation.

Anyone who makes a material change to the Gospel, including the provision of Christ's death, Paul curses.

Agreed, BUT is that what Calvinists are doing? Again, I'm not convinced Paul gave a word-for-word dialogue that must be given precisely, but was rather explaining to those who were evangelized and presumed saved. To me, there is a difference.

'Christ died for you' equates to 'Christ died for our sins'.

Again, 1) I believe direct quotes from scripture are more essential than our intimations, translations, or summaries. 2) I believe "Christ died for sins and sinners" and even "and you are one of them" is effectual. It conveys to them the truth imho.

In context - who can resist God's will in choosing to provide salvation through Jesus Christ RATHER THAN THE EFFORTS OF MEN THROUGH WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. In Romans 9 - Paul addresses such Israelites who thought they could fulfil the law.

Just look at Paul's summary of all that he wrote there:

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

I appreciate your thoughts and your contextual exegesis. I'd simply say at this point to realize there are commentaries by learned men that disagree and are worth checking lest I reinvent the wheel in chat here. We can go that direction, but I can think of several of them that I think do a more than adequate job.

Dort has conflated faith and 'good quality' - faith is not a work.

Specifically because "this is not of yourselves, lest any should boast" is inclusive of faith being part of that gifted package. I sympathize quite a bit with the non-Calvinist on this point, but I'm convinced the next verse (Ephesians 2:10) reminds us that we have nothing we have not been given and that we are even yet "His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." In Him -Lon

 

[beloved57]

lon

Cutting to the chase, even if there were two gospels, there is only one now so it is a bit moot.

His claim of two gospels is fictitious, in fact his whole reasoning is. Pauls audience would have been comprised of Two sorts, the saved and the lost, but the gospel message would have been the same to either group.

 

[Sonnet]

lon



His claim of two gospels is fictitious, in fact his whole reasoning is. Pauls audience would have been comprised of Two sorts, the saved and the lost, but the gospel message would have been the same to either group.

If you accept that Paul preached 'Christ died for our sins' to both believers and unbelievers then you cannot be a five-pointer - you must reject limited atonement.

 

[Sonnet]

Cutting to the chase, even if there were two gospels, there is only one now so it is a bit moot.
I can say "Christ died for sinners." Though you are comfortable with an equivocation of your understanding to be "Christ died for you," I don't believe it is necessary in conveyance. A man or woman, hearing the gospel, will only ever respond in one of two ways.

? I'm not fully following what you are saying.

If there is only one gospel then the words Paul uses in 1 Cor 15:3-8 may be used irrespective of the audience, right?

Thanks. If this is the case, and all men are without excuse (Romans 1:20), is there any scenario that could truly be an indictment against God? We Calvinists get this indictment all the time as if men truly did or do have 'an excuse.' If not, we may not understand election, but it cannot logically, imho, be unjust. I understand fully it can look that way and often does to one not wrestling, but logically, I don't think it the necessary derivative (again 'if' men are guilty and without excuse).

You are okay that God picked you but not someone else...for no other reason than...well - for what reason? You are okay with that?

I too, realize that's Arminian and other non-Calvinist goals as well. That is why I'm not too overtly hung up on disagreements here. We are using our brains to try and balance scriptures in such a way that we see the fault lying with sinful man, and not God. For me, the actual concerns that we are trying to address greatly levels the playing field. We are contesting which theological position best meets the needs of those concerns. I 'think' Calvinism tenable to the scriptures, even with a few misgivings on the cursory or display-view of another. I think I understand those misgivings and even appreciate I may not adequately resolve them for another but I do think the Calvinist position is explainable and adherent to scripture, and I do find that it exemplifies the love of God, especially if 'there is none righteous' or innocent.

If the doctrines of Calvinism lead to the preaching of another Gospel - a different one for unbelievers - then it's a serious matter.

Telling the world that Christ did not die for all men remains shocking. Such preaching could, by its very discriminatory nature, almost never hope to bring people to Christ. It would rather have the very opposite effect.

Yes, but note he isn't given a "direct quote" there. He is simply describing what he preaches, not giving 'what to preach' or 'what he preaches' word for word. That is, he is given the content without dictation. I don't believe I see "died for your sins" as part of that expression. I realize you do, but I think it an imposition, at least potentially I'd hope you can see, upon the text.

THIS is what we preach and THIS is what you believed. What else can 'THIS' be other than what he just wrote? No, it does not have to be the exact same words, but, which ever words are chosen, they must convey the same meaning as verses 3-11. If they convey a different meaning, then Paul's curse is invoked.

Again, I'm making a differentiation between what he is telling and instructing his Christian audience concerning, and what the content is for the gospel rather than a word for word dictation.
Agreed, BUT is that what Calvinists are doing? Again, I'm not convinced Paul gave a word-for-word dialogue that must be given precisely, but was rather explaining to those who were evangelized and presumed saved. To me, there is a difference.

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!

That which is preached to believers MUST NOT DIFFER MATERIALLY FROM THAT WHICH IS PREACHED TO UNBELIEVERS.

"If anybody is preaching to you (believing Galatians) a gospel other than what you accepted (when they were unbelievers), let them be under God’s curse!"

'Christ died for some men' does not equal 'Christ died for all men.'

Again, 1) I believe direct quotes from scripture are more essential than our intimations, translations, or summaries. 2) I believe "Christ died for sins and sinners" and even "and you are one of them" is effectual. It conveys to them the truth imho.

Christ died for our sins is more explicit.

I appreciate your thoughts and your contextual exegesis. I'd simply say at this point to realize there are commentaries by learned men that disagree and are worth checking lest I reinvent the wheel in chat here. We can go that direction, but I can think of several of them that I think do a more than adequate job.

Specifically because "this is not of yourselves, lest any should boast" is inclusive of faith being part of that gifted package. I sympathize quite a bit with the non-Calvinist on this point, but I'm convinced the next verse (Ephesians 2:10) reminds us that we have nothing we have not been given and that we are even yet "His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus." In Him -Lon

I believe it occurs synergistically.