ECT Limited Atonement is a false gospel

[Doom]

R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries defines "Limited Atonement" like this:

"I prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. I rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, which communicates that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect, and that Christ died for His sheep and laid down His life for those the Father had given to Him."

He goes on to say:

"Our view is that the redemption of specific sinners was an eternal plan of God, and this plan and design was perfectly conceived and perfectly executed so that the will of God to save His people is accomplished by the atoning work of Christ."

On the other hand, the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians explicitly states, in the gospel, that Jesus died for OUR sins (1 Cor 15:3). This is the message that Paul preached to all men. If the "OUR" was designated to "specific sinners", as Sproul suggests, then Paul was lying to all other sinners, as is God, for Paul received his gospel from God.

To say you believe (obey) the gospel, is to believe that Jesus died for OUR sins. To say that Jesus died for "specific sinners" is to believe a false gospel (or specifically, no gospel at all). You cannot be saved by believing another message that excludes the once for ALL sacrifice for sin, and lay claim to having believed God's testimony concerning His Son. It is tantamount to believing in another Jesus, or denying the resurrection.

The error that leads to the conclusion of limited/definite atonement is found in the view that men are saved by the death of Jesus on the cross. Again Paul says otherwise:

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Rom 5:10

Had Jesus not died for OUR sins, no one would be in a position to receive the gift of life (Rom 5:18). It is His life that saves us, and His death made that possible.

You simply cannot be in Christ and lay claim to believing in a limited/definite atonement.

 

[Nick M]

I agree. They are outside the faith and should not be called a "brother in Christ" or something similar.

 

[oatmeal]

Atonement is not limited to any particular group of people for all people could choose God.

Who chooses God is up to the individual and the individual alone.

God calls, individuals decide themselves if they will answer.

However, since God has foreknowledge, he already knows from before the foundation of the world who would choose wisely. Ephesians 1:4

Since God has foreknowledge, and if you wish, forewisdom, He wisely chose those who would choose to believe.

 

[beloved57]

Limited Atonement is a false gospel

Sorry but there is No Gospel of God's Grace without it !

 

[Christian Liberty]

Paul wasn't lying ot the other sinners. There is no man who believes that Christ did not shed his blood for. Christ's sacrifice alone was sufficient to save any who he wanted, and as many as he wanted. But, he only represented a portion of all types of people. That is the Biblical view.

 

[Doom]

there is No Gospel of God's Grace with it !

Fixed it.

 

[beloved57]

Paul wasn't lying ot the other sinners. There is no man who believes that Christ did not shed his blood for. Christ's sacrifice alone was sufficient to save any who he wanted, and as many as he wanted. But, he only represented a portion of all types of people. That is the Biblical view.

Invalid comments !

 

[Doom]

Paul wasn't lying ot the other sinners. There is no man who believes that Christ did not shed his blood for. Christ's sacrifice alone was sufficient to save any who he wanted, and as many as he wanted. But, he only represented a portion of all types of people. That is the Biblical view.

No, it is the reformed view, which is nothing close to the biblical view.

No one can be or is saved that accepts the doctrine of limited/definite atonement. It is absolutely contrary to the gospel that Jesus died not only for OUR sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

"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."

The death of Jesus was the once for all sacrifice for all men, for all sin, for all time. It is finished. Limited/definite atonement proponents reject this, thus rejecting Jesus. He has brought salvation to all that all who believe will be saved.

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If (as you claim) God chooses who is saved and who is not then the above statement is foolish because God would KNOW that none of His could or would perish.

The fact that He wishes that none perish reveals the possibility that men can choose to perish, and removes the other false doctrine of unconditional election.

 

[Nang]

No, it is the reformed view, which is nothing close to the biblical view.

No one can be or is saved that accepts the doctrine of limited/definite atonement. It is absolutely contrary to the gospel that Jesus died not only for OUR sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

"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."

The death of Jesus was the once for all sacrifice for all men, for all sin, for all time. It is finished. Limited/definite atonement proponents reject this, thus rejecting Jesus. He has brought salvation to all that all who believe will be saved.

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If (as you claim) God chooses who is saved and who is not then the above statement is foolish because God would KNOW that none of His could or would perish.

The fact that He wishes that none perish reveals the possibility that men can choose to perish, and removes the other false doctrine of unconditional election.

Who was Peter addressing in this epistle? Fellow Christian Jews, who were being mocked about Christ's less than imminent return. Peter was promising them that the Lord's delay was purposed for "salvation" of future believers, as Paul also taught. II Peter 3:15

Not a single soul given by the Father to the Son to redeem (Ephesians 1:3-4), will perish in their sins. They will all be saved 100% and then the Lord will return.

This passage does not teach Universal Atonement at all. And it validates the doctrine of Unconditional Election.

 

[beloved57]

No, it is the reformed view, which is nothing close to the biblical view.

No one can be or is saved that accepts the doctrine of limited/definite atonement. It is absolutely contrary to the gospel that Jesus died not only for OUR sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

"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."

The death of Jesus was the once for all sacrifice for all men, for all sin, for all time. It is finished. Limited/definite atonement proponents reject this, thus rejecting Jesus. He has brought salvation to all that all who believe will be saved.

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If (as you claim) God chooses who is saved and who is not then the above statement is foolish because God would KNOW that none of His could or would perish.

The fact that He wishes that none perish reveals the possibility that men can choose to perish, and removes the other false doctrine of unconditional election.

No one is saved if they don't believe limited atonement ! They are yet abiding in unbelief and death spiritual !

 

[Christian Liberty]

Invalid comments !

I take the same position as you do on the issue and you attack me for it. That's... odd to say the least...

No, it is the reformed view, which is nothing close to the biblical view.

No one can be or is saved that accepts the doctrine of limited/definite atonement. It is absolutely contrary to the gospel that Jesus died not only for OUR sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

"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."

The death of Jesus was the once for all sacrifice for all men, for all sin, for all time. It is finished. Limited/definite atonement proponents reject this, thus rejecting Jesus. He has brought salvation to all that all who believe will be saved.

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

If (as you claim) God chooses who is saved and who is not then the above statement is foolish because God would KNOW that none of His could or would perish.

The fact that He wishes that none perish reveals the possibility that men can choose to perish, and removes the other false doctrine of unconditional election.

Romans 9, John 6, John 10, 1 Corinthians 1, and Ephesians 1 all clearly teach that God elects who will and will not be saved (this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of passages that teach this.)

Isaiah 10 and Isaiah 46 are clear that the true living God predestines ALL which occurs, not only good, but evil for a good purpose as well.

John 10:15 is very clear about the doctrine you call "limited atonement." John 10:26-27 is clear that the reason the Pharisees did not believe is because Christ did not die for them.

You are welcome to say that I "reject Jesus" because I believe God actually accomplished his ENTIRE OBJECTIVE on the cross. I will not say that all Arminians who have an insufficient understanding of this issue are not Christians. But, in condemning the truth you condemn yourself, IMO.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Who was Peter addressing in this epistle? Fellow Christian Jews, who were being mocked about Christ's less than imminent return. Peter was promising them that the Lord's delay was purposed for "salvation" of future believers, as Paul also taught. II Peter 3:15

Not a single soul given by the Father to the Son to redeem (Ephesians 1:3-4), will perish in their sins. They will all be saved 100% and then the Lord will return.

This passage does not teach Universal Atonement at all. And it validates the doctrine of Unconditional Election.

Yes, but that would require actually reading the Bible

 

[beloved57]

I take the same position as you do on the issue and you attack me for it. That's... odd to say the least...


Romans 9, John 6, John 10, 1 Corinthians 1, and Ephesians 1 all clearly teach that God elects who will and will not be saved (this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of passages that teach this.)

Isaiah 10 and Isaiah 46 are clear that the true living God predestines ALL which occurs, not only good, but evil for a good purpose as well.

John 10:15 is very clear about the doctrine you call "limited atonement." John 10:26-27 is clear that the reason the Pharisees did not believe is because Christ did not die for them.

You are welcome to say that I "reject Jesus" because I believe God actually accomplished his ENTIRE OBJECTIVE on the cross. I will not say that all Arminians who have an insufficient understanding of this issue are not Christians. But, in condemning the truth you condemn yourself, IMO.

You are deluded, you don't believe the Gospel !

 

[Nang]

On the other hand, the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians explicitly states, in the gospel, that Jesus died for OUR sins (1 Cor 15:3).

Of course, for Paul was addressing the church at Corinth. The "our" was Paul and his Christian brethren.

This is the message that Paul preached to all men.

The words recorded here, were specifically addressed to the Corinthian believers. Paul uses other language preaching the gospel in other places; namely to the Roman believers, where he taught Jesus Christ saved "many." Romans 5:19

It is disingenuous to demand that the gospel message be limited to I Corinthians 15:1-3 and at the same time declare this is the message to be given to ALL, while in the same breath declaring that the Jews were given a different gospel, etc, etc.

You are not consistent in your apologetics (polemics ?) at all, but freely proof text from others than Paul, to push your MAD agenda, when you choose to see fit.

You contradict yourself quite often . . .

To say that Jesus died for "specific sinners" is to believe a false gospel (or specifically, no gospel at all).

The one true Gospel has always been particular in nature. For example:

"He (the promised Messiah) shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities . . And He bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:11-12b

No "alls" or "ours" but "many" referring to those He represented as Federal Head and Mediator.

The error that leads to the conclusion of limited/definite atonement is found in the view that men are saved by the death of Jesus on the cross. Again Paul says otherwise:

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Rom 5:10

Had Jesus not died for OUR sins, no one would be in a position to receive the gift of life (Rom 5:18). It is His life that saves us, and His death made that possible.

You simply cannot be in Christ and lay claim to believing in a limited/definite atonement.

Now I think I am realizing who I am actually having discussion with. Note: I disagree with your OP, and am merely stating my disagreement.

I am not, as Inzle wrongly claims, provoking you to have another one of your temper tantrums.

Freedom of speech, and all, that remember . . .

 

[Christian Liberty]

You are deluded, you don't believe the Gospel !

What gospel doctrine do I reject?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No one is saved if they don't believe limited atonement ! They are yet abiding in unbelief and death spiritual !

Er, no. This is hyperbolic to the extreme.

The average person so believing is confused, but this does not mean they are reprobates. As is often humorously stated, they may be Christians, but just barely.

Worth a read:
View attachment 19170

AMR

 

[Christian Liberty]

Er, no. This is hyperbolic to the extreme.

The average person so believing is confused, but this does not mean they are reprobates. As is often humorously stated, they may be Christians, but just barely.

AMR

I think almost all of the non-Reformed people on this website, unless they are deliberately trolling, have made it very clear that they aren't Christians. Extremely clear.

But, I think I would need a more explicit teaching of this doctrine as gospel doctrine before I would be willing to take the absolutely no exceptions position B57 is taking. I am sympathetic to it because unlimited atonemnet clearly portrays Christ and his sacrifice in a different light. But its not quite clear enough for me to say that.

There's a difference between somebody who just doesn't get it and most of the people here, though. Just IMO.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The answer I would give is that discriminating grace is achieved not by a limited atonement but by the active working of the Holy Spirit when the gospel is preached.

 

[Nang]

I think almost all of the non-Reformed people on this website, unless they are deliberately trolling, have made it very clear that they aren't Christians. Extremely clear.

But, I think I would need a more explicit teaching of this doctrine as gospel doctrine before I would be willing to take the absolutely no exceptions position B57 is taking. I am sympathetic to it because unlimited atonemnet clearly portrays Christ and his sacrifice in a different light. But its not quite clear enough for me to say that.

There's a difference between somebody who just doesn't get it and most of the people here, though. Just IMO.

It is my opinion, that understanding Limited Atonement is vital to upholding Unconditional Election. If LA goes down, the doctrine of Election goes down, the result being, the Reformed faith is seriously stricken, weakened, and inconsistent to say the least.

That is why LA is the most argued and opposed of the five major doctrinal points.

You are quite aware of the Amyraldian argument that Reformers can supposedly and successfully hold to only 4 of the doctrines, but it has been my experience it most often fails, and the 4-pointer eventually ends up back in the Arminian camp to some degree or other.

I do not think any of us have the right or the knowledge to declare someone reprobate for any reason. None of us are the Judge of others' fate . . however, I think it is failing in our witness to be too soft when standing for Limited Atonement, considering it is absolute TRUTH.

Why would any of us suggest any part of God's TRUTH be neglected or our faithful and biblical defense be considered unnecessary?

(And that goes for wrong Eschatology, too!)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

There's a difference between somebody who just doesn't get it and most of the people here, though. Just IMO.

Yes there is a difference between the willfully entrenched that are not open to correction and the genuinely confused.

I prefer not to make sweeping generalizations. After all, specific folks are members here so we have their own words to form opinions and judgement about. I'd rather we deal in specifics than sweep a majority, e.g., your "almost all", into a categorical opinion. There are hundreds of members at this site but we often tend to form opinions by the 30-50 or so genuinely active and vocal members. This is the error of recency effects in statistics. Go to the Forum Leaderboard page and set the option to view top posters to something like 50 or more. These are the ones that most form sweeping casual opinions about the entire population of members. For example, the top 50 current posters are:

1 Lighthouse 34,184
2 godrulz 33,505
3 chrysostom 33,126
4 Grosnick Marowbe 32,841
5 Knight 31,219
6 beloved57 29,592
7 Nick M 28,260
8 Untellectual 27,987
9 john w 26,924
10 Town Heretic 26,105
11 Stripe 25,039
12 Granite 24,992
13 Angel4Truth 24,501
14 SaulToPaul 20,988
15 God's Truth 20,475
16 resurrected 19,824
17 tetelestai 19,815
18 glorydaz 19,514
19 meshak 19,139
20 kmoney 18,724
21 Tambora 18,644
22 Cruciform 18,298
23 bybee 17,625
24 Rusha 17,010
25 elohiym 16,985
26 The Barbarian 16,809
27 aCultureWarrior 15,720
28 graceandpeace 15,260
29 BillyBob 15,169
30 Totton Linnet 14,682
31 some other dude 14,628
32 Delmar 14,612
33 genuineoriginal 14,513
34 Lazy afternoon 14,094
35 noguru 13,944
36 Robert Pate 13,818
37 oatmeal 13,761
38 Arthur Brain 12,716
39 Nang 12,640
40 Cross Reference 12,611
41 Eeset 12,470
42 Squeaky 12,397
43 Inzl Kett 12,222
44 Aimiel 12,168
45 keypurr 12,143
46 TruthSetsFree 12,009
47 Jerry Shugart 11,987
48 annabenedetti 11,727
49 Bright Raven 11,665
1 Lighthouse 34,184
2 godrulz 33,505
3 chrysostom 33,126
4 Grosnick Marowbe 32,841
5 Knight 31,219
6 beloved57 29,592
7 Nick M 28,260
8 Untellectual 27,987
9 john w 26,924
10 Town Heretic 26,105
11 Stripe 25,039
12 Granite 24,992
13 Angel4Truth 24,501
14 SaulToPaul 20,988
15 God's Truth 20,475
16 resurrected 19,824
17 tetelestai 19,815
18 glorydaz 19,514
19 meshak 19,139
20 kmoney 18,724
21 Tambora 18,644
22 Cruciform 18,298
23 bybee 17,625
24 Rusha 17,010
25 elohiym 16,985
26 The Barbarian 16,809
27 aCultureWarrior 15,720
28 graceandpeace 15,260
29 BillyBob 15,169
30 Totton Linnet 14,682
31 some other dude 14,628
32 Delmar 14,612
33 genuineoriginal 14,513
34 Lazy afternoon 14,094
35 noguru 13,944
36 Robert Pate 13,818
37 oatmeal 13,761
38 Arthur Brain 12,716
39 Nang 12,640
40 Cross Reference 12,611
41 Eeset 12,470
42 Squeaky 12,397
43 Inzl Kett 12,222
44 Aimiel 12,168
45 keypurr 12,143
46 TruthSetsFree 12,009
47 Jerry Shugart 11,987
48 annabenedetti 11,727
49 Bright Raven 11,665
50 serpentdove 11,582