The Issue of Limited Atonement

[Dizerner]

There is no sin nature and no total depravity in scripture. That started with Augustine

This is false and false.

Jesus said NO ONE IS GOOD and Paul said in his flesh is NO GOOD THING. As well has hundreds of others descriptions of a sin nature, such as literally being BORN children of wrath.

It did NOT start with Augustine. If Tertullian describes—perfectly and even as good or better than Augustine or whoever you want to commandeer—the doctrine of original sin, that we are born with a sin nature and sin permeates everything we do, than he believed in Original Sin TWO HUNDRED years before Augustine was born. Now we need to not spread misinformation. If we say "Augustine was the first to teach Original Sin," we are at best ignorant, and at worst, being actually dishonest. Because he simply was not. Maybe the first to teach Original Guilt, granted. That is irrelevant to OS.

You've been sharply corrected on this in the past, and have continued to spread lies and deception about it.

That's not honest.

Thread 'FOUR reasons I believe in the sinful nature. (original sin/ancestral sin/total depravity)'

Aug 17, 2023

PREFACE.

For those whom I have come across, who deny that humans have a sinful nature, that is a nature that is incapable of performing a righteously meritorious thought or action without supernatural undeserved grace from God, it all seems to stem back to the idea that, if God allows such a thing, it makes people victims instead of criminals, since no one can help sinning. And underneath that is the appeal to the idea that we can improve ourselves and polish up our genuinely good and pure nature underneath, a kind of self-esteem and self-improvement program to discover the...

• Dizerner
• Replies: 60
• Forum: Original Sin

 

[Dizerner]

Infants don’t need a savior , they haven’t sinned. They are innocent. That’s why even most Calvinists will admit they go to heaven which contradicts TD.

No, it does NOT contradict TD if Jesus DIED for infants and the atonement is applied in a DIFFERENT way.

Please be FACTUAL and not SPURIOUS in your criticisms.

The doctrine you are espousing is the self-righteous doctrine historically known as PELAGIANISM, that mankind is essentially PURE.

This alone shows the false teaching within Calvinism when it comes to the guilt and punishment that comes with a sin nature from birth.

You are CONFLATING two separate doctrines as one, which is very UNHELPFUL.

Also there are MORE non-Calvinists who believe in a sin nature than their are Calvinists, so it is a NON-DISTINCTIVE element.

You have been shown these errors in the past and still STUBBORNLY refuse to stop misrepresenting things.

 

[civic]

The murdered infant remains “sinless” (according to your POV), but the infant that survives, grows up to sin and “few” find the narrow path.

As a monergist, I place it all at the feet and in the hands of God (infant, adult, old age … makes no difference: Romans 9:15-16 applies to all of them)

no killing the innocent is murder no way to escape that fact.

 

[atpollard]

no killing the innocent is murder no way to escape that fact.

That condemns the DOCTOR, not the infant. Yet if infants are SINLESS until they reach accountability (as you claim) then the ABORTION DOCTOR has placed more souls in heaven than even Billy Graham, has he not? I am pointing out his effectiveness for the KINGDOM under your bad theology, not claiming the abortionist is good. That is my point. Your theology makes EVIL ACTIONS better for the Kingdom than Evangelism. 100% of babies go to heaven (you claim) and no evangelist has even close to that conversion rate.

 

[civic]

That condemns the DOCTOR, not the infant. Yet if infants are SINLESS until they reach accountability (as you claim) then the ABORTION DOCTOR has placed more souls in heaven than even Billy Graham, has he not? I am pointing out his effectiveness for the KINGDOM under your bad theology, not claiming the abortionist is good. That is my point. Your theology makes EVIL ACTIONS better for the Kingdom than Evangelism. 100% of babies go to heaven (you claim) and no evangelist has even close to that conversion rate.

nope the infants time and manner of death is irrelevant to his/her salvation. and the murderer has nothing to do with ones salvation.

infants who died in the flood are in the same boat as your abortionist-

maybe in your theology they are the same and all of them go to hell.

 

[atpollard]

nope the infants time and manner of death is irrelevant to his/her salvation. and the murderer has nothing to do with ones salvation.

infants who died in the flood are in the same boat as your abortionist-

maybe in your theology they are the same and all of them go to hell.

It is too late and I am too tired to reword it again.
We are talking past one another (I said NOTHING about how an infant died).
Goodnight.

 

[dwight92070]

I'm not going to take a stand on whether or not atonement is limited or sufficient for all because I honestly don't know.

I'd just like to hear from non-Calvinists as to how they reconcile their view of atonement with the fact that not all people will be saved. Isn't that, by definition, limited atonement? Or is there another explanation?

1 John 2:2 " ... and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the whole world."

That settles it right there. He died for the sins of the whole world, even though millions will not repent and receive His forgiveness. Limited atonement is a man-made idea, not Biblical, that says that Christ only died for those who will repent and receive His forgiveness. But this verse says that that idea is incorrect - He died for the whole world.
His atonement was not limited in any way. It was sufficient for the sins of all mankind. Just because not everybody wants to receive the benefits of that - does NOT make it a limited atonement.
However, to the Calvinist, limited atonement DOES mean that only a certain group of people, the elect or the chosen, will be saved. So, to them, the atonement is limited - but they are wrong.
They also have a mistaken understanding of who the elect (or chosen) are. Biblically, the elect (or chosen) are all those who, of their own free will, have put their faith in Jesus. Jesus is called "My chosen One" by the Father. All who are in Christ, are also chosen or elect in Him. If we choose to reject Him, and are no longer in Him, then we are no longer chosen - we are no longer saved. He remains chosen - and all in Him remain chosen. But if we choose to fall way from Him, we are no longer part of the chosen, unless we repent and return to Him a second time. Romans 11:22-23

In God's sovereignty, He has chosen to give us free will. By His foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:1-2) He knows ahead of time, who will receive Him and follow Him and who will not. He does not force anyone, however, to choose Him. We all have free will. It is NOT His desire to micromanage our lives - He has given us self - control, which is one of the fruits of the Spirit. However all mankind has the freedom to control themselves, i.e. apart from wicked dictators and tyrants. But the self -control from the Spirit is an added measure of power that nonbelievers do not have. We need to control our sinful desires.

 

[dwight92070]

That condemns the DOCTOR, not the infant. Yet if infants are SINLESS until they reach accountability (as you claim) then the ABORTION DOCTOR has placed more souls in heaven than even Billy Graham, has he not? I am pointing out his effectiveness for the KINGDOM under your bad theology, not claiming the abortionist is good. That is my point. Your theology makes EVIL ACTIONS better for the Kingdom than Evangelism. 100% of babies go to heaven (you claim) and no evangelist has even close to that conversion rate.

That's a foolish argument. Obviously babies go to heaven, but the abortionist who killed them ends up in hell, unless he repents of his murder and all other sins, and puts his faith in Jesus for his forgiveness. Ted Bundy, for example, a mass killer, yet he repented just before he was electrocuted.

 

[atpollard]

That's a foolish argument.

I am rested enough to take this again, starting over from the top and arguing STEP BY STEP, so you will at least refute the point that I am actually making:

(1) @civic proposed: ALL BABIES GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY ARE BORN SINLESS!

• We will ignore the fact that this is the PELEAGIAN HERESY already condemned by the early church and contradicted by scriptures which other posters have presented and which have been completely ignored. We will assume that (1) is true and babies are born sinless.

(2) As a hypothetical CASE A, 1000 babies are born and live to be 70 years old and die in bed, quietly.

• Question 1: When those babies (born sinless) grow up, will they EVER sin in those 70 years? Will their sin condemn them to judgement? Will they need a Savior (Jesus Christ)?
• Question 2: Assuming that all 1000 of these adult sinners attend a 'Crusade' and hear the Gospel from an Evangelist, how many will believe and be 'saved'? All (1000)? Most (600)? Many (400)? Some (200)? Few (100)?

(3) As a hypothetical CASE B, 1000 babies are killed by an abortion doctor.

• I acknowledge the doctor and abortion is EVIL, this has nothing to do with the DOCTOR, I am asking about the eternal destiny of 1000 souls.
• Question 3: How many of the sinless babies just murdered will go to heaven? All (1000)?
• Question 4: In which scenario (CASE A or CASE B) do more souls arrive in Heaven?

(4) If you have answered the questions honestly, then Given the assumption of SINLESS BIRTH, those babies not aborted have a greater chance of spending eternity in Hell than the babies that were aborted.

• ONE consequence of this initial assumption of SINLESS BIRTH is that Abortion is a greater tool than Evangelism for saving souls (100% effective).
• Another consequence is it is better for God to kill a baby than allow it to grow up to be damned.
• A third consequence is that SIN is a choice and a SAVIOR is not 100% necessary. The sinless infant could have CHOSEN to obey God as a young adult and continued to remain holy throughout their life ... Just like JESUS did!

QED.
Babies are NOT born sinless!

 

[Johann]

I am rested enough to take this again, starting over from the top and arguing STEP BY STEP, so you will at least refute the point that I am actually making:

(1) @civic proposed: ALL BABIES GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY ARE BORN SINLESS!

• We will ignore the fact that this is the PELEAGIAN HERESY already condemned by the early church and contradicted by scriptures which other posters have presented and which have been completely ignored. We will assume that (1) is true and babies are born sinless.

(2) As a hypothetical CASE A, 1000 babies are born and live to be 70 years old and die in bed, quietly.

• Question 1: When those babies (born sinless) grow up, will they EVER sin in those 90 years? Will their sin condemn them to judgement? Will they need a Savior (Jesus Christ)?
• Question 2: Assuming that all 1000 of these adult sinners attend a 'Crusade' and hear the Gospel from an Evangelist, how many will believe and be 'saved'? All (1000)? Most (600)? Many (400)? Some (200)? Few (100)?

(3) As a hypothetical CASE B, 1000 babies are killed by an abortion doctor.

• I acknowledge the doctor and abortion is EVIL, this has nothing to do with the DOCTOR, I am asking about the eternal destiny of 1000 souls.
• Question 3: How many of the sinless babies just murdered will go to heaven? All (1000)?
• Question 4: In which scenario (CASE A or CASE B) do more souls arrive in Heaven?

(4) If you have answered the questions honestly, then Given the assumption of SINLESS BIRTH, those babies not aborted have a greater chance of spending eternity in Hell than the babies that were aborted.

• ONE consequence of this initial assumption of SINLESS BIRTH is that Abortion is a greater tool than Evangelism for saving souls (100% effective).
• Another consequence is it is better for God to kill a baby than allow it to grow up to be damned.
• A third consequence is that SIN is a choice and a SAVIOR is not 100% necessary. The sinless infant could have CHOSEN to obey God as a young adult and continued to remain holy throughout their life ... Just like JESUS did!

QED.
Babies are NOT born sinless!

You do realize you are about to be crucified?

J.

 

[civic]

I am rested enough to take this again, starting over from the top and arguing STEP BY STEP, so you will at least refute the point that I am actually making:

(1) @civic proposed: ALL BABIES GO TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY ARE BORN SINLESS!

• We will ignore the fact that this is the PELEAGIAN HERESY already condemned by the early church and contradicted by scriptures which other posters have presented and which have been completely ignored. We will assume that (1) is true and babies are born sinless.

(2) As a hypothetical CASE A, 1000 babies are born and live to be 70 years old and die in bed, quietly.

• Question 1: When those babies (born sinless) grow up, will they EVER sin in those 70 years? Will their sin condemn them to judgement? Will they need a Savior (Jesus Christ)?
• Question 2: Assuming that all 1000 of these adult sinners attend a 'Crusade' and hear the Gospel from an Evangelist, how many will believe and be 'saved'? All (1000)? Most (600)? Many (400)? Some (200)? Few (100)?

(3) As a hypothetical CASE B, 1000 babies are killed by an abortion doctor.

• I acknowledge the doctor and abortion is EVIL, this has nothing to do with the DOCTOR, I am asking about the eternal destiny of 1000 souls.
• Question 3: How many of the sinless babies just murdered will go to heaven? All (1000)?
• Question 4: In which scenario (CASE A or CASE B) do more souls arrive in Heaven?

(4) If you have answered the questions honestly, then Given the assumption of SINLESS BIRTH, those babies not aborted have a greater chance of spending eternity in Hell than the babies that were aborted.

• ONE consequence of this initial assumption of SINLESS BIRTH is that Abortion is a greater tool than Evangelism for saving souls (100% effective).
• Another consequence is it is better for God to kill a baby than allow it to grow up to be damned.
• A third consequence is that SIN is a choice and a SAVIOR is not 100% necessary. The sinless infant could have CHOSEN to obey God as a young adult and continued to remain holy throughout their life ... Just like JESUS did!

QED.
Babies are NOT born sinless!

a big strawman post with your questions

Being born innocent from sin and guilt and later becoming a guilty sinner are comparing apples and oranges.

We are discussing babies, infants.

Jesus blessed them many many times and not once ever condemned them or made them guilty of any sin in any way, shape or form. I quoted Jesus teaching on them over a dozen references.

You argument is with Jesus not me and you hold to the traditions and teachings of men over the clear teaching from Jesus on the topic of infants/children.

I will stick with Jesus teaching on the topic not augustine and the reformers misguided teachings on TD and original sin.

hope this helps !!!

 

[atpollard]

You do realize you are about to be crucified?

J.

If the majority is determined to embrace Pelagianism, then there is little point arguing anything with them ... after all, they have sinless perfection on their side and I am DESPERATELY in need of a Savior! We are APPLES and ORANGES.

 

[atpollard]

Being born innocent from sin and guilt and later becoming a guilty sinner ...

... is Pelagianism (look it up).

 

[civic]

... is Pelagianism (look it up).

Nope it’s your strawman no one prior to Augustine believed your doctrine.

Poisoning the well fallacy, guilt by association fallacy among many others.

 

[Johann]

If the majority is determined to embrace Pelagianism, then there is little point arguing anything with them ... after all, they have sinless perfection on their side and I am DESPERATELY in need of a Savior! We are APPLES and ORANGES.

Pelagius was condemned as a heretic, as you rightly pointed out – we are all in desperate need of a Savior.

Shalom – just a thought, I wonder how many here are unknowingly embracing the flawed doctrine of Pelagius?

J.

 

[Johann]

Nope it’s your strawman no one prior to Augustine believed your doctrine.

Poisoning the well fallacy, guilt by association fallacy among many others.

Pre-Augustine and you can shout "fallacy" all you want brother-what stands written stands written.

J.

 

[atpollard]

no one prior to Augustine believed your doctrine.

False.
Go back and reread the thread ... you will find the quotes from others that pre-date Augistine that claim the same thing. Go respond to them.

Your view originates with Pelagius, who believed we started the race like Adam (free from sin) and could choose to stay that way. What did David say? The OT Prophets? The Apostles? Everyone got it wrong except YOU ... all because Jesus said we had to be humble and trusting towards God, LIKE little children are humble and trusting.

Jesus never said children are SINLESS, @civic did.

 

[civic]

Pre-Augustine and you can shout "fallacy" all you want brother-what stands written stands written.

J.

they were 100% believers in LFW and rejected original sin/TD. Those doctrines came from augustine via paganism, greek philosophy and gnosticism. Thats how augustine corrupted the church and you can toss in his view of Sovereignty in there too.

 

[civic]

False.
Go back and reread the thread ... you will find the quotes from others that pre-date Augistine that claim the same thing. Go respond to them.

Your view originates with Pelagius, who believed we started the race like Adam (free from sin) and could choose to stay that way. What did David say? The OT Prophets? The Apostles? Everyone got it wrong except YOU ... all because Jesus said we had to be humble and trusting towards God, LIKE little children are humble and trusting.

Jesus never said children are SINLESS, @civic did.

Jesus never said "I am God "either.

next strawman.

 

[civic]

I will go with Jesus teaching on children not augustine and the reformers. Notice some on the forum are teaching the opposite of Jesus and despising children as sinners.

Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 19:13-14
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Mark 9:36-37
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

hope this helps !!!