The Issue of Limited Atonement

[TomL]

Any more non answers know it all?

On what basis is anyone judged? Their sin has been atoned/propitiated for. It can't be unbelief or lack of faith. Both sins.

Atonement of itself does not remit sin as even the Calvinist Shedd noted

It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved” (Eph. 2:8); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain.[1]

---

[1] William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726.

 

[Presby02]

Atonement of itself does not remit sin as even the Calvinist Shedd noted

It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: “By faith are you saved” (Eph. 2:8); “he that believes shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain.[1]

---

[1] William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3rd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub., 2003), 726.

The work of the Holy Spirit? What might that be?

 

[TomL]

The work of the Holy Spirit? What might that be?

Conviction for one


The Work of the Holy Spirit
“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Jn 16:4–11.

 

[synergy]

Exactly the sheep that are his.

Thanks for confirming that my (his) sheep is a subset of the sheep. That also confirms that the term the sheep covers all sheep as the atonement does, thus proving the atonement is unlimited.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me John 10:27

Wonderful verse. Keep those wonderful verses coming.

 

[TibiasDad]

So He has the same exact love for


His bride He has for the reprobate? Oh boy

The reprobate is what he is because he chooses to be; God loves all reprobates the same, and some of us believe that fact, and experience that love in ann ever increasing manner. The love is the same; the experiencing of it is variable base on our belief.

Why did God choose Israel over Egypt or Assyria? Because Israel was the nation He loved.

God didn’t choose Israel, he created Israel from a non-Jewish man.


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Prove it. My advice to you is if your going to make such claims then be prepared to back them up. I'm not holding my breath.

A father and son are playing catch in the backyard, when the father stops, and retrieves a length of rope from the garage. He then proceeds to take his son’s right arm and tie it securely behind his son’s back.

The father then retrieves his own glove and tosses the ball to his son who catches it with his gloved left hand.

“Toss it back!” Says the Father.

“I can’t!” Protests the boy, “My right arm is tied behind my back.”

The father then tosses his glove on the ground and says, “if you don’t want to play then I am going back to work.”

That is the scenario you propose when you say God determines but man freely chooses.


Doug

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A father and son are playing catch in the backyard, when the father stops, and retrieves a length of rope from the garage. He then proceeds to take his son’s right arm and tie it securely behind his son’s back.

The father then retrieves his own glove and tosses the ball to his son who catches it with his gloved left hand.

“Toss it back!” Says the Father.

“I can’t!” Protests the boy, “My right arm is tied behind my back.”

The father then tosses his glove on the ground and says, “if you don’t want to play then I am going back to work.”

That is the scenario you propose when you say God determines but man freely chooses.


Doug

Jesus and a boy are playing catch. The boy has a crippled throwing arm. Jesus throws the ball and the boy catches it. Jesus says, "Toss it back!" The boy says, "I can't, my arm is crippled." Jesus says, "Stretch out your arm," and the boy's crippled arm becomes whole. He then tosses the ball back.

 

[TibiasDad]

Jesus and a boy are playing catch. The boy has a crippled throwing arm. Jesus throws the ball and the boy catches it. Jesus says, "Toss it back!" The boy says, "I can't, my arm is crippled." Jesus says, "Stretch out your arm," and the boy's crippled arm becomes whole. He then tosses the ball back.

Amen, but not the same point!

Doug

 

[Johann]

God didn’t choose Israel, he created Israel from a non-Jewish man.

The biblical narrative presents God as actively choosing and electing the nation of Israel, beginning with the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The key points are:
God chose the nation of Israel, not because they were the strongest or mightiest, but out of His own love and for a specific purpose (Deuteronomy 7:6-10, 2 Samuel 7:23-24).
God's choice of Israel was not to exclude other nations, but so that through Israel, all the peoples of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3, Exodus 19:5-6).
Israel was chosen by God to be a "kingdom of priests" and a "holy nation" - to represent God and point the other nations towards Him (Exodus 19:5-6).
While God did start with a single man, Abraham, who was not ethnically Jewish, the biblical narrative clearly presents God as actively choosing and building the nation of Israel from that foundation (Genesis 12:1-3).

So I would think the statement is not entirely correct @TibiasDad .

The Bible portrays God as the one who chose and established the nation of Israel, not as simply creating it from a non-Jewish man. The emphasis is on God's active election and purpose in raising up Israel, rather than a passive creation. The context is one of God's sovereign choice and plan for Israel to be a light to the nations.

 

[Johann]

A father and son are playing catch in the backyard, when the father stops, and retrieves a length of rope from the garage. He then proceeds to take his son’s right arm and tie it securely behind his son’s back.

The father then retrieves his own glove and tosses the ball to his son who catches it with his gloved left hand.

“Toss it back!” Says the Father.

“I can’t!” Protests the boy, “My right arm is tied behind my back.”

The father then tosses his glove on the ground and says, “if you don’t want to play then I am going back to work.”

That is the scenario you propose when you say God determines but man freely chooses.


Doug

Something along these lines?

Imagine a father and son enjoying a game of catch in the backyard. The father suddenly pauses the game, heading to the garage to fetch a length of rope. Returning, he gently secures his son's right arm behind his back. With a smile, he then grabs his own glove and tosses the ball to his son, who skillfully catches it with his left hand.

"Throw it back!" the father encourages.

"I can't," the boy protests, "My right arm is tied behind my back."

Disappointed, the father drops his glove and remarks, "If you're not up for it, I'll head back to work."

This scenario captures the essence of the interplay between God's sovereignty and human free will. Just as the father set the conditions for the game but allowed his son the freedom to choose how to respond, God, in His sovereignty, establishes the framework within which we make choices. While God's determination shapes the playing field, He also grants us the freedom to make our decisions. It's a delicate balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, where God's ultimate plan coexists with our ability to choose our actions.

 

[synergy]

It really is a form of bullying people what Calvinists do with language to force the unlearned to accept their error. They bate their trap with a saying that men freely choose, and you and I know they don't really believe that and then beat the drum loud and hard but God ordained it all. The poor smuck in their trap if they dare suggest none of this can be reconciled to make sense they assert the one isn't showing humility in accepting what is a mystery of God.

My advice to whatever readers....DON'T FALL FOR IT! You have EVERY RIGHT to have statements made by one to make coherent sense and when a Calvinist isn't doing that send him on down the road to pedal his good somewhere else.

Calvinist Recruiters do prey on the unlearned. That's evidenced by the dirt poor English language skills exhibited by virtually all calvinist-leaning responders on this forum. I've lost count on how many times I have called them out on their contradictions, fallacies, strawmen, dirt poor English grammar skills, and non-existent Greek language knowledge.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Calvinist Recruiters do prey on the unlearned. That's evidenced by the dirt poor English language skills exhibited by virtually all calvinist-leaning responders on this forum. I've lost count on how many times I have called them out on their contradictions, fallacies, strawmen, dirt poor English grammar skills, and non-existent Greek language knowledge.

Calvinist Recruiters??? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

 

[Johann]

Calvinist Recruiters??? LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Go easy.

 

[TibiasDad]

The biblical narrative presents God as actively choosing and electing the nation of Israel, beginning with the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The key points are:
God chose the nation of Israel, not because they were the strongest or mightiest, but out of His own love and for a specific purpose (Deuteronomy 7:6-10, 2 Samuel 7:23-24).
God's choice of Israel was not to exclude other nations, but so that through Israel, all the peoples of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3, Exodus 19:5-6).
Israel was chosen by God to be a "kingdom of priests" and a "holy nation" - to represent God and point the other nations towards Him (Exodus 19:5-6).
While God did start with a single man, Abraham, who was not ethnically Jewish, the biblical narrative clearly presents God as actively choosing and building the nation of Israel from that foundation (Genesis 12:1-3).

So I would think the statement is not entirely correct @TibiasDad .

The Bible portrays God as the one who chose and established the nation of Israel, not as simply creating it from a non-Jewish man. The emphasis is on God's active election and purpose in raising up Israel, rather than a passive creation. The context is one of God's sovereign choice and plan for Israel to be a light to the nations.

The nation of Israel had to be created for the purposes of God’s plan. As you have correctly stated, God chose to create this previously nonexistent nation to be a “kingdom of priests” and a “holy nation” and to be “a light to the nations” (Isa 42:6)

The message of this chosen nation was to example the love that God had and intended for all people. God chose Israel to tell the rest of the world what he wanted for them.

God did not choose Israel from out of the nations to love more or differently than the other nations, but rather to demonstrate his love for all mankind.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Something along these lines?

Imagine a father and son enjoying a game of catch in the backyard. The father suddenly pauses the game, heading to the garage to fetch a length of rope. Returning, he gently secures his son's right arm behind his back. With a smile, he then grabs his own glove and tosses the ball to his son, who skillfully catches it with his left hand.

"Throw it back!" the father encourages.

"I can't," the boy protests, "My right arm is tied behind my back."

Disappointed, the father drops his glove and remarks, "If you're not up for it, I'll head back to work."

This scenario captures the essence of the interplay between God's sovereignty and human free will. Just as the father set the conditions for the game but allowed his son the freedom to choose how to respond, God, in His sovereignty, establishes the framework within which we make choices. While God's determination shapes the playing field, He also grants us the freedom to make our decisions. It's a delicate balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, where God's ultimate plan coexists with our ability to choose our actions.

You have softened the situation to avoid the point: The father deliberately ties the throwing arm so that he can’t throw the ball back (whether gently or not is irrelevant, for the boy is incapable of throwing the ball back). This represents the Father’s determining that the boy will not be able to throw the ball back , or that man must be made incapable of doing what God wants him to do, ie, throwing the ball back or not eating the proverbial apple.

Then the father condemns the boy for not being able to throw the ball back after he caught it, despite the fact that he was the one who tied his arm behind his back.

The boy did not freely choose to not throw the ball back, the father took that choice away from him by choosing to tie his arm behind his son’s back.

Doug

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You have softened the situation to avoid the point: The father deliberately ties the throwing arm so that he can’t throw the ball back (whether gently or not is irrelevant, for the boy is incapable of throwing the ball back). This represents the Father’s determining that the boy will not be able to throw the ball back , or that man must be made incapable of doing what God wants him to do, ie, throwing the ball back or not eating the proverbial apple.

Then the father condemns the boy for not being able to throw the ball back after he caught it, despite the fact that he was the one who tied his arm behind his back.

The boy did not freely choose to not throw the ball back, the father took that choice away from him by choosing to tie his arm behind his son’s back.

Doug

In other words, what you're saying is: “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

 

[Rockson]

This scenario captures the essence of the interplay between God's sovereignty and human free will. Just as the father set the conditions for the game but allowed his son the freedom to choose how to respond, God, in His sovereignty, establishes the framework within which we make choices.

But let's get real, honest and sincere about what Calvinists really believe. They believe everything, everything EVERYTHING is ordained. Every action deed and thought. There is absolutely no free will in any way shape or form in the Calvinist paradigm.

Now let's deal with this boy with the hand tied behind his back thing and told to do something he can't do. And when the boy doesn't throw back the ball the Father leaves the game.....HOLD IT NOW.....with the Calvinist paradigm he doesn't just leave the game but beats up the boy for not responding the way he demanded. That intelligent, sane reasonable minded people can ever consider that this would be the character of God then I'd have to say they don't know God, his personality nor his nature. Sorry but they're lost in a twilight zone.

 

[Rockson]

The boy did not freely choose to not throw the ball back, the father took that choice away from him by choosing to tie his arm behind his son’s back.

Right on Tibias. The free choice was taken away. If the ability has been taken away from him it's been taken away from him. To say his will was free to choose is just buffoonery. If the boy was strapped down on a plank both hands, and feet and his full body would they still claim God didn't take away his choice? Of course they would claim that but it's all nonsensical. Buyer beware.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

But let's get real, honest and sincere about what Calvinists really believe. They believe everything, everything EVERYTHING is ordained. Every action deed and thought. There is absolutely no free will in any way shape or form in the Calvinist paradigm.

I do believe that no action occurs which is not ordained by God. But that doesn't mean God decides which socks I wear. It simply means that my decision as to which socks to wear was ordained by God. The fact is, which sock I wear has no bearing on anything God deems important. But when it comes to important decisions, God directs them.

Prov 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.

 

[Presby02]

A father and son are playing catch in the backyard, when the father stops, and retrieves a length of rope from the garage. He then proceeds to take his son’s right arm and tie it securely behind his son’s back.

The father then retrieves his own glove and tosses the ball to his son who catches it with his gloved left hand.

“Toss it back!” Says the Father.

“I can’t!” Protests the boy, “My right arm is tied behind my back.”

The father then tosses his glove on the ground and says, “if you don’t want to play then I am going back to work.”

That is the scenario you propose when you say God determines but man freely chooses.


Doug

Actually its not. God does not tie your hand behind your back. Adam did. It's just who does God choose to untie.