Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | zach† | 34392 | ||
Before I ask my question, I would first like to provide you with some personal back-ground information concerning myself. When I first received Christ into my heart and life, God instilled within me a hunger and a thirst to read His written word. I just couldn't get enough of it. I began attending a Reformed church, and adopted all their beliefs as my beliefs. I read Calvin, and others of the reformed faith, and was in unity with their thinking. But the more I read God's word and allowed God's Holy Spirit to teach me from His word, the harder and harder it became for me to any longer accept the teachings of Calvinism represented within TULIP. Today I especially have trouble accepting the "L" of TULIP which stands for "Limited Atonement" So my question is: Do you personally believe "Limited Atonement is Bibical, or not? And why not. What Scripture do you use to support your beliefs. I know this is a highly and hotly debated topic, but I think it is one that with some discipline on our part, can be fairly discussed In Christ zach† |
||||||
2 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34672 | ||
Hello Zach, I will answer your question, but I will say that this will never be resolved here. It is too easy for emotions to get in the way (for those on all sides). I do not intend to persuade you. I only want to present my view. (Do watch yourself, you are not at fault, but you aren't the first person to bring this up.) I do not agree with those who hold to particular redemption (aka "limited atonement"). I base this on verses like John 3:16; Romans 5:6; 1 John 2:2; et al. I do, however see strong Biblical support for the other four points. The definitions come primarily out of "The Potter's Freedom" by James White (good author, and I thought the definitions were good, but I disagree with his view of Particular Redemption). Total Depravity - Man is dead in sin, with every aspect of his being affected by the fall, unable to save himself. (Romans 3:10ff; Ephesians 2:1) Unconditional Election - God's choice is not based on anything man has done, but on Himself, alone. (Romans 9:15-16,18) Limited atonement - I touched on why I disagree with Particular Redemption at the top. Irresistible Grace - Luke 14:23, John 6:44. Note that God "compels" them to come in. "nobody comes to me unless he is drawn by My Father" Perseverance of the Saints or Eternal Security - Philippians 1:6 - He who began a work will perfect it until the day of Christ. Romans 8:28-39 - As far as God is concerned, even our glorification is assured, and that hasn't happened yet. (I view "glorified" as being proleptic (past tense to describe something that is assured, even though still future)). I would love to hear your thoughts. In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
3 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34801 | ||
Greetings Benjamite! Do you mind if I jump in? The problem I see with this construction is that you have Christ dying for people that He never intended to save. I don't agree with Calvinism, but it is logically consistent if, and only if, you hold to all five points. In Calvinism's scheme, Christ only dies for those He elected to salvation. Arminianism is also logically consistent. The unlimited atonement makes salvation possible for all, in harmany with the universal offers of salvation and expressions of God's desire that all be saved, but only those who receive the gift of salvation are actually saved. In your construction, Christ dies for all, but He never had any intention of saving all - only those whom He choose before hand. What do you think? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34812 | ||
Hello Tim, You say that my view is logically inconsistent. I have presented what I believe to be solid Biblical support for the other four points of Calvinism, but I am willing to be corrected. I don't see Biblical support for Limited Atonement. You say that Calvinism is consistent if, and only if, one holds to all five points. This, in itself, is a difficult claim to make, because as proof of an "if-and-only-if" statement, you need to show how it is false with one side ("Logical consistency") matched with all other options of the other side (each point individually, any two points, any three points, or any four points). I do not expect that from you. That is really beside the point because whatever logic dictates, I care more about whether my view is Biblically consistent. Christ did die for all 1 John 2:2 "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" Romans 5:6 "Christ died for the ungodly (all of them)." Romans 5:8 may personalize this, but 5:6 says for "the ungodly" without qualification. John 3:16 "God so loved the world, that whosoever..." Hebrews 2:9 "He might taste death for everyone" God chose to save some - Romans 9 Man cannot and will not come to God of his own "free will" - Romans 3:10ff Once saved, saved forever - one cannot lose one's salvation - Romans 8:28ff; Philippians 1:6. Well, what do you think? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
5 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34815 | ||
Greetings Benjamite! Thanks for the quick response my friend! I realized after I sent my post that I had actually mis-worded my statement slightly. I should have said that one cannot logically hold to points 4 and 5, if one rejects 3. They build one upon another. For instance, one could hold the first four and say that God, having done everything else is not able or willing to see the process through to the end. One could hold the first three points and that God, having done the first three, simply doesn't bring the process to complete by irresistably calling those He has elected. Do you follow my drift? Now, under your construction (I hope you aren't offended by this in any way, I'm just sharing my view on the issue. It isn't intended as a put down of you my friend): 1) All are depraved. 2) God unconditionally elects those to be saved. 3) Christ dies for all. 4) But, God only irresistably calls those He has elected. The rest of those for whom Christ died are lost. 5) Those whom He has called persevere to the end. Do you see my problem with this system? Under points 1,2,4, and 5, how could those for whom Christ died be lost? You have set up a system where God dies for all, but never had any intention of saving all. Under Arminianism, the answer is simple. We reject points 2,3,4, and 5. No one was unconditionally elected. Christ died for all. No one is irresistably called. Since no one is irresistably called, perseverance (as defined under Calvinism) is not applicable. But, maybe I'm off my rocker! :-) Either way, I appreciate your participation on the forum my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | benjamite | 34823 | ||
Since you reject all but point 1, since according to Romans 3:10ff, nobody is righteous, nobody seeks after God, how then is anybody saved? In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
7 | Is Limited Atonement Bibical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 34853 | ||
Greetings Benjamite! Simple! John 12:32 says that at the cross He will draw all men. The cross is the one electing act of Christ in history. God desires to save all. At the cross, He atones for all and offers reconciliation to us. His Spirit then convicts and draws us, but we must respond. This makes sense of all the Biblical data. It accounts for the statements which say that Christ died for all. It accounts for the statments which offer salvation to all. It accounts for the the verses which say that God desires to save all. It also accounts for all the verses which say we must, believe, repent, accept, and receive His grace and gift. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||