ECT A challenge to Calvinism on limited atonement

[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

Limited atonement, definite atonement and particular redemption are defined as one and the same.

Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying.

 

[Sonnet]

The Christ who died for the elect cannot be reconciled with the Christ Paul describes when he tells unbelievers that 'He died for our sins.' Paul's auditors understand that he is telling them that Christ died for them.

The former cannot be defined as good news but the latter can.

 

[Lon]

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?

Okay, here is where we are different but, of course, I am okay with the difference. You will say what is your conviction and I will say what is mine. What we say reflects what we understand. For me, 'Christ died to save men and forgive sins' is enough. I don't think "died for you" is the lynch-pin, needed. If you can convince me otherwise with scripture and logic, I can change. It'd be hard, but I will do what scriptures and God says and believe what He says.

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?

Romans 14:4 I think 'judgement' goes both ways, either to acquit or call or 'fair' or to condemn. I think both are a huge problem. I simply know God cares MUCH more than you or I do about those. He isn't willing that any should perish afterall.

I 'think' the difference here is that I'm willing to live in the blind, especially a blind that my theology insists remains in the blind as the secret things of God. Deuteronomy 29:29 Daniel 2:2 1 Corinthians 2:9

? If the doctrines of Calvinism lead to the preaching of another Gospel - a different one for unbelievers - then it's a serious matter. 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.'
Christ died for our sins is more explicit.

Then I'd be a false teacher? Are we to be shunned? I am associated with the Southern Baptist Convention and we necessarily are united against this assertion. Perhaps it is in your best interest to declare us heretical, but such is a very serious accusation. Individuals generally don't have this kind of ostracizing power nor ability to declare such heretical. Some Calvinists also declare Arminian or even unlimited atonement as heresy, so you both hold that in common. I'm not sure the majority of true scholars and their church members embrace those extremes well.

? 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.

Matthew 7:13-14 is Jesus' teaching. Is it shocking? Yes, I think it is. Think too, I would never say "Christ did not die for you" either. It too is wrong. Again, I believe "Christ died for sinners" and "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved" is imho, incredibly sufficient to convey one's need for salvation.

? 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.

Great! It does not say "Christ died for you," so I don't believe I need to use those words.

I believe it occurs synergistically.

Understood.

 

[Sonnet]

Okay, here is where we are different but, of course, I am okay with the difference. You will say what is your conviction and I will say what is mine. What we say reflects what we understand. For me, 'Christ died to save men and forgive sins' is enough. I don't think "died for you" is the lynch-pin, needed. If you can convince me otherwise with scripture and logic, I can change. It'd be hard, but I will do what scriptures and God says and believe what He says.

If Paul only ever said to believers that 'Christ died for our sins' and never said it to unbelievers then it's two Gospels.

Galatians 1:9
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!

Why did Paul simply say, 'This is what we preach'?

You appear to be saying that, no, Paul meant, 'this is what we preach...to believers, but when it comes to unbelievers we don't say the first bit, we change the words so that it doesn't sound like we are telling anyone that Christ actually died for their sins. However, the rest - the bits about his burial and sightings - we are okay with saying them.'

Paul has no concern whatsoever about such matters. He just says, 'This is what we preach.'

 

[Sonnet]

Then I'd be a false teacher? Are we to be shunned? I am associated with the Southern Baptist Convention and we necessarily are united against this assertion. Perhaps it is in your best interest to declare us heretical, but such is a very serious accusation. Individuals generally don't have this kind of ostracizing power nor ability to declare such heretical. Some Calvinists also declare Arminian or even unlimited atonement as heresy, so you both hold that in common. I'm not sure the majority of true scholars and their church members embrace those extremes well.

My opinion is that no one should be mislead. Unbelievers should be told that you believe that Christ did not die for all men.

Matthew 7:13-14 is Jesus' teaching. Is it shocking? Yes, I think it is. Think too, I would never say "Christ did not die for you" either. It too is wrong. Again, I believe "Christ died for sinners" and "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved" is imho, incredibly sufficient to convey one's need for salvation.

"Christ died for sinners" would be misleading. Your theology forces it to mean 'some sinners, not all'.

Why would you not reveal what you consider to be the truth about Christ? Since Calvinists quote John 10:15 in support of limited atonement then it's not a secret, but (in your view) a revealed truth and therefore part of the Gospel.

That Christ did not die for all men, together with the doctrines of election and reprobation (all revealed in scripture according to Calvinists) would be fundamental aspects about Christ that unbelievers should know, surely?

 

[beloved57]

Paul in 1 Cor 1 was writing to the Church 1 Cor 1:

Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,


² Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

So when he wrote that Christ died for our sins 1 Cor 15:3, he was referring to the Church of God, like in Eph 5:25

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;




Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

[Sonnet]

Paul in 1 Cor 1 was writing to the Church 1 Cor 1:

Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,


² Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

So when he wrote that Christ died for our sins 1 Cor 15:3, he was referring to the Church of God, like in Eph 5:25

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;




Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

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!

a) Your Gospel for unbelievers, it would seem, disallows the phrase 'Christ died for our sins'.
b) Your Gospel for believers allows the phrase 'Christ died for our sins'.

Therefore, a) does not equal b).

Paul preached the Gospel irrespective. 'This (1 Cor 15:3-8) is what we preach and this is what you believed'.

 

[Lon]

If Paul only ever said to believers that 'Christ died for our sins' and never said it to unbelievers then it's two Gospels.

Galatians 1:9
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!

Why did Paul simply say, 'This is what we preach'?

You appear to be saying that, no, Paul meant, 'this is what we preach...to believers, but when it comes to unbelievers we don't say the first bit, we change the words so that it doesn't sound like we are telling anyone that Christ actually died for their sins. However, the rest - the bits about his burial and sightings - we are okay with saying them.'

Paul has no concern whatsoever about such matters. He just says, 'This is what we preach.'

Of course I know you are 'trying' to make that stick as if it were true. I'm just not believing it. You believe the one implied but it is nowise explicit in scripture and that was the challenge given. Imho, you've nowise risen to that challenge. I know of no scripture that implicitly says "Christ died for your sin" except when it is a reminder to the believer in Christ. The day you prove otherwise, I would have to follow it to the end. I'm not aware of anyone doing in any historic Calvinist debate.

My opinion is that no one should be mislead. Unbelievers should be told that you believe that Christ did not die for all men.

I've no problem with telling anyone who asks.

Why would you not reveal what you consider to be the truth about Christ? Since Calvinists quote John 10:15 in support of limited atonement then it's not a secret, but (in your view) a revealed truth and therefore part of the Gospel.

I am not God. You plant, I water, only God is in charge of increase. Only God calls a soul to Himself. If any man comes, he/she comes to Christ alone. You and I are in charge of introductions. I honestly don't think we can go any further than that. There is a point where I find I inevitably have to step out of the way and let the two talk.

That Christ did not die for all men, together with the doctrines of election and reprobation (all revealed in scripture according to Calvinists) would be fundamental aspects about Christ that unbelievers should know, surely?

It is a HUGE deal to you. I'd imagine you are a loving guy and can't stand the thought of unbelievers not being brought to Christ. All the more, I pray it makes you an evangelist BUT I pray you also will become and effective one. You will HAVE to know when to step out of the way. Each and every one of them MUST come to meet Christ. You and I are only in charge of introductions. Is the need yet? You bet, that is our job. It ever only has been won by One.

 

[Sonnet]

Of course I know you are 'trying' to make that stick as if it were true. I'm just not believing it. You believe the one implied but it is nowise explicit in scripture and that was the challenge given. Imho, you've nowise risen to that challenge. I know of no scripture that implicitly says "Christ died for your sin" except when it is a reminder to the believer in Christ. The day you prove otherwise, I would have to follow it to the end. I'm not aware of anyone doing in any historic Calvinist debate.

So why did Paul say, 'this is what we preach'? Shouldn't he have said, 'this we preach to the converted.'?

Question 2.
Were all the bitten Israelites provided for in Numbers 21:7-9? All of them without exception?

 

[Sonnet]

Of course I know you are 'trying' to make that stick as if it were true. I'm just not believing it. You believe the one implied but it is nowise explicit in scripture and that was the challenge given. Imho, you've nowise risen to that challenge. I know of no scripture that implicitly says "Christ died for your sin" except when it is a reminder to the believer in Christ. The day you prove otherwise, I would have to follow it to the end. I'm not aware of anyone doing in any historic Calvinist debate.

Paul says, 'this is what you believed' (1 Cor 15:11) - when Paul preached this Gospel that they believed - were they believers or unbelievers?

 

[Lon]

If Paul only ever said to believers that 'Christ died for our sins' and never said it to unbelievers then it's two Gospels.

Galatians 1:9
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!

Why did Paul simply say, 'This is what we preach'?

So why did Paul say, 'this is what we preach'? Shouldn't he have said, 'this we preach to the converted.'?

"We" they weren't all giving a written script. Let's take Peter's sermon for instance (because it is given verbatim as best we can tell): Acts 2:21-42 after reading it, give attention to verse 39
So, Paul said "we." My question, if you don't share verse 39, are you sharing the same gospel? You are making it a rote gospel, so if you leave out verse 39 are you sharing the same gospel? I am not asserting this, btw, you are the one doing that and insisting on a rote gospel message when you insist that I say "Jesus died for you" as if the gospel were rote and that I must use these exact words. Before you read it, Peter never said it. I 'assume' he is included in 'we' since so many came to Christ that day. I'm not being contentious here, I'm trying to get you to rethink your unassailable stance you've made for yourself. Again, in my church, we have to get along. A lot of people agree with you and even say we aren't wise for it, but I'd have to leave my church affiliation at that point. For now, I choose to associate and fellowship with nonCalvinists.

You appear to be saying that, no, Paul meant, 'this is what we preach...to believers, but when it comes to unbelievers we don't say the first bit, we change the words so that it doesn't sound like we are telling anyone that Christ actually died for their sins. However, the rest - the bits about his burial and sightings - we are okay with saying them.'

Paul has no concern whatsoever about such matters. He just says, 'This is what we preach.'

Again, I'm simply saying I don't have to say "Jesus died for your sins" in order to share the gospel effectively.

Question 2.
Were all the bitten Israelites provided for in Numbers 21:7-9? All of them without exception?

Those who looked upon it, right? Did it raise those who had already died as well? Num 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

If all of them turned to the serpent, all were saved. If not all, only those who did. Is our argument the different between hindsight and foresight (I think it entails it)?.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Christ said [among other like statements] to the Pharibums "you refuse to come to Me that you might be saved"...."unless ye believe that I am He ye shall die in your sins"

A host of statements like these show that there is no such a thing as limited atonement, limited atonement is brought in to shore up double predestination, that is to say predestination unto damnation....both doctrines need to be jettisoned.

 

[Crucible]

The Bible straight up tells you to your face that the elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of God.

How they are going to sit here and just refuse the definition scripture gives is beyond me. They are part of the Reformation that was simply reactionary- their theology was about what suited them rather than properly maintaining a competent standard.

That's just the way I see it- Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Zwingli- that's the theological stratum to delve into. They all held to predestination, their notions were mighty, and the rest is simply fallout.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Limited atonement, definite atonement and particular redemption are defined as one and the same.

Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying.

Because [neccesarily] you are arguing within the narrow confines of Calvinism and I have not read Calvin

In the BIBLE predestiny and election is unto the conformity to Christ and for the praise of God's glorious grace....not unto salvation per se

Paul takes his doctrine from the OT Jacob and Esau but you cannot prove that Esau was damned, or if you take Abraham as predestined and elect you have to explain Lot's position doctrinally.

If Israel were the elect and Egypt not what were the status of those Egyptians who joined themselves to Israel?

So Election is to inherit the blessing, for which of course we must be saved....but it does not preclude others from being saved.

 

[beloved57]

Because [neccesarily] you are arguing within the narrow confines of Calvinism and I have not read Calvin

In the BIBLE predestiny and election is unto the conformity to Christ and for the praise of God's glorious grace....not unto salvation per se

Paul takes his doctrine from the OT Jacob and Esau but you cannot prove that Esau was damned, or if you take Abraham as predestined and elect you have to explain Lot's position doctrinally.

If Israel were the elect and Egypt not what were the status of those Egyptians who joined themselves to Israel?

So Election is to inherit the blessing, for which of course we must be saved....but it does not preclude others from being saved.

All whom God hates are damned, and esau was hated by God. He is representative of a people who shall bear the indignation of the Lord forever Mal 1:3-4 !

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Sonnet]

The Bible straight up tells you to your face that the elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of God.

How they are going to sit here and just refuse the definition scripture gives is beyond me. They are part of the Reformation that was simply reactionary- their theology was about what suited them rather than properly maintaining a competent standard.

That's just the way I see it- Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Zwingli- that's the theological stratum to delve into. They all held to predestination, their notions were mighty, and the rest is simply fallout.

Crucible, this is just assertion - and nothing that actually refutes the specifics of the OP.

 

[Sonnet]

Because [neccesarily] you are arguing within the narrow confines of Calvinism and I have not read Calvin

In the BIBLE predestiny and election is unto the conformity to Christ and for the praise of God's glorious grace....not unto salvation per se

I agree.

Paul takes his doctrine from the OT Jacob and Esau but you cannot prove that Esau was damned, or if you take Abraham as predestined and elect you have to explain Lot's position doctrinally.

Why are thinking that I disagree with you?

If Israel were the elect and Egypt not what were the status of those Egyptians who joined themselves to Israel?

So Election is to inherit the blessing, for which of course we must be saved....but it does not preclude others from being saved.

Indeed.

I think you must have confused my position.

 

[Sonnet]

All whom God hates are damned, and esau was hated by God. He is representative of a people who shall bear the indignation of the Lord forever Mal 1:3-4 !

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app

In that context it is referring to the people of the land of Edom who came against Israel.

No Calvinist is able to provide an adequate explanation as to how their theology does not make God discriminatory and some men without any chance of salvation.

The Arminian, admittedly, is unable to explain how God remains sovereign.

 

[Sonnet]

"We" they weren't all giving a written script. Let's take Peter's sermon for instance (because it is given verbatim as best we can tell): Acts 2:21-42 after reading it, give attention to verse 39
So, Paul said "we." My question, if you don't share verse 39, are you sharing the same gospel? You are making it a rote gospel, so if you leave out verse 39 are you sharing the same gospel? I am not asserting this, btw, you are the one doing that and insisting on a rote gospel message when you insist that I say "Jesus died for you" as if the gospel were rote and that I must use these exact words. Before you read it, Peter never said it. I 'assume' he is included in 'we' since so many came to Christ that day. I'm not being contentious here, I'm trying to get you to rethink your unassailable stance you've made for yourself. Again, in my church, we have to get along. A lot of people agree with you and even say we aren't wise for it, but I'd have to leave my church affiliation at that point. For now, I choose to associate and fellowship with nonCalvinists.

Thanks. I see the point you are making. Perhaps I have failed to be clear in the point I am trying to make.

Please understand that I am NOT actually asserting that 1 Cor 15:3-11 must be given verbatim. The OP merely makes the case that a Christian CAN do so - and for the reasons given. The fact that such a Christian can do this - can preach it verbatim - should be enough proof that limited atonement is an untenable doctrine.

For me, Christ's death and resurrection for all men without exception is a given. There are no scriptures that contradict this. So when we read the passage you cite, then we should not be surprised that the actual words 'Christ died for our sins' are not there. It's a given. The ONLY reason, for me, that I am addressing the issue of the scope of Christ's crucifixion is because some have put a limit on that scope. I do not see anyone at the time the scriptures were written doing so. I would assume that, if someone had asked Paul, then he would have told them that Christ died for all men.

What did Paul say? 'We preach Christ crucified.' He makes no qualification.

So why did Paul say, 'this is what we preach'? Shouldn't he have said, 'this we preach to the converted'?

Again, I'm simply saying I don't have to say "Jesus died for your sins" in order to share the gospel effectively.

Okay, but if challenged you would be forced to reveal your view that Christ died for an elect. I'd find that embarrassing.

Those who looked upon it, right? Did it raise those who had already died as well? Num 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

If all of them turned to the serpent, all were saved. If not all, only those who did. Is our argument the different between hindsight and foresight (I think it entails it)?.

My point was that, at the point when the serpent was raised up, every single bitten Israelite was provided for. All those that may have decided that Moses was a crazy and might have refused to look WERE STILL PROVIDED WITH A CURE. They just did not take it. Christ's crucifixion takes this as it's model, for Jesus says so himself.

If Christ's provision was limited, then his choice of analogy was poor.

 

[Lon]

Okay, but if challenged you would be forced to reveal your view that Christ died for an elect. I'd find that embarrassing.

...jumping in the middle of a conversation...
Sonnet: So if I call on the name of the Lord, I will be saved?
Lon: That is what scripture says
Sonnet: Does that mean Christ died for me?
Lon: Yes.
Sonnet: How can you say that as a Calvinist? Don't you believe Christ only died for the elect?
Lon: Yes. When I said yes, it was to both your calling on the name of the Lord and Christ dying on the Cross for your sins.
Sonnet: But what if I don't call on His name?
Lon: That would be your decision.
Sonnet: So Christ didn't die for my sins?
Lon: Christ died for the sins of all those who call on the name of the Lord. It may sound circular, but only those who call on the Name of the Lord will be concerned with this. A person who is not moved by the work of Christ will also not care whether Christ died specifically for the or not. I do know, however, that those who do care, Christ specifically died to save them and knew of them when He laid down His life.

My point was that, at the point when the serpent was raised up, every single bitten Israelite was provided for. All those that may have decided that Moses was a crazy and might have refused to look WERE STILL PROVIDED WITH A CURE. They just did not take it. Christ's crucifixion takes this as it's model, for Jesus says so himself.

It is more philosophical at this point: Can God do something and it is not accomplished? Isaiah 46:10 and 55:11 For the Calvinist, if God sets to save all, He saves literally all He can save. Is there effort to save that which will not/cannot be saved? I understand the dissention with us here. As I said, this was a really hard hurdle for me as well. I'm simply trying to effectively answer your question. I also appreciate ensuing questions too, and thank you.

If Christ's provision was limited, then his choice of analogy was poor.

As I said, I may not be classically Calvinist on this point. I simply believe in some ways, at least, the atonement is limited. As with your analogy, those who had already been bitten and died, did not receive the benefit of that bronze serpent. Generally, I believe John 3:16 as 'world' but I recognize that those who died without faith before Christ, weren't included as 'world' as far as I understand.