ECT Justification through faith in Christ's blood disproves limited atonement
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
beloved57
Well-known member
Your whole premise is dead, Christ could not have died for all mankind without exception because all men without exception were not declared Justified at His Resurrection as those were for whom sins He died for Rom 4:25
25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.
Cross Reference
New member
I will no doubt regret this asking you but why they are not declared justified becomes the issue then, doesn't it?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
No...I think you're giving me too much credit here. I'm really just trying to figure out what you are saying. I think it goes back to the separation of redemption and salvation.
But for what it's worth (though I haven't seen where it is part of your thought, yet), I do believe that there are those who don't care about being redeemed...yes. But I see it operating on a deeper level than wants and even will. Jacob didn't "want" or "will" to be redeemed, but he was. His wrestling with God went beyond the natural whimsy and conscious desires (I believe) and to that level upon which God truly remakes a man in His image (spiritually). That's part of what my signature is about.
Cross Reference
New member
But how could Jacob be redeemed when the man Jesus had not yet been born to provide the 'ransom money'? AND how could he have had anything to with it when the time came that brought his redemption?
"And so, after he [Jacob as well as Abraham] had patiently endured, he obtained [only] the promise. Hebrews 6:13-15 (KJV)
So then we now can see that both redemption AND salvation were but promises to those righteous who died before the cross.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
The foundation of your rejection of limited atonement (in this thread, anyway) is - I don't believe - a reason to reject limited atonement. In the practical sense, the Calvinist never - that I am aware - says he knows who the elect are (well...there may be some fringe Calvinists who say they do). Likewise, the non-Calvinst will not claim to know intimately the hidden workings of either the heart or of God's plans. Both Calvinist and non-Calvinist will - with sufficient evidence to make them confident (including the witness of the Spirit!) - recognize another believer. Both, in the end, have to simply go by the fruit of a man's life and testimony. So really, the argument is over what happens in the hidden counsels of man's heart and God's mind.
The Calvinist, in avering limited atonement, has taken scripture and determined that to allow for universal atonement means that Christ's sacrifice must be made for everyone - and the determining factor in salvation must be in some beneficial (or meritorious) quality of the individual. Since the Calvinist recognizes that no eternal good can be recognized in anyone except God does the work, they place the determining role in who is saved with God. The non-Calvinist - wanting to protect the free will of man as the determining factor in whether or not man is saved or not, views the atonement as a finished work that can be applied or not - like the blood on the doorposts at Egypt. If a man is saved, it's because he wanted to be saved and he freely chose to be saved. He applied the blood to himself.
The Calvinist waits for God to resurrect the dead, the non-Calvinist waits for the dead to respond. The Calvinist leans on the Word of God to bring about faith and life, the non-Calvinist leans more directly on the individual to get him to see what is available to him and choose life. So at the heart of the Calvinist doctrine is a recognition (if limited atonement is true) that it must be God who determines this - not man. And with the obedience to spread the gospel and preach it to all men, the Calvinist preacher must recognize that he is not doing it - first of all - for men, but for God. Yet neither is it an exercise simply with God in view. Such Calvinist preachers as George Whitfield and Charles Spurgeon did not spare in preaching the whole counsel of God and longing to see sinners converted. But the foundation was not quite the same. Whitefield wept because men were spitting in God's face and did not know or care - not because men were doomed to fire. His love was to warn sinners of their guilt far more than their destination - because that is the root problem. And so if you don't deal with the root problem, what does the sinner care if Christ died for him or not? But find a broken man, a sinner convicted deeply over his sin and hatred of God and you will find a man in whom God works - a man to whom the cross can be preached without reservation or doubt. Such a man will turn to Christ - not because he was told to avoid hell, but because he was quickened by God to his actual condition. The Calvinist says that THAT is who Christ died for.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew 9:13
And what does the non-Calvinist say? That he can't preach the gospel if he thinks that only some are predestined to life. He is more worried about man's free choice than God's holiness.
Preach first the holiness of God and the lostness of man. Preach man's natural hatred of God and his guilt before that holy God. Preach that first and THEN if men are convicted, they are ready to hear about the mercy of God. The love of God for all men. But if the foundation of their hearing Christ is not a total brokenness over their sin - a deep and shaking recognition of how God sees them in themselves - then they will never see the direness of their need and won't properly and actually turn to Christ. They might think it's a good thing to do. They might pray a prayer and assent to what they are told, but are they truly saved? Only in unlimited atonement is someone more or less forced to believe that they are simply because of a few words that were uttered. But because those who believe in limited atonement rest the weight of salvation on a Sovereign God, they spare nothing in requiring obvious fruit (godly sorrow and conviction of sin) and a good understanding of what is happening before even believing the gospel can be applied. There is no basis necessary that all must be equally savable before the preacher can open his mouth. It is, instead, what focus it brings.
I say that all not to absolutely disavow that universal redemption may be true. I don't know the counsels of God, but since I am utterly convinced that unless God build the house (including the foundation) that they labor in vain who build it, I cannot start the doctrine of salvation with conditions (i.e. that it necessarily be universal or that everyone who hears has an equal opportunity to be saved - I don't know their hearts or what God is doing).
Bottom line, knowing whether Christ's blood was shed for a particular person or not only matters when (and if) that person is first of all convinced and convicted of their guilt and natural enmity towards God. If so convicted and presented with the gospel, then the Calvinist would say that their acceptance of the good news is evidence that Christ's blood was shed for them.
So I don't see either the necessity for determining ahead of time whether Christ's blood was shed for the specific hearer since it will be clear when conviction is evident that they are in need of Christ and so will fall upon Him. Those that don't see the need simply won't and in that sense the blood of Christ wasn't shed for them. Were they predestined? That seems to be the secret counsels of God, but then again it is said in several places (Acts and the epistles) that men (some men?) are so predestined.
Sorry if this doesn't seem to conclude well or misses a point. I started at one point and had to step away for a few hours before I could complete it. I will address what is missing if necessary.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
Genesis 48:16
Cross Reference
New member
Literally or spiritually, was he speaking? Job knew his redeemer lived. Was Job also therefore redeemed or was it God a given promise that he relied upon that set his coarse in life?
beloved57
Well-known member
Job knew he was redeemed, that is a dumb question, He had stated I know my redeemer liveth !
beloved57
Well-known member
God took Christ at His word that He would make good the ransom price, so they were redeemed based on that !
Cross Reference
New member
ROFLMBO!!!!
nikolai_42
Well-known member
If we are being saved (as well as saved) and we will be saved, then his salvation and redemption were no different than ours - except that what we now know as historical fact he would have had to take on faith. Not seeing an outward fulfillment of the promise, he believed God (in a similar sense that Abraham did). Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day - I suspect Job and Jacob did as well. But I take it as literal in the sense that it was accomplished from before the foundations of the earth. His wrestling with the angel was very literal and what was wrought was very real. So I take it in the literal sense. And I take it in the same sense with Job. When he says that he knows his redeemer lives, he uses it in a present tense but with great future implications. It isn't simply a waiting but a present tense realization of redemption with a seeing afar off of that which is promised (and a part of redemption) but not yet delivered.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
I Timothy 2:5-6
Job and Jacob wouldn't have known the name "Jesus" (though they would be familiar with the common "Joshua" as an equivalent - and even Jacob's name is close, I believe), but we do. Likewise, we don't see the testimony Paul speaks of to Timothy as completed, but can attest to its certainty because of God's Word and what has been realized in the earth. We don't see all power and authority submitted to Christ...yet...but we know it has been in one sense by His death and resurrection. There is a very real current reality to that as we can see :
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Luke 11:17-20
There may be a promise to the kingdom and the authority thereof, but there is also a current reality to it. Redemption and salvation are, I take it, no different in that sense.
Everyone Christ died for, His Resurrection declared them Justified. Do you believe that ? Yes or No ?
I notice you've changed your tune...yet again. You still miss the point of having redemption applied and justification made known to the sinner.
Cross Reference
New member
Originally Posted by Cross Reference View Post
Literally or spiritually, was he speaking? Job knew his redeemer lived. Was Job also therefore redeemed or was it God a given promise that he relied upon that set his coarse in life?
As we also must do __ and walk it out as he did.
Only by faith could it be both for us and them. Though it was fulfilled by Jesus Christ is it not yet to be fulfilled if we are in Him?
Did not Jesus demonstrate the same disposition and had to be proven in it as Job and Jacob? What then is the difference or similarity between them?
Yes!
So then what do you suppose, what word, anchored [Jacob, Job, Paul] that they could see it all in finality? [hint: In the case of Jacob, A wrestling match and knowledge about Melchezdek. With Job, I can only conjecture. With Paul, the OT and a vision. All still required faith.]
But all is. That is why what we see is called rebelliousness __ by the freewill of man.
Here, your reference for this:
Don't you find it interesting that in the below passage Jesus uses both His titles in explaining His authority __ and for OUR benefit He does so?:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice," John 5:24-28 (KJV)
For the man of of God, I agree. It is called walking in intimacy with God. Seeking to and actually doing it will evidence the same result since it is accomplished in the disposition of man, transforming him by the 'Zion' of Jesus Christ, i.e., His Life, Spirit and government summed up in one word, "Pentecost".
Literally or spiritually, was he speaking? Job knew his redeemer lived. Was Job also therefore redeemed or was it God a given promise that he relied upon that set his coarse in life?
As we also must do __ and walk it out as he did.
Only by faith could it be both for us and them. Though it was fulfilled by Jesus Christ is it not yet to be fulfilled if we are in Him?
Did not Jesus demonstrate the same disposition and had to be proven in it as Job and Jacob? What then is the difference or similarity between them?
Yes!
So then what do you suppose, what word, anchored [Jacob, Job, Paul] that they could see it all in finality? [hint: In the case of Jacob, A wrestling match and knowledge about Melchezdek. With Job, I can only conjecture. With Paul, the OT and a vision. All still required faith.]
But all is. That is why what we see is called rebelliousness __ by the freewill of man.
Here, your reference for this:
Don't you find it interesting that in the below passage Jesus uses both His titles in explaining His authority __ and for OUR benefit He does so?:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice," John 5:24-28 (KJV)
For the man of of God, I agree. It is called walking in intimacy with God. Seeking to and actually doing it will evidence the same result since it is accomplished in the disposition of man, transforming him by the 'Zion' of Jesus Christ, i.e., His Life, Spirit and government summed up in one word, "Pentecost".
Last edited:
Sonnet
New member
You still have not dealt with why you won't (or don't) add the proviso I suggested. Also, as I have already said, Paul draws a clear distinction between faith and works. Faith is not considered a work.
There are zero scriptures that say that Christ died for less than all. There are lots of scriptures that explicitly say that Christ died for all men.
Unless a man recognises that he will not attain righteousness through his own efforts then, no, God will not call him. That does not avail your position.
You make it sound as if your position is that anyone can turn to Christ, but that is not the actual view of Calvinism where only the elect will be enabled to do so - and do so unconditionally.
As per the OP, the fact that Paul preached faith in Christ's blood and did not qualify it is proof that Christ died for all.
Honesty requires that the Calvinist should add his qualification (that Christ did not shed His blood for all) to the gospel. However, in doing so the gospel is eviscerated.
That Paul never added such a qualification should be enough evidence that such was not his position.
Sonnet
New member
...whilst Christ knocks on the door.
Cross Reference
New member
Yes! And that time is now that, "If any man Hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in and sup with Him, and he with me. Rev 3:20. ____ ANY MAN IN ANY OF THE CHURCHES MENTIONED.
Sonnet
New member
I agree. Even Judas Iscariot was provided for:
Luke 22:19-21
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table.