ECT Limited Atonement is a false gospel

[Nang]

Er, no. This is hyperbolic to the extreme.

The average person so believing is confused, but this does not mean they are reprobates. As is often humorously stated, they may be Christians, but just barely.

Worth a read:
View attachment 19170

AMR

So is this.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So is this.

The usual in-house disagreements between PRCA and others notwithstanding, what is the point? Nothing therein speaks to limited atonement, the topic of my linked item. :AMR1: Can we stay on topic? :idunno:

AMR

 

[musterion]

It's been years since I was tempted to believe the blood of Christ was shed only for a presumably small minority of humanity, and even now I still can't get my mind and soul wrapped around the idea that some people are convinced that that is good news, or how God is good when He could have just as well shed it for all. I guess there's just some things I wasn't mean to understand.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

It is my opinion, that understanding Limited Atonement is vital to upholding Unconditional Election. If LA goes down, the doctrine of Election goes down, the result being, the Reformed faith is seriously stricken, weakened, and inconsistent to say the least.

That is why LA is the most argued and opposed of the five major doctrinal points.

You are quite aware of the Amyraldian argument that Reformers can supposedly and successfully hold to only 4 of the doctrines, but it has been my experience it most often fails, and the 4-pointer eventually ends up back in the Arminian camp to some degree or other.

I do not think any of us have the right or the knowledge to declare someone reprobate for any reason. None of us are the Judge of others' fate . . however, I think it is failing in our witness to be too soft when standing for Limited Atonement, considering it is absolute TRUTH.

Why would any of us suggest any part of God's TRUTH be neglected or our faithful and biblical defense be considered unnecessary?

(And that goes for wrong Eschatology, too!)

I like to post the things I know about.

However I do think that Christ's suffering and death was for all men who will believe alone, because men who do not call upon the Lord will die for their own sins.

When I understood that the sufferings of Christ were the punishments due to His own people, and not for all men, then His death was for His own people too.

LA

 

[musterion]

I like to post the things I know about.

But you post about hearing from God.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

It's been years since I was tempted to believe the blood of Christ was shed only for a presumably small minority of humanity, and even now I still can't get my mind and soul wrapped around the idea that some people are convinced that that is good news, or how God is good when He could have just as well shed it for all. I guess there's just some things I wasn't mean to understand.

You might have trouble with the idea because Christ dispenses forgiveness in our time due to His elevation to the Throne.

So while the Father may know who will be His and who will not, I doubt that Jesus does know ahead of time.

Our dealings are with the man Jesus Christ so we do not have to get all screwed up in our minds trying to understand everything about our Father which we are yet incapable of knowing.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

But you post about hearing from God.

Anything said from God to me has been through Jesus Christ, except for once, and it was by overhearing our Father speaking to Jesus concerning one of my concerns.

You best get filled with the Holy Spirit and it will take you to a whole new realm.

LA

 

[genuineoriginal]

T
U
L
Invalid comments
P!

Please fill in the rest.
Thank you.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It is my opinion, that understanding Limited Atonement is vital to upholding Unconditional Election. If LA goes down, the doctrine of Election goes down, the result being, the Reformed faith is seriously stricken, weakened, and inconsistent to say the least.

That is why LA is the most argued and opposed of the five major doctrinal points.

You are quite aware of the Amyraldian argument that Reformers can supposedly and successfully hold to only 4 of the doctrines, but it has been my experience it most often fails, and the 4-pointer eventually ends up back in the Arminian camp to some degree or other.

I do not think any of us have the right or the knowledge to declare someone reprobate for any reason. None of us are the Judge of others' fate . . however, I think it is failing in our witness to be too soft when standing for Limited Atonement, considering it is absolute TRUTH.

Why would any of us suggest any part of God's TRUTH be neglected or our faithful and biblical defense be considered unnecessary?

(And that goes for wrong Eschatology, too!)

I agree with most of this. That a doctrine is not essential for salvation doesn't mean it should be ignored.

I can't comment too much on eschatology because I am still uncertain of my own position. I know that dispensationalism is wrong and that full preterism is wrong, but beyond that i don't know a whole lot. I think most Christians today have bigger issues than bad eschatology, so I don't usually comment on it. I would argue that the church today (In the USA) has somewhere between a weak and total lack of understanding of basic moral issues, which is far more important than one's millennial view, IMO. That doesn't mean its not worth studying, however.

Regarding limited atonement, I believe this doctrine to be extremely important. Rejecting it cheapens the atonement of Christ because it says that Christ did not fully accomplish redemption on the cross. The question is, does the person who accepts "unlimited atonement" realize what he is implicitly doing? Probably not.

My brother (last I checked) holds to 4 point Calvinism at the moment, rejecting the L. I think he's wrong. I also believe strongly that he's saved. He's also young. I think he'll come around eventually.

Yes there is a difference between the willfully entrenched that are not open to correction and the genuinely confused.

I prefer not to make sweeping generalizations. After all, specific folks are members here so we have their own words to form opinions and judgement about. I'd rather we deal in specifics than sweep a majority, e.g., your "almost all", into a categorical opinion. There are hundreds of members at this site but we often tend to form opinions by the 30-50 or so genuinely active and vocal members. This is the error of recency effects in statistics. Go to the Forum Leaderboard page and set the option to view top posters to something like 50 or more. These are the ones that most form sweeping casual opinions about the entire population of members. For example, the top 50 current posters are:

1 Lighthouse 34,184
2 godrulz 33,505
3 chrysostom 33,126
4 Grosnick Marowbe 32,841
5 Knight 31,219
6 beloved57 29,592
7 Nick M 28,260
8 Untellectual 27,987
9 john w 26,924
10 Town Heretic 26,105
11 Stripe 25,039
12 Granite 24,992
13 Angel4Truth 24,501
14 SaulToPaul 20,988
15 God's Truth 20,475
16 resurrected 19,824
17 tetelestai 19,815
18 glorydaz 19,514
19 meshak 19,139
20 kmoney 18,724
21 Tambora 18,644
22 Cruciform 18,298
23 bybee 17,625
24 Rusha 17,010
25 elohiym 16,985
26 The Barbarian 16,809
27 aCultureWarrior 15,720
28 graceandpeace 15,260
29 BillyBob 15,169
30 Totton Linnet 14,682
31 some other dude 14,628
32 Delmar 14,612
33 genuineoriginal 14,513
34 Lazy afternoon 14,094
35 noguru 13,944
36 Robert Pate 13,818
37 oatmeal 13,761
38 Arthur Brain 12,716
39 Nang 12,640
40 Cross Reference 12,611
41 Eeset 12,470
42 Squeaky 12,397
43 Inzl Kett 12,222
44 Aimiel 12,168
45 keypurr 12,143
46 TruthSetsFree 12,009
47 Jerry Shugart 11,987
48 annabenedetti 11,727
49 Bright Raven 11,665
1 Lighthouse 34,184
2 godrulz 33,505
3 chrysostom 33,126
4 Grosnick Marowbe 32,841
5 Knight 31,219
6 beloved57 29,592
7 Nick M 28,260
8 Untellectual 27,987
9 john w 26,924
10 Town Heretic 26,105
11 Stripe 25,039
12 Granite 24,992
13 Angel4Truth 24,501
14 SaulToPaul 20,988
15 God's Truth 20,475
16 resurrected 19,824
17 tetelestai 19,815
18 glorydaz 19,514
19 meshak 19,139
20 kmoney 18,724
21 Tambora 18,644
22 Cruciform 18,298
23 bybee 17,625
24 Rusha 17,010
25 elohiym 16,985
26 The Barbarian 16,809
27 aCultureWarrior 15,720
28 graceandpeace 15,260
29 BillyBob 15,169
30 Totton Linnet 14,682
31 some other dude 14,628
32 Delmar 14,612
33 genuineoriginal 14,513
34 Lazy afternoon 14,094
35 noguru 13,944
36 Robert Pate 13,818
37 oatmeal 13,761
38 Arthur Brain 12,716
39 Nang 12,640
40 Cross Reference 12,611
41 Eeset 12,470
42 Squeaky 12,397
43 Inzl Kett 12,222
44 Aimiel 12,168
45 keypurr 12,143
46 TruthSetsFree 12,009
47 Jerry Shugart 11,987
48 annabenedetti 11,727
49 Bright Raven 11,665
50 serpentdove 11,582

Good pojnt. I would say most of the active posters and those who represent the views of the admins.

It's been years since I was tempted to believe the blood of Christ was shed only for a presumably small minority of humanity, and even now I still can't get my mind and soul wrapped around the idea that some people are convinced that that is good news, or how God is good when He could have just as well shed it for all. I guess there's just some things I wasn't mean to understand.

First of all, the Bible teaches so.

Second of all, God didn't have to save ANYONE. That he does is merciful. You aren't entitled to it.

 

[beloved57]

What gospel doctrine do I reject?

Read my threads ! You and I have been over this many times as well, you should have saved those discussions !

 

[musterion]

There are hundreds of members at this site but we often tend to form opinions by the 30-50 or so genuinely active and vocal members.

By that logic, opinions on this board would be most influenced by the top three.

1 Lighthouse 34,184
2 godrulz 33,505
3 chrysostom 33,126

Lighthouse is marked as a heretic by most because he's MAD and/or because he's OT, making him among the most genuinely despised by the biggest cross-section of members.

Godrulz goes without saying; largely ignored by most because he's irrational and repetitive.

Chrysostom says not much of consequence because it's straight papistry right down the line. People already either agree with him (because they're RC or only occasionally because they're SoCon) or they don't. His posts taken as an overall whole, the safe guess is, most don't.

I'm not sure your hypothesis is borne out by the data.

 

[musterion]

First of all, the Bible teaches so.

You said yesterday MADs preach a false gospel because some of us believe there are different gospels at different times in the Bible. Forget that we believe salvation TODAY is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, without works...you don't really believe we believe that. So you wrote us all off because what some of us believe about God's expectations of covenant O.T. believers, which He does not require of anyone today.

Yet here you are, RIGHT NOW, limiting the grace of the Cross to an unidentified and unidentifiable minority of humanity, and you say it's been that way FROM THE BEGINNING.

So who here is really preaching the false gospel, by your own standards?

Second of all, God didn't have to save ANYONE. That he does is merciful. You aren't entitled to it.

Stop with the juvenile straw men. The issue has never been what God HAD to or was REQUIRED to do for any of us. God did not HAVE to save anyone, and I know no one who thinks He did so. None of us were ever entitled to ANYTHING BUT DAMNATION.

"But God...!"

The issue - which none of you want to deal with - is what He has said in His Word that He WILL do for ANY of us if we believe the Gospel of Christ, which is not your gospel.

 

[beloved57]

Er, no. This is hyperbolic to the extreme.

The average person so believing is confused, but this does not mean they are reprobates. As is often humorously stated, they may be Christians, but just barely.

Worth a read:
View attachment 19170

AMR

Those who are confused about the Gospel are yet in a Lost state and evidence no Spiritual Life or teaching ! One of the results of the Sanctifying Work of the Spirit is Belief of the Truth 2 Thess 2:13

13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:


The Truth here is the Gospel, which Limited Atonement is a principle teaching of, now for a person to be confused about it means that , if they are supposedly saved and born of the Spirit, that the Spirit is having a very difficult time convincing them of the Truth, which such a thought is repulsive to say the least, So, those who are confused about the Gospel, lack any evidence of the Spirit's Sanctifying Work in their Life, which means that no Life of His is in them !

 

[steko]

Anything said from God to me has been through Jesus Christ, except for once, and it was by overhearing our Father speaking to Jesus concerning one of my concerns.


LA

Been eavesdropping, huh?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Been eavesdropping, huh?

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

 

[TulipBee]

The Arminian view of Christ’s atonement not only contradicts the biblical definition of Christ’s redemptive work, but also contradicts itself. An examination of three options regarding Christ’s death will prove that Arminianism is irrational. Jesus Christ paid the price and endured God’s wrath against sin for either: 1) all the sins of all men, 2) all the sins of some men, or 3) some of the sins of all men. If number 3 is true, then all men still have the guilt of some sins to answer for. This would mean that all men will go to hell, for it only takes the guilt of one sin to merit eternal damnation. If one holds to option 2, that Christ died for all of the sins of some men, then one believes that only some men (i.e., God’s elect) will be saved and go to heaven. This is simply biblical Christianity; that Christ actually achieved the salvation of all of God’s elect. The non-elect are passed by and perish. Arminianism, or inconsistent universalism, holds to position number 1, that Christ died for all the sins of all men. If this position is true, then why are not all men freed from the punishment of all their sins. The Arminian will answer: “because they refused to believe in Jesus Christ. They are guilty of unbelief.“ But this unbelief, is it a sin or is it not a sin? If unbelief is not a sin, then why should anyone by punished for it? If unbelief is a sin, then Christ was punished for it in His death. If Christ paid for this sin as all others, then why must this sin stop anyone from entering heaven more than any of the other sins (e.g., murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc.). Furthermore, if Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, then one cannot say that He died for all the sins of all men. The Arminian cannot escape from the horns of this theological dilemma.

Source from monergism.com

 

[Nang]

The Arminian view of Christ’s atonement not only contradicts the biblical definition of Christ’s redemptive work, but also contradicts itself. An examination of three options regarding Christ’s death will prove that Arminianism is irrational. Jesus Christ paid the price and endured God’s wrath against sin for either: 1) all the sins of all men, 2) all the sins of some men, or 3) some of the sins of all men. If number 3 is true, then all men still have the guilt of some sins to answer for. This would mean that all men will go to hell, for it only takes the guilt of one sin to merit eternal damnation. If one holds to option 2, that Christ died for all of the sins of some men, then one believes that only some men (i.e., God’s elect) will be saved and go to heaven. This is simply biblical Christianity; that Christ actually achieved the salvation of all of God’s elect. The non-elect are passed by and perish. Arminianism, or inconsistent universalism, holds to position number 1, that Christ died for all the sins of all men. If this position is true, then why are not all men freed from the punishment of all their sins. The Arminian will answer: “because they refused to believe in Jesus Christ. They are guilty of unbelief.“ But this unbelief, is it a sin or is it not a sin? If unbelief is not a sin, then why should anyone by punished for it? If unbelief is a sin, then Christ was punished for it in His death. If Christ paid for this sin as all others, then why must this sin stop anyone from entering heaven more than any of the other sins (e.g., murder, adultery, homosexuality, etc.). Furthermore, if Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, then one cannot say that He died for all the sins of all men. The Arminian cannot escape from the horns of this theological dilemma.

:first:

This logic cannot be argued nor denied.

 

[Nang]

Doom, in ignorance claims the above post was plaguarized, but this is a famous piece of logic, developed centuries ago by the theologian, John Owen, and is an integral teaching within the Reformed churches.

 

[Doom]

Doom, in ignorance claims the above post was plaguarized, but this is a famous piece of logic, developed centuries ago by the theologian, John Owen, and is an integral teaching within the Reformed churches.

I posted the link, you pig.

I knew what it was when I read it, and knew that TulipBee did not write it, and the troll gave no source, which TOL once required.

So, go to hell you witch.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Arminian view of Christ’s atonement not only contradicts the biblical definition of Christ’s redemptive work, but also contradicts itself. An examination of three options regarding Christ’s death will prove that Arminianism is irrational.

Arminian theology and Calvinist theology are both wrong.
Maybe you are too busy focusing on Arminian boogeymen to look at scripture?

it only takes the guilt of one sin to merit eternal damnation.

This lie comes from the pit of hell and not from the Bible.

only some men (i.e., God’s elect) will be saved and go to heaven. This is simply biblical Christianity; that Christ actually achieved the salvation of all of God’s elect. The non-elect are passed by and perish.

There is nothing Biblical about this.

Christ died for all the sins of all men.

Yes, that is what the Bible says.

If this position is true, then why are not all men freed from the punishment of all their sins.

A debt transferred from one person to another is still a debt that must be repaid or forgiven.

When Jesus died for all the sins of all men, He bought the debts of all men.
Now all men owe Jesus the debt for sin instead of owing the debt for sin to the Father.
So, instead of the Father choosing whose sins will be forgiven, Jesus now has the power to forgive the sins for whosoever He will.

This does not mean that Jesus has to forgive the debts of everyone (universal salvation).
Jesus still has requirements for people to follow before He will forgive their debt.
Jesus will not forgive the sins of anyone that does not meet His requirements.