Limited Atonement

[Guest]

You can boil it down to this. Our faith is a gift from God lest we boast BUT what is it that generates this faith.
Is it our response to the gospel or seeing God's hand in nature or entirely because God ordained that we should believe.
Are we capable of responding or making choices? Do we not respond to other things in life , if so why is it implausible that we should respond to God.
Does scripture say to man that he should WAIT UNTIL GOD ORDAINS him or does it encourage us to respond to God?
Did God make us different from animals because animals could'nt chose unless they were programmed to therefore did God create us like the animals or are we different?
Are we made in God's image or are we just another animal waiting to be programmed properly?

[Guest]

1 Timothy 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Seems to me these predestinationalists are out to lunch.
Ya I made up a word.

[Guest]

1 Timothy 2
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Well the Calvinists believe God's will must be done therefore by logical extension they s/b universalists.


1 Tim 4.10 "because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men ,especially of those who believe."

[Guest]

Jesusfollower,

That is an great Scripture to bring to the table concering the Calvinist discussions. However, they have their own understanding of it. See the post called "The Calvinist Understanding Of 1 Timothy 2:3-6.

[Guest]

Many years ago a Calvinist friend posed the question " if Jesus paid the price for all sin then all sin must be cancelled and everyone must be saved! the only other alternative is that the atonement is limited." I could see the logic and found this very confusing because I really believe the Word of God which declares Christs death for all but that not all would be saved. This confusion lasted for a long time until I was fortunate to pick up a book "The Atonement" by Albert Barnes.

Simply put (I suggest the book is read before putting down my simple explanation) Barnes states that Jesus did not suffer the literal penalty but a penalty of far greater worth and value. Basically it goes like this "if the punishment is a fine of $1000 then a payment of $1000 will get you free and the lawgiver must except the literal payment. But is a friend offers a painting worth $8000 it can be excepted by the lawgiver on conditions being met and can be refused if those conditons are not applied.

Therefore Christ offers a substitionary sacrifice of greater value and worth for all humanity but this will only be excepted on condition of faith and repentance. If these conditions are not met the lawgiver can refuse the application of the substitution becuase it is not the literal demand of the law.

I may have over simplified this and I think Barnes book needs a read to do it justice. For me this understanding of the Atonement answers the Calvinist and Universalist.

[Guest]

interesting thoughts Mark G!

[Guest]

Many years ago a Calvinist friend posed the question " if Jesus paid the price for all sin then all sin must be cancelled and everyone must be saved! the only other alternative is that the atonement is limited." I could see the logic and found this very confusing because I really believe the Word of God which declares Christs death for all but that not all would be saved. This confusion lasted for a long time until I was fortunate to pick up a book "The Atonement" by Albert Barnes.

Simply put (I suggest the book is read before putting down my simple explanation) Barnes states that Jesus did not suffer the literal penalty but a penalty of far greater worth and value. Basically it goes like this "if the punishment is a fine of $1000 then a payment of $1000 will get you free and the lawgiver must except the literal payment. But is a friend offers a painting worth $8000 it can be excepted by the lawgiver on conditions being met and can be refused if those conditons are not applied.

Therefore Christ offers a substitionary sacrifice of greater value and worth for all humanity but this will only be excepted on condition of faith and repentance. If these conditions are not met the lawgiver can refuse the application of the substitution becuase it is not the literal demand of the law.

I may have over simplified this and I think Barnes book needs a read to do it justice. For me this understanding of the Atonement answers the Calvinist and Universalist.

Is this the standard Arminian explanation? I have been confused about this too.

[Guest]

Steve, where are you on this one?

[Guest]

"who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time." 1 Tim 2.6

Here Paul calls Jesus a RANSOM (equal payment) FOR ALL , that does'nt square with limited atonement. Ransom does'nt square with Barnes's explanation.


I still can't understand how Calvinism can lead to anything other then universalism.
God's will is that everyone be saved, God's will is always done, Man's will is an idol of the heart according to Calvinists.

[Guest]

Steve7150 says "Here Paul calls Jesus a RANSOM (equal payment) FOR ALL , that does'nt square with limited atonement. Ransom does'nt square with Barnes's explanation.[quote]

Does 1 Timothy 2:6 actually say "equal payment" or is that an idea imposed on the text.

Exo 30:12 When you count the sons of Israel, of those who are to be counted, then they shall each man give a ransom for his soul to Jehovah when you number them, so that there may be no plague among them when you number them.
Exo 30:13 They shall give this, every one that passes among those who are counted, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs); a half shekel shall be the offering of Jehovah.

Here the ransom is clearly not carrying a meaning of "Equality"

Exo 21:29 But if the ox was apt to gore in time past, and his owner has been told, and he has not kept him in, but that he has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
Exo 21:30 If there is laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatever is laid upon him.

Greek lutron, antilutron (1Ti_2:6). ("A price paid for freeing a captive".) Anti implies vicarious, equivalent substitution, "a ransom for many"

I still think there's some sense in a substitutionary suffering. e.g In the UK if a group of our citizens were arrested and sentenced to a week in a french prison the offer of Her Majesty the Queen of England to take their place for just two days would be considered of greater value and worth to the satisfaction of law.

If the literal penalty for sin is eternal separation from God then clearly Christ did not suffer the literal penalty!