Okay, let's talk about predestination

[ImaginaryDay2]

Suggesting [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] is a synergist is a flame if I've ever heard one!
(not really a flame, I'm joking...)

 

[MennoSota]

The "conflict" is with your limitation of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide, and your persistent confusion of universal atonement with universalism. Let me try this yet again, still one more time: No, I don't limit God's love (nor make it conditional) and I don't limit Christ and His work. Unlike you, I accept Sola Gratia and Solus Christus - fully, not limited and restricted and conditional. It's just you then want to switch topics. No, Sola Gratia - Solus Christus does NOT equal justification (thus your constant accusation of universalism is absurd, you are dismissing Sola Fide), for justification the issue is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - SOLA FIDE. Yes, God's love is unconditional and unlimited, Christ is unlimited and sufficient - I reject that small God and insufficient Christ. And that's EXACTLY WHY faith is always effectual - there is ALWAYS something real THERE for it to embrace/apprehend. Yes all 3 aspects must be there for justification in an individual's case.... but your premise that if faith is lacking, THEREFORE God is lacking, God is limited, God's love is conditional... Christ is lacking, Christ is limited.... that's just part of your problem.






WHAT? That's an entirely different thread.... I did NOT do an edit on your post, what you stated is simply a falsehood.



Now, back to the topic (which is NOT Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement).....



- Josiah

Josiah, no one is disagreeing with God's love being unlimited. We are disagreeing with Christ blood sacrifice (atonement). You are saying that Christ’s blood removed the stain of sin for all mankind, both past, present and future. That is the position that unlimited atonement states. Perhaps you are confused and think God's unlimited love is the same as atonement. They are different.
If you cannot grasp how Solus Christus, Sola Fide and Sola Gratia all align in limited atonement, then you need to go back and study.
Faith cannot function unless God has made people alive in Christ. Solus Christus and Sola Gratia must be given before Sola Fide can function. Faith does not exist in a vacuum. God must give it as a gift.
Unlimited atonement requires God to extend grace to the entire human race. In your position, God has elected everyone because the atoning blood sacrifice of Christ has made everyone white as snow.
You will balk at this because you make this bizarre distinction whereby universal atonement isn't really universal at all. It is only effectual for the elect. Thus, Christ, having sprinkled his blood on all humanity, only has his blood effectually remove the stain of the elect. You then claim it's just all a mystery.
Josiah, unlimited atonement is a natural fit for universalism, yet you somehow imagine it promotes the Sola's. Sorry, your position is a jumbled mess.

 

[MennoSota]

Suggesting [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] is a synergist is a flame if I've ever heard one!
(not really a flame, I'm joking...)

Well, he'll certainly deny it, but unlimited atonement is the bread and butter of synergist's so make the connection.

 

[Josiah]

Suggesting [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] is a synergist is a flame if I've ever heard one!
(not really a flame, I'm joking...)

... not a flame, just absurdly funny.


Seriously, what we're witnessing is often the case with Calvinists and Arminianists..... both are radical, "logical" constructions meant to "answer" honest questions that Scripture obviously doesn't answer (and for 1500 years were accepted as MYSTERY).... one looks to Greek philosophy (especially Fate) and the other to humanism (especially "free will"). In "Evangelicalism" Arminianism clearly is willing but the Calvinists aren't going down silently! BOTH fight their war by attacking the flaws in the other (and labeling all that disagree as the other - neither side will admit to any position but these two), so they "win" if they can force you into the most radical form of their enemy and then attack you for all the obvious faults that both have. Thus, as absurd as it is (and yes, funny) to accuse me of being a universalist and synergist - that's how they work, then attack universalism and synergism and declare victory. You can read this at any Calvinist or Arminianist website.

IMO, just reading both SO WELL showing the absurdities of the others kinda proves both are wrong. Both do EXACTLY the same thing: begin with a good question.... appoint self to answer it "logically".... look to philosophy (one to the Greeks, the other to the French Enlightenment)... quote Scriptures that they see as supporting their theory, and (pretty radically) dismissing and "spinning" the verses that don't..... then attack the other side for doing what they do.

Luther said that "humility is the foundation of all theology." For 1500 years, what we are discussing was not called "theology" it was called "The Holy Mysteries." Arminius and Calvin - both living in the 16th Century - began this war of opposite theories (well more their followers), and began fighting it the way we STILL see it. And yes, it is often absurdly funny. And ironic, both sides SO clearly see what's going on when their enemy is doing it, and are so blind when they do EXACTLY the same thing to THEIR declared enemy. I wish both would step back a bit and get some perspective on what they are doing....

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does it say "the whole world" in any of those verses?
...

No, neither of the verses says "whole world" nevertheless another verse does

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Albert Barnes' notes on the Bible

But also for the sins of the whole world - The phrase the sins of is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, the whole world, is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things:

(1)that the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another;
(2)that it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if anymore should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them;
(3)that it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the salvation of one easier than that of another.​

It so magnified the law, so honoured God, so fully expressed the divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all people, that the offer of salvation might be made as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is another question, and one which does not affect the inquiry about the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the atonement was made for all, see the 2Co 5:14 note, and Heb 2:9 note. (See also the Supplementary notes at these passages, for a general review of the argument regarding the extent of atonement.)​

 

[MennoSota]

No, neither of the verses says "whole world" nevertheless another verse does

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
​

So, let's break this down.
Jesus did not just die for the Jews. He died for the entire world. God calls people from every tribe, kindred and social group. The whole world has the opportunity to receive his grace.
What we don't read is that Christ’s atoning sacrifice removed the stains of all human beings and made them right with God.
To whom was John writing? Was it to the elect or to the unsaved?
SIGN IN OR CREATE ACCOUNT
Categories:
The Whole*World

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John*2:2).
- 1 John 2:2
In today’s passage, John expands on the idea of Christ being our Advocate as explained in 1 John 2:1. In verse 2, we see that Jesus is the “propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole*world.”
The idea of propitiation is central to the atonement. We learned yesterday that God is a just and holy God and therefore must punish sin. But God also loves His people and desires to be in relationship with them. In order that God’s love and justice might both be satisfied, the wrath of God against our sin must be placated; this happened in the atonement. On the cross, the sins of God’s people were imputed to Jesus and He bore the full wrath of God that is due them. This wrath having been satisfied, God can now be favorable, or propitious, to His people. His love provided a way for His wrath to be satisfied so that we might be reckoned as righteous in His sight and enjoy fellowship with Him (Rom.*3:21–26).
John teaches that this propitiation is not only for us but is also for the whole world (1 John 2:2). But if Christ has satisfied the wrath of God for the whole world, then is the whole world going to be*saved?
Many passages of Scripture make it clear that this cannot be the case (for example, Rev. 21:8). What 1 John 2:2 is telling us is that Jesus is the only Savior of the world; that is, He is the only way anyone can be saved no matter who he is (John 14:6). Jesus died to save a people out of every nation; in that sense, He is the propitiation for the whole world Nevertheless, this does not mean that He died for every individual who has ever*lived.
Jesus’ death benefits only those who trust in Him, for only those who serve Him in faith receive cleansing from Him (1 John 1:7). This does not make the efficacy of the atonement dependent on us, however. Jesus does not offer a potential atonement for all that we make effectual by our believing; rather, He offers an effectual atonement for His people, which cleanses them, and only them, from their unrighteousness. John simply reminds us in 2:2 that Jesus is the only way for anyone to be saved, not that the atonement is*universal.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/whole-world/​

 

[Imalive]

Yep. Saul, renamed Paul, is a good example.

That text is not about Paul. It's about false teachers who were first bought by His blood and then they deny Him and perish. There's that other text too, that they go back to their sins and crucify Him twice.
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

So He did not only die for the elect that make it til the end. Did He carry those future sins of those people who got back to their old lifestyle? I doubt it. Or the sins of the pharisees against the Holy Spirit? I guess not.

Paul died with Christ when he got saved. If someone doesn't accept Him then of course he doesn't die with Christ and still gets punished for his sins cause his sin nature stays.

 

[Imalive]

http://christcrucified.info/teaching_tracts/Do-Born-Again-Christians-Have-a-Sinful-Nature.html

 

[Josiah]

No, neither of the verses says "whole world" nevertheless another verse does

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.



Albert Barnes' notes on the Bible

But also for the sins of the whole world - The phrase the sins of is not in the original, but is not improperly supplied, for the connection demands it. This is one of the expressions occurring in the New Testament which demonstrate that the atonement was made for all people, and which cannot be reconciled with any other opinion. If he had died only for a part of the race, this language could not have been used. The phrase, the whole world, is one which naturally embraces all people; is such as would be used if it be supposed that the apostle meant to teach that Christ died for all people; and is such as cannot be explained on any other supposition. If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true. This passage, interpreted in its plain and obvious meaning, teaches the following things:

(1)that the atonement in its own nature is adapted to all people, or that it is as much fitted to one individual, or one class, as another;
(2)that it is sufficient in merit for all; that is, that if anymore should be saved than actually will be, there would be no need of any additional suffering in order to save them;
(3)that it has no special adaptedness to one person or class more than another; that is, that in its own nature it did not render the salvation of one easier than that of another.​

It so magnified the law, so honoured God, so fully expressed the divine sense of the evil of sin in respect to all people, that the offer of salvation might be made as freely to one as to another, and that any and all might take shelter under it and be safe. Whether, however, God might not, for wise reasons, resolve that its benefits should be applied to a part only, is another question, and one which does not affect the inquiry about the intrinsic nature of the atonement. On the evidence that the atonement was made for all, see the 2 Corinthians 5:14 note, and Hebrews 2:9 note. (See also the Supplementary notes at these passages, for a general review of the argument regarding the extent of atonement.)

There are many clear Scriptures that contradict the weird "limited atonement" theory of these "TULIP" Calvinists.....


In addition to First John 2:2....
First Timothy 2:4
Second Peter 3:9
Ezekiel 18:23
John 3:16

Sure, TULIP Calvinists will "spin" these until they "mean" the opposite of what they say in order to "fit" THEIR theory and sense of "logic"

I think a better approach is to accept what God says as true - and not "spin" it to say the opposite. Yes, we may put these verses next to others and have some questions, but that doesn't mean that self can simply appoint self to "answer" the questions of self and then mandate that God agrees with self or else God is illogical, ignorant and silly. Sometimes we are left with "MYSTERY".... sometimes God chose not to reveal all the pieces of the puzzle.... God is not mandated to answer ALL possible questions (even good ones) nor has He commanded each Christian to "answer" them FOR HIM since He never thought of the answer or didn't know the answer or wasn't smart enough to come up with the answer of self. What happened to humility? To letting God be God? To accepting that God is bigger and smarter than we are?

But my biggest issue with the TULIPian Calvinists is that their new theory of "limited atonement" not only directly contradicts a lot of very clear Scriptures but creates a monster: it means that our faith is probably in vain since there's not necessarily anything real for it to apprehend; this (as well as the OSAS part of their new TULIP "answer") creates a "terror" and simply means that likely most Christians ... well.... are not saved at all in spite of their divine gift of faith.


- Josiah



.

 

[Imalive]

There are many clear Scriptures that contradict the weird "limited atonement" theory of these "TULIP" Calvinists.....

I was wondering... tulips.. thats really Dutch. Did they invent that stuff here? Yes hear. LOL. Sorry. We should have better just sent everyone tulips from Amsterdam.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-12/tulip.html

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ZoJpWwi4E

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Okay... so where scripture says "the whole world" it doesn't mean the whole world; and where it doesn't say "the whole world" it also doesn't mean the whole world. Got it.
Does this also count for "whosoever"? :thinking:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Okay... so where scripture says "the whole world" it doesn't mean the whole world; and where it doesn't say "the whole world" it also doesn't mean the whole world. Got it.
Does this also count for "whosoever"? :thinking:

The way that hermeneutic works is that "all" means "elect" when referring to salvation and "all" means everybody when referring to almost anything else except condemnation to hell. The same applies "world" and "the whole world". The elect are alleged to be "all sorts of people" and that is shortened to "all" by the biblical authors it seems, according to that hermeneutic. Thus we should read the following verses like this:

1 Timothy 2:4 KJV Who will have all [kinds of] men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 John 2:2 KJV And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the [elect who are found throughout] whole world.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [of the elect] should perish, but that all [kinds of people] should come to repentance.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 KJV 14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all [kinds of people], then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all [kinds of people], that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all [kinds of people] be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Romans 5:18 KJV Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all [kinds of] men unto justification of life.

John 3:16 KJV For God so loved [elect of] the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 12:32 KJV And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [kinds of] men unto me.

Romans 8:32 KJV He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all [the elect], how shall he not with him also freely give us all [the elect] things?​

I suspect that the most ardent supporter of the kind of theology of salvation proposed in The Westminster Confession of Faith would baulk at inserting those words in the text of holy scripture but commentaries from those who teach this kind of doctrine seek to explain these passages by inserting similar text into their explanations.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There are many clear Scriptures that contradict the weird "limited atonement" theory of these "TULIP" Calvinists.....

...

Albert Barnes was a Presbyterian and I think he did in fact support TULIP Calvinism nevertheless he appears to deal with Hebrews 6:6 as it is written despite the problems it creates for Limited atonement (the L from TULIP). Maybe he was honest even if it meant some difficulty for his theology.

Albert Barnes (December 1, 1798 – December 24, 1870)[1] was an American theologian, born in Rome, New York. He graduated from Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, in 1820, and from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1823. Barnes was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor successively of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey (1825–1830), and of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (1830–1868). Contemporarily, Barnes is most known for his extensive Bible commentary and notes on the Old and New Testaments, published in a total of 14 volumes in the 1830's.

 

[Imalive]

How do they share the gospel?
Hello can I tell you about our wonderful Saviour? Maybe He died for you cause He loved you so much.
Or maybe not. Depends if you're elect.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How do they share the gospel?
Hello can I tell you about our wonderful Saviour? Maybe He died for you cause He loved you so much.
Or maybe not. Depends if you're elect.

No, a typical Presbyterian would share the gospel using something like this - Hi, when you die and God asks you "why should I let you into my heaven?" what will you say?

 

[MennoSota]

There are many clear Scriptures that contradict the weird "limited atonement" theory of these "TULIP" Calvinists.....


In addition to First John 2:2....
First Timothy 2:4
Second Peter 3:9
Ezekiel 18:23
John 3:16

Sure, TULIP Calvinists will "spin" these until they "mean" the opposite of what they say in order to "fit" THEIR theory and sense of "logic"

I think a better approach is to accept what God says as true - and not "spin" it to say the opposite. Yes, we may put these verses next to others and have some questions, but that doesn't mean that self can simply appoint self to "answer" the questions of self and then mandate that God agrees with self or else God is illogical, ignorant and silly. Sometimes we are left with "MYSTERY".... sometimes God chose not to reveal all the pieces of the puzzle.... God is not mandated to answer ALL possible questions (even good ones) nor has He commanded each Christian to "answer" them FOR HIM since He never thought of the answer or didn't know the answer or wasn't smart enough to come up with the answer of self. What happened to humility? To letting God be God? To accepting that God is bigger and smarter than we are?

But my biggest issue with the TULIPian Calvinists is that their new theory of "limited atonement" not only directly contradicts a lot of very clear Scriptures but creates a monster: it means that our faith is probably in vain since there's not necessarily anything real for it to apprehend; this (as well as the OSAS part of their new TULIP "answer") creates a "terror" and simply means that likely most Christians ... well.... are not saved at all in spite of their divine gift of faith.


- Josiah



.

Odd logic from you, Josiah.

If you pluck those four verses from their surroundings and place them in a picture by themselves, you can claim they mean anything your heart wants them to mean. It fits perfectly with our post-modern society that bases its belief on its emotions.

Odd that you complain about the 5 rebuttals against the Remonstrants. You keep saying you're a monergist, but you side with synergism and Arminius on many things.

Limited atonement is found from Genesis on to Revelation so it takes a tunnel vision and verse plucking to support unlimited atonement. Not to mention that unlimited atonement leads directly to universalism and points at God being too weak to save those for whom His atonement must surely have made clean. Of course the silly comeback is that human will overrides God's atonement, that sin is greater and stronger than God's grace (which completely contradicts Romans 5-8).

I have read enough to note that you rarely address the text, but instead attack an idea that you don't like. You have argued against Anabaptists, even though no one brought it up. You have argued against Calvin, though no one brought it up. You have hid behind the Sola's without proving them in your argument. You have now broadly debunked the 5 points against the Remonstrants as invalid but don't realize that those points stood against synergism and Anabaptist ideas of atonement.
In other words, you are struggling with contradictions in your own position. Your out, from your predicament, is to toss your hands in the air and call it a mystery. That, to me, is your cop-out to avoid the text of scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

How do they share the gospel?
Hello can I tell you about our wonderful Saviour? Maybe He died for you cause He loved you so much.
Or maybe not. Depends if you're elect.

"Christ died for sins according to the scripture. He was buried and rose again on the third day according to the scriptures." He appeared to the apostles and over 500 after his resurrection. He offers reconciliation to those who are perishing.
If people respond to the gospel, praise God. If they don't respond, God is not drawing them...yet. God may never draw them. But that's not our concern. God makes that decision. We simply preach reconciliation with God. Those who are elect will respond. Those who are not, will consider it foolishness and keep running away from the light toward darkness.

 

[MennoSota]

No, a typical Presbyterian would share the gospel using something like this - Hi, when you die and God asks you "why should I let you into my heaven?" what will you say?

What Presbyterian do you know?

 

[MennoSota]

The way that hermeneutic works is that "all" means "elect" when referring to salvation and "all" means everybody when referring to almost anything else except condemnation to hell. The same applies "world" and "the whole world". The elect are alleged to be "all sorts of people" and that is shortened to "all" by the biblical authors it seems, according to that hermeneutic. Thus we should read the following verses like this:

1 Timothy 2:4 KJV Who will have all [kinds of] men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 John 2:2 KJV And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the [elect who are found throughout] whole world.

2 Peter 3:9 KJV The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [of the elect] should perish, but that all [kinds of people] should come to repentance.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 KJV 14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all [kinds of people], then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all [kinds of people], that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all [kinds of people] be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Romans 5:18 KJV Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all [kinds of] men unto justification of life.

John 3:16 KJV For God so loved [elect of] the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 12:32 KJV And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [kinds of] men unto me.

Romans 8:32 KJV He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all [the elect], how shall he not with him also freely give us all [the elect] things?​

I suspect that the most ardent supporter of the kind of theology of salvation proposed in The Westminster Confession of Faith would baulk at inserting those words in the text of holy scripture but commentaries from those who teach this kind of doctrine seek to explain these passages by inserting similar text into their explanations.

Now, take those verses and make the "all" universal. If you are true to your hermaneutics you will promote universalism. All humanity is saved, no matter what.
But, you won't do that. You will want your cake and eat it to.

 

[Josiah]

If you pluck those four verses from their surroundings and place them in a picture by themselves, you can claim they mean anything

IMO, this is EXACTLY what you have tried to do to defend your new theory of LIMITED grace and Christ. And I think you are essentially admitting there is a "flip side" - other verses - that make your position incredible (you just choose to ignore them).

It fits perfectly with our post-modern society that bases its belief on its emotions

IMO, the exact opposite is true. In your model, it is LIKELY that faith is in vain, grasping thin air containing nothing... so the only recourse the uber-Calvinist has for why HIS faith actually is apprehending SOMETHING is that he "feels" it. I don't have to "feel" that my faith is grasping Sola Gratia - Solus Christus because it's universally present, in my theology, my feeling about that is entirely irrelevant but in yours, the ONLY assurance that faith is actually grasping/trusting/apprehending something is his FEELING.

You keep saying you're a monergist, but you side with synergism and Arminius

Your claiming that I'm a synergist and Arminian is laughably absurd - and everyone here at CH knows it.


But you are confirming what I posted before: Calvinist apologists play this game, insisting all are pigeon holed into TWO (and only TWO) camps: Uber Calvinists OR Uber Arminians. They ignore any other position (because they can't deal with them). THEN they attack Arminianism (which is certainly easy to do) which to them "proves" Calvinism correct. It's silly, it's absurd, it's illogical and it's desperate. But we see it at nearly all Calvinist/Reformed websites and Calvinist apologists echo it. For a group that prides itself on logic, it's amazing to behold.


Your attempt to cast ME as a synergistic Armininian (and then try to prove I'm wrong because synergism and Arminius are wrong) is just silly. Everyone here knows your claim and your argument is laughable. I'm not synergistic, I'm NO fan of Arminius, and Calvinism is NOT correct simply because you show that Arminius is wrong....

Limited atonement is found from Genesis on to Revelation

No. It's an invention of Calvin - developed by his followers.


There are a FEW verses - which if pulled out of context, spun uniquely, and then the VAST MAJORITY of Scripture on the topic are ignored or "spun" so as to say the opposite of what they say - might be CLAIMED to support this new theory. But Calvin invented this NOT because of Scripture but because of his human, fallen, limited "logic" which he mandates God agrees with and submits to . He invented this new invention as part of HIS theory as to why some are saved and not others (see http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?4669-Why-are-Some-Saved-and-Not-Others ) but he just invented a monster and clearly invents something not found in Scripture but from the "mind" of Calvin, inspired by the Greek concept of Fate. But there's another thread on that topic.

Not to mention that unlimited atonement leads directly to universalism

Wrong. Until Calvin, virtually ALL Christians accepted unlimited atonement and EVER accepted universalism.


IMO, it's actually Calvinism that's more likely to lead to universalism, and I remind you that universalism DID (in fact) arise out of Calvinism. Go to Plymouth MA and visit the two congregations founded by the Calvinist Pilgrims - they both became Universalist churches; indeed, look at nearly every Universalist church in the Eastern USA and you'll find nearly all of them were once Calvinist. Some knowledge of history will show you that universalism actually came out of Calvinism. But that's another subject for another day.




http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?4669-Why-are-Some-Saved-and-Not-Others




- Josiah




.