IYou teach that only the elect who are given the gift of faith are made alive in Christ. That is particular atonement, Josiah.
No.
As you yourself have often defined it, it is that
'JESUS DIED ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few."
I stand with verbatim Scripture and 2000 years of orthodox Christianity in holding that Jesus died for all.
They are opposite positions.
This is the definition of "Limited Atonement" (the "L" of TULIP): "Limited Atonement - Because God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election, He determined that Christ should die for the elect
alone." Or as commonly expressed, as you did,
'JESUS DIED ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few." Don't try to change the whole meaning of the dogma, turning it into the opposite, so that you can say it's right.
MennoSota said:
To claim universal atonement means you accuse God of double jeopardy.
Absurd.
The Protestant theology of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide does not accuse God of "double jeoprody." It simply embraces what God Himself says: God loves all, Jesus died for all, those with the divine gift of faith apprehend the benefits of that. It's what I've been saying since you came to this website and you have been STRONGLY disagreeing with me, insisting it contradicts itself and is against Scripture and is illogical. So you have condemned the Protestant position in thread after thread, for MANY pages of posts. Insisting, over and over and over and over, that Jesus died ONLY for the Church (one of your many threads on this is even entitled that), telling the rest of us that Jesus did NOT die for all.
The issue of the "L" is exactly as you yourself as said since you came here:
JESUS DIED ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the LIMITED few. That's the "L" of TULIP. It's NOT "Faith is limited" or "Justification is limited" or "The effect of Christ's work is limited" it's that Christ died for the limited. As you yourself have stressed over and over and over and over and over and over. Everyone knows that the "L" of TULIP is in direct reaction to one of the 5 points of Arminianism, that Jesus died for all. The latter-day radical hyper-Calvinists that invented TULIP noted that each point is a reaction to the points made by Arminianists; the "L" is the opposite of "Jesus died for all" exactly as you yourself have constantly said: the TULIP dogma is this,
JESUS DIED ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the LIMITED few.
IF you have now realized what nearly all Calvinists have .... that the radical, new invented dogmas of TULIP are largely wrong and unbiblical and illogical.... then good. Admit it and join with every Calvinist personally known to me. But to suddenly say, "Oh, I never said Jesus die ONLY for a few..... I never said that TULIP teaches that Jesus died for ONLY the elect..... TULIP teaches that Jesus died for everyone..... I've always agreed with you that Jesus died for all..... well.....
MoreCoffee said:
The answer that Mr Macarthur gives has almost no analysis of what is said in holy scripture. He says "I don't know how to resolve the atonement's limitation and the call to preach the gospel to everybody ..." he adds "if there were an 'E' on the back of the elect then I would limit my work to them ..." and he acknowledges that there is no 'E' and so he presents (what he conceives to be) the gospel to everybody. He offers philosophy and reasons but no holy scripture and for a man who makes such a song and dance about sola scriptura the absence of holy scripture analysis in his answer tells all who listen that he is relying on Calvinist 'holy tradition' for his stated view.
Exactly.
Which is why TULIP has been largely abandoned. And probably THE most rejected part of this by Calvinists is this "L" that MennoSota is oddly most passionate about. It may be this is dawning on MennoSota, too. It takes humility to admit error, to admit we were wrong. A lot of we regulars here at CH have done this so much that we actually changed denominations (perhaps more than once).
.
