Why Universal Atonement is Pelagianism.

[Josiah]

If you could understand the Limited Atonement

I DO understand it. This doctrine states that Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some unknown few. Not hard to understand.

The Limited Atonement verses

There aren't any. Again, as we all know (including you!) there is no verse that states, "Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few." LOTS that clearly, boldly, verbatim state the exact opposite of your view, that Jesus DID die for all. You can't quote even one verse that states your horrible view, but so many that state the exact opposite. We all know that. You do too.



@Lamb
@Albion
@Origen

I use history and logic instead of scripture.

We FINALLY have the truth.


For the first time in your hundreds of posts on this, you are truthful. Your argument is based on what you think is history (you don't seem to know that your view is quite new and has very little history) and what you think is "logic" (but isn't). All to DENY what Scripture so clearly, so undeniably, so often, verbatim states. A pretty horrible way to do theology - denounce the Bible 'cuz your own sense of history (which is wrong) and your own logic (which is faulty) thinks God is wrong in what He so often, so clearly states. Think about that my brother. Think about that.





.

 

[1689Dave]

I DO understand it. This doctrine states that Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some unknown few. Not hard to understand.




There aren't any. Again, as we all know (including you!) there is no verse that states, "Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few." LOTS that clearly, boldly, verbatim state the exact opposite of your view, that Jesus DID die for all. You can't quote even one verse that states your horrible view, many that state the exact opposite. We all know that. You do too.



@1689Dave
@Albion
@Origen




We FINALLY have the truth.


For the first time in your hundreds of posts on this, you tell the truth. Your argument is based on what you think is history (you don't seem to know that your view is quite new and has very little history) and what you think is "logic" (but isn't). All to DENY what Scripture so clearly, so undeniably, verbatim states. A pretty horrible way to do theology - denounce the Bible 'cuz your own sense of history (which is wrong) and your own logic (which is faulty) thinks God is wrong in what He so often, so clearly states. Think about that my brother. Think about that.





.

You miss it altogether and wind up with free will and Pelagianism instead.

 

[Origen]

We FINALLY have the truth.

For the first time in your hundreds of posts on this, you are truthful. Your argument is based on what you think is history (you don't seem to know that your view is quite new and has very little history) and what you think is "logic" (but isn't). All to DENY what Scripture so clearly, so undeniably, so often, verbatim states. A pretty horrible way to do theology - denounce the Bible 'cuz your own sense of history (which is wrong) and your own logic (which is faulty) thinks God is wrong in what He so often, so clearly states.

 

[1689Dave]

View attachment 1919

I'm glad to see you posting something other than sour pusses in replying to my hours of research. If you can prove it wrong do so. I would appreciate knowing of my errors.

 

[1689Dave]

View attachment 1919

I would like to see some scripture from you instead of your venting in picture form. It seems you have nothing. Or you would be setting me straight.

 

[1689Dave]

You seem to be at a loss for words, unable to defend your view.

 

[Lamb]

I've done a thread clean up to remove flaming posts. Please get back to the topic or I'll have to close this thread.

 

[1689Dave]

I've done a thread clean up to remove flaming posts. Please get back to the topic or I'll have to close this thread.

1. Christian Discussion - No Debate Archive Read Only. Let's follow the rules. I post on a take-it-or-leave-it policy.

 

[Lamb]

1. Christian Discussion - No Debate Archive Read Only. Let's follow the rules. I post on a take-it-or-leave-it policy.

That doesn't apply to THIS section. It applies to a closed forum that can only be Read but not posted in:

Christian Discussion - No Debate Archive Read Only

This forum contains the archived posts from the Christian Discussion - No Debate Forum and is read only (no posting).

christianityhaven.com

 

[1689Dave]

Fair enough.

 

[Josiah]

@1689Dave

Come on. Over and over again..... for weeks.... we have very clearly given the Scriptures that state that Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all people (Universal Atonement). And you kept CLAIMING that there are all these verses that state "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few" (Limited Atonement) but you refused to give them, not even one.

Dave, I think we're done. Universal Atonement is obviously stated in Scripture -over and over and over - clearly, boldly, undeniably. And you don't have any Scripture that states Limited Atonement. Universal Atonement has numerous solid, verbatim, biblical verses that state it, Limited Atonement has nothing. You evidently are at a loss for words, nothing to present that proves Scripture is so wrong, so often.


Universal Atonement:
The echo of Scriptures that state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all people.

Just some of the Scriptures that state that:

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

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all.

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all.


Limited Atonement:
The insistence that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few.

The Scriptures that state that:

None. Crickets.





.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave

Come on. Over and over again..... for weeks.... we have very clearly given the Scriptures that state that Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all people (Universal Atonement). And you kept CLAIMING that there are all these verses that state "Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few" (Limited Atonement) but you refused to give them, not even one.

Dave, I think we're done. Universal Atonement is obviously stated in Scripture -over and over and over - clearly, boldly, undeniably. And you don't have any Scripture that states Limited Atonement. Universal Atonement has numerous solid, verbatim, biblical verses that state it, Limited Atonement has nothing. You evidently are at a loss for words, nothing to present that proves Scripture is so wrong, so often.


Universal Atonement:
The echo of Scriptures that state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all people.

Just some of the Scriptures that state that:

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

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all.

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all.


Limited Atonement:
The insistence that Jesus did NOT die for all but ONLY for some unknown few.

The Scriptures that state that:

None. Crickets.





.

You are not seeing all the verses that limit the atonement. So we cannot discuss it. Why would Luther teach it if scripture didn't mention it?

 

[Josiah]

You are not seeing all the verses that limit the atonement. So we cannot discuss it.

See, Dave, you are just burying yourself deeper and deeper......

You don't have any Scriptures that state Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few. You've had HUNDREDS of opportunities to give even just one but you have not. And we all know why. Dave, everyone here knows why. Friend, take some sincere advise: give it up.

Why would Luther teach it if scripture didn't mention it?

AGAIN (why should anyone discuss anything with you if you just totally ignore EVERYTHING others post and just re-stating the same errors)? There is a quote from 1515 that some radical Calvinists view as limited atonement. But the Lutheran Reformation doesn't even BEGIN for 2 years AFTER that, he was a struggling CATHOLIC at the time. Anyone who knows anything about Reformation history KNOWS that when reading Luther, it's critical to note WHEN he said it. It's at least a decade between the posting of those 95 Thesis and when Luther is presenting Lutheran theology - in that decade or so, things are developing, evolving, changing. Your quote doesn't even fall in that period, it's BEFORE that. So it's meaningless to this discussion. I gave you a very representative quote from 1533 that CLEARLY states Universal Atonement but of course, you just ignored it. Discussing with you is pretty useless.





.

 

[1689Dave]

I DO understand it. This doctrine states that Jesus did NOT die for all people but ONLY for some unknown few. Not hard to understand.




There aren't any. Again, as we all know (including you!) there is no verse that states, "Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few." LOTS that clearly, boldly, verbatim state the exact opposite of your view, that Jesus DID die for all. You can't quote even one verse that states your horrible view, but so many that state the exact opposite. We all know that. You do too.



@Lamb
@Albion
@Origen




We FINALLY have the truth.


For the first time in your hundreds of posts on this, you are truthful. Your argument is based on what you think is history (you don't seem to know that your view is quite new and has very little history) and what you think is "logic" (but isn't). All to DENY what Scripture so clearly, so undeniably, so often, verbatim states. A pretty horrible way to do theology - denounce the Bible 'cuz your own sense of history (which is wrong) and your own logic (which is faulty) thinks God is wrong in what He so often, so clearly states. Think about that my brother. Think about that.





.

I use scripture with those who can understand it. Logic and history with those who can't. I provided Luther's take on it and you reject Him too. So why argue? Jesus tells us to avoid the reckless handling of his treasures.

 

[1689Dave]

See, Dave, you are just burying yourself deeper and deeper......

You don't have any Scriptures that state Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few. You've had HUNDREDS of opportunities to give even just one but you have not. And we all know why. Dave, everyone here knows why. Friend, take some sincere advise: give it up.





AGAIN (why should anyone discuss anything with you if you just totally ignore EVERYTHING others post and just re-stating the same errors)? There is a quote from 1515 that some radical Calvinists view as limited atonement. But the Lutheran Reformation doesn't even BEGIN for 2 years AFTER that, he was a struggling CATHOLIC at the time. Anyone who knows anything about Reformation history KNOWS that when reading Luther, it's critical to note WHEN he said it. It's at least a decade between the posting of those 95 Thesis and when Luther is presenting Lutheran theology - in that decade or so, things are developing, evolving, changing. Your quote doesn't even fall in that period, it's BEFORE that. So it's meaningless to this discussion. I gave you a very representative quote from 1533 that CLEARLY states Universal Atonement but of course, you just ignored it. Discussing with you is pretty useless.





.

Luther was much older than Calvin his student who came along later. Besides, They were both Augustinians. Who, like Augustine proved Free Will to be a heresy. Yet universal atonement won't work without it. James says we cannot control our tongues. Wouldn't this prove we don't have free will?

 

[Josiah]

I use scripture with those who can understand it. Logic and history with those who can't. I provided Luther's take on it and you reject Him too. So why argue? Jesus tells us to avoid the reckless handling of his treasures.

Since no one here can understand all the invisible Scriptures you've shared, maybe you'll agree with me it's time for you to give it up. None here can read invisible Scriptures that flat-out contradict SO many clear Scripture we all can read.

There's a reason the date of that Luther quote you gave was missing. It's call deception. The author of what you copy/paste knew it was from 1515, before Luther even begins his transformation in his thinking, when he was a Catholic monk struggling with many things and a bit all over the map. The author knew that but didn't include the date so you'd assume that's Luther sharing his Lutheran views. It's dishonest but it worked on you. I gave you a quote from 1533, generally regarded as after Luther's theology is worked out and solidified but you just totally ignored it.

Give it up. While you still have some credibility here. I'm SURE you have some very good things to say on other points.

Wouldn't this prove free will is a false doctrine?

Because you have been shown to be wrong.... because you CLEARLY have not one Scripture that says what you do.... and you realize EVERYONE HERE KNOWS IT.... you need to switch topics, to a subject where we'd agree with you. It's a form of "Red Herring." What you are doing is a old, BAD debate trick that middle schoolers try to do but don't get away with. Yes, synergism is wrong. Yes, 2+2=4. Yes, Chevrolet makes cars. That does not prove that there are a host of invisible Scriptures that state, "Jesus did not die for all but only for some unknown few." Come on. You are better than this. This community of ChristianityHaven is above that.




.

 

[1689Dave]

Since no one here can understand all the invisible Scriptures you've shared, maybe you'll agree with me it's time for you to give it up. None here can read invisible Scriptures that flat-out contradict SO many clear Scripture we all can read.

There's a reason the date of that Luther quote you gave was missing. It's call deception. The author of what you copy/paste knew it was from 1515, before Luther even begins his transformation in his thinking, when he was a Catholic monk struggling with many things and a bit all over the map. The author knew that but didn't include the date so you'd assume that's Luther sharing his Lutheran views. It's dishonest but it worked on you. I gave you a quote from 1533, generally regarded as after Luther's theology is worked out and solidified but you just totally ignored it.

Give it up. While you still have some credibility here. I'm SURE you have some very good things to say on other points.

Try this. Pray that God will open your eyes to the truth of Limited Atonement as you study your bible. If you are born-again, it will pop out to you in passages you have no doubt read many times. Especially in the Old Testament. But if you look only for proof texts to support universal atonement that's all you will get, and end up missing the major theme of the bible.

 

[Josiah]

My beloved and I discussed this a bit last night.... She and her whole family come out of a conservative Reformed/Calvinist background (all the way back to the Scottish Reformation) with lots of Reformed ministers among her ancestors and relatives. She was raised in an Orthodox Prebyterian Church.

She tells me that actually, the "Limited Atonement" view that Dave is presenting here is VERY, VERY rare in the Reformed Church - never widely embraced and almost not at all for the past couple of centuries. It's just HARD to hold to something so clearly, so obviously contrary to Scripture.

Instead, she tells me that the Reformed have done one of two things with this "L" in TULIP....

1. Rejected it altogether, embracing Universal Atonement. These are known as "Four-Point Calvinists" and there are a LOT of them. But among the conservative, orthodox Reformed, it's often regarded as bad and to be avoided.

2. Amended the doctrine so that the point is NOT that Jesus died for only a few but RATHER that the BENEFIT of Christ's death is only for a few. There is a sense in which Christ's dead is for all and "sufficient for all" (the usual language) BUT doesn't benefit all since not all have faith. She agreed with me that that actually is Universal Atonement, but the way it's worded allows conservative/orthodox Reformed to feel they are agreeing with the essence of the "L" without holding to the original traditional meaning (the one Dave is presenting). True, Christ's death only BENEFITS those with faith (and not those without) but that doesn't mean it was ONLY for those with faith.

The "bottom line" for both approaches is the same.

Don't think badly of the Reformed based on what Dave here is saying; he's quite out of synch with the Reformed faith of the vast majority. And in my rejection, don't take that as one of the Reformed but simply of a view Dave is presenting.


Blessings on your Thanksgiving!

Josiah



.

 

[1689Dave]

My beloved and I discussed this a bit last night.... She and her whole family come out of a conservative Reformed/Calvinist background (all the way back to the Scottish Reformation) with lots of Reformed ministers among her ancestors and relatives. She was raised in an Orthodox Prebyterian Church.

She tells me that actually, the "Limited Atonement" view that Dave is presenting here is VERY, VERY rare in the Reformed Church - never widely embraced and almost not at all for the past couple of centuries. It's just HARD to hold to something so clearly, so obviously contrary to Scripture.

Instead, she tells me that the Reformed have done one of two things with this "L" in TULIP....

1. Rejected it altogether, embracing Universal Atonement. These are known as "Four-Point Calvinists" and there are a LOT of them. But among the conservative, orthodox Reformed, it's often regarded as bad and to be avoided.

2. Amended the doctrine so that the point is NOT that Jesus died for only a few but RATHER that the BENEFIT of Christ's death is only for a few. There is a sense in which Christ's dead is for all and "sufficient for all" (the usual language) BUT doesn't benefit all since not all have faith. She agreed with me that that actually is Universal Atonement, but the way it's worded allows conservative/orthodox Reformed to feel they are agreeing with the essence of the "L" without holding to the original traditional meaning (the one Dave is presenting). True, Christ's death only BENEFITS those with faith (and not those without) but that doesn't mean it was ONLY for those with faith.

The "bottom line" for both approaches is the same.

Don't think badly of the Reformed based on what Dave here is saying; he's quite out of synch with the Reformed faith of the vast majority. And in my rejection, don't take that as one of the Reformed but simply of a view Dave is presenting.


Blessings on your Thanksgiving!

Josiah



.

I don't know of any Reformed churches today that are not in a state of apostasy. So it figures that what your wife says is true. Back in my factory working days, we would discuss theology in our section. I made a $100 bet with the guys that they could not find a church within 100 miles that held true to the Reformation teaching. This included Presbyterian and Lutheran churches too. I still have the $100 bucks so to speak. It didn't take long to dump Luther or Calvin.

The last Reformed Church true to its colors was 200 miles away. I made a special trip one Sunday just to visit them. We are saturated with Lutheran churches in our area, but no Luther.

 

[brightfame52]

The intrinsic nature of what the atonement of Christ necessitates the salvation, the reconciliation of all for whom it was made. Its purpose was to bring them He died for to God 1 Pet 3:18


For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Christ gave Himself as a substituted sacrifice for/in behalf of His Sheep/His Church. This offering achieved just that, reconciling them to God by His Death Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life

This was a complete reconciliation destroying the enmity in our minds by wicked works, successfully making a complete atonement or reconciliation Col 1:20-22

20 and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight

God the Father accepted the offering of His Son on behalf of those the Father had given Him, and atonement, satisfaction was made. Christ finished the work God the Father gave Him to do, and all for whom He died, the Elect shall be beneficiaries/inheritors, that's what Christs atonement is all about.