I don't understand how anyone can have a problem with Limited Atonement. Of all the 5 points to bicker about, this one should be a no-brainer that every Christian should embrace.
The number of people who will be saved may be "limited" in a sense according to the choice and predetermination of God Himself (*saving faith is required, and God Himself gives the faith required to be saved), but the Atonement was not "limited"; 1 John 2:2 explicitly refutes this idea.
Jesus died to atone for all the world's sin. That is, His death on the cross was sufficient to atone for everyone's sin past, present and future. The difference here is not that those who do not accept salvation did not have their sin atoned for, but rather that they choose by free will to REJECT the propitiation for their sins which was made available to them through repentance and faith.
Every Christian "limits" the atonement: Arminians and Semi-Pelagians limit the POWER of the atonement -- that Christ's death accomplished nothing, but only made salvation possible (to no one in particular). Calvinists (& the Bible) limit the SCOPE of the atonement to those for whom Christ actually died -- the elect, those given to the Son by the Father before the foundation of the world. Christ's death accomplished redemption, salvation. The Holy Spirit applies it to them in time.
Threat of being reported as a heretic is metaphorically putting somebody on the sword. Servatus was arguing according to his understanding of scripture. Calvin responding by having him reported as being a heretic. Calvin was involved in denouncing him this way and thus almost directly, Calvin, unable to argue using logic, murdered his opponent. Quite different than the aposles? I'd rather not be killed. I'd lie quite happily to save my life.
@Jpiaathio Here are a few examples of election in Scripture: Isaac - Gen. 21:12; Abraham - Neh. 9:7; Zerubbabel - Hag. 2:23; The Apostles - John 13:18 & 15:19; Jacob - Rom. 9:12-13; Rufus - Rom. 16:13; Paul - Gal. 1:15. These are just a few examples of God choosing some to Himself, while not choosing others.
I was viewing from an ancient lens and that lens was the christianity of the apostles. Slavery is a completely different issue. It can be argued that the apostles considered slavery status quo. It can`t be argued that they were o.k. with killing heritics or turning them into the authorites. I agree that in the context of the time, said behaviour was the norm
On the "payment" view of Atonement-- if you buy into that, of course you'll have to believe that all who were atoned were therefore by necessity saved... And his argument about the credit card is fun but paints a false picture of how the payment gets applied to the debtor. It's more like a check that has to be cashed. So now which example is correct? My check analogy is just as fun as his credit card analogy, so which one proves the point about atonement? (tongue in cheek)
It is exactly the L in TULIP that is ultimately the least supported by scriptures, and the one for which the most eisegesis has to happen to support. And if it be shown to be false, the whole edifice of TULIP comes crashing down.
Yes the bible does teach that saints are elect, angels are elect, and Jesus being the elect as quoted in my previous comments of the old and new testament in the kjv.
There's no lack of support for Particular Redemption at all (Limited Atonement). Christ said he laid down his life for the SHEEP, not the goats. His sheep hear his voice and follow him -- every time! The TULIP is indestructible for the simple reason that it's the teaching of the Scriptures.
Well i think there's more to it. Here's my thoughts on it. Say that a bunch of friends go out to eat (lets say ten). One of the ten decides to pay for all the meals. At the end of the meal all the friends ask for the check and the waiter informs them that the bill has been paid. And some of them believed what the waiter said and some didn't so the ones that didn't paid again themselves. It seems to me that that is what's going on or could be a possibility in explaining the atonement of Christ.
From wiki, 'When Servetus mentioned that he would come to Geneva if Calvin agreed, Calvin wrote a letter to Farel on 13 February 1547 noting that if Servetus were to come, he would not assure him safe conduct: "for if he came, as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive"'. Apparently Calvin, lost patience with him. He was a murderer, short, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether he lit the match or not.
@Trustandobey1 Your capitalized word "elect" is more commonly translated as "chosen" on both accounts, as the 1 Peter reference is a quotation of Isaiah. But seeing as you're quoting so strongly from the KJV, I understand why you might not be aware of more accurate translation, but that's another conversation. Nice try, though.
Try not to twist my words. Calvin asked for beheading as a favour to Servetus. I'd personally rather beheaded, rather than burn at the stake - wouldn't you? Reporting him as a heretic was the law. And it's too bad that it's not still the law. Calvin didn't have Servetus at the point of the sword. The government had him that way. Servetus KNEW of the trouble and went around with his heresies anyhow. He was warned several times. All he had to do was to stop teaching against the Trinity.
Actually Calvin was obeying the law of the land. Your accusation is the same as that of accusing one who turns in a wanted criminal of murder, if said criminal is executed. This is also the same sort of thing that modern people make concerning slavery "Oh! I'd never own a slave" -- all the while, the truth being, that if they lived at that time, and were wealthy, they not only would own slaves, but they'd find nothing wrong with it. Interpreting the past via a modern lens is foolish.
the bible also teaches that Israel is Gods elect in Isaiah 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. Now does that mean that all of Israel is saved? This guy hosting the radio show talks about the elect like its just one group of people, That was already chosen to be saved by God. Hand picked or something like the disciples. Remember Jesus told Nicodemus a Jew you must be born again.
Then how would you explain the scripture that says antiChrist will try to deceive the elect, as if that were possible? Clearly, Jesus recognizes any antiChrist.
Calvin was o.k. with him being beheaded!!! Losing your head is still execution. He killed Seretus both by reporting him as a heretic and by not advocating the Servetus's life be saved. Convincing him to change his views is another matter than doing it at the point of a sword.
Actually Calvin killed no one. The government executed Servetus from unrepentant crimes. Calvin tried to get him to repent (his heresies had nothing to do with Predestination, but rather were for denying the Trinity, denying the deity of Christ), but to no avail. Calvin also tried to get the government to behead him instead of burning him, so that it would be quick and painless, but he was turned down. Falsely accusing someone is breaking the 9th commandment. You need to repent.
@truevoiceofsanity NO NO NO Calvin tried to get Servetus to recant his statements. Calvin then plead for a mercy death by beheading by the sword than burning at the stake. Servetus was a marked man in every state in Europe. He just happened to get caught in Geneva
@Jpiaathio Well that argument is a foolish one... do you believe in the trinity? The word appears nowhere in scripture. It's logical and intelligent to infer doctrine from scripture and assign it nomenclature, regardless of whether that particular nomenclature appears in scripture. I recommend reading Romans 9 instead of you.
@metanoeo1 I figure Jesus Christ is the elect because the bible says so. Isiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold;mine ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles. 1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief conerstone, ELECT, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
@metanoeo1 Gods elect is Jesus Christ. Now try reading some of those verses you suggested that I should look at. Only this time, read them with the thought of Jesus Christ being the elect. I hope this will help you understand Gods word more clear. Salvation is for anyone who will receive Jesus Christ. Romans 5:18 says so. Here is a rule of thumb. Never try to over ride an easly understood vs. with a hard to understand vs.
@Trustandobey1 How in the world do you figure that the elect of God is Christ Jesus? Talk about eisegesis. Jesus Christ is God, how then could He be "God's elect" as you state? Doesn't make the least bit of sense. I get your angle and where you come from on this, but seriously, no way is that what the word of God teaches.
was calvin evil? he killed somebody for disagreeing with him. Michael Servetus was killed on calvin's command. none of the apostle's condoned this. ;). Did God elect calvin to go to hell. ;).
Servetus was a heretic who denied the necessary doctrine of the Trinity. Your statements concerning Calvin's "lack of logic" only serves to prove you know nothing of Calvin. Try reading a real historical account of the matter before shooting off at the mouth (as you're presently doing). So are you also an anti-trinitarian?
calvinist are wrong ..and no-such thing as limited atonement --its basic..atonement is for those who choose the atonement and become a new creature striving a sinless life goin thru a season of sorrow first..no thinkin..just plain as day. how the heak this stuff is believed ..freekie. payment for sin is not treated as a sigificant gift from God and reacted by biblical commands & refused to get the obvious then ears will be turned to deaf...ultimately becomin reprobate.
Love how he breaks everything down so clearly.! Thanks for posting !
I don't understand how anyone can have a problem with Limited Atonement. Of all the 5 points to bicker about, this one should be a no-brainer that every Christian should embrace.
The number of people who will be saved may be "limited" in a sense according to the choice and predetermination of God Himself (*saving faith is required, and God Himself gives the faith required to be saved), but the Atonement was not "limited"; 1 John 2:2 explicitly refutes this idea.
Agreed. The Bible makes that abundantly clear throughout.
Jesus died to atone for all the world's sin. That is, His death on the cross was sufficient to atone for everyone's sin past, present and future. The difference here is not that those who do not accept salvation did not have their sin atoned for, but rather that they choose by free will to REJECT the propitiation for their sins which was made available to them through repentance and faith.
Yes, he is.
Every Christian "limits" the atonement:
Arminians and Semi-Pelagians limit the POWER of the atonement -- that Christ's death accomplished nothing, but only made salvation possible (to no one in particular).
Calvinists (& the Bible) limit the SCOPE of the atonement to those for whom Christ actually died -- the elect, those given to the Son by the Father before the foundation of the world.
Christ's death accomplished redemption, salvation. The Holy Spirit applies it to them in time.
@Jpiaathio Just a few verses you might want to check out regarding God's election of believers: 1 Thess. 1:4; Titus 1:1; John 13:18; John 15:16; Eph. 1:4; John 6:44; Acts 22:14; 2 John 13; Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 9:15-16; 1 Cor. 1:27; Rom. 11:5; Luke 10:20; Eph. 1:6; 2 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 1:5; Eph. 2:10; 2 Tim. 2:4; Rom. 9:23; Rom. 8:30; John 17:6; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:7; Mark 13:20; Luke 18:7; Ps. 33:12; Ps. 65:4; Is. 65:9; 1 Pet. 1:4-5; Col. 3:12; 2 Pet. 1:10.
Threat of being reported as a heretic is metaphorically putting somebody on the sword.
Servatus was arguing according to his understanding of scripture.
Calvin responding by having him reported as being a heretic. Calvin was involved in denouncing him this way and thus almost directly, Calvin, unable to argue using logic, murdered his opponent.
Quite different than the aposles?
I'd rather not be killed. I'd lie quite happily to save my life.
@Jpiaathio Here are a few examples of election in Scripture: Isaac - Gen. 21:12; Abraham - Neh. 9:7; Zerubbabel - Hag. 2:23; The Apostles - John 13:18 & 15:19; Jacob - Rom. 9:12-13; Rufus - Rom. 16:13; Paul - Gal. 1:15.
These are just a few examples of God choosing some to Himself, while not choosing others.
I was viewing from an ancient lens and that lens was the christianity of the apostles. Slavery is a completely different issue. It can be argued that the apostles considered slavery status quo.
It can`t be argued that they were o.k. with killing heritics or turning them into the authorites.
I agree that in the context of the time, said behaviour was the norm
On the "payment" view of Atonement-- if you buy into that, of course you'll have to believe that all who were atoned were therefore by necessity saved...
And his argument about the credit card is fun but paints a false picture of how the payment gets applied to the debtor.
It's more like a check that has to be cashed.
So now which example is correct? My check analogy is just as fun as his credit card analogy, so which one proves the point about atonement? (tongue in cheek)
It is exactly the L in TULIP that is ultimately the least supported by scriptures, and the one for which the most eisegesis has to happen to support.
And if it be shown to be false, the whole edifice of TULIP comes crashing down.
I have yet to watch a lot of his videos or as much as I would like to, so perhaps somebody can clarify this for me. Is Greg a Calvinist?
Yes, he has said in various videos, that he is a 5-point Calvinist.
Yes the bible does teach that saints are elect, angels are elect, and Jesus being the elect as quoted in my previous comments of the old and new testament in the kjv.
There's no lack of support for Particular Redemption at all (Limited Atonement). Christ said he laid down his life for the SHEEP, not the goats. His sheep hear his voice and follow him -- every time!
The TULIP is indestructible for the simple reason that it's the teaching of the Scriptures.
Well i think there's more to it. Here's my thoughts on it. Say that a bunch of friends go out to eat (lets say ten). One of the ten decides to pay for all the meals. At the end of the meal all the friends ask for the check and the waiter informs them that the bill has been paid. And some of them believed what the waiter said and some didn't so the ones that didn't paid again themselves. It seems to me that that is what's going on or could be a possibility in explaining the atonement of Christ.
How can you Limit the atonement AND be evangelistic?
Koukl is smart. But does God fit into your system of theology, or is He too big to be systemized?
From wiki, 'When Servetus mentioned that he would come to Geneva if Calvin agreed, Calvin wrote a letter to Farel on 13 February 1547 noting that if Servetus were to come, he would not assure him safe conduct: "for if he came, as far as my authority goes, I would not let him leave alive"'.
Apparently Calvin, lost patience with him. He was a murderer, short, plain and simple. It doesn't matter whether he lit the match or not.
@Trustandobey1 Your capitalized word "elect" is more commonly translated as "chosen" on both accounts, as the 1 Peter reference is a quotation of Isaiah. But seeing as you're quoting so strongly from the KJV, I understand why you might not be aware of more accurate translation, but that's another conversation. Nice try, though.
Try not to twist my words. Calvin asked for beheading as a favour to Servetus. I'd personally rather beheaded, rather than burn at the stake - wouldn't you?
Reporting him as a heretic was the law. And it's too bad that it's not still the law.
Calvin didn't have Servetus at the point of the sword. The government had him that way. Servetus KNEW of the trouble and went around with his heresies anyhow. He was warned several times. All he had to do was to stop teaching against the Trinity.
Actually Calvin was obeying the law of the land. Your accusation is the same as that of accusing one who turns in a wanted criminal of murder, if said criminal is executed.
This is also the same sort of thing that modern people make concerning slavery "Oh! I'd never own a slave" -- all the while, the truth being, that if they lived at that time, and were wealthy, they not only would own slaves, but they'd find nothing wrong with it.
Interpreting the past via a modern lens is foolish.
the bible also teaches that Israel is Gods elect in Isaiah 45:4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. Now does that mean that all of Israel is saved? This guy hosting the radio show talks about the elect like its just one group of people, That was already chosen to be saved by God. Hand picked or something like the disciples. Remember Jesus told Nicodemus a Jew you must be born again.
Then how would you explain the scripture that says antiChrist will try to deceive the elect, as if that were possible? Clearly, Jesus recognizes any antiChrist.
Calvin was o.k. with him being beheaded!!!
Losing your head is still execution.
He killed Seretus both by reporting him as a heretic and by not advocating the Servetus's life be saved.
Convincing him to change his views is another matter than doing it at the point of a sword.
Actually Calvin killed no one. The government executed Servetus from unrepentant crimes. Calvin tried to get him to repent (his heresies had nothing to do with Predestination, but rather were for denying the Trinity, denying the deity of Christ), but to no avail. Calvin also tried to get the government to behead him instead of burning him, so that it would be quick and painless, but he was turned down.
Falsely accusing someone is breaking the 9th commandment. You need to repent.
@truevoiceofsanity NO NO NO
Calvin tried to get Servetus to recant his statements. Calvin then plead for a mercy death by beheading by the sword than burning at the stake. Servetus was a marked man in every state in Europe. He just happened to get caught in Geneva
@Jpiaathio Well that argument is a foolish one... do you believe in the trinity? The word appears nowhere in scripture.
It's logical and intelligent to infer doctrine from scripture and assign it nomenclature, regardless of whether that particular nomenclature appears in scripture.
I recommend reading Romans 9 instead of you.
@metanoeo1 I figure Jesus Christ is the elect because the bible says so. Isiah 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold;mine ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles. 1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief conerstone, ELECT, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
@metanoeo1 Gods elect is Jesus Christ. Now try reading some of those verses you suggested that I should look at. Only this time, read them with the thought of Jesus Christ being the elect. I hope this will help you understand Gods word more clear. Salvation is for anyone who will receive Jesus Christ. Romans 5:18 says so. Here is a rule of thumb. Never try to over ride an easly understood vs. with a hard to understand vs.
The example of limited atonement is a massive fail.
Compared with?
@Trustandobey1 How in the world do you figure that the elect of God is Christ Jesus? Talk about eisegesis. Jesus Christ is God, how then could He be "God's elect" as you state? Doesn't make the least bit of sense. I get your angle and where you come from on this, but seriously, no way is that what the word of God teaches.
was calvin evil?
he killed somebody for disagreeing with him. Michael Servetus was killed on calvin's command. none of the apostle's condoned this.
;).
Did God elect calvin to go to hell. ;).
Servetus was a heretic who denied the necessary doctrine of the Trinity.
Your statements concerning Calvin's "lack of logic" only serves to prove you know nothing of Calvin.
Try reading a real historical account of the matter before shooting off at the mouth (as you're presently doing).
So are you also an anti-trinitarian?
calvinist are wrong ..and no-such thing as limited atonement --its basic..atonement is for those who choose the atonement and become a new creature striving a sinless life goin thru a season of sorrow first..no thinkin..just plain as day. how the heak this stuff is believed ..freekie. payment for sin is not treated as a sigificant gift from God and reacted by biblical commands & refused to get the obvious then ears will be turned to deaf...ultimately becomin reprobate.