Comments on: “Why Limited Atonement Is Not Part of the Gospel” http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/ Challenging Bible Studies for Maturing Christians Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:07:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Hamman Samuel http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-58341 Hamman Samuel Sat, 26 Nov 2011 05:33:19 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-58341 Thanks for having a Biblical basis for your articles. I want to join the discussion about Calvinism vs Arminianism by noting 2 key Bible verses that plainly give more weight to Arminianism, but were not included in your article on this subject: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:12,13) I would love to hear your thoughts on these two verses and how they reconcile with the conclusions of your original article: "Calvinism, Arminianism, So What?". Blessings to you! Thanks for having a Biblical basis for your articles. I want to join the discussion about Calvinism vs Arminianism by noting 2 key Bible verses that plainly give more weight to Arminianism, but were not included in your article on this subject:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:12,13)

I would love to hear your thoughts on these two verses and how they reconcile with the conclusions of your original article: “Calvinism, Arminianism, So What?”. Blessings to you!

]]> By: David Ouila http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-29173 David Ouila Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:06:15 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-29173 "1st Premise: Christ died for His sheep specifically. "Assumed Premise: (Specificity = exclusivity). "Conclusion: Christ died for His sheep exclusively. Yet another example of another fool who hasn't actually bothered to study the issue. This isn't the argument at all! All you've done is present a false dichotomy! The doctrine of definite atonement does not begin at the assumption that Christ died for His sheep specifically. It begins by Scripturally asserting that Christ's death actually accomplished all that is required for salvation. By logical inference, at the day of judgment, those who are not saved from judgment and eternal destruction, Christ did not die for. What about that do you not understand? The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. - Acts 2:39 Either Peter preached limited calling or he preached limited atonement. Limited calling is unscriptural and does not hold up logically with the other facts of the gospel. That leaves us with the fact that Peter preached limited atonement in Acts 2, doesn't it. Yes it does. “1st Premise: Christ died for His sheep specifically.
“Assumed Premise: (Specificity = exclusivity).
“Conclusion: Christ died for His sheep exclusively.

Yet another example of another fool who hasn’t actually bothered to study the issue. This isn’t the argument at all! All you’ve done is present a false dichotomy! The doctrine of definite atonement does not begin at the assumption that Christ died for His sheep specifically. It begins by Scripturally asserting that Christ’s death actually accomplished all that is required for salvation. By logical inference, at the day of judgment, those who are not saved from judgment and eternal destruction, Christ did not die for. What about that do you not understand?

The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call. - Acts 2:39

Either Peter preached limited calling or he preached limited atonement. Limited calling is unscriptural and does not hold up logically with the other facts of the gospel. That leaves us with the fact that Peter preached limited atonement in Acts 2, doesn’t it. Yes it does.

]]> By: Theodore A.Jones http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-27129 Theodore A.Jones Sun, 22 May 2011 14:12:58 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-27129 "It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 If the pipe dream of substitutionary atonement is true then the above statement is false. But the above is a direct contridiction of the pipe deam of substitutionary atonement. “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
If the pipe dream of substitutionary atonement is true then the above statement is false. But the above is a direct contridiction of the pipe deam of substitutionary atonement.

]]> By: mark mcculley http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-20946 mark mcculley Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:23:24 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-20946 http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/effectual-atonement-does-not-reduce-the-number-of-the-elect-who-believe-the-gospel/ http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/effectual-atonement-does-not-reduce-the-number-of-the-elect-who-believe-the-gospel/

]]> By: Linda Bear http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-11035 Linda Bear Sat, 09 Oct 2010 16:09:31 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-11035 How immature and offensive it was to read the word retard! Grow up. Repent! How immature and offensive it was to read the word retard! Grow up. Repent!

]]> By: Greg Gibson http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-8354 Greg Gibson Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:10:07 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-8354 Pam, Thanks for your encouragement. <strong>So do you think it is people don’t want to learn, or they don’t have anyone to teach them?</strong> Both. Whether it's Arminianism, Covenant Theology, etc., I've seen brothers whose hearts are hard and insensitive to the Lord and His Word. And I've seen others who were ignorant but humble and teachable. Pam,

Thanks for your encouragement.

So do you think it is people don’t want to learn, or they don’t have anyone to teach them?

Both. Whether it’s Arminianism, Covenant Theology, etc., I’ve seen brothers whose hearts are hard and insensitive to the Lord and His Word. And I’ve seen others who were ignorant but humble and teachable.

]]> By: Pam http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-8331 Pam Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:40:05 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-8331 Wow! Great articles! I have sent them out to many of my friends and plan on using them as a reference guide in the future. However, I would like to ask a question in reference to the 5% grasping, or desiring deeper doctrine. As someone who was an Arminian and not very book smart, but had a wonderful Sunday School teacher who challenged me with the Doctrine of Election. (I dug into my Bible to prove him wrong!) Could it be that there is more need of one on one discipleship? Or teachers that will take the time to challenge their classes to search scripture? I believe sound doctrine is so important because it effects EVERYTHING in your life. My walk with God is more solid, my love and trust of Him more strong than it ever was as an Arminian. The Lord gave me the opportunity to be present as He saved someone I knew, and to be their mentor. I have discipled her in sound doctrine from the beginning and she is really amazing. She was saved less than two years ago and is very sound in the sovereignity of God which influences her entire life. The church I went to before preaches free will and refuses to address the Doctrine of Election, and the Doctrines of Grace. So do you think it is people don't want to learn, or they don't have anyone to teach them? Thanks Greg! And thank you for the wonderful articles. You packed so much good stuff in! Wow! Great articles! I have sent them out to many of my friends and plan on using them as a reference guide in the future. However, I would like to ask a question in reference to the 5% grasping, or desiring deeper doctrine. As someone who was an Arminian and not very book smart, but had a wonderful Sunday School teacher who challenged me with the Doctrine of Election. (I dug into my Bible to prove him wrong!)
Could it be that there is more need of one on one discipleship? Or teachers that will take the time to challenge their classes to search scripture? I believe sound doctrine is so important because it effects EVERYTHING in your life. My walk with God is more solid, my love and trust of Him more strong than it ever was as an Arminian. The Lord gave me the opportunity to be present as He saved someone I knew, and to be their mentor. I have discipled her in sound doctrine from the beginning and she is really amazing. She was saved less than two years ago and is very sound in the sovereignity of God which influences her entire life. The church I went to before preaches free will and refuses to address the Doctrine of Election, and the Doctrines of Grace. So do you think it is people don’t want to learn, or they don’t have anyone to teach them? Thanks Greg! And thank you for the wonderful articles. You packed so much good stuff in!

]]> By: Proto http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-7696 Proto Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:40:23 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-7696 Great article. I too went from Arminian to Hyper-Calvinist. Iain Murray's Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism was the genesis of my turn to balanced Biblical Calvinism.... Limited Atonement is true......but so is the Universal Offer....and it's not a contradiction. Armstrong's Calvinism and the Amyraut heresy was also enlightening. Amyraut insisted he was saying the exact same thing Calvin did.....not that it should matter of course! But for the sake of historical discussion.... And what is commonly called Amyrauldianism today....4 pt. Calvinism is not accurate. It's not Calvinism minus Particular Redemption. Amyraut was arguing for a much more full orbed theology...more like a 20pt. Calvinism if you want to talk in terms of points...... Logic is a big issue. Is Aristotelian type logic sufficient for metaphysics...for theology? What can we learn from the Bible itself regarding this? Does the dual natured Unity of Christ teach us something? How can we construct theology avoiding the abuses of Systematics...which is what I think leads to Hyper-Calvinism and other things..... And avoid mysticism by employing dualistic logic that allows us to see visible and invisible truths...decretive and revealed truths... Great comments by other folks here.... Protoprotestant Great article. I too went from Arminian to Hyper-Calvinist.

Iain Murray’s Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism was the genesis of my turn to balanced Biblical Calvinism….

Limited Atonement is true……but so is the Universal Offer….and it’s not a contradiction.

Armstrong’s Calvinism and the Amyraut heresy was also enlightening. Amyraut insisted he was saying the exact same thing Calvin did…..not that it should matter of course! But for the sake of historical discussion….

And what is commonly called Amyrauldianism today….4 pt. Calvinism is not accurate. It’s not Calvinism minus Particular Redemption. Amyraut was arguing for a much more full orbed theology…more like a 20pt. Calvinism if you want to talk in terms of points……

Logic is a big issue. Is Aristotelian type logic sufficient for metaphysics…for theology? What can we learn from the Bible itself regarding this? Does the dual natured Unity of Christ teach us something?

How can we construct theology avoiding the abuses of Systematics…which is what I think leads to Hyper-Calvinism and other things…..

And avoid mysticism by employing dualistic logic that allows us to see visible and invisible truths…decretive and revealed truths…

Great comments by other folks here….

Protoprotestant

]]> By: lee http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-7601 lee Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:50:02 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-7601 If i was wrong above then let all who "accept" CHRIST give themselves a big ol' pat on the back for their work! If i was wrong above then let all who “accept” CHRIST give themselves a big ol’ pat on the back for their work!

]]> By: lee http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-7600 lee Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:48:01 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-7600 interesting conversation..."seek and ye shall find," however i propose: the gospel is a proclamation of the TRUTH and all are under necessity to believe, repent, have faith, etc. Issue at hand: a) romans 3 is clear that no man without GOD' will ever will desire HIM in any way except as a god of their imagination, which is idolatry, b) "it is GOD who gives the will and to do of HIS good will" which is: repent,believe, have faith, do good (GOD inspired) works, c) except ye be born of the SPIRIT..., which is to be regenerated, which none can do without GOD, d) if CHRIST died for ALL men then why do millions go to hell when they've not heard the gospel? interesting conversation…”seek and ye shall find,” however i propose: the gospel is a proclamation of the TRUTH and all are under necessity to believe, repent, have faith, etc. Issue at hand: a) romans 3 is clear that no man without GOD’ will ever will desire HIM in any way except as a god of their imagination, which is idolatry, b) “it is GOD who gives the will and to do of HIS good will” which is: repent,believe, have faith, do good (GOD inspired) works, c) except ye be born of the SPIRIT…, which is to be regenerated, which none can do without GOD, d) if CHRIST died for ALL men then why do millions go to hell when they’ve not heard the gospel?

]]>