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 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:39:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 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?

]]> By: Calvinism, Arminianism, So What? « Kit’s Blog http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-6944 Calvinism, Arminianism, So What? « Kit’s Blog Mon, 10 May 2010 00:04:46 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-6944 [...] The apostles never once preached limited atonement in their gospel messages to the lost in Acts. Limited Atonement – Gospel [...] [...] The apostles never once preached limited atonement in their gospel messages to the lost in Acts. Limited Atonement – Gospel [...]

]]> By: Don http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-6905 Don Thu, 06 May 2010 02:44:35 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-6905 As a student of the teachings of R.C. Sproul since 1980, I found your explanations of the true nature of the Gospel to be without peer; R.C., John MacArthur, John Piper and Charles Haddon Spurgeon should all be proud of your fine work on this, the heart of the Gospel. As a student of the teachings of R.C. Sproul since 1980, I found your explanations of the true nature of the Gospel to be without peer; R.C., John MacArthur, John Piper and Charles Haddon Spurgeon should all be proud of your fine work on this, the heart of the Gospel.

]]> By: Matt http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-6493 Matt Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:07:47 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-6493 I would have to say that Jesus' sacrifice covers everyone's sins in the sense that He is SUFFICIENT for everyone's sin, but only EFFICIENT when we receive Him. Keep the articles coming... good work. I would have to say that Jesus’ sacrifice covers everyone’s sins in the sense that He is SUFFICIENT for everyone’s sin, but only EFFICIENT when we receive Him.
Keep the articles coming… good work.

]]> By: Greg Gibson http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-5876 Greg Gibson Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:24:42 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-5876 Chad, thanks for your encouragement. Praise God that you're following Christ wherever He leads. Chad, thanks for your encouragement. Praise God that you’re following Christ wherever He leads.

]]> By: Chad http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-5864 Chad Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:18:16 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-5864 I just wanted to thank you for these articles. I've just finished reading Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Limited Atonement and I find myself in agreement with your position. I've been raised Arminian, but over the last several months, I've been questioning this doctrine. As a result, at the age of 28, I've (sadly) begun to read the Bible daily and search the scriptures to see what God's word teaches, rather than relying on man's opinion. During this time, the Lord has been showing me that He indeed does give the gift of repentance and the faith to believe in Jesus and to receive salvation. I still have so much to learn and study, but your articles have helped me in my search to understand God's truth. May God bless you and continue to use you to glorify His holy name! I just wanted to thank you for these articles. I’ve just finished reading Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Limited Atonement and I find myself in agreement with your position. I’ve been raised Arminian, but over the last several months, I’ve been questioning this doctrine. As a result, at the age of 28, I’ve (sadly) begun to read the Bible daily and search the scriptures to see what God’s word teaches, rather than relying on man’s opinion.

During this time, the Lord has been showing me that He indeed does give the gift of repentance and the faith to believe in Jesus and to receive salvation. I still have so much to learn and study, but your articles have helped me in my search to understand God’s truth.

May God bless you and continue to use you to glorify His holy name!

]]> By: Chris http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-5308 Chris Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:28:30 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-5308 I agree that a doctrinally sound and clear gospel message is what should be taught to all. Jesus seems to make this argument clear in His own prayer in John 17. Here we have a detailed prayer from the Son to the Father. What is the focus and content related to this issue? The clear message is that Jesus is praying for and thanking the Father for "those whom you have given me." John 17:2 - "...since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him." John 17:6 - "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world." John 17:7 - "Yours they were, and you gave them to me..." John 17:9 - "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." John 17:16 - "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." John 17:20 - "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word..." John 17:22 - "The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one..." I offer the entire chapter for your review so that you may read the entire context and wrestle with God's word. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&version=ESV Here then, captured in Holy scripture, is Jesus praying for those the Father has given Him... He promises to glorify them through the impartation of truth (gospel) for the glory of the Father that they may be one and the world may know that the Father sent the son. So even though the world will know the truth, Jesus says "I am not praying for the whole world." Rather: John 17:25-26 - "O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them." God does the work of giving those who will be saved to the Son through the gift of the Holy Spirit for His glory alone. God grant us peace and love and unity... in truth. I agree that a doctrinally sound and clear gospel message is what should be taught to all.

Jesus seems to make this argument clear in His own prayer in John 17. Here we have a detailed prayer from the Son to the Father. What is the focus and content related to this issue? The clear message is that Jesus is praying for and thanking the Father for “those whom you have given me.”

John 17:2 - “…since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.”

John 17:6 - “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.”

John 17:7 - “Yours they were, and you gave them to me…”

John 17:9 - “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.”

John 17:16 - “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.”

John 17:20 - “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word…”

John 17:22 - “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one…”

I offer the entire chapter for your review so that you may read the entire context and wrestle with God’s word.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&version=ESV

Here then, captured in Holy scripture, is Jesus praying for those the Father has given Him… He promises to glorify them through the impartation of truth (gospel) for the glory of the Father that they may be one and the world may know that the Father sent the son.

So even though the world will know the truth, Jesus says “I am not praying for the whole world.”

Rather:

John 17:25-26 - “O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

God does the work of giving those who will be saved to the Son through the gift of the Holy Spirit for His glory alone.

God grant us peace and love and unity… in truth.

]]> By: Tyler http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-4500 Tyler Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:03:47 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-4500 By the way, I think the crux of the matter is that it becomes a logic game for both (A) and (C)'s to explain some tough problems- for the Arnimian, how it is not them keeping or earning their salvaton, since Christ is the author AND perfecter, but for the Hyper to explain how it is not God sinning though them, forcing them, by eternal decree to commit sins, when he has stated in James that God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone, and that he always provides a way out! Thanks, Tyler E. Hand By the way, I think the crux of the matter is that it becomes a logic game for both (A) and (C)’s to explain some tough problems- for the Arnimian, how it is not them keeping or earning their salvaton, since Christ is the author AND perfecter, but for the Hyper to explain how it is not God sinning though them, forcing them, by eternal decree to commit sins, when he has stated in James that God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone, and that he always provides a way out! Thanks,
Tyler E. Hand

]]> By: Tyler http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-4499 Tyler Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:00:09 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-4499 EXCELLENT set of articles! I have been though this theology systematically for about 9 years now, I used to be an Arminian, then became a hyper-Calvinist, and now I truly think am at the same basic premises that you lay out here. I was VERY staunch in both of my prior (false) positions, failing to see that it was my pride driving my Arminianism, and my pride-of-secret-knowledge that drove my Hyper-Calvinism. I truly appreciate all the hard work and discernment that went into this whole series. With brotherly love, Tyler For anyone to read, I have my testimony on this posted at: http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=tyler+hand EXCELLENT set of articles! I have been though this theology systematically for about 9 years now, I used to be an Arminian, then became a hyper-Calvinist, and now I truly think am at the same basic premises that you lay out here. I was VERY staunch in both of my prior (false) positions, failing to see that it was my pride driving my Arminianism, and my pride-of-secret-knowledge that drove my Hyper-Calvinism. I truly appreciate all the hard work and discernment that went into this whole series. With brotherly love, Tyler

For anyone to read, I have my testimony on this posted at: http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=tyler+hand

]]> By: Ed http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-3851 Ed Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:33:29 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-3851 MP: God is not willing that any should perish mp: Some indeed do perish Conclusion: There is something God wills more than he is not willing that any should perish. Arminians --> man's free will Calvinists --> God's plan to show his entire character and glorify himself __________________________________________ MP: Christ's death fully accomplished salvation for those for whom he died mp: Not all are saved Conclusion: Christ's death was not for all OR MP: Christ's death did 99.9% of the work needed for the salvation of men mp: Not all are saved Conclusion: Man must provide the last little link to complete Christ's work MP: God is not willing that any should perish
mp: Some indeed do perish
Conclusion: There is something God wills more than he is not willing that any should perish.

Arminians –> man’s free will
Calvinists –> God’s plan to show his entire character and glorify himself

__________________________________________

MP: Christ’s death fully accomplished salvation for those for whom he died
mp: Not all are saved
Conclusion: Christ’s death was not for all

OR

MP: Christ’s death did 99.9% of the work needed for the salvation of men
mp: Not all are saved
Conclusion: Man must provide the last little link to complete Christ’s work

]]> By: Bill Schmitt http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-3458 Bill Schmitt Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:16:32 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-3458 Your presupposition is that Matthew 1:21 is not the gospel message....WRONG it is and it is substututionary, vicarious, LIMITED ATONEMENT. Argue with God. Your presupposition is that Matthew 1:21 is not the gospel message….WRONG it is and it is substututionary, vicarious, LIMITED ATONEMENT.

Argue with God.

]]> By: Greg Gibson http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-1936 Greg Gibson Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:06:07 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-1936 Hi Dennis, Thank you for your encouragement! P.S. Now about your email address, how about changing it from an anti-Arminian name to a pro-Christ (Christ-centered/gospel-centered) name? Hi Dennis,

Thank you for your encouragement!

P.S. Now about your email address, how about changing it from an anti-Arminian name to a pro-Christ (Christ-centered/gospel-centered) name?

]]> By: Dennis http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-1932 Dennis Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:25:57 +0000 http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/03/03/why-limited-atonement-is-not-part-of-the-gospel/#comment-1932 I just finished reading your different articles concerning hyper calvinism, calvinism, limited atonement, ect, and I found them to be biblicaly healthy teaching. I have found myself falling into hyper calvnistic practices in the past and articles like yours have been very beneficial to me in reminding me of what it's really all about, Christ! I do have two criticisms though. They are small but I do not believe they are irrelevant. First, you equate the terms recieve and accept in your analysis of John 1:12. Did you accept the color of eyes you recieved? Did you accept the cold you recieved last year? These two words have different meanings and should not be equated. Secondly You quote Joshua 24:15 as an example of people being asked to choose God, when in fact Joshua is giving them the choice between false gods and false gods " choose this day the gods of your forefathers or the gods of the amorites". Like I said before these are small issues and certainly in no way take away from your excellent articles. I will be sharing these articles with my friends and I hope that they bless them as they have blessed me. Soli Deo Gloria! Sincerly, Dennis I just finished reading your different articles concerning hyper calvinism, calvinism, limited atonement, ect, and I found them to be biblicaly healthy teaching. I have found myself falling into hyper calvnistic practices in the past and articles like yours have been very beneficial to me in reminding me of what it’s really all about, Christ! I do have two criticisms though. They are small but I do not believe they are irrelevant. First, you equate the terms recieve and accept in your analysis of John 1:12. Did you accept the color of eyes you recieved? Did you accept the cold you recieved last year? These two words have different meanings and should not be equated. Secondly You quote Joshua 24:15 as an example of people being asked to choose God, when in fact Joshua is giving them the choice between false gods and false gods ” choose this day the gods of your forefathers or the gods of the amorites”.
Like I said before these are small issues and certainly in no way take away from your excellent articles. I will be sharing these articles with my friends and I hope that they bless them as they have blessed me.
Soli Deo Gloria!

Sincerly, Dennis

]]>