ECT Justification through faith in Christ's blood disproves limited atonement

[Sonnet]

Romans 3:25a
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,

That Paul preached such a gospel excludes the possibility that Christ died for less than all. Since 'faith in His blood' equates to 'believing in Jesus' (see Romans 3:25-26) then the condemnation for not believing in 'the name of God's one and only Son' (John 3:18) is a condemnation for not believing in His blood (the crucifixion being the context there).

One cannot be condemned for not believing in that from which one has been excluded.

 

[Sonnet]

Those Calvinist's say Christ did not die for are to have faith in the blood that Christ did not pour out for them? Really?

Now why would Paul preach such a gospel?

 

[Sonnet]

There is only one way to resolve this anomaly - and that is to accept that Christ died for all men - after all, scripture says so several times and nowhere does it say that He died for a less than all.

 

[nikolai_42]

Those Calvinist's say Christ did not die for are to have faith in the blood that Christ did not pour out for them? Really?

Now why would Paul preach such a gospel?

I think the Calvinist would say that Christ's death accomplished all He set out to do - that is, if there are some He died for that aren't saved, then He failed to do what He came to do.

Neither pray I for these alone {the disciples}, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
John 17:9

For unlimited atonement to be true, Jesus would just be praying generally here - for "anyone" who believes on His name as opposed to those specifically He "foreknew".

 

[Sonnet]

I think the Calvinist would say that Christ's death accomplished all He set out to do - that is, if there are some He died for that aren't saved, then He failed to do what He came to do.

Neither pray I for these alone {the disciples}, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
John 17:9

For unlimited atonement to be true, Jesus would just be praying generally here - for "anyone" who believes on His name as opposed to those specifically He "foreknew".

There is no failure in providing for all. Preaching justification through belief in Christ's blood demands that all have been included in the provision of that blood. It would be disingenuous to preach such a gospel if that were not so.

That Christ prayed at the last supper for His disciples and those that would believe does not counter His prayers here:

John 11:41-42.
"So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upwards and said, 'Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.'"

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

 

[Sonnet]

I think the Calvinist would say that Christ's death accomplished all He set out to do - that is, if there are some He died for that aren't saved, then He failed to do what He came to do.

Neither pray I for these alone {the disciples}, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
John 17:9

For unlimited atonement to be true, Jesus would just be praying generally here - for "anyone" who believes on His name as opposed to those specifically He "foreknew".

Is it the case that you preach faith in Christ's blood whilst believing that Christ excluded some men from the provision of that blood?

 

[nikolai_42]

Is it the case that you preach faith in Christ's blood whilst believing that Christ excluded some men from the provision of that blood?

It's entirely possible that that is the case. But as men, we aren't given to know the destinies of specific people.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Acts 13:48

The important distinction I see is that in Calvinism the power of the Word is rested upon entirely (Calvinists not knowing who is and who is nor ordained to eternal life) where in the non-Calvinist system, the free will of man is (more or less) appealed to and preaching can devolve to pleading with people to believe - doing whatever is necessary to attract them to the very cross that is abhorrent to the natural man.

 

[Sonnet]

It's entirely possible that that is the case. But as men, we aren't given to know the destinies of specific people.

Nonetheless it is disingenuous. The right thing to do would be to make explicit that God excluded some men. It is telling that Paul and the apostles never did so.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Acts 13:48

'Tasso' is never translated as 'ordained' in the several other examples of it's use in the NT. A better rendering would be 'determined' or 'disposed'. In context, the Jews had 'not considered themselves worth of eternal life':

Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

The important distinction I see is that in Calvinism the power of the Word is rested upon entirely (Calvinists not knowing who is and who is nor ordained to eternal life) where in the non-Calvinist system, the free will of man is (more or less) appealed to and preaching can devolve to pleading with people to believe - doing whatever is necessary to attract them to the very cross that is abhorrent to the natural man.

Certainly, in the wisdom of man, the gospel is foolish, but that does not mean that faith is not possible.

 

[Redeemed-777]

Father God sees the end from the beginning, etc.
Especially, He sees what is in people's hearts.

IMO, He chooses some to be elect, but not others.
Can anyone be positive why He chooses some and not others?

There are about 20 verses which give all the reasons why ...
unregenerate man is totally incapable (unable) to believe in Jesus and the gospel.

Hebrews 1:14 ...
Angels are sent to protect those who WILL inherit salvation.

IMO, this refers only to the elect.
They are protected before accepting Christ.
Not sure how much they are protected afterwards.

All of this stands in the corner of those who insist on OSAS,
i.e. the elect cannot lose their salvation
(irrespective of verses saying otherwise).

 

[Sonnet]

Father God sees the end from the beginning, etc.
Especially, He sees what is in people's hearts.

IMO, He chooses some to be elect, but not others.
Can anyone be positive why He chooses some and not others?

Hebrews 1:14 ...
Angels are sent to protect those who WILL inherit salvation.

IMO, this refers only to the elect.
They are protected before accepting Christ.
Not sure how much they are protected afterwards.

Right, but that doesn't refute the OP. You can't be condemned for not believing in that which you have been excluded from. Paul preached justification through faith in Christ's blood. You can't preach so if that blood was not poured out for all.

 

[Redeemed-777]

You can't be condemned for not believing in that which you have been excluded from.

Art thou telling us what God can and cannot do?
Sorry, He can condemn whomever He wishes to.
And also, for whatever reason He chooses.

 

[beloved57]

Father God sees the end from the beginning, etc.
Especially, He sees what is in people's hearts.

IMO, He chooses some to be elect, but not others.
Can anyone be positive why He chooses some and not others?

There are about 20 verses which give all the reasons why ...
unregenerate man is totally incapable (unable) to believe in Jesus and the gospel.

Hebrews 1:14 ...
Angels are sent to protect those who WILL inherit salvation.

IMO, this refers only to the elect.
They are protected before accepting Christ.
Not sure how much they are protected afterwards.

All of this stands in the corner of those who insist on OSAS,
i.e. the elect cannot lose their salvation
(irrespective of verses saying otherwise).

Those Christ died for are reconciled to God and made Righteous while they're enemies and unbelievers and rejecting God Rom 5:10,19 !

 

[Sonnet]

Art thou telling us what God can and cannot do?
Sorry, He can condemn whomever He wishes to.
And also, for whatever reason He chooses.

God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), so the fact that Paul was inspired to write and preach faith in Christ's blood proves that Christ provided for all.

You haven't refuted the OP which is simple logic.

 

[Sonnet]

Those Christ died for are reconciled to God and made Righteous while they're enemies and unbelievers and rejecting God Rom 5:10,19 !

For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Neither of those scriptures say what you wrongly infer. Please deal with the specifics of the OP.

 

[Sonnet]

Art thou telling us what God can and cannot do?
Sorry, He can condemn whomever He wishes to.
And also, for whatever reason He chooses.

Which would mean God could condemn genuine believers. Seriously?

 

[nikolai_42]

Nonetheless it is disingenuous. The right thing to do would be to make explicit that God excluded some men. It is telling that Paul and the apostles never did so.

That's the whole point about predestination and foreknowledge, isn't it? One either has to predicate it all on man's free will choice (at a given moment or moments) or the Sovereignty of God. And if the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, then what does that say about the free will of man?

'Tasso' is never translated as 'ordained' in the several other examples of it's use in the NT. A better rendering would be 'determined' or 'disposed'. In context, the Jews had 'not considered themselves worth of eternal life':

Who does the "disposing"?

Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but just the uses of tasso in the NT often seem pretty strongly predestinarian :

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Matthew 28:16-17

(The fact that they were tassoed goes even more strongly to the action upon them being ordained since even though they were appointed, some still doubted -one is clearly the action of God, the other of man)

For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Luke 7:8

(He was a man set - passive - under authority. It's not him being disposed to authority but placed under it)

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Acts 15:2

And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Acts 22:10

(Passive voice and clearly in the same sense as "ordained" by God)

And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Acts 28:23

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1

(This certainly cannot mean disposed - for even ungodly authority is said to be ordained but may not be disposed to be godly)

Certainly, in the wisdom of man, the gospel is foolish, but that does not mean that faith is not possible.

I would say it is impossible if not given by God.

 

[Redeemed-777]

You can't be condemned for not believing in that which you have been excluded from.

The point is (Steve Quayle's favorite prefix or preface)
... they were condemned @ the same time "the elect" were chosen!
'Twas all before the foundation of the world.

If this is the case, IMO, "the elect" have OSAS.

Butski, dozens of verses say BACs can indeed lose their salvation.

Ergo, IMO, all BACs are not part of "the elect" who are guaranteed.

BACs can CHOOSE to fall away from the faith and be lost.

One thing for sure (from about 10 verses):
The believer's faith must stand firm (endure) until the end of his life, or he is lost.

God has seen that the faith of "the elect" did endure to the very end.
That is one reason why they are part of "the elect".
Butski, we need to understand what enduring in the faith really means!!!
We're not just talking about a simple belief in Christ and His gospel.

These 10 verses alone disprove OSAS ... i.e. these verses would be ridiculous,
if it were not possible for the believer to abandon his faith and lose his salvation.

 

[Sonnet]

The point is (Steve Quayle's favorite prefix or preface)
... they were condemned @ the same time "the elect" were chosen!
'Twas all before the foundation of the world.

If this is the case, IMO, "the elect" have OSAS.

Butski, dozens of verses say BACs can indeed lose their salvation.

Ergo, IMO, all BACs are not part of "the elect" who are guaranteed.

BACs can CHOOSE to fall away from the faith and be lost.

One thing for sure (from about 10 verses):
The believer's faith must stand firm (endure) until the end of his life, or he is lost.

God has seen that the faith of "the elect" did endure to the very end.
That is one reason why they are part of "the elect".
Butski, we need to understand what enduring in the faith really means!!!
We're not just talking about a simple belief in Christ and His gospel.

These 10 verses alone disprove OSAS ... i.e. these verses would be ridiculous,
if it were not possible for the believer to abandon his faith and lose his salvation.

All interesting but I don't see how that deals with what I actually wrote. The Paul who is fully cognizant of Christ not shedding His blood for all men who then preaches to whomsoever justification through faith in His blood would have to make that limitation apparent to his audience - common decency says so. Of course, Paul never does.

 

[Sonnet]

moment or moments) or the Sovereignty of God. And if the cross is foolishness to them that are perishing, then what does that say about the free will of man?

Non-sequitur, I wrote this:

Nonetheless it is disingenuous. The right thing to do would be to make explicit that God excluded some men. It is telling that Paul and the apostles never did so.

Who does the "disposing"?

I'm a synergist.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but just the uses of tasso in the NT often seem pretty strongly predestinarian :

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Matthew 28:16-17

(The fact that they were tassoed goes even more strongly to the action upon them being ordained since even though they were appointed, some still doubted -one is clearly the action of God, the other of man)

Since God is not mentioned in the Acts 13:48 as the one behind their belief then it is speculatory to do so.

For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
Luke 7:8

(He was a man set - passive - under authority. It's not him being disposed to authority but placed under it)

Again, same point - '...all those who were set for eternal life believed.'

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Acts 15:2

This time it is the men 'deciding' or 'determining' - '...all those who were determined for eternal life believed.'

And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Acts 22:10

(Passive voice and clearly in the same sense as "ordained" by God)

Other translations have 'assigned', 'commanded' and 'arranged' so 'appointed' in the sense of 'what is expected of'. That is not predetermination.

And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
Acts 28:23

Or 'arranged' - '...all those who were arranged for eternal life believed.'

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Romans 13:1

(This certainly cannot mean disposed - for even ungodly authority is said to be ordained but may not be disposed to be godly)

'Established' or 'placed' - again, in the 13:48 scripture it does not say God is doing the 'placing'.

I would say it is impossible if not given by God.

Revelation 3:20.

Please would deal with the main thrust of the OP. Saying that the preacher does not know who the elect are is not an excuse - common decency demands that Paul must tell his audience that 'faith in His blood' is not for all men (possibly including some of those that, at that moment, he is preaching to) because Christ did not shed His blood for all.

Paul NEVER said this.

 

[Sonnet]

Acts 13:43-48
That's the whole point about predestination and foreknowledge, isn't it? One either has to predicate it all on man's free will choice (at a given On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.

Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us:

“ ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.​

Regarding the 'word of God', the Jews 'reject it and do not consider themselves worthy of eternal life' so, since 'tasso' may be translated as 'determined' or 'disposed', then such would be appropriate - it mirroring the Jews' choice in the contrary.