Definite Atonement

[David1701]

Those who say that “all we, like sheep, have gone astray” doesn’t refer to all humanity.


Doug

It does not mean that non-sheep have not gone astray! It is simply not referring to them.

All we (God's people) have gone astray and turned every one to his own way. To make the "we" refer to every single human being is to wrench it out of context.

 

[TibiasDad]

Jesus said to those Pharisees that they did not believe, because they were not his sheep. The main point here is not the tense, but the cause. The cause of them not believing was that they were not his sheep.

Correlation not causation. John 3:16-18 and Romans 11:17-24 are causative, John 10:26 is correlation. Those not for Jesus’s flock correlate to those not believing.


Doug

 

[David1701]

Correlation not causation. John 3:16-18 and Romans 11:17-24 are causative, John 10:26 is correlation. Those not for Jesus’s flock correlate to those not believing.


Doug

The Bible says that it's CAUSATION, as you well know.

John 10:25,26 (KJV)
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

Because is, obviously, a declaration of causation. The Pharisees do not believe, and, using antiquated English, this be the cause - they are not Jesus' sheep.

 

[TibiasDad]

I did not say that. Jesus did not say that. It is not what He was talking about.

Think again Arial, if being a sheep of Jesus’s flock means that they are or will be believers necessarily, then those who are not now nor ever will be are also this necessarily. It is your doctrine of predestination that necessitates this conclusion; if this is true, you, nor Jesus can say anything else but that you’re saying this.


Doug

Because is, obviously, a declaration of causation. The Pharisees do not believe, and, using antiquated English, this be the cause - they are not Jesus' sheep.

Or, they do not believe and this be/is the cause of their not being Jesus’s Sheep.

Doug

 

[Ladodgers6]

The phrase Limited Atonement was used to make the acronym TULIP. Unfortunately that has caused many an Arminianist of one flavor or another to recoil in horror. And is used on this gut reaction alone, to turn many away from even examining the doctrines any further. The problem they fail to recognize is that they are the ones that actually have limited atonement, whereas Reformed theology teaches not an atonement that is limited, but one that is definite. The atonement of those who claim free will as the agent of our attaining salvation is severely limited to those who choose Christ with this said free will. In order to not make that limited they say Jesus paid for the sins of everyone whether they choose Christ or not. The illogic of that should be obvious but for some reason it is not to those who believe it. They have an atonement that is not only limited, but largely ineffectual, and a terrible case of double jeopardy. Oddly they also cry against the doctrines of predestination and election by saying that would make God unjust.

So what does definite atonement mean and where can we find support for it in the scriptures?

It means that the atonement Jesus made did exactly what God intended it to do. It gave some people to Jesus but did not give all people to Jesus. John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
John 6:39 ANd this is the will of Him who sent Me, That I shall lose none of all those He has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

And how else is God going to give these people to Jesus and Jesus die for them, unless He knows them before the foundation of the world, elects them to salvation, predestines them to have faith in Christ, and calls them. "MY sheep hear my voice and follow me." "A stranger they will not follow." and gives them the faith they need. "By grace you have been saved through faith, And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The Bible tells us in Romans 9 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purposes of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls---she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

And just in case there be any question as to what Paul is saying and why he asks and answers the anticipated response, "Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

So definite atonement means that God was and is always serving His purposes, and He purposed to save some, but not all. And Jesus, went to the cross to do the work of redeeming them, exactly as God purposed. The atonement He made was great enough in scope to cover all peoples in all nations, but it was not intended to do so. As shown by the fact that the Bible also tells us that many more enter the wide gate that leads to destruction than those who enter the narrow gate to eternal life.

It is never good to talk back to God or tell Him what He can and cannot do or what He will or will not do.

Excellent post, well said, great presentation. I would like to add, that you are spot on, that the TULIP acronym is confusing, and a turn off for people before even getting to know what it entails. Definite Atonement is a better one, I like Effectual Atonement.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Correlation not causation. John 3:16-18 and Romans 11:17-24 are causative, John 10:26 is correlation. Those not for Jesus’s flock correlate to those not believing.


Doug

What is the causation, Doug?

 

[Arial]

Excellent post, well said, great presentation. I would like to add, that you are spot on, that the TULIP acronym is confusing, and a turn off for people before even getting to know what it entails. Definite Atonement is a better one, I like Effectual Atonement.​

Effectual atonement works too as to giving the meaning of the doctrine. But then if we use effectual grace instead of irresistible grace we repeat ourselves.

 

[Arial]

Think again Arial, if being a sheep of Jesus’s flock means that they are or will be believers necessarily, then those who are not now nor ever will be are also this necessarily.

Very true.

It is your doctrine of predestination that necessitates this conclusion; if this is true, you, nor Jesus can say anything else but that you’re saying this.

How about I reply by saying, "It is your doctrine of free will that necessitates you disagreeing with the Reformed position on predestination and election that is seen clearly in this passage." Here are some passages that support the Reformed view and I will just use the statements made by Jesus on the subject and one we find in Acts, rather than systematically go through the doctrines of God, Christ, justification, etc. and how these all contain the doctrine of predestination, for you. The statement I made mimicking yours had no more validity than yours did about why I reach my conclusions, unless I do so. Something you did not do,

John 6:37-40 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those He has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
John 17:1-2 When Jesus had spoken these words, He lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given Him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given Him. 6. "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world, Yours they were, and you gave them to Me, and they have kept your word. 24. "Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

John 10:25-29 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

In that last one, which came first? Being appointed to eternal life or believing? IOW does it say as many as believed were appointed to eternal life?

 

[David1701]

Think again Arial, if being a sheep of Jesus’s flock means that they are or will be believers necessarily, then those who are not now nor ever will be are also this necessarily. It is your doctrine of predestination that necessitates this conclusion; if this is true, you, nor Jesus can say anything else but that you’re saying this.


Doug

Or, they do not believe and this be/is the cause of their not being Jesus’s Sheep.

Doug

Once again, you have deliberately reversed what the Bible says.

Or, they do not believe and this be/is the cause of their not being Jesus’s Sheep.

John 10:25,26 (EMTV)
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, these things testify about Me.
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, just as I said to you.

Why are you, in effect, calling our Lord a liar?!

I smell the stench of the Lord's ancient foe.

Gen. 3:1 (WEB) Now the serpent was more subtle than any animal of the field which Yahweh God had made. He said to the woman, “Has God really said, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’”

 

[Ladodgers6]

Effectual atonement works too as to giving the meaning of the doctrine. But then if we use effectual grace instead of irresistible grace we repeat ourselves.

Maybe that's how TULIP acronym happened...LoL..IDK.

 

[Reformedguy]

Those who say that “all we, like sheep, have gone astray” doesn’t refer to all humanity.


Doug

No, is that who he is addressing? Audience relevance

 

[Reformedguy]

And I think you carry your hermeneutic too far. Sheep, goats, tires and wheat are not moral, rational or relational beings. Moral, rational and relational beings can change drastically and do so all the time. We are what we are because of our reactions to the gospel. Belief or unbelief, according to Jesus and Paul, is the watershed of humanity’s future.

Jn 3:17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Rom 9:30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Rom 11:17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Doug

No one said they are rational beings. They are metaphors. One thing we know for sure is goats don't morph into sheep and tares do not become wheat. The Bible never states they do. A goat is a goat on judgement day, not because of judgement day. Tares are thrown into the fire because they are tares not because they became tares.

 

[Carbon]

You are not my sheep does not mean you cannot be my sheep! It is an indicative statement about a present reality. It does not say anything about potentials or final circumstances!


Doug

When Jesus said, “I lay down my like for my sheep” it absolutely does show a limited atonement. Do you think Jesus just came to argue with the Jews?

Jesus also said, he knows his sheep. And his sheep know him.

Don’t you see Jesus’ teaching in this?

Besides, where do you see Jesus teach those who are not he sheep can finally become his sheep? And from your perspective, by freely choosing to do do? If you believe Jesus is teaching something different than a limited atonement, then you should have no problem proving it?

So please, show me where Jesus teaches such, or even how a leopard could change his spots. Thanks

 

[Carbon]

No one said they are rational beings. They are metaphors. One thing we know for sure is goats don't morph into sheep and tares do not become wheat. The Bible never states they do. A goat is a goat on judgement day, not because of judgement day. Tares are thrown into the fire because they are tares not because they became tares.

Amen!

 

[Carbon]

No one said they are rational beings. They are metaphors. One thing we know for sure is goats don't morph into sheep and tares do not become wheat. The Bible never states they do. A goat is a goat on judgement day, not because of judgement day. Tares are thrown into the fire because they are tares not because they became tares.

But what if the Tare makes a free will decision to turn into wheat? Ok? Huh?
What’s ya got yo say about that?

 

[Reformedguy]

But what if the Tare makes a free will decision to turn into wheat? Ok? Huh?
What’s ya got yo say about that?

Umm....LOL

 

[TibiasDad]

When Jesus said, “I lay down my like for my sheep” it absolutely does show a limited atonement. Do you think Jesus just came to argue with the Jews?

Jesus also said, he knows his sheep. And his sheep know him.

Don’t you see Jesus’ teaching in this?

Besides, where do you see Jesus teach those who are not he sheep can finally become his sheep? And from your perspective, by freely choosing to do do? If you believe Jesus is teaching something different than a limited atonement, then you should have no problem proving it?

So please, show me where Jesus teaches such, or even how a leopard could change his spots. Thanks

You see, Carbon, when someone believes, you say that they were necessarily sheep or else they wouldn’t have believed, whereas I say all are, prior to believing, lost sheep and those who believe are now found sheep.

I think you have to read your limited atonement into the context, because whereas I think my view is a more natural reading.

I can say to you what you have said to me, “Don’t you see? Neither of us can “see” the other’s conclusions. It’s not that I don’t understand what you are trying to say, I just don’t think that is Jesus’s intention. I don’t think his words must be taken in that way. As I told @Arial, I think there is an avalanche of presuppositions being assumed in your interpretation of the text.


Doug

 

[Carbon]

You see, Carbon, when someone believes, you say that they were necessarily sheep or else they wouldn’t have believed, whereas I say all are, prior to believing, lost sheep and those who believe are now found sheep.

Jesus said he laid down his life for the sheep. So, those “found sheep” were sheep before they were found.

I think you have to read your limited atonement into the context, because whereas I think my view is a more natural reading.

I know you do. Just as I believe you read into it also.

I can say to you what you have said to me, “Don’t you see? Neither of us can “see” the other’s conclusions. It’s not that I don’t understand what you are trying to say, I just don’t think that is Jesus’s intention. I don’t think his words must be taken in that way. As I told @Arial, I think there is an avalanche of presuppositions being assumed in your interpretation of the text.


Doug

Okay, thanks for your reply.

But I am still interested in you showing where Jesus teaches that goats can become sheep.

If not, I understand. I believe it is impossible.

 

[Eleanor]

You see, Carbon, when someone believes, you say that they were necessarily sheep or else they wouldn’t have believed, whereas I say all are, prior to believing, lost sheep and those who believe are now found sheep.

I think you have to read your limited atonement into the context, because whereas I think my view is a more natural reading.

I can say to you what you have said to me, “Don’t you see? Neither of us can “see” the other’s conclusions. It’s not that I don’t understand what you are trying to say, I just don’t think that is Jesus’s intention. I don’t think his words must be taken in that way. As I told @Arial, I think there is an avalanche of presuppositions being assumed in your interpretation of the text.

Except for Jn 6, as explained in post #79.

v. 15 - I lay down my life for the sheep.
v. 26 - You are not my sheep.

There are some for whom Jesus did not lay down his life, as is plainly seen in his high priestly prayer at the last supper, stating for whom his sacrifice was offered (Jn 17:9, 2, 6, 24).
He did not pray for the world, but specifically excluded it.
He prayed only for those whom the Father gave him,
just as all the sacrifices at the temple were offered only for God's people, and not for the world (Lev 16:34),
which was specifically excluded from the temple.

 

[TibiasDad]

But I am still interested in you showing where Jesus teaches that goats can become sheep.

If not, I understand. I believe it is impossible.

In principle, same as you; anywhere that unbelievers become believers, where lost become found, where the blind become sighted. The only difference between us is that you say believers are predestined to believe necessarily.

Doug