Limited Atonement is the concept that the Atonement applies only to the elect;
NO.
Once again another Cal precept has been screwed up, misrepresented and a straw man argued. Limited Atonement is the concept the atonement is
applied only to the elect. This is an easy mistake to make and one that frequently occurs. The matter has been clarified in history to say Christ's atonement is
sufficient for all but
efficient or
efficacious only for those God actually saves. In other words, the power of the atonement is inexhaustible, or "unlimited" but its application is finite because God does not apply that power to everyone. He has, in His wisdom, purview and purvey, according to His will and purpose and His alone, chosen, selected, or elected who He will save and He applies the atonement accordingly.
Synergists believe the same thing. The only difference is the predicate the application on the sinner's fleshly will and not God's divine will.
and Unconditional Election is the concept that those who are included in that Limited Atonement are included because of the predetermined counsel of God.
That is sort of correct. I'm going to award partial points for that statement. To clarify it, though, all Unconditional Election states is that did not predicate His choice on anything having to do with the sinner being saved.
I again remind everyone that
Calvinism is a monergistic soteriology. It does not couch its view of salvation in the sinful flesh of the unregenerate unbeliever. Ever! In Augustinian, Lutheran, Calvinist,
and classic Reformed Arminianism humanity is incapable of doing anything meritorious of salvation in its own might. Arminius agreed with Augustine. Arminius subscribed to what we now call Total Depravity. The difference is Arminius believed there was a moment between dead-in-sin and eternal life in which God rendered the sinner able to make a liberated choice. Arminius did NOT believe any human in the sinful state could or would choose Jesus as Lord and Savior.
I, unlike you, can actually prove what I just said and prove it by providing the source in his own words. Here's a quote from Arminius'
Disputation 11 proving the point.
"In this state [the state of sin], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man."
I post this because I want you to understand not only are you arguing a lot of straw men, you are also arguing some differences without distinctions. Only the Pelagian and partial-Pelagian Provisionist believes sinful man maintains the ability to come to God unaided.
Total Depravity tells us all humans are so corrupted and adulterated by sin that they do not and cannot come to God unaided. ALL are dead in sin and headed for destruction unless and until God intervenes. Everything after the "T" in TULIP is about God, not humanity. ULIP has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fleshly will of the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate. One every single occasion when any of it is thought to have anything to do with the sinner Calvinism has been abandoned and a straw man is being argued.
God applies the atonement selectively and He does so based solely on His will and His purpose and NOTHING having to do with the human being saved.
That is the correct understanding of LA and UE.
This indicates very clearly to me that the misconception is logical and forthcoming out of Calvinistic philosophy,
And, again, your personal very clear indications are foolish nonsense because they are all reached from straw men.
That a person might say, "I may not be of the elect; and if that is the case, I cannot be saved."
Never happens.
That I may come to Christ
Never happens.
...and yet He may cast me out...
Never happens.
...over the fact that I was not chosen by the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God.
Never happens.
And..... if and when I am shown any leading Calvinist actually teaching that nonsense, I'll try to help you understand it because it might be that particular source is an outlying view with Calvinism. It may be you're just a complete wack job filled with nonsensical contempt in need of someone to rag on
but I give you the benefit of the doubt in spite of the fact
ALL your ops on Calvinism are straw men
. I have repeatedly asked for your sources and every request has been ignored. I do not know that it is important, but it might be. Reading Calvin is going to be different than reading someone like A. W. Pink, for example. Reading Spurgeon, Sproul, or Frame will also have differences. They all speak from a common core of orthodox precepts, but they do have their differences. This can lead to problems correctly understanding orthodox Calvinism.
But if the straw men are not based on a valid source or the straw men are based on misrepresenting those sources that is ALL on you.
What is KNOWN from these recent threads is that you read scripture inferentially. On multiple occasions you have gone on record claiming various verses "say" things the verses do not actually state. You are on record singling out individual verses while ignoring what is plainly stated before the verse and after the verse. If you do to Calvinist sources what you do to scripture, then there is no mystery how you arrive at all these straw men.
T = Sinful humanity is incapable of coming to God for salvation in its own sinful might.
U = God has not conditioned His decision on any attribute of the sinner.
L = God has selected some from among the dead for salvation from sin, death, and destruction and applied the atonement accordingly.
I = God accomplishes what He intends His grace to accomplish.
P = Because it is God and God alone who saves those who are saved will be saved. They will persevere and their salvation is assured by God.
Nothing beyond the "T" has anything to do with humanity. It is all about God. Calvinist soteriology is
monergistic. God is the sole source of salvation.
These are not difficult concepts to understand but they are also concepts a lot of people
within Calvinism misunderstand. I have often said the single greatest problem in the soteriological debates is each side getting
their own wrong. The
second biggest problem is getting
the other side's view wrong. Many synergists claim to be Arminian when they are really Wesleyan, Provisionist, or Pelagian. It happens quite a lot. Some Calvinists are complete determinists. Strict autonomy and strict determinism are the extremes, the statistical and normative outliers to soteriology.
Learn Calvinism correctly before posting more criticism.
