Is the doctrine of limited atonement biblical?

Tach Wolfie!

I've heard this too, several times over many years, and have accepted it until recently. The verse goes, "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (Eph. 1:4).

Paul is writing in this part of the chapter about believers, people who are already "in him". Paul doesn't write "to be in him." And what are we (who are in him) chosen for? "To be holy and blameless in his sight." This is God's will for believers. The passage says nothing about our being chosen for salvation. Not until v13 does Paul mention the time a

There are many extremes such as this, the extreme to hyper-calvinism would be open theism, where God does not even know the future.

The text very clearly states he chose us in Christ. Your take is completely amiss and unbiblical. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 as well as the above text completely refute your teaching. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does as well. God chooses/elects to salvation, not man. Romans 9:16, John 1:12-13 &c.

Yes, my friend. But when I read through ephesians 1 I found that in vers 5 i am predistinatet as child and sealed with the Holy Spirit in vers 13.
Is this not speaking about salvation? I would understand it is about salvation.
Tschüss

He chose us in Christ to receive the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. A Calvinist reads it like this, “ He chose us to BE in Christ.” It’s just not there. They make the us not the in him as the context. Wrong!

The text very clearly states he chose us in Christ. Your take is completely amiss and unbiblical. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 as well as the above text completely refute your teaching. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does as well. God chooses/elects to salvation, not man. Romans 9:16, John 1:12-13 &c.

Thanks for replying, wolf' - great to hear from you (how were the birthday celebrations?)!

You'd think that the next verse would make it clear, wouldn't you? This and v13 have persuaded me until recently too. But 'predestined' is a loaded term - we think "to salvation" - but Paul then adds "to adoption as sons". We might think this means to be saved, become believers, but Paul has used the term elsewhere, in Romans 8:23, for what will happen to us (and all of creation, which will be set free from bondage) at the time of the new heavens and the new earth. "We groan inwardly for adoption as sons." We are already saved, but will be ultimately saved and be adopted as sons at the Lord's coming. We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved!

You make a good point about v13. But all the way up to this point he has been writing about us being "in him" or "in Christ" and now mentions what happened when we believed - the first time he has referred to our salvation in the chapter.

This is not something to get upset about - a believer can understand this as he/she believes he/she should and still be friends and brothers/sisters - but I have seen this more clearly as I've looked more closely at Paul's use of terms and the immediate and broader context. It blew my tiny mind!

Halte dich munter!

Thanks for replying, wolf' - great to hear from you (how were the birthday celebrations?)!

You'd think that the next verse would make it clear, wouldn't you? This and v13 have persuaded me until recently too. But 'predestined' is a loaded term - we think "to salvation" - but Paul then adds "to adoption as sons". We might think this means to be saved, become believers, but Paul has used the term elsewhere, in Romans 8:23, for what will happen to us (and all of creation, which will be set free from bondage) at the time of the new heavens and the new earth. "We groan inwardly for adoption as sons." We are already saved, but will be ultimately saved and be adopted as sons at the Lord's coming. We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved!

You make a good point about v13. But all the way up to this point he has been writing about us being "in him" or "in Christ" and now mentions what happened when we believed - the first time he has referred to our salvation in the chapter.

This is not something to get upset about - a believer can understand this as he/she believes he/she should and still be friends and brothers/sisters - but I have seen this more clearly as I've looked more closely at Paul's use of terms and the immediate and broader context. It blew my tiny mind!

Halte dich munter!

So what then is your conclusion mate?
I saw just an movie playes in australia

Bye the way, I dont think that we are far auseinander. Faith and election are working together and both are initiated from God.
Each side who emphesises election ore faith to much will fall from the back of the horse.

I had a nice small birhhday with family. Ich bin nicht so ein Feiertyp.
The Lord may bless you!

He chose us in Christ to receive the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. A Calvinist reads it like this, “ He chose us to BE in Christ.” It’s just not there. They make the us not the in him as the context. Wrong!

My conclusion? Basically that Calvinism is

We’re certainly still brothers!
I’m beginning to find election to salvation nowhere in Scripture. I’ll keep looking!

Ich auch nicht. Bin eher bescheiden.

Which film was it?

What I have wrote down in my soul is that it seems all heresies and errors originate from a biblical truth, that is then boosted to the extreme, twisted or made to overshadow other truths.

We have universalism, which overshadows God's holiness and wrath, it boosts God's love to the extreme where everyone is saved no matter what.

We have calvinism, which overshadows God's love and human's free moral agency, it boosts Ephesians 2:1-6 and God's sovereignity to a point where all evil is predestinated to occur and only way God can be sovereign is if He decrees everything that comes to pass, He cannot sovereignly choose to give man a free will to choose who He will serve.

We have hyper-charismatics, which overshadow the verses about order and importance of the Scriptures, and go to unscriptural lengths with their howling and foaming at the mouth doing circus theatre on stage. On the other extreme the devil has convinced some people there are no more miracles, its all over with now, God is not active anymore, no spiritual gifts, no nothing. The devil played both sides on this debate.

There are many extremes such as this, the extreme to hyper-calvinism would be open theism, where God does not even know the future.

Man you must have an unlimited supply of straw. You continue to pose absurd conclusions that are a product of your overactive imagination. You set up false narratives of free will verses hyper Calvinism that you allow only to be seen from a totally biased viewpoint.

John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Your hyper Calvinist view of so called radical depravity has no basis in scripture in view of John 1:9

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The doctrines of grace, which some call the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP), are the topic of some threads I’ve started.

I am not typically the kind of person who likes to debate this topic with people on forums, but a small number of individuals have harassed me on this topic as it has been brought up in threads. Some have called the teaching demonic, and one indicated that I was an idiot for thinking Reformed theology is biblical.

So, I decided to explain the five doctrines of grace in separate threads over time, and why I hold this position. I may also cover other aspects of Reformed teaching in the future.

I don’t believe Reformed theology is necessary to understand for salvation, and I have several non-Reformed friends. None of them are anti-Reformed haters, though, or I wouldn’t spend much time with them.

I think it is important for the encouragement of the Church to understand the principles related to Reformed theology. Why?

Reformed theology should lead to humility. The doctrines of grace were meant to humble the Christian into realizing that salvation is God’s work, therefore they cannot take credit for it. The real believer seeks to glorify and worship God, not themselves and themselves.

Due to influences in the church that I will call “free will theology”, the vast majority of Christians are being taught to glorify human free-will over God’s sovereignty.

Man-centered theology leads to pride and a lack of humility. Pride is the deadly enemy of the believer. Ironically, it can also lead to self-condemnation and a lack of self-confidence in some, because their focus is not on the LORD but is on themselves and their own weakness.

So, is the doctrine of limited atonement biblical? If not, why not?

I will describe why I think it is biblical.

You asked a question and you follow with a book and remember that knowledge does not impress God. One needs to speak what God made clear when he first spoke, in other words, one should not speak what one thinks the word of God is saying, God was clear when he spoke. So answer yes or no to your answer, do you believe that God elects to heaven and condemns to hell, or man chooses his destiny why here on earth. I need no explanation, just answer the question you ask with a yes or no.

interprets to support their distorted view of the Scriptures.

You asked a question and you followed with a book and remember that knowledge does not impress God. One needs to speak what God made clear when he first spoke, in other words, one should not speak what one thinks the word of God is saying, God was clear when he first spoke. So answer yes or no to your answer, do you believe that God elects to heaven and condemns to hell, or man chooses his destiny while here on earth. I need no explanation, just answer the question you ask with a yes or no. Those who believe in calvinism interpret the Scriptures to support their distorted view.

Tach Wolfie!

I've heard this too, several times over many years, and have accepted it until recently. The verse goes, "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight" (Eph. 1:4).

Paul is writing in this part of the chapter about believers, people who are already "in him". Paul doesn't write "to be in him." And what are we (who are in him) chosen for? "To be holy and blameless in his sight." This is God's will for believers. The passage says nothing about our being chosen for salvation. Not until v13 does Paul mention the time a

Thanks for replying, wolf' - great to hear from you (how were the birthday celebrations?)!

You'd think that the next verse would make it clear, wouldn't you? This and v13 have persuaded me until recently too. But 'predestined' is a loaded term - we think "to salvation" - but Paul then adds "to adoption as sons". We might think this means to be saved, become believers, but Paul has used the term elsewhere, in Romans 8:23, for what will happen to us (and all of creation, which will be set free from bondage) at the time of the new heavens and the new earth. "We groan inwardly for adoption as sons." We are already saved, but will be ultimately saved and be adopted as sons at the Lord's coming. We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved!

You make a good point about v13. But all the way up to this point he has been writing about us being "in him" or "in Christ" and now mentions what happened when we believed - the first time he has referred to our salvation in the chapter.

This is not something to get upset about - a believer can understand this as he/she believes he/she should and still be friends and brothers/sisters - but I have seen this more clearly as I've looked more closely at Paul's use of terms and the immediate and broader context. It blew my tiny mind!

Halte dich munter!

There is a reason that God choose an elect people before the foundation of the world because what he saw by his foreknowledge was that no one would seek him, no, not one. Psalms 53:2-3. If he had not chosen some, then all humanity would have gone to an eternal hell. God also predestined them to be adopted as his children by Jesus Christ, so, actually, they were chosen for salvation.