Limited atonement !

[brightfame52]

Did he die for those who already were his sheep, those who were not yet his sheep but were reprobate at that point in time?

A problem in discussing these matters with adherents to Calvinism, is the elephant of time is avoided at all costs. The fact that people change and go from one state juxtaposition to their Creator to another sometimes radically changing from what it was to what it is later. In every conversation, the assumption is that there is no time and no time change. All who Jesus died for, a limited atonement, assumes all were already saved before being born even. And if they were alive at the time, they also were already saved even if they were murdering believers. There seems to be no concept of change over time for the calvinists I have talked to. You do not understand the question because it acknowledges change over time. Change over time does not enter into this theology, apparently. This is what I perceive from reading what all of your write.

He died for His Sheep, period !

 

[crossnote]

There’s no scripture that supports that God’s love for the son is pre-eminent above all others. Most parents don’t like their love for their children being ranked and one as pre-eminent above other children. But it does say that God loves those who obey Him and Jesus did it 100%, something none of us can say.

The fact that those who love the Son ARE loving the Father is in scripture.

Honoring the son is honoring God. Otherwise I think it’s better to say the Father loves the Son because he is obedient rather than pre-eminent. Puts some responsibility upon us rather than a fait accompli.

Thanks for your opinion, I happen to not agree.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Thanks for your opinion, I happen to not agree.

Either there is a scripture that says this or not. Since you haven’t one because there isn’t one, it’s actually your personal opinion.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It includes all who are His Own. Christs Love is from everlasting. Jer 31:3

3 The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

I believe its irresponsible to conclude that all for whom Jesus loved, lived and died for were not on His Heart during His Pilgrimage here on earth.

I think it’s extremely egoistic to think that Jesus had warm thoughts of you on the cross and during the earthly pilgrimage.

In any case, that scripture refers only to his disciples.

 

[brightfame52]

I think it’s extremely egoistic to think that Jesus had warm thoughts of you on the cross and during the earthly pilgrimage.

In any case, that scripture refers only to his disciples.

I think you are wrong, and fail to see the meaning of His Own, as well His Heart as the Saviour of His People. Jesus had said, that He had Sheep that were not of the same fold, and that they too shall hear His voice Jn 10:16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Now He speaks in the present tense, other Sheep I have, yet, they will or shall hear His voice in the future, that is " they shall hear His voice" is future tense, they didnt then exist, but they will sometime in the future.

Then once again Jesus not only prayed for His people then with Him in Jn 17:9-10

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

But He also prayed for them who shall yet believe in Him through their word Jn 17:20


20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

So He obviously had on His Heart people who didnt yet exist, but certainly would exist.

 

[crossnote]

Either there is a scripture that says this or not. Since you haven’t one because there isn’t one, it’s actually your personal opinion.

There’s no scripture that supports that God’s love for the son is pre-eminent above all others. Most parents don’t like their love for their children being ranked and one as pre-eminent above other children. But it does say that God loves those who obey Him and Jesus did it 100%, something none of us can say.

Try these...

John 3:35 (KJV) The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

John 5:20 (KJV) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

(2Ti 1:9) Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Try these...

John 3:35 (KJV) The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

John 5:20 (KJV) For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

(2Ti 1:9) Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

No adjective that says “preeminent.” That was your point.

God said, “This is my beloved son. Hear him” not “this is my beloved son, whom I love more than anyone else.” The latter is what you say.

I think it’s not good to say things about Gods love He neither says nor demonstrates. No Father likes others to say he loves one son preeminently. That is not a compliment.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think you are wrong, and fail to see the meaning of His Own, as well His Heart as the Saviour of His People. Jesus had said, that He had Sheep that were not of the same fold, and that they too shall hear His voice Jn 10:16

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Now He speaks in the present tense, other Sheep I have, yet, they will or shall hear His voice in the future, that is " they shall hear His voice" is future tense, they didnt then exist, but they will sometime in the future.

Then once again Jesus not only prayed for His people then with Him in Jn 17:9-10

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

But He also prayed for them who shall yet believe in Him through their word Jn 17:20


20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

So He obviously had on His Heart people who didnt yet exist, but certainly would exist.

From time to time and towards the end as well. But his main heart was for his disciples and even had the special three.

I think that it is you who do not understand his heart for all
people. John 3:16 assures us he loves all and elsewhere it says he would that all men come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved.

 

[crossnote]

No adjective that says “preeminent.” That was your point.

The word 'trinity' is not in the Bible, but we believe it.

God said, “This is my beloved son. Hear him” not “this is my beloved son, whom I love more than anyone else.” The latter is what you say.

What other Son does God love more?

I think it’s not good to say things about Gods love He neither says nor demonstrates. No Father likes others to say he loves one son preeminently. That is not a compliment.

Again, Jesus happens to be God's only beloved Son.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The word 'trinity' is not in the Bible, but we believe it.

What other Son does God love more?


Again, Jesus happens to be God's only beloved Son.

You don’t get it. God Himself never said He loves Jesus most of all so get over it!

And it’s actually Gods only BEGOTTEN not “beloved” son. Your quote is the fault of wrong Bible works that changed the Greek begotten to “beloved.” Jesus is not Gods only beloved son.

 

[crossnote]

You don’t get it. God Himself never said He loves Jesus most of all so get over it!

And it’s actually Gods only BEGOTTEN not “beloved” son. Your quote is the fault of wrong Bible works that changed the Greek begotten to “beloved.” Jesus is not Gods only beloved son.

Sorry, but getting all emotional doesn't help your case. I'm sure God will straighten out our understanding one day

(1Co 13:12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sorry, but getting all emotional doesn't help your case. I'm sure God will straighten out our understanding one day

I’m not at all emotional. That you cannot discern either.

He already has given real understanding for some. It often comes to those who want the truth. It’s actually pretty easy. God has one begotten son but many beloved ones. Seems clear to me.

(1Co 13:12) For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

For seeing “dimly” Paul sure understood an awful lot of truth.

And they shall know the truth…

 

[crossnote]

For seeing “dimly” Paul sure understood an awful lot of truth.

Even he knew he was nowhere near omniscient.
Thank you for your opinions.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Even he knew he was nowhere near omniscient.
Thank you for your opinions.

Very strange answer. Thanks for the conversation. Always interesting to see how other minds work.

 

[crossnote]

Very strange answer. Thanks for the conversation. Always interesting to see how other minds work.

You don't know how my mind or any other mind works unless you are God or a brainwashed psychiatrist.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You don't know how my mind or any other mind works unless you are God or a brainwashed psychiatrist.

My dear crossnote, when someone writes what they think, we know what they think to some degree. Maybe that’s why some post links or copy paste what others wrote (including scripture) hiding instead of writing their own thoughts. When they write a lot, you come to know how their mind works.

The best example of this are the fierce pro jab group who almost verbatim repeat the narrative. I know what they’ll say and how their minds work. They reveal this.

If one interacts with enough people exchanging their thoughts (minds), patterns emerge. Because so many don’t allow themselves to pursue their own thoughts but often just borrow from others, it’s not difficult to come to quickly know how some minds work although it’s actually a more often a character issue.

The question is, will a person allow their pride to be humbled by learning something from someone else? At what point is pride allowed to take down their opposite rather than admit the opposite has a valid point? This is seen by what they write.

 

[crossnote]

My dear crossnote, when someone writes what they think, we know what they think to some degree. Maybe that’s why some post links or copy paste what others wrote (including scripture) hiding instead of writing their own thoughts. When they write a lot, you come to know how their mind works.

The best example of this are the fierce pro jab group who almost verbatim repeat the narrative. I know what they’ll say and how their minds work. They reveal this.

If one interacts with enough people exchanging their thoughts (minds), patterns emerge. Because so many don’t allow themselves to pursue their own thoughts but often just borrow from others, it’s not difficult to come to quickly know how some minds work although it’s actually a more often a character issue.

The question is, will a person allow their pride to be humbled by learning something from someone else? At what point is pride allowed to take down their opposite rather than admit the opposite has a valid point? This is seen by what they write.

1 Corinthians 2:11 NET
[11] For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

1 Corinthians 2:11 NET
[11] For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

Jesus told us to judge a tree by its fruit. What do you think he was referring to?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

1 Corinthians 2:11 NET
[11] For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

You know, Peter knew the hearts of Ananias and his wife. Paul knew the heart of Simon. This verse doesn’t actually say no one can know what’s in the heart of another.

 

[brightfame52]

Isaiah 53 Teaches Particular Redemption​

Isaiah 53 is the greatest chapter in the Old Testament, and possibly in the whole Bible, on our Saviour’s substitutionary atonement. The “us” for whose sins Christ was “wounded” (4-6) are given specific names: “my people” (8), “his seed” (10), and the “many”—not all men head for head (11-12). They are the “pleasure of the Lord” who “prosper in his hand” (10). God never made the reprobate “prosper in his hand” and He was never pleased with them (Ps. 2:4-5; Prov. 3:32-34). They are not His “seed,” “people” and “pleasure,” so Jesus did not die for them.

Those for whom Christ died “are healed” by “his stripes” (Isa. 53:5). It is not merely that they might be healed if they believe, but they really are healed. Those whose sins the Son bore are also justified: “my righteous servant [shall] justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities” (11). God’s elect “people” (8) are declared perfectly righteous for Christ bore our punishment (11). The reprobate are not justified, thus He did not atone for them. It is for the “many” whose sins He bore that the Saviour intercedes (12). Remember, Jesus said, “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me” (John 17:9). The “many” for whom Christ suffered and for whom He prays are the elect, not the reprobate world.

In this way, Jesus is perfectly “satisfied” (Isa. 53:11). If some for whom He was “stricken” (8) and for whom He intercedes (12) are not healed (5) and justified (11) and do not “prosper in his hand” (10) and do not receive a share in His spoils (12), Christ would not be “satisfied” (11). If even one soul perishes for whom He died, Christ’s purpose is not fully realised, His atonement is not totally successful and He is dissatisfied. The notion that Jesus shed His precious blood for everybody head for head presents the cross as an abject failure with regard to most of those for whom He died and contradicts the Bible’s teaching that Christ is “satisfied” with the fruit of His death (11). Rev AS