Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Fellow Limited Atonement Advocate

Today I happened to spot the blog of a fellow advocate of Limited Atonement. Mr. Josh Walker of the Bring the Books blog has a number of interesting posts on the Atonement.

1. Demonstrates one (of several) problems with the theory that Calvin held universal atonement.

2. Demonstrates that Charles Hodge held to Limited Atonement.

3. Quotes John Murray on Limited Atonement.

4. Identifies Dabney's refutation of Amyraldianism.

5. Even identifies that (at least at one time) even Doug Wilson held (or holds) to Limited Atonement.

-TurretinFan

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

If so many personal opinions must be utilized in support of limited atonement then one might suspect the biblical basis for it is really weak....

Turretinfan said...

These are personal opinions regarding more of an historical claim than a theological claim. The Scriptures clearly teach limited atonement - but certain trouble-makers try to suggest that the Reformers didn't!

natamllc said...

That is an interesting "case" in point Anon, don't you think?

Square that "reasoning" you put forth in the combox with this "reality" about why so many personal opinions seem to attest to the same while so many other opinions seem to attest to something else?::::>

Act 4:32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.
Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

Now to double the trouble, how then can this happen some time later at Acts 23 if the early Church embraced universal atonement? I mean, you cannot argue Scripturally for universal atonement and then have such things here, which attests to what is indeed "reality", a limited atonement, an atonement for those who have been elected? Why? Because they "believe", as in this limited group, Acts 4, of the Elect who "believed" and they then had "all" things in common.

That there is the Genius of the Holy Ghost making plain with the idea of "all", as of those that believed were the limited "all" who received the Great Grace. It is a paradox wanting, but it is the genius of God to leave the record this way! And there is no difference between them then and the Great Reformers later on from the days of Martin Luther to today, the days of Turrentinfan and me! :)

I submit that when you consider what happened in Acts 4 is the reason that brought about such a division in Acts 23, precisely because there isn't a universal atonement but rather a limited atonement as the Holy Ghost so teaches.

There would not be such a division if it were otherwise, which, there is not!::::>

Act 23:6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial."
Act 23:7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Anonymous said...

There ain't no lonesome piece of scripture that teaches limited atonement, to be sure.

Turretinfan said...

The many Scriptures that teach limited atonement are not "lonesome." On that limited basis I can agree with what otherwise appears simply to be an expression of your ignorance of Scriptures.

Anonymous said...

Ignorance of just what scriptures? Note, there isn't even *one* scriptural piece making an affirmation of the doctrine. No, not one! Can you provide any? I don't think so.

Turretinfan said...

There is not just one, there are tons.

John 3:16 is a great example.

-TurretinFan