I am a High-Calvinist but have issues with limited atonement. I understand it and agree with it, but I do think it is an inferred doctrine and has little value building unity in a church. When we saw it work its way through our church it did more harm than good. It seems to have more ability to divide than to lift each other up to the glory of God. Not many people in our church walked away going God is amazing because He only died for the elect and not for everyone else.
The question I pose is: Is time better spent trying to figure out how we can move forward in our walk and serve Jesus Christ, or is time better spent looking back and asking I wonder if Christ died for only the elect. It seems like with the doctrine of limited atonement more time is spent looking backwards than forwards.
Another question is how can we put the doctrine of limited atonement in our tool box and use it where the rubber meets the road in our day to day life? The average response we get is it points us to the glory of God and how awesome He is. Not that this is bad application, but it seems we can find the glory of God through out the Bible without the inference that Christ only died for the elect. Maybe inferred is the wrong word, maybe amplified is better. Or maybe the point about limited atonement is enlarged unnecessarily.
Anyone else feel this way? Any feed back would be appreciated.
[Mod. Moved from Calvinism Chart thread]
The question I pose is: Is time better spent trying to figure out how we can move forward in our walk and serve Jesus Christ, or is time better spent looking back and asking I wonder if Christ died for only the elect. It seems like with the doctrine of limited atonement more time is spent looking backwards than forwards.
Another question is how can we put the doctrine of limited atonement in our tool box and use it where the rubber meets the road in our day to day life? The average response we get is it points us to the glory of God and how awesome He is. Not that this is bad application, but it seems we can find the glory of God through out the Bible without the inference that Christ only died for the elect. Maybe inferred is the wrong word, maybe amplified is better. Or maybe the point about limited atonement is enlarged unnecessarily.
Anyone else feel this way? Any feed back would be appreciated.
[Mod. Moved from Calvinism Chart thread]
Last edited by a moderator: