The Problem with Particular Atonement is the How and Not the Who, and Why Protestants Do What They Do
Presently, I am supposed to be completely out of the loop regarding TANC Ministries because I am preparing to take a state exam for medication certification. However, when perusing what Andy is up to while I am gone, I was made privy to this article by Kevin DeYoung.
I am 60 years old, and in my mind, of all the people I have been made aware of in my life to varying degrees, DeYoung is the epitome of the consummate lackey. While shockingly apt at thinking the thoughts of others, he is more likely to be hit by space junk in the pulpit than having an original thought in his own cranium case. DeYoung makes everyone a mind reader; just read Protestant orthodoxy and you are reading everything that is in his mind.
Anyway, the article is particularly rife with opportunity to further demonstrate why the Protestant Reformation was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. One may marvel at the audacity of elementary error being dressed up in such scholarly splendor.
DeYoung begins by writing, “The doctrine of limited atonement–the L in TULIP–teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people “only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation” (Canons of Dort, II.8). As Ursinus explains in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Christ’s death was for everyone “as it respects the sufficiency of satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.” In other words, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but it was God’s will that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father.”
First of all, salvation is neither atonement or redemption. In the absolutely insane month of August coming up, I am actually going to add another project that Andy is going to participate in although he doesn’t know it yet. We are going to put together a video series to challenge a group of pastors who are meeting in August with the following: for crying out loud; you are pastors, please start using biblically correct words when talking about salvation.
However, though not New Covenant salvation according to the Bible, atonement is the basis of the Protestant false gospel; Jesus is a cloak (covering) for unrighteousness that denies the new birth.
And, salvation is not redemption either. Redemption is the saving of the weak/mortal body from eternal death in the resurrection, not the saving of the soul. Making salvation and redemption the same thing enables Protestantism to endorse progressive justification or “final justification.” While constantly feigning belief in present assurance, they constantly refer to “final justification” being future because, you know, that’s when it is final. Why is salvation on the installment plan so important to them? Well, if you are signed, sealed, and delivered, what do you need them for?
DeYoung continues: “The good shepherd lays his life down, not for the goats, but for the sheep (John 10:11). This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him, and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people, and John 15:13 says for his friends, and Acts 20:28 says for the church, and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride, and Ephesians 1:4 says for those chosen in Christ Jesus.”
Look, I could post on every sentence in this article, but I only have time to hit the highlights and I really don’t even have time for that. We let the likes of DeYoung assume “those” means “individuals.” Nope, in fitting with the rest of new birth justification and biblical election, more than likely, biblical election refers to groups of people and not individuals; particularly, Jews and Gentiles.
Moreover, another prime example of how Protestant scholars believe that “good grammar makes bad theology” follows here: “This is why John 6 says Jesus came to save those the Father had given to him…and why Matthew 1:21 says he died for his people… and Ephesians 5:25 says for his bride.”
Read Ephesians 5:25. Where in the world therein does it say that the church is the bride of Christ? So, He loves the church like a bride, that doesn’t make the church His bride. When we say, “Let’s be like a tree and leave” to convey a desire to leave a certain place, does that make us a tree?
Like all Protestant ventriloquist puppets of whom DeYoung is chief, he uses presuppositions to deceive; “those” always means “individuals,” and the main point of election is the WHO and not the HOW. It’s all about who God decided to save, and not how He saved them. He saved them by sending His only Son to the cross to end the law. The Bible states that the righteous demands of the law were “nailed to the cross.”
So, who did Christ die for? Everyone born under the law. Who was born under the law? Everyone. End of discussion…and the end of so-called “limited atonement.”
But WHY are Protestants hellbent on this version of election/predestination? Because the church is a sanctuary city from the doctrine itself. It’s the paramount good cop/bad cop approach. You ever heard of John Calvin’s “power of the keys”? Whatever the Protestant elders bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth is loosed in heaven, or something like that. Bottom line? If the elders like you, you’re in. This ministry has documented DeYoung and other Protestants saying this in no uncertain terms. And they say it because its formal Protestant orthodoxy.
So, what is the why?
The essence of sin itself, a desire to control others.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Great article, Paul. And as always, you know how I love finding out about stuff you want me to do by reading about it in your posts. 😉 Kinda makes me feel like Obama. “I didn’t know anything about that until I read it in the NY Times!” LOL
Anyway, here is the comment I posted on that DeYoung article.
“”If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism–Christ died in everyone’s place and therefore everyone is saved–or we have something less than full substitution.”
Typical of Protestantism to set up a false dichotomy. But these are the kind of conclusions you end up with when you begin with a faulty premise. In this case, the faulty premise is that Christ’s death was an atonement or “covering”. So if that is the case, and one assumes that His death is a “covering”, if it covered everyone (in its efficacy) then of course you have Universalism. But if it is an ending of sin (which it is), then indeed its efficacy applies to all those who are born again. So in the end, the argument is not about “limited atonement”, the argument is about the faulty protestant assumption about the atonement to begin with.”
As I check back today, the moderator deleted my comment. Why doesn’t that surprise me.
LikeLike
Of course they would have deleted your comment, Andy. In their eyes, you’re not part of the exclusive club and thus have no knowledge at all. You have not accepted Calvin into your heart or given your wallet to Luther. Did I say “accepted”? I meant, silly me, that Calvin has not elected you.
LikeLike
Actually Andy, let’s think about your comment that was deleted for obvious reasons. If salvation is a covering that requires no change in the person as a state of being; indeed, EVERYONE would then be saved. So, hence, a predestination is required. Good point.
LikeLike
Man worshipers, the whole bloody lot of ’em.
The “why” is very important to these deceivers. The desire to control brings in money and many “perks” (some of which are so vulgar that they are not to be repeated, see ACBC, for instance).
So, Ursinus is DeYoung’s imagined “authority” on this topic; Ursinus the “bear” who was the the main author/interpreter of the Heidelberg Catechism (that crafty piece of junko thought up by Satan).
Somebody build me a plane and fly me the hell gone; I simply cannot read/listen to/even see this lying, Christ-denying lot called Protestants (Calvinists, Reformed fools) and in whatever other stench they may appear. Satan must be counting his money…
.
LikeLike
Even though I find myself in agreement with much of your theological theories, I can’t help but be put off, at times, by your tone. In all honesty, I find myself easily reflecting the same tone, and often need to recalibrate to make sure my motives are pure. I have no affection for John Calvin or Martin Luther, and cannot help but suspect, due to their fruit, that they deliberately distorted scripture and co-opted the entire Reformation, after eliminating the genuine dissenters to the existing, corrupt church.
Of course, that can only be surmised by circumstantial evidence, so I will allow them their day in ‘court’ with the appropriate judge. In the meantime, I would encourage you that, although there is a great need to fight the errors perpetrated by these men and their followers, it is at least likely that many of those propagating these errors are themselves deceived. Again, I’m not going to set myself up as judge. Jesus did not hesitate to condemn those who arrogantly and deliberately distorted scripture, leading the entire nation of Israel astray, but then, he was a little more qualified to read men’s hearts and minds than you and I.
I would encourage you to focus more on pointing out and correcting the error, and less on the motives of those teaching error; which might make those who are questioning the inherent problems with Protestant christianity more open to what you have to say. In all honesty, it was Calvinism’s virulent condemnation of all who disagreed with them that first began to open my eyes to their methodology. Even if you are not looking to burn all Protestants on green wood – I do hope you aren’t – your tone at times suggest a rancor that reminds me a bit of Calvin’s hatred of all dissent.
Truth is an amazing thing, remaining beautifully steadfast even when none recognize her. Presenting truth, as best we understand it, in humility and graciousness goes a long way to making it more inviting to those who are beginning to question some of the ‘truth’ they have long, unquestioningly believed. I hope that you will receive this with the heart in which it is offered. I personally would explore much more of your content if it were presented in a less critical, condemning tone. Condemn the error, and leave the tares to the judge. Grace and peace be with you.
LikeLike
truthseeker,
As one who sees the carnage of church up close and personal, and has for a number of years, I think my “tone” is pretty tame. In addition, Protestants have NEVER repented or even apologized for drowning, burning, beheading, and hanging those who disagreed with them. In fact, those who did so are held up as spiritual heroes in our day. So, I am a hard sell in regard to them being owed some sort of soft tone. Furthermore, part of their game is a presentation pointing to their supposed renown that demands unquestionable respect. Therefore, my tone is often deliberately aimed at making the point that these people deserve no respect. And in the final analysis, I have never called any of them “dogs” or “vipers” or well dressed people who smell like death. Maybe I am too soft when it comes right down to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Truthseeker, I am particularly hard on Calvinists; well, for a good reason: I have seen the spiritual death and spiritual/emotional/physical destruction many Calvinists (Calvinism is a cult; we should always remember that) have brought; yes, even in my own and into the lives of those I love or have loved, and of those I have lost to this evil cult. And, predictably, because they can’t be wrong/do no wrong because their “god” (a character I WISH not to know) has preordained their every thought and act (how vile and filthy it may be) and because these bunch of hypocrites can’t be wrong . . . ever, there has not been a single word of sorry, regret, admission of guilt, or remorse. Not even a fake tear…the sexual criminals (pedophiles) in my family’s case simply disappear and ignore the complete diabolical events because “we’re all just sinners saved by grace.” Trying to level the playing field? No, trying to pull the revolting cheap grace card.
As Paul, I have been studying this cult for 17 years. It has nothing to do with God of the Scripture; it preaches an ineffective Jesus, a confused Holy Spirit. This cult is not just another way to heaven…it’s an evil path away from the arms of Jesus Christ who did die for everyone, if He had not, what was the point. To end the law for whom? To reconcile whom to God?
Speaking one-to-one to a Calvinist/Reformed soul/Protestant is like talking to a robot. There is zero understanding of God’s revealed Word…but ask them about their devils like Calvin, Augustine, MacArthur, Sproul, Pink, etc., and they can quote them. I repeat: CULT.
I’d love to see someone from this cult accept the gift of eternal life that even a child can understand. How old was our Andy when he became a true believer? This movement brings only death, destruction, lies, Satanic schemes, control, imagined “authority”, made-up rules, man-worship and absolutely vulgar counsel to its members (yes, I do believe many of the members could be deceived, as they are not allowed to think for themselves.
I will not stand by and try to be nice while a cult is lying and pushing precious people away from the most important event in their lives: their future with our Jesus; and of course, we don’t want to see them burn either, these deceivers and co-workers of the Devil, not even on green wood.
Calvinism and all its tainted tentacles are a cult; it’s as simple as that, and it should be treated as such. There is nothing special about it. It is evil.
LikeLike
There is nothing wrong with some righteous indignation when it comes to people burning forever in hell because of a false religious system. One thing I am grateful for is the example I got at my Bible-believing church on how to deal with someone teaching another way to God beside the New Birth- GET ALL UP IN THEIR FACE and tell them they have the Spirit of Antichrist.
Now like most ladies, I haven’t been so confrontational, but maybe I should have been. The one regret I have about the Neo-Cal takeover operation I left was not ripping up my Gospel Project quarterly and dunking it into the trash. The “pastor” read: change agent was already intimidated by me- that would have problably made him wet his pants.
These types hide passive-agressive behind their churchy talk, yet challenge their men to be “manly-men”, but they act horrified should any man stand up to their joke authority.
I’m grateful for all that the folks at TANC do. I think this information is just sitting here ready to bless those trying to come out of the cult. You have to be called to do this work and it’s evident that Paul and Andy have the call by all their thorough and prodigious posting.
LikeLike
The Protestant resurgence, also known as the New Calvinist movement, has successfully taken over 90% of the church by preying on the graceful sensitivities of churchians. Being soft-spoken and “forgiving” and “merciful” =s spiritual maturity as modeled by Christian radio programs where the participants are prepped to talk in a soft monotone voice. It’s the spiritual version of Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement with Hitler.
LikeLike
At the last church I attended, the pastor gave a sermon on admonishing and exhorting our brothers and sisters in the Lord when they went off the rails. It was our Christian duty. Yeah, right. That sermon only worked until a situation arose where there was a need to do this. I asked, “So did you mean that sermon or not?” Can we spell awkward and uncomfortable. My question laid the hypocrisy out in the open. No he did not mean it. But then again, I suspect hardly anyone does what the is taught from the pulpit — so he thought he was safe.
LikeLike
No one needs motives. We have their words and behavior. I have some homework for you. Start going to a Neo Cal church and sweetly start correcting their errors. They will be nice to your face…..at first. If you keep it up, you will be in disobedience to the elders and in church discipline for disagreeing. Your comment to my experience is like saying, if you are real gracious and kind to Pol Pot about truth it would go along way to having him question his beliefs and behavior. I have been tracking this movement and church takeovers for 10 years. It starts with deceit. They don’t communicate their agenda. It’s a 5 year process in how they gain control.
How does one deal with deceptive, lying cheating ‘Christian” bullies? (They especially want debt free non Cal churches to takeover) These are not unbelievers we are discussing. They claim to have the ‘true” Gospel.
LikeLike
“How does one deal with deceptive, lying cheating ‘Christian” bullies?”
Well said, Lydia. You pegged them. That is exactly what they are; bullies. And just like on the playground at school, the only way you can deal with a bully is continue to capitulate to him in fear or punch him square in the nose!
Hey, maybe that should be our new tag line:
Paul’s Passing Thoughts:
Punching New Calvinist Bullies Square in the Nose Since 2008!
LikeLike
It occurs to me that Jesus himself modeled for us braiding a whip and driving the money changers out of the temple. We have been taught in our society to be, oh so very, politically correct. I am not sure that is a good thing. Perhaps we would not be in the mess we are in politically, socially, culturally and spiritually if more people were to actively and loudly resist. There is a time and a place for righteous anger. Perhaps the key is discretion. And prayer as to when and how to respond. God Bless.
LikeLike
“Absoluteliness,” Susan. One is not going to whisper to a drowning person that help is on its way.
LikeLike