Talk:Limited atonement

message: The sentence beginning with "Additionally..." cherry picks only part of John (17:9) to seemingly justify the "priestly layer".  Jesus continues to pray for the rest of the world in John 17:20.  I suggest removing the entire sentence. HarwoodRH 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite follow you. Verse 20 reads (NAS): "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word." So the first part of the prayer is for current believers (especially the apostles), and the second part is for future believers. Jesus is not asking in the second part that the world itself be united; he's praying that future believers would be united. Have I misunderstood you (or the text)? --Flex 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High priestly prayer

message: By the way...there is a difference between universal atonement & unlimited atonement.  Unlimited atonement is the idea that while Christ potentially atoned for the sin of all humankind, not all will be saved (this is the Wesleyan model).  Universal atonement is the idea that Christ did atone for the sin of all humankind, and therefore, all people, ultimately, are saved.  Just so you know.  KHM03 19:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. The term universal is also used in the sense of unlimited in your circles, right? It has been used that way in the 1911, for instance, when discussing Amyraldianism. I added a qualifier about which meaning is intended. --Flex 20:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
That looks fine to me.  KHM03 20:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Universal vs. Unlimited

message: I have reverted 2 edits by 71.205.192.51 (talk • contribs • [/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username= count]) and have added  to the article because of these edits.
:
:)
TheJC TalkContributions 10:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does the article lead need to call this doctrine a "controversial" doctrine?  Just about every doctrine in the Christian church has been - and still is - controversial somewhere, depending on the definition of "Christian".  Adding "controversial" sounds POV, so I'm removing the word. Petemyers (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed JonoPSA (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Content 

message: I deleted this sentence added by 71.205.192.51:
:Reknowned Biblical scholar Dr. Norman F. Douty responds to this doctrine: “Who that reads the Bible can believe that G-d ever created people in order to damn them?” [Norman Franklin Douty, Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? A Treatise on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1998), 128].
First, did Dr. Douty really use "G-d" rather than "God", or was that an undocumented alteration of his words? Second, the sentence adds no substance to the article since everyone who opposes the doctrine asks the same question. His reasons why may be of interest if they add something significant to the existing text. --Flex 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted quote

message: Even those who object to the Calvinist doctrine on limited atonement have to explain why God's redemption of sinful fallen creatures is limited to human beings and does not extend to the "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 6). Whether this article is the right place to discuss this, I am not so sure. DFH 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men and angels 

message: I added the sentence about particular redemption because of its historical significance for the English Calvinistic Baptists.  Although mentioned in the opening definition, the phrase is not yet explained in the main article.  Particular in this sense is used as the antithesis to general, hence the historic division between the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists, who held to unlimited atonement. DFH 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For this reason, in the External links | Pro section, I have just added a link to Spurgeon's sermon with this title. DFH 09:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particular redemption 

message: This article got me thinking about the significance of Andrew Fuller's teachings about the extent and purpose of Christ's atonement. The article on Fuller first requires expansion before he would be worth mentioning here in this article. I have tagged it for such.  DFH 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Fuller 

message: I deleted the paragraph added by 69.251.180.70:
:As with all Calvinist doctrines, limited atonement reflects the Calvinist concept that God is sovereign and exercises complete control over the affairs of men. It follows logically from the doctrine of Total Depravity which describes the heart of man as totally corrupted such that no man desires God and all reject God's gracious offer of salvation from sin. As sovereign, God is able to save whom He will. Under Total Depravity, no person could be saved if God did not exercise his sovereign power and choose from among all people, some number that He would save.
The reason why is that, while all of the five points (and heck, all other doctrines) are interrelated, the connection here is not sufficiently direct for my taste. Besides, Arminius and Wesley both held to total depravity but sought to solve the problem it creates by other means (viz., prevenient grace). It also doesn't seem to flow particularly well into the existing paragraphs IMO. --Flex 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Jim Ellis 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sovereignty

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Limited atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919133747/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919133747/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/dort.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141126125213/http://gbgm-umc.org:80/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm to http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Limited atonement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=45&cuItem_itemID=16624
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=45&cuItem_itemID=2954
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970226215554/http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127011150/http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/definiteatonement.html to http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/definiteatonement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207195923/http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn6.htm to http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207195820/http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn4.htm to http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn4.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-128.stm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is suggested that the paragraph citing R. C. Sproul should be relocated from the Limitarianism article to this article on Limited atonement.  However, is the term 'limitarianism' used in the discussion on Limited atonement?  If not, should the paragraph be relocated or merely restated elsewhere?  However, as the term 'limitarianism' IS used in R. C. Sproul's discussions of Limited atonement, then IMO, the text of the paragraph need not be copied to the article on Limited atonement but its semantic similarity in the Limitarianism article should be noted as alternate usage of the term. MaynardClark (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed paragraph relocation from [[Limitarianism]]