"Limited Atonement"

1st John 1:22, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” The Gospel is this, 1Peter 3:18 “Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God”. This is the preeminent message Christ wants the world to hear. There is no Biblical basis for Calvinism’s “Limited Atonement”. It teaches that the Gospel offers false hope to all those who can never, under any circumstance, be forgiven of sin.

Until an unsaved person has first been indoctrinated with the nuances of Calvinism, should they even be permitted to read the New Testament and perhaps be deluded into thinking God sent His Son into the world to die for everyone?

The Passion of God

Imagine yourself about two thousand years ago kneeling at the foot of a cross. Your eyes are closed and your head down. You can hear the sounds of a man who is in physical agony, a man who is breathing his last painful breaths of life on earth. You can also hear the crowd behind you, mocking and laughing at the man as he utters the words, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” You raise your head and see the dying man looking down into your eyes. You are struck with the feeling that this man is innocent of any of the offenses of which he was accused. He does not seem capable of treating anyone the way he is being treated. He has the facial expression of a man who has experienced many sorrows and has been acquainted with much grief during his lifetime. He looks into your eyes as though he knows you better than anyone has ever known you, better than you know yourself. You feel drawn to him as though you understand that he wants you to be his friend, and for a very long time, even though he is about to be claimed by death. You can feel the love and compassion he has for you, and yet he is the one who is suffering and dying a horrible and agonizing death. The thought again occurs to you that he is being punished for something he did not do, something someone else has done. You wonder who it could be. Then He looks into your eyes one more time before he gives up His life, and you suddenly realize whose place He has taken on that wooden cross. No greater love has a man, than to lay down his life for his friends.

You can thank Him in your heart every day for loving you so much, but the greatest day for you will be the day you can thank Him face to face.

The Will of God

God has a Permissive Will and a Perfect Will.

The Perfect will of God is that everyone does His will. The Permissive Will of God is that He permits men, such as Adam and Eve, to do their own will, even if it was to reject Him, and experience God's wrath and judgment, such as in the Garden of Eden.

God's Perfect Will is that Israel be gathered together like a hen gathers its chicks. But God's Permissive Will was to allow them to reject Him.

Jesus stated: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." (Matthew 23:27)

What could be a better statement of God's Perfect Will and His Permissive Will?

The Handiwork of God

How could random chance accidents of particles-to-people evolution be responsible for the beauty of this Bengal Tiger?

Psalm 84:10: "For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness."

The Scopes “Monkey Trial” should never have dealt with anything other than the inability of the theory of evolution arguments to stand or fall on their own merit, regardless of what creationists, or those individuals who believe man was planted on earth by extraterrestrials, or any other position anyone may have to offer as an alternative for man’s existence. If legitimate scientists during the Scopes trial had been allowed to point out the absolute foolishness of the evolution theory, instead of Williams Jennings Bryant trying to prove evolution by attempting to use a courtroom to prove the "Genesis" account, the real monkeys would have been exposed and evolution would have been revealed and scoffed at as the fraud that it is. The theory of evolution is not a science, it is a philosophy. As a philosophy it strongly appeals to and is empowered by atheists, not scientists. It is only taught and accepted by those who lack the honesty to face the reality that evolution is a farce, and because it is a farce, the majority of people around the world have not nor will ever accept it as factual. Evolutionists so far, have only been able to convince atheists/liberals that evolution produced the millions upon millions of differing forms of plant and animal life.

The evolutionist’s argument goes something like this. Evolution being theory Z is scientifically factual and correct because firstly, the courts won't allow any other positions on human existence to be taught in schools because judges are never wrong on the issue of "Separation of Church and State". Secondly, since no one else is allowed to offer a counter position as to how life began on earth, theories A through Y, the only theory that can be allowed is theory Z. No more questions!

Evolutionists use the term “Natural Selection” to support the evolution theory, which is a smokescreen. An example of Natural Selection would be a situation where one group of animals within a particular classification from a given region dies out due to starvation, while another closely related group thrives where food is plentiful. Evolution and Natural Selection are totally separate issues, since Natural Selection does not deal with one species evolving into another species, such as mice, elephants, whales, and humming birds all sharing a common ancestry.

No transitional skeletal evidence has ever been discovered, not even one occurrence, which would demonstrate that any species evolved into another species. Evolutionists would have us believe that the Bengal Tiger evolved from a tadpole and a tadpole evolved from nothingness, without ever providing anything other than assumptions. Discovering the existence of prehistoric skeletons does not prove that evolution ever occurred. If transitional skeletons were ever found that could support the jumps from one species to another species then evolutionists might have something. Not one of the supposed billions of "missing links" has ever turned up. The believers in the philosophy of evolution do so because it pains them to think that life on earth exists for any reason other than by complete and total accident, which means without the influence of an intelligent designer or architect of any kind. Teachers of evolution are outraged by the idea that anyone would dare disagree with them. If you ask an evolutionist how it’s possible for one species to evolve into another species they are quick to point out that it happened over billions of years. So I guess their point is that anything that is absolutely impossible, such as DNA changes or differing chromosome counts, given enough time, something that is absolutely impossible becomes possible over time. For anyone to accept the evolution theory would mean they would have to accept that life exists, not just because of one supposed accident, but because of billions upon billions of interrelated and dependent accidents that mysteriously and inexplicably occurred at each branch of the many unproven stages of theoretical evolutionary change. They would also have to accept that the beauty and artistic symmetry seen in nature, which evolution never accounts for or even mentions, are also the result of pure unadulterated happenstance. That is what Charles Darwin believed and he believed it because he was an atheist, which is why evolution is the cornerstone of atheism. Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney in the Scopes trial, could easily be considered the most well known atheist to have ever practiced law. It would make one wonder if such a famous attorney took on the defense of Scopes because of his concern for free speech or because the foundation of atheism was under attack?

If the greatest artists ever to have lived were asked to look at a tiger’s face and then being given everything needed to paint that face from memory, would they be able to in any way improve on that creature’s magnificent appearance? I doubt seriously they would even be able to duplicate the face of such a majestic looking creature from memory without having the actual tiger to use as a live model. No one has ever demonstrated there is any room for improvement on life as it exists because it is not possible to improve on what has been architected by a highly intelligent and creative designer. How can anyone respect someone who accepts evolution as fact without questioning its many numerous obvious flaws? Teachers of evolution should be considered either liars or delusional and those who accept evolution as mindless non-questioners. As a theory, “evolution” is a misnomer. A more accurate title would be, “The Assumption of Evolution.”

The day is hopefully not far off when legitimate scientists through DNA research, will in the end, conclusively prove beyond any and all doubt, the falseness of the evolution theory. The undeniable proof of their findings will most assuredly be met with scoffing and ridicule by all atheists.