Unlimited Atonement

[Jarthur001]

My good friend over at thirstytheologian.com made this post the other day.

I had an epiphany yesterday. It happened like this. We were unable to attend worship, so we watched a video of John MacArthur at Grace to You. The sermon, chosen pretty randomly, was The Atonement: Real or Potential? While I already understood the issue pretty much as MacArthur presented it, he clarified my thinking considerably. In fact, a better defense of the doctrine of Limited Atonement I’ve never heard. (You can read the transcript, access streaming video and audio, or download the mp3 here.)

Unlimited Atonement is an absurd doctrine, which means it fits into Arminianism perfectly. But mixed with Calvinism — as in, “I’m a 4-point Calvinist” — it is doubly absurd. 4-point Calvinists are really Arminians, or at least they might as well be, because Unlimited Atonement kills grace just as surely as decisional regeneration does. And that is my point today.


The absurdity of Unlimited Atonement is this: Christ did not actually purchase for God with his blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God who will reign upon the earth (Revelation 5:9–10). He only made the purchase possible — made the down-payment, if you like. Then, he defaulted on most of those purchases and let them go to hell. The sins of everyone, including those in hell, have been fully propitiated. The wrath of God against them has been satisfied. Yet they are in hell, being punished with eternal torment for their sins.


If you affirm an Unlimited Atonement, ask yourself this question: what is the difference between those for whom Christ died, whose sins have been fully propitiated, and are therefore justified before God, and are in heaven, and those for whom Christ died, whose sins have been fully propitiated, and are therefore justified before God, who are in hell? The question is, of course, absurd, but it’s one all 4-pointers must answer. The answer must be in something they did; salvation is dependent upon the sinner’s response to Christ rather than Christ’s sacrifice on the sinner’s behalf — as MacArthur says, “they just weren’t clever enough, wise enough, emotionally moved enough, psychologically stimulated enough, to actualize that atonement.”
Which brings me to my epiphany: If you deny Limited Atonement, you haven’t simply made a silly theological blunder; you’ve interjected some act, some decision of man, into the act of saving. You’ve denied grace alone and Christ alone.

Now some think this is to strong of a statement. I guess it all depends on how you define heretic. Now it is not my goal to upset anyone. I'm not sure I even agree with the label. But he does make some good points to consider.

Feedback please.

[snipped title to eliminate the perjorative "heresy" - a word we DO NOT use on the BB simply because we hold to a different position]

 

[webdog]

You're on a real crusade huh?

My thoughts are anything supported biblicaly that is orthodox is not heresy.

I do agree with the 4 point calvinism statement.

Instead of continually starting new thread questioning the salvation of the non reformed, why not just come out of the closet on one?

 

[Jerome]

In his book Unity in Action, John MacArthur teaches that:

Christ died for all mankind. Certainly there are passages that say Jesus died for the elect, but we can't conclude from them alone that He didn't die for the rest. I can say that Christ died on the cross for John MacArthur, but that is not necessarily an exclusive statement. Any verse that particularizes redemption to believers does not exclude that He died for the world as well.

 

[Amy.G]

Which brings me to my epiphany: If you deny Limited Atonement, you haven’t simply made a silly theological blunder; you’ve interjected some act, some decision of man, into the act of saving. You’ve denied grace alone and Christ alone.

In other words, if you deny the Calvinist position of limited atonement you cannot be saved because you are trusting in something other than grace alone.


The problem that I see with Cals and this position is that they totally discard the sacrificial system God set forth under OT law.

There was an atonement made once a year for the whole nation of Israel, offered by the high priest. But was the whole nation of Israel saved? NO! Not only did there have to be an atonement for the sins of the people, but each person had to have faith in God in order to accepted as righteous by God. Abraham believed God and it was accounted as righteousness. (Grace through faith). The Bible does not say "grace through atonement".

This is a picture or shadow of a better covenant in which Christ (the high priest) offered His own blood once for all (never to be repeated).
Will all be saved by the atonement? NO. Only those who....yes..you guessed it....have faith in God, in Christ, in His shed blood will be saved, just as faith was also required under the old covenant.

This is so clear. I just do not understand why some cannot see it.


I am also sick and tired of being accused of heresy because I do not agree with all 5 petals of the tulip. I used to love tulips, but now I think I'm going to plant something else in my garden.

 

[Amy.G]

Also, how does the Calvinist explain limited atonement in this verse:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


These guys are going to hell. How is that possible? The Lord "bought" them.

"Bought them" is another term for atoned for their sins.

 

[RAdam]

No, bought them refers to what God did when He delivered them from Egypt. Peter is talking about Jews.

 

[Dr. Bob]

These guys are going to hell. How is that possible? The Lord "bought" them.

"Bought them" is another term for atoned for their sins.

Cannot let that erroroneous thinking stand unchallenged. If God wanted to say Jesus actually atoned for their sin (which, of course, He did not and they will die in their sins unatoned for) God would have said that.

Instead God uses the analogy of the master/slave. God created man. All men owe their allegiance/submission to Him. These unregenerate (though claioming to be "christian") show they never did submit to the Master and are still hell-bound.

Words have meaning. Not what WE think they mean, but what GOD said.

Bottom line - if Jesus atones (actually pays, redeems, suffers hell, covers sin, etc) for a sin then let it be clear that such a sin is atoned for! Period. End of issue. Jesus did it. It is a done deal. Whether we like it, believe it, agree with it or not does not change the fact that God the Son atoned for it and God the Father accepted this atonement.

To say "it is up to man" or it is not really atoned for is blasphemous against the Person and work of God the Son and cannot be tolerated.

 

[mets65]

Cannot let that erroroneous thinking stand unchallenged. If God wanted to say Jesus actually atoned for their sin (which, of course, He did not and they will die in their sins unatoned for) God would have said that.

Instead God uses the analogy of the master/slave. God created man. All men owe their allegiance/submission to Him. These unregenerate (though claioming to be "christian") show they never did submit to the Master and are still hell-bound.

Words have meaning. Not what WE think they mean, but what GOD said.

Bottom line - if Jesus atones (actually pays, redeems, suffers hell, covers sin, etc) for a sin then let it be clear that such a sin is atoned for! Period. End of issue. Jesus did it. It is a done deal. Whether we like it, believe it, agree with it or not does not change the fact that God the Son atoned for it and God the Father accepted this atonement.

To say "it is up to man" or it is not really atoned for is blasphemous against the Person and work of God the Son and cannot be tolerated.

But didn't Jesus die and atone for all sins? I'm not sure I follow this atonement thing.

 

[pinoybaptist]

No, bought them refers to what God did when He delivered them from Egypt. Peter is talking about Jews.

Explain this a little bit more, if you will.
I personally believe that they are redeemed, bought by the blood of Christ for eternal glory, BUT, here in time, they chose disobedience, children of God being the only humans with true free choice to obey or disobey, and the natural result of disobedience is destruction.

 

[RAdam]

About the atonement in the OT, this is something I see a lot. People will say that atonement was made for believers and unbelievers alike. Those people completely ignore the fact that this picture of Christ's work was only performed for one group of people on the entire planet: the Jews. If you want to make such a big deal about it being for everyone in existence without exception, you've got a big problem right there. God left everybody else out in the OT.

Now, if you want to agree that it is a picture, that's a whole lot better. I would then ask what Israel pictured and the Gentiles who were totally left out pictured.

 

[Robert Snow]

Also, how does the Calvinist explain limited atonement in this verse:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


These guys are going to hell. How is that possible? The Lord "bought" them.

"Bought them" is another term for atoned for their sins.

This verse, I believe clearly shows that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Along with:

1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

It doesn't matter however. The Calvinist have a pat answer for every verse you or I will ever bring up. If the English won't support their beliefs, they will run to the Hebrew or Greek. If that doesn't work, they will change the definitions to suit the Calvinistic viewpoint.

I feel like unlimited atonement is not taught in scripture, they disagree. Simple as that.

We have a new pastor at our church who uses the ESV, a good translation. I was concerned about this since it is seems to be the preferred choice for Calvinists until he assured me he is not of the reformed persuasion. Good thing, since I don't want to leave our church. But, if his answer had been yes, mine response would have been, see ya!

 

[RAdam]

Explain this a little bit more, if you will.
I personally believe that they are redeemed, bought by the blood of Christ for eternal glory, BUT, here in time, they chose disobedience, children of God being the only humans with true free choice to obey or disobey, and the natural result of disobedience is destruction.

Ok, I believe Peter is talking there in that passage about Jews. He isn't referring to what Christ did at the cross, but rather what God did when He ransomed them from Egyptian bondage. That whole section speaks of false teachers being among them as false prophets were in the OT. The whole thing really gives the impression that the false teachers are not God's people. Proof of this is found in verse 9 when he says, "the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement to be punished." Peter is talking about Jews who aren't God's people denying the Lord that bought them out of Egypt and bringing upon themselves judgement and destruction.

 

[mets65]

This verse, I believe clearly shows that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Along with:



It doesn't matter however. The Calvinist have a pat answer for every verse you or I will ever bring up. If the English won't support their beliefs, they will run to the Hebrew or Greek. If that doesn't work, they will change the definitions to suit the Calvinistic viewpoint.

I feel like unlimited atonement is not taught in scripture, they disagree. Simple as that.

We have a new pastor at our church who uses the ESV, a good translation. I was concerned about this since it is seems to be the preferred choice for Calvinists until he assured me he is not of the reformed persuasion. Good thing, since I don't want to leave our church. But, if his answer had been yes, mine response would have been, see ya!

Which version do you prefer?

 

[Robert Snow]

Which version do you prefer?

I like the NIV, NKJV and the NLT, especially the NLT.

 

[Dr. Bob]

But didn't Jesus die and atone for all sins? I'm not sure I follow this atonement thing.

Atonement means sin is "covered" or taken care of. No longer in the sight of God (outraging His holy nature). Today we would say it is a "done deal".

A just God can only demand payment for a sin once (or He would not be "just"). IF Jesus actually paid for every sin of every man, then every man would go to heaven. It is a heresy (word used correctly and allowed) of "universalism" - teaching all men are saved.

All those for whose sins Jesus atoned will go to heaven. The rub comes with those who think of atonement is provisional or potential and not real - dependent on MAN to DO something (believe, apply it, etc)

No one is questioning that the death of Jesus COULD have atoned for every sin of every man. But it did not. It was sufficient for all the world (term for Gentiles as well as Jews) and not just Jews as I John 2 points out - a radical change from the Jewish mindset that considered salvation in their realm alone and one had to become a Jew to really have sin atoned for.

The atonement was for those whom God loved and gave to His Son from eternity past. All others will "die in their sins", be judged and condemned. No atonement for their sin was made.

 

[Bro. James]

I can pretty well agree with many accountable adults names were not written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world. In fact there are many who have lived and died on this globe never having heard the Gospel. If Jesus died for everyone, it did not work. Somehow man thinks he can help save himself.

I am having difficulty explaining what happens to those aborted, retarded, stillborn and others who never reach the age of accountability. I am thinking they are in The Book regardless.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Jarthur001]

[snipped title to eliminate the perjorative "heresy" - a word we DO NOT use on the BB simply because we hold to a different position]

[/QUOTE]

Thanks Bob,

I really did overlook the title. I did a cut and paste without thinking.

 

[Jarthur001]

You're on a real crusade huh?

What do you mean?

My thoughts are anything supported biblicaly that is orthodox is not heresy.

Do you feel like David did not support his views with Scripture? Just what did you disagree with and why?

I do agree with the 4 point calvinism statement.

well, at least he got something right...huh?

Instead of continually starting new thread questioning the salvation of the non reformed, why not just come out of the closet on one?

I believe I have said my views.

 

[Amy.G]

About the atonement in the OT, this is something I see a lot. People will say that atonement was made for believers and unbelievers alike. Those people completely ignore the fact that this picture of Christ's work was only performed for one group of people on the entire planet: the Jews. If you want to make such a big deal about it being for everyone in existence without exception, you've got a big problem right there. God left everybody else out in the OT.

Now, if you want to agree that it is a picture, that's a whole lot better. I would then ask what Israel pictured and the Gentiles who were totally left out pictured.

Who said the OT atonement was meant for everyone in existence?

Atonement was made on behalf of Israel. Was every Jew saved and bound for heaven because of this atonement? How about Judas? Was he a Jew? Was he an Israelite? Was the once a year atonement made on his behalf? Did he go to heaven?

 

[Skandelon]

Atonement means sin is "covered" or taken care of. No longer in the sight of God (outraging His holy nature). Today we would say it is a "done deal".

A just God can only demand payment for a sin once (or He would not be "just"). IF Jesus actually paid for every sin of every man, then every man would go to heaven.

This is a classic logical fallacy employed by Calvinists called "false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy...this is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options."

I believe Dr. Bob has been here long enough to recognize this but for whatever reason continues to use it.

Non-Calvinistic Christians believe in a conditional substitutionary atonement, which simply means that God provides atonement for the sin of all mankind, but the application of that atonement is conditioned upon faith (i.e. "whosoever believes in Him will not perish").

This is a viable, biblically supported and historically orthodox Christian view of the atonement that doesn't fit the false dichotomy of either Universalism or Calvinism's view of Limited Atonement.