If One Holds To "Unlimited Atonement" of The Cross, Why NOT Believe In Universalism ?

[JesusFan]

IF Death of Christ provided for unlimited atonement, than wouldn't a logical conclusion also be a form/type of Christian Universalism?

those who believe in this view Limited Atonement as making God a liar, as death of Christ provided for just his own to get saved by it, while hold God is not really offering gospel to everyone...

But wouldn't holding to unlimited atonment force one to a Universalism viewpoint?

 

[webdog]

IF Death of Christ provided for unlimited atonement, than wouldn't a logical conclusion also be a form/type of Christian Universalism?

Not at all as everyone will not have faith.

those who believe in this view Limited Atonement as making God a liar, as death of Christ provided for just his own to get saved by it, while hold God is not really offering gospel to everyone...

So are you asking a question to learn, or are you just wishing to call us who do not hold to limited atonement as God accusers?

But wouldn't holding to unlimited atonment force one to a Universalism viewpoint?

NO! Did the slaying of the passover lamb automatically save all of the firstborn...or did the blood need to be applied? The death and shedding of the lamb did not automatically save them, it HAD to be applied to save them.

 

[Skandelon]

This ARTICLE addresses this question quite well. Here is a snippet:

“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.”

I like #1 which Owen thinks incompatible with Arminianism.
“If the LAST, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” [Ps. cxxx.2] We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.” [Isa. ii. 20, 21]
I agree. #3 is no good.
“If the SECOND, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.”

I disagree. #2 is incompatible with numerous Scriptures which must be made to undergo tortured exegesis to comport with this position. #2, therefore, is no good. Sorry John Owen.
“If the FIRST, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”"

That is a very good answer. Count me among those who would say that.
“But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?”

If by “unbelief” Owen means to reject Christ, then yes, unbelief is a sin.
“If not, why should they be punished for it?”
If it is sin, like all sins, then they should be punished for it. I personally think that sinners being condemned for unbelief creates serious problems for Owen’s Calvinism, but we will get to that in Part 3. For now I will agree and walk headlong into the “dilemma”.
“If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not?”

This seems overly simplified, but I will concede that Christ suffered even for unbelief.
“If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.”

And now Owen sticks it to me, so to speak. What am I to do? If I say that Christ died for unbelief and believe that he died for all, then I must adopt universalism (real universalism, i.e. all will be saved). If I deny universalism, then I am stuck with a limited atonement. So, Owen points out below…
“Let them choose which part they will.”

I think I will choose a third option. An option that I believe best comports with the Biblical data. I will affirm that atonement is provisional “in Christ”. In other words, Christ’s death made provision for all sin, yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. I believe this view is supported by numerous Scriptures.

 

[JesusFan]

Not at all as everyone will not have faith.
So are you asking a question to learn, or are you just wishing to call us who do not hold to limited atonement as God accusers?

Not accusing anyone, just asking for clarification on why someone holds to unlimited atonement would have people going to hell and not be saved, whose full atonement for their sins was provided for in the Cross...
NO! Did the slaying of the passover lamb automatically save all of the firstborn...or did the blood need to be applied? The death and shedding of the lamb did not automatically save them, it HAD to be applied to save them.

So we could have a situation where God DID provide for potentially ALL could be saved, but is a chance that NONE would actual be saved?

 

[JesusFan]

This ARTICLE addresses this question quite well. Here is a snippet:

Would this be saying than that in Cross of Christ, God did actuallyprovide the means/grounds for ALL to become saved, but only those he elected to receive its effect would be saved?

Potentially ALL can made, actually ONLY some will be?

 

[Skandelon]

So we could have a situation where God DID provide for potentially ALL could be saved, but is a chance that NONE would actual be saved?

We do affirm God's foreknowledge and obviously God would know if no one would have chosen to follow him.

 

[Skandelon]

Would this be saying than that in Cross of Christ, God did actuallyprovide the means/grounds for ALL to become saved, but only those he elected to receive its effect would be saved?

Potentially ALL can made, actually ONLY some will be?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Can you reword it please. Thanks

 

[JesusFan]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Can you reword it please. Thanks

The atonement of Christ upon cross was "unlimited" in that it did provide for all to be saved if they would believe, but that in order to actually be one who believed, God would have to elect them to receive The new birth...

The actual effect would be limited, as those who the Father gave to Jesus, those whom the Holy Spirit draws would actually get the redemption provided for...

 

[Skandelon]

The atonement of Christ upon cross was "unlimited" in that it did provide for all to be saved if they would believe, but that in order to actually be one who believed, God would have to elect them to receive The new birth...

That is the view of some Calvinists, but not me. So, what is the question?

 

[Van]

Yet another excellent topic for discussion!

But before we venture into the muddle made by the various traditions of men, Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism, lets back up and define what we are talking about.

What does the term "unlimited atonement" actually mean? Now Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation not only for us but also for the whole world. 1 John 2:2. But what does it mean for Christ to be the propitiation for the whole world. Does that mean the whole world has received the benefit of that propitiation? Nope.

Propitiation provides the means of our salvation. If God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, then He puts us "into" Christ spiritually, where we are saved. Our sins are taken away, the circumcision of Christ, and we arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a pledge to our inheritance reserved in heaven for us. So Christ's propitiation provides the washing of regeneration, and allows us to be reconciled to God, no longer separated and spiritually dead, but alive together with Christ.

So if we define "providing reconciliation" as unlimited, i.e. for the whole world, but define "receiving reconciliation" as limited to those whose faith is credited as righteousness and are placed "in Christ" then we have a basis for discussing the work of the cross.

Now, with the above as a basis for sharing a common understanding, lets look at two views, the Calvinist, limited atonement, and the Arminian unlimited atonement.

According to Calvinism, God chose foreseen individuals before creation for salvation, and then Christ died for just those previously chosen individuals. Thus limited atonement.
This is unbiblical on every level.

According to Arminianism, and this is the classic view, not the Barth based offshoot, God chose foreseen individuals before creation who God foresaw would freely come to faith. Logically then, Christ died for all men, providing the opportunity for anyone to freely come to faith, and when they do, they reveal themselves as one of the foreseen elect who freely come to faith. This view too misses the mark, in my opinion, but not by as much as Calvinism, in my opinion.

The Barth based offshoot says God chose the church, the body of Christ, before creation, corporately and when an individual believes, they automatically become part of that corporately elected group, but when they chose to no longer trust in Christ, they remove themselves from the "realm" of the elect and lose their salvation. This misses the mark too, because it violates all those verses that say we are predestined to adoption, and what God predestines, God causes to happen.

 

[JesusFan]

Yet another excellent topic for discussion!

But before we venture into the muddle made by the various traditions of men, Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism, lets back up and define what we are talking about.

What does the term "unlimited atonement" actually mean? Now Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation not only for us but also for the whole world. 1 John 2:2. But what does it mean for Christ to be the propitiation for the whole world. Does that mean the whole world has received the benefit of that propitiation? Nope.

the World might have received a "general" benefit from it, in that the Lord did "usher in" the Age of grace, so that he was able to "wait" on judgement that has to fall on an unbelieving, sinful creation...



Propitiation provides the means of our salvation. If God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, then He puts us "into" Christ spiritually, where we are saved. Our sins are taken away, the circumcision of Christ, and we arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a pledge to our inheritance reserved in heaven for us. So Christ's propitiation provides the washing of regeneration, and allows us to be reconciled to God, no longer separated and spiritually dead, but alive together with Christ.

So if we define "providing reconciliation" as unlimited, i.e. for the whole world, but define "receiving reconciliation" as limited to those whose faith is credited as righteousness and are placed "in Christ" then we have a basis for discussing the work of the cross.

Sounds like "4 point" TULIP at this point...
Christ made it possible for ANY to redceive the benefits of the Cross, but ONLY those in Christ actually receive it...

The method of just HOW people receive the propiation is what seperates the 2 main theologies at this point...
Both agree need to be "In Christ" to actually receive benfits from the Cross, but diifer how method used to bring one into being "In Christ"

Now, with the above as a basis for sharing a common understanding, lets look at two views, the Calvinist, limited atonement, and the Arminian unlimited atonement.

According to Calvinism, God chose foreseen individuals before creation for salvation, and then Christ died for just those previously chosen individuals. Thus limited atonement.
This is unbiblical on every level.

Actually, think the Cal teaching is that because the Lord HAS chosen/elected out beforehand a peoples for His ggod pleasure, those he can show his grace upon.. Those individuals ARE in Christ, and that is WHY God foreknows them , since he caused them to be found :in Christ"

According to Arminianism, and this is the classic view, not the Barth based offshoot, God chose foreseen individuals before creation who God foresaw would freely come to faith. Logically then, Christ died for all men, providing the opportunity for anyone to freely come to faith, and when they do, they reveal themselves as one of the foreseen elect who freely come to faith. This view too misses the mark, in my opinion, but not by as much as Calvinism, in my opinion.

The Barth based offshoot says God chose the church, the body of Christ, before creation, corporately and when an individual believes, they automatically become part of that corporately elected group, but when they chose to no longer trust in Christ, they remove themselves from the "realm" of the elect and lose their salvation. This misses the mark too, because it violates all those verses that say we are predestined to adoption, and what God predestines, God causes to happen.

Think that what can be said is that there ARE posting here on BB those of us who hold to "unlimited atonement", BUT in order to hold that, we also have to take the election by God, NOT due to simply forekwoledge, but due to Him electing on an individual basis...
IF we tale both Unlimited and free will response, than will have problem witheither Universalism, or else God being forced to lower Himself down to acccomodate man....

 

[Van]

Yet another excellent topic for discussion!

But before we venture into the muddle made by the various traditions of men, Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism, lets back up and define what we are talking about.

What does the term "unlimited atonement" actually mean? Now Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation not only for us but also for the whole world. 1 John 2:2. But what does it mean for Christ to be the propitiation for the whole world. Does that mean the whole world has received the benefit of that propitiation? Nope.

"the World might have received a "general" benefit from it, in that the Lord did "usher in" the Age of grace, so that he was able to "wait" on judgment that has to fall on an unbelieving, sinful creation... " We are talking about the benefit of receiving reconciliation, not some "general" benefit.



Propitiation provides the means of our salvation. If God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, then He puts us "into" Christ spiritually, where we are saved. Our sins are taken away, the circumcision of Christ, and we arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a pledge to our inheritance reserved in heaven for us. So Christ's propitiation provides the washing of regeneration, and allows us to be reconciled to God, no longer separated and spiritually dead, but alive together with Christ.

So if we define "providing reconciliation" as unlimited, i.e. for the whole world, but define "receiving reconciliation" as limited to those whose faith is credited as righteousness and are placed "in Christ" then we have a basis for discussing the work of the cross.

"Sounds like "4 point" TULIP at this point...
Christ made it possible for ANY to redceive the benefits of the Cross, but ONLY those in Christ actually receive it..." This has nothing to do with 2, 3 ,4 or 5 point TULIP, it has to do with "L" of the TULIP. But you are spot on with the observation that Christ made it possible for any to receive the benefits of the Cross, but only those God puts spiritually "in Christ" actually receive it...."

"The method of just HOW people receive the propiation is what seperates the 2 main theologies at this point...
Both agree need to be "In Christ" to actually receive benfits from the Cross, but diifer how method used to bring one into being "In Christ" All true!

Now, with the above as a basis for sharing a common understanding, lets look at two views, the Calvinist, limited atonement, and the Arminian unlimited atonement.

According to Calvinism, God chose foreseen individuals before creation for salvation, and then Christ died for just those previously chosen individuals. Thus limited atonement.
This is unbiblical on every level.

"Actually, think the Cal teaching is that because the Lord HAS chosen/elected out beforehand a peoples for His ggod pleasure, those he can show his grace upon.. Those individuals ARE in Christ, and that is WHY God foreknows them , since he caused them to be found :in Christ" Well certainly some Calvinists believe a person can be spiritually in Christ before they are spiritually created, but that is a minority view.

According to Arminianism, and this is the classic view, not the Barth based offshoot, God chose foreseen individuals before creation who God foresaw would freely come to faith. Logically then, Christ died for all men, providing the opportunity for anyone to freely come to faith, and when they do, they reveal themselves as one of the foreseen elect who freely come to faith. This view too misses the mark, in my opinion, but not by as much as Calvinism, in my opinion.

The Barth based offshoot says God chose the church, the body of Christ, before creation, corporately and when an individual believes, they automatically become part of that corporately elected group, but when they chose to no longer trust in Christ, they remove themselves from the "realm" of the elect and lose their salvation. This misses the mark too, because it violates all those verses that say we are predestined to adoption, and what God predestines, God causes to happen.

"Think that what can be said is that there ARE posting here on BB those of us who hold to "unlimited atonement", BUT in order to hold that, we also have to take the election by God, NOT due to simply foreknowledge, but due to Him electing on an individual basis..." Spot on!
"IF we take both Unlimited and free will response, than will have problem with either Universalism, or else God being forced to lower Himself down to accommodate man...." I do not see the problem with Universalism, but it certainly has a problem with being unbiblical. We do not elect ourselves by being willing to be saved. It does not depend on the man that wills....

 

[revmwc]

Think that what can be said is that there ARE posting here on BB those of us who hold to "unlimited atonement", BUT in order to hold that, we also have to take the election by God, NOT due to simply forekwoledge, but due to Him electing on an individual basis...
IF we tale both Unlimited and free will response, than will have problem witheither Universalism, or else God being forced to lower Himself down to acccomodate man....

Do me a favor define what you mean by universalism.

Thanks

 

[revmwc]

The reason I ask is I want to be clear on what you mena by universalism. I know of some baptist who hold that only Baptist can be saved, and noone from a bible church or a presbytryn church can be saved. I know some who hold that if your aren't part of hteir brand of baptist you aren't part of the bride. So I have heard the term universl used as seperating the baptist church as the only true church and if you believe otherwise you believe in a universal church. Is that what you mean by universalism or is it something else?

 

[convicted1]

So we could have a situation where God DID provide for potentially ALL could be saved, but is a chance that NONE would actual be saved?

False dilemma here. This kinda looks like if its not "A" or "B', then it must be "C".


Without Christ's crucifixion, no one would be saved. It tooks Christ's death, burial, AND resurrection, for any of us to be saved. In the OT, the "atonement" was made for all of Israel, but only those who put their faith in God, got to go into the promised land. Jesus' sacrifice is applied the same way. The Lamb(Jesus) was slaughtered for ALL, but only those who choose to believe, will His atonement(blood) be applied to.

 

[JesusFan]

False dilemma here. This kinda looks like if its not "A" or "B', then it must be "C".


Without Christ's crucifixion, no one would be saved. It tooks Christ's death, burial, AND resurrection, for any of us to be saved. In the OT, the "atonement" was made for all of Israel, but only those who put their faith in God, got to go into the promised land. Jesus' sacrifice is applied the same way. The Lamb(Jesus) was slaughtered for ALL, but only those who choose to believe, will His atonement(blood) be applied to.

Agree with your statement, its just begs the question though:

Can man respond to Gospel by his own faith, spiritual alive enough to respond in kind
or
Does he need God to 'allow" him to respond by giving him the gift of grace and faith?

 

[JesusFan]

The reason I ask is I want to be clear on what you mena by universalism. I know of some baptist who hold that only Baptist can be saved, and noone from a bible church or a presbytryn church can be saved. I know some who hold that if your aren't part of hteir brand of baptist you aren't part of the bride. So I have heard the term universl used as seperating the baptist church as the only true church and if you believe otherwise you believe in a universal church. Is that what you mean by universalism or is it something else?

Good question 2 seperate answers!

Believe that the Bible teaches that ALL who are "In Christ" haveing been "baptised by the Holy Spirit " into the Body of Christ comprise up the true "Church of Christ" "bridr of the Lamb"
So that would be all those choen/elected by god to have eternal life in jesus Christ, and that would be those who attended baptist/methodist/Luthern/cathoic churches, just that all thse redeemed are in "Church of Christ"

Now to Universalism...
Belief that in the Cross/Death of Jesus, God FULLY reconciled ALL things back to Himself, so that thru :unlimited atonement" Jesus truly died for Sins of All men...
God will exercise His grace from the Cross, redeem everyone, all ALL will be saved!

They have Love of God in Cross SO effectual that since Jesus paid debt for All/died for ALL, All will become saved!

 

[revmwc]

Good question 2 seperate answers!

Believe that the Bible teaches that ALL who are "In Christ" haveing been "baptised by the Holy Spirit " into the Body of Christ comprise up the true "Church of Christ" "bridr of the Lamb"
So that would be all those choen/elected by god to have eternal life in jesus Christ, and that would be those who attended baptist/methodist/Luthern/cathoic churches, just that all thse redeemed are in "Church of Christ"

Now to Universalism...
Belief that in the Cross/Death of Jesus, God FULLY reconciled ALL things back to Himself, so that thru :unlimited atonement" Jesus truly died for Sins of All men...
God will exercise His grace from the Cross, redeem everyone, all ALL will be saved!

They have Love of God in Cross SO effectual that since Jesus paid debt for All/died for ALL, All will become saved!

As you know I believe in unlimited atonement. That Christ paid for the sins of all and I have in other post given scriptural references to that fact. I don't believe that all will be saved. I believe God in His foreknowledge knew who would choose to accept and who would reject, God did not pick and choose who would recreive Christ and who would reject Him. God knew what choice would be made in eternity past by each individual and therefore because of that foreknowledge predestinated our place in the family of God. Those whom He foreknew He predestinated.
Since Christ paid for all man's sin then the issue is now have you received or rejected Christ, those who have rejected are condemned because they rejected. Those who are saved is because they chose to put their Faith in Christ and it was counted to them for righteousness.

So where do we see it has become this issue. Phillipians 4:3 "And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life."

Who enters eternity with God Revelation 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Those written in the Lamb's book of life, how does your name get entered into this book by Faith, by accepting Christ.

Revelation 17:
8The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20:
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

What sent them to the Lake of Fire? Their name was not written in the book of life, they rejected Jesus Christ and their names were never recorded in the book.

It is now and has always been a SON issue not a sin issue. Sin shows us we don't measure up but the choice to accept or reject Christ comes from our volition and God knew the choice we would make long before the foundation of the earth. Scripture after scripture shows us this.


Those who aren't written in the book have been that way since the foundation of the world, again God knew the choices they would make.

 

[Alive in Christ]

IF Death of Christ provided for unlimited atonement, than wouldn't a logical conclusion also be a form/type of Christian Universalism?

Not at all.

There have been unbelievers throughout all of history, and that situation will surely continue until the end.

The door is open to them, but they love their sin, pride and self sufficiancy too much.

 

[Tom Butler]

We do not elect ourselves by being willing to be saved.

Can you expand on this? If God elects in response to foreseen faith, how can it be that we do not elect ourselves?

Does not the foreseen faith view assume that this faith is self-generated without any prior involvement from God? And doesn't it hold that God is powerless to elect anyone unilaterally whose faith he does not foresee? And thus, election is totally dependent on the individual?