Limited Atonement....A carryover from the other thread-

[Iconoclast]

In another thread Agedman responded and asked a question....I will respond now-

Iconoclast said: ↑
Many reasons are given for those who go into second death.

Really? Do those condemned, as the statements of John 3 and Revelation 21 indicate, are not committed to the flames based upon a single item or lack?

What condemns one to the flames if it is not unbelief?

First let me clarify what is at issue Agedman-
1] All men are born in sin and unbelief having died in Adam, they are in the realm of death...

2] All men in hell will remain in the realm of sin and death, they go into second death which is eternal.

3] Believers do not go to hell Agedman.....so everyone in hell can be said to be unbelievers

4] Sinners who never heard of Jesus will be in hell for violations of the law of God, as they have no substitute who satisfied the wrath of God against all sin.

I realize that some consider that sins condemn one to hell, and those that believe have their sins covered. They take the atonement as limited only to those whose names are written in the lambs book of life.

When Jesus described those who perish he listed works that they did which were sin tainted works not just unbelief, but sins....in Mt 25, and Rev.21.

I am sure they are unbelievers but it is not unbelief that is named-
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

and in rev 21
8 But the fearful,
and unbelieving,
and the abominable,
and murderers,
and whoremongers,
and sorcerers,
and idolaters,
and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

More than unbelief for sure.....

However, John's writing places the blood as for all, and those who believe are not condemned. That the limit of atonement is not a lack in the blood, but a lack of human belief.

I do not think John's writing places the blood over all. The atonement was perfect....
There is no such thing as an atonement that does not atone.
It was not a potential atonement but actual.
The question is not is the blood sufficient for all. It is who did our Great High Priest represent?

Icon,
It would seem that many of those who embrace limited atonement, have misplaced the limit upon that which cannot be limited, and yet not recognized the limit is what has always limited it throughout Scriptures.

Everyone "limit's the atonement. You do not believe the atonement is for Satan, or fallen angels so you also "limit" the atonement.

For example in the OT, the sacrifices were daily offered, however, the people had to bring the offering and the offering was brought in obedience and more often (imo) belief in the law.

However, there was that offering that was not brought by the public, but by the high priest. It is that example of offering one offered for all the people without regard to their belief or unbelief.

The OT high priest had 12 stones on his breastplate, that was who he interceded for....not everyone.

So, the limit of atonement is not a matter of weakness in the blood, but weakness in the human belief system.

The atonement was perfect That is not the issue. You fail to consider the covenant nature of the atonement. It was a Covenant transaction.

That makes the mercy and grace of God far more effectual in the call, and far more directly personal in the application.

That God, so rich in mercy and grace, would look upon me and select of all so much better one who is so unworthy is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Brother ....we were all so guilty it could only be mercy that any of us are saved!

 

[SovereignGrace]

When Aaron was performing his priestly duties and placing both his hands upon the scapegoat, was he confessing the sins of the Philistines, Egyptians, Jebusites, Hittites, Hivvites, Edomites, Amalekites, &c? No. He was confessing the sins and iniquities for the Israelites only.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I ask for clarity sake. Is this being argued (or has it been) that those who haven't believed inherit eternal life? If that is the case being argued then why tell others of Christ at all? Why send out missionaries? Why believe the Scriptures when apparently an esoteric belief system has transcended her truth?

 

[agedman]

When Aaron was performing his priestly duties and placing both his hands upon the scapegoat, was he confessing the sins of the Philistines, Egyptians, Jebusites, Hittites, Hivvites, Edomites, Amalekites, &c? No. He was confessing the sins and iniquities for the Israelites only.

Not so.

It was to all that were in the land, including the strangers and servants / slaves from other nations or groupings.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Not so.

It was to all that were in the land, including the strangers and servants / slaves from other nations or groupings.

Huh?

--He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. No one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel. “Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites. “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness.[Lev. 16:15-22]

This was solely for Israel, Monsieur.

 

[tyndale1946]

Huh?

--He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. No one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel. “Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites. “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness.[Lev. 16:15-22]

This was solely for Israel, Monsieur.

When I think of limited atonement I think of this particular verse from Revelation... And notice the structure of the verse that the praise is directed at what Christ has done and not at what we will do... Also there are two words that applied to the redeemed "OUT OF" every kindred tongue, people, and nation!... This scripture plainly teaches that those that are not included in the "OUT OF" are left out!... Which destroys the scenario that God loves everybody and he died for everybody and if you as the dead alien sinner chose him you to will be included in the "OUT OF"!... That your will is stronger than Gods will... Or to put it in plainer terms... Man by an act of will can attain divinity and that is the lie that Satan told our first parents... Brother Glen

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/refor...arminianism-and-the-atonement-by-john-murray/

Atonement is to be defined in terms of sacrifice, reconciliation, redemption, satisfaction to divine justice, discharge of debt, and thus defined it is for those whom God hath predestinated to life, namely, the elect. They are saved because Christ by his redemptive work secured their salvation. The finally lost are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and therefore they are not within the embrace of that which secures it, namely, the redemption wrought by Christ. It is just here that the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism may be most plainly stated. Did Christ die and offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself a sacrifice to God to secure infallibly the salvation of His people? Arminians profess the former and deny the latter; our Standards in accordance, as we believe, with Holy Scripture teach the latter.

The term ‘limited’ atonement has given much offense. It may not indeed be the most fortunate terminology. It is capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Some for this reason may prefer the terms ‘definite’ or ‘particular’ atonement. But what we are particularly insistent upon defending is that which the term historically used connotes, and so if the disuse of the term ‘limited’ is calculated to create the impression that we have renounced the doctrine of which the term is the symbol, if in other words the disuse is calculated to placate the enemies of our Reformed Faith, then we must resolutely refuse to refrain from its use. The atonement is limited, because in its precise intention and meaning and effect it is for those and for those only who are destined in the determinate purpose of God to eternal salvation. We may well bless God that this is not a meagre company, but a multitude whom no man can number out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue.

Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any. He indeed eliminates from the atonement that which makes it supremely precious to the Christian heart. In B. B. Warfield’s words, ‘the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be given a universal reference’. What we mean is, that unless we resort to the position of universal restoration for all mankind — a position against which the witness of Scripture is decisive — an interpretation of the atonement in universal terms must nullify its properly substitutive and redemptive character. We must take our choice between a limited extent and a limited efficacy, or rather between a limited atonement and an atonement without efficacy. It either infallibly saves the elect or it actually saves none.

It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction. The doctrine of limited atonement any more than the doctrine of sovereign election does not raise a fence around the offer of the gospel. The overture of the gospel offering peace and salvation through Jesus Christ is to all without distinction, though it is truly from the heart of sovereign election and limited atonement that this stream of grace universally proffered flows. If we may change the figure, it is upon the crest of the wave of the divine sovereignty and of limited atonement that the full and free offer of the gospel breaks upon our shores. The offer of salvation to all is bona fide. All that is proclaimed is absolutely true. Every sinner believing will infallibly be saved, for the veracity and purpose of God cannot be violated.

The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Saviour and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ’s name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Saviour with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Saviour with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words that he is an object of God’s redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Saviour, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus.

 

[Iconoclast]

From “Systematic Theology – An Introduction to Christian Belief” by John Frame, p. 905:

If the atonement is unlimited, universal, then it would bring salvation to everybody. For, as we have seen, the atonement is a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus’ atonement takes our sins away, bringing us full forgiveness. So if the atonement is universal, it guarantees salvation for everybody. But we know from Scripture… that not everyone in the world is saved. Some people spurn Jesus’ blood. They trample it down. So they receive swift destruction.

If you believe in a universal atonement, therefore, you must hold a weaker view of what the atonement is. It must be something less than a substitutionary sacrifice that brings full forgiveness. What could that be? Some theologians have suggested that the atonement does not actually save anybody, but that it takes away the barrier of original sin, so that we are now free to choose Christ or reject him. So the atonement does not actually save; it only makes salvation possible for those who freely decide to come to faith. In the end, it is our free decision that saves us; the atonement only prepares the way, so that we can make a free decision. And in this context, free decision refers to the idea of libertarian freedom that I rejected…

The trouble is, however, that Scripture never hints at any such meaning for the atonement. In Scripture, the atonement does not merely make salvation possible. The atonement actually saves. It is not merely a prelude to our free decision. It brings to us all the benefits of God’s forgiveness, and eternal life. Those who say that the atonement has an unlimited extent believe it has a limited efficacy, a limited power to save. Those who believe the atonement is limited to the elect, however, believe that it has an unlimited efficacy. So everyone believes in some kind of limitation. Either the atonement is limited in its extent or it is limited in its efficacy. I think the Bible teaches that it is limited in its extent, unlimited in its efficacy.

Therefore, mainly because I believe that Scripture teaches the efficacy of the atonement, I hold to the view that the atonement is limited in its extent. It doesn’t save everybody, but it fully saves everybody that it does save. The fundamental point here is not the limited extent of the atonement, though that is a biblical teaching. The fundamental point is the efficacy of the atonement.

– John Frame

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Not so.

It was to all that were in the land, including the strangers and servants / slaves from other nations or groupings.

A statement proves nothing. Prove it biblically that what Aaron did was for those greater than Israel and all who joined her by faith.

 

[agedman]

Huh?

--He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the tent of meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness. No one is to be in the tent of meeting from the time Aaron goes in to make atonement in the Most Holy Place until he comes out, having made atonement for himself, his household and the whole community of Israel. “Then he shall come out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it. He shall take some of the bull’s blood and some of the goat’s blood and put it on all the horns of the altar. He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites. “When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites—all their sins—and put them on the goat’s head. He shall send the goat away into the wilderness in the care of someone appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place; and the man shall release it in the wilderness.[Lev. 16:15-22]

This was solely for Israel, Monsieur.

I would agree that the emphasis is upon Israel, but what was the Israel of that day and the Israel of what the believers consider of this day?

First, that day Israel:
The typical "Israel" was not without those of the mixed multitude who came out of Eygpt at the time of the instruction given to Aaron, and the verse 29 does have that everyone in the land, even visitors are to be effected by the day.

Second, in our day:
Certainly, there is room for some who desire a more narrow appointment, that flows first to Aaron, then to Aaron's family, and then to all priests, and then to the general population. But even in that narrowness, there is the view, that in the current estate, the believer's are considered priests, and the general population would then be anyone who is not a priest (unsaved).

So, there is room for both a narrow and a broader view.

Perhaps this is also why some are in favor of the limit on atonement be placed upon belief and not upon the blood. Some would, as I showed a bit of application above, see the blood as a done deal for all in the land, or at the sacrifice of Christ for all of the world. As such, just as in the land of that day, there were priests who would daily served the Lord exampled today as believers who daily serve the Lord, there were also the general people who did not daily serve the Lord and who were effected merely by a time or season that was more duty to law than love of creator.

However, there are those who place anything "Israel" as to the church of today.

Such thinking would be fine if all Israel were all Israel. But it isn't. For there is Israel, and then the believing few of Israel that is representative of the church.

​

 

[JonC]

If the atonement is unlimited, universal, then it would bring salvation to everybody. For, as we have seen, the atonement is a substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus’ atonement takes our sins away, bringing us full forgiveness. So if the atonement is universal, it guarantees salvation for everybody.

Brother, I understand how the conclusion here can be accurate, but there are many instances where it is not.

I think of men like Gardiner Spring (he was appointed to the Board of Princeton Theological Seminary in 1814, John Frame adopted his philosophy for teaching in his “Proposal for a New Seminary”, which brought him to mind)

Spring, like many other Calvinists through out history, held the doctrine of election and the doctrine of the Atonement to be two distinct things. “It is no part of the doctrine of Election, that Christ died exclusively for the elect. Such a representation is an unjustifiable perversion of the doctrine, and exposes it to unanswerable questions. Thought ere would have been no atonement but for God’s design to save the elect, and though there could have been no designs of mercy toward the elect without an atonement; yet the doctrine of the atonement and election are two distinct things….It has never yet been proved that Christ died exclusively for the elect. If language has any meaning, we are bound to believe that ‘he tasted death for every man.’ One would imagine that if the Apostle has intended to put this question forever at rest, he could not have said more than he has in these memorable words: ‘And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (Gardiner Spring, “Doctrine of Election Illustrated and Established, 1851).

So he held to a universal atonement, but conclusions do not logically fall in line with Frame's accusations. Frame places the effectiveness of Christ's death and declares that universal atonement equates to universal salvation. The problem is that men like Spring (this was at one time a common Calvinistic view) place the effectiveness on God's election so universal atonement does not equate to universal salvation. This is a flaw in Frame's statement - he is testing a view out of context of its actual position.

Another may be John Pipers view that Christ died to make salvation available to all men, but also to make it effective only to the elect. I’m not sure how you would consider this position (it has a universal purpose and offer, but not the same universal purpose for the elect).

Again, I appreciate that you disagree with these views and I agree with you concerning some universal atonement positions, but there are also some well developed positions within Calvinism itself that do not seem to diminish the atonement (although they do view it's purposes differently).

 

[revmwc]

Seeing many of these statements and seeing many talk of sacrifice for atonement as the Levitical priest only it seems the pre-law ages are dismissed. But let's look,
Genesis 4:
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Able offered the proper sacrifice Cain depended on His works. What condemned Cain? He was disobedient to God's command for a proper sacrifice. If and he didn't choose to offer the proper sacrifice he would be accepted, that is very clear. The sin of disobedience to God's requirement for a sacrifice for the appeasement (propitiation) for his sin was rejected by Cain. Have the proper sacrifice and how do we have the proper sacrifice by Faith in the one offered that is the Savior.
The lamb didn't save Abel his belief in the Savior to come saved him, his offering of sacrifice was the covering of his sin from year to year as was the atonement sacrifice of the Jews.

Who is man's proper sacrifice today? The Lord Jesus Christ.

1 John 2:2 "Interlinear" And He (Christ) Propitiation IS about the misses of us not about the our more yet only but about whole of the world.
That is Christ is the propitiation for our sin not ours only but about the whole world.

Christ satisfied the requirement for a perfect sacrifice which God required for the sin of mankind, and He is the propitiation for us (believers) as well as the propitiation for all the world.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
"Interlinear" Not is being tardy the Master of the promise as any Tardiness are deeming but He is far feeling into us no intending any to be being destroyed but all into after mind (repentance) to space (make room).

God wants no one not one person to be destroyed, that is His Divine will, but by His permissive Will he allows them to perish based upon their choosing to reject Christ.
God's will is for all mankind to come to repentance. Do all no not all accept the sacrifice that is the propitiatory sacrifice Christ made for man. They reject the atoning sacrifice that was paid in full for all sin, which satisfied God's requirement and therefore appeasing (propitiation) Him.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC
I

I think of men like Gardiner Spring (he was appointed to the Board of Princeton Theological Seminary in 1814, John Frame adopted his philosophy for teaching in his “Proposal for a New Seminary”, which brought him to mind)

Gardiner Spring was a good man....but even a good man can error if he does not study the passage in detail. Surely he did not do that with Hebrews 2:9 as it does not say everyman...it says everyone, and the context describes the identity of the everyone.

Spring, like many other Calvinists through out history, held the doctrine of election and the doctrine of the Atonement to be two distinct things.

While two distinct things, certainly they are related.

“It is no part of the doctrine of Election, that Christ died exclusively for the elect.

This is an awkwardly worded statement I do not want to jump on his words

Such a representation is an unjustifiable perversion of the doctrine, and exposes it to unanswerable questions.

This statement is way over the top in my opinion.

Thought ere would have been no atonement but for God’s design to save the elect, and though there could have been no designs of mercy toward the elect without an atonement; yet the doctrine of the atonement and election are two distinct things

This says nothing...in other words....what were the elect elected to? what were they elected for,

.It has never yet been proved that Christ died exclusively for the elect.

GS is wrong, but I would not use such a small sample of His work to comment on. I have a small work by him on The Distinguishing Traits of Christian Character.

I

f language has any meaning, we are bound to believe that ‘he tasted death for every man.’ One would imagine that if the Apostle has intended to put this question forever at rest, he could not have said more than he has in these memorable words: ‘And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (Gardiner Spring, “Doctrine of Election Illustrated and Established, 1851).

A careful study of hebrews 2 answers this fully.

So he held to a universal atonement, but conclusions do not logically fall in line with Frame's accusations. Frame places the effectiveness of Christ's death and declares that universal atonement equates to universal salvation. The problem is that men like Spring (this was at one time a common Calvinistic view) place the effectiveness on God's election so universal atonement does not equate to universal salvation. This is a flaw in Frame's statement - he is testing a view out of context of its actual position.

Frames quote was quite accurate. He was not answering GS when He wrote it.I am not looking to pit them against each other.

Another may be John Pipers view that Christ died to make salvation available to all men, but also to make it effective only to the elect. I’m not sure how you would consider this position (it has a universal purpose and offer, but not the same universal purpose for the elect).

Piper does not speak for me or many in the Cal camp.He is a bit of a wild card...some really good things, so really not so good.

Again, I appreciate that you disagree with these views and I agree with you concerning some universal atonement positions, but there are also some well developed positions within Calvinism itself that do not seem to diminish the atonement (although they do view it's purposes differently).

People who do not fully sort out all 5 pts are not my enemy....

 

[JonC]

JonC
I
Gardiner Spring was a good man....but even a good man can error if he does not study the passage in detail. Surely he did not do that with Hebrews 2:9 as it does not say everyman...it says everyone, and the context describes the identity of the everyone////

Oh...I agree. I don't necessarily agree 100% with those commentators and scholars that have impacted my life greatly. You and I disagree on a few issues, but as I've stated before, you have been a great help to me in the past.

There are many on both sides of this divide within Calvinism that are good men that were used by God....no doubt in my mind. I will comment that there is a difference, in my opinion, between those who hold Spring's understanding and what we would now consider "moderate" Calvinism. To me, Spring made more sense than many today (Norman Geisler, just as an example). But whether or not we agree with Spring really is not my point. He provided a consistent view of the Atonement, with a universal application, but placed the effectiveness on God's electing rather than Christ's death. His view in no way leads to universal salvation because he views the Atonement itself a bit differently. What I am questioning is merely Frame's conclusion that universal atonement leads to universal salvation (if I've understood Frame correctly, and solely from the quote you've provided).

My other example was John Piper (who claims, probably a bit in humor, to be a 7 point Calvinist). He seems to hold tightly to limited atonement, but also believes that there is a genuine offer in the atonement for mankind. I am not sure if this would constitute "universal atonement" because he does not view the purpose of this universal purpose to be effectual redemption.

As for me, I do believe that Jesus died in such a manner as to make salvation possible for mankind, that the scope of redemption is found in election, and that Christ died to redeem only the elect. So there are places where we would perhaps disagree as well, and you could say that I hold to universal atonement but particular redemption. Where I see atonement as universal, however, is not something that would even remotely lead to universal salvation.

That's all I was intending to bring out about Frame's statement. If it applies to universal atonement period, then it is perhaps flawed as there are examples that do not lead to universal salvation.

People who do not fully sort out all 5 pts are not my enemy....

I think that we both agree that we have no enemies within the Body of Christ (regardless of theological disposition). Even those with whom we strongly disagree, if they are in Christ, share our desire to faithfully interpret Scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

God's Control of the Atonement
Salvation is God's plan from beginning to end. Those who will be saved are chosen by God, enlightened by God, made alive by God, and gifted by God with repentance and faith. Surely it is the world's greatest understatement to say that the cross of Christ, too, was planned by God. Redemptive history flows to Calvary and back again. That Christ's death was predetermined of God cannot be questioned (Act 2:23). But for what? Was it to make men merely able to save themselves? Many Biblical texts tell us that Christ's death accomplished redemption for a definite group of people. Bible-believing Christians would never deny that some will be lost for eternity. We all must admit, then, that Christ did not prevent the wrath of God from abiding on those who do not trust in Him. Therefore, His death, though sufficient to save a million worlds from the wrath of God, was actually efficient only for those that will be saved. To put it directly, according to the Bible, whose sins did Christ bear?


Mat 1:21 And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.


Isa 53:5-12 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities. . . He was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?. . . . He would render Himself as a guilt offering...By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities . . . . He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.


Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.


Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.


Joh 11: 51 Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.


Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word . . .


1Pe 2:24 . . . and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.


2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


Heb 9:12 . . . and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.


Tit 2:14 . . . who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.


The English hymn writer, William Cowper said it well,

There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel's veins,
And sinners, plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains.
Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood Shall never lose its power,
Till all the ransomed church of God Be saved, to sin no more.(9)

From Greg Strawbridge

hate'er My God Ordains:

A Biblical Study of
God's Control
[Available in booklet form from the author]
© Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.
Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.
Pastor of All Saints' Presbyterian Church, Lancaster, PA www.allsaintspresbyterian.com

God's Complete Control of All Things
We've been looking, as it were, in a microscope at many specific areas of the sovereign control of God. Now we can look through the lens of the telescope at the sweeping statements asserting His sovereignty and rule. In the broadest possible terms--God is in complete control. The domain of His rule is, quite simply, everything. The Lord has decreed whatever happens. From the beginning to the end, from the creation to the consummation, from the heavens to the earth, from the sky to the sea, from conception to salvation--the sovereign Lord is the One in complete control. "His sovereignty rules over all" (Psa 103:19). My God ordains all things.


Isa 46:9 Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure."


Eph 1:11 . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will . . .


Rom 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.


Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.


1Co 8:6 . . . yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.


Psa 103:19 The LORD has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all.

 

[JonC]

God's Control of the Atonement
Salvation is God's plan from beginning to end. Those who will be saved are chosen by God, enlightened by God, made alive by God, and gifted by God with repentance and faith. Surely it is the world's greatest understatement to say that the cross of Christ, too, was planned by God. Redemptive history flows to Calvary and back again. That Christ's death was predetermined of God cannot be questioned (Act 2:23). But for what? Was it to make men merely able to save themselves? Many Biblical texts tell us that Christ's death accomplished redemption for a definite group of people. Bible-believing Christians would never deny that some will be lost for eternity. We all must admit, then, that Christ did not prevent the wrath of God from abiding on those who do not trust in Him. Therefore, His death, though sufficient to save a million worlds from the wrath of God, was actually efficient only for those that will be saved. To put it directly, according to the Bible, whose sins did Christ bear?


Mat 1:21 And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins.


Isa 53:5-12 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities. . . He was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due?. . . . He would render Himself as a guilt offering...By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities . . . . He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.


Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.


Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.


Joh 11: 51 Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.


Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word . . .


1Pe 2:24 . . . and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.


2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


Heb 9:12 . . . and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.


Tit 2:14 . . . who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.


The English hymn writer, William Cowper said it well,

There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel's veins,
And sinners, plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains.
Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood Shall never lose its power,
Till all the ransomed church of God Be saved, to sin no more.(9)

From Greg Strawbridge

hate'er My God Ordains:

A Biblical Study of
God's Control
[Available in booklet form from the author]
© Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.
Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.
Pastor of All Saints' Presbyterian Church, Lancaster, PA www.allsaintspresbyterian.com

God's Complete Control of All Things
We've been looking, as it were, in a microscope at many specific areas of the sovereign control of God. Now we can look through the lens of the telescope at the sweeping statements asserting His sovereignty and rule. In the broadest possible terms--God is in complete control. The domain of His rule is, quite simply, everything. The Lord has decreed whatever happens. From the beginning to the end, from the creation to the consummation, from the heavens to the earth, from the sky to the sea, from conception to salvation--the sovereign Lord is the One in complete control. "His sovereignty rules over all" (Psa 103:19). My God ordains all things.


Isa 46:9 Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10 declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure."


Eph 1:11 . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will . . .


Rom 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.


Rom 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.


1Co 8:6 . . . yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.


Psa 103:19 The LORD has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all.

I agree with this post, brother, I think in its entirety as doctrine – except that I may prefer “does” instead of “did” in your first paragraph (We all must admit, then, that Christ did/does not prevent the wrath of God from abiding on those who do not trust in Him.”)

What I was speaking of earlier, Icon, is imposing logical conclusions on other views that may not actually fit. I do not mean that I necessarily disagree with the doctrine that you are arguing. But as you continue down the argument you will see a few presuppositions (a distinct view of what it means that Christ bore our sins, a forensic understanding of God’s wrath and individual sins, an individual efficiency of Christ’s death in and of itself…to name a few). I am not saying, brother, that you are wrong in your doctrine. What I am saying is that you are arguing against a view but at the same time you seem to be placing that view within your own position. Your point will only be understood as legitimate by other’s who affirm your theological viewpoint. The points here do not actually address the beliefs of those whom you would argue against.

That said, I appreciate the reference. I am not familiar with Gregg Strawbridge, so you’ve given me someone else to read.