Limited Atonement: Let's set the record straight.

Another way to put it --

Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvnists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7" or else you have universalism. (Which is a false choice... but that is another matter).

By doing that - they are on collision course when it comes to their efforts to deny your statement above

 

The question that you have here is this: If he made atonement for the sins of the whole world (ie. every person without exception), why, then, would anyone go to hell?

The Archangel

 

The issue isn't "Jesus died only for the elect and not everyone." The issue is, likely, "the gospel only applies to the elect alone."

The Gospel still applies to the non-elect in some way, but they reject it and are doubly-damned for that rejection.

The Archangel

 

Because in the Atonement Model used in the Bible -- "The Day of Atonement" Lev 16

It requires BOTH the work of Christ as 'Atoning Sacrifice" (the Lord's goat in Lev 16, the sin offering) AND ALSO it requires the work of Christ as High Priest in Lev 16 which in Hebrews 8:1 we are told "is the main point"

 

Does that 'in some way" include 1 John 2:2 or exclude it?

Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvnists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7"

 

This needs to be explained. Please go further.

The Archangel

 

I refer to the example of the brazen serpent (Numbers 21). God made a way to escape the awful death. He provided the means for all; however, only those who had the faith to believe and look at the serpent were spared. Jesus likened His atonement to this very event (John 3:14-15).

The same question could be asked, "Why, then, would anyone not look and be cured?

 

The issue here is that the serpent in Numbers 21 is never referred to as an "atonement." Many times atonement is sought and given in the Old Testament--and there are cases where it is not sought or given with blood. However, this case in Numbers 21 is not talked about as "atonment." While Jesus does draw a parallel, His death is clearly an atoning death where the serpent being raised is merely healing and not atoning. So you connection, while creative (and I do not mean that at all in pejorative way!), it doesn't follow because you're pushing one or two of the elements beyond the intended textual meaning, as the serpent is never said to be an atonement or give "eternal life."


The Archangel

 

Again, the fallacy in your statement is the assumption that anyone and everyone knows who the elect are. In reality, they are known only to God. There is no way to know whether anyone we share the gospel with is elect or not, except for whether they accept it and hold fast--but that's after-the-fact.

The Archangel

 

Again, we have a fallacy. You're begging the question with the citation of 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, and John 3:16. You are assuming they say what you think they say without proving from the text that they actually reference the "whole world" and that the whole world means everyone without exception.

The Archangel

 

In the Arminian model God "sovereignly chooses a free will based universe" - which means He voluntarily limits what He "will do" (not what He CAN do) so that beings have some degree of free will.

At the very least he would be guilty of embellishment - grandiose inflated advertising "I really just love the two of you - but I will call that so-loving-the world" etc. The gimmick advertisement with slick lawyereeze added at the end "and by world - I mean the world of the two of you ... it just sounds better if I say WORLD"

 

What those texts say is obvious -- what is "not obvious" is the "assumption" that "all terms must be downsized and redefined that do not fit Calvinism's assumptions when they appear to contradict Calvinism".

 

This i'm certain: God saves all who Call upon His Son to be Saved.

 

Again, you assume your definition and understanding to be correct, without explaining why they are so. That’s nearly the textbook definition of begging the question.

Does the possibility even exist in your mind that your definition and assumptions about words, phrases, and certain verses may be wrong to one degree or another?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I believe it is a clear "type" of the atonement just as the brazen serpent, by Jesus' own testimony, is a type of Christ. It is a type of atonement in that the only way to escape the judgement of God for their sins was to look upon this brass serpent. The penalty for not looking was death. The reward, if you will, of believing and looking was life. Not eternal life, grant you, but I believe the analogy is clear.

Any Old Testament shadow would fall short. Even the Levitical sacrifices did not atone to the degree of Christ's atonement which was once for all, and so fall short. The author of Hebrews makes that very clear (Hebrews 10).

No offense taken whatsoever, Brother. I very much appreciate your civility in these discussions. That being said, we'll disagree on this point. I honestly believe that I remained within the parameters of the analogy given by Jesus in that it is merely a type and not a perfect picture of the atonement, as there is no perfect picture.