Limited Atonement: Let's set the record straight.

[BobRyan]

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. #56 (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

Did not take long for that specifically-predicted "universalism" rabbit-trail to get proposed after this post predicting that it would, was posted

 

[BobRyan]

The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit.Upon this principle of a universal atonement, but a special application of it to the elect, we must interpret such passages as Eph. 1:4, 7; 2 Tim. 1:9, 10; John 17:9, 20, 24—asserting a special efficacy of the atonement in the case of the elect; and also such passages as 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:2; Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11—asserting that the death of Christ is for all

Seeing how you read your own textbook the same way you read the bible. It answers a lot.

"2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:2; Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11—asserting that the death of Christ is for all"

Well ok then... there you have it.

Hebrews 8 and 9 shows the work of Christ as our High Priest (and also Hebrews 4) where the individual case-by-case work in Atonement is done for the individual.

Leviticus 16 - God's own illustration on the topic of "Day of Atonement" shows that it is BOTH the work of Christ as the "sin offering" in Lev 16 - AND ALSO the work of Christ as "High Priest" that is require for the full Bible scope of the term "Atonement" to be satisfied.

And as we are told in Hebrews 8:1 Christ's work for us now in heaven is "the MAIN point"

 

[BobRyan]

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

Again, you assume your definition and understanding to be correct,

The mere reference to the text - or in this case the mere quote of it - gives rise to the objection. That is "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

And leads to this observation - "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".

 

[BobRyan]

The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit .

In Leviticus 16 - The application of the atoning sacrifice (Christ) in Lev 16 is done in the Sanctuary by the High Priest (Christ).

And His work in the Sanctuary is highlighted in Hebrews 4, 8,9,10 - pointing to individual application of it -- case-by-case

 

[The Archangel]

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2



The mere reference to the text - or in this case the mere quote of it - gives rise to the objection. That is "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

And leads to this observation - "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".

1 John 2:2 does not exist in a vacuum. If Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, what do those who go to hell "pay" for all eternity? Where is there, ostensibly, a payment by Christ and a payment by those in hell?

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

In Leviticus 16 - The application of the atoning sacrifice (Christ) in Lev 16 is done in the Sanctuary by the High Priest (Christ).

And His work in the Sanctuary is highlighted in Hebrews 4, 8,9,10 - pointing to individual application of it -- case-by-case

But, the work of the priest and the "work" of the sacrifice are not separated in either case. In fact, Hebrews makes the point that Christ makes atonement with His own blood, not the blood of a dumb animal who cannot choose to substitute itself for anyone. But, the application of the blood to the altar is the second side of the atonement coin, the first side being the sacrifice of the lamb itself. If either action is missing, not atonement has been made. You cannot separate the sacrifice and the application. Neither Hebrews nor the Old Testament will allow for that.

The Archangel

 

[BobRyan]

But, the work of the priest and the "work" of the sacrifice are not separated in either case.

It is in Lev 16... the sin offering is an animal being sacrificed and the High Priest is applying the blood in the sanctuary - after the sacrifice is full and complete.

What is more Hebrews 8:1 points to Christ in the sanctuary as High Priest while Hebrews 10 points to his once-for-all sacrifice completed at the cross.

In fact, Hebrews makes the point that Christ makes atonement with His own blood, not the blood of a dumb animal

Correct - both symbols in the OT point the work of Christ. Both the OT High Priest and the OT sin offering.

. But, the application of the blood to the altar is the second side of the atonement coin, the first side being the sacrifice of the lamb itself

Two distinct events -- one following the other.

. If either action is missing, not atonement has been made.

Hence the flaw in the Calvinist argument

The atoning "sacrifice" is full and complete once the sin offering is slain... no more slaying the sin offering. but the High Priests work remains to be done.

The OT does not make the case that the High Priest's work is done either while the sin offering is "being sacrificed" or as soon as the offering is dead... the chapter does not end in vs 15

Lev 16
15 “Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities. 17 When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel.

20 “And when he has made an end of atoning
for the Holy Place
and the tent of meeting
and the altar,
he shall present the live goat.

33 He shall make atonement
for the holy sanctuary,
and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting
and for the altar, and
he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.

34 And this shall be a statute for ever for you, that atonement may be made


Hebrews 7 points out that Christ did not need to make atonement for himself. So that is an exception to the model that God gives in Lev 16.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[delizzle]

Ok. Now we can get back on track. The OP question that I specifically asked was regarding "Limited Atonement". Not particular redemption. Not universal atonement with limited application. I am talking about LIMITED ATONEMENT the "L" in "T.U.L.I.P". Which means that the ATONEMENT was limited to only the elect.

So when I said that limited atonement means Jesus only died for the elect, therefore, the Gospel only applies to the elect, how is that statement wrong?

It appears that even most 5 point Calvinists don't truly believe in all 5 points. In this case, limited atonement. And for the record, believing that the atonement is universal but limited in its application is a completely valid position. But call it what it is "universal atonement"!

 

[delizzle]

1 John 2:2 does not exist in a vacuum. If Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, what do those who go to hell "pay" for all eternity? Where is there, ostensibly, a payment by Christ and a payment by those in hell?

The Archangel

I understand that this may seem unimaginable for the particular baptist, but it's simple. The atonement was universal, Jesus atoned for the sins of all. As a result, everyone and anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. However, people choose not to accept the atoning sacrifice. Thats what they are spending eternity in hell for. Not because of sin, but because of their rejection of Jesus to include His atoning sacrifice. Jesus is handing out free tickets to heaven. Many choose to reject the ticket.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok. Now we can get back on track. The OP question that I specifically asked was regarding "Limited Atonement". Not particular redemption

You have defined atonement to exclude particular redemption in that case - which means that unlimited atonement using your definition is equal to "unlimited Atoning Sacrifice" - and ignores the work done in Lev 16 that come after the sacrifice.

The problem with that is that a lot of people will use "Atonement" in the full Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" model where the full definition for the term is what they mean.

Definition of terms need to be agreed to - to have the discussion without confusion as to what is meant.

Unlimited Atoning Sacrifice.
But limited Atonement

Is what you get if you let the "Atonement" concept include both the work of Christ as the Sin Offering and the work of Christ as High Priest doing work in heaven for the individual AFTER the sin offering - Atoning Sacrifice is complete at the cross.

. Not universal atonement with limited application. I am talking about LIMITED ATONEMENT the "L" in "T.U.L.I.P". Which means that the ATONEMENT was limited to only the elect.

Which is only a problem if you limit the entire concept of Atonement to "just the sin offering slain" in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement"

So when I said that limited atonement means Jesus only died for the elect, therefore, the Gospel only applies to the elect, how is that statement wrong?

It is correct in describing Calvinism if you limit the term "Atonement" to just the act of slaying the sin offering.

And for the record, believing that the atonement is universal but limited in its application is a completely valid position.

It is but it is confusing since the full Bible scope for the term "Atonement" includes both where the "Atoning Sacrifice" of 1 John 2:2 is just the 'sin offering being slain' part of Lev 16... .ending it in vs 15

But call it what it is "universal atonement"!

Purely because of the way you are redefining "Atonement" to mean "only the Atoning Sacrifice part".

Have to agree to terms to get agreement on concepts or what the implications are

 

[TCassidy]

Calvinists are not allowed to redefine terms found in 1 John 2:2 to 'fit into Calvinism' they argue the false-alternative that only "'universalism' is allowed as the other option.

Wrong again. You completely missed the point. As usual.

 

[TCassidy]

I am talking about LIMITED ATONEMENT the "L" in "T.U.L.I.P". Which means that the ATONEMENT was limited to only the elect.

Your false a priori assumption leads to a false conclusion.

Once again I have to correct you on the same point.

LIMITED ATONEMENT the "L" in "T.U.L.I.P". Which means that the ATONEMENT was limited IN ITS APPLICATION to only the elect.

 

[delizzle]

You have defined atonement to exclude particular redemption in that case - which means that unlimited atonement using your definition is equal to "unlimited Atoning Sacrifice" - and ignores the work done in Lev 16 that come after the sacrifice.

The problem with that is that a lot of people will use "Atonement" in the full Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" model where the full definition for the term is what they mean.

Definition of terms need to be agreed to - to have the discussion without confusion as to what is meant.

Unlimited Atoning Sacrifice.
But limited Atonement

Is what you get if you let the "Atonement" concept include both the work of Christ as the Sin Offering and the work of Christ as High Priest doing work in heaven for the individual AFTER the sin offering - Atoning Sacrifice is complete at the cross.



Which is only a problem if you limit the entire concept of Atonement to "just the sin offering slain" in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement"



It is correct in describing Calvinism if you limit the term "Atonement" to just the act of slaying the sin offering.



It is but it is confusing since the full Bible scope for the term "Atonement" includes both where the "Atoning Sacrifice" of 1 John 2:2 is just the 'sin offering being slain' part of Lev 16... .ending it in vs 15



Purely because of the way you are redefining "Atonement" to mean "only the Atoning Sacrifice part".

Have to agree to terms to get agreement on concepts or what the implications are

They tend to redefine a lot of things if it doesn't fit with their theology. When scripture says God wants "none" to parish and "all" to come to repentance, "all" and "none" can be redefined as "some" and "a few". Likewise, when "Limited Atonement" doesn't fit with scripture, they try to back track and redefine "Limited". When they say "Limited Atonement" what they really mean is "Universal Atonement".

 

[TCassidy]

It is very sad for me to see so many people who do not know, but yet refuse to learn.

 

[TCassidy]

They tend to redefine a lot of things if it doesn't fit with their theology.

Yes, you do. And you continue to do so even though you have been corrected several times.

When scripture says God wants "none" to parish and "all" to come to repentance, "all" and "none" can be redefined as "some" and "a few".

No, you are wrong again. All means all and none means none.

Likewise, when "Limited Atonement" doesn't fit with scripture, they try to back track and redefine "Limited".

Yes, you do. Even after being corrected several times.

When they say "Limited Atonement" what they really mean is "Universal Atonement".

"Sufficient for all (universal sufficiency) efficient only for believers" (the elect) (limited application).

I suggest some serious study. Carefully and prayerfully read "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen. It is available free online in a number of formats.

 

[The Archangel]

It is in Lev 16... the sin offering is an animal being sacrificed and the High Priest is applying the blood in the sanctuary - after the sacrifice is full and complete.

What is more Hebrews 8:1 points to Christ in the sanctuary as High Priest while Hebrews 10 points to his once-for-all sacrifice completed at the cross.



Correct - both symbols in the OT point the work of Christ. Both the OT High Priest and the OT sin offering.

Two distinct events -- one following the other.

Hence the flaw in the Calvinist argument

The atoning "sacrifice" is full and complete once the sin offering is slain... no more slaying the sin offering. but the High Priests work remains to be done.

The OT does not make the case that the High Priest's work is done either while the sin offering is "being sacrificed" or as soon as the offering is dead... the chapter does not end in vs 15

You are misunderstanding my argument. It isn't that I'm saying these actions aren't connected. They certainly are. I'm saying both actions are two sides of the same coin. If I have a quarter, I have the heads and the tails. I do not have only a heads or only a tails, an if I have only heads or only tails, I do not have a quarter.

In the same way, the sacrifice of the lamb and the application of the blood were two distinct aspects of the same event. It would never have been thought of that the lamb's blood would not be applied to the mercy seat. Both the sacrifice and the pouring of the blood on the mercy seat are part of the atonement and one cannot be left out, or no atonement has been made.

Where you're going off the rails is that you're assuming Jesus is withholding His own blood for a case-by-case application. See here:

In Leviticus 16 - The application of the atoning sacrifice (Christ) in Lev 16 is done in the Sanctuary by the High Priest (Christ).

And His work in the Sanctuary is highlighted in Hebrews 4, 8,9,10 - pointing to individual application of it -- case-by-case

You're assuming that Jesus makes a case-by-case application of His own blood when the priests on the Day of Atonement clearly did not. Therefore, it is to be understood that Jesus is both the sacrificial lamb (and the scapegoat, too, I might add) and the priest. He does both functions--dying as a substitute (by spilling his blood) and applying that blood in our favor on the mercy seat before God. There is no separation; the atonement event requires both actions and Jesus does both actions, one following the other. If He does not apply the blood, as you claim, then no atonement has been made, and since the crucifixion is a once-in-an-eternity event and cannot be repeated, no atonement can be made if Jesus has withheld His blood.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I understand that this may seem unimaginable for the particular baptist, but it's simple. The atonement was universal, Jesus atoned for the sins of all. As a result, everyone and anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. However, people choose not to accept the atoning sacrifice. Thats what they are spending eternity in hell for. Not because of sin, but because of their rejection of Jesus to include His atoning sacrifice. Jesus is handing out free tickets to heaven. Many choose to reject the ticket.

It isn't "unimaginable," you're just wrong.

If the atonement was universal (meaning all sins of all people of all time were paid for) then the people in Hell have no reason to go there. And, if there is a universal atonement and people still are going to hell, you have God caught in an injustice where He has paid the sin-debt of sinners and is still requiring them to pay their own debt in Hell for all eternity. Therefore, your understanding of this as you've described it above denies the justice of God Himself because those in hell are giving what amounts to a double payment for their sin (Christ's death being the first payment and their torment in Hell being the second).

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

And so the delimma, "Is God a liar or powerless?". For the Armenians, they will explain that you are correct, "God's desire to save all sinners is being stopped in its tracks once again by human free will" God is therefore limited. Not necessarily because He has limited power. But rather, because he soveregnly chose to limit the application of His power on the will of His creation.

That is something not even God can do though, for to be able to grant to any of His created beings the means to overcome His will and purpose would negate His sovereignty.

 

[delizzle]

Yes, you do. And you continue to do so even though you have been corrected several times.

No, you are wrong again. All means all and none means none.

Yes, you do. Even after being corrected several times.

"Sufficient for all (universal sufficiency) efficient only for believers" (the elect) (limited application).

I suggest some serious study. Carefully and prayerfully read "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen. It is available free online in a number of formats.

Is this the same Owen who said, “Christ did not die for all the sins of all men; for if this were so, why are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief,—they will not believe.’ But this unbelief is a sin, and Christ was punished for it. Why then does this, more than other sins, hinder them from partaking of the fruits of his death?” (Strong 1909, 456)? It sounds like he really believed in Limited Atonement and Limited Application. Something you clearly rejected. And your textbook rejected btw.


Citation added: 10 and 17; Symington, Atonement, 184-234; Candlish on the Atonement; Cunningham, Hist. Theol., 2:323-370; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:464-489. For the view presented in the text, see Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:373, 374; 689-698; 706-709; Wardlaw, Syst. Theol., 2:485-549; Jenkyn, Extent of the Atonement; E. P. Griffin, Extent of the Atonement; Woods, Works, 2:490-521; Richards, Lectures on Theology, 302-327.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet he clearly states that "the atonement was not limited" it was universal atonement. Something you clearly stated that you rejected.

See post 36.

Being a Calvinist, he would have seen it as having unlimited grace to save all lost sinners, but that God's INTENT would be to have that saving Grace applied just towards the Elect in Christ.