Limited Atonement insanity.

[37818]

Where limited Atonement is actually believed and taught, by what Scripture can any lost persons have any grounds to know they were included in Christ's atonement for one's sins?

Luke 8:13, They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Matthew 7:21, Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[DaveXR650]

Where limited Atonement is actually believed and taught, by what Scripture can any lost persons have any grounds to know they were included in Christ's atonement for one's sins?

There would be none. I might be biased because I don't believe the atonement is in any way "limited". I do understand how someone could say that God had in mind those he was going to save when Christ died and I admit that the way many non-Calvinists view this - as Christ dying equally and in the same way for everyone and then God stands back and says that all has been provided, now let's see if anyone responds is not what scripture indicated.

For what it's worth in your own study 37818 I can tell you that Bunyan asked the very same question as your OP and went on to say that is why the atonement is not limited.

Owen asked the same question too and his conclusion was that a lost person needs no grounds for anything. All they need is to know they are lost and undone they have an express promise from God that if they come to him by faith he will save them. They will discover later that they were elect, and that Christ died for them. Speculation about the extent of the atonement is not for them to worry about at that point.

 

[canadyjd]

Do you believe the atonement for sin, made by Jesus, is limited to those who believe?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Do you believe the atonement for sin, made by Jesus, is limited to those who believe?

peace to you

I think that is confusing tenses (it is a "trick" question).

Do you believe the atonement for sin, made by Jesus [past] , is limited [applies to past action] to those who believe [present]?

Put it this way.....did Jesus' death as an atonment apply to those who did not believe?

The answer is "yes, of course". It applied to you and me - before we believed we didn't believe.

 

[DaveXR650]

Do you believe the atonement for sin, made by Jesus, is limited to those who believe?

I only mean that at the time of Christ's dying, there was no aspect of his atonement that forever set those who would be saved vs those who would be lost. What that means is that for a person who has come to the point where they are beginning to think that this is all true, and beginning to understand what their condition is apart from Christ - one thing they do not have to worry about is whether or not Christ included them in the atonement. It is quite possible that the Calvinistic idea of the "L" or limited atonement may be exactly the right way to explain it. It's just that for the OP, they need to know that the theology of the extent of the atonement is not their problem.

 

[JonC]

I only mean that at the time of Christ's dying, there was no aspect of his atonement that forever set those who would be saved vs those who would be lost. What that means is that for a person who has come to the point where they are beginning to think that this is all true, and beginning to understand what their condition is apart from Christ - one thing they do not have to worry about is whether or not Christ included them in the atonement. It is quite possible that the Calvinistic idea of the "L" or limited atonement may be exactly the right way to explain it. It's just that for the OP, they need to know that the theology of the extent of the atonement is not their problem.

The problem you will run into (insofar as debating the issue) is classic Penal Substitution Theory.

Note - I added "classic" to Penal Substitution Theory because the theory has been toned down by some sects.


Here is what I mean:

If God punished Jesus for the sins of men in their place (paying a type of "sin debt") then Jesus has already received their Judgment in their stead.

If this is everybody then everybody is saved (Jesus was punished instead of them on the cross....it was accomplished in the past).

Therefore God only laid the sins of a select group of people on Christ, punished Him for their sins only, acquiring "forgiveness" for only those people.


I understand neither of us believe that accurate. But how are you going to argue against those who do?


This is why I agree with @Van about limited atonement and classic Penal Substitution Theory being inseparable. If one is correct then so is the other. All stops there and no additional debate is posdibke (only belief statements).

 

[DaveXR650]

This is why I agree with @Van about limited atonement and classic Penal Substitution Theory being inseparable.

James White even says they are inseparable. I don't agree with him because too many other theological schools of thought use penal substitution but don't teach limited atonement.

If this is everybody then everybody is saved (Jesus was punished instead of them on the cross....it was accomplished in the past).

Yep, that was Owen's argument against the Arminians. But other things Owen said make me wonder if he really believed that himself.

It makes it more difficult that Calvinists don't explain limited atonement that way either at least not always. They tend to say that Christ "is dead" for you and if you will come you will be saved. This is what the Marrow men did in the book "The Marrow of Modern Divinity". (They were deliberately being careful not to flat out tell people that Christ died for their sins.) It's also common to say that when Jesus died the Father had in mind specifically those who are elect yet the offer is truly and freely for everyone. Bunyan and Spurgeon did that and even Owen seemed to say that in other writings. Owen even said that the greatest sin and insult to God that a man can do is to refuse the offer of salvation and not believe. I would like to ask Owen how could that be if the man was truly not included in the atoning work of Christ in the first place.

 

[JonC]

James White even says they are inseparable. I don't agree with him because too many other theological schools of thought use penal substitution but don't teach limited atonement.

Yep, that was Owen's argument against the Arminians. But other things Owen said make me wonder if he really believed that himself.

It makes it more difficult that Calvinists don't explain limited atonement that way either at least not always. They tend to say that Christ "is dead" for you and if you will come you will be saved. This is what the Marrow men did in the book "The Marrow of Modern Divinity". (They were deliberately being careful not to flat out tell people that Christ died for their sins.) It's also common to say that when Jesus died the Father had in mind specifically those who are elect yet the offer is truly and freely for everyone. Bunyan and Spurgeon did that and even Owen seemed to say that in other writings. Owen even said that the greatest sin and insult to God that a man can do is to refuse the offer of salvation and not believe. I would like to ask Owen how could that be if the man was truly not included in the atoning work of Christ in the first place.

It depends on how you define Penal Substitution Theory.

James White uses the traditional theory. So Limited Atonement is necessary.

The reason is they view the atonement as being effective individually by God punishing Jesus instead of the person.

Think of it this way....if everybody owes me $1 and you pay me $500 instead of 500 people paying me then that payment only covers 500 people. Everybody else remains in debt.


It is a flawed philosophy, but if one believes it then limited atonement is necessary and no argument can be entertained.

The legitimate debate has to be much deeper (perhaps that $1 debt, or perhaps forgiveness).

 

[DaveXR650]

It is a flawed philosophy, but if one believes it then limited atonement is necessary and no argument can be entertained.

You are correct. It may be flawed but in answering a specific Arminian argument it is quite effective as a reply to a specific assertion they made. Namely, that Christ died for the sins of everyone in a completely equal manner. For White, and for Owen when he went up against the Arminians it sufficed because of the specific assertion they made.

Think of it this way....if everybody owes me $1 and you pay me $500 instead of 500 people paying me then that payment only covers 500 people. Everybody else remains in debt.

Charles Hodge talks about this line of reasoning in his systematic theology book chapter VIII I think. He refutes it and gives detailed reasoning which is way beyond the scope of this thread. For our purposes it is worth it just to quote him as saying " All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood".

It is in that sense that I say Christ died for everyone. However; in fairness to @canadyjd I must say that Hodge shows that the Augustinian system as he calls it, where Christ died for the specific purpose of redeeming an "elect" given to him by the Father, in no way harms the idea of an "offer" being open to anyone for salvation if they will close with Christ. That offer is just as real as any offer of an Arminian or semi-Pelagian, according to Hodge. Of course, you have to decide if you buy that or not. For me, I think the practical differences are of no real value for us at the level of laymen.

 

[JonC]

You are correct. It may be flawed but in answering a specific Arminian argument it is quite effective as a reply to a specific assertion they made. Namely, that Christ died for the sins of everyone in a completely equal manner. For White, and for Owen when he went up against the Arminians it sufficed because of the specific assertion they made.

Charles Hodge talks about this line of reasoning in his systematic theology book chapter VIII I think. He refutes it and gives detailed reasoning which is way beyond the scope of this thread. For our purposes it is worth it just to quote him as saying " All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood".

It is in that sense that I say Christ died for everyone. However; in fairness to @canadyjd I must say that Hodge shows that the Augustinian system as he calls it, where Christ died for the specific purpose of redeeming an "elect" given to him by the Father, in no way harms the idea of an "offer" being open to anyone for salvation if they will close with Christ. That offer is just as real as any offer of an Arminian or semi-Pelagian, according to Hodge. Of course, you have to decide if you buy that or not. For me, I think the practical differences are of no real value for us at the level of laymen.

Christ lay down His life for His church, His sheep. The problem comes in when we deny that all voukd be saved, that He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, etc.

As Spurgeon put it- some see one truth (here that Christ lay down His life for the chuch) and misapply it by applying it to every passage, thereby misunderstanding every passage except the ones dealing with the church.

 

[kyredneck]

It is in that sense that I say Christ died for everyone.

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. Ro 5

Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What does Hodge or Owen or Bunyan, etc., say this free gift of "justification of life" is?

 

[JonC]

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. Ro 5

Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What does Hodge or Owen or Bunyan, etc., say this free gift of "justification of life" is?

Good comparison (I don't think I've used that one before).

Through one trespass judgment came unto all men.

Through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men.

In both cases what came was to all men. So obviously that free gift did not equate to salvation for all men. But like the judgment, it came.

 

[kyredneck]

Good comparison (I don't think I've used that one before).

Babies in hell? | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

Babies In Hell 2 | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

[37818]

Babies in hell? | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

Babies In Hell 2 | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

Without looking at said links.
Bad theology.
The word of God teaches:
Matthew 18:3, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:14, But Jesus said, Allow little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[DaveXR650]

Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What does Hodge or Owen or Bunyan, etc., say this free gift of "justification of life" is?

Hodge, in his "Commentary on Romans" has a lot to say about it. But he takes about 100 pages and comes up with 8 different doctrinal principles after all the explanation. It's available on Kindle for 99 cents. I can tell you that the verse does not demolish or prove the extent of the atonement. That is not the purpose of that section of Romans.

 

[kyredneck]

I can tell you that the verse does not demolish or prove the extent of the atonement.

No, you CAN"T tell me that. You can only tell me Hodge's opinion, or only that he took 100 pages (sheesh) to explain it.

None of your commentators defines what this 'free gift of justification of life' that came to all men due to Christ's "one act of righteousness"?

 

[kyredneck]

Without looking at said links.

...then why even comment? If you bothered to take a look you'd know the threads revolve around the passage we're discussing.

Go away.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, you CAN"T tell me that. You can only tell me Owen's opinion, or only that he took 100 pages (sheesh) to explain it.

None of your commentators defines what this 'free gift of justification of life' that came to all men due to Christ's "one act of righteousness"?

If I said Owen, I apologize. I meant Hodge. And I can tell you that that was not the subject of his analysis of that passage. It was more about the idea of the imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I am sorry if that doesn't satisfy you but as far as I can remember, that was not the subject of Hodge's inquiry in that passage. If you keep running about spewing a verse here and there as a "gotcha" you will continue to look ignorant.

None of your commentators defines what this 'free gift of justification of life' that came to all men due to Christ's "one act of righteousness"?

They may very well define this. If I have time I will look into it further but I just can't recall right now. What is your point, if any?

 

[kyredneck]

If I said Owen, I apologize.

I was wrong, you said Hodge.

And I can tell you that that was not the subject of his analysis of that passage. It was more about the idea of the imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

??? That's not even in the context of Romans 5.

If you keep running about spewing a verse here and there as a "gotcha" you will continue to look ignorant.

Lol, it's a legit question that you're unable to answer. Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What was it?

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. Ro 5

 

[DaveXR650]

??? That's not even in the context of Romans 5.

Next time I see Hodge I'll tell him that. He needs to do a rewrite.

Lol, it's a legit question that you're unable to answer. Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What was it?

Ky. I'm not sure what you want me to say. I certainly believe the atonement did something for all men. It provided complete satisfaction to God's justice so that now, anyone who comes to God by Christ can be reconciled freely, with no barriers due to any sins they have committed. This is why I don't believe in a "limited atonement" the way many Calvinists teach the concept. They teach it as if at the time Christ died, millions were irrevocably shut out forever and it was set in stone that they would be lost not matter what.

What I am also saying though is that many Calvinists also teach that the atonement was universal in the above sense, but that God had his elect in mind when Christ died and thus had the intention of saving those and only those by bringing them to faith and repentance.

I admit that there are mental gyrations that everyone doesn't buy when they hear such an explanation as above. But if you go too far the other way, and make this into a scenario where Christ died equally and in the same way for everyone, and God has thus provided for all that is necessary for salvation, and it's totally up to each individual to get saved - Well, in that case you have demolished a lot of scripture that clearly indicates otherwise.

Personally, I have no problem telling someone Christ died for them. But I also believe they will not (can not) come to faith without the sovereign Holy Spirit intervening in their lives. That is different from the Provisionists or semi-Pelagians.