Limted Attonement

The teaching that Christ died only for the elect is commonly known as a belief in a "limited atonement" (some reformed men like to refer to it has "definite atonement"). It is the teaching that Christ died on the cross and paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect. He did not die for the ones who eventually will be in the lake of fire. Often it is worded as follows: "Christ died for all men WITHOUT DISTINCTION but He did not die for all men WITHOUT EXCEPTION." This is a subtle game of semantics which makes it possible for them to say that He died for all without really meaning that he died for all. What they really mean is that Christ died for all kinds of people and all classes of people, but He did not die for every single person. That is, He died for Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, slave and free, male and female, etc., but it is understood that He died for only elect Jews and Gentiles, only elect rich and poor, etc.

Dr. Paul Reiter has clearly and simply summarized the Scriptural teaching on this issue. FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE? HE DIED...

1. For all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).
2. For every man (Heb. 2:9).
3. For the world (John 3:16).
4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
5. For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
7. For many (Matthew 20:28).
8. For Israel (John 11:50-51).
9. For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
10. For "me" (Gal. 2:20).

One believer who was not committed to the belief that Christ died for all men made this remarkable concession: "If Christ really did die for all men then I don't know how the Bible could say it any clearer than it does." How true!

It is evident that the extreme Calvinist must ignore the clear language and obvious sense of many passages and he must force the Scriptures and make them fit into his own theological mold. Limited atonement may seem logical and reasonable, but the real test is this: IS IT BIBLICAL? "What saith the Scriptures?" (Romans 4:3). In child-like faith we must simply allow the Bible to say what it says.

Those who promote this erroneous doctrine try to tell us that "world" does not really mean "world"' and "all" does not really mean "all" and "every man" does not really mean "every man" and "the whole world" does not really mean "the whole world." We are told that simple verses such as John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:6 must be understood not as a child would understand them but as a theologian would understand them. That is, we must re-interpret such verses in light of our system of theology.

The true doctrine of the atonement could be stated as follows: The Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God involved the sin of the world (John 1:29) and that the Saviour's work of redemption (1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Pet. 2:1), reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and propitiation (1 John 2:2) was for all men (1 Timothy 4:10), but the cross-work of Christ is efficient, effectual and applicable only for those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10; John 3:16). We could even say it in a simpler way: "Christ's death was SUFFICIENT FOR ALL but EFFICIENT only for those who believe." The cross-work of Christ is not limited but the application of that cross-work through the work of the Holy Spirit is limited to believers only

'The extreme Calvinist would say that the cross was designed only for the elect and had no purpose for the "non-elect" (persistent unbelievers). But the death of God's Son had a divine purpose and design for both groups. For the elect, God's design was salvation according to His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13). For unbelievers, God's purpose and design is to render the unbeliever without excuse. Men are CONDEMNED because they have rejected the Person and WORK of Jesus Christ and refused God's only remedy for sin (John 3:18; 5:40). Unbelievers can never say that a provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They can never stand before God and say, "The reason I am not saved is because Christ did not die for me." No, the reason they are not saved is because they rejected the One who died for them and who is the Saviour of all men (1 Tim. 4:10). They are without excuse.

This issue is not merely academic. It is extremely practical. It affects the very heart of the gospel and its presentation. The gospel which Paul preached to the unsaved people of Corinth was this: "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Do we really have a gospel of good news for all men (compare Luke 2:10-11)? In preaching the gospel, what can we say to an unsaved person? Can we say, "My friend, the Lord Jesus Christ died for you. He paid the penalty for your sins. He died as your Substitute"?

One reformed writer said this:

"But counselors, as Christians, are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of His own, that He bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all whom the Father had given to Him might come unto Him and have life everlasting. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, FOR THEY CANNOT SAY THAT. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for whom He died" [emphasis mine] (Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 70).

As C.H. Mackintosh has said, "A disciple of the high school of doctrine [extreme Calvinist] will not hear of a world-wide gospel--of God's love to the world--of glad tidings to every creature under heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect."

If the reformed preacher were really honest about it, he would need to preach his doctrine along these lines: "Christ may have died for your sins. If you are one of God's elect, then He died for you, but if not, then you have no Saviour. I cannot tell you that Christ died on the cross for you because I don't know this for sure. If you believe the gospel then this proves that you are one of God's elect, and then it is proper to speak of Christ dying for you."

What an insult to the God "who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). The Apostle Paul was not so handicapped when he preached the gospel to the unsaved Corinthians. He clearly proclaimed that "Christ died for our sins [yours and mine!]." If Paul could preach that message, so should we and so must we!

Copy and past from website listed below...
Dangers of Teaching Limited Attonement

 

There are 10 scriptural refrences listed in the original post. Who of the calvinistic persuasion will deal with them...

 

Being that it does not say all sorts of people, is there a slight possibility that it just means exactly what it says.

But no refrence is made to "all my people". Why should we go outside the passage to determine what it says. "Us All, means; Us All. When do we leave scripture to say what it says. See how we are manipulatling the context of scripture to make it conform to our preconceptions. This ought not be done...

Is the writer illiterate. Do not change one jot or tittle. Leave the passage alone. It says what it says. If he intended that we understand it to refer to a special group, i trust that he had that ability.

It does not speak of a loving act, it speaks of the unlimited loving condition that God has towards the whole world. Out of context it could be extended to include animals, birds, reptiles,everything in the world. But the word "all" left no possibilities for the word to mean less than "All"

See how you have to mold the passage to fit your docturine. Christ did for the ungodly, now without any problem, that includes your so called elect, yet nothing in the passage allows for the exclusion of anyone else.

See how you have to mold or manipulate each passage, not one; all of them. This tells me that you should, at a minimum, cause you to be suspicious of your conclusions.

Can you not see why, at a minimum, i should be skeptical of your conclusions.

[ September 30, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

How do we place a passage into context; and how do we take one out of context??? As you will see, to put 1 Timothy 1:6 into context we have to: Because of the word “therefore” we have to Go back to 1 Timothy 1:19 & 20. in order to pick up the context in which it is spoken.
1 Tim 1:19-20
19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

In these two passages, we find Timothy speaking concerning Hymenaeus and Alexander; Who have been delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. In 2:1, Timothy says, “I exhort therefore that, first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men:

Timothy is telling them not to limit their prayers for these two, but not only are they to pray for them, but they are to pray for all men. The word all is put into a perspective that means “all men”.
1 Tim 2:1-6
1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

Verse 2, says all in authority. Timothy is now specifically including “all” men that are in authority. Which is certain to include some that are saved and some that are not saved. Can you not see that when “all” is limited; the scriptures limit all.
2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Again, it says, “all men” it is not limited to all good men, all tall men, all that are in authority. In order to be included here, all you have to be is a man. Not all that are the elect, nor all that are chosen, the bible does not say that. It specifically says “all men”. That’s what it means, “all men”.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Again, here we have the stamp of approval on “all men&#8221,meaning "all men". One God, one mediator between God and men. Do we have a mediator between God and the good, that is not also the mediator between God and the bad? Is there one mediator between God and the chosen and God and the not chosen. There is but one mediator between God and men. ALL MEN.

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Christ gave himself to be a ransom for “all men”. He is therefore the judge of the quick and the dead. Why? Because he paid the price that could redeem all men, his is now free to judge them as he pleases.

Yet his very own nature prevents him from acting unjustly towards any. Christ is not only the judge of those that are saved, he is the judge of those a that are lost also. Yet he does not judge another man’s servants. Which should cast some doubt on your assertion that some belong to Christ and others do not. We all belong to Christ, the quick and the dead. You are of your father the devil, does not preclude Christ judging them.

There are many possibilities when we go past what is actually stated in scripture. Could be extended to mean all big ones, or ugly ones, or all fat ones. But if we stick with scripture, it simply says, “All”.

You are correct, it cannot be scripturally forced to include any one but Isaiah and his people. If it is to be extended, it has to be done within the pages of scripture. Here ya go..

Matt 8:17
17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. (KJV)

Rom 5:6
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. (KJV)
Nevertheless, that it is extended without exception to the ungodly is specific. It cannot be limited to just the elect unless only the elect were ungodly…

Blessings:
Chappie.
A Christian….

[ September 30, 2002, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

Pastor Larry.
Respectfully I ask, would you please point me to the post in question and perhaps briefly expose the misrepresentations so that I might gain a better understanding???

 

Does Calvinism use John 3:16 to affirm this belief?

I believe that his atonement was for the whole world, yet it is rendered salvific through faith. The fact that christ dies for all men is instrumental to his being the judge of all men. (saved and unsaved)

Pastor, I am a firm believer in the trueism, that says action speaks louder than words. So if under calvinistic theology, Christ does care, and we know that love is a word of action rather than emotion; this creates a question for me.

You say that Christ did not die for them, chose not to save them, did not call them, nor draw them, did not cause them to believe: Might I ask; what did he do to demonstrate his love towards them?