Analogy for limited attonement

[Dale-c]

I do not claim to be a scholar but I have studied the doctrine of salvation to some extent and I just can't figure out how anyone could deny the sovereign grace of God.

4 of the points of Calvanism seem quite solid to me but one isn't an that is limited attonement.
It seems that on the one hand God only intended to save those whom he predestined (and that word IS in the Bible!)

The way I have seen it is like when you go to an amusement park.

The price of admission is sufficient for all of the rides.

When you go, you know you are going to ride a certian number of rides, specific rides but the nature of the ticket was such that you had paid the price to ride all that you you wanted to.

Does this sound reasonable to any of you?

I am not being dogmatic on this, I am really trying to learn.

 

[LeBuick]

I believe it's like going to the amusement park, and every ride you walk up to, you find the price was all ready paid.

You might even say you're a guest of the park's owner and creator.

 

[2BHizown]

Limited Atonement

I am not being dogmatic on this, I am really trying to learn.

Now that is very refreshing here and with such an attitude God will surely lead you to His whole truth!

Its a matter of what happened on the cross. Did Christ's death on the cross actually secure salvation for some people OR did it just make salvation a possibility for all people? Which is true?

The doctrine that Jesus died for the elect in particular, securing their redemption, but not for the world, is seen as biblical because in the bible there is a qualification as to who will benefit by the death of Christ, thus limiting its effect. Christ is said to have died for "his sheep"(John 10:11,15), "his Church"(Acts 20:28), "the elect"(Rom. 8:32-35), and "his people"(Matt. 1:21)

Had God intended for all to be saved by the death of Christ, then all would be saved, for His purpose never fails. Obviously all are not saved as the bible clearly teaches that those who reject Christ are lost. Therefore Christ could not have died for everyone, because not everyone is saved.

If Christ died for everyone, God would be unfair in sending people to hell for their own sins. No law court allows payment to be exacted twice for the same crime, and God will not do that either.
Christ paid for the sins of the elect; the lost will pay for their own sins.

To say that Christ died for the sins of all leads to universalism.
To say that Christ died only to make salvation possible would leave open the question whether 'anyone' is saved. God's designs are not just possibilities but are actualities and truly secured salvation for those of His choice. The bible clearly teaches that the death of Jesus actually secures salvation for His people, making it a certainty and limiting the atonement. Rom 5:10, 2 Cor 5:21, Gal 1:4, 3:13, Eph 1:7

There are no conditions to be met in order to be saved, not even an act of faith; both faith and repentance are secured for those for whom Christ died. If Christ died for all, then all would have faith and repentance and certainly all do not have faith and repentance!

Therefore, Christs death could have been intended ONLY for those who will repent and believe, namely the elect!

 

[J.D.]

I do not claim to be a scholar but I have studied the doctrine of salvation to some extent and I just can't figure out how anyone could deny the sovereign grace of God.

4 of the points of Calvanism seem quite solid to me but one isn't an that is limited attonement.
It seems that on the one hand God only intended to save those whom he predestined (and that word IS in the Bible!)

The way I have seen it is like when you go to an amusement park.

The price of admission is sufficient for all of the rides.

When you go, you know you are going to ride a certian number of rides, specific rides but the nature of the ticket was such that you had paid the price to ride all that you you wanted to.

Does this sound reasonable to any of you?

I am not being dogmatic on this, I am really trying to learn.

Hello Dale, and nice job on that reply 2BHizown. I just posted something on another thread about this subject - see the thread "A tough verse for calvinists" - basically, I think the sufficiency/efficiency argument is true, and your illustration is good to describe it if we take the general admission to be sufficiency and particular rides to be efficiency. But the analogy breaks down quickly from there. See my "door" analogy and let me know what you think.

Now I know there's someone out there that's saying "J.D., you put down my argument on sufficiency, so what's this all about?" Well let me clarify - I believe that sufficiency/efficiency is a sound argument, it's just that we calvinists, in order to come to full appreciation of the doctrine, need to focus not on the "L", as in what the atonement does not do, but rather on the "D" (definite atonement), as in what the atonement actually DOES for us, and the joy and comfort it should sprout in our hearts.

 

[Dale-c]

I believe that sufficiency/efficiency is a sound argument, it's just that we calvinists, in order to come to full appreciation of the doctrine, need to focus not on the "L", as in what the atonement does not do, but rather on the "D" (definite atonement), as in what the atonement actually DOES for us, and the joy and comfort it should sprout in our hearts.

This leading to a secure salvation.

I have noticed that even those who believe in eternal security but believe they must come to Christ themselves (without the drawing of God) tend to be very insecure.
Wondering if they really "did it the right way"
etc.

 

[J.D.]

This leading to a secure salvation.

I have noticed that even those who believe in eternal security but believe they must come to Christ themselves (without the drawing of God) tend to be very insecure.
Wondering if they really "did it the right way"
etc.

Very perceptive. When God does the saving, it's always done the right way. When man does the saving, it's always the wrong way.