Both Camps Limit The...

[TCGreek]

Both camps limit the Atonement of Christ:

1. The Arminians say that the Atonement was for every person who would have lived and yet some end up in Hell for whom Christ died. In a sense, a limit has been placed on the Atonement of Christ.

2. The Calvinists say that the Atonement for only for the elect and it is for them Christ died and not every person who would have lived. This is properly called particular or definite Atonement.

 

[npetreley]

That's not entirely true. Some free-willers claim that all sins are atoned for, and people go to hell only because they do not believe, not because of their sins (I guess the sin of unbelief is the only one that isn't covered by the blood of Jesus). This makes no sense to me at all, but I've seen it argued here on BB.

 

[TCGreek]

1. To argue like that, they are still limiting the atonement, for unbelief is clearly a sin (Heb 3:12).

2. This limiting is unavoidable.

 

[saturneptune]

1. To argue like that, they are still limiting the atonement, for unbelief is clearly a sin (Heb 3:12).

2. This limiting is unavoidable.

Very good points TC. It has to do with Who is in control of the limiting.

 

[JustChristian]

Both camps limit the Atonement of Christ:

1. The Arminians say that the Atonement was for every person who would have lived and yet some end up in Hell for whom Christ died. In a sense, a limit has been placed on the Atonement of Christ.

2. The Calvinists say that the Atonement for only for the elect and it is for them Christ died and not every person who would have lived. This is properly called particular or definite Atonement.

The Atonement for free will believers is limited by the choice of an individual who has both alternatives to chose from, eternal life or eternal death and separation from God. Calvinists say that the Atonement is limited by God and nobody has this choice.

 

[Helen]

The sin of unbelief has been atoned for, but not forgiven. It is the personal relationship that has to do with salvation. That personal relationship was made possible by the legal justification involved in atonement, accomplished by Christ's sacrifice. But that did not accomplish salvation for anyone. It made salvation possible for everyone, however, as John states clearly: "His 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)

Hebrews tells us Christ died once for all. Period. Christ tells us God so loved the WORLD. Peter tells us God is not willing that one should perish.

So yes, atonement is for all sin for all time. Even unbelief.

But that has nothing to so with salvation except make it possible, and those who refuse to believe Jesus is God are refusing a personal relationship with Him, which is what heaven is all about (John 17:3). Thus they never confess or repent and thus are never forgiven.

But don't confuse atonement with forgiveness.

 

[TCGreek]

But that has nothing to so with salvation except make it possible, and those who refuse to believe Jesus is God are refusing a personal relationship with Him, which is what heaven is all about (John 17:3)

Emphasis mine

1. So Christ's atonement is only potential in its efficacy? Interesting!

2. So When Christ said He was going to die for His sheep, He was only speaking potentially. Interesting!

 

[canadyjd]

Which is why so many slide into universalism. Since the atonement is for everyone, everyone goes to heaven. It is the only logical (?) end to unlimited atonement.

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

Both camps limit the Atonement of Christ:

1. The Arminians say that the Atonement was for every person who would have lived and yet some end up in Hell for whom Christ died. In a sense, a limit has been placed on the Atonement of Christ.

2. The Calvinists say that the Atonement for only for the elect and it is for them Christ died and not every person who would have lived. This is properly called particular or definite Atonement.

The Atonement is not limited since it must be done in accordance with Law for ALL. (The Atonement was made for ALL of Israel but not all of Israel was saved) However the propitiatory merit of it is limited to those who by faith recieve it.

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The Atonement had to satify The Law in order to be an acceptable sacrifice, which means it was done on behalf of all mankind but not that it is automatically imparted to anyone. Just as the Atonement was made for all of Israel, we know that not all of Israel were believers/saved. Because they to had to believe just as we do and is the reason we are all people of faith.
The propitiation was not only for our sins (believers) but for the sins of the Whole World.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

So the Atonement is not limited but as I stated earlier, the propitiatory merit of it is limited to those who by faith recieve it, as shown in Rom 3:24-26. (and many others but these are specific)

In Short - Atonement is not limited but Redemption is.

 

[Allan]

Which is why so many slide into universalism. Since the atonement is for everyone, everyone goes to heaven. It is the only logical (?) end to unlimited atonement.

peace to youraying:

A sad falacy usually believed by those who don't know much about it. It is often said but never true.

 

[Allan]

I will add this, if I may regarding those who scripture says are followers of the Anti-Christ who are most definately condemned we find they are condemned because they rejected the truth that could have saved them. How could it have saved them (who are most definately destined for destruction) if Christ died ONLY for a certian amount of people?

Lets look at it in 2 Thes.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Now granted this is about those who will follow the Anti-Christ but there is no better text in scripture to establish my point. I mean these followers of his are already known to be destined for an eternal hell.

First - If salvation was purchased for a 'limited' number only then no man who was not regarded as one of that number can be said to be even 'potentially' saved. The Gospel call is not regard as anything before God for that individual regarding salvation for them.

Second - If God compels or irresistably draws men then no man can reject the truth God reveals. If a person knows saving truth it is only because God has revealed it since the natural man can not know spiritual things.

Third - If God chose some (the Redeemed) NOT by any foreknowledge of choice then all men whom Christ will not die for are already condemned regardless of unbelief and that belief or unbelief has no significance with regard to Gods choosing.

Now in verse 10 we find some interesting things.
1. - The scrpture states the anti-christ will use all types of deception on those who [are] perishing or [will] perish. NEXT the scripture says WHY they are destined to perish. Does it stat they perish because God did not chose them regardless of belief? No, but here is what it begins with - BECAUSE or DUE TO THIS - here is the reason they will perish, be damned, or condemned to God's Judgment - wrath and Hell.
THEY RECEIVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH...
The term 'received' is not in the Passive voice (meaning God does this to or in them) but is in the Middle Deponent which is almost always used in the Active voice (meaning the subject such as 'they' is the doer). It was 'THEIR' choice NOT to receive. You might ask me where I saw a choice. First in the fact 'they' did not 'receive' or (take to themselves - to learn, like John 6:45). and Second is found in #2.

2. ...THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED. Now here is a very strange thing to say if Christ did not die for them. If God did not choose them they CAN NOT even be considered 'potentially' or remotely 'hypothetically' saved. And yet the text reads
"in them that perish BECAUSE they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved". Apparently receiving truth is connected to salvation. Many Calvinists would agree as do I. But were we differ is in the FACT scripture states THEY PERISH BECAUSE...They did not receive the love of the Truth...that could save them.

3. If Christ did not die for them then this verse is a farce, and a false declaration by God Himself. He does not state they perish because they were not chosen regardless of belief or that their damnation has nothing to do with their choice, but that they perish becuase they WOULD NOT not COULD NOT beleive the truth and that THEY (who to some were pre-ordained to perish and have no hope of salvation) might BE SAVED. and if that isn't enough God goes after this truth again in the next verse


Quote:
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

'For this cause' - what cause or for what reason (not believing the truth that could save them) ... God shall send them a strong delusion that they will believe a lie. They chose the Lie over the Truth and for THEIR CHOOSING God sends forth His Judgment against them for their rejection of truth or The Truth (Jesus).
Now listen to how God closes this:

2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

So far we have these people rejecting the truth (Christ Jesus) that could save them. Then God sends forth a Judgment of delusion (blindness) AFTER rejecting the truth that they will continue believing the lie. BUT NOW...
NOW, we see something interesting regarding their condemnation or damnation. For God states He sent that delusion (blindness) after their rejection of the Truth that they might be saved, SO THEY MIGHT ALL BE DAMNED... Notice please their damnation was not sealed until they rejected the truth that COULD HAVE SAVED THEM. If you don't believe me just read the rest of the sentence. God DAMNS (condemns to judgment) those who rejected and did not believe the Truth (Jesus), but had pleasure in their unrighteousness. Notice they are condemned by their choice.

They were not hated and condemned by God who passed over them and did not provide a means of salvation for them like some declare. According to these passages of scripture it was their choice that determined in the eyes of God their relationship with Him - whether in unity and Love or seperated and under condemnation. Thus Gods chosing us unto Himself IS or does have some basis in us believing His Truth.

And for those who might still try to state, the reason they did not beleive is because they were not 'irresistably draw'. Then I ask you:
If a person has the potential of being saved must they not be draw by God?
And if God draws them how can they harden their hearts, or reject His truth THAT COULD SAVE THEM since salvation is only possible for limited?
And lastly how can the scriptures declare of the followers of the anti-christ, "that they might be saved"?


I know this seems off topic and if you (TCG) deem it so then it will die here. But I think it is somewhat relevent and so I set it forth. Do with it what you choose brother.

 

[Allan]

Emphasis mine

1. So Christ's atonement is only potential in its efficacy? Interesting!

2. So When Christ said He was going to die for His sheep, He was only speaking potentially. Interesting!

So TCG, how could the followers of the Anti-Christ potentially have been saved if they had not rejected the Truth that could have saved them. - Interesting indeed.
I simply use this as an example because it goes completely against view of Limited Atonement if those who are known to be condemned (future) could have been saved AT ALL - even hypothetically.

Could it be that Christ was speaking specifically of those who would be of faith and therefore the recipients of His Atoning sacrifice for all the world.

John is specific in his usage of the term 'world' and it is never used for the elect alone. But more specifically his usage of the phrase 'whole world' which means every sinful and wicked man (not the already redeemed).

 

[canadyjd]

A sad falacy usually believed by those who don't know much about it. It is often said but never true.

Are you saying it is a "sad fallacy" that many of those who hold universalist views of salvation, do so based on their belief in a universal atonement?

If that is not where they get their universalist views salvation, where do they get them? Please enlighten me.

peace to youraying:

 

[David Lamb]

The sin of unbelief has been atoned for, but not forgiven....

So yes, atonement is for all sin for all time. Even unbelief....

But don't confuse atonement with forgiveness.

Helen, what scripture would you use to back up your idea that there are sins which are atoned for but not forgiven? Atonement is reconciliation. Are you saying that everyone is reconciled to God, even those who are not saved?

 

[EdSutton]

Helen, what scripture would you use to back up your idea that there are sins which are atoned for but not forgiven? Atonement is reconciliation. Are you saying that everyone is reconciled to God, even those who are not saved?

Well, I'm not Helen. You can probably tell this because my beard is too long.

:laugh: :laugh:

But in answer to your first question, how about I John 1:5 - 2:2? And you might compare that with Hebrews 7-10.

Ed

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Both camps limit the Atonement of Christ:

1. The Arminians say that the Atonement was for every person who would have lived and yet some end up in Hell for whom Christ died. In a sense, a limit has been placed on the Atonement of Christ.

2. The Calvinists say that the Atonement for only for the elect and it is for them Christ died and not every person who would have lived. This is properly called particular or definite Atonement.

I think this is a silly post and only serves to placate the need to assigned people who reject the error of Limited Atonement the label of Limited Atonement is some fashion. It is unnecessarily provocative and poorly thought out.

It reminds of of a 6 year old who says 2+2 doesn't always = 4 when there is a -2 or that just because a man weighs 200 lbs doesn't mean he weighs 200 lbs...when he is on the moon. It is just a childish attempt to diminish opposing views.

In the context of humanity is how unlimited and limited atonement is defined. Limited means limited to only those that believe, unlimited means all humanity. Beyond that trying to redefine and recontextualize the argument is a game with words.

 

[Allan]

Are you saying it is a "sad fallacy" that many of those who hold universalist views of salvation, do so based on their belief in a universal atonement?

If that is not where they get their universalist views salvation, where do they get them? Please enlighten me.

peace to youraying:

Because you take an asumptive LEAP to say "It is the only logical (?) end to unlimited atonement". Which is no different than me saying Hyper-Calvinism is the only logical end of Calvinism. Since both unbiblical ends begin with the truth (in either camp) that does not necessitate that we must end up at unbiblical conclusions just because of where one of them begin.

Is it not the logical conclusion that if one believes Calvinism one will become a Hyper as well? Of course not and neither is it regarding the biblical position of Universal Atonement.

BTW - Unviseralist are not called such just because they believe the Atonement is universal. Their entire system of interpretation and beliefs which they adhere to culminate in their unbiblical view of Atonement (that it was not only made for all but APPLIED TO ALL), and so it is not just because of the term 'universal'. Surely you know this!

 

[David Lamb]

Well, I'm not Helen. You can probably tell this because my beard is too long.

:laugh: :laugh:

But in answer to your first question, how about I John 1:5 - 2:2? And you might compare that with Hebrews 7-10.

Ed

Yes, Ed, the beard did give it away! :laugh:

Seriously, though, 1 John and Hebrews were written to Christians. And besides, neither passage says that sins can be atoned for without being forgiven.

 

[swaimj]

Alex Quackenbush said:

I think this is a silly post and only serves to placate the need to assigned people who reject the error of Limited Atonement the label of Limited Atonement is some fashion. It is unnecessarily provocative and poorly thought out.

It reminds of of a 6 year old who says 2+2 doesn't always = 4 when there is a -2 or that just because a man weighs 200 lbs doesn't mean he weighs 200 lbs...when he is on the moon. It is just a childish attempt to diminish opposing views.

In the context of humanity is how unlimited and limited atonement is defined. Limited means limited to only those that believe, unlimited means all humanity. Beyond that trying to redefine and recontextualize the argument is a game with words.

Thanks, Alex. You have responded, not by entertaining the question (it doesn't even deserve a response), but by pointing out that the question is silly. I applaud you.:applause:

 

[webdog]

Helen, what scripture would you use to back up your idea that there are sins which are atoned for but not forgiven? Atonement is reconciliation. Are you saying that everyone is reconciled to God, even those who are not saved?

Do you agree that everyone in the OT that had a sacrificial atonement made on their behalf will be saved?