I am wondering how those who believe in limited atonement would interpret 1 John 2:1-2, My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Interpretation of 1 Jn 2:1-2
- Thread starter gb93433
- Start date
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/appendix_04.htm
In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world", he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51,52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die". Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John’s:
1 John 2:2
John 11:51, 52
"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins".
"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that) nation".
"And not for ours only".
"And not for that nation only".
"But also for the whole world"— That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the) earth.
"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad".
In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody". There could be no "also" if He is the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of verse 2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." Confirmatory of "not for ours (Jewish believers) only, but also for the whole world"—Gentile believers, too; compare John 10:16; 17:20.
In the sixth place, our definition of "the whole world" is in perfect accord with other passages in the New Testament. For example: "Whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:5, 6). Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all the human family heard the Gospel? No; the apostle’s obvious meaning is that, the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea, had gone abroad, without restraint, into Gentile lands. So in Romans 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world". The apostle is here referring to the faith of these Roman saints being spoken of in a way of commendation. But certainly all mankind did not so speak of their faith! It was the whole world of believers that he was referring to! In Revelation 12:9 we read of Satan "which deceiveth the whole world". But again this expression cannot be understood as a universal one, for Matthew 24:24 tells us that Satan does not and cannot "deceive" God’s elect. Here it is "the whole world" of unbelievers.
In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.
However men may quibble and wrest the Scriptures, one thing is certain: The Atonement is no failure. God will not allow that precious and costly sacrifice to fail in accomplishing, completely, that which it was designed to effect. Not a drop of that holy blood was shed in vain. In the last great Day there shall stand forth no disappointed and defeated Saviour, but One who "shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied" (Isa. 53:11). These are not our words, but the infallible assertion of Him who declares, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 64:10). Upon this impregnable rock we take our stand. Let others rest on the sands of human speculation and twentieth-century theorizing if they wish. That is their business. But to God they will yet have to render an account. For our part we had rather be railed at as a narrow-minded, out-of-date, hyper-Calvinist, than be found repudiating God’s truth by reducing the Divinely-efficacious atonement to a mere fiction.
In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world", he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51,52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die". Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John’s:
1 John 2:2
John 11:51, 52
"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins".
"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that) nation".
"And not for ours only".
"And not for that nation only".
"But also for the whole world"— That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the) earth.
"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad".
In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. If Christ is the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody". There could be no "also" if He is the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of verse 2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." Confirmatory of "not for ours (Jewish believers) only, but also for the whole world"—Gentile believers, too; compare John 10:16; 17:20.
In the sixth place, our definition of "the whole world" is in perfect accord with other passages in the New Testament. For example: "Whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world" (Col. 1:5, 6). Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all the human family heard the Gospel? No; the apostle’s obvious meaning is that, the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea, had gone abroad, without restraint, into Gentile lands. So in Romans 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world". The apostle is here referring to the faith of these Roman saints being spoken of in a way of commendation. But certainly all mankind did not so speak of their faith! It was the whole world of believers that he was referring to! In Revelation 12:9 we read of Satan "which deceiveth the whole world". But again this expression cannot be understood as a universal one, for Matthew 24:24 tells us that Satan does not and cannot "deceive" God’s elect. Here it is "the whole world" of unbelievers.
In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ is the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.
However men may quibble and wrest the Scriptures, one thing is certain: The Atonement is no failure. God will not allow that precious and costly sacrifice to fail in accomplishing, completely, that which it was designed to effect. Not a drop of that holy blood was shed in vain. In the last great Day there shall stand forth no disappointed and defeated Saviour, but One who "shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied" (Isa. 53:11). These are not our words, but the infallible assertion of Him who declares, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 64:10). Upon this impregnable rock we take our stand. Let others rest on the sands of human speculation and twentieth-century theorizing if they wish. That is their business. But to God they will yet have to render an account. For our part we had rather be railed at as a narrow-minded, out-of-date, hyper-Calvinist, than be found repudiating God’s truth by reducing the Divinely-efficacious atonement to a mere fiction.
Last edited by a moderator:
The scriptures clearly show the atonement was made for all men.
Lev 16:33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.
Did all the Jews believe? No, but the atonement was made for every single person of the congregation.
2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
This verse speaks of lost persons, persons who are teaching "damnable heresies" and yet the Lord "bought them".
To believe in Limited Atonement you must ignore many verses of scripture that teach Christ died for all men.
1 Tim 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
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.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Winman,
You said this;
Not at all. To understand the atonement we must understand the biblical teaching by looking at the perfection of the cross. We do not panic or over-react to a few verses that speak of, world,all,bought, everyone,everyman.
Winman everyone "limits the atonement". No christian believes everyone is saved. Their is no redemption for fallen angels.
Jesus said many will be commanded to-depart from Him..Mt.7:21-24
We believe Jesus perfectly saves every single person given to Him to save.
He does not make them savable, he actually saves them on purpose.They do not save themselves.
He does not try and save.....but cannot.The very idea of such failure is an offence.
If you say that Jesus dies for any person who is then lost....your position would say that salvation is not of God. Something must be added to the work of the cross. You do not want to defend that teaching would you?
We are working through these issues on an atonement thread. Allan has been doing the heavy lifting so far. You are welcome to come in and help us work through these things.
Here is a link that provides some good sources to consider;enjoy
http://www.the-highway.com/2Pet2.1.html
http://www.the-highway.com/atonement.html
http://www.the-highway.com/atonement.html
Last edited by a moderator:
CHAPTER VI
"OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED"
I. SCRIPTURES WHICH SEEM TO TEACH UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION
Universal redemptionists object to the doctrine of particular redemption on several grounds. The main arguments seem to be based on Scriptures which seem to teach universal redemption, passages which seem to indicate a possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died and the indiscriminate offer of the gospel to all.1
It is objected that those who believe in the doctrine of the limited atonement place a limitation on such words as "all," "whomsoever," and "world" when used in passages related to the atonement.2 It is true that some expositors have sometimes distorted certain passages in order to make them fit their rigid system of doctrine.3 However, if the general tenor of Scripture teaches limited atonement it is not necessary to defend Scripture against Scripture. Calvin, it is said, was very fair-minded in expounding the Bible. For instance, he refused to build an argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, even though the word for God (elohim) is in the plural in the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1. Likewise, in dealing with certain passages which might seem to be in disagreement with his system of doctrine, he was very fair and gave the proper sense of the passage.4 One cannot help admiring such an attitude. Yet Lightner objects that "Calvin himself says that all equals all kinds, all classes, taking some of each, but not all in the sense of every individual."5
One passage cited as being misused by limited redemptionists is Hebrews 2:9,
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.
The main teaching of this verse is not the extent of the atonement, but the humiliation and subsequent exhaltation of Christ. The nature of His humiliation was suffering and death. The nature of His death as set forth in this verse was substitutionary. The word "man", it must be noted, is not in the original. Literally, it reads "should taste death for every." The context shows that He tasted death in order to bring "many sons" to glory. (verse 10) Those for whom He experienced death will never experience the second death. (Rev. 20:6) If Christ died in the stead of some men, and the, after all, they should perish, this would mean that God required a double payment, first at the hand of the Surety, and then at the hand of the sinner.
If Christ's death is in reality a substitutionary, vicarious death, it saves all for whom it was exercised and no other. If Christ really died in the place of those who are saved, it follows that He died in the place only of those who are saved. Christ could not bear the sins of men without actually saving them.6
Barnes says the words "for every man" mean "for each and all?whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, high or low, elect or non-elect."7 He affirms that the atonement was unlimited in its nature and design.
If the atonement was unlimited in its design, this means that God designed to save all men by the atonement; if not, it means that God gave His Son in vain for those whom He knew would never be saved. Either way, according to this view, God was unable to accomplish that which He proposed to do. Unlimited redemptionists being their preconceived system of doctrine to the Bible, find some verses that seem to be favorable to their system, and try to make them to militate against the rest of the whole teaching of Scripture. If some Calvinists have been guilty of forcing a meaning into certain passages of Scripture never intended, the Arminians are at least equally guilty.
Another verse said to be wrested by those who believe in limited atonement is Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men."8 This verse can be read thusly: "The grace of God which brings salvation to all men has been revealed."9 Barnes, a believer in the general atonement, says "it means that the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of men."10 He cannot say that it is revealed to all men without exception, for it is certain that it has not been. Yet, he says that Christ died for all men without exception and that the atonement was unlimited in its design and nature. But, in his comments on John 3:18, Barnes notes that men are condemned for unbelief, whether they hear the gospel or not.11 Owen remarks that, according to the Arminians, God makes an atonement and then mocks those for whom it was made in that He condemns them for rejecting that of which they never heard.12
It is commonly objected by Arminians that "the Lord is not willing that any should perish."13 Usually this verse (II Peter 3:9) is not quoted in its entirety. Actually, this verse teaches that the Lord "is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish." Even though it be applied to all men without exception, it teaches no more than God's good will to all His creatures and His long-suffering. One does not have to believe in unconditional reprobation in order to believe in particular redemption.14
Again, it is urged that God "is the Saviour of all men."15 (I Tim. 4:10) In what sense is He the Saviour of all men, seeing some perish? In a special sense He is the Saviour of His people (Mt. 1:21), for He "saves His people from their sins." In a limited sense He is the Saviour, or Deliverer of even the non-elect, for He preserves them and delivers them in a temporal sense as long as it shall please Him to continue to do. 16
It is also objected that I Timothy 2:6 teaches universal redemption: He "gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 17 Concerning this Owens says that "the Scripture nowhere saith Christ died for all men, much less for all and every man." He goes on to say,
It is true, Christ is said to give his life a ransom for all but nowhere for all men. And because it is affirmed expressly in other places that he died for many, for his church, for them that believe, for the children that God gave him, for us, some of all sorts, though not expressly, yet clearly in terms equivalent, Rev. 5:9-10, it must be clearly proved that where all is mentioned that it cannot be taken for all believers, all his elect, his whole church, all the children that God gave him, some of all sorts, before a universal affirmative can be thence concluded.18
The whole verse teaches that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due (its own) time." Christ is not a Mediator for every man without exception. Owen states that:
For whom Christ died, for them he is a mediator, but he is not a mediator for all and everyone.19
II. THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE PERISHING FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED.
It is claimed that certain passages which speak of the possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died are not in harmony with the doctrine that Christ died only for the elect.20 The passages are as follows:
There shall be false teachers among you, who shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. (II Pet. 2:1)
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. (I Cor. 8:11)
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? (I Cor. 8:11)
Hodge says,
These passages are just like those constant warnings which are addressed in Scripture to the elect, which are designed as means to carry out and secure that perseverance in grace which is the end of election, and therefore are in no sense inconsistent with its certainty.21
However, some commentaries teach that II Peter 2:1 teaches the doctrine of universal redemption.22
Even the ungodly were bought by His 'precious blood.' It shall be their bitterest self-reproach in hell, that, as far as Christ's redemption was concerned, they might have been saved.23
That there shall be self-reproach in Hell cannot be denied. That salvation is conditioned upon one's believing on Christ is certain and it is sure that all who believe may be saved. But it almost approaches blasphemy to say that Christ shed His precious blood for some and then, after all, they perished in Hell.
Finney, in his Lectures On Systematic Theology, says that the nature of the atonement is not a literal payment of a debt. If it were, says he, a literal payment of a debt, then all men would be saved as the universalists contend.24 He goes on to say that the atonement of itself does not secure the salvation of any one.25 The argument of whether the atonement includes those mentioned in II Peter 2:1 revolves, then, around the nature of the atonement. If Christ bought none by "a literal payment," then He did not buy the false teachers mentioned in the verse under consideration. If He bought them, then they must be saved regardless. Otherwise, the atonement must be different in nature than taught by the Arminians.
The Bible teaching is that the atonement is, in its nature, a ransom, a redemption, and that those for whom atonement was made will come to Christ and be saved. (Jno. 10:11, 16, 28-29, 6:3)
III. THE INDISCRIMINATE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL TO ALL
"OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED"
I. SCRIPTURES WHICH SEEM TO TEACH UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION
Universal redemptionists object to the doctrine of particular redemption on several grounds. The main arguments seem to be based on Scriptures which seem to teach universal redemption, passages which seem to indicate a possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died and the indiscriminate offer of the gospel to all.1
It is objected that those who believe in the doctrine of the limited atonement place a limitation on such words as "all," "whomsoever," and "world" when used in passages related to the atonement.2 It is true that some expositors have sometimes distorted certain passages in order to make them fit their rigid system of doctrine.3 However, if the general tenor of Scripture teaches limited atonement it is not necessary to defend Scripture against Scripture. Calvin, it is said, was very fair-minded in expounding the Bible. For instance, he refused to build an argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, even though the word for God (elohim) is in the plural in the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1. Likewise, in dealing with certain passages which might seem to be in disagreement with his system of doctrine, he was very fair and gave the proper sense of the passage.4 One cannot help admiring such an attitude. Yet Lightner objects that "Calvin himself says that all equals all kinds, all classes, taking some of each, but not all in the sense of every individual."5
One passage cited as being misused by limited redemptionists is Hebrews 2:9,
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.
The main teaching of this verse is not the extent of the atonement, but the humiliation and subsequent exhaltation of Christ. The nature of His humiliation was suffering and death. The nature of His death as set forth in this verse was substitutionary. The word "man", it must be noted, is not in the original. Literally, it reads "should taste death for every." The context shows that He tasted death in order to bring "many sons" to glory. (verse 10) Those for whom He experienced death will never experience the second death. (Rev. 20:6) If Christ died in the stead of some men, and the, after all, they should perish, this would mean that God required a double payment, first at the hand of the Surety, and then at the hand of the sinner.
If Christ's death is in reality a substitutionary, vicarious death, it saves all for whom it was exercised and no other. If Christ really died in the place of those who are saved, it follows that He died in the place only of those who are saved. Christ could not bear the sins of men without actually saving them.6
Barnes says the words "for every man" mean "for each and all?whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, high or low, elect or non-elect."7 He affirms that the atonement was unlimited in its nature and design.
If the atonement was unlimited in its design, this means that God designed to save all men by the atonement; if not, it means that God gave His Son in vain for those whom He knew would never be saved. Either way, according to this view, God was unable to accomplish that which He proposed to do. Unlimited redemptionists being their preconceived system of doctrine to the Bible, find some verses that seem to be favorable to their system, and try to make them to militate against the rest of the whole teaching of Scripture. If some Calvinists have been guilty of forcing a meaning into certain passages of Scripture never intended, the Arminians are at least equally guilty.
Another verse said to be wrested by those who believe in limited atonement is Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men."8 This verse can be read thusly: "The grace of God which brings salvation to all men has been revealed."9 Barnes, a believer in the general atonement, says "it means that the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of men."10 He cannot say that it is revealed to all men without exception, for it is certain that it has not been. Yet, he says that Christ died for all men without exception and that the atonement was unlimited in its design and nature. But, in his comments on John 3:18, Barnes notes that men are condemned for unbelief, whether they hear the gospel or not.11 Owen remarks that, according to the Arminians, God makes an atonement and then mocks those for whom it was made in that He condemns them for rejecting that of which they never heard.12
It is commonly objected by Arminians that "the Lord is not willing that any should perish."13 Usually this verse (II Peter 3:9) is not quoted in its entirety. Actually, this verse teaches that the Lord "is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish." Even though it be applied to all men without exception, it teaches no more than God's good will to all His creatures and His long-suffering. One does not have to believe in unconditional reprobation in order to believe in particular redemption.14
Again, it is urged that God "is the Saviour of all men."15 (I Tim. 4:10) In what sense is He the Saviour of all men, seeing some perish? In a special sense He is the Saviour of His people (Mt. 1:21), for He "saves His people from their sins." In a limited sense He is the Saviour, or Deliverer of even the non-elect, for He preserves them and delivers them in a temporal sense as long as it shall please Him to continue to do. 16
It is also objected that I Timothy 2:6 teaches universal redemption: He "gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 17 Concerning this Owens says that "the Scripture nowhere saith Christ died for all men, much less for all and every man." He goes on to say,
It is true, Christ is said to give his life a ransom for all but nowhere for all men. And because it is affirmed expressly in other places that he died for many, for his church, for them that believe, for the children that God gave him, for us, some of all sorts, though not expressly, yet clearly in terms equivalent, Rev. 5:9-10, it must be clearly proved that where all is mentioned that it cannot be taken for all believers, all his elect, his whole church, all the children that God gave him, some of all sorts, before a universal affirmative can be thence concluded.18
The whole verse teaches that "there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due (its own) time." Christ is not a Mediator for every man without exception. Owen states that:
For whom Christ died, for them he is a mediator, but he is not a mediator for all and everyone.19
II. THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE PERISHING FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED.
It is claimed that certain passages which speak of the possibility of those perishing for whom Christ died are not in harmony with the doctrine that Christ died only for the elect.20 The passages are as follows:
There shall be false teachers among you, who shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. (II Pet. 2:1)
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. (I Cor. 8:11)
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? (I Cor. 8:11)
Hodge says,
These passages are just like those constant warnings which are addressed in Scripture to the elect, which are designed as means to carry out and secure that perseverance in grace which is the end of election, and therefore are in no sense inconsistent with its certainty.21
However, some commentaries teach that II Peter 2:1 teaches the doctrine of universal redemption.22
Even the ungodly were bought by His 'precious blood.' It shall be their bitterest self-reproach in hell, that, as far as Christ's redemption was concerned, they might have been saved.23
That there shall be self-reproach in Hell cannot be denied. That salvation is conditioned upon one's believing on Christ is certain and it is sure that all who believe may be saved. But it almost approaches blasphemy to say that Christ shed His precious blood for some and then, after all, they perished in Hell.
Finney, in his Lectures On Systematic Theology, says that the nature of the atonement is not a literal payment of a debt. If it were, says he, a literal payment of a debt, then all men would be saved as the universalists contend.24 He goes on to say that the atonement of itself does not secure the salvation of any one.25 The argument of whether the atonement includes those mentioned in II Peter 2:1 revolves, then, around the nature of the atonement. If Christ bought none by "a literal payment," then He did not buy the false teachers mentioned in the verse under consideration. If He bought them, then they must be saved regardless. Otherwise, the atonement must be different in nature than taught by the Arminians.
The Bible teaching is that the atonement is, in its nature, a ransom, a redemption, and that those for whom atonement was made will come to Christ and be saved. (Jno. 10:11, 16, 28-29, 6:3)
III. THE INDISCRIMINATE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL TO ALL
Spurgeon, on the shenanigans some Calvinism enthusiasts undertake when the pesky Scripture just doesn't line up with their "grand theory":
[I Tim. 2:4]
"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Salvation By Knowing the Truth
[I Tim. 2:4]
"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Salvation By Knowing the Truth
Are you saying that these false teachers never got saved?
This is probably one of the most often stated 'false statements' repeated regarding atonement and what 'others' believe.
The 'fact' is actually the opposite.
The Atonement regarding whom it is for is NOT limited, but redemption, to whom it is applied, IS.
Point of fact.. the atonement did not do anything in and of itself.. or better by itself. Once it was made it didn't automatically make all those whom God foreknew (in whatever sense a person wishes to under that) .. saved!
That propitiation of the atonement is only applied through faith (Rom 3:25).
So do those who hold the General Atonement view.
Actually the above is based on the reformed views misunderstanding.
The sacrifice of Atonement in the OT was not made in 'an attempt to save' was made 'to save'... and yet it was made on behalf of ALL Israel. The extent of the atonement does not limit the purpose. It is because of the extent of the atonement that establishes our condemnation.
Note this in :
John 3:18
John 3:36
John 5:24
2 Thes 2:10-12
...and many others.
That is just silly because it holds to nothing with respect to the biblical teaching of General Atonement. Salvation is all of God yet NO WHERE in scripture will you find God saving ANYONE apart from faith in Christ or that which represented him (as in the OT). Ergo God not only will not but can not save anyone who does not believe. He determined the who, what, when, where, and why of salvation.. and just because God established that man must believe in no way removes the fact that salvation is of the Lord.
It is a prime example of the reformed continued misunderstanding.
No man trades anything for salvation.. not even faith.
Even mans belief in God and the work of Christ in no way (of itself) obligates God to save anyone. He does it because He chose to. We who believe believe that was are separated from God due to our sin and that because of that sin we DESERVE Hell. However God has, through Christ, made Himself the propitiation for our sins. This part is important to understand so please listen...
We, knowing who we are, and what we deserve, cry out to God on the basis of HIS word and the action and promise of His Son.. crying for mercy.. to save. The fact God does is HIS decision and not mans. Mad does not and can not save himself but he can cry out to the God of salvation for mercy and grace and leave it to Him.
I think I have only made one post
But that was asking you to go back to the Law and first not only determine what the atonement was to do.. but also whom the Law stated it was to made for, or in behalf of. so I will say it isn't much lifting at all really :laugh:
Are you saying these false teacher did get saved?
Here he begins by incorrectly labeling something purposely to taint perceptions of the doctrine he wishes to discuss.
Note he states it as "Universal Redemptionists".
This title is very misleading.
What I mean by that is "Universal Redemptionists" implies that all are 'redeemed', which in fact to be 'redeemed' makes all men saved.
There is a distinction between the act of atonement and the application of redemption via the atonement.
The position is historically known as either General Atonement or Unlimited Atonement - not Universal Redemptionists.
The above is a very sad commentary of the passage in question. While I do agree with the writer the main point of the passage is not about the extent but the 'humiliation and subsequent exhaltation of Christ'.. one would be remiss NOT to note the essential fact of for 'whom' it states Christ died and thus went through humiliation and afterward exhalted.
It is funny he tried to state that 'man' was not in the original but anyone who understanding the Greek here would know that the intent of the writer when speaking of Christ dieing for "Every" related specifically to mankind and not animals or any other such assumptions one might choose to insert.
It is also interesting to note that he states that Christ died in order to bring many sons into the Kingdom.. but fails to address why the scripture doesn't state Christ died to bring ALL the sons but instead uses a term that does not equate to ALL but some or many sons - of the 'all'.
Lastly, his point on God requiring a double payment:
God requires 'a' payment.. and if a person will not receive another's payment on their behalf then 'they' must make the payment themselves. God has not required two payments but one... Just because I have the means to pay for your traffic violation does not mean that the court requires a double payment if you wont accept my offer to pay it for you. Remember.. the atonement is not applied to ANYONE apart from faith in the blood of Christ.
The real issue that has to be figured out by those of the reformed faith is how come people for whom Christ did not die are condemned for not believing in something that was never done for them or with them in mind?
Yet we find scripture with many passages stating just this.
See here is a good example of leaving scripture for a preferred doctrine.
Scripture states the atonement was made for ALL Israel, not just the saved of Israel or a certain portion of Israel.. It was made on behalf of ALL. Yet the fact it was made still did NOTHING. It had to be received by faith that the redemptive work be applied. Therefore his conclusion is based on a false premise and comes out with an incorrect conclusion.
Again, the above is just silly. God accomplished exactly what He intended for those whom He intended it.. the extent of the atonement (of which the Law required in order that it be appeasing to God) does not negate this fact but in fact establishes God justice and mercy.
On this I agree both sides do and at times both sides do some rather interesting gymnastics to make a passage say what it never intended. However, it is noted that once again he uses an improper self made title for those whom he does not agree with.
Owen was known to be wrong on many counts but him aside...
While it is true that those who reject the knowledge of Christ himself will be conddemned, it does not follow that those who never heard can't be. We find in Romans 1 - 3 (most notable in Romans 1) that God uses creation itself to to reveal 4 things. 1) there is a God; (2) Sin; (3) Righteousness; (4) and the Judgment to come. These three things are just as intimately wrapped up in who Christ is and His purpose as the atonement does. Also note that God is the one makes known to them these 'spiritual truths". We know these are spiritual truths that man of himself could never come to know because they are the exact things Jesus stated the Spirit of God has come to reveal. To reject even these basic truths is in fact a rejection of Christ Himself. However if one believes in even these simple spiritual truths, should we not acknowledge the fact that God will teach them and send others to give the fullness of the truth they have only just begun to understand?
I would state that unconditional reprobation and particular redemption (in the reformed view) are not mutually exclusive, necessarily. I would depend on how one defined them I guess.
However, I will agree that the above passage is strain quite a bit by those who hold to my view. I do not agree with many on this passage as the context specifically is referring to the fulfillment of God's promise is patiently waiting on/for believers... Not ALL men.
Continued in next post:
Last edited by a moderator:
Here he flip-flops like a fish unable to get any real foothold for his disagreement. Thus 'in a sense' he can't deny the fact that of scripture which states God - "is the Savior of all men".
Here is yet another place Owen is found incorrect. The very context not only of the passage in question but the surrounding passages (vss 1-6) establish emphatically that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all men. You will note that all men is context of whom it is speaking of and in fact completely disassociates itself from being a select or specific group.
His claim is disproved in the very verse he TRIES to say doesn't say it
and many others. However I will agree that it must be shown as to what the 'all' is referencing. I agree that all does not mean 'the whole of thing" at all times.. sometimes it does mean the 'whole of a part of a thing".It is sad that he does not look at the context but takes a verse a part from the context to establish his theology, rather than letting the context of the surrounding passages dictate what is being spoken of.
Verse 1 states that we are to pray for ALL MEN in various way
Verse 2 speaks of praying even for those who are making life hard on belivers
Verse 3 states this is exactly what God our Savior desires
Verse 4 who desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.
(NOW - who is the context referring to.. not just believers but the lost for whom they are to be praying for.. because God desires 'ALL men'. The context dictates the two groups being spoken of here is all encompassing of both)
Verse 5 states that there is only one mediator between man and God - While it is true Christ mediates for every man individually, here the term 'man' is not referring to an individual but in general.. and thus His desire for believers to pray for all men and HIS reasons for that.
Verse 6 states He gave himself a ransom for all, and it will be revealed in due time
Verse 7 states it was for this very reason he is an apostle and teacher
Verse 8 states Paul desires that people get serious about their praying because the above is the truth as well as being both good and acceptable.
Note he doesn't actually address the passage just glosses over it without dealing with it.
It only approaches blasphemy of the Reformed doctrine and not of scripture itself. Any assumption this is close to blasphemy is due to a misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Atonement and for whom it was made.
Last edited by a moderator:
no, but they couldn't they have?
Hello Allan,
Good work on your posts.I am enjoying your responses. It is enjoyable to discuss so great a salvation as The Lord has accomplished for us. I will respond one or two points at a time as you have been kind enough to
put out a full table of ideas,some of which I believe we can find some agreement on.
One question I want you to clarify is what verse or verses are you thinking of when you say this?
I will give a more detailed response...particularly on the Hebrews 2 passage....which I and many believers believe to be one of the strongest passages in scripture. I often use that passage along with Heb.9-10
for meditation during The Lord's supper.
In the meantime thanks for your response and I pray that you and your family are enjoying abundant blessings and are serving the Lord with your whole heart.:wavey:
I will give a better response later on....I :type: really slow,lol
Good work on your posts.I am enjoying your responses. It is enjoyable to discuss so great a salvation as The Lord has accomplished for us. I will respond one or two points at a time as you have been kind enough to
put out a full table of ideas,some of which I believe we can find some agreement on.
One question I want you to clarify is what verse or verses are you thinking of when you say this?
I will give a more detailed response...particularly on the Hebrews 2 passage....which I and many believers believe to be one of the strongest passages in scripture. I often use that passage along with Heb.9-10
for meditation during The Lord's supper.
In the meantime thanks for your response and I pray that you and your family are enjoying abundant blessings and are serving the Lord with your whole heart.:wavey:
I will give a better response later on....I :type: really slow,lol
Basically during this present time I am an electionist because of the following.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Elected for a specific purpose according to the will of God. However are these the only ones the atonement applied to?
Would not the atonement apply in the following?
Please everyone reply.
that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth -- and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him. And I saw a messenger coming down out of the heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain over his hand, and he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, who is Devil and Adversary, and did bind him a thousand years, and he cast him to the abyss, and did shut him up, and put a seal upon him, that he may not lead astray the nations any more, till the thousand years may be finished; and after these it behoveth him to be loosed a little time.
having made known to us (the elect) the secret of His will, according to His good pleasure, that He purposed in Himself, in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;
I say all of this in light of election.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Elected for a specific purpose according to the will of God. However are these the only ones the atonement applied to?
Would not the atonement apply in the following?
Please everyone reply.
that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow -- of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth -- and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him. And I saw a messenger coming down out of the heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain over his hand, and he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, who is Devil and Adversary, and did bind him a thousand years, and he cast him to the abyss, and did shut him up, and put a seal upon him, that he may not lead astray the nations any more, till the thousand years may be finished; and after these it behoveth him to be loosed a little time.
having made known to us (the elect) the secret of His will, according to His good pleasure, that He purposed in Himself, in regard to the dispensation of the fulness of the times, to bring into one the whole in the Christ, both the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth -- in him;
I say all of this in light of election.
Allan, I found this article showing a contrast in the positions
Why is it important to define the Atonement as limited or unlimited?
You asked why we should make a fuss over limited/unlimited atonment, in light of the greater issues around the doctrine of the atonement. In answer, let me agree that there are more important issues regarding the atonement of Christ than its extent (limited or unlimited). For instance, the Anselm view vs. the Abelardian view is much more important: Anselm argued that Jesus died to make satisfaction for our sin, the heretic Abelard argued that Jesus died to show us how much God loves us and inspire us to live him too. The Abelardian view is back among us in various nuances, and must be vigorously rejected. To deny that the atonement accomplishes satisfaction for our sin is to be anti-Christian. In short, the most important issue by far in regards to the atonement is that we vigorously affirm Christ's death as a vicarious, substitutionary atonement to make satisfaction for our sin before God. It is because of this priority that one does not hear much about limited vs. unlimited atonement today: we are now fighting over evangelical essentials, so a doctrinal battle that is de facto between evangelicals is not going to be as important.
Nonetheless, if one is asked, limited atonement cannot be safely discarded or neglected. This is one of those doctrines that is mostly important because of its implications. If you teach a general atonement, you end in numerous kinds of trouble. By limited atonement, we do not deny the infinite value of Christ's blood, nor its efficacy in cleansing us from sin (in fact, the doctrine serves to establish these). The "limited" of limited atonement has to do with its "extent" -- that is, how many people and kinds of people benefit from Christ's atoning death. The "unlimited" or "general" atonement position -- a pillar of Arminian theology -- holds that Jesus died for the sins of everybody in an equal sense. Jesus died for the sins of you the Christian, and he died for the sins of your neighbor the non-Christians, and he did so in exactly the same way. So what determines whether or not someone is saved? Surely not God's sovereign choice or Jesus' discrimination among sinners! Rather, the only thing that causes someone not to be justified is that they did not choose to receive Christ's priceless gift. "Jesus has put the amount needed to pay for everyone's debt in the bank -- now you just have to go open up an account."
Let me give you reasons to reject general or unlimited atonment and to affirm limited atonement:
1) General atonement is not biblical. The Bible never affirms that Jesus died for everyone equally (and Reformed theologians have very adequately addressed the "world" and "all " passages so frequently cited here.) But the Bible does affirm that Jesus did not redeem the world in general, but only the elect (who are also those who receive him in faith). For passages that generally support limited atonement, see Mt. 20:28; Heb. 9:28; Isa. 53:8; Mt. 1:21; Eph. 5:25. Also see Mt. 7:13; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4; 2 Th. 2:10,11; Jude. 4; Rev. 20:11-15 for passages that deny that all will be saved; see also Jn. 17:6, 9, 19, and 24, where Jesus prays to the Father in terms that clearly show that he came to redeem only the elect.
2) General atonement denies the the efficacy of Christ's atonment. Both Arminians and Calvinists teach limited atonement in some sense. Calvinists teach that Christ's death was unlimited in its efficacy for the elect -- it saves God's people utterly. We argue that it is limited in terms of its extent -- that is, the number of people who will benefit from its saving effects. Arminians see the atonement as being unlimited in its extent -- everyone equally benefits from it -- but limited in its efficacy -- it only does so much good for anybody. As they preach it: "Jesus did his part; now you have to do yours." This is an offense to the Bible's teaching regarding Christ's work. According to Scritpure, Jesus came into the world with a definite people in mind for his redemptive work; he died for his own -- for his bride, for the church -- and his death is wholly effectual for the atonement of Christ's own. See Mt. 1:21; Eph. 5:25; Jn. 6:3-40; Jn. 17:6.
3) General atonement robs Christ of his glory, by asserting that he needs us to complete his work. Notice how the Scriptures refer to Christ's saving work in definite and wholly effectual categories. It is Jesus who saves us utterly; not Jesus who did his part but now looks to us to complete it, lest he died in vain. See (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19; Gal. 3:13; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 9:27).
4) General atonement assaults the doctrine of election. Indeed, unconditional election and limited atonement are tethered together inseparably. To deny that Christ died for a particular people is to deny that God has an elect people for whom he sent Christ to die and rise again. To say that limited atonment is not an important doctrine to defend is to say the same of sovereign election. And to say that is to redefine the gospel in a man-centered direction.
5) General atonement wrongly asserts that liimited atonement speaks to the world with an ingenuine offer of salvation. "After all, if Christ only died for the elect, then how can the Bible say, "Whoever will, let them come?" To argue this is to confuse categories. Christ does offer all a free pardon of their sins if only they will come, and we should speak this way to the world in his name. But it remains true that "No one comes to me unless the Father draws them" (Jn. 6:44). If only the elect are saved -- as the Bible teaches -- and if the Triune God knew these from before the creation of the world -- as the Bible teaches -- and if the precious blood of Jesus cleanses us from all our sins -- as the Bible teaches -- then it is only applied to those elect persons who reveal their election through their faith in Jesus, which is itself the gift of God. This limited number of persons receives an unlimited atonement. Everone else dies in their sins, all of them having known and sinfully rejected God (Rom. 1:18-25) and many of them having spurned a genuine offer from Christ to come to him and be saved.
Again, the great issue of our time dealing with the docrine of atonement is simply its basic definition -- vicarious, substitutionary atonement. We must zealously preach and defend this core doctrine without relenting. With this on the line, limited vs. general atonement is not likely to come up as much as it did in prior generations. Nor is it so urgent, given the more fundamental doctrinal issues in the balance. But we must not shrink from this doctrine, and we must teach it in appropriate settings with all zeal and diligence.
Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement
Why is it important to define the Atonement as limited or unlimited?
You asked why we should make a fuss over limited/unlimited atonment, in light of the greater issues around the doctrine of the atonement. In answer, let me agree that there are more important issues regarding the atonement of Christ than its extent (limited or unlimited). For instance, the Anselm view vs. the Abelardian view is much more important: Anselm argued that Jesus died to make satisfaction for our sin, the heretic Abelard argued that Jesus died to show us how much God loves us and inspire us to live him too. The Abelardian view is back among us in various nuances, and must be vigorously rejected. To deny that the atonement accomplishes satisfaction for our sin is to be anti-Christian. In short, the most important issue by far in regards to the atonement is that we vigorously affirm Christ's death as a vicarious, substitutionary atonement to make satisfaction for our sin before God. It is because of this priority that one does not hear much about limited vs. unlimited atonement today: we are now fighting over evangelical essentials, so a doctrinal battle that is de facto between evangelicals is not going to be as important.
Nonetheless, if one is asked, limited atonement cannot be safely discarded or neglected. This is one of those doctrines that is mostly important because of its implications. If you teach a general atonement, you end in numerous kinds of trouble. By limited atonement, we do not deny the infinite value of Christ's blood, nor its efficacy in cleansing us from sin (in fact, the doctrine serves to establish these). The "limited" of limited atonement has to do with its "extent" -- that is, how many people and kinds of people benefit from Christ's atoning death. The "unlimited" or "general" atonement position -- a pillar of Arminian theology -- holds that Jesus died for the sins of everybody in an equal sense. Jesus died for the sins of you the Christian, and he died for the sins of your neighbor the non-Christians, and he did so in exactly the same way. So what determines whether or not someone is saved? Surely not God's sovereign choice or Jesus' discrimination among sinners! Rather, the only thing that causes someone not to be justified is that they did not choose to receive Christ's priceless gift. "Jesus has put the amount needed to pay for everyone's debt in the bank -- now you just have to go open up an account."
Let me give you reasons to reject general or unlimited atonment and to affirm limited atonement:
1) General atonement is not biblical. The Bible never affirms that Jesus died for everyone equally (and Reformed theologians have very adequately addressed the "world" and "all " passages so frequently cited here.) But the Bible does affirm that Jesus did not redeem the world in general, but only the elect (who are also those who receive him in faith). For passages that generally support limited atonement, see Mt. 20:28; Heb. 9:28; Isa. 53:8; Mt. 1:21; Eph. 5:25. Also see Mt. 7:13; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4; 2 Th. 2:10,11; Jude. 4; Rev. 20:11-15 for passages that deny that all will be saved; see also Jn. 17:6, 9, 19, and 24, where Jesus prays to the Father in terms that clearly show that he came to redeem only the elect.
2) General atonement denies the the efficacy of Christ's atonment. Both Arminians and Calvinists teach limited atonement in some sense. Calvinists teach that Christ's death was unlimited in its efficacy for the elect -- it saves God's people utterly. We argue that it is limited in terms of its extent -- that is, the number of people who will benefit from its saving effects. Arminians see the atonement as being unlimited in its extent -- everyone equally benefits from it -- but limited in its efficacy -- it only does so much good for anybody. As they preach it: "Jesus did his part; now you have to do yours." This is an offense to the Bible's teaching regarding Christ's work. According to Scritpure, Jesus came into the world with a definite people in mind for his redemptive work; he died for his own -- for his bride, for the church -- and his death is wholly effectual for the atonement of Christ's own. See Mt. 1:21; Eph. 5:25; Jn. 6:3-40; Jn. 17:6.
3) General atonement robs Christ of his glory, by asserting that he needs us to complete his work. Notice how the Scriptures refer to Christ's saving work in definite and wholly effectual categories. It is Jesus who saves us utterly; not Jesus who did his part but now looks to us to complete it, lest he died in vain. See (Rom 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19; Gal. 3:13; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 9:27).
4) General atonement assaults the doctrine of election. Indeed, unconditional election and limited atonement are tethered together inseparably. To deny that Christ died for a particular people is to deny that God has an elect people for whom he sent Christ to die and rise again. To say that limited atonment is not an important doctrine to defend is to say the same of sovereign election. And to say that is to redefine the gospel in a man-centered direction.
5) General atonement wrongly asserts that liimited atonement speaks to the world with an ingenuine offer of salvation. "After all, if Christ only died for the elect, then how can the Bible say, "Whoever will, let them come?" To argue this is to confuse categories. Christ does offer all a free pardon of their sins if only they will come, and we should speak this way to the world in his name. But it remains true that "No one comes to me unless the Father draws them" (Jn. 6:44). If only the elect are saved -- as the Bible teaches -- and if the Triune God knew these from before the creation of the world -- as the Bible teaches -- and if the precious blood of Jesus cleanses us from all our sins -- as the Bible teaches -- then it is only applied to those elect persons who reveal their election through their faith in Jesus, which is itself the gift of God. This limited number of persons receives an unlimited atonement. Everone else dies in their sins, all of them having known and sinfully rejected God (Rom. 1:18-25) and many of them having spurned a genuine offer from Christ to come to him and be saved.
Again, the great issue of our time dealing with the docrine of atonement is simply its basic definition -- vicarious, substitutionary atonement. We must zealously preach and defend this core doctrine without relenting. With this on the line, limited vs. general atonement is not likely to come up as much as it did in prior generations. Nor is it so urgent, given the more fundamental doctrinal issues in the balance. But we must not shrink from this doctrine, and we must teach it in appropriate settings with all zeal and diligence.
Allan you said this;
[QUOTE 6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
][/QUOTE]
Jesus died a covenant death only for the children of promise. Your position cannot account for God;s covenant.
Atonement not applied is no atonement/
[QUOTE 6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
][/QUOTE]
Jesus died a covenant death only for the children of promise. Your position cannot account for God;s covenant.
Jesus died a covenant death only for the children of promise. Your position cannot account for God;s covenant.[/QUOTE]
Ic
Are those you spoke of in this post the same as spoken of in the following with maybe a few Jews thrown in or as Paul says not of the Jews but also of the Gentiles Romans 9:24?
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Are these they of the atonement?
Please, let us not go copy and pasting article that we agree with presuming it debunks the others view. I can just as easily pull up articles I believe thoroughly and biblically contradict that view as well. I can also go point for point myself with each article you bring up and give just as many if not more scripture verses that the above gives for their view. However, I am trying to address 'your' posts, and I have already addressed one such article (point for point) earlier.
You wish a 'discussion' and I am trying to give it to you. You wish to speak on the atonement.. that is both good and fair. However NOT addressing what I have already given does not lead itself to a proper discussion.
It is 2 simple questions regarding the Law referencing the Sacrifice of Atonement -
1. Whom was it made 'for'?
2. Did it single out a group from within that group or was it for all in that group?
Last edited by a moderator:
The above is where your lack of understanding of my position falls terribly short and thus you do not 'understand' why my view does in fact account for Gods covenant.
Secondly the above in NO WAY contradicts the fact the atonement is made on behalf of ALL.