Limited Atonement and Cause and Effects

[Andre]

God can supply an unlimited payment, and only choose to apply it to certain ones. Thus the atonement is not limited; the application of it is.

I am not sure that I understand how you use terms like elect. However, let's say that someone believes all of the following statements:

1. God makes a payment for all.

2. God only applies this payment to some (set A)

3. No agent in the Universe can apply the payment that God has made "for all" to those who are not in Set A. God is the only agent who has any role whatsoever in the application of payments.

I do not think this "system" of propositions works. The reason is that the effect of (2) and (3) completely depletes (1) of any sensible meaning.

The effect of (2) and (3) together rule out the possibility, even in principle, that God has indeed made a payment for all. A payment for person "x" has no meaning if it does not even have the possibility of being applied for person "x". And items (2) and (3) make it impossible for a person "x" to have a payment made on his behalf if he is not in set A.

 

[billwald]

God's causes must have a purpose

The purpose of God's causes might be to produce people who love God and who are good neighbors. If so, then the people to whom God has applied the atonment might be those who love God and are good neighbors and not necessarially those who have "invited Jesus . . . ."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ask yourself who is the ‘cause’ in the ‘choosing’ who to save and who not to save. That is the very heart and soul of a limited atonement.

No it's not.

You have established clearly your belief in a limited atonement. Am I not correct in my assessment?

Yes

Indeed the value of the atonement and the application of the atonement should be different issues, but if you make God the sole cause, and as such God is the limiting factor regardless of the differing issues, and a limited atonement the only end possible.

Not necessarily.

You are trying to make everyone a supralapsarian, when in fact, some can be a sublapsarian.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am not sure that I understand how you use terms like elect.

The elect are those individuals whom God has chosen for salvation from the foundation of the world.

However, let's say that someone believes all of the following statements:

1. God makes a payment for all.

2. God only applies this payment to some (set A)

3. No agent in the Universe can apply the payment that God has made "for all" to those who are not in Set A. God is the only agent who has any role whatsoever in the application of payments.

I do not think this "system" of propositions works. The reason is that the effect of (2) and (3) completely depletes (1) of any sensible meaning.

No it doesn't. The fact that Bill Gates can buy himself and me a new house, (prop 1) but chooses not to (prop 2), and no one can force him to (prop 3) has no reference on the sufficiency of his money to do both. He has simply chosen not to.

The effect of (2) and (3) together rule out the possibility, even in principle, that God has indeed made a payment for all. A payment for person "x" has no meaning if it does not even have the possibility of being applied for person "x". And items (2) and (3) make it impossible for a person "x" to have a payment made on his behalf if he is not in set A.

The whole "made a payment" phrase is slippery. If by "made a payment" you mean he actually paid for sins, then yes, everyone whose sins are paid for is saved. If by "made a payment" you talk of hte sufficiency of the atonement, then no, it not for everyone.

I think you are confusing terms here, using them kind of loosely.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: You are trying to make everyone a supralapsarian, when in fact, some can be a sublapsarian.

HP: Here comes the smoke and mirrors afresh. When you make God as the sole cause of salvation, it does not matter whether or not the end is coerced by his direct choosing to empower or His direct choosing to overlook. The cause and effect remains unchanged. Limited atonement is inescapable under both proposed systems of thought. For all practical purposes, the distinction is mute as to whether of not there is a limited atonement. Both clearly establish the atonement as limited.

The propesed affect upon a limited atonement via the distinction you site is a theological and logical chimera.

 

[Andre]

No it doesn't. The fact that Bill Gates can buy himself and me a new house, (prop 1) but chooses not to (prop 2), and no one can force him to (prop 3) has no reference on the sufficiency of his money to do both. He has simply chosen not to.

Obviously I agree with the above. But it would seem the "sufficient for all" vs "effectual for some" distinction, while perhaps useful in some technical theological sense, gives us no useful information. Since, if I understand you properly, the non-elect can never have this payment applied to them, it is in no sense a payment "for them". But obviously there is no logical problem in asserting that the magnitude (and / or nature) of God's payment is such that it could be actually available to all in some other Universe where, unlike our Universe, it is only available to the elect (by your view if I understand you).

So I am not really sure of the value of applying this distinction. I admit a degree of suspicion that some (perhaps not you) will try to use the "sufficient for all" argument to address the objection that the non-elect are "pre-programmed for hell from before their birth" and have no possibility at all of accessing grace.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: I admit a degree of suspicion that some (perhaps not you) will try to use the "sufficient for all" argument to address the objection that the non-elect are "pre-programmed for hell from before their birth" and have no possibility at all of accessing grace.

HP: Is it not impossible to avoid the notion of God preprogramming the damned as well as the elect coming from the notion of God as the sole cause of salvation? Even Calvin was logical enough to realize that if his presupposition of God being the sole cause was in fact true, double predestination was unavoidable.

 

[Andre]

HP: Is it not impossible to avoid the notion of God preprogramming the damned as well as the elect coming from the notion of God as the sole cause of salvation? Even Calvin was logical enough to realize that if his presupposition of God being the sole cause was in fact true, double predestination was unavoidable.

I agree with you about this, although I have not thought extensively about it. If not all are saved, and God chooses an elect to be saved, then this is effectively a choice on His part to pre-destine the non-elect to destruction.

Of course, you may have inferred that I do not believe that God has chosen a specific set of persons to be saved from the foundation of the world. So I do not believe in the existence of an elect (at least in the sense that most people use the word "elect"). And I do not believe that God is the "sole cause of salvation" either.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: ...this is effectively a choice on His part to pre-destine the non-elect to destruction.

..So I do not believe in the existence of an elect (at least in the sense that most people use the word "elect"). And I do not believe that God is the "sole cause of salvation" either.

HP: Would to God that the Church would stop and consider the ends of their positions.

I might put it this way. I indeed believe in the elect, but NOT to the elimination of the truth concerning the active participation of the will of man. God has so designed salvation to be accomplished by two causes so to speak. He is the sole cause of the plan and the establishment of exactly what conditions would be required of man. By formulating the plan, and choosing the conditions, God did not coerce the final results as to whom the elect would be, but rather chose and elected them via enabling man as a 'first cause' of their own intents and as such a proper candidate for all subsequent moral blame and praise.

God endowed man with the necessary abilities and powers to hear and voluntarily respond to His proffered show of mercy, allowing man to be a first cause in the acceptance or rejection of that offer of salvation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

When you make God as the sole cause of salvation, it does not matter whether or not the end is coerced by his direct choosing to empower or His direct choosing to overlook. The cause and effect remains unchanged. Limited atonement is inescapable under both proposed systems of thought. For all practical purposes, the distinction is mute as to whether of not there is a limited atonement. Both clearly establish the atonement as limited.

The propesed affect upon a limited atonement via the distinction you site is a theological and logical chimera.

Hardly. Again, you are trying to make a cause and effect with limited atonement and it simply does not exist. Sorry.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: Hardly. Again, you are trying to make a cause and effect with limited atonement and it simply does not exist. Sorry.

HP: Can you restate your objection? I am not certain I am following you here. Thanks.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But it would seem the "sufficient for all" vs "effectual for some" distinction, while perhaps useful in some technical theological sense, gives us no useful information.

Sure it does. It addresses the value of the atonement. It is the ground of common grace and is directly referenced in many passages.

Since, if I understand you properly, the non-elect can never have this payment applied to them, it is in no sense a payment "for them".

Sure it is. If they beleive, it will cover all their sins.

 

[Pastor Larry]

My objection is that God as the sole cause of salvation is not related necessarily to limited atonement. One can hold to an unlimited atonement and still believe that God is the sole cause of salvation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: My objection is that God as the sole cause of salvation is not related necessarily to limited atonement. One can hold to an unlimited atonement and still believe that God is the sole cause of salvation.

HP: You might as well have told me that just because we see the sun shinning does not necessitate its existence, as to tell me that. My mind absolutely will not allow such contradictions to reside in my mind at the same time concerning the same issues.

Can we pray one for another that God will open our eyes to the truth and that we will accept it as such regardless of the cost? Oh Lord, Help me to see your truth!!

 

[Pastor Larry]

You might as well have told me that just because we see the sun shinning does not necessitate its existence, as to tell me that. My mind absolutely will not allow such contradictions to reside in my mind at the same time concerning the same issues.

There's not a contradiction. There is nothing about the limited or unlimited nature of the atonement that bears on God as the sole cause of salvation. The only exception that I can think of is supralapsarianism, where the decree to provide atonement precedes the decree to elect.

Perhaps the difficulty here is that you are depending on your mind to process this. Your mind, in this case, is leading you to make connections that are not valid.

 

[BobRyan]

I am not sure that I understand how you use terms like elect. However, let's say that someone believes all of the following statements:

1. God makes a payment for all.

2. God only applies this payment to some (set A)

3. No agent in the Universe can apply the payment that God has made "for all" to those who are not in Set A. God is the only agent who has any role whatsoever in the application of payments.

I do not think this "system" of propositions works. The reason is that the effect of (2) and (3) completely depletes (1) of any sensible meaning.

The effect of (2) and (3) together rule out the possibility, even in principle, that God has indeed made a payment for all.

Once again - Andre slams the point home with such force and clear logic the serious objective reader "easily gets the point".

The system of "arbitrary selection" used in Calvinism severely limits its concept of "limited atonemtn" to the point of "Limited Love, Limited Gospel, Limited Savior, Limited God".

But it does even more damage. You must then conclude that when God uses terms like "God so Loved the WORLD" and "Not willing that ANY should perish" etc - that it is REALLY nothing more than overblown overmarketing - and downright exaggeration. The only way to THEN read those texts is to downsize each and very broad term they used

What you get is

"God so loved the world... but not really the actual WORLD - just an arbitrarily selected FEW"

"God draws ALL to himself - but not REALLY all - just some arbitrarily selected FEW"

"God is not willing that ANY of that arbitrarily selected FEW - should perish"

"Behold I stand at the door and knock if ANYONE -- of that arbitrarily selected FEW in MATT 7 -- hear my voice and open the door THEN I will come in..."

Andre
A payment for person "x" has no meaning if it does not even have the possibility of being applied for person "x". And items (2) and (3) make it impossible for a person "x" to have a payment made on his behalf if he is not in set A.

HENCE - the "Calvinist Future Scenario" posted soooo many times on this subject to illustrate that VERY point!

In Christ,

Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

My objection is that God as the sole cause of salvation is not related necessarily to limited atonement. One can hold to an unlimited atonement and still believe that God is the sole cause of salvation.

Pastor Larry is arguing for 3 Pt Calvinism and against Limited Atonement?? Hmm I might find an opportunity to post in agreement with him on this thread.:thumbs:


Let's see what happens. :saint:

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No it doesn't. The fact that Bill Gates can buy himself and me a new house, (prop 1) but chooses not to (prop 2), and no one can force him to (prop 3) has no reference on the sufficiency of his money to do both. He has simply chosen not to.

This point always comes up and is always immediately answered by the fact that once GOD DOES claim to have provided "the Atoning sacrifice for OUR SINs and NOT for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2 (NIV) we are well beyond the "hypothetical" argument "God had the sovereign right NOT to promise such a thing".

that point is moot since HE DID take that position ALREADY.

As I said - this answer has been given repeatedly.

But since PL seems to be taking a view opposed to limited atonement - I will not press it.

The whole "made a payment" phrase is slippery. If by "made a payment" you mean he actually paid for sins, then yes, everyone whose sins are paid for is saved. If by "made a payment" you talk of hte sufficiency of the atonement, then no, it not for everyone.

I think you are confusing terms here, using them kind of loosely.

Actually your statement above is conflicted - as it says the same thing twice while being framed as if it covered two different cases.

you seem to be saying the sufficiency of the atonement is NOT for everyone and the payment of the atonement is NOT for everyone since all who ARE paid for are saved and all who are sufficiently atoned for are ALSO saved --

In 1john 2:2 we have the CLEAR statement that the ATONING Sacrifice provided by Christ at the Cross - ONCE for ALL - is complete and is for ALL the sins of the WHOLE World.

The REASON that does not result is universalism is because GOD is the one that DEFINEs the full process of Atonement in Lev 16 and as HE shows us it MUST ALSO include the UNIQUE role of Christ as HIGH PRIEST.

In Heb 7-10 we are shown when and where Christ takes on that role. Having FULLY satisifed the debt to be paid once and for all a the Cross - Christ stands in Heaven before God as our High Priest serving the same role that we see the High Priest serving in Lev 16 on the "DAY of Atonement".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If in fact man has no part in salvation, i.e., salvation is all of God and none of man, man can be said to play no part in salvation. If this is true, the cause of salvation, and subsequently those to whom salvation is directed, is indeed limited, unless of course one believes in universalism. If certain men do not receive salvation, man having had no part in it, logically forces the blame for such a lack of salvation directly upon the cause, which obviously withheld the means by which to accomplish it. In this case it can be none other than God Himself.

Surely no one can accuse me of being too much in agreement with HP on the subject of atonement! Yet I -- as opposed as I am to his ideas on this topic -- would agree with his statement above.

HP is certainly and clearly correct. If the only ACTOR is God then all the ACTIONS can be blamed on God "alone". IF the process of salvation can be defined as God selecting out the FEW of Matt 7 and zapping their brains for salvation -- but God "does not zap ALL" then only God is to blame if ALL are not zapped after He "claims" that "He is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".

The choice is that you must either revisit you "zapping" doctrine OR you must downsize the Word of God that says "HE is the Savior of the WORLD" 1John 4
and that "He loved the WORLD" John 3 and that "He is NOT partial" Romans 2 toward the FEW or to anyone else.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP

If any man receives not the means for salvation from God, the sole blame for that lack of means lies again upon God. It cannot in any way be the fault of the man, for again, according to the view we are addressing, man has no abilities or plays any role in salvation in and of the abilities and traits he naturally possess from birth.

True in the example of conditions that you propose - mankind (Adam alone) can be blamed for FALLING for being "condemned" but CAN NOT be blamed for not having accepted salvation for it was never given to them to accept. If mankind is DOOMED simply by being BORN decendants of Adam then that TOO is "God's Fault ALONE" for HE ALONe determines who will be born.

Once the fallen sinful person is born "doomed" and then having no OTHER viable choice - they sin -- that TOO is God's fault for HE ordained that they SHOULD be born lost and then left them ENSLAVED to sinnful nature that HE ordained that they should have as decendants of Adam.

IT is God's fault ALONE that they are not saved - it is Adam and Eve's fault ALONE that mankind is condemned to start with.

It is Go'd fault ALONE that Adam and Eve have even one child.

God ALONE is Creator - God ALONE is Savior.

But the key to this is the meaning being stuffed into the terms to start with --

#1. "Salvation is all of God - none of man. "
(Do we mean by this - MAN does NOT accept, does NOT open the door, Does not choose to submit- is NOT enabled to accept or reject.. That his mind is imply ZAPPED and presto he wakes up SAVED as our 4 and 5 point Calvinist friends would insist?)

#2. "Atonement" - (do we disregard all that God said about it in Lev 16) some say "YES just use the definitions found in Calvinism -- dump the Word of God in Lev 16)...

Once you take those two wrong terms -- list of bad choices simply multiplies as HP points out in his OP.

In Christ,

Bob