Limited Atonement: Let's set the record straight.

[delizzle]

In previous posts, I have mentioned several times that according to the doctrine of "Limited Atonement", God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election. Thus, he determined that Christ should die for the elect alone and concluded that the Gospel only applies to the "elect alone". However, when I made such comments, I am usually met with fierce opposition from Calvinists. So why are statements like "Jesus only died for the elect and not everyone" met with such controversy from Calvinists?

 

[BobRyan]

In previous posts, I have mentioned several times that according to the doctrine of "Limited Atonement", God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election. Thus, he determined that Christ should die for the elect alone and concluded that the Gospel only applies to the "elect alone". However, when I made such comments, I am usually met with fierce opposition from Calvinists. So why are statements like "Jesus only died for the elect and not everyone" met with such controversy from Calvinists?

Another way to put it --

Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvnists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7" or else you have universalism. (Which is a false choice... but that is another matter).

By doing that - they are on collision course when it comes to their efforts to deny your statement above

 

[The Archangel]

Another way to put it --

Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvnists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7" or else you have universalism. (Which is a false choice... but that is another matter).

By doing that - they are on collision course when it comes to their efforts to deny your statement above

The question that you have here is this: If he made atonement for the sins of the whole world (ie. every person without exception), why, then, would anyone go to hell?

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

In previous posts, I have mentioned several times that according to the doctrine of "Limited Atonement", God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election. Thus, he determined that Christ should die for the elect alone and concluded that the Gospel only applies to the "elect alone". However, when I made such comments, I am usually met with fierce opposition from Calvinists. So why are statements like "Jesus only died for the elect and not everyone" met with such controversy from Calvinists?

The issue isn't "Jesus died only for the elect and not everyone." The issue is, likely, "the gospel only applies to the elect alone."

The Gospel still applies to the non-elect in some way, but they reject it and are doubly-damned for that rejection.

The Archangel

 

[BobRyan]

The question that you have here is this: If he made atonement for the sins of the whole world (ie. every person without exception), why, then, would anyone go to hell?

The Archangel

Because in the Atonement Model used in the Bible -- "The Day of Atonement" Lev 16

It requires BOTH the work of Christ as 'Atoning Sacrifice" (the Lord's goat in Lev 16, the sin offering) AND ALSO it requires the work of Christ as High Priest in Lev 16 which in Hebrews 8:1 we are told "is the main point"

 

[BobRyan]

The Gospel still applies to the non-elect in some way, but they reject it and are doubly-damned for that rejection.

The Archangel

Does that 'in some way" include 1 John 2:2 or exclude it?

Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvnists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7"

 

[The Archangel]

Because in the Atonement Model used in the Bible -- "The Day of Atonement" Lev 16

It requires BOTH the work of Christ as 'Atoning Sacrifice" (the Lord's goat in Lev 16, the sin offering) AND ALSO it requires the work of Christ as High Priest in Lev 16 which in Hebrews 8:1 we are told "is the main point"

This needs to be explained. Please go further.

The Archangel

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The question that you have here is this: If he made atonement for the sins of the whole world (ie. every person without exception), why, then, would anyone go to hell?

The Archangel

I refer to the example of the brazen serpent (Numbers 21). God made a way to escape the awful death. He provided the means for all; however, only those who had the faith to believe and look at the serpent were spared. Jesus likened His atonement to this very event (John 3:14-15).

The same question could be asked, "Why, then, would anyone not look and be cured?

 

[delizzle]

Another way to put it --

Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvnists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7" or else you have universalism. (Which is a false choice... but that is another matter).

By doing that - they are on collision course when it comes to their efforts to deny your statement above

I agree. Universal Atonement doesn't mean universal salvation.

 

[delizzle]

The issue isn't "Jesus died only for the elect and not everyone." The issue is, likely, "the gospel only applies to the elect alone."

The Gospel still applies to the non-elect in some way, but they reject it and are doubly-damned for that rejection.

The Archangel

But if someone is not elect, they were never meant to accept the Gospel to begin with. So sharing the Gospel with a non-elect is nothing more than rubbing it in their faces that they are going to hell.

 

[delizzle]

Does that 'in some way" include 1 John 2:2 or exclude it?

Given the text
He is the "Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

Should "Whole WORLD" be downsized and re-imagined as "the FEW of Matthew 7"? Or can we just leave it as "WHOLE WORLD"?

Many Calvnists will insist outright that it must be downsized to the "FEW of Matthew 7"

Another interesting delimma is trying to reconcile scriptures like 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, John 3:16, and many others that very clearly and blatantly state that it's God's will that all (everyone, the world, ect...) are saved and none should parish. So the essence of the argument between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God is a liar or is simply powerless to save everyone. Of course I don't believe either to be the case. It's simply the accusations I see tossed back and forth. Calvinists accuse Arminians in worshiping a small and powerless God and Arminians accuse Calvinists of worshiping a tyrant God who blatantly lies and doesn't keep his promise. Nether statement is fair in my opinion.

Now, getting back to the topic of limited atonement, does limited atonement falsely make God out to be a liar? Seeing how he only died for some yet claimed to have died for all? I would like to here the "particular baptist" respond.

 

[delizzle]

I refer to the example of the brazen serpent (Numbers 21). God made a way to escape the awful death. He provided the means for all; however, only those who had the faith to believe and look at the serpent were spared. Jesus likened His atonement to this very event (John 3:14-15).

The same question could be asked, "Why, then, would anyone not look and be cured?

That is a good om OT example. Also, at the time of the first Passover, all the Israelites had the opportunity to sacrifice a lamb and apply its blood to their doorposts. However, each family had to exercise faith in God. The Passover’s atonement was universal in that it was offered to all, but the atonement still had to be applied individually, by faith.

 

[The Archangel]

I refer to the example of the brazen serpent (Numbers 21). God made a way to escape the awful death. He provided the means for all; however, only those who had the faith to believe and look at the serpent were spared. Jesus likened His atonement to this very event (John 3:14-15).

The same question could be asked, "Why, then, would anyone not look and be cured?

The issue here is that the serpent in Numbers 21 is never referred to as an "atonement." Many times atonement is sought and given in the Old Testament--and there are cases where it is not sought or given with blood. However, this case in Numbers 21 is not talked about as "atonment." While Jesus does draw a parallel, His death is clearly an atoning death where the serpent being raised is merely healing and not atoning. So you connection, while creative (and I do not mean that at all in pejorative way!), it doesn't follow because you're pushing one or two of the elements beyond the intended textual meaning, as the serpent is never said to be an atonement or give "eternal life."


The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

But if someone is not elect, they were never meant to accept the Gospel to begin with. So sharing the Gospel with a non-elect is nothing more than rubbing it in their faces that they are going to hell.

Again, the fallacy in your statement is the assumption that anyone and everyone knows who the elect are. In reality, they are known only to God. There is no way to know whether anyone we share the gospel with is elect or not, except for whether they accept it and hold fast--but that's after-the-fact.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Another interesting delimma is trying to reconcile scriptures like 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, John 3:16, and many others that very clearly and blatantly state that it's God's will that all (everyone, the world, ect...) are saved and none should parish. So the essence of the argument between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God is a liar or is simply powerless to save everyone. Of course I don't believe either to be the case. It's simply the accusations I see tossed back and forth. Calvinists accuse Arminians in worshiping a small and powerless God and Arminians accuse Calvinists of worshiping a tyrant God who blatantly lies and doesn't keep his promise. Nether statement is fair in my opinion.

Now, getting back to the topic of limited atonement, does limited atonement falsely make God out to be a liar? Seeing how he only died for some yet claimed to have died for all? I would like to here the "particular baptist" respond.

Again, we have a fallacy. You're begging the question with the citation of 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, and John 3:16. You are assuming they say what you think they say without proving from the text that they actually reference the "whole world" and that the whole world means everyone without exception.

The Archangel

 

[BobRyan]

Another interesting delimma is trying to reconcile scriptures like 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, John 3:16, and many others that very clearly and blatantly state that it's God's will that all (everyone, the world, ect...) are saved and none should parish. So the essence of the argument between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether or not God is a liar or is simply powerless to save everyone.

In the Arminian model God "sovereignly chooses a free will based universe" - which means He voluntarily limits what He "will do" (not what He CAN do) so that beings have some degree of free will.

Now, getting back to the topic of limited atonement, does limited atonement falsely make God out to be a liar? Seeing how he only died for some yet claimed to have died for all? I would like to here the "particular baptist" respond.

At the very least he would be guilty of embellishment - grandiose inflated advertising "I really just love the two of you - but I will call that so-loving-the world" etc. The gimmick advertisement with slick lawyereeze added at the end "and by world - I mean the world of the two of you ... it just sounds better if I say WORLD"

 

[BobRyan]

Again, we have a fallacy. You're begging the question with the citation of 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, and John 3:16. You are assuming they say what you think they say

What those texts say is obvious -- what is "not obvious" is the "assumption" that "all terms must be downsized and redefined that do not fit Calvinism's assumptions when they appear to contradict Calvinism".

 

[JonShaff]

This i'm certain: God saves all who Call upon His Son to be Saved.

 

[The Archangel]

What they say is obvious -- what is "not obvious" is the "assumption" that "all terms must be downsized and redefined that do not fit Calvinism's assumptions when they appear to contradict Calvinism".

Again, you assume your definition and understanding to be correct, without explaining why they are so. That’s nearly the textbook definition of begging the question.

Does the possibility even exist in your mind that your definition and assumptions about words, phrases, and certain verses may be wrong to one degree or another?

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pastor_Bob]

The issue here is that the serpent in Numbers 21 is never referred to as an "atonement." Many times atonement is sought and given in the Old Testament--and there are cases where it is not sought or given with blood. However, this case in Numbers 21 is not talked about as "atonment."

I believe it is a clear "type" of the atonement just as the brazen serpent, by Jesus' own testimony, is a type of Christ. It is a type of atonement in that the only way to escape the judgement of God for their sins was to look upon this brass serpent. The penalty for not looking was death. The reward, if you will, of believing and looking was life. Not eternal life, grant you, but I believe the analogy is clear.

While Jesus does draw a parallel, His death is clearly an atoning death where the serpent being raised is merely healing and not atoning.

Any Old Testament shadow would fall short. Even the Levitical sacrifices did not atone to the degree of Christ's atonement which was once for all, and so fall short. The author of Hebrews makes that very clear (Hebrews 10).

So you connection, while creative (and I do not mean that at all in pejorative way!), it doesn't follow because you're pushing one or two of the elements beyond the intended textual meaning, as the serpent is never said to be an atonement or give "eternal life."

No offense taken whatsoever, Brother. I very much appreciate your civility in these discussions. That being said, we'll disagree on this point. I honestly believe that I remained within the parameters of the analogy given by Jesus in that it is merely a type and not a perfect picture of the atonement, as there is no perfect picture.