Unlimited Atonement

[jbh28]

This is a classic logical fallacy employed by Calvinists called "false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy...this is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options."

I believe Dr. Bob has been here long enough to recognize this but for whatever reason continues to use it.

Non-Calvinistic Christians believe in a conditional substitutionary atonement, which simply means that God provides atonement for the sin of all mankind, but the application of that atonement is conditioned upon faith (i.e. "whosoever believes in Him will not perish").

This is a viable, biblically supported and historically orthodox Christian view of the atonement that doesn't fit the false dichotomy of either Universalism or Calvinism's view of Limited Atonement.

What do you say about the phrase "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"? In other words, the blood of Christ is sufficient for any individual, but it's only efficient to the believers.

 

[mets65]

Atonement means sin is "covered" or taken care of. No longer in the sight of God (outraging His holy nature). Today we would say it is a "done deal".

A just God can only demand payment for a sin once (or He would not be "just"). IF Jesus actually paid for every sin of every man, then every man would go to heaven. It is a heresy (word used correctly and allowed) of "universalism" - teaching all men are saved.

All those for whose sins Jesus atoned will go to heaven. The rub comes with those who think of atonement is provisional or potential and not real - dependent on MAN to DO something (believe, apply it, etc)

No one is questioning that the death of Jesus COULD have atoned for every sin of every man. But it did not. It was sufficient for all the world (term for Gentiles as well as Jews) and not just Jews as I John 2 points out - a radical change from the Jewish mindset that considered salvation in their realm alone and one had to become a Jew to really have sin atoned for.

The atonement was for those whom God loved and gave to His Son from eternity past. All others will "die in their sins", be judged and condemned. No atonement for their sin was made.

Does that mean by that logic that some people can't be saved?

 

[Winman]

Isa 53:6 ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned EVERY ONE to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us ALL.

Have you gone astray? Then your sins were laid on Jesus.

The Calvinists are always happy to quote those OT scriptures Paul quoted in Romans 2:9-18 as pertaining to 100% of mankind being sinners that never do good, none that seeketh after God etc...

But when the scriptures say Jesus took all men's sins upon himself they want to limit it.

These guys make up the rules as they go along, you cannot hold a meaningful discussion with them.

 

[Jarthur001]

Does that mean by that logic that some people can't be saved?

Its saying NONE will be saved unless CHRIST saves them. They will only go on in their sin. Any that come to Christ will be saved. Christ draws believers to himself.

Everybody believes in limited atonement. Is it limited at the cross, or is it limited to the moment of salvation when the person believes?

Calvinist hold that the cross gives a pure picture of the love and power of Gods love. The atonement was a love act by Christ to save sinners, and that love act worked. Salvation is all a work of Christ.

Others believe that the atonement didn't save anyone on the cross itself, but if man wants to be save, he can allow God to apply the blood to his sins. Salvation here is God has made a way....it is up to man. Man has the say so.

 

[Skandelon]

Would do you say about the phrase "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"? In other words, the blood of Christ is sufficient for any individual, but it's only efficient to the believers.

I think I would be okay with that phrase assuming you define the terms in the way I understand them. I believe even Calvinistic scholars (like Sproul) agree with this kind of phrase, but I would have to take issue with their view of what is considered "sufficient." I don't see how a Calvinist could claim that the atonement is in any manner "sufficient" for a non-elect individual to be saved.

 

[Jarthur001]

Isa 53:6 ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned EVERY ONE to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us ALL.

That may not be the best passage for you to quote for your side. Read it.

 

[Winman]

I think I would be okay with that phrase assuming you define the terms in the way I understand them. I believe even Calvinistic scholars (like Sproul) agree with this kind of phrase, but I would have to take issue with their view of what is considered "sufficient." I don't see how a Calvinist could claim that the atonement is in any manner "sufficient" for a non-elect individual to be saved.

They also seem to argue that the atonement did not take place if you do not believe. This is like saying the holocaust did not happen because you do not believe it.

Jesus died for your sins whether you believe it or not. Reality does not consist of what you believe.

 

[jbh28]

Isa 53:6 ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned EVERY ONE to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us ALL.

Have you gone astray? Then your sins were laid on Jesus.

The Calvinists are always happy to quote those OT scriptures Paul quoted in Romans 2:9-18 as pertaining to 100% of mankind being sinners that never do good, none that seeketh after God etc...

But when the scriptures say Jesus took all men's sins upon himself they want to limit it.

These guys make up the rules as they go along, you cannot hold a meaningful discussion with them.

context, context, context. who is the "we" and "us"

 

[Skandelon]

Its saying NONE will be saved unless CHRIST saves them.

If that is all he said then their would have been no disagreement, but as I clearly explained he presented a false dichotomy by suggesting that Christians must either believe in Universalism or Calvinist's view of Limited Atonement. I presented the Orthodox and biblically supported alternative held to by non-Calvinistic believers. God has provided atonement for all mankind conditioned upon their faith...a picture of love for the whole world (Jn 3:16) rather than a relatively small hand picked segment of the world.

 

[Amy.G]

Non-Calvinistic Christians believe in a conditional substitutionary atonement, which simply means that God provides atonement for the sin of all mankind, but the application of that atonement is conditioned upon faith (i.e. "whosoever believes in Him will not perish").

That is it in the proverbial orthodox nutshell.

 

[Winman]

context, context, context. who is the "we" and "us"

And who was Paul speaking to in Romans? JEWS!

Read Acts 28:16-31.

 

[jbh28]

And who was Paul speaking to in Romans? JEWS!

Read Acts 28:16-31.

So Jesus only died for the Jews? Is that your answer to the "we" and "us" that the iniquity was laid on Christ?

 

[Fred's Wife]

If that is all he said then their would have been no disagreement, but as I clearly explained he presented a false dichotomy by suggesting that Christians must either believe in Universalism or Calvinist's view of Limited Atonement. I presented the Orthodox and biblically supported alternative held to by non-Calvinistic believers. God has provided atonement for all mankind conditioned upon their faith...a picture of love for the whole world (Jn 3:16) rather than a relatively small hand picked segment of the world.

The atonement of Christ was universal and still is today...the gift of eternal life is also universal. Jesus Christ is the Saviour of ALL men. (1 Timothy 4:10). All means all.

The invitation to salvation is offered to ALL:

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

This doesn't mean ALL will be saved (Universalism) or that Christ's atonement is limited (Calvinism) to a "chosen" few. It means that Christ died for all, the atonement was sufficient for all, but not all will trust Christ and come to the knowledge of the Truth and be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4)

 

[Robert Snow]

Respectfully, I believe that Jesus' death, burial and resurrection paid the price for every sin ever committed. I believe people are condemned because of unbelief.

 

[webdog]

So Jesus only died for the Jews? Is that your answer to the "we" and "us" that the iniquity was laid on Christ?

Not what he said, was it? If anything it shows that all of the jews (believing and unbelieving alike) have been atoned for.

 

[RAdam]

Who said the OT atonement was meant for everyone in existence?

Atonement was made on behalf of Israel. Was every Jew saved and bound for heaven because of this atonement? How about Judas? Was he a Jew? Was he an Israelite? Was the once a year atonement made on his behalf? Did he go to heaven?

You are using it to illustrate general atonement. Problem is, it only was given to one people, God's covenant people. Hmm, I wonder what that pictures.

The OT atonement didn't cover anyone. No sins were put away under that system. It was a picture.

 

[RAdam]

And who was Paul speaking to in Romans? JEWS!

Read Acts 28:16-31.

Really? How do you explain this verse, then?

Romans 11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."

Paul, in Romans, is writing to Jews and Gentiles.

 

[jbh28]

Not what he said, was it? If anything it shows that all of the jews (believing and unbelieving alike) have been atoned for.

I had asked a question of who the "us" and the "we" were and that was the only group mentioned. In other words, he didn't answer my question. The passage was used to say that the iniquity of "all" was put on Christ. But it says "us all." So I asked who the "us" and "we" were in the passage.

 

[webdog]

The OT atonement didn't cover anyone. No sins were put away under that system. It was a picture.

Exactly. In the same way the OT atonement was made for believer and unbeliever alike, so did Christ's.

 

[jbh28]

Respectfully, I believe that Jesus' death, burial and resurrection paid the price for every sin ever committed. I believe people are condemned because of unbelief.

This is part of why the sides have disagreements. There are differences of more than just "for whom did Christ die." I believe people go to hell because their sin. Unbelief is a sin. If it was already paid for, then we are still in the same situation. People go to hell for sin. Yes, they have rejected Jesus Christ, but that can only be considered a secondary cause. It's like my power bill. I have a power bill to pay because I received electricity, not because I refused to let my friend pay it for me.