What does "The Limited Atonement" actually proclaim? What are the Scriptural Proofs?

[Brightfame52]

@DaveXR650

I don't agree with your chain of logic but I don't think there is really a lot of difference.

Thats doublemindness right there, you dont agree, then dont see a lot of difference.

they were given some light, and some grace, and refused or spurned the grace they were given. I

Grace given is the New Birth, so Grace wasn't given if it didn't make you spiritually alive from the dead. Eph 2:5

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) How can a dead person refuse being resurrected from the dead

This is the biggie isn't it. Your statement is correct but are you willing to say it like this: If they come to Him in faith, then they will certainly be saved and forgiven on promise of God. (While fully agreeing and accepting the fact that Christ did die for that person and that they are elect.)

Its simple, if they come to Christ in Faith they were saved by Him, He died for them, if He didn't die for them, they remain dead and cannot come to Him in Faith.

 

[DaveXR650]

Thats doublemindness right there, you dont agree, then dont see a lot of difference.

Yeah you're right. I really think you're an idiot. But I don't feel any better. I just meant that a person who comes to Christ is saved. I think we both agree on that. At the point of salvation, we are all the same. I wish people on here would stop interpreting trying to be nice as weakness or doublemindedness.

Grace given is the New Birth, so Grace wasn't given if it didn't make you spiritually alive from the dead. Eph 2:5

This is showing why your theology while not fatal, does lead to more and more error. Grace was given when God, instead of destroying Adam when he sinned, devised a way of salvation. Grace has been provided in multiple ways over a long time. However, if you erroneously make the time of Christ's death the same time as everyone who is elect being justified you are forced to short circuit all the other scripture involved in the process of our salvation. So the truth of our calling in real time, our conviction, enlightenment, drawing and the resulting faith, repentance, pursuit of holiness, and perseverance all become meaningless because you won't allow this to unfold in real time, suitable to the way God made us. Of course the new birth is of grace, but the only explanation we have of that compares it to the wind blowing where it wants to. We are told to believe. God will indeed handle the new birth. But you delegitimize what God has told us to do which is repent and believe. You seem to think that is somehow wrong to teach what is clearly commanded in scripture. You have an ethereal disconnect which I don't blame non-Cals on here for finding dangerous. You complain that they have a false gospel. You don't have a gospel at all. Those who are already saved simply discover that fact, somehow.

 

[JonC]

To the question of the thread:

What does the Limited Atonement actually proclaim and what are the Biblical proofs?

The Kimited Atonement theory proclaims that Christ in His work as "the last Adam" represented a small group of men rather than mankind. No, there are not any Biblical proofs (there are verses that adherence use as support, but no proofs).

 

[DaveXR650]

What does the Limited Atonement actually proclaim and what are the Biblical proofs?

The Kimited Atonement theory proclaims that Christ in His work as "the last Adam" represented a small group of men rather than mankind. No, there are not any Biblical proofs (there are verses that adherence use as support, but no proofs).

Any discussion of limited atonement has to be based on the idea that we are talking about atoning for the sins of men in some manner. I have seen discussions of whether it's all the sins of some men, all the sins of all men, or some of the sins of some or all men. I have seen discussions involving whether it's all sins except for final unbelief and so on. I have seen it discussed as an issue of God's sense of justice being satisfied so that he can be just and still the justifier of ungodly men.

While I believe there are multiple aspects of the atonement, they have no bearing on a discussion of limited atonement as the OP started (a long time ago, apparently). If you believe Christ's death showed the heinousness of sin, or it showed Jesus' love and obedience to the Father, or it served as an example to us as disciples - while all those are true, they have no bearing on discussions of limited atonement.

I have heard what you mentioned, of Christ as the second Adam, used as an argument for universal atonement and I think it is a very good one to be honest. It applies because both sides in this would believe in an identification with Adam in the Fall, and the necessity of a union with Christ in salvation and it concerns a need to deal with our sin in order to be right with God. Those who believe that God can forgive sin without any need for atonement would by definition have no reason to discuss limited versus universal atonement.

 

[David Lamb]

To the question of the thread:

What does the Limited Atonement actually proclaim and what are the Biblical proofs?

The Kimited Atonement theory proclaims that Christ in His work as "the last Adam" represented a small group of men rather than mankind. No, there are not any Biblical proofs (there are verses that adherence use as support, but no proofs).

I have not seen anybody claim that in His saving work Jesus represented only a small group of men. That's one of the problems with the term "limited atonement:" it makes it seem as though the atonement is only for a small number of people. I prefer the term, "particular redemption," but that doesn't work when forming an acronym. " TUPIP" isn't a word, and "TULIP" is! That Jesus knew who He was dying to save is shown by the prophecy of Isaiah:

“He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.” (Isa 53:11 NKJV)

He wouldn't have been able to be satisfied if He had only died potentially to save a group of people unknown to Him.

 

[JonC]

I have not seen anybody claim that in His saving work Jesus represented only a small group of men. That's one of the problems with the term "limited atonement:" it makes it seem as though the atonement is only for a small number of people. I prefer the term, "particular redemption," but that doesn't work when forming an acronym. " TUPIP" isn't a word, and "TULIP" is! That Jesus knew who He was dying to save is shown by the prophecy of Isaiah:

“He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.” (Isa 53:11 NKJV)

He wouldn't have been able to be satisfied if He had only died potentially to save a group of people unknown to Him.

"Limited" and "particular" have the same meaning, but I get what you are saying. When I held thst view I preferred "particular" as well. It can be supported by Scripture, but not proven by Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Any discussion of limited atonement has to be based on the idea that we are talking about atoning for the sins of men in some manner. I have seen discussions of whether it's all the sins of some men, all the sins of all men, or some of the sins of some or all men. I have seen discussions involving whether it's all sins except for final unbelief and so on. I have seen it discussed as an issue of God's sense of justice being satisfied so that he can be just and still the justifier of ungodly men.

While I believe there are multiple aspects of the atonement, they have no bearing on a discussion of limited atonement as the OP started (a long time ago, apparently). If you believe Christ's death showed the heinousness of sin, or it showed Jesus' love and obedience to the Father, or it served as an example to us as disciples - while all those are true, they have no bearing on discussions of limited atonement.

I have heard what you mentioned, of Christ as the second Adam, used as an argument for universal atonement and I think it is a very good one to be honest. It applies because both sides in this would believe in an identification with Adam in the Fall, and the necessity of a union with Christ in salvation and it concerns a need to deal with our sin in order to be right with God. Those who believe that God can forgive sin without any need for atonement would by definition have no reason to discuss limited versus universal atonement.

You make very good points. I'd say any discussion of Atonement in general has to be based on an agreed upon idea of atonement and sins. Limited and unlimited atonement debates are limited to a general Calvinistic understanding of atonement (limited to atoning for individual sins). I believe this because the debate itself comes from Calvinism vs Arminianism, and Arminianism grew out of Calvinism (it shares a common doctrine up to a point of disagreement).

A criteria for common discussion is an acceptance of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (Calvinism). If dealing with a camp that is not influenced by Calvin8sm we end up talking past one another because the basic understanding of Atonement is different.

Before Calvinism the focus of Atonement was not focused on satisfying divine justice (Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory which focused on divine merit, Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory which focused on satisfying divine honor, etc.). Limited and unlimited Atonement are Calvinistic debates (Arminianism and Amyraldianism assuming a Calvinistic foundation).

 

[David Lamb]

"Limited" and "particular" have the same meaning, but I get what you are saying. When I held thst view I preferred "particular" as well. It can be supported by Scripture, but not proven by Scripture.

Thanks. I think "limited" tends to have a more restrictive connotation than "particular." "Particular" has much less association with words like "few", "minority" etc., than "limited" tends to do.

 

[Brightfame52]

Yeah you're right. I really think you're an idiot. But I don't feel any better. I just meant that a person who comes to Christ is saved. I think we both agree on that. At the point of salvation, we are all the same. I wish people on here would stop interpreting trying to be nice as weakness or doublemindedness.

This is showing why your theology while not fatal, does lead to more and more error. Grace was given when God, instead of destroying Adam when he sinned, devised a way of salvation. Grace has been provided in multiple ways over a long time. However, if you erroneously make the time of Christ's death the same time as everyone who is elect being justified you are forced to short circuit all the other scripture involved in the process of our salvation. So the truth of our calling in real time, our conviction, enlightenment, drawing and the resulting faith, repentance, pursuit of holiness, and perseverance all become meaningless because you won't allow this to unfold in real time, suitable to the way God made us. Of course the new birth is of grace, but the only explanation we have of that compares it to the wind blowing where it wants to. We are told to believe. God will indeed handle the new birth. But you delegitimize what God has told us to do which is repent and believe. You seem to think that is somehow wrong to teach what is clearly commanded in scripture. You have an ethereal disconnect which I don't blame non-Cals on here for finding dangerous. You complain that they have a false gospel. You don't have a gospel at all. Those who are already saved simply discover that fact, somehow.

Grace given is the New Birth, so Grace wasn't given if it didn't make you spiritually alive from the dead. Eph 2:5

You present a powerless grace that dishonors the the True Grace of God that saves.

 

[JesusFan]

You make very good points. I'd say any discussion of Atonement in general has to be based on an agreed upon idea of atonement and sins. Limited and unlimited atonement debates are limited to a general Calvinistic understanding of atonement (limited to atoning for individual sins). I believe this because the debate itself comes from Calvinism vs Arminianism, and Arminianism grew out of Calvinism (it shares a common doctrine up to a point of disagreement).

A criteria for common discussion is an acceptance of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (Calvinism). If dealing with a camp that is not influenced by Calvin8sm we end up talking past one another because the basic understanding of Atonement is different.

Before Calvinism the focus of Atonement was not focused on satisfying divine justice (Calvin reformed Aquinas' theory which focused on divine merit, Aquinas reformed Anselm's theory which focused on satisfying divine honor, etc.). Limited and unlimited Atonement are Calvinistic debates (Arminianism and Amyraldianism assuming a Calvinistic foundation).

Particular atonement makes the salvation accomplished by the Lord Jesus upon his cross a sure thing, while unlimited makes it a hope so thing, as it presents God to us doing all that he could to secure salvation for loss sinners, yet still dependent on their human wills to respond, so a potential only salvation

 

[JonC]

Particular atonement makes the salvation accomplished by the Lord Jesus upon his cross a sure thing, while unlimited makes it a hope so thing, as it presents God to us doing all that he could to secure salvation for loss sinners, yet still dependent on their human wills to respond, so a potential only salvation

I know the arguments. You skipped Arminianism (that God draws men to salvation in such a way that men can only reject Christ of their own volition).

My point is both are products of Calvinism.

For example, early Christians believed that Christ died for all mankind (the "whole human family"). BUT they viewed Jesus as a new Adam rather than working to take the punishment for individual sins. This shifted their view to reconciliation with Christ being the standard where as Adam's disobedience had been the norm. Men would then be judged based on Christ rather than sin, with the lost remaining in their sins for rejecting Christ.

The idea that Jesus took our punishment away as a means of salvation is relatively new. And limited vs unlimited atonement is a debate within this newer concept (that on the Cross God was punishing our sins or the sins of the elect laid on Christ).

 

[JonC]

Thanks. I think "limited" tends to have a more restrictive connotation than "particular." "Particular" has much less association with words like "few", "minority" etc., than "limited" tends to do.

You may be right here. With "limited" people tend to focus on the quality where as "paticular" focuses on the people.

 

[DaveXR650]

Grace given is the New Birth, so Grace wasn't given if it didn't make you spiritually alive from the dead. Eph 2:5

You present a powerless grace that dishonors the the True Grace of God that saves.

We all know that people in the same group, same culture, same family can hear the gospel and some receive it and some reject it and the only explanation is that it is the way of everyone that is born again. We pray for people, after they have heard the gospel and thus have had a clear "chance" to repent and believe. What are we doing but asking for God to shape their wills in order that they may be saved. This is all of grace.
Calvinists and Arminians, General Baptists and Wesleyans agree on this.

Because this is a supernatural work many Calvinists believe that actual regeneration occurs then before belief and they depart from moderate Calvinists and Arminians who believe faith comes first. But they also believe that the influence and pull and awakening, though not actual regeneration, does precede faith and they believe it is essential to a person's coming to Christ. I find all these ideas acceptable although in my own mind I think you hear the gospel and are awakened and convicted by the Holy Spirit and as soon as you believe you are regenerated.

This is pretty well supported in John 3 if you read the whole chapter. There, being born again is essential, it is passive as well as beyond our explanation. But believing is commanded and it is expressly stated that the reason there is a problem is all men won't believe and it's even further explained that they love darkness rather than light. Now you can say that the reason they love darkness rather than light is that they have not been born again. That may be so but there still must be an actual connection between a rational being and God or else there is no interaction. There has to be something we do, even if it's wrought by the Holy Spirit, which like I said before everyone believes.

This is the reason that even the great Calvinists like John Owen say that to refuse to believe is the greatest sin possible for men. No matter what they teach as official theological teaching, if you say that it shows what you really believe. Why would it be such a great and special sin to refuse to believe if such belief was only the result of being already born again.

One more thing and this is important because of they way you present your theology on here. Even if everything you say is correct you still make a serious error in my opinion. We are specifically told to believe. If you tell someone that that is a gospel that dishonors God, in other words you discourage people from actively believing as being essential to their salvation, you could very well be discouraging someone who was sovereignly born again just as you say. In other words, like the Puritan Calvinists said, the only way to know you are elect is that you believe.

 

[Brightfame52]

We all know that people in the same group, same culture, same family can hear the gospel and some receive it and some reject it and the only explanation is that it is the way of everyone that is born again. We pray for people, after they have heard the gospel and thus have had a clear "chance" to repent and believe. What are we doing but asking for God to shape their wills in order that they may be saved. This is all of grace.
Calvinists and Arminians, General Baptists and Wesleyans agree on this.

Because this is a supernatural work many Calvinists believe that actual regeneration occurs then before belief and they depart from moderate Calvinists and Arminians who believe faith comes first. But they also believe that the influence and pull and awakening, though not actual regeneration, does precede faith and they believe it is essential to a person's coming to Christ. I find all these ideas acceptable although in my own mind I think you hear the gospel and are awakened and convicted by the Holy Spirit and as soon as you believe you are regenerated.

This is pretty well supported in John 3 if you read the whole chapter. There, being born again is essential, it is passive as well as beyond our explanation. But believing is commanded and it is expressly stated that the reason there is a problem is all men won't believe and it's even further explained that they love darkness rather than light. Now you can say that the reason they love darkness rather than light is that they have not been born again. That may be so but there still must be an actual connection between a rational being and God or else there is no interaction. There has to be something we do, even if it's wrought by the Holy Spirit, which like I said before everyone believes.

This is the reason that even the great Calvinists like John Owen say that to refuse to believe is the greatest sin possible for men. No matter what they teach as official theological teaching, if you say that it shows what you really believe. Why would it be such a great and special sin to refuse to believe if such belief was only the result of being already born again.

One more thing and this is important because of they way you present your theology on here. Even if everything you say is correct you still make a serious error in my opinion. We are specifically told to believe. If you tell someone that that is a gospel that dishonors God, in other words you discourage people from actively believing as being essential to their salvation, you could very well be discouraging someone who was sovereignly born again just as you say. In other words, like the Puritan Calvinists said, the only way to know you are elect is that you believe.

Grace given is the New Birth, so Grace wasn't given if it didn't make you spiritually alive from the dead. Eph 2:5

You present a powerless grace that dishonors the the True Grace of God that saves.

Here is your so called grace:

"One who is not saved is at the worst, left to follow their own path of sin by their own choice. At the worst, they were given some light, and some grace, and refused or spurned the grace they were given. "

You are advocating God gives Grace to people who remain spiritually dead in sin and rebellious, thats Blasphemy, and a poor witness of the Grace of God, the very effectual working of Spiritual Power, like Paul experienced Eph 3:7

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are advocating God gives Grace to people who remain spiritually dead in sin and rebellious, thats Blasphemy, and a poor witness of the Grace of God, the very effectual working of Spiritual Power, like Paul experienced Eph 3:7

I would suggest you pick up a copy of J.C. Ryle's "Old Paths" because he spends a lot of time explaining what I am unsuccessfully saying to you.
"I will not waste time in trying to explain what cannot be explained, and unravel what cannot be unravelled. I will not attempt to show metaphysically in what way an unconverted man can look to Christ, or repent, or believe. But this I know, that it is my plain duty to bid every unbeliever to repent and believe. And this I know, that the man who will not accept the invitation, will find at last that he has ruined his own soul!" J.C. Ryle

I am not denying the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in men's salvation, or the essential nature of it. But Ryle, and Bunyan, and Owen and Edwards and all the other great preachers are stating exactly what you call blasphemy. Namely, that men can and do refuse God's grace and destroy their own souls. A Calvinism that claims God has no dealings or nothing to say to the non-elect or gives no grace that is common to all men I reject completely. But I think I am in good company. Your hyper-Calvinist system is indeed incoherent.

 

[Brightfame52]

I would suggest you pick up a copy of J.C. Ryle's "Old Paths" because he spends a lot of time explaining what I am unsuccessfully saying to you.
"I will not waste time in trying to explain what cannot be explained, and unravel what cannot be unravelled. I will not attempt to show metaphysically in what way an unconverted man can look to Christ, or repent, or believe. But this I know, that it is my plain duty to bid every unbeliever to repent and believe. And this I know, that the man who will not accept the invitation, will find at last that he has ruined his own soul!" J.C. Ryle

I am not denying the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in men's salvation, or the essential nature of it. But Ryle, and Bunyan, and Owen and Edwards and all the other great preachers are stating exactly what you call blasphemy. Namely, that men can and do refuse God's grace and destroy their own souls. A Calvinism that claims God has no dealings or nothing to say to the non-elect or gives no grace that is common to all men I reject completely. But I think I am in good company. Your hyper-Calvinist system is indeed incoherent.

You cant destroy Gods effectual Power of Grace, I dont care who you quote, its Blasphemy

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks. I think "limited" tends to have a more restrictive connotation than "particular." "Particular" has much less association with words like "few", "minority" etc., than "limited" tends to do.

I rather like the term "definite" atonement. Joseph was told, 'You shall call His name "Jesus," for He shall save His people from their sins.'
He will not offer His people salvation and wait to see how they get on with it; He will save them. That sounds rather definite to me.
Also, I get rather weary with people insisting that under Calvinism Christ died only for a small number of people.

The Kimited [sic] Atonement theory proclaims that Christ in His work as "the last Adam" represented a small group of men rather than mankind.

We are told in Revelation 7:9-10 that there is ' a great multitude which no one could number....... crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God."'
I have asked several times for somebody to tell me how the number saved gets smaller or larger if one is Calvinistic, Arminian or anything else. No one has ever replied.
Also, we are told that the number is
(a) 'a great multitude' and
(b) 'Which no one could number.'
So where do people get off pretending
(a) That they can number it, and
(b) That is it small.

No, there are not any Biblical proofs (there are verses that adherence use as support, but no proofs).

I think Matthew 1:5 and Revelation 7:10 are very fair proofs.

 

[37818]

You cant destroy Gods effectual Power of Grace, I dont care who you quote, its Blasphemy

No place in the word of God is grace associated with limited atonement..

 

[Silverhair]

If Christ is the ransom for all, then all are ransomed. Is that what you believe?

The bible is clear that Christ was the ransom for all. Don't you believe that? Did the Holy Spirit get it wrong?

If God is the Saviour of all men, then all men are saved. Is that what you believe?

Why is it that calvinists have such a hard time understanding scripture or is it that you just have to twist it all to make it fit your theology?
Christ has provided the means of salvation to all but man still has to freely trust in Him before they are saved by God.

If Christ died for all the ungodly (which I think is what you are suggesting), then every ungodly person who ever lived has been saved. Is that what you believe?
If you don't believe these things, then, whether you like it or not, you believe in a limited atonement. All we need to decide is whether it is men or God who limit the atonement. Do men save themselves, or does God save them?

There you go twisting scripture again. What does the bible say? Do you not believe it?

Of course salvation is limited, if you do not believe then while the atonement was universal {Rom_6:10, 1Jn 2:2} salvation is not. {Joh 3:16}

Christ death made atonement for all of humanities sins but each person has to humble themselves and trust in God for their salvation.

Paul is writing to Christians, those who are loved by God (Romans 1:6), so of course Christ died for them.
It is your failure to understand that 'all' does not always mean every single person that is your main problem, but unfortunately you will not be told.
Instead, you constantly tell people that they don't believe the Bible, which is rather like telling them that they are not saved, and is,, I think, against the rules of this board. I do not accuse you of of not believing the Bible - I'm sure you do - but I do accuse you of not understanding it properly.

Were those believers at one time lost sinners? Of course they were, so Christ died for them just as He died for you and I and all sinners. It is the false theology of calvinists that want to limit what Christ did by denying clear scripture. So when I say someone does not believe the bible it is because they do just that when they deny what the Holy Spirit inspired.

Did I say that "all" had to always mean every single person, NO. But then again I do not alter the meaning of "all" to mean "elect" as some are want to do.

Your accusation rings rather hollow when you are the one that has chosen to deny clear scripture

 

[JesusFan]

I know the arguments. You skipped Arminianism (that God draws men to salvation in such a way that men can only reject Christ of their own volition).

My point is both are products of Calvinism.

For example, early Christians believed that Christ died for all mankind (the "whole human family"). BUT they viewed Jesus as a new Adam rather than working to take the punishment for individual sins. This shifted their view to reconciliation with Christ being the standard where as Adam's disobedience had been the norm. Men would then be judged based on Christ rather than sin, with the lost remaining in their sins for rejecting Christ.

The idea that Jesus took our punishment away as a means of salvation is relatively new. And limited vs unlimited atonement is a debate within this newer concept (that on the Cross God was punishing our sins or the sins of the elect laid on Christ).

Arminianism teaches and hold though that God common graces all sinners equally, so that they can chose to exercise the free wills to receive that offered salvation, but that presupposes though that being spiritually dead on their sins, we still have the ability to somehow freely chose to received Jesus to save us.