Why so much Angst About Limited atonement?

[Yeshua1]

By those not holding to calvinistic theology?

 

[robustheologian]

By those not holding to calvinistic theology?

It's not just limited atonement...it's also total inability, unconditional election, and the necessity of irresistible grace. Most people (Baptists) don't have a problem with eternal security though...which is strange.

 

[DHK]

By those not holding to calvinistic theology?

It can't be supported by the Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

It can't be supported by the Scriptures.

How do you see the definition of it being though?

 

[DHK]

How do you see the definition of it being though?

Limited--Restricted to a select few called the elect.
Atonement--limited to a select few called the elect.

Christ died for only the elect.
Only "the elect" will understand the gospel and thus have the opportunity to be saved. The others will be deliberately blinded to the gospel.

“L” stands for Limited Atonement: that the elect are the only ones for whom Christ died in payment of the penalty for their sins, and that His death is efficacious for no others, nor was intended to be.
Dort declares: “For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that…the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect…all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation…he purchased by his death.”

Canons of Dort

 

[DHK]

How do you see the definition of it being though?

I find that such a restricted definition as given by the canons of Dort totally unsupported by Scripture.

 

[tyndale1946]

It's not just limited atonement...it's also total inability, unconditional election, and the necessity of irresistible grace. Most people (Baptists) don't have a problem with eternal security though...which is strange.

Think about this I can only answer for myself but anything but limited atonement without the rest doesn't that put the sinner in the drivers seat?... I did it my way!.. Instead of I am the way... The truth and the life!... Brother Glen

 

[The Archangel]

Limited Atonement is the only view--which is patently scriptural, by the way--that gives Jesus' death any accomplished meaning. What I mean is this: Limited Atonement accomplishes the salvation of some; un-limited atonement only makes atonement possible and accomplishes nothing.

The Archangel

 

[robustheologian]

Limited Atonement is the only view--which is patently scriptural, by the way--that gives Jesus' death any accomplished meaning. What I mean is this: Limited Atonement accomplishes the salvation of some; un-limited atonement only makes atonement possible and accomplishes nothing.

The Archangel

Amen. Unless you're a Universalist, everyone believes Christ's atonement is limited—either in extent or effectiveness. Arminians limit the effectiveness of Christ's atonement in that they don't believe it actually saved anyone but that it made salvation possible—albeit for everyone but still only possible. The Calvinist believes Christ's atonement actually saved, but not saved everyone—obviously evidenced by the fact that everyone isn't saved.

 

[DHK]

Limited Atonement is the only view--which is patently scriptural, by the way--that gives Jesus' death any accomplished meaning. What I mean is this: Limited Atonement accomplishes the salvation of some; un-limited atonement only makes atonement possible and accomplishes nothing.

The Archangel

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Jesus, while dying on the cross, shedding his blood for "many" prayed for "the non-elect"?? "Father forgive them."

Does this make sense to you. If Christ did not die for the sins of all the world, make an atonement for all the sins of the world as it says in 1John 2:2, that whosoever (in all the world) might believe in him, then His prayer would not make sense.
Scenarios like these fall apart in the light of Calvinism. The soldiers that nailed him to a cross, that spat in his face, that parted his raiment, that gambled over his clothing, etc. were they of the elect or non-elect. There is no indication that the ones that crucified Christ were "of the elect," and yet Christ prays for their salvation, or that their sins would be forgiven.

That only makes sense if the Atonement in not limited, if they have a chance to believe, if it is possible for them to believe. But according to Limited Atonement and a denial of free will, Christ's prayer, makes no sense and is all in vain.

God wasted His time praying for these who could not be forgiven!

 

[The Archangel]

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Jesus, while dying on the cross, shedding his blood for "many" prayed for "the non-elect"?? "Father forgive them."

Does this make sense to you. If Christ did not die for the sins of all the world, make an atonement for all the sins of the world as it says in 1John 2:2, that whosoever (in all the world) might believe in him, then His prayer would not make sense.
Scenarios like these fall apart in the light of Calvinism. The soldiers that nailed him to a cross, that spat in his face, that parted his raiment, that gambled over his clothing, etc. were they of the elect or non-elect. There is no indication that the ones that crucified Christ were "of the elect," and yet Christ prays for their salvation, or that their sins would be forgiven.

That only makes sense if the Atonement in not limited, if they have a chance to believe, if it is possible for them to believe. But according to Limited Atonement and a denial of free will, Christ's prayer, makes no sense and is all in vain.

God wasted His time praying for these who could not be forgiven!

If all the sins of the world have been forgiven (propitiated, as in 1 John 2:2) then you have universalism. It's really that simple.

Once you understand "propitiation" then the only two options are a Limited Atonement and Universalism.

A professor at my Alma Mater and I talked one day about this... He is a 4-Pointer, rejecting Limited Atonement. Yet, he freely admits the huge flaw in his argument: Double payment.

If Christ's death is a propitiation, which it is, then something was accomplished, not merely made possible. If the forgiveness of sins was accomplished for the elect, then the elect will be saved. If, on the other hand forgiveness was accomplished for everyone, everyone will be saved.

The Archangel

 

[Reformed]

If all the sins of the world have been forgiven (propitiated, as in 1 John 2:2) then you have universalism. It's really that simple.

Once you understand "propitiation" then the only two options are a Limited Atonement and Universalism.

I have seen Limited Atonement (or as I prefer to call it, Definite Atonement) opposed solely due to the word "Limited", as though God's ability to save to the uttermost is being called into question. God's power is not being limited. Instead God has a definite plan for the atonement, namely to propitiate (satisfy) the sin-debt of the Elect.

I do not have a problem with Jesus' plea in Luke 23:34 ("Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."). Jesus also plead, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me" (Luke 22:42). Jesus is fully God and fully man. He felt the emotional pull of His humanity. His humanity did not want to endure the physical pain of the cross. And for God to take on sin; that is beyond our capacity to understand.

 

[robustheologian]

If all the sins of the world have been forgiven (propitiated, as in 1 John 2:2) then you have universalism. It's really that simple.

Once you understand "propitiation" then the only two options are a Limited Atonement and Universalism.

A professor at my Alma Mater and I talked one day about this... He is a 4-Pointer, rejecting Limited Atonement. Yet, he freely admits the huge flaw in his argument: Double payment.

If Christ's death is a propitiation, which it is, then something was accomplished, not merely made possible. If the forgiveness of sins was accomplished for the elect, then the elect will be saved. If, on the other hand forgiveness was accomplished for everyone, everyone will be saved.

The Archangel

I have seen Limited Atonement (or as I prefer to call it, Definite Atonement) opposed solely due to the word "Limited", as though God's ability to save to the uttermost is being called into question. God's power is not being limited. Instead God has a definite plan for the atonement, namely to propitiate (satisfy) the sin-debt of the Elect.

I do not have a problem with Jesus' plea in Luke 23:34 ("Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."). Jesus also plead, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me" (Luke 22:42). Jesus is fully God and fully man. He felt the emotional pull of His humanity. His humanity did not want to endure the physical pain of the cross. And for God to take on sin; that is beyond our capacity to understand.

As said before...

Amen. Unless you're a Universalist, everyone believes Christ's atonement is limited—either in extent or effectiveness. Arminians limit the effectiveness of Christ's atonement in that they don't believe it actually saved anyone but that it made salvation possible—albeit for everyone but still only possible. The Calvinist believes Christ's atonement actually saved, but not saved everyone—obviously evidenced by the fact that everyone isn't saved.

 

[The Archangel]

I have seen Limited Atonement (or as I prefer to call it, Definite Atonement) opposed solely due to the word "Limited", as though God's ability to save to the uttermost is being called into question. God's power is not being limited. Instead God has a definite plan for the atonement, namely to propitiate (satisfy) the sin-debt of the Elect.

I do not have a problem with Jesus' plea in Luke 23:34 ("Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing."). Jesus also plead, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me" (Luke 22:42). Jesus is fully God and fully man. He felt the emotional pull of His humanity. His humanity did not want to endure the physical pain of the cross. And for God to take on sin; that is beyond our capacity to understand.

Agreed!

It's a good point you make about Jesus' prayer about the cup being removed. Also, it may be that Christ was praying for the soldiers who were--under orders--nailing Him to the cross. There was no volition on their part, though it is highly unlikely they thought ill of what they were doing. Perhaps, as Christ may have considered it, they were sinning in ignorance as opposed to Pilate, the Scribes, and Pharisees, etc. who knew exactly what they were doing--and the injustice they were committing.

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Limited Atonement is the only view--which is patently scriptural, by the way--that gives Jesus' death any accomplished meaning. What I mean is this: Limited Atonement accomplishes the salvation of some; un-limited atonement only makes atonement possible and accomplishes nothing.

The Archangel

Then the consept of unlimited (only potential salvation) is in fact limited, ie it imposes restrictions on the
power of christ to save whom the father chooses....it is in fact an inept doctrine....it makes God weak and dependent on man. COULD YOU IMAGINE, the pipsqueak man, the sinner man, the infinately flawed man actually having the power and authority to select his own salvation while a Holy God sits and waits for his decision to be saved or not! Ahhhhhh haaaa haaaa.

 

[steaver]

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Jesus, while dying on the cross, shedding his blood for "many" prayed for "the non-elect"?? "Father forgive them."

Does this make sense to you. If Christ did not die for the sins of all the world, make an atonement for all the sins of the world as it says in 1John 2:2, that whosoever (in all the world) might believe in him, then His prayer would not make sense.
Scenarios like these fall apart in the light of Calvinism. The soldiers that nailed him to a cross, that spat in his face, that parted his raiment, that gambled over his clothing, etc. were they of the elect or non-elect. There is no indication that the ones that crucified Christ were "of the elect," and yet Christ prays for their salvation, or that their sins would be forgiven.

That only makes sense if the Atonement in not limited, if they have a chance to believe, if it is possible for them to believe. But according to Limited Atonement and a denial of free will, Christ's prayer, makes no sense and is all in vain.

God wasted His time praying for these who could not be forgiven!

You are spot on once again. Belief in limited atonement only reveals limited understanding of scripture. Many passages of scripture must be ignored if one is to embrace Calvinism. Jesus made it very clear that all manner of sin will be forgiven WITH AN EXCEPTION. Notice Jesus did not pray the Father would forgive them for their unbelief. It's rather remarkable the amount of scripture one is willing to ignore in order to prop up a man-made theology.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If all the sins of the world have been forgiven (propitiated, as in 1 John 2:2) then you have universalism. It's really that simple.

Once you understand "propitiation" then the only two options are a Limited Atonement and Universalism.

A professor at my Alma Mater and I talked one day about this... He is a 4-Pointer, rejecting Limited Atonement. Yet, he freely admits the huge flaw in his argument: Double payment.

If Christ's death is a propitiation, which it is, then something was accomplished, not merely made possible. If the forgiveness of sins was accomplished for the elect, then the elect will be saved. If, on the other hand forgiveness was accomplished for everyone, everyone will be saved.

The Archangel

SPOT ON:thumbs:

 

[savedbymercy]

Why so much Angst About Limited atonement?

Its at the heart of the Gospel ! You dont believe it, you dont believe the Gospel, nor does one believe that Christ's Death alone effected Salvation for those He died ! Since its a fact that Salvation isnt effected for all mankind without exception, then Christ's Death was Limited to those whose Salvation was effected by His Death, by His stripes they were healed 1 Pet 2:24

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

By His stripes they were healed or saved !

 

[The Archangel]

You are spot on once again. Belief in limited atonement only reveals limited understanding of scripture. Many passages of scripture must be ignored if one is to embrace Calvinism. Jesus made it very clear that all manner of sin will be forgiven WITH AN EXCEPTION. Notice Jesus did not pray the Father would forgive them for their unbelief. It's rather remarkable the amount of scripture one is willing to ignore in order to prop up a man-made theology.

The funny thing here is that in citing the verse (found in various gospels) that says all types of sin will be forgiven, you cite an exception--a sin that won't be forgiven.

So, by citing the exception, you admit that not every sin is forgiven and have, therefore, limited the Atonement.

The Archangel

 

[convicted1]

The funny thing here is that in citing the verse (found in various gospels) that says all types of sin will be forgiven, you cite an exception--a sin that won't be forgiven.

So, by citing the exception, you admit that not every sin is forgiven and have, therefore, limited the Atonement.

The Archangel