The Limits of Christ's Atonement

[Rey Reynoso]

I have my theories but I'm not putting them up here. Here's the question:

Was Christ's Atonement limited? If you don't like that phrasing Was Christ's atonement particular (to specific individuals)?

If so, say how and if not, say why.

[Crazyupstart]

Here's a bunch of random thoughts:

Rey Reynoso said:

Crazy don't you see the problem? By you're reasoning you've just established that the elect were saved at Christ's death and faith, obedience, repentance and preaching aren't necessary at all. They''re already saved by His atoning work and going into heaven: not by any works of their own.

I did see the problem with this, that's why I asked the question the way I did.

I have not researched much the doctrine of the Atonement (maybe you guessed that) but have been quite convinced of the scriptural basis of Election and that is why I come to the subject with the "goggles" of reformed thought. No, I didn't say CALVINIST. I do try to stay objective in approach.

I don't think that believing election makes one give up on evangelism, as some have eluded.

I think that Christs Atoning work was/is/will be effectual for all who believe, past , present and future.

Kim, you said: "I personally think . The atonement was for all but limited..." So where does that put you? It's either limited or it's not. :)

[Rey Reynoso]

That puts her likely at Amyrauts (and maybe Calvin's) position. Not Limited in intent but Limited in Application. Potential for all applied only to those who believe.

[Rayner Markley]

Rey: 'I've argued in some other places that the Reformed position on election actually diminishes the cross-work of Christ but that wasn't my point here.'

I think Rey is getting at the source of the problem for Calvinism because since God's grace is limited, so Christ's atonement must be limited.

[Kim]

I've been informed by some that it is really not a good thing to be called an Amyrauldian or a 4-1/2 pt. Calvinist. It is basically saying that you have swerved , adjusted or don't fully agree with Calvin's writtings. Or that you have declined your right to be included in the reformed faith, not pure etc. etc. I'm not an expert in that area but I sure must admit everytime I have wondered how a hard line 5 pt or strict particularist would deal with a certain verse or passage and I have gone to Calvin's commentaries he in no uncertain terms agrees with me :)

Rey Reynoso said:

That puts her likely at Amyrauts (and maybe Calvin's) position. Not Limited in intent but Limited in Application. Potential for all applied only to those who believe.

[Crazyupstart]

I don't think God's grace is limited. To quote myself from earlier (with scripture references added):

"Saving grace is for who? The elect (Mark 13:20-23). Who? The predestined (Rom. 8:29). Who? The ones whom God called before the foundation of time (Eph. 1:3-14). ELECTION is the total basis for Limited Atonement. The "grace" in question is an argument of either being savific grace or common grace."

God's grace (common) is everywhere. The wicked prosper. Why does God not punish them immediately for their sins, why does he let them prosper? Common grace. He is gracious. But those spoken of here are not saved by this grace He allows. We know their final destination (Psalm 73) and the consequences of their faithlessness. They are granted God's grace to prosper in this life, yet not His saving grace. His saving grace is limited to those mentioned in the verses referenced above. Everyone is welcome, IF they believe.

I think Rom. 8:26-39 is very hard to fancy step around in light of election.

R_Booth said:

Rayner Markley said:

Rey: 'I've argued in some other places that the Reformed position on election actually diminishes the cross-work of Christ but that wasn't my point here.'

I think Rey is getting at the source of the problem for Calvinism because since God's grace is limited, so Christ's atonement must be limited.

So then Heaven has a "capacity limit" -?

To answer your question: we can't even think of heaven as having limits. It's like the cosmos, there is no definable end that we know of. But, God knows His own who will respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirits call. Therefore I don't think He's going to be surprised at all who "enter into (His) rest." God's not going to look at me and say, "By golly! You DID believe after all."

That's where the logic ties back in with atonement (from my point of view):
1) God's not surprised as to who will believe.
2) God knows whom He has called, prompted by the Holy Spirit and kept to the end.
3) God's saving grace is sufficient for all who BELIEVE.
4) Only believers will reap the benefits of saving grace.
5) Which begs the question: So when Christ was slain before the foundation of the world to Atone for the sins of the world, how does this effect the sinner who will never know him? Is that where common grace comes in? i.e. The atoning work of Christ established Saving and common grace. Whereas if common grace is not a part of the Atonement it would simply have to be listed as an attribute of God, Atonement or no.

[Crazyupstart]

R_Booth said:

I put this here so you won't miss it:

So crazy, you think that we could be automotons? since LA is only for the elect, and the elect were chosen before the foundations of the world, and that Christs atonment is only for the elect? So that it doesn't really matter how we live, for if we are trully of the "elect" then we got a "go directly to heaven" card" and it doesn't really matter whether we yield to the Spirit or not, because, hey - we are the "Elect"?

No.

Ha! I had to laugh when I read this because the way I see it, un-limited atonement gives everyone a "go directly to heaven" card. :-P

No we still must have faith. The elect are the ones whom respond in faith to the prompting of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Continuing in that faith.

[Rayner Markley]

Heaven needn't have a capacity limit, one would think. But according to the pre-election hypothesis, God, by not electing all, artificially limits the population. We don't know what criterion He goes by unless it has something to do with his foreknowledge or his self glory. And since by that hypothesis God does not extend his grace to everyone to be saved, Christ could not atone for everyone or He would be working against God's aims.

[Rey Reynoso]

They'd say Romans 9. =)

[Rey Reynoso]

Would choosing God be good, neutral or evil?

[John J Travers III]

I would venture a guess that there are very few people who answer this question and have read Calvin's Institutes.

Here is what I believe based on the scriptures. The atonement is only limited in the sense that not every human being reaps the benefits of the atonement. Christ's sacrifice is once for all and there is no need for another sacrifice if God at this moment became a universalist. The offer is there to the entire world. But! The entire world will not be saved. There will be many who do not, to their own demise, avail themselves of that sacrifice.

If you read Calvin's wittings that is what he believed as well. There were many times I heard many people say that Christ only died for the saved and that His blood would have been wasted if he died for everyone and not everyone was saved. The mistake in that is thinking that if someone isn't saved then Christ's blood being spilled for them is a waste. The very thing that could save them will condemn them. Not a drop is wasted. It is like the last plague in Exodus. The blood would have saved anyone Jew or Egyptian and anyone who didn't have it on their door posts and lintels would not have been spared. Not a drop of the blood was wasted.

[xulon]

The key point here is that election is unconditional, not that God does not have foreknowledge. The contrast is with the claim that God elected based (conditioned) on foreknowledge that the elect would believe. Romans 9 comes in starting with verse 11: Romans 9:11-16 even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling) — it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger," just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! For he says to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. If election depended on God's foreknowledge of belief then it would not be unconditional and would depend on the the one who "desires or exerts".


Seraphim Walters said:

Question: Do Reformed/Calvinist folk really hold the position I've bolded below?

and if they do, scriptural support?

Seraphim

ScottL said:

This is the question you pose:
But for the reformed person, they know that the particular atonement for the elect was because God elected them before the foundation of the world not based upon any foreknowledge of their decision.

[xulon]

The only thing that passage tells us is that God chooses. And it's not based on our works.

And that's where the unconditional is. Beyond works, this passage also says that God's choice is not conditioned on the "one who wills", so the choice is not because God foresaw that someone will say "yes". This passage also looks at the argument that unconditional election makes people not responsible for their choices in vv 19-21.