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]

kerygma said:

Didn't picture you as a hippy...so here.... ROSES back to ya...kerygma...lol!
Jack said:

TULIP! The Geezer

***Crazy throws Petunia petals up in the air and wonders which atoned for sinner they land on will go to heaven and which atoned for sinner they land on will not quite make it there***

[Rey Reynoso]

I never understood that logic from the Reformed camp. instead of looking at the context they make it a corporate statement (which I don't mind, by the way: my concern is the context) while simultaneously arguing for an individually particular redemption. Inverting the logic "our sins" then should be either only the sins of the individuals which the letter was meant for and the writer or its their general sins but not any specific individual sin.

Be that as it may let's go back to the logic of it all. Because of sin it is appointed for men once to die and after this the judgment. Yet Christ (according to Limited Atonement) died for the elect therefore their sins were paid. Now every good Reformed folk would say "therefore the person is saved from future judgment."

But if death is a wage for sin why then do the elect still die? Doesn't this mean that they're paying for their sin by dying?

Now I know there's ways to work around these things: death as a consequence not as a payment--I know that. My point is saying that sticking within the logical boundaries of the theological system will yield some ugly results to Limited Atonement.

Now within 1 John (and John's Gospel) world doesn't usually refer to the corporate sense of tribe, nation, tongue but to the sinful system which is over and against God. So when Calvinists make that distinction by broadening the category they're missing John's usage of the world. "Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world." (not every nation, tribe and tongue but the entire evil system against God). He is a propitiation for the world's sins (the entire evil system over and against God) and those of us (the Church).

But all of that still doesn't say that when Christ died on the cross He died only for Scott, Robert, and Jack while ignoring Rey.

[Harry]

When Christ died on the Cross, His blood atoned for the sins of the whole world, we just need to be baptized to be saved. The elect of God are the ones that have been saved and have faith in Christ.

[Crazyupstart]

So if atonement is a reconciliation of God and man, how does that help anything if it is not directed at saving faith?

[Crazyupstart]

Yes, sarcasm to make the logic of the 'other side' seem.....


ScottL said:

Crazy -

Maybe I misunderstood your comment but it seems your argument was going in favor of particular/limited atonement, but then your conclusion seemed in favor of unlimited atonement - 'Therefore Christ died to save everyone. He atoned for all sins of all men. Everybody's a winner!!!'

Or was that sarcasm? Or did I miss something? I'm confused.

Crazyupstart said:

Saving grace is for who? The elect. Who? The predestined. Who? The ones whom God called before the foundation of time. ELECTION is the total basis for Limited Atonement. The "grace" in question is an argument of either being savific grace or common grace.

The whole work of salvation is of God (yeah, that's the grace part). Can God be gracious to the eternally damned, or more softly put, those who will never repent? Sure.

Was Christs life and Passion done to save people who would never be saved? I don't even see how that can be a logical argument. Where's the logic?: Christ came to redeem people who are not in his plan to redeem.

The only ones who end up in heaven are the sinners saved by grace.
All sinners saved by grace must be regenerate repenters.
Only Gods elect become regenerate; a work he installs in us and we (the dead) respond to (are made alive).
Therefore Christ died to save everyone. He atoned for all sins of all men. Everybody's a winner!!! Woot!

[Crazyupstart]

R_Booth said:

We are called to call others to the cross, without respect of persons, for should you know who is and who is not, then you would be lazy as a Christian, well, most are nowadays anyway, there would also be no need for Acts 1.7(+) either.
///saving Grace is for all. but not all will recieve it.

Boothy, Can you give a scriptural reference for our being "called to call others to the cross?" If so, how many? The references for the chosen, the called and the elect are numerous and in context for meaning those who have saving faith. How is it that you can know that we are to call others to Christ based on scripture, and yet not know of election based on scripture.

And you can't stand up the straw man of "no one will share the Gospel because there would be no reason." Those who believe in Election don't know who the elect are, so we are all to throw out the seed and see which is the fallow ground.

Blessings to you

[Crazyupstart]

Robert,

I'm sorry I was beating around the bush to make a point. I do believe we are to share the gospel with others. The point I am making is that there are far more scripture references that talk about the call of the elect, than the call to share the gospel. You hold to the position of the "called to share" firmly, yet don't seem to like the "Called in Christ" (election) so to speak; though the scriptures would support the latter more firmly.



R_Booth said:

Crazyupstart said:

R_Booth said:

I'll use one and encourage you to read the passage as a whole - Luke 21:13.

another, Luke 14:23, the 'Marriage" compel them to come in. As to how many, as many that will listen to your testimony. but then how is your testimony that they will listen?


Can you tell me who are the "elect" spoken of other than those who have already been called? can you rightfully say that you know who is 'elected' before they "confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart"

I do not re-read that i said call them to Christ, but rather the Cross, and we do this by our testimony and our witness, It is the Spirit that calls them to Christ, just because we can preach/teach to them the Gospel does not mean they will be saved. Salvation is not by the works of man...

As to "throwing out the seed".. well i believe that is correct...Matthew 13:5. we are the sowers, God does the watering by the Spirit as well as the Harvest. But i am sure you already knew this, just needed it brought back to rememberance.....

[Rey Reynoso]

I should add that there are a couplel different views of Limited Atonement, even within the Reformed camp.

1. Christ died for all potentially but only effectual for those who believed. In other words, Christ intends to save all but belief winds up being the thing that makes salvation a reality. (Amyraut and maybe Calvin)
2. Christ died for all of the elect specifically and only effectual for those who are elect. In other words, Christ saved only those He intended to save. (Westminster Confession and maybe Calvin)

[Crazyupstart]

Robert,

I'm not saying or advocating that one (election) is more important than the other (sharing the gospel). They are both important.

I see where your frustration is coming from on a relational theology status. The "electee's" you have known do (or don't do in this case) X, Y and Z, and that has left a bad taste in your mouth. But that doesn’t mean that all of them do. Anyone can go to any denomination that he doesn't like and pick out some people who apply doctrine wrongly and then say that they are all heretics. That's not right. If your reasoning against election (and thence limited atonement) is because of what you have seen people in this fallen world do with it, I would say that that is a weak case to be against LA. You can make a case for unlimited atonement, as you have, but I haven’t heard a good scriptural argument against limited atonement yet. And my point is that I see the scriptures stacking up to defend the side of Limited Atonement.

Robert and Ray,
What is your definition of Atonement in this context?

R_Booth said:

Crazy,

well to cut it short, if you choose to be called to Christ as elected more than beng called to share, then i just do not know what to say to you.

But i know many who claim the "electional" position and say hardly anything and next to nothing about Christ to anyone - all in the name of election, thats so wrong, yet you can give me Scriptural support for your position.......

No where in the Scriptures does it support NOT saying or telling anyone about Christ, as to the elect, the elect are referred to as those who have the Spirit, already.

Christ is the one who said " for those who will believe..."

Again, you are either "in the world" telling and sharing the Gospel, or you are "of the world" where they see christians as ''nothing special''' and that by our testimony.......thus we are a "stumbling block for the lost..."

As to Atoning Work of Christ, it is for the whole of mankind. whether we like it or not, As to it being just for the elect, then prove it by Scripture.......

[ScottL]

Again, I am not dogmatically in favor of particular atonement, but I lean there. So, why am I giving the arguments in favor of it? I don't know... :)

There are plenty of Scriptures to use in favor of particular atonement, such as:

Eph 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

John 10:14-15 - I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (The sheep are believers, hence Jesus being the Shepherd of the sheep)

Acts 20:28 - Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

And there are others to consider. Those in the camp of unlimited atonement would say, 'Yes, Christ died for the church, gave His life for the sheep. But there are also other Scriptures to show He did the same for all of humanity.' Thus, they would point out Scriptures that use the word 'world' or the phrase 'whole world', such as:

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (I don't think this Scripture tells us who Christ died for, rather it tells us that God loves the world, which is established elsewhere in Scripture.)

1 John 2:2 - He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

John 1:29 - The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Again, my understanding of the usual reformed explanation is that the use of the word 'world' or the phrase 'whole world' in such contexts is not saying each and every individual past, present, and future. But rather the concept is formed in regards to Christ's atoning work being for all kinds of peoples from all kinds of backgrounds for all kinds of nations, especially considering the possibility in the first century AD that they were dealing with a lot of thinking that said God's salvation work was only for Jews. The declaration in the new covenant is that, in line with the promises of the prophets, the salvation work of God is for all peoples, not each and every individual.

The biggest Scripture the Calvinists will struggle with is found in 2 Peter 2:1 - But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Peter is speaking of former false prophets and current false teachers who are obviously non-believers, yet we read the phrase, 'denying the Master who bought them.' Wayne Grudem handles this verse from the reformed view in his Systematic Theology, which I will quote, though it is somewhat lengthy:

'When Peter speaks of false teachers who bring in destructive heresies, "even denying the Master who bought them" (2 Peter 2:1), it is unclear whether the word "Master" (Gk. despotēs) refers to Christ (as in Jude 4) or to God the Father (as in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). In either case, the Old Testament allusion is probably to Deuteronomy 32:6, where Moses says to the rebellious people who have turned away from God, "Is not he your Father who has bought you?" (author's translation). Peter is drawing an analogy between the past false prophets who arose among the Jews and those who will be false teachers within the churches to which he writes: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them" (2 Peter 2:1). In line with this clear reference to false prophets in the Old Testament, Peter also alludes to the fact that the rebellious Jews turned away from God who "bought" them out of Egypt in the exodus. From the time of the exodus onward, any Jewish person would have considered himself or herself on who was "bought" by God in the exodus and therefore a person of God's own possession. In this sense, the false teachers arising among the people were denying God their Father, to whom they rightfully belonged. So the text means not that Christ had redeemed these false prophets, but simply that they were rebellious Jewish people (or church attenders in the same position as the rebellious Jews) who were rightly owned by God because they had been brought out of the land of Egypt (or their forefathers had), but there were ungrateful to him. Christ's specific redemptive work on the cross is not in view in this verse.' (p600)

Also, for me, I keep running through three reasonable questions:
1) If Christ died for all humanity - each person past, present and future - and He suffered the wrath of God in their place, as a substitutionary propitiation to appease the Father's wrath in each individual's place, then how can God still hold the sins of even an unbeliever against them in the final judgment? Remember, Christ already paid for them. How can God now hold it against that person, even though they didn't believe? That is double payment.

2) If Christ's death was a substitutionary atonement on behalf of every individual past, present and future, and paid the wrath for their sin, then the possible logical end conclusion would be that God would not have any person pay for their sin, even an unbeliever, or you have a double payment from both Christ and the person who sinned. Thus, with Christ paying the penalty for all of humanity, then all of humanity should be granted life eternal. I think unlimited atonement could possibly lead, if taken down its full path, to universalism and everyone is saved.

3) This is a new thought that just came to me, but if there were some person who lived in the OT times, before Christ's death, and that person did not follow in Abraham's footsteps of faith and believe God for their justification and lived a wicked life (like a Canaanite in the days of Joshua), and thus the person was condemned eternally, then why would Christ suffer for that person in which their eternal condemnation was already determined? And it works with future humans as well - whether you believe God already knows or has already predestined the eternal state of each person, why would Christ die for someone the Father already knew was eternally condemned? Possibly, from the eternal perspective, the sacrifice becomes unnecessary on behalf of the one eternally condemned.

[Ed Simmons]

Christ's atonement was a finished work for all who believe.

[Ratatösk]

There are other options, too.

Perhaps, we should go with scriptures apparent (and repeated) claims that Christ died for the world, and abandon Anselm's rather recent theory that punitive payment exhausts what God was up to at Calvary.