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.

[4forchrist]

I have a quick set of questions here because I truely struggle withh this question

So God gives to all a measure of faith?

God draws us to himself?

God gives us to Christ?

God sent Christ to die on the cross?

God has all authority over all things and gives it to the son?

He is the source of slavation and changes the hearts of men showing merci to those he shows merci and hardens those he wants to harden?

Non seek him all have fallen short?

So keeping all the above in mind to me God seems to play the role in giving us faith, savihng us and keeping us?

HELPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4christ

[Rey Reynoso]

Crazy: What is your definition of Atonement in this context?
The act by which mankind and God are brought together again in a personal relationship. This has already happened: there is a man in heaven seated at the right hand of the Father.

Hey Scott: Grudem does some fancy footwork with 2 Peter 2:1 but completely (purposefully I might add) ignores what Peter is saying. My earlier point still stands by the way: if Christ's atonement (according to what you're saying in regards to payment for sin) was effectual for the elect then there's no reason why God's currently revealed wrath (Romans 1) should be affecting any of those future elect. The Corinthians should be able to say "Since Christ died in the past as our payment for sin none of us were ever liers, gossipers, adulterers, fornicators reveling in our flesh because such things are God's wrath in the present and we're elect: we wouldn't be paying twice for our sin."

Regardless, just because a sin is paid for doesn't mean there's not consequences. Even the elect die. Let me add a fourth and a fifth to your list:

4) If Christ (the God Man) died to reconcile God with Man and God resurrected Him from the grave then the reconciliation has already occurred. Christ atoned for mankind and mankind is now seated in the heavenlies. He can then decide how current humanity can then be saved from wrath.

5) If Christ died for the sin of the world and the sins of the world then whatever reason they eventually face wrath must have nothing to do with sin per se.

[ScottL]

Rey -

I know many would say Grudem is doing fancy footwork. No doubt we usually read into passages our own presuppositions. I threw it out to consider, for I don't think he does outright bad footwork, but he does see it fitting into his theological framework. And I am ok to sometimes approach Scripture with a theological framework to help us understand passages. Some of them are not always as easy A, B, C to understand. Anyways, Grudem's words were just for us to ponder. Again, I'm ok if particular atonement is not a reality. (Insert a quick quip from James saying that I don't play competitively fair.) :)

You stated - 'if Christ's atonement (according to what you're saying in regards to payment for sin) was effectual for the elect, then there's no reason why God's currently revealed wrath (Romans 1) should be affecting any of those future elect.'

Not sure of the specific point you are making in favor of unlimited atonement. God's revelation of Himself in creation is still effective in working out what was already accomplished via the cross. Christ was the sacrifice, the Holy Spirit brings the application of the cross.

I agree with #4 - reconciliation has already occurred for the elect, but it needs to be applied and worked out in our lives by the Holy Spirit. Of course, maybe the full-preterist has some fancy ideas here (especially if they are a Calvinist as well.) :)

Maybe you can elaborate further on #5.

[Rey Reynoso]

4Christ: here's my answers to your questions:

So God gives to all a measure of faith?
Translation means that God gives us a measuring rod which winds up being the object of our faith. The term is used in Romans in reference to how Christians treat each other. The answer: with the measure of faith. Paul then proceeds to make a point that no one Christian is greater or lesser than another but they all have functions (so it would be odd if one can be said to have more measure than another). Paul’s point is that everything then is weighed against the full Gospel.

God draws us to himself?
Draws all to himself via the cross and the teaching of the Gospel, yes. Even sinners will stand before Christ and drop the knee.

God gives us to Christ?
God gives the entire world over to Christ. He alone winds up with the authority to condemn in the end.

God sent Christ to die on the cross?
And Christ willingly went, yes.

God has all authority over all things and gives it to the son?
Yes.

He is the source of slavation and changes the hearts of men showing merci to those he shows merci and hardens those he wants to harden?
I'd have to unpack this more since it definitely is more an interpretation than quoting but I'd say Yes, He’s the source of salvation, yes he changes the hearts of men, yes God has the complete right to do what He wants but none of this means He’s changed the heart before being saved or that He has shown mercy to only Israel and not Pharaoh. Or I guess True Israel since the generation Paul was talking about all dropped dead in the wilderness.

Non seek him all have fallen short?
Except Cornelius. Woops! LOL. But, sure everyone does fall short of God’s perfect glory illuminated in the brilliance of His Son and yes, none go out of their way to seek God. But this doesn’t presuppose that God isn’t seeking first, does it? Nor does it pressuppose that people don't have eternity in their heart, does it? What an odd revelation of Himself it would be if the message was completely occult revealed by a mystery gnosis.

So keeping all the above in mind to me God seems to play the role in giving us faith, savihng us and keeping us?
Yes He plays a role but probably not in the same sense you’re meaning it. We get faith because we hear that He is faithful. I learned that my wife was trustworthy before trusting her. We hear He is faithful via the word of God—what He’s accomplished by His choice. We’re saved altogether by His grace and He will keep us to the uttermost.

[Rey Reynoso]

Let me answer my own question in two different ways which (like Scott) I'm not fully decided on (although I lean in a direction away from the heretical position he's leaning in):

1) It was not limited in intent, not limited in scope and accomplished what it was meant to accomplish in reconciling man (Christ) to God. People who currently are saved aren't individuals reconciling themselves personally to God but are reconciled only on account of being in Christ. They are, for all judicial intents and purposes, dead who now live in a new life before God: a God-given life, in God and God in them.
2) It was not limited in scope (it was for all individuals) but limited in effect (applied only to the individuals who eventually believe). The slaying of the lamb was given to all of Israel and Egypt yet the ones who survived the wrath of God were those who took the lamb's blood and put it on their doorposts and lintel.

In both cases no one is damned for their sins but their failure to believe God. Everyone though suffers the consequences of their sins be it loss of rewards (don't bother arguing it: that's another post entirely) or some form of equating of the balances (I do think Hitler is going to get a proper slap down).

[Ratatösk]

Nah, ***talking to self**** Anselm couldn't have been wrong. That- not God so loved the world, etc-is the one thing we know for sure. :-)

How about God's reconciliation is an objective fact for the world in Christ, but the reciprocating subjective reconciliation of the individual must be worked out by the Holy Spirit?

[Rey Reynoso]

ScottL said:

Rey -
I know many would say Grudem is doing fancy footwork. No doubt we usually read into passages our own presuppositions. I threw it out to consider, for I don't think he does outright bad footwork, but he does see it fitting into his theological framework. And I am ok to sometimes approach Scripture with a theological framework to help us understand passages. Some of them are not always as easy A, B, C to understand. Anyways, Grudem's words were just for us to ponder. Again, I'm ok if particular atonement is not a reality. (Insert a quick quip from James saying that I don't play competitively fair.) :)
You stated - 'if Christ's atonement (according to what you're saying in regards to payment for sin) was effectual for the elect, then there's no reason why God's currently revealed wrath (Romans 1) should be affecting any of those future elect.'

Not sure of the specific point you are making in favor of unlimited atonement. God's revelation of Himself in creation is still effective in working out what was already accomplished via the cross. Christ was the sacrifice, the Holy Spirit brings the application of the cross.

I agree with #4 - reconciliation has already occurred for the elect, but it needs to be applied and worked out in our lives by the Holy Spirit. Of course, maybe the full-preterist has some fancy ideas here (especially if they are a Calvinist as well.) :)

Maybe you can elaborate further on #5.

By #4 I meant Christ so it would not be the elect church at all. They're just icing.

[Rey Reynoso]

R_Booth said:

Jesse Morril would love this, isn't his pentance about up?

I think it is, but he hasn't come back...yet....

[Rey Reynoso]

Phil James said:

Nah, ***talking to self**** Anselm couldn't have been wrong. That- not God so loved the world, etc-is the one thing we know for sure. :-)

How about God's reconciliation is an objective fact for the world in Christ, but the reciprocating subjective reconciliation of the individual must be worked out by the Holy Spirit?

I think this would be an outworking for my #4.

[Ratatösk]

It would be, Rey. :-) You closet Barthian, you.

[Rey Reynoso]

Oh man I read barth's Romans so long ago that now I'm thinking I have to open it again for a refresher!

[Crazyupstart]

I'm still not understanding the arguments for unlimited atonement:

If Christ died for all men, and it is only by His atoning work that we get into heaven, not any works of our own, than........ everyone will go to heaven! Right?

Or is it that Christ died for all, but not all whom he died for will make it to heaven?

Or God loves everyone, and has atoned for everyone’s sins, but.......sorry, not everyone’s names are written in the Book of Life.... ?!?

I'm not understanding what you are arguing for.

To quote 4Christ: HELP!!!!!