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.

[Rey Reynoso]

I think I've answered these questions pretty effectively up top. It's a matter of what actually happens at the atonement and pointing at Scripture that points of the universality of the affect. The opposing camp has to redefine universal language to mean something other than what it says. All we have to do on the universal side is establish how it winds up becoming limitedly applied.

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.

So here goes direct answers to your questions:
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? With this logic, yes. But you built a straw house on a supposition that His atoning work gets people into Heaven. The Bible never speaks that way of Christ's atoning work.

Or is it that Christ died for all, but not all whom he died for will make it to heaven? Depends on what you mean by "died for all". If by it you mean what you meant in the early question that would be an impossibility. If by it you mean what John mean in his epistle then we have to nuance your question. But the way its phrased you're using your supposition.

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 don't understand the question or the sorry part. Are you asking that when God gets to the books, he opens them up and then realizes "Oh no! You're not in the book of life? Sorry about that: My Son's death doesn't apply to you!"? Is that the scenario?

[ScottL]

Rey -

You stated - '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 think no one would ever argue this. Though your logic might lead you to this, no one would argue this. Though Christ provided the atoning sacrifice at the cross, it is clear that Scripture teaches the application must be worked out in our lives by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that this reasoning is quite like arguing that, since Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, there is no need for Him to actually die in human history. But we know He had to. And we know we have to believe, repent, obey, etc, etc, through the work of the Spirit.

[Rey Reynoso]

Scott, thanks for repeating my point, but it doesn't change what I'm saying in regards to Crazy's questions.

[ScottL]

Rey -

No one who believed in particular atonement would ever argue the reasoning you claimed - you've just established that the elect were saved at Christ's death and [therefore] faith, obedience, repentance and preaching aren't necessary at all.

You seemed to be using that as an logical argument against particular atonement. But I don't know anyone that would claim such. We know faith, obedience, repentance, etc, etc is needed in this life.

Crazy's questions/arguments do not ultimately lead to the conclusion above.

[Rey Reynoso]

Scott its easy math and I don’t understand why it can’t be seen:
If Christ died for all men [a], and it is only by His atoning work that we get into heaven, [p] not any works of our own, than [sic]........ [a] everyone will go to (h) heaven! Right?

(p) + (a) = (a)(h)

Now lets say we have a component that says Christ died only for the elect and let that be called (e). The result (within the logic of this question) is that all the elect will go to heaven (h).

(p) + (e) = (e)(h)

One can argue till their face turns blue that the logic isn't sound, but the math says otherwise. One can argue that the theology expressed in the question doesn't support this position but its contrary to reality.Iff the definition of atonement is "the cross-work of Christ which secures heaven as a destination" (full stop) then that necessarily means that the people who are going to heaven were ensured going there whether they believed or not. It's a completed fact.

Question: How many reformed folk would say that “Christ’s atoning work gets people into heaven”? They’d say that Christ’s atoning work Reconciled Sinners to God, paid for the sins previously committed, paid for the sins to be committed but how many would say “Christ’s atoning work gets people into heaven?” Well they’d even say that ultimately it was Christ’s atoning work that ensured people get into heaven but how many will still turn around and say “Christ’s atoning work gets people into heaven”? Not the Holy Spirit regenerating, not God’s election, not belief: Christ’s atoning work.

Now if the atoning work of Christ doesn't mean what Crazy's question implied it meant and it meant something else like "the cross-work of Christ which secures heaven as a destination based on God’s purposes and dictates" then this would allow for the necessity of whatever else God dictates: be it election or the Spirit’s work in time or even the divine fiat of the means of getting there. It would therefore also allow a universal atoning work that is only particularly beneficial when applied if that is what God so dictates (like one of the two possible definitions of atonement I specified in an earlier comment: held by Amyraut and possibly also Calvin).

Be that as it may the definition of atonement is not the work that secured heaven or the work by which we get into heave apart from everything else (whatever that may be) and that was my problem with the supposition. Atonement is the reconciling the world to God and in light of that I have even stronger support (Scriptural and logical) that Christ’s work is both necessary, universal and applicable when a person believes: not beforehand. So far everything else is an equally ridiculous mischaracterization of the UniversalNot-Limited Atonement position.

[Rey Reynoso]

I probably needed something like p ---> h in there as a given.

[ScottL]

This is the question you pose:

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

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. Thus, the atonement is part of the security for the elect to be saved, yet still noting the Holy Spirit has to apply that work of the cross through regenerating and drawing the elect to Himself.

Thus, from the reformed/particular atonement perspective, if Christ died for all and was a substitution for their wrath, then God would never hold anyone's sin against them because Christ already paid for it. It would be a double payment. Thus, if they would not pay for their sin, because Christ paid for everyone's sin, then they all get to receive eternal life (as the elect would). It was assured at the cross in an unlimited atoning death.

I hope that made sense.

[Rey Reynoso]

Oh 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 did not ask that question. That was Crazy's question.

I'm showing you the logic of it starts off with the wrong presupposition when asking why people believe in a non-Limited atonement.

In other words to understand the non-Limited Atonement position take off the Reformed goggles and check if it coheres with what this position says within its framework and see how it coheres with the Biblical data from there. I'm not going to repeat a definition of Atonement anymore: I've done it about 5 times.

[ScottL]

I think Crazy's question was hypothetical, not necessarily his. He was trying to understand the unlimited atonement position, which for him, does not make sense. And that question/proposition seems the logical conclusion to unlimited atonement for him, right?

I think using the wording 'get's into heaven' is not helpful, but I think you knew what he meant in the question. The cross is more about assuring payment for sin, which does allow one to receive the applied work of the cross by the Spirit and receive eternal life. Hence, 'get into heaven'. But, as a side note, I think it is about heaven coming to us.

I hope I am making sense.

[Rey Reynoso]

Which goes back to every post I've written since then. At this point I'm going to resort to quoting myself.

Here goes:

"With this logic, yes. But you built a straw house on a supposition that His atoning work gets people into Heaven. The Bible never speaks that way of Christ's atoning work."

"Be that as it may the definition of atonement is not the work that secured heaven or the work by which we get into heave apart from everything else (whatever that may be) and that was my problem with the supposition."

Actually I didn't know what he meant: that's why I attacked the logic and eventually repeated a definition of Atonement.

I think you're talking either about Redemption or Propitiation now, and only peripherally Atonement.

[ScottL]

Ok, bad question. Maybe the question should have been worded:

If Christ died for all men, and it is His atoning work that ensures our salvation and it's outworking by the Spirit, not any works of our own, then won't all be saved and receive life eternal?

[Ratatösk]

Crazy, maybe the whole pecuniary 'payoff' thing is not the most central (or at this point, helpful) metaphor.

On the other hand, maybe God is reconciled to everyone…but there are those who don’t give a rat’s rear end.

Perhaps, (since it was Sin and not individual sinners that was said to be judged), the negative aspect of the atonement doesn’t require a quantitative accounting.

On the positive aspect regardign what Christ 'purchased', maybe we are just happy with where we live (cockroaches and all) and aren’t interested in the mansion Dad’s bought for us.

On the other hand, maybe true justice (whether regarding what Christ suffered or ‘obligated”) isn’t something best done on a columnar pad. Maybe we learn what real justice is by looking at the cross, not by bringing what we know about justice to the cross.