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.

[ScottL]

By the way, I do remind you that I am very open to unlimited atonement. I am not dogmatic here, but you can tell my leanings.

[Crazyupstart]

yeah, so sorry I missed all the action today. :)

All my questions were made to not make sense. That was the point.
Thanks Scot for taking up the explanatory part (of my nonsensical questions) for me in my absence.
I did misunderstand what exactly atonement meant and it's work in the process of salvation.

I guess my presupposition is that atonement has to do with salvation only.

If not, what else does it do? What difference does it make for the one who is bound for Hell, weather Christ has atoned for him or not? He's still going to hell. So, why the big fuffle over weather he's atoned for or not?

(Ray, you don't have to respond immediately, I don't want to short out brain circuit over my questions if you've already answered them, I'll try to read back over the whole thread again and see if I'm still confused. But then, this is probably a small load for the ample Reynoso mind, not easily shorted ;-) )

[ScottL]

Crazy -

You stated -

I guess my presupposition is that atonement has to do with salvation only. If not, what else does it do?

I think Rey was trying to move away from a definition that the atonement provides 'a ticket into heaven', which is not necessarily equal to 'salvation'.

Sorry I keep speaking up for everyone, just want us all discussing from the same page.

[Ratatösk]

Crazy, it may be that there's no practical difference in the life of the son who refuses to come home to a loving Father and the son who can't come home because he's afraid for his life, but there is a huge difference, none the less.

The focal point of the first evaluation is the Son. The point of the second is the Father.

[Kim]

Well I think what Rey is saying has some truth (quite a bit) If you look at it even from an atonement limited to the elect. It would mean (if I believed this) that I was saved the moment the atonement was made. I was saved before I believed...true? saved at least at the cross and maybe before the world began. I don't like where that leads. It really says I was never in jeopardy of hell.
I personally think . The atonement was for all but limited to those who believe and was limited by the requirement of faith and that faith is a gift of God. I can't figure it out or fathom it but I do know Christ died for all yet all do not believe.
I think the point is that there is no problem on God's side. God is quite willing, we are the ones who are not willing. And YES he does whatever he wills but that is not the will that I was speaking of :)

ScottL said:

Crazy -

You stated -

I guess my presupposition is that atonement has to do with salvation only. If not, what else does it do?

I think Rey was trying to move away from a definition that the atonement provides 'a ticket into heaven', which is not necessarily equal to 'salvation'.

Sorry I keep speaking up for everyone, just want us all discussing from the same page.

[Rey Reynoso]

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?

Scott let me rephrase what you’re asking so you all see it outright: If Christ’s death on the cross is in the exact place of an individual and therefore definitely ensures the later salvation of said individual via the later outworking of the Holy Spirit in the individual, his eventual faith and subsequent ultimate salvation then wouldn’t Christ’s death as an exact substitute in the place of every single individual ensure the later outworking of the Spirit in every single individual’s life culminating (at last) in every single individual being saved?

My answer is still YES: for all the reasons I have already stated. You’ve assumed the Big If is true.

Let me make it theologically pertinent: If Christ’s death is a penal substitionary atonement for individuals and Christ was a penal substitutionary atonement for all individuals then no individual will suffer penal wrath. My problem then in all of the suppositions was the presupposition that penal substitutionary atonement is the way to go.

Before I go further let’s ask the question: “How do I get the doggy in the window?”

One answers, “Well you pay whoever is holding the doggy ransom.”
Another answers “No, you’ve gotta’ watch somebody buy a panda: you will then know what it means on how to buy the doggy.”
Another answers “No, find a person who bought the doggy already. He’s likely left it there for anyone to take.”
One proud man comes in and says “No you can only get it if someone buys it in your place and hands it to you. There is no other way.”
Another dude says with some exasperation “Why don’t you go ask the owner of the window? Their window: their doggy.”

You’re ignoring that there’s a plethora of ways to view this thing of Atonement and some of them have more Biblical warrant than the one tit for tat exchange Reformed folk keep embracing. I can understand why: because the logic in the theology dictates that this Doggy is only for specific individuals (because the whole lot of them are damned). That being the case the extent of the substitution must apply only to those specific individuals.

There’s presuppositions layered on top of presuppositions when there’s so many ways to look at Atonement and then trying to find out which best (maybe none) match the Biblical data.

• God being reconciled with Man by substituting a perfect person for specific persons.
• God being reconciled with Man by enacting a punishment that satisfies the wrath of a corporate body.
• God being reconciled with Man by paying a ransom to the devil.
• God being reconciled with Man by the perfect work of Christ being satisfactory to God.
• God being reconciled with Man by being reconciled with Christ—the God Man.

Match the Biblical data. I've weighed Limited Atonement (as presented) and found it wanting. A view that Christ's Atonement secures the Church and a view that God reconciled Man by being reconciled with Christ seem to strike me as the strongest. Even a substitutionary view of folk identifying in Christ's death makes more sense than a penal substitutionary limitation. I base this on the passages you have already listed earlier, on the elect Individual being Christ and as the identity of the church being wholly In Christ

[Rey Reynoso]

I just thought I should list out a short list (although not comprehensive) of atonement views:

Penal Substitionary
Penal Union or Participatory Atonement
Satisfaction
Governmental
Moral Influence
Ransom


Pick your poison.

[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.