Calvinism - TULIP - "L"imited Atonement

Allan · Jun 20, 2008

jdlongmire said:

My hermeneutic is built on the scriptural principle that God gives saving faith as a free gift that fully accomplishes the salvation of that elect person.
Click to expand...

You mean theological principle though not necessarily a scriptural principle. I say that because my hermeneutic is also built on the 'scriptural principle' that God imparts salvation to those who believe through the working of His Spirit - the elect.

If you care to, I would like to have you come to a thread of mine started a while back but didn't get many takers on it regarding regeneration and is it before or after salvation - here

There are some issues I would like to see answered that are brought up in you statement "That faith, unique to the elect, also is accompanied by certain spiritual gifts." because it appears you see them as being given at the same time.

Anyway. Good night and the Lord bless you richly to His glory.

Shortandy · Jun 24, 2008

Limited Either way

I am a rookie to this forum and I wil not pretend to have read all the post for this particular topic. But I do have a question/thought.

Didn't Spurgeon say something about atonment being limited either way? It is limited by God in His choosing or by man in his choosing. This is not a quote obviously but I think good ole Charles said something to that effect in a sermon he preached.

If this is the case then there is no need to argue if atonement is limited. However we are free to argue who limits it.

Allan · Jun 24, 2008

Shortandy said:

I am a rookie to this forum and I wil not pretend to have read all the post for this particular topic. But I do have a question/thought.

Didn't Spurgeon say something about atonment being limited either way? It is limited by God in His choosing or by man in his choosing. This is not a quote obviously but I think good ole Charles said something to that effect in a sermon he preached.

If this is the case then there is no need to argue if atonement is limited. However we are free to argue who limits it.
Click to expand...

Yes it was said but unfortunately it was also wrong.

Redemption is limited but atonement was not.

jdlongmire · Jun 24, 2008

Allan said:

Yes it was said but unfortunately it was also wrong.

Redemption is limited but atonement was not.
Click to expand...

Partially correct - the atonement is sufficient in worth for for the sins of the whole world many times over, since it is an eternal atonement, but is limited in effect to only those Christ came to redeem - the elect.

If it were unlimited in effect, everyone without distinction would be saved, (Universalism) or there would be people in Hell for whom Christ atoned.

Shortandy · Jun 24, 2008

jdlongmire said:

Partially correct - the atonement is sufficient in worth for for the sins of the whole world many times over, since it is an eternal atonment, but is limited in effect to only those Christ came to redeem - the elect.

If it were unlimited in effect, everyone without distinction would be saved, (Universalism) or there would be people in Hell for whom Christ atoned.
Click to expand...

Thats a good way to put it. Thanks

Allan · Jun 24, 2008

jdlongmire said:

Partially correct - the atonement is sufficient in worth for for the sins of the whole world many times over, since it is an eternal atonement, but is limited in effect to only those Christ came to redeem - the elect.

If it were unlimited in effect, everyone without distinction would be saved, (Universalism) or there would be people in Hell for whom Christ atoned.
Click to expand...

No, absolutely correct
Your understanding of Unlimited Atonement is inaccurate to say the least. You seem to forget that the atonement is made on behalf of all but only those who appropiate it by faith recieve it's benifit. Thus our propitiation is by faith (Rom 3:25) and not ours only but the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) Take for example the Atonement of Israel (once again). It was made on behalf of 'every' Jew but not every Jew was saved. The Law commanded the Atonement be made on behalf of all and Christ had to fulfill the Law in order to be a perfect sacrifice.
However in relation to accusation that unlimited equates to all having to be saved...
From "Basic Theology":

III. SOME IMPORTANT AFFIRMATIONS

When discussing this question, it is essential to keep certain truths clearly in mind.

(1) Unlimited redemptionists are not universalists. They do not believe that all will ultimately be saved. Nor does their view require or logically lead to such a heretical conclusion. To assert this is to create a straw man.

(2) All people are lost, including the elect. The fact that an individual is elect does not in some way make him less lost than a nonelect person.

(3) Anyone who will be saved must believe. The Father will draw the person, yet he must come (John 6:37, 44).

(4) Some Scriptures do relate the Atonement particularly to the elect. See John 10:15 and Ephesians 5:25 for clear examples. Unlimited people readily acknowledge this. But this is not the issue. The question is: are there Scriptures which broaden the extent of the Atonement beyond the elect? Limited advocates say no, and attempt to explain those passages which seem to broaden the Atonement in ways that do not broaden it. In other words, unlimited advocates acknowledge that the Atonement is both limited and unlimited; limited advocates insist that it is strictly limited and do not recognize any unlimited passages as teaching unlimited atonement.
Click to expand...

Thus the Atonement is unlimited in extent but limited in redemption.

Allan · Jun 24, 2008

Again from "Basic Theology"

IV. EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. 2 Peter 2:1

It is generally acknowledged that the verse most difficult to harmonize with the limited atonement view is 2 Peter 2:1. Apparently it says that the false teachers (who are not among the elect) had the price of redemption paid for them by the Lord, for in their teaching they deny the Lord who bought (agorazo) them. In other words, Peter seems to be saying that the Lord in His sacrifice paid the price of redemption for these nonelect people.

Some particular redemptionists say that Peter is only recording what the false teachers claimed. They said that the Lord bought them, but in reality He did not because He died only for the elect. Thus Peter simply acknowledged what they were saying without affirming the truth of it, and indeed, it is not a true statement from the limited viewpoint. But, of course, even if this is an expression of what the false teachers were saying, it still can be a true statement, so it cannot be assumed to be false simply because it comes from their mouths. But more likely Peter is emphasizing the depth of their defection by pointing out that they denied the Lord who bought them. This is sometimes called the “Christian Charity” view.

Others understand this to mean that the Lord (as Creator) “purchased” these nonelect people in the sense that He as Creator possessed them. Thus agorazo (buy, redeem) comes to mean ktizo (create). The Lord possessed them as He did Israel when He effected a temporal deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 32:6).

In attempting to reinforce this interpretation, particular redemptionists cite three lines of alleged support. (1) The word for Lord (despotes) when used in the New Testament refers to God, not Christ, and it should refer to Christ if this verse teaches a soteriological ransom (see, for example, Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). While the word does usually refer to the Father when it refers to Deity, does not Jude 4 use it in reference to Christ? It seems so, and if so there, then there is no reason why it does not also refer to Christ in 2 Peter 2:1.

(2) They also point out that in other occurrences of agorazo where it refers to soteriological redemption in the New Testament, the price paid is mentioned in the context. Therefore, since no price is mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1, this must not refer to an actual soteriological redemption, but rather a Creator-creature “possession.” However, in Revelation 14:4 no price is mentioned in the context of relating the soteriological redemption of the 144,000. Likewise, 2 Peter 2:1 could also refer to a soteriological redemption without mentioning the specific price.

(3) Further it is alleged that agorazo is always used in contexts where there is a real, take-possession kind of buying. Because the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 were not actually saved, agorazo cannot refer to a salvation purchase since no real possession took place. But notice Luke 14:18-19 where a real, actual purchase was made of a piece of property and yet the purchaser had not even seen it. Likewise, the unlimited redemptionist argues, the false teachers were actually purchased (that is, Christ did die for them) even though they were never possessed (that is, they were not saved). (See John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ [London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1959], pp. 250-2); and Gary Long, Definite Atonement [Nutley, N.J., Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976], pp. 67-82).

B. 1 John 2:2

This verse also seems to say rather clearly that the death of Christ was for the whole world, since He is the propitiation not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world. “Our” seems to refer to those who are (or will be) saved while “the whole world” includes those who are not saved. How do limited redemptionists explain this verse so as to be compatible with their viewpoint?

Actually three suggestions are made. In all three, “ours” and “the whole world” add up to the sum total of all the elect; therefore, “ours” refers to some of the elect and “the whole world” to others of the elect.
(1) Some understand “ours” to mean the elect living in Asia Minor where the Apostle John was; “the whole world” then refers to the elect living outside Asia Minor. This is a geographical distinction.
(2) Others see a racial distinction; that is, “ours” means the elect from among Jewish people, and “the whole world” designates the elect from among Gentiles.
(3) Still others make a chronological distinction. “Ours” designates the elect living in the first century, while “the whole world” focuses on the elect in subsequent centuries. In other words, limited atonement sees the Atonement from this verse as geographically, ethnically, or chronologically universal, but only in relation to the elect, not all people (see John Murray, Redemption—Accomplished and Applied [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961], pp. 82-5).

To be sure, the word “world” does not always mean all people (see John 12:19), but no dictionary gives it the meaning of only the elect. And limited atonement advocates are assigning it the meaning of only part of the elect in this verse.

Furthermore, the only other occurrence of the phrase “the whole world” in John’s writings is in 1 John 5:19, and there it undebatably includes everybody. So the presumption is that it also means everyone in 2:2. And this means that Christ died for all people even though all are not ultimately saved.

C. 1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10

Generally, limited redemptionists understand the “all” in 1 Timothy 2 to refer to all kinds of people. That is, Christ died for all kinds of sinners (among the elect), and God wishes all kinds of people (among the elect) to be saved. In 4:10, however, some understand Savior to mean that Christ provides the general benefits of providence to all and especially to believers. “Savior” then has no soteriological connotation, according to this interpretation. The logic behind these interpretations is that if Christ is the Savior of all people absolutely, then all must be saved, and since all are not saved, then He cannot be the Savior of all in any soteriological sense. But is not God the Father of all people absolutely (Acts 17:29) and yet not all people are in the redeemed family? (Gal. 3:26) Similarly, Christ can be said to be the Savior of all without all being saved (see Owen, p. 235).

D. Hebrews 2:9

Again it seems clear that the Atonement was universal. How else could the writer say that He tasted death for every man. Notice that the preceding verses use the word “man” also and the meaning is clearly all people, not just the elect.

E. John 3:16

Limited redemptionists are forced to say that this verse means God loved only the world of the elect. One advocate of limited redemption understands the verse to emphasize the intensity of God’s love; that is, God loved the world of sinners. But it is still restricted to the elect sinners. Now if John 3:16 is so restricted, then no limited redemptionist could tell his young children, for example, that God loves them, since he could not know at that age whether or not they belonged to the elect. The Lord, however, expressed His love for an unsaved (and evidently a nonelect) man (Mark 10:21).

F. Acts 17:30

This verse states the matter as broadly as it could be said. God commands all men everywhere to repent. To read it to say all men without distinction of race or rank everywhere in the earth but only among the elect (which is the way it would have to be understood to support limited atonement) does not appear to be the most secure exegesis!

Exegesis clearly supports the unlimited position.
Click to expand...

Rippon · Jun 24, 2008

Allan, cite your sources.In posts #46 and 47 of yours you just relay mountains of type without crediting the author.Besides, if it is basic, then why not briefly give your own understanding of Particular Redemption?

jdlongmire · Jun 24, 2008

Rippon said:

Allan, cite your sources.In posts #46 and 47 of yours you just relay mountains of type without crediting the author.Besides, if it is basic, then why not briefly give your own understanding of Particular Redemption?
Click to expand...

I agree - this "debate via cut-n-paste" is annoying - a quote or 2 is ok, but c'mon...raying: Mercy!

Allan · Jun 24, 2008

Rippon said:

Allan, cite your sources.In posts #46 and 47 of yours you just relay mountains of type without crediting the author.Besides, if it is basic, then why not briefly give your own understanding of Particular Redemption?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ryrie's "Basic Theology".

I have - twice already (at least) in this thread alone.

webdog · Jun 24, 2008

jdlongmire said:

I agree - this "debate via cut-n-paste" is annoying - a quote or 2 is ok, but c'mon...raying: Mercy!
Click to expand...

You are right, being shown the error of your ways is really annoying

Allan · Jun 24, 2008

jdlongmire said:

I agree - this "debate via cut-n-paste" is annoying - a quote or 2 is ok, but c'mon...raying: Mercy!
Click to expand...

I have only done 2 quotes (via cut and paste of anothers work) in this thread so what are you complaining about exactly ??

jdlongmire · Jun 24, 2008

Your understanding of Unlimited Atonement is inaccurate to say the least.
Click to expand...

Yeah...

You seem to forget that the atonement is made on behalf of all but only those who appropiate it by faith recieve it's benifit.
Click to expand...

So, those smart enough or spiritual enough in their own strength "grab and get".

The spiritual equivalent of Natural Selection. The fittest will get saved!

jdlongmire · Jun 24, 2008

Allan said:

I have only done 2 quotes (via cut and paste of anothers work) in this thread so what are you complaining about exactly ??
Click to expand...

Huge quote posts.

Allan · Jun 24, 2008

jdlongmire said:

Yeah...

So, those smart enough or spiritual enough in their own strength "grab and get".

The spiritual equivalent of Natural Selection. The fittest will get saved!
Click to expand...

You perfectly illistrate my point of "Your understanding of Unlimited Atonement is inaccurate to say the least" in your statement above.

If you want to proclaim anothers view them please take the time to actually understand them and not regurgitate others opinion of it.

Rippon · Jun 24, 2008

Allan said:

Sorry, Ryrie's "Basic Theology".

I have - twice already (at least) in this thread alone.
Click to expand...

So it's Ryrie.That is the first time you have mentioned him ( I looked at all your previous posts in this thread where you were quoting others).

Allan · Jun 24, 2008

Rippon said:

So it's Ryrie.That is the first time you have mentioned him ( I looked at all your previous posts in this thread where you were quoting others).
Click to expand...

What?
The mention of Ryrie and the two posts connected with him are the only times in this thread I cited anyone.

The second part of that is in responce to your second part about me stating 'my' view. I responded that I have at least twice already.

jdlongmire · Jun 24, 2008

Allan said:

You perfectly illistrate my point of "Your understanding of Unlimited Atonement is inaccurate to say the least" in your statement above.

If you want to proclaim anothers view them please take the time to actually understand them and not regurgitate others opinion of it.
Click to expand...

You do not rebut the fact, you simply claim I do not understand - the problem is - you don't like what I understand.

There is no "another's view" - I am simply taking your logic to it's end - reductio ad absurdum.

Rippon · Jun 24, 2008

Allan said:

What?
The mention of Ryrie and the two posts connected with him are the only times in this thread I cited anyone.
[quote ]

You did not cite him as in documented the source, you quoted someone in posts 46 and 47 and only cited him in post 50 after I asked you to identify him.

Hmm, the "only times in this thread I cited anyone"?!

For the record :

Vincent #4
Matthew Henry #26
John MacArthur #27,28 and 29
John Gill #29

You're getting a little forgetful in your youth.You have to keep better track of things Allan.
Click to expand...

Rippon · Jun 24, 2008

Allan said:

I have only done 2 quotes (via cut and paste of anothers work) in this thread so what are you complaining about exactly ??
Click to expand...

That's a big no. See my prior post.

Calvinism - TULIP - "L"imited Atonement

Allan Active Member

Shortandy New Member

Allan Active Member

jdlongmire New Member

Shortandy New Member

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

jdlongmire New Member

Allan Active Member

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Allan Active Member

jdlongmire New Member

jdlongmire New Member

Allan Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Allan Active Member

jdlongmire New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Calvinism - TULIP - "L"imited Atonement

Allan Active Member

Shortandy New Member

Allan Active Member

jdlongmire New Member

Shortandy New Member

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

jdlongmire New Member

Allan Active Member

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

Allan Active Member

jdlongmire New Member

jdlongmire New Member

Allan Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Allan Active Member

jdlongmire New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter