Hey all, Kind of re-hashing a former thread here concerning Limited Atonement, but I wanted to begin with a statement that Allen made. I honestly in almost 15 years of being a Christian have never heard such a statement nor have I ever percieved such a distinction from Scripture. How such a distinction can be made I am not sure. Now this is just my lack of study in the intricacies of the debate. I found that John Owen had dealt with this in his un-refuted essay entitled "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" which is a polemical work defending Limited Atonement, also called Particular Redemption. Based on Allen's quote, one could right say he believes in Limited Redemption, but Universal Atonement. Doesn't this distinction (I don't think it could be properly called a separation) is odd? How do we distinguish between Redemption and Atonement? Do we have a biblical justification for this? I would assume what is meant here is that the actual redemption is limited to those have it applied to themselves through their faith. It in effect is saying, all are atoned for, but only those to whom the atonement is applied are redeemed, and therefore limits redemption. In chapter IV of Owen's work, we find him dealing with the distinction of impetration and application. He writes, "They say, then, that in the oblation of Christ, and concerning the good things by him procured, two things are to be considered--First, The impetration, or obtaining of them; and secondly, The application of them to particular persons. "The first," say they, "is general, in respect to all. Christ obtained and procured all good things by his deah of (that is to say, from) his Father,--reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness of sins,--for all and every man in the world, if they will believe and lay hold upon him: but in respect of application, they are actually bestowed and conferred but on a few; because but a few believe, whichi is the condition on which they are bestowed." p. 110, Banner of Truth Trust. Of the Arminians Owen writes, "First, Some of them say that Christ, by his death and passion, did absolutley, according to the intention of God, purchase for all and every man, dying for them, remission of sins and reconciliation with God, or a restitution into a state of grace and favour; all which shall be actually benefical to them, provided that they do believe. So the Arminians" p.110 A few other variances Owen mentions but makes this final comment on the matter, "And sundry other ways there are whereby men express their conceptions in this business. The sum of all comes to this, and the weight of all lies upon that distinction which we before recounted;--namely, that in respect o impetration, Christ obtained redemption and reconcilation for all; in repect of application, it is bestowed only on them who do believe and continue therein." p.111 Now Allen seems to be saying something a little differently than Owen has explained of other's views, and particularly Owen's use of Redemption within the atonement. But so far, Owen's commentary is the closest thing I have found in a distinction being made to what Allen has proposed. But I would like to know a few things from Allen regarding his statement: 1. One what Scriptural basis do you make the distinction between Christ's atonement and His redemption? 2. Explain how an Atonement, in our case the blood of Jesus Christ, can exceed the extent of the Redemption? Let add some clarification. The object of Redemption must be by your limitation, believers. This is that which was purchased by the blood (atonement) of Christ. At the risk of sounding irreverant, did Christ over-pay for the purchased possession? You see then my dilemma. How can the payment exceed what was purchased? 3. How does your distinction reconcile with the fact that Christ came to establish a New Covenant with His people? In other words, if the Atonement is universal, and a the blood of Christ IS the blood of the New Covenant, then what has been established with those who finally perish? I will end off here, though I have more questions and will share more of Owen's refutation of the distinction he wrote of. But I want to make sure that I am understanding the distinction you have made, Allen, and how it might agree or disagree with the impetration and application disctinction.