Unlimited Atonement

What do you say about the phrase "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"? In other words, the blood of Christ is sufficient for any individual, but it's only efficient to the believers.

 

Does that mean by that logic that some people can't be saved?

 

Isa 53:6 ALL we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned EVERY ONE to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us ALL.

Have you gone astray? Then your sins were laid on Jesus.

The Calvinists are always happy to quote those OT scriptures Paul quoted in Romans 2:9-18 as pertaining to 100% of mankind being sinners that never do good, none that seeketh after God etc...

But when the scriptures say Jesus took all men's sins upon himself they want to limit it.

These guys make up the rules as they go along, you cannot hold a meaningful discussion with them.

 

I think I would be okay with that phrase assuming you define the terms in the way I understand them. I believe even Calvinistic scholars (like Sproul) agree with this kind of phrase, but I would have to take issue with their view of what is considered "sufficient." I don't see how a Calvinist could claim that the atonement is in any manner "sufficient" for a non-elect individual to be saved.

 

They also seem to argue that the atonement did not take place if you do not believe. This is like saying the holocaust did not happen because you do not believe it.

Jesus died for your sins whether you believe it or not. Reality does not consist of what you believe.

 

context, context, context. who is the "we" and "us"

 

If that is all he said then their would have been no disagreement, but as I clearly explained he presented a false dichotomy by suggesting that Christians must either believe in Universalism or Calvinist's view of Limited Atonement. I presented the Orthodox and biblically supported alternative held to by non-Calvinistic believers. God has provided atonement for all mankind conditioned upon their faith...a picture of love for the whole world (Jn 3:16) rather than a relatively small hand picked segment of the world.

 

That is it in the proverbial orthodox nutshell.

 

And who was Paul speaking to in Romans? JEWS!

Read Acts 28:16-31.

 

So Jesus only died for the Jews? Is that your answer to the "we" and "us" that the iniquity was laid on Christ?

 

The atonement of Christ was universal and still is today...the gift of eternal life is also universal. Jesus Christ is the Saviour of ALL men. (1 Timothy 4:10). All means all.

The invitation to salvation is offered to ALL:

Matthew 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

This doesn't mean ALL will be saved (Universalism) or that Christ's atonement is limited (Calvinism) to a "chosen" few. It means that Christ died for all, the atonement was sufficient for all, but not all will trust Christ and come to the knowledge of the Truth and be saved. (1 Timothy 2:4)

 

Respectfully, I believe that Jesus' death, burial and resurrection paid the price for every sin ever committed. I believe people are condemned because of unbelief.

 

Not what he said, was it? If anything it shows that all of the jews (believing and unbelieving alike) have been atoned for.

 

You are using it to illustrate general atonement. Problem is, it only was given to one people, God's covenant people. Hmm, I wonder what that pictures.

The OT atonement didn't cover anyone. No sins were put away under that system. It was a picture.

 

Really? How do you explain this verse, then?

Romans 11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."

Paul, in Romans, is writing to Jews and Gentiles.

 

I had asked a question of who the "us" and the "we" were and that was the only group mentioned. In other words, he didn't answer my question. The passage was used to say that the iniquity of "all" was put on Christ. But it says "us all." So I asked who the "us" and "we" were in the passage.

 

Exactly. In the same way the OT atonement was made for believer and unbeliever alike, so did Christ's.

 

This is part of why the sides have disagreements. There are differences of more than just "for whom did Christ die." I believe people go to hell because their sin. Unbelief is a sin. If it was already paid for, then we are still in the same situation. People go to hell for sin. Yes, they have rejected Jesus Christ, but that can only be considered a secondary cause. It's like my power bill. I have a power bill to pay because I received electricity, not because I refused to let my friend pay it for me.