Limited Atonement and Cause and Effects

For every effect there is a cause. When a cause can be identified, blame and or praise can be properly predicated.

Ones salvation involves a cause. Something must be the cause of the effect, in this case we are looking for the cause of the effect of salvation. If we can identify the cause of salvation, we have found and identified the answer to the question of whether or not the atonement is limited or if in fact it is not.

If in fact man has no part in salvation, i.e., salvation is all of God and none of man, man can be said to play no part in salvation. If this is true, the cause of salvation, and subsequently those to whom salvation is directed, is indeed limited, unless of course one believes in universalism. If certain men do not receive salvation, man having had no part in it, logically forces the blame for such a lack of salvation directly upon the cause, which obviously withheld the means by which to accomplish it. In this case it can be none other than God Himself. If any man receives not the means for salvation from God, the sole blame for that lack of means lies again upon God. It cannot in any way be the fault of the man, for again, according to the view we are addressing, man has no abilities or plays any role in salvation in and of the abilities and traits he naturally possess from birth.

That leads us to the examination of an absurd contradiction found in the theology of many men. Some try to have their cake and eat it too, by claiming that man has absolutely no role or obligation in achieving salvation or keeping salvation, yet try and say they do not believe in a limited atonement. To try and support such a view is preposterously absurd and contradictory. If man has no role in his salvation, and can do nothing to keep his salvation, those that are saved and kept are indeed the product of a limited plan of salvation, INSPITE OF WHAT THEY TRY AND CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY.

It is a logical fallacy to deny a limited atonement if one indeed takes the position that man has nothing to do with their salvation, and has nothing to do with keeping their salvation. If one is going to deny a limited atonement, they are going to have to show that the cause of ones salvation lies in at least some sense, within the realm of mans God given nature and abilities.

 

HP: What part can a man have other than to react as a puppet on a string? if in fact man is a dead log floating down a stream, unable to do anything other than what he does,i.e., is to sin and that continually? If you feel that indeed man has been given some abilities and can, and or indeed must, participate in his salvation apart from a coercion that he cannot resist,...... I am listening.

 

HP:If one is going to deny a limited atonement, they are going to have to show that the cause of ones salvation lies in at least some sense, within the realm of mans God given nature and abilities.

HP: Simply another diversion without merit. You have not presented any other option than the ones I have presented, for what you denote as an ‘effectual call and regeneration’ is still representing God as the only cause. Man is still passive in the ‘effectual calling and regeneration’ and you have not presented any other option than to passively accept what God causes. Are you going to tell me that a dead log, unable and without the abilities to do anything other than to sin and that continually, can act as a cause in 'choosing' to resist that which is caused solely by God?

If man is born in such a state that he cannot do anything other than sin, and that continually, he has no will and makes no choices, other than the wicked force or coercion he is born with. Inbred sin does not serve as a cause of influence, by any stretch of the imagination, to motivate a sinner to salvation. If there is any 'cause' that would motivate or influence him to any good, it wuld have to lie outside of his abilities and possibilities.

If God is the sole 'cause' in the salvation of man, God cannot escape being a 'limiting factor' in salvation. Salvation must indeed be the results of a limited atonement.

Again. you have not established in any way any false dichotomy.

 

HP: I will hand it to you here GE. You at least understand that limited atonement is sown in the cloth of your beliefs. Men like CS and others try and hoodwink themselves and others into believing the Scriptures in that God’s atonement was indeed for ‘the sins of the entire world’ and not just the elect, while holding onto the very basis of the false notion that necessitate a limited atonment.

I feel without a doubt that you are wrong in your belief of a limited atonement, but you at least do not try and hide behind a false cloak of mincing words and contradictory doctrines as is the practice of some. You are indeed consistent in your error.

 

HP: You amaze me Andre. I wish I had your abilities to lay this issue out before the list in the logical fashion you have done. You have done an excellent job at logically presenting the issue. Thank you.

 

Scripture: 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

HP: GE, not according to this and other verses. The atonement affects all sin, not the elects only……..IF we will but hear, and open the doors of our heart in willing obedience to the conditions God has set forth.

 

HP: Listen to your own statement. Ask yourself who is the ‘cause’ in the ‘choosing’ who to save and who not to save. That is the very heart and soul of a limited atonement. You have established clearly your belief in a limited atonement. Am I not correct in my assessment?

 

HP: PL, let me say it in a different way. Indeed the value of the atonement and the application of the atonement should be different issues, but if you make God the sole cause, and as such God is the limiting factor regardless of the differing issues, and a limited atonement the only end possible.