Featured Limited Atonement insanity.

There would be none. I might be biased because I don't believe the atonement is in any way "limited". I do understand how someone could say that God had in mind those he was going to save when Christ died and I admit that the way many non-Calvinists view this - as Christ dying equally and in the same way for everyone and then God stands back and says that all has been provided, now let's see if anyone responds is not what scripture indicated.

For what it's worth in your own study 37818 I can tell you that Bunyan asked the very same question as your OP and went on to say that is why the atonement is not limited.

Owen asked the same question too and his conclusion was that a lost person needs no grounds for anything. All they need is to know they are lost and undone they have an express promise from God that if they come to him by faith he will save them. They will discover later that they were elect, and that Christ died for them. Speculation about the extent of the atonement is not for them to worry about at that point.

 

Do you believe the atonement for sin, made by Jesus, is limited to those who believe?

peace to you

 

I only mean that at the time of Christ's dying, there was no aspect of his atonement that forever set those who would be saved vs those who would be lost. What that means is that for a person who has come to the point where they are beginning to think that this is all true, and beginning to understand what their condition is apart from Christ - one thing they do not have to worry about is whether or not Christ included them in the atonement. It is quite possible that the Calvinistic idea of the "L" or limited atonement may be exactly the right way to explain it. It's just that for the OP, they need to know that the theology of the extent of the atonement is not their problem.

 

James White even says they are inseparable. I don't agree with him because too many other theological schools of thought use penal substitution but don't teach limited atonement.

Yep, that was Owen's argument against the Arminians. But other things Owen said make me wonder if he really believed that himself.

It makes it more difficult that Calvinists don't explain limited atonement that way either at least not always. They tend to say that Christ "is dead" for you and if you will come you will be saved. This is what the Marrow men did in the book "The Marrow of Modern Divinity". (They were deliberately being careful not to flat out tell people that Christ died for their sins.) It's also common to say that when Jesus died the Father had in mind specifically those who are elect yet the offer is truly and freely for everyone. Bunyan and Spurgeon did that and even Owen seemed to say that in other writings. Owen even said that the greatest sin and insult to God that a man can do is to refuse the offer of salvation and not believe. I would like to ask Owen how could that be if the man was truly not included in the atoning work of Christ in the first place.

 

You are correct. It may be flawed but in answering a specific Arminian argument it is quite effective as a reply to a specific assertion they made. Namely, that Christ died for the sins of everyone in a completely equal manner. For White, and for Owen when he went up against the Arminians it sufficed because of the specific assertion they made.

Charles Hodge talks about this line of reasoning in his systematic theology book chapter VIII I think. He refutes it and gives detailed reasoning which is way beyond the scope of this thread. For our purposes it is worth it just to quote him as saying " All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood".

It is in that sense that I say Christ died for everyone. However; in fairness to @canadyjd I must say that Hodge shows that the Augustinian system as he calls it, where Christ died for the specific purpose of redeeming an "elect" given to him by the Father, in no way harms the idea of an "offer" being open to anyone for salvation if they will close with Christ. That offer is just as real as any offer of an Arminian or semi-Pelagian, according to Hodge. Of course, you have to decide if you buy that or not. For me, I think the practical differences are of no real value for us at the level of laymen.

 

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. Ro 5

Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What does Hodge or Owen or Bunyan, etc., say this free gift of "justification of life" is?

 

Babies in hell? | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

Babies In Hell 2 | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

Hodge, in his "Commentary on Romans" has a lot to say about it. But he takes about 100 pages and comes up with 8 different doctrinal principles after all the explanation. It's available on Kindle for 99 cents. I can tell you that the verse does not demolish or prove the extent of the atonement. That is not the purpose of that section of Romans.

 

No, you CAN"T tell me that. You can only tell me Hodge's opinion, or only that he took 100 pages (sheesh) to explain it.

None of your commentators defines what this 'free gift of justification of life' that came to all men due to Christ's "one act of righteousness"?

 

...then why even comment? If you bothered to take a look you'd know the threads revolve around the passage we're discussing.

Go away.

 

If I said Owen, I apologize. I meant Hodge. And I can tell you that that was not the subject of his analysis of that passage. It was more about the idea of the imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I am sorry if that doesn't satisfy you but as far as I can remember, that was not the subject of Hodge's inquiry in that passage. If you keep running about spewing a verse here and there as a "gotcha" you will continue to look ignorant.

They may very well define this. If I have time I will look into it further but I just can't recall right now. What is your point, if any?

 

I was wrong, you said Hodge.

??? That's not even in the context of Romans 5.

Lol, it's a legit question that you're unable to answer. Christ's atonement did something for 'all men'. What was it?

18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. Ro 5

 

Next time I see Hodge I'll tell him that. He needs to do a rewrite.

Ky. I'm not sure what you want me to say. I certainly believe the atonement did something for all men. It provided complete satisfaction to God's justice so that now, anyone who comes to God by Christ can be reconciled freely, with no barriers due to any sins they have committed. This is why I don't believe in a "limited atonement" the way many Calvinists teach the concept. They teach it as if at the time Christ died, millions were irrevocably shut out forever and it was set in stone that they would be lost not matter what.

What I am also saying though is that many Calvinists also teach that the atonement was universal in the above sense, but that God had his elect in mind when Christ died and thus had the intention of saving those and only those by bringing them to faith and repentance.

I admit that there are mental gyrations that everyone doesn't buy when they hear such an explanation as above. But if you go too far the other way, and make this into a scenarion where Christ died equally and in the same way for everyone, and God has thus provided for all that is necessary for salvation, and it's totally up to each individual to get saved - Well, in that case you have demolished a lot of scripture that clearly indicates otherwise.

Personally, I have no problem telling someone Christ died for them. But I also believe they will not (can not) come to faith without the sovereign Holy Spirit intervening in their lives. That is different from the Provisionists or semi-Pelagians.