Limted Attonement

Let me direct this question back to you. What do you think about the love of a God who loves people so much that He will not deliver the gospel to each of them without exception? It is a fact that there are distant lands where the gospel is believed to have never been preached. Does God love them as much as He loves those in America with "churches" on every corner??? Why does He not deliver the gospel to them since He loves them just the same? Or is it that God cannot save unless we preach the gospel? I mean, if you believe the way Pastor Larry does, that all the elect WILL hear the gospel, that is fine. I have no problem with that. But you, you have to admit that the hands of God are tied, and He cannot save the heathen unless we preach to them. Well, why are still sitting here!!! Go preach!!! If I knew I had the power to save somebody from an ETERNAL hell, I would surely be doing something about it. Obviously, you either don't care or you really don't believe that.

"Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:" (Is. 59:1)

"A Reply

to the statement:

"Millions and billions will die lost and all the time we have the power to save them--if we will."

http://members.aol.com/dwibclc/areply.htm

 

I've had several people in my life inquire about what the gospel was. One is now a member of my church! I communicated the gospel to him. I didn't sop it all up and say God just loves you, and if you'll do this, this, this, this, and this God will save you. The apostles NEVER did that, neither did Jesus. You never see Jesus or the apostles before a mixed multitude saying, "Christ died for you" or "God loves you." NEVER. When Paul told the Corinthian church that Christ died for their sins, it was because he was talking to THE CHURCH, those who had already believed. Look what he told the Thessalonians: "Brethren beloved, knowing your election of God." He goes on to explain how they received the Gospel. That is evidence that they were among the elect of God. Not because they received it that made them elect, but the fact they did receive it sealed, or confirmed, that observation. Don't believe me? Read the book.

 

Maybe a word of clartification is in order at this point.

Limted Atonement affirms "that the purpose of Christ's coming was notto make possible the salvation of all humans, but to render cetain the salvation of the elect". (Erickson, Systematic Theology, p. 826)

The idea is that election and atonement are bound up ina necessary way. The extent of the atonement is determined by the extent of election.

Says Hodge: "if God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sentthe Son to die for those whom He predetermined not to save, as truly as, adn in the same sense that He gave Him up for those whom he had chosen to make the heris of salvation." (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theolgy, vol. 2, p.533)

So we see that particular election apart from limited atonement is, in this view, a contradiction. Those whom Christ atoned for are the elect, and those who are the elect are those whom Chrsit atoned for.

Unlimited Atonement holds that "Christ died for all persons, but his atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual." Ercikson, p.829) For Calvanists who hold to this view, the individual is enabled to believe by the power of the Holy Spirit, or alternatively, are granted faith by a sovereign act of God.

I know a lot of people who think the hold to Limited Atonement when in fact they hold to Unlimited Atonement.

 

If I am understanding what is being posted by both the Arminians and Calvinists, they are affirming the same thing; Jesus Christ merely provided an atonement. I have to disagree. However, I may be misunderstanding what is being posted. When Jesus Christ died, He redeemed, justified, reconciled, and forever perfected those for whom He died as far as the covenant of grace is concerned, that is, objectively. In time, the elect are made a partaker of that which Jesus Christ accomplished for them at the cross when they are born of the Spirit. This is what I call subjective reconciliation. Objective reconciliation at the cross; Subjective reconciliation when the elect are born of the Spirit. Jesus Christ did not shed His blood in vain. All those for whom He died will stand around the throne in heaven singing, "Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." (Rev. 5:9)

[ October 02, 2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Primitive Baptist ]

 

It depends on what you mean by "scope." The scope of the value is unlimited. No one denies that. The scope of the intent is because the atonement did not make salvation possible, it made it certain.

[/qb]No. I am not assuming that. I was anticipating your answer.

[/qb]That is certainly not scriptural in any way ... as evidenced by the fact that you have cited no Scripture for it. God created man for his glory, as it tells us many times (Isa 44, Eph 1, Rev 4, 1 Cor 10).

I agree. But John 3:16 is not a problem for me, it is a problem for you. If God loved the world, then why does he allow people to be born that he knows are going to freely reject him? Isn't that cruel? If you knew you child was going to run out in the street and get run over, would you not, out of love, prevent him from doing so? Why did God allow people to be born knowing that he was going to send them to hell? Isn't that cruel?

It is you who doesn't understand what free will is. Free will is not the power of contrary choice. It is the ability to act in accordance with the nature. That is why a God who cannot do anything at all can still be absolutely free.

You can remove whatever you want. The position I hold does embrace the standard teaching on the atonement. The distinction between sufficiency and efficiency is normal.

 

You are misunderstanding. I have always said that Christ died to secure salvation, not merely to make it possible. That is the standard calvinist teaching on the atonement and it is a vital distinction.

Earlier you commented that having the gospel preached to all the elect ties God's hands. I don't understand how you tie the hands of a sovereign God. Surely if God desires to save people, he has no problem getting the message preached to them. It seems that it is your view of God that is lacking in this respect.

[ October 02, 2002, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

About the teaching about sufficiency and efficiency.

It doesn't mean what some here seem to think it does.

It means that the atonement is sufficient to atone for the sins of all people. It does NOT mean that Christ died for all people.

It measns that the blood could atone for every person if God chose to elct every person. But he does not so choose and so God did not atone for every person.

Those whom He atoned for are saved, necessarily. That is 5 pt Calvanism.

 

I agree with that, as do you since you are not a universalist. The atonement is unlimited in value, with which you also agree. Therefore, the question is, Does the atonement accomplish anything or simply make it possible. I believe it accomplished something, namely propitiation and salvation. You believe it only made it possible. So yes, we both agree that the atonement is limited in some respects and we both agree that it is unlimited in other respects.

Don't know ... don't recall you giving it ... and to be honest, I don't remember the question anyway ...

I will answer Scriptures. I recall now that you addressed a passage that I was going to address as well. I was so busy with stuff and time got away and I don't remember. Yes, I will address any passage. To glorify God is to obey God and to love God. I don't deny that.

God does not reject them. He promised that he would not cast out any who come to him. They reject him. God calls everyone to salvation and all are responsible to come. They do not come because they do not want to, not because God rejects them.

I have defined free will consistently, as I have demonstrated. Free will is theologically defined as the ability to act in accordance with the nature. That is not made up. It is a standard theological definition.

No I was not offended and I was not trying to be rude. I apologize that it seemed that way. I was simply saying that you do not need my permission to remove the L. I will not remove it since there is a solid biblical basis for it. You are right that this does not bring us any closer to reconciling our differences but so long as our starting point remains so vastly different, the "L" is not making much of a difference. Again, please accept my apologies.

[ October 02, 2002, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Obviously - the "atonement does not make the atonement possible".

Your question is stated in a way that carries with it - its own fallacy. Namely the fallacy that "providing the way of escape" (1Cor10) is an atonement that accomplishes "nothing" unless we are also "forcibly Caused to sumbit".

It is the fallacy that "Drawing all men unto Me" is "an atonement that accomplishes nothing" unless we are also "forcibly Caused to Submit".

It is the fallacy that "convicting the World of sin and Rightousness and Judgment" John 16 is "nothing".

It is the fallacy that "Standing at the door and knocking" is "nothing".

It is the fallacy that calling out "come unto Me all who are weary and heavy ladened and I will give you rest" is "nothing".

Unless - in EVERY case - the ALL that are drawn and the ALL that are convicted and the ALL that are called to COME - are forcibly "caused" to submit.

That is another good example - where the setup for the question is in fact "the problem". How much better it would be to approach the subject objectively when reaching out to someone that does not already hold your point of view.

In Christ,

Bob

I believe it accomplished something, namely propitiation and salvation. You believe it only made it possible. So yes, we both agree that the atonement is limited in some respects and we both agree that it is unlimited in other respects.

 

Your statement is in response to a post made on this thread regarding Matt 7 and Calvinisms adoption of the "few" as those that are the selected elect.

The post was not meant to "exaggerate" the case - but rather to state it without the obligatory hand waving - just stating the facts as they are.

In doing that my hope is that someone who is inclinded towards the doctrines of Cavlinism would show one of the facts listed to be incorrect.

Nothing would please me more - than to find that Calvinism does not hold the view stated - by showing exactly which point was not a true representation of the direct implications of Calvinism for the Matt 7 case.

Please - just the facts.

In christ

Bob

[ October 04, 2002, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

5 Point Calvinism can only affirm that statement by "First" redefining the term "World" to be "The arbitrarily selected Few of Matt 7" instead.

We both know that is the case.

Actually the text says "He is the atoning sacrifice for Our Sins and NOT for Our Sins ONLY but for those of the Whole World" 1John 2:2.

Once the 5 point calvinist has redefined the term "Whole World" to mean "FEW" of Matt7 - then they are the ones who must conclude that "the Whole World is saved".

It is not the Arminian position that gets into that knott of difficulty - but 5 point Calvinism - or any who adopt "Limited Atonement".

Find - then show that 5 point Calvinism teaches "God is NOT willing for the MANY of Matt 7 to go to hell. God DOES care for them. God DOES DO something to SAVE them. God is NOT contnent with just the FEW of Matt 7. God does NOT simply SELECT them and not anyone else".

Show - or claim that the negative of anything you quote above IS the case - and thereby dispute the details - the specifics - of something that was said.

And the point is that when He says that "He So loves the World - He obligates Himself.

When He calls Himself the "Savior of the World" - He obligates Himself.

When He claims to be the atoning sacrifice for the Whole World - He obligates Himself.

When He represents Himself as calling out to ALL - men everywhere to repent - (know you not that it is the kindness of God that Leads you to repentance) - He obligates Himself.

It appears to me that by ignoring that - you completely missed the application of that point in the big picture of soteriology.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

There are more than a "few" Calvinists who are postmillennialists who believe there will come a golden age of the church when most people on the earth will be saved. There are plenty of scholarly books on postmillennialism if you care to know why we believe the Bible teaches that.

Actually, I can just as easily "prove" that your anti-Calvinistic soteriology results in no one - not one person - being saved. "Why?", you ask. Because, dear sir, in your system a spiritually dead soul must do something that he cannot do - repent and believe. Therefore, no one in your system - not one person - can be saved.

Thankfully , for your sake as well as all whom God will save, your soteriological system based on the sovereignty of man is false.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

[ October 05, 2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

Extremely wrong! You're using your own rules to define ours. You can't do that and be logically correct. I guess that you do that because you cannot argue within the Arminian system, so you place rules within it that just aren't there.

 

Bob,

You are missing the point about the atonement (as you are about many things). The issue in limited atonement is did the atonement accomplish salvation or did the atonement simply make it possible. We believe that it accomplished something. You believe it only made it possible and that now, something else is necessary. We disagree. The fallacy you have tried to push on it only stems from your own misunderstanding of what the issues are.

Secondly, as for being "forcibly caused to submit," you are in danger of being suspended for repeated misrepresenting things have been corrected. There is no calvinist on here that believes one is forcibly caused to submit. That is an outright misrepresentation. Had you not previously been corrected, I would be more gentle with you. Since you have been corrected on several different occasions, it is now up to you to respond properly. Do not continue to make false accusations to bolster your argument.

 

I know it is not the case and you don't know what you are talking about if you think this is the case. God loves the world. I believe it. In fact, I think it is why the world is still in existence. I do not struggle with this issue at all.

If you understand propitiation, you will understand why your view of 1 John 2:2 leads to universalism. If Christ propitiated their sins, then there is no longer any way that a just God can send them to hell. Propitiation is actual, not potential. Propitiation is the satisfaction of God's wrath on sin. Again, the idea is that whatever Christ did for "us" he also did for the "whole world" akin to John 12:32 which obviously means the whole world without distinction rather than the whole world without exception.

There are no verses that say that ... So what? The Bible says that God loved the world. That is all we need. They are going to hell because they willfully reject a sufficient sacrifice.

I don't disagree.

I don't disagree.

I don't disagree.

I don't disagree.

There are simply some things that you are unwilling to reconcile. The Bible says that God chose some for salvation from the beginning. I will stand on what Scripture says rather than my own ability to reconcile things that I don't fully understand. Your questions are dealt with in so many places that it makes it of questionable value to reproduce them here. If you have not listened to them, why would you listen to anyone else?

 

From Pastor Larry:

My understanding or misunderstanding as the case may turn out to be is that with God, who is above and beyond time, we may differentiate between the time of a thing and the cause of a thing. That is, with God, a cause may precede a result. Thus, Jesus was led as a lamb to the slaughter, that is the cause of the prophesy in Isaiah to that effect. In the same way, from the beginning of time, God has foreordained who will be saved, yet the cause of that foreordaining is what he foreknew about them, which is their choice for Him.

So I was studying Luke 7 and saw verse 30 the other day: "But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God's purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John." Hmmm. How could mere human choice succeed in rejecting God's purpose? Perhaps because God willed that human choice be given that perogative?

 

You have not solved your problem with your post-millenialist ideas.

Let us say for the sake of argument that in some distant future - the millenial "Age" comes and whatever is left of mankind - just keeps on gettin better every day until the 2nd coming.

Still - in all the billions that perished before that golden age - the summary is STILL as Christ says it to be "The MANY" perished in hell and the "FEW" found the way to eternal life MAtt 7.

Reworking the escatology to get the 2nd coming of Rev 19 to come AFTER the 1000 years of Rev 20 - still does not solve your "Few" vs "Many" problem. All it does is make the process of correctly exegeting Rev 19 and 20 more difficult.

Your simply not following the details. It is one thing to object to an opposing view - it is another, not to read it for what it says.

BOTH the Calvinist and Arminian belief systems claim that God's divine, sovereign supernatural "Drawing" of John 12:32 is "sufficient" to solve the "depravity problem". Such that the deadest-of-souls is "enabled" at the very least - if not totally "Forced" in the Cavlinist view.

Your argument above is that the Arminian system must leave ALL without salvation since the Diving "Drawing of God" CAN not solve the "Depravity" problem that immobilizes the lost. Truly a nonsequiter - that neither side believes.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 09, 2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Rather than resorting to that approach why not explain in what way "irresistable grace" is not in fact teaching that the "lost" are "caused" to be saved such that without any "free will of their own" - nor making any choice - they "discover" that a force outside of themselves as caused them to suddenly be found with New Covenant condition of the "Law written on the heart"?

If the argument is that there is no "Force" employed by God - or that the saints do not "submit" to God - please define that point.

The purpose is a free exchange of information and views - not simply threatening those who differ.

In Christ,

Bob

[ October 08, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]