Why not sin?

So universal atonement teaches that ALL WILL be saved? Not just CAN be saved?

 

If I understand correctly, the historic general baptist believe is that Christ dies gererally for sin but did not actualy atone for anyone's sin at the cross.
He merely made atonement possible to anyone who believed.
I do not believe that either but I think that is what most people here believe.

 

Dr. Bob claims it is the same thing as universalism (all mankind will be saved), but it's not even worthy of a response...I'm sorry I did. That is not what universal atonement is. John 3:16 is universal atonement, as is 1 John 2:2 (and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.). Neither teach universalism as our calvinist brethern wrongly state.

 

Let me try to explain:

there are three beliefs that I am aware of:

1. Limited or Particular attonement.
This is believed by refomed baptist and other reformed denomination such as presbyterians.
It is the belief that Christ paid a particular or specific atonement for each of his sheep.
Even their sin of unbelief was paid for on the cross and they will certianly repent and believe.
There is no possibility of these people going to hell.
The lost left to their natural state of hatred against God will be judged for their sins which were not paid for on the cross.

2. General atonement.
this is a very common belief in the SBC and elsewhere.
It says that CHrist died for sin generally but not specifically for anyone.
this leaves both the possibility that every single person could believe and thus be saved, or every single person could reject and go to hell, or some of both.
But no atoning work is done until the person believes.

3. Universal atonement.
All sin of all people were paid for,
All will go to heaven.


4. I know I said there are only three but then I found out SFIC has a combination of 1 and 2 that results in God pouring out His wrath on people whose sins were paid for but didn't choose wisely.

 

"Universal (or unlimited) atonement is the view that Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but certain for none. According to this doctrine, whatever Christ accomplished on the cross, he accomplished for all alike – those who are finally saved as well as those who are finally lost. This view is contrasted to the Reformed doctrine of limited (or definite) atonement.
This view of the atonement is advocated by Arminian/Methodist, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic theologians (among others). Though Lutherans and Catholics share a similar doctrine of the nature of the atonement with Reformed theology (that being vicarious substitution), they differ on its extent, whereas Arminians and Methodists generally accept an alternate theory of the nature of the atonement such as the moral government theory. In either case, the elect in such models are those who choose to avail themselves of God's gracious offer of salvation in Christ by their own free will, not a pre-determined group. Thus, these systems place a limit on the "efficacy" of the atonement rather than on its extent, as do Calvinists.
This doctrine should not be confused with Universalism which maintains that all mankind will be saved.
Historically, the Arminian Remonstrants raised this doctrine of "universal atonement" as a point of debate against the predestinarian view of the Belgic Confession, which in turn led to the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) where the doctrine was rejected. Nevertheless, this doctrine of the universal extent of the atonement became and remains prevalent outside of Calvinistic circles. Even some Calvinistic Christians, identifying themselves as Amyraldians or "four point Calvinists," hold to an unlimited atonement. In particular, Amyraldism teaches that God has provided Christ's atonement for "all alike," but seeing that none would believe on their own, he then elects those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional" election. "

source:
Retrieved from "http://www.theopedia.com/Universal_atonement"

 

...exactly, so start using the right term :)

1. [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Universalism[/SIZE][/FONT] Theology The doctrine of universal salvation.
2. Unitarian Universalism.

It's clear your understanding of universalism is not the norm, or correct. Unlimted / universal atonement is a matter of semantics. I believe Christ died for the sin of even the atronauts in space.

 

As pinoy pointed out...that is not what universal atonement is.

You must have attended the same school as Dr. Bob ;)

 

Would you not agree that your view is a view of general atonement?

 

If by general you mean universal / unlimited...yes.

 

My point of my recent threads is that if you believe in either of my first two options above, you believe in limited atonement.

There are two types of limited atonement.
One in limited by the Sovereign Decree of Almight God and hte other is limited by the choice of mortal man.

Then there is universal atonement that is limited by neither one.

 

I mean by general that atonement is possible for all, certian for none.
So in that view, universalism is possible (or was) only if all believed.

 

Why not Sin?

Because as a christian it makes you feel lousey when you do.

How's that for deep theology.:tonofbricks:

 

So what if it does not make you feel lousy?
What if it is a sin that you are not aware is sinful?
WHat if it is NOT a sin but you THINK it is because you have been taught that way?
Then you might "feel" lousy but you haven't really sinned.

But, it is A reason, just not THE reason.

 

I see what you're saying, but you're leaving out the conviction of the Holy Spirit. He will make sure you know when you've sinned.

 

Everytime?
I am not sure I agree but if you can show that to me...

 

No, not everytime. Maybe I should shut up. :laugh:

 

Why not sin? Because God told us not too.. and since I owe him my life I want to obey him....

See, nothing hard... just love for my savior...