Everyone Limits the Atonement

[Tree of Life]

One of the petals in Calvinism's TULIP is Limited Atonement. This is the doctrine that Jesus died to atone for the sins of a limited amount of people - namely his elect. We say that atonement is limited in scope. But at the same time, we acknowledge that the atonement is unlimited in its efficacy. All those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved. In a sense, all the elect were saved once and for all at Calvary and the rest of salvation history is simply application.

Those who reject Limited Atonement also limit the atonement. They don't limit it in terms of scope. They say that Jesus died to atone for the sins of every person. But they do limit the atonement in terms of its efficacy. They deny that all those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved. His atoning sacrifice is not 100% efficacious. His sacrifice only makes it possible for people to be saved. So in this view, the atonement is limited in its effects.

The third option, universalism, we will not consider in this thread as universalism is not a Christian view.

So how do you limit the atonement?

 

[grasping the after wind]

One of the petals in Calvinism's TULIP is Limited Atonement. This is the doctrine that Jesus died to atone for the sins of a limited amount of people - namely his elect. We say that atonement is limited in scope. But at the same time, we acknowledge that the atonement is unlimited in its efficacy. All those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved. In a sense, all the elect were saved once and for all at Calvary and the rest of salvation history is simply application.

Those who reject Limited Atonement also limit the atonement. They don't limit it in terms of scope. They say that Jesus died to atone for the sins of every person. But they do limit the atonement in terms of its efficacy. They deny that all those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved. His atoning sacrifice is not 100% efficacious. His sacrifice only makes it possible for people to be saved. So in this view, the atonement is limited in its effects.

The third option, universalism, we will not consider in this thread as universalism is not a Christian view.

So how do you limit the atonement?

I reject the premise that I limit it. I have no such power to limit the atonement that comes from God through Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

One of the petals in Calvinism's TULIP is Limited Atonement. This is the doctrine that Jesus died to atone for the sins of a limited amount of people - namely his elect. We say that atonement is limited in scope. But at the same time, we acknowledge that the atonement is unlimited in its efficacy. All those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved. In a sense, all the elect were saved once and for all at Calvary and the rest of salvation history is simply application.

Those who reject Limited Atonement also limit the atonement. They don't limit it in terms of scope. They say that Jesus died to atone for the sins of every person. But they do limit the atonement in terms of its efficacy. They deny that all those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved. His atoning sacrifice is not 100% efficacious. His sacrifice only makes it possible for people to be saved. So in this view, the atonement is limited in its effects.

The third option, universalism, we will not consider in this thread as universalism is not a Christian view.

So how do you limit the atonement?

I agree with you. (I almost never get a chance to have this discussion with Calvinists because they can't get past the detail of their being in error according to texts iike 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:14)

I reject Calvinism's "limited atonement" because it is refuted by 1 John 2:2 and other statements in the Bible. the text says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only - but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" - the very thing Calvinism denies - and the very thing that non-Calvinists accept.

I agree with you that even so - I claim another form of "Limited Atonement" - in that I also do not believe anyone in hell - in the Rev 20 lake of fire - second death is fully atoned for. Christ did die for their sins and paid the exact debt they owe - but they still die having rejected that payment and so must pay their own debt of sin.

The flaw that gets Calvinism "stuck" in that ditch is that it does not accept the Bible details in God's chapter on "ATONEMENT" - the "Day of Atonement" Lev 16 - Where God tells us that it is BOTH Christ's work as the "sin offering" AND the work of Christ as "High Priest" that is needed for the FULL scope of "Atonement" to be met. Paul even calls Christ's work as High Priest "The MAIN POINT" in Hebrews 8:1.

Hebrews 4 and 7 and 9 remind us that this work of Christ is a "saving work" and is not at all "optional". Rather it is just as necessary as Lev 16 points out.

On the other hand --
Calvinists have an irrefutable point against Arminians who unwittingly swallow the Calvinist erroneous "limited definition" "limited scope" for the term atonement and then try to argue their way into a "not limited atonement" without having "universalism".

If everyone could just agree on the Lev 16 basics and that it is the "Atoning SACRIFICE" that is completed at the cross (the sin offering) and not the work of Christ as High Priest (that is ALSO NEEDED for that full scope of atonement to be met) that is completed at the cross as Hebrews 7,8,9 point out -- we would have strong agreement.

 

[Dave-W]

Well said Bob.

 

[Dave L]

Limited Atonement = salvation by Grace. Universal atonement = salvation by works.

 

[BobRyan]

Limited Atonement = salvation by Grace. Universal atonement = salvation by works.

you left out the obvious saved by grace through faith solution - the Arminian view - see 17 minutes ago #3

 

[Dave L]

Not in real life .. read 17 minutes ago #3

Universal Atonement saves no one. It only aids the self righteous in saving themselves through obedience.

 

[BobRyan]

Universal Atonement saves no one.

Not arguing for universalism --
also not arguing for universal atonement.
Am arguing for unlimited Atoning Sacrifice - see 1 John 2:2 -- Bible details matter

I reject Calvinism's "limited atonement" because it is refuted by 1 John 2:2 and other statements in the Bible. the text says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only - but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" - the very thing Calvinism denies - and the very thing that non-Calvinists accept.

It appears you may be wishing to call Romans 10 "salvation by works"

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

 

[SarahsKnight]

I reject Calvinism's "limited atonement" because it is refuted by 1 John 2:2 and other statements in the Bible. the text says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only - but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" - the very thing Calvinism denies - and the very thing that non-Calvinists accept.

You'd think that verse alone would be enough to give the "we're cool enough to be in God's club, but you aren't" limited atonement folk pause in the theology they promote, but, whatever. I mean, am I missing something here? Why would Scripture ever use the phrase "whole world" in relation to salvation, atonement, or forgiveness of sins if it meant to teach that only certain chosen people were atoned for? Why would you ever write that verse if limited atonement were the truth?

"NOT for OUR sins ONLY, BUT the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD". You really have to jump through hoops to reconcile this with the exact opposite concept, that Jesus died only for a few certain folk and said to hell with the rest I never loved them.

 

[Dave L]

Not arguing for universalism --
also not arguing for universal atonement.
Am arguing for unlimited Atoning Sacrifice - see 1 John 2:2 -- Bible details matter

I reject Calvinism's "limited atonement" because it is refuted by 1 John 2:2 and other statements in the Bible. the text says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only - but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" - the very thing Calvinism denies - and the very thing that non-Calvinists accept.

It appears you may be wishing to call Romans 10 "salvation by works"

Rom 10
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Salvation was only of the Jews. Now it is also of the gentiles = whole world, not just the Jews.

 

[BobRyan]

Salvation was only of the Jews. Now it is also of the gentiles = whole world, not just the Jews.

"God so loved the world" before the cross ever happened. Christ reminds Nicodemus of this -- before the cross.

 

[Tree of Life]

I reject the premise that I limit it. I have no such power to limit the atonement that comes from God through Jesus.

Maybe a better way to ask is: "In what way is the atonement limited?" i.e. according to your theological scheme.

 

[Tree of Life]

You'd think that verse alone would be enough to give the "we're cool enough to be in God's club, but you aren't" limited atonement folk pause in the theology they promote, but, whatever. I mean, am I missing something here? Why would Scripture ever use the phrase "whole world" in relation to salvation, atonement, or forgiveness of sins if it meant to teach that only certain chosen people were atoned for? Why would you ever write that verse if limited atonement were the truth?

"NOT for OUR sins ONLY, BUT the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD". You really have to jump through hoops to reconcile this with the exact opposite concept, that Jesus died only for a few certain folk and said to hell with the rest I never loved them.

When John uses the phrase "whole world" he is usually referring to all people without distinction, not all people without exception. A parallel passage is found in John 11:51-52:

51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Notice the parallel language between this and 1 John 2:2:

2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

In John 11, the meaning is certainly not every individual without exception. The meaning is individuals from every nation - all without distinction. It's very possible that this is John's meaning in 1 John 2:2 as well.

 

[Dave L]

"God so loved the world" before the cross ever happened. Christ reminds Nicodemus of this -- before the cross.

Jesus is the savior of the world [kosmos] to be fully realized in the New Heavens and earth.

 

[BobRyan]

When John uses the phrase "whole world" he is usually referring to all people without distinction, not all people without exception. A parallel passage is found in John 11:51-52:

51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Notice the parallel language between this and 1 John 2:2:

2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

In John 11, the meaning is certainly not every individual without exception. The meaning is individuals from every nation - all without distinction. It's very possible that this is John's meaning in 1 John 2:2 as well.

John 11:51-52 did not say Jesus said anything at all. And "gather into one the children of God who are scattered" is a qualified term.

"The Whole World" is an unqualified term.

Equivocation is a form of logical fallacy which the Arminian group would not need to employ in the 1 John 2:2 example.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus is the savior of the world [kosmos] to be fully realized in the New Heavens and earth.

Future.

1 John 4:14 is past -- "God SENT His Son to be the savior of the World" -- creative bending/editing could re-imagine this into a world where there is only one person in the New Earth (for example) and that bend-edit that into "God saved the whole world". That is the sort of false-advertising over-statement gaming we don't find in scripture.

 

[Dave L]

Future.

1 John 4:14 is past -- "God SENT His Son to be the savior of the World" -- creative bending/editing could re-imagine this into a world where there is only one person in the New Earth (for example) and that bend-edit that into "God saved the whole world". That is the sort of false-advertising over-statement gaming we don't find in scripture.

Kosmos = universe.

 

[Tree of Life]

John 11:51-52 did not say Jesus said anything at all. And "gather into one the children of God who are scattered" is a qualified term.

"The Whole World" is an unqualified term.

Equivocation is a form of logical fallacy which the Arminian group would not need to employ in the 1 John 2:2 example.

Both of these selections come from John's writings. I'm just trying to show how ho kosmos as it is used in John does not usually refer to every individual. Many times it means "all nations".

 

[Tree of Life]

"God so loved the world" before the cross ever happened. Christ reminds Nicodemus of this -- before the cross.

God loved the world in this way that he sent his only Son. The sending of the Son certainly includes the cross. God blessed all the nations through Christ as he promised he would to Abraham.

 

[sawdust]

Those who reject Limited Atonement also limit the atonement. They don't limit it in terms of scope. They say that Jesus died to atone for the sins of every person. But they do limit the atonement in terms of its efficacy. They deny that all those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved.

Everyone is saved from death which, is what Jesus died to save us from. If His death was limited as you suggest then not all would be raised from death. As it is though, all people will be raised from death, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting death.