Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Xeno.of.athens]

In another thread dealing with Calvinism the question of Limited Atonement was raised and debated, so I want to deal with that point of Calvinism.

Limited Atonement, also known as "Particular Redemption," is one of the five points of Calvinism, which is a theological system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God and predestination. Limited Atonement teaches that Jesus Christ died on the cross only for the elect, that is, for those whom God has chosen for salvation. Therefore, Christ's death is not effective for all people, but only for a select few.

Calvinists believe that God chose some individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world, and that Christ's death on the cross was intended solely for these elect individuals. This view emphasizes the idea of God's sovereignty in salvation and denies the notion that Christ's death was, in any sense, an atonement for all people.

From a Catholic perspective, Limited Atonement is incompatible with the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ's death on the cross was a universal atonement, offered for the salvation of all people. In other words, Christ died for all human beings, and his sacrifice is sufficient for the salvation of all who repent and believe in him.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the one mediator between God and man. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, 'the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery' is offered to all men" (CCC 618). In other words, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people, and all are invited to share in its benefits.

Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all people (1 Timothy 2:4), and that human beings have the freedom to accept or reject God's grace. Limited Atonement denies human freedom and undermines the idea of God's universal salvific will.

In summary, Limited Atonement is a doctrine of Calvinism that teaches that Christ's death on the cross was intended only for the elect. This view is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which holds that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people and that God desires the salvation of all.

 

[BobRyan]

In another thread dealing with Calvinism the question of Limited Atonement was raised and debated, so I want to deal with that point of Calvinism.

Limited Atonement, also known as "Particular Redemption," is one of the five points of Calvinism, which is a theological system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God and predestination. Limited Atonement teaches that Jesus Christ died on the cross only for the elect, that is, for those whom God has chosen for salvation.

Which of course is a suggestion within Calvinism that finds a big problem confronting it in a few easy examples.
Rom 2:13 "God is not partial" -- just when Calvinism claims He is in some sort of arbitrary selection model
John 3:16 "God so loved the world -- yes really" - just when Calvinism says such is not really the case
John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind unto Me" -- just when Calvinism says God most certainly does NOT supernaturally draw all mankind
2 Peter 3 "God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" - showing God's Will very clearly
1 John 2:2 "He is the Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not OUR sins only but for the sins of the whole WORLD" - just when Calvinism claims such is not the case when it comes to that sacrifice.

===================================

So even though (as Christ said) it is only the FEW of Matt 7 that end up saved - the reason for that is not something lacking on God's part

Calvinists believe that God chose some individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world, and that Christ's death on the cross was intended solely for these elect individuals. This view emphasizes the idea of God's sovereignty in salvation and denies the notion that Christ's death was, in any sense, an atonement for all people.

yeah that is a problem.

It stems from not getting the difference between "Atoning sacrifice" completed once for all at the cross... vs the full Bible scope for Atonement as we see in the day of Atonement teaching in scripture found in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" where the work of Christ as High Priest goes beyond the stage of just the "sin offering slain" (the cross).

In summary, Limited Atonement is a doctrine of Calvinism that teaches that Christ's death on the cross was intended only for the elect. This view is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church

No doubt but that is an argument that would only have weight with a certain group of Catholics. To make an argument that has a chance of being compelling outside of that narrow context - one needs the scriptures. And that is what is needed in the context of "Christian Forums" areas that are not "Catholic only".

 

[Cassian]

Which of course is a suggestion within Calvinism that finds a big problem confronting it in a few easy examples.
Rom 2:13 "God is not partial" -- just when Calvinism claims He is in some sort of arbitrary selection model
John 3:16 "God so loved the world -- yes really" - just when Calvinism says such is not really the case
John 12:32 "I will draw ALL mankind unto Me" -- just when Calvinism says God most certainly does NOT supernaturally draw all mankind
2 Peter 3 "God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" - showing God's Will very clearly
1 John 2:2 "He is the Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not OUR sins only but for the sins of the whole WORLD" - just when Calvinism claims such is not the case when it comes to that sacrifice.

===================================

So even though (as Christ said) it is only the FEW of Matt 7 that end up saved - the reason for that is not something lacking on God's part

yeah that is a problem.

It stems from not getting the difference between "Atoning sacrifice" completed once for all at the cross... vs the full Bible scope for Atonement as we see in the day of Atonement teaching in scripture found in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" where the work of Christ as High Priest goes beyond the stage of just the "sin offering slain" (the cross).

No doubt but that is an argument that would only have weight with a certain group of Catholics. To make an argument that has a chance of being compelling outside of that narrow context - one needs the scriptures. And that is what is needed in the context of "Christian Forums" areas that are not "Catholic only".

Besides direct scriptural texts that deny limited atonement, the explanation or theology denies it as well.
Adam was created from the earth. Man is consubstantial with creation. Thus the curse upon man nature of death, dust to dust, also meant the world itself suffered death as well.
God told Adam that someone would come in time to correct this condemnation of death to His universe. We know that Christ was Incarnated by the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit. Meaning Jesus who is God became man. He took on our human nature and in so doing, by His death with that nature shared in that condemnation but His Resurrection gave life again to that human nature. Man was again restored to an eternal existence. This is summed up in Rom 5:18 as well as I Cor 15:20-22. This is consummated in the eschaton when Christ comes again, I Cor 15: 53.
Thus the Incarnation is a direct denial of a limited atonement.

 

[Clare73]

In another thread dealing with Calvinism the question of Limited Atonement was raised and debated, so I want to deal with that point of Calvinism.

Limited Atonement, also known as "Particular Redemption," is one of the five points of Calvinism, which is a theological system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God and predestination. Limited Atonement teaches that Jesus Christ died on the cross only for the elect, that is, for those whom God has chosen for salvation. Therefore, Christ's death is not effective for all people, but only for a select few.

Calvinists believe that God chose some individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world, and that Christ's death on the cross was intended solely for these elect individuals. This view emphasizes the idea of God's sovereignty in salvation and denies the notion that Christ's death was, in any sense, an atonement for all people.

From a Catholic perspective, Limited Atonement is incompatible with the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ's death on the cross was a universal atonement, offered for the salvation of all people. In other words, Christ died for all human beings, and his sacrifice is sufficient for the salvation of all who repent and believe in him.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the one mediator between God and man. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, 'the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery' is offered to all men" (CCC 618). In other words, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people, and all are invited to share in its benefits.

Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all people (1 Timothy 2:4), and that human beings have the freedom to accept or reject God's grace. Limited Atonement denies human freedom and undermines the idea of God's universal salvific will.

In summary, Limited Atonement is a doctrine of Calvinism that teaches that Christ's death on the cross was intended only for the elect. This view is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which holds that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people and that God desires the salvation of all.

So a just God requires a second payment from unbelievers for the same sin Jesus has already paid for?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So a just God requires a second payment from unbelievers for the same sin Jesus has already paid for?

Is that how you read John 3:16 et al?

 

[Clare73]

Is that how you read John 3:16 et al?

Is that how you read Christ paying for the sins of unbelievers who will also be paying for the same sins.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is that how you read Christ paying for the sins of unbelievers who will also be paying for the same sins.

Never seen that in the bible, what chapter & verse is that?

You have some difficulty with John 3:16 and similar verses?

 

[Clare73]

Never seen that in the bible, what chapter & verse is that?

One of the many is Mt 25:46.

You have some difficulty with John 3:16 and similar verses?

"Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." (Jn 3:16)
"Whoever does not believe in him stands condemned already." (Jn 3:18)

Are my statements in disagreement with these?

In summary, Limited Atonement is a doctrine of Calvinism that teaches that Christ's death on the cross was intended only for the elect. This view is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which holds that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people and that God desires the salvation of all.

Neither of which contradicts limited atonement.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." (Jn 3:16)
"Whoever does not believe in him stands condemned already." (Jn 3:18)

Are my statements in disagreement with these?

When Jehovah's witnesses visit me they partially quote scripture verses as proof texts for their doctrines. And here I see partial quotes from your post. It's a disturbing thing to see; a sign of doctrine gone wrong.

So, let's see the verses in full.
John 3:

16 God so loved the world, that he gave up his only-begotten Son, so that those who believe in him may not perish, but have eternal life.
17 When God sent his Son into the world, it was not to reject the world, but so that the world might find salvation through him.✻

✻ ‘To reject’; the word here used in the Greek may mean ‘to judge’ or ‘to separate’, and is perhaps used here with a certain play of sense upon the two meanings.​

18 For the man who believes in him, there is no rejection; the man who does not believe is already rejected; he has not found faith in the name of God’s only-begotten Son.
19 Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil.
20 Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out.
21 Whereas the man whose life is true comes to the light, so that his deeds may be seen for what they are, deeds done in God.✻

✻ vv. 16-21: These verses, and possibly the three which go before them, may be regarded if we will as a comment by the Evangelist, not as part of our Lord’s utterance to Nicodemus.​

When the verses speak for themselves the tricky use of fragmental quotes becomes obvious as a ploy to "proof text" a false doctrine.

 

[Clare73]

When Jehovah's witnesses visit me they partially quote scripture verses as proof texts for their doctrines. And here I see partial quotes from your post. It's a disturbing thing to see; a sign of doctrine gone wrong.

False accusation. . .which is beneath you.

So, let's see the verses in full.
John 3:
16 God so loved the world, that he gave up his only-begotten Son, so that those who believe in him may not perish, but have eternal life.
17 When God sent his Son into the world, it was not to reject the world, but so that the world might find salvation through him.✻

✻ ‘To reject’; the word here used in the Greek may mean ‘to judge’ or ‘to separate’, and is perhaps used here with a certain play of sense upon the two meanings.​

The Greek word here is krino (to judge), and means to condemn (Jn 12:48, Ac 13:27, Ro 2:27), to execute judgment upon (2 Th 2:12, Ac 7:7), to assume the office of judge (Mt 7:1, Jn 3:17), to undergo process of trial (Jn 3:18, 16:11, 18:31; Jas 2:12), to give sentence (Ac 15:19, 16:4, 21:25), krisis (to give judgment) in Jn 3:19.

"For God sent his Son into the world, not to judge/condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." (Jn 3:17)
He will come a second time to judge the world (Mt 25:31-46).

18 For the man who believes in him, there is no rejection; the man who does not believe is already rejected; he has not found faith in the name of God’s only-begotten Son.​

19 Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil.​

​

20 Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out.​

21 Whereas the man whose life is true comes to the light, so that his deeds may be seen for what they are, deeds done in God.✻​

✻ vv. 16-21: These verses, and possibly the three which go before them, may be regarded if we will as a comment by the Evangelist, not as part of our Lord’s utterance to Nicodemus.​

Making them no less the word of God than any of the other Scriptures, for all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

When the verses speak for themselves the tricky use of fragmental quotes becomes obvious as a ploy to "proof text" a false doctrine.

What false doctrine are you saying is being "ployed" by "the tricky use of fragmented quotes" here?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

False accusation. . .which is beneath you.

Accurate observation about your post.

The Greek word here is krino (to judge), and means to condemn (Jn 12:48, Ac 13:27, Ro 2:27), to execute judgment upon (2 Th 2:12, Ac 7:7), to assume the office of judge (Mt 7:1, Jn 3:17), to undergo process of trial (Jn 3:18, 16:11, 18:31; Jas 2:12), to give sentence (Ac 15:19, 16:4, 21:25), krisis (to give judgment) in Jn 3:19.

"For God sent his Son into the world, not to judge/condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." (Jn 3:17)
He will come a second time to judge the world (Mt 25:31-46).

I am perplexed by all this - what is the point of it?

Making them no less the word of God than any of the other Scriptures, for all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

Same goes for this.

What false doctrine are you saying is being "ployed" by "the tricky use of fragmented quotes?"

Why ask, did you not see the thread's topic?

 

[Clare73]

Accurate observation about your post.

Strawman. . .

My point does not challenge the accuracy of your observation, but the accuracy of your stated implication thereby.

I am perplexed by all this - what is the point of it?

The Greek word in Jn 3:17 is krino (to judge, condemn), it is not apodokimazo (to reject), as it is in Mt 21:42, Mk 8:31, 12:10, Lk 9:22, 17:25, 20:17, 1 Pe 2:47 which two words, as is seen in the above Scriptures, do not have the same meaning.

Same goes for this.

Why ask,

You accused me of using "fragmented verses" as a "ploy," and they being the "sign of a doctrine gone wrong."

did you not see the thread's topic?

Then the summary of the objection which you provided:
"that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people and that God desires the salvation of all,"
is not in contradiction of limited atonement.

Limited atonement does not disagree with the atonement's sufficiency, it disagrees with that view of its purpose.
God desires the salvation of all (1 Tim 2:4), and God actually chooses/wills only some for salvation (1 Pe 1:2, Ro 8:29-30), as he chose/willed Jacob for the inheritance.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Limited Atonement, also known as "Particular Redemption," is one of the five points of Calvinism, which is a theological system that emphasizes the sovereignty of God and predestination. Limited Atonement teaches that Jesus Christ died on the cross only for the elect, that is, for those whom God has chosen for salvation. Therefore, Christ's death is not effective for all people, but only for a select few.

Effective for all who come to Christ. That is, the elect. None others will come to Christ.

Calvinists believe that God chose some individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world, and that Christ's death on the cross was intended solely for these elect individuals. This view emphasizes the idea of God's sovereignty in salvation and denies the notion that Christ's death was, in any sense, an atonement for all people.

The terminology is generally in words to the effect that Christ's death is, "available to (or even 'sufficient for') all people, effective only for the elect".

From a Catholic perspective, Limited Atonement is incompatible with the teachings of the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ's death on the cross was a universal atonement, offered for the salvation of all people. In other words, Christ died for all human beings, and his sacrifice is sufficient for the salvation of all who repent and believe in him.

From what I understand, Calvinists and the Reformed generally have no problem with the terminology of "sufficient for all" and many of them have no problem with "offered to all"; some even insist that it is offered to all.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the one mediator between God and man. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, 'the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery' is offered to all men" (CCC 618). In other words, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people, and all are invited to share in its benefits.

As far as I know, yes, all are invited.

Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all people (1 Timothy 2:4), and that human beings have the freedom to accept or reject God's grace. Limited Atonement denies human freedom and undermines the idea of God's universal salvific will.

Here the term "grace" is stated as a general principle. Calvinism/Reformed also hold to resistible grace, but that there is an irresistible grace in God's gift of his Spirit, to indwell the person, directly causing regeneration of the person.

In summary, Limited Atonement is a doctrine of Calvinism that teaches that Christ's death on the cross was intended only for the elect. This view is incompatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which holds that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all people and that God desires the salvation of all.

It would sound more realistic to say that the Catholic Church holds that Christ's sacrifice was intended for all people, and not just the elect. Here you are implying that Calvinism does not teach the "sufficiency" of the atonement for all. That, to many Calvinists, is not the truth. Likewise, though perhaps not the same extent of insistence or applicability, the notion of God desiring the salvation of all, is dealt with by some Calvinists as a secondary desire —a wish, not a will, in the sense some take it.


Now, can you show how the RCatholic view does not limit God's atonement, when it claims he paid for the sins of all, yet some end up paying their own anyway?

 

[Hawkins]

Salvation is not about how God proves how correct He is. It is about how God provides a solution for mankind as a whole for humans to be saved under open witnessing. Thus the solution is aimed on all mankind, though God has the foreknowledge on who will be saved at the end.

Matthew 22:14 (NIV2011)
14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

God doesn't use an empty promise to call the many. Many are called as salvation is prepared validly for them too.

 

[Clare73]

Salvation is not about how God proves how correct He is. It is about how God provides a solution for mankind as a whole for humans to be saved under open witnessing. Thus the solution is aimed on all mankind, though God has the foreknowledge on who will be saved at the end.
Matthew 22:14 (NIV2011)
14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”

God doesn't use an empty promise to call the many. Many are called as salvation is prepared validly for them too.

Did you not just deny the text of Mt 22:14 (and 1 Pe 1:2, where whomever the Father chooses/elects, the Spirit sanctifies and the Son sprinkles; i.e., election, salvation and sanctification are the sovereign work of the Trinity)?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My point does not challenge the accuracy of your observation, but the accuracy of your stated implication thereby.

Of course, if it is an implication - and I do not agree that it is, it is in fact your inference instead of my implication - then it cannot be stated. Implications are by their nature not stated.

You accused me of using "fragmented verses" as a "ploy," and they being the "sign of a doctrine gone wrong."

I stated that your post used fragments of verses because that is exactly what the post contains. It is not an accusation, it is an observation of a fact that cannot be denied. And I observed that Jehovah's witnesses use that ploy for the support of their doctrines which are in fact wrong.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Catholic view does not limit God's atonement, when it claims he paid for the sins of all, yet some end up paying their own anyway?

The limitation is not with the atonement, it is with the people who reject Christ.

 

[Clare73]

Of course, if it is an implication - and I do not agree that it is, it is in fact your inference instead of my implication - then it cannot be stated. Implications are by their nature not stated.

I stated that your post used fragments of verses because that is exactly what the post contains. It is not an accusation, it is an observation of a fact that cannot be denied. And I observed that Jehovah's witnesses use that ploy for the support of their doctrines which are in fact wrong.

I'll give you this one because you're such a nice guy. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

The limitation is not with the atonement, it is with the people who reject Christ.

On the contrary. If he PAID it, and they end up PAYING it regardless of his payment, he paid in vain. You limit the efficacy of his payment.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

On the contrary. If he PAID it, and they end up PAYING it regardless of his payment, he paid in vain. You limit the efficacy of his payment.

Their condemnation is not for some sins according to the Law of Moses, they are condemned because they do not believe Jesus. You've presented a mixed up account. What the Lord "paid" related to the Law, what those who reject Jesus "pay" is the penalty for rejecting Jesus.