Limited Atonement and it's faults

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I really don’t see how people fall into Calvinism other than they simply have no knowledge of the scriptures when they’re lured into it. Afterwards it seems like many just hang onto it regardless of what the scriptures say because it’s simply their preference or perhaps because they’re surrounded by it in their life thru family and friends and they don’t want to cause dissension amongst their loved ones.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

The term limited atonement is viable. Atonement refers to justification which is limited only to those who have been made right with God. However this does not refute the fact that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world. Just because Jesus paid the price doesn’t mean that everyone has been justified. Justification only takes place when we embrace Christ.

 

[Clare73]

All a booking exercise is it?

Explains a lot. . .

Not to the guy burning in hell for sin that Jesus has already paid for,

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The term limited atonement is viable. Atonement refers to justification which is limited only to those who have been made right with God. However this does not refute the fact that Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world. Just because Jesus paid the price doesn’t mean that everyone has been justified. Justification only takes place when we embrace Christ.

I think that what Jesus did on the cross is atonement. And I think that when people place their hopes and trust in Jesus then atonement becomes conversion. And I think that conversion lasts a life time for those who are accounted by God as worthy of a place in the lamb's book of life. It is those in the book of life who are saved. Their salvation is declared at the last judgement when the Lord, Jesus Christ, says to them "Come, you that have received a blessing from my Father, take possession of the kingdom which has been prepared for you since the foundation of the world."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not to the guy burning in hell for sin that Jesus has already paid for,

What currency pays?

 

[Clare73]

What currency pays?

Same currency as in the OT. . .death (shedding of blood), or eternal death.

 

[Mark Quayle]

By "he" do you mean the Lord, Jesus Christ?

yes

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Same currency as in the OT. . .death (shedding of blood), or eternal death.

Yet the one who shed his precious blood lives, death could not contain him because he is Lord and Christ. However, you are right about the currency and also wrong about it; because the blood of bulls and sacrificed animals could not cleans sains but the blood of the incarnate saviour did.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think that what Jesus did on the cross is atonement. And I think that when people place their hopes and trust in Jesus then atonement becomes conversion. And I think that conversion lasts a life time for those who are accounted by God as worthy of a place in the lamb's book of life. It is those in the book of life who are saved. Their salvation is declared at the last judgement when the Lord, Jesus Christ, says to them "Come, you that have received a blessing from my Father, take possession of the kingdom which has been prepared for you since the foundation of the world."

The actual word atonement only appears once in the NT in Romans 5:11 and it isn’t being used in reference to the cross, it’s being used in reference to those who have come to embrace Christ. Justification is a completely different word in the Greek language. Atonement refers to payment, although some definitions define it as reconciliation but I disagree with that definition because it’s not supported by its usage in the scriptures. There are no scriptures using the word in that manner, so where they derived that definition from I have no idea since there are no examples of it being used in that manner in scripture.

 

[Clare73]

Yet the one who shed his precious blood lives, death could not contain him because he is Lord and Christ. However, you are right about the currency and also wrong about it; because the blood of bulls and sacrificed animals could not cleans sains but the blood of the incarnate saviour did.

They did not because they were not meant to do so. . .they were meant as types/patterns of what does. . .no error there.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The actual word atonement only appears once in the NT in Romans 5:11 and it isn’t being used in reference to the cross, it’s being used in reference to those who have come to embrace Christ. Justification is a completely different word in the Greek language. Atonement refers to payment, although some definitions define it as reconciliation but I disagree with that definition because it’s not supported by its usage in the scriptures. There are no scriptures using the word in that manner, so where they derived that definition from I have no idea since there are no examples of it being used in that manner in scripture.

I think that how Romans 5:11 reads depends on the translation used.

Romans 5:11 And, what is more, we can boast of God’s protection; always through our Lord Jesus Christ, since it is through him that we have attained our reconciliation.​

In the Catholic Public Domain Version "atonement" is used quote a lot in the old testament.

• Exodus 29:36 and you shall offer a calf for sin on each day, as an atonement. And you shall cleanse the altar when you will have immolated the victim of expiation, and you shall anoint it for sanctification.
• Exodus 30:10 And Aaron shall pray over its horns once a year, with the blood of what was offered for sin. And he shall make atonement over it in your generations. It shall be the Holy of holies to the Lord."
• Leviticus 5:13 praying for him and making atonement. Yet truly, the remaining part he himself shall have as a gift.
• Leviticus 16:30 On this day, there shall be atonement for you, and also a cleansing from all your sins. You shall be cleansed in the sight of the Lord.
• Leviticus 16:32 And the priest who has been anointed, and whose hands have been consecrated to exercise the priesthood in the place of his father, shall make atonement. And he shall be clothed with the linen robe and the holy vestments.
• Leviticus 23:27 The tenth day of this seventh month shall be the day of atonement; it shall be most honored, and it shall be called holy. And you shall afflict your souls on that day, and you shall offer a holocaust to the Lord.
• Leviticus 25:9 And you shall sound the trumpet in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, at the time of the atonement, throughout all your land.
• Nehemiah 10:33 for the bread of the presence, and for the continual sacrifice, and for a continual holocaust on the Sabbaths, on the new moons, on the solemnities, and for the holy things, and for the sin offering, so that atonement would be made for Israel, and for every use within the house of our God.
  Isaiah 43:3 For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour. I have presented Egypt as your atonement, Ethiopia and Seba on your behalf.
• Daniel 9:9 But to you, the Lord our God, is mercy and atonement, for we have withdrawn from you,
• Sirach 7:36 And reach out your hand to the poor, so that your atonement and your blessing may be perfected.

Atonement in the old testament pointed to the cross and the shed blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

They did not because they were not meant to do so. . .they were meant as types/patterns of what does. . .no error there.

You previously wrote

Same currency as in the OT. . .death (shedding of blood), or eternal death.

What did you mean if not that the blood of the sacrifices enjoined in the old testament law is not the currency that 'buys' salvation for the elect?

 

[Clare73]

You previously wrote

What did you mean if not that the blood of the sacrifices enjoined in the old testament law is not the currency that 'buys' salvation for the elect?

If you wish to press the point, there was no actual atonement in the OT, sin was forgiven in anticipation of Christ's atonement (Ro 3:25).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If you wish to press the point, there was no actual atonement in the OT, sin was forgiven in anticipation of Christ's atonement (Ro 3:25).

Yet the scriptures do in fact say that there was a day of atonement and sacrifices of atonement. Now you say there was no atonement in the old testament. How do you reconcile your statements with what the holy scriptures say.

Leviticus 23:26-32 NASB 26 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 27 "On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the LORD. 28 "You shall not do any work on this same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement on your behalf before the LORD your God. 29 "If there is any person who will not humble himself on this same day, he shall be cut off from his people. 30 "As for any person who does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. 31 "You shall do no work at all. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. 32 "It is to be a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your sabbath."​

You say that Romans 3:25 means that the day of atonement was not atonement and that, as a consequence, there was nothing to, "make atonement on your behalf before the LORD your God."

 

[Clare73]

Yet the scriptures do in fact say that there was a day of atonement and sacrifices of atonement. Now you say there was no atonement in the old testament. How do you reconcile your statements with what the holy scriptures say.

All those Levitical regulations were patterns/types of the once-for-all atonement made by the Son of God, in which anticipation of that atonement sin was forgiven in the OT (Ro 3:25).

Leviticus 23:26-32 NASB 26 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 27 "On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the LORD. 28 "You shall not do any work on this same day, for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement on your behalf before the LORD your God. 29 "If there is any person who will not humble himself on this same day, he shall be cut off from his people. 30 "As for any person who does any work on this same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. 31 "You shall do no work at all. It is to be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places. 32 "It is to be a sabbath of complete rest to you, and you shall humble your souls; on the ninth of the month at evening, from evening until evening you shall keep your sabbath."​

You say that Romans 3:25 means that the day of atonement was not atonement and that, as a consequence, there was nothing to, "make atonement on your behalf before the LORD your God."

I say what Ro 3:25-26 says:

Christ's sacrifice was to:
1) demonstrate he is just, in two regards:
----a) for the sins committed beforehand (by the OT saints) that in his forbearance he had left unpunished,
----b) for the sins committed at the present time, (in both cases) so as to be just, and
2) to be the justifier, to be the one who (both) exacts/requires justice and the one who also satisfies that justice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Dad makes breakfast and asks his son if he wants to come and have breakfast? His son says "no". It does not matter if his son says "yes" or "no" the breakfast is still available. It's there on the table. That's obedience.

Dad doesn't make breakfast since he knows his son will say "no", then he asks if his son wants to come for breakfast. His son replies "No, thank you!". Is the breakfast available for his son this morning? We can't say it is, can we? It's not even made, how can we say it's available? But if his son would say "yes", it would be a breakfast to be available. That's particular atonement.

The human analogy doesn't do justice to the facts, but to play along:

Dad makes breakfast. His son hates eggs. He invites his son to eat, and his son says, "no". Turns out, knowing his son hates eggs, his dad didn't waste an egg on someone who would only say, "no" —he didn't cook one for his son. —One kind of "son".

That's the logic I get from your argument, that atonement is available for a person if he says "yes" and not available for those who say "no". So, no, I would say it's a false claim to say the atonement is available for all, since it's not available to those God knows will say "no". Sure, if they would say "yes" it would be available, but since they don't it's not available.

Dad makes breakfast. His son hates eggs. He, knowing his son hates eggs, cooks him one anyway, and then changes his son's mind and preferences to love eggs. —The other kind of "son".

So the difference is that in one case the atonement is available and in the other case the atonement would be available.

Well, no. In the one case the atonement is applied ("the atonement is made"), and in the other it was "offered".

An example of the logic: God warned Israel of their impending captivity, but they ignored the warning. God had already prepared Cyrus to lay waste the people and take them captive, and that, not by his obedience, but by his pride and self-esteem. Then God showed Cyrus what's what!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I say what Ro 3:25-26 says:

Christ's sacrifice was to:
1) demonstrate he is just, in two regards:
----a) for the sins committed beforehand (by the OT saints) that in his forbearance he had left unpunished,
----b) for the sins committed at the present time, (in both cases) so as to be just, and
2) to be the justifier, to be the one who (both) exacts/requires justice and the one who also satisfies that justice.

Interesting that you present what you say rather than what the verses say.

Be that as it may, is your commentary sound?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Interesting that you present what you say rather than what the verses say.

Be that as it may, is your commentary sound?

And just a thread or two back, she was roundly criticized for failing to describe how the reference supports her theses.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Interesting that you present what you say rather than what the verses say.

Be that as it may, is your commentary sound?

And yes, you are right that it is commentary. She avoided including all the rest of the Scriptures that bear on this use of her text. She did not intend to show her hermeneutic and full exegesis. But go ahead and correct her.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And just a thread or two back, she was roundly criticized for failing to describe how the reference supports her theses.

It should not surprise you that one can both quote the verses one intends to comment upon and also provide one's commentary.