Limited Atonement and it's faults

[RDKirk]

Interestingly enough, virtually everybody who believes in the Nicene Creed, which would include all Christians here at CF believes in a form of limited atonement. Only universalists believe in a truly unlimited atonement where Jesus Christ has, indeed, secured the salvation of people without any conditions. The problem seems to come as to who places limits on the atonement. Monergists (aka Calvinists) squarely and forthrightly believe that God has elected His people from eternity past. Therefore, the atonement is only efficient for the elect, although some might contend that it is sufficient for all of mankind. Synergists (aka Arminians) squarely and forthrightly believe that mankind, through the exercise of individual free will, determines the precise limits of the atonement.

One area in which both agree is that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved. That, of course, leaves out the vast majority of mankind who will have never even heard the name of Jesus Christ, much less have had an opportunity to believe in Him. Thus, the atonement is radically limited, even as God's grace at the Flood was radically limited to only eight humans.

Scripture indicates in several places that God's judgment is tempered by a person's ignorance. There are the Inclusivists like Billy Graham, C. S. Lewis, and myself who believe that Creation itself informs every person with enough information to respond in a way that Christ knows they are His.

Job was not a Jew--he knew of God through Creation, not revelation, and worshipped God ignorantly, not through Law. Job did not know the name of Jesus...but do we doubt that Job is within Jesus' salvation?

 

[zoidar]

Interestingly enough, virtually everybody who believes in the Nicene Creed, which would include all Christians here at CF believes in a form of limited atonement. Only universalists believe in a truly unlimited atonement where Jesus Christ has, indeed, secured the salvation of people without any conditions. The problem seems to come as to who places limits on the atonement. Monergists (aka Calvinists) squarely and forthrightly believe that God has elected His people from eternity past. Therefore, the atonement is only efficient for the elect, although some might contend that it is sufficient for all of mankind. Synergists (aka Arminians) squarely and forthrightly believe that mankind, through the exercise of individual free will, determines the precise limits of the atonement.

One area in which both agree is that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved. That, of course, leaves out the vast majority of mankind who will have never even heard the name of Jesus Christ, much less have had an opportunity to believe in Him. Thus, the atonement is radically limited, even as God's grace at the Flood was radically limited to only eight humans.

I wouldn't say the atonement is limited, but the receiving of the atonement is limited. That is a huge difference!

 

[Cassian]

Interestingly enough, virtually everybody who believes in the Nicene Creed, which would include all Christians here at CF believes in a form of limited atonement. Only universalists believe in a truly unlimited atonement where Jesus Christ has, indeed, secured the salvation of people without any conditions. The problem seems to come as to who places limits on the atonement. Monergists (aka Calvinists) squarely and forthrightly believe that God has elected His people from eternity past. Therefore, the atonement is only efficient for the elect, although some might contend that it is sufficient for all of mankind. Synergists (aka Arminians) squarely and forthrightly believe that mankind, through the exercise of individual free will, determines the precise limits of the atonement.

One area in which both agree is that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved. That, of course, leaves out the vast majority of mankind who will have never even heard the name of Jesus Christ, much less have had an opportunity to believe in Him. Thus, the atonement is radically limited, even as God's grace at the Flood was radically limited to only eight humans.

I don't know where you get your facts, but no Christian prior to the Reformation(Calvin) ever believed in limited atonement which includes, Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Coptics, Non-Chalcedonians, for starters. None of these even today believe in a limited atonement. All of them use the Nicene Creed except for Non-Chalcedoinans.
Your last paragraph shows you have an erroneous concept of Christ's atonement which is the source of your assertion.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't know where you get your facts, but no Christian prior to the Reformation(Calvin) ever believed in limited atonement which includes, Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Coptics, Non-Chalcedonians, for starters. None of these even today believe in a limited atonement. All of them use the Nicene Creed except for Non-Chalcedoinans.
Your last paragraph shows you have an erroneous concept of Christ's atonement which is the source of your assertion.

Have you read the works of St. Augustine? His monergism, which was quite specific, formed the basis for both Luther and Calvin's forms of monergism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I wouldn't say the atonement is limited, but the receiving of the atonement is limited. That is a huge difference!

I agree that it is a huge difference. However, if one does not receive the atonement, for whatever reason, then the atonement is valuless and thus has been limited to the point of being eliminated entirely in those individuals' lives. As I pointed out, the atonement is effectual, according to virtually all Christians, for only those who believe in Jesus Christ, although possibly theoretically unlimited in a generic sense to all people.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Scripture indicates in several places that God's judgment is tempered by a person's ignorance. There are the Inclusivists like Billy Graham, C. S. Lewis, and myself who believe that Creation itself informs every person with enough information to respond in a way that Christ knows they are His.

Job was not a Jew--he knew of God through Creation, not revelation, and worshipped God ignorantly, not through Law. Job did not know the name of Jesus...but do we doubt that Job is within Jesus' salvation?

I understand the inclusivist argument. It has a very strong basis in the Old Testament saints. It becomes problematic with the age of the Church. If general revelation is sufficient to lead a person to salvation, then there is really no great compulsion to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, evangelism may actually be counterproductive to the salvation of mankind. It is, IMO, much easier to believe in some form of deity as revealed in creation than it is to believe the Christian narrative with all of its twists and turns of theology.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Past tense. . .are you saying it has been restored?

Yes, by Christ's blood he restored, or reconciled, it to himself. "Already, but not yet."

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Already, but not yet."

Already - meaning that Christ's redemptive work is finished and will not be performed again.
Not yet - meaning that the application of redemption is not yet complete and will not be completed until the lamb's book of life is opened and the whole world is judged.

 

[Cassian]

Have you read the works of St. Augustine? His monergism, which was quite specific, formed the basis for both Luther and Calvin's forms of monergism.

Yes, that is true. But one man's opinion does not make Church Doctrine. My statement still stands. I can give you many false teachings that were promulgated by various individuals, but never was or became Church Doctrine. They are all listed as heresies.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, that is true. But one man's opinion does not make Church Doctrine. My statement still stands. I can give you many false teachings that were promulgated by various individuals, but never was or became Church Doctrine. They are all listed as heresies.

I have always found it curious that Augustine is considered to be both a saint and a heretic by the Catholic Church. The really great thing about the ECFs is that the provide a vast array of information which can be sorted through and discarded at will with those ideas which conform to proper modern ideas of what Church Tradition ought to be and with those ideas which fail to meet the standards being readily discarded as heresies and their authors as heretics, even when one and the same author is commended and, at the same time, condemned.

The point, however, is that monergism, as you had asserted previously, did not spring on the scene in the sixteenth century with the Protestant Reformation. It certainly had not been rejected as heretical by the Catholic Church at that point in time, given the fact that there was a very active Augustinian friory in many countries. The seeds sown by Augustine fell on fertile ground in the fifteenth century.

 

[Cassian]

I have always found it curious that Augustine is considered to be both a saint and a heretic by the Catholic Church. The really great thing about the ECFs is that the provide a vast array of information which can be sorted through and discarded at will with those ideas which conform to proper modern ideas of what Church Tradition ought to be and with those ideas which fail to meet the standards being readily discarded as heresies and their authors as heretics, even when one and the same author is commended and, at the same time, condemned.

The point, however, is that monergism, as you had asserted previously, did not spring on the scene in the sixteenth century with the Protestant Reformation. It certainly had not been rejected as heretical by the Catholic Church at that point in time, given the fact that there was a very active Augustinian friory in many countries. The seeds sown by Augustine fell on fertile ground in the fifteenth century.

Neither Orthodox nor the RC have ever declared Augustine a heretic. Actually, Augustine is often called the father of the RC. However, the Orthodox have condemned his ideas on Original Sin and predestination. It is unfortunate that Protestant accepted many of the errors of the RC including the Satisfaction Theory of atonement.
As far as limited atonement it does not appear in Orthodox theology and since the RC does not hold to limited atonement it is a wholly Calvinist theory.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Neither Orthodox nor the RC have ever declared Augustine a heretic. Actually, Augustine is often called the father of the RC. However, the Orthodox have condemned his ideas on Original Sin and predestination. It is unfortunate that Protestant accepted many of the errors of the RC including the Satisfaction Theory of atonement.
As far as limited atonement it does not appear in Orthodox theology and since the RC does not hold to limited atonement it is a wholly Calvinist theory.

You are correct. Technically, Augustine was not condemned as a heretic, although his monergistic teachings were rejected as heresies, primarily at the Council of Trent which was not an ecumenical council, but was a council of the Catholic Church. The niggling question then becomes one of the actual character of an individual who promulgates heresies, but is not a heretic.

The EOC distanced themselves from monergism relatively early, but, to my knowledge, never condemned Augustine's monergism as heretical.

 

[Clare73]

You are correct. Technically, Augustine was not condemned as a heretic, although his monergistic teachings were rejected as heresies, primarily at the Council of Trent which was not an ecumenical council, but was a council of the Catholic Church. The niggling question then becomes one of the actual character of an individual who promulgates heresies, but is not a heretic.

The EOC distanced themselves from monergism relatively early, but, to my knowledge, never condemned Augustine's monergism as heretical.

The issue remains of the justice of God in exacting payment twice (by Jesus, by the condemned) for the same sin.

 

[Cassian]

You are correct. Technically, Augustine was not condemned as a heretic, although his monergistic teachings were rejected as heresies, primarily at the Council of Trent which was not an ecumenical council, but was a council of the Catholic Church. The niggling question then becomes one of the actual character of an individual who promulgates heresies, but is not a heretic.

The EOC distanced themselves from monergism relatively early, but, to my knowledge, never condemned Augustine's monergism as heretical.

It never needed to condemn it. It was never a teaching that gained any traction within the Body. As to monergism, the word does not appear other than as a negative. The Orthodox have never been anything but synergistic in man's relationship with God.
Man's relationship though has nothing to do with atonement. It was an event between God and Christ.
Since you seem to believe so strongly in a limited atonement, could you explain just how one can limit death, Christ's death and His sacrifice.

 

[zoidar]

The issue remains of the justice of God in exacting payment twice (by Jesus, by the condemned) for the same sin.

It is interesting to have a theory about it. Most Christians believe Jesus paid for the sins of everyone, yet not all will take advantage of it. We make these human theories to understand the atonement better, but I doubt any theory has the complete picture. To compare the atonement with a court case, I think gives us an oversimplified picture. A court doesn't forgive transgressions. Transgressions are forgiven through the cross of Christ.

 

[Clare73]

It is interesting to have a theory about it. Most Christians believe Jesus paid for the sins of everyone, yet not all will take advantage of it. We make these human theories to understand the atonement better, but I doubt any theory has the complete picture. To compare the atonement with a court case, I think gives us an oversimplified picture. A court doesn't forgive transgressions.

Correct, justice requires that law-breakers pay a penalty.

Transgressions are forgiven through the cross of Christ.

It is God's justice that requires the propitiation of the cross for sin.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

for the same sin.

Is it not true that rejecting salvation offered in Christ a new sin?

 

[Clare73]

Is it not true that rejecting salvation offered in Christ a new sin?

Unbelief in the Son is the sin that condemns from the beginning (Jn 3:18, Eph 2:3).

 

[zoidar]

It is God's justice that requires the propitiation of the cross for sin.

Yes, a propitiation for sin, so sin can be forgiven.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It never needed to condemn it. It was never a teaching that gained any traction within the Body. As to monergism, the word does not appear other than as a negative. The Orthodox have never been anything but synergistic in man's relationship with God.
Man's relationship though has nothing to do with atonement. It was an event between God and Christ.
Since you seem to believe so strongly in a limited atonement, could you explain just how one can limit death, Christ's death and His sacrifice.

I agree with you entirely regarding the EOC and its relationship with monergism. Curiously, I have been accused of being a synergist by some monergists (aka Calvinists) in my attempts, feeble as they are, to place these opposing theologies in perspective. I tend to view the issue on a continuum in which there are varying perspectives on God's relationship with mankind. At one extreme there are various heresies which eliminate God entirely from the equation and place man fully and completely in control of his own destiny. At the other extreme there are various heresies which eliminate man completely from the equation and place God as the responsible party for anything and everything. The vast majority of synergists that I interact with have God in some role in the equation. Even Deists did not deny the existence or activity of God. The vast majority of monergists perceive a level of response and responsibility on the part of humanity. For example, Lutherans, who are markedly monergistic, still maintain a believe in the necessity of sacraments as means of grace.

As for my personal beliefs, I do not see myself as being at either end of the spectrum. I see weaknesses in both theologies when compared with scripture. I confess that I generally lean toward monergism.