Limited Atonement and it's faults

[bbbbbbb]

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.

I agree. Analogies can only go so far before they break down.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Every sin is a new sin, when committed. What're you getting at —that all sins, except for rejecting salvation, are paid for, for all humans?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Every sin is a new sin, when committed. What're you getting at —that all sins, except for rejecting salvation, are paid for, for all humans?

What can one say to this? All I can do is offer an explanation step by step.

• Think of sins as handling something dangerous and messy that stains and soils.
• Many sins leave much mess and soiling.
• The blood of Christ washes away the mess and soiling.
• One's sins and their harm is washed away by Christ's shed blood.
• Eschewing the blood of Christ leaves the mess and the soiling unwashed.

At the judgement on the last day each person answers for their sins, those who are clean because they were washed by Christ's blood have no remaining sins to answer for. Those who are in a mess and soiled answer for the sins that have left such an obvious mark on them because they refused to be washed in the blood of Christ.

I know that the above is an explanation by analogy and that like all analogies it is insufficient to the task of fully and properly explaining the matter of sin and judgement but I hope it is clear enough for its most salient points to be seen and understood. Every sin and every wrong can be forgiven except one. The one that cannot be forgiven is the sin that refuses the only means of cleansing sins away; that is the sin of persistent and determined refusal of the salvation offered in Christ, our Lord.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I find it rather amazing that anyone would liken the debt of rebellion against God to the smashing of a windshield. Sorry, but no. But I'll try to play along so you'll get my point. The debt is more than the cost of repair/replacement. They have personally offended you. The money is only a small part of what they did wrong.

You also say, "...I’ve never implied that a second payment for sin is required." I can't keep up with just who says what. Are you one of those who says that in Hell, nobody pays for their sins, except for the sin of rejecting Christ's death on their behalf? Or what is your reasoning, if not that?

Jesus paid for our sins which is why He will be the one who will either pardon us or condemn us. If He chooses to pardon us then He imputes His righteousness upon us thereby making us worthy to enter heaven, if He chooses to condemn us He does not impute His righteousness upon us and we pay the penalty for our sins.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus paid for our sins which is why He will be the one who will either pardon us or condemn us. If He chooses to pardon us then He imputes His righteousness upon us thereby making us worthy to enter heaven, if He chooses to condemn us He does not impute His righteousness upon us and we pay the penalty for our sins.

So, I guess, that's a sort of a yes. Absolutely everyone's sins are paid for, including Satan's, I guess, but apparently he doesn't pardon everyone, even though their sins are paid for, and so they pay the penalty for their own sins, which he already paid, making double-payment.

That makes his payment ineffective, limiting his atonement, ironically enough.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So, I guess, that's a sort of a yes. Absolutely everyone's sins are paid for, including Satan's, I guess, but apparently he doesn't pardon everyone, even though their sins are paid for, and so they pay the penalty for their own sins, which he already paid, making double-payment.

That makes his payment ineffective, limiting his atonement, ironically enough.

Not necessarily because if He paid for just one single sin the payment would’ve been the exact same as if He paid for all sins. So because He was the perfect sacrifice, He can attribute that payment to as many people as He chooses. The payment itself remains the same regardless of how many He chooses to pardon. I’m confident that you would agree that if He chose to pardon everyone the sacrifice He made would be sufficient to cover all of their sins?

 

[zoidar]

So, I guess, that's a sort of a yes. Absolutely everyone's sins are paid for, including Satan's, I guess, but apparently he doesn't pardon everyone, even though their sins are paid for, and so they pay the penalty for their own sins, which he already paid, making double-payment.

That makes his payment ineffective, limiting his atonement, ironically enough.

Why would there be a payment for the devil? The righteous man, Christ, was sacrificed as a representative of man.

I think of Christ sacrifice as a payment for sin. From my perspective our sins are not paid until we receive the payment. There is however a payment for everyone's sin. I think is another way to put it, what BNR described in the post above.

 

[Cassian]

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.

You didn't answer my question on how to limit Christ's atonement.
You spent the whole post on either synergy or monergism. Neither has anything to do with Christ's atonement. Man had no role in Christ's atonement. A large part of this thread deals with man's response to the atonement, rather than the atonement.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Limited Atonement is a doctrine of Calvinism that teaches that Christ's death on the cross was intended only for the elect.

Scripture places no limit on Christ's saving work; his death is sufficient for all, his resurrection is sufficient for all. The one issue that involves humanity is the application of Christ's saving work; Christ said if you believe then you will not be judged and if you do not believe then you've already been judged because you did not believe.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why would there be a payment for the devil? The righteous man, Christ, was sacrificed as a representative of man.

I think of Christ sacrifice as a payment for sin. From my perspective our sins are not paid until we receive the payment. There is however a payment for everyone's sin. I think is another way to put it, what BNR described in the post above.

I agree, I’m not familiar with any verses pertaining to atonement for satan or demons.

 

[Valletta]

I have always found it curious that Augustine is considered to be both a saint and a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Saint Augustine is not considered a heretic by the Catholic Church. That someone used some of Saint Augustine's ideas to come up with a theological concept outside of Catholicism does not reflect upon Saint Augustine.

 

[Clare73]

Why would there be a payment for the devil? The righteous man, Christ, was sacrificed as a representative of man.

I think of Christ sacrifice as a payment for sin. From my perspective our sins are not paid until we receive the payment. There is however a payment for everyone's sin. I think is another way to put it, what BNR described in the post above.

In accounting, if the debt is paid by someone else, even if the debtor does not know about it, the debt is counted as paid and no longer owed.
However, payment of the debt, as asserted here, still leaves it owing.

Accountants are more just than God?

 

[zoidar]

Accountants are more just than God?

Of course I would say no. How do you figure? I mean why would the accountant in my case be more just than God?

 

[Clare73]

Of course I would say no. How do you figure? I mean why would the accountant in my case be more just than God?

The accountant does not also require a seond payment of the debt by the debtor if someone else has paid it, even without the debtor knowing it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not necessarily because if He paid for just one single sin the payment would’ve been the exact same as if He paid for all sins. So because He was the perfect sacrifice, He can attribute that payment to as many people as He chooses. The payment itself remains the same regardless of how many He chooses to pardon. I’m confident that you would agree that if He chose to pardon everyone the sacrifice He made would be sufficient to cover all of their sins?

Where do you get this poetic notion? "...if He paid for just one single sin the payment would’ve been the exact same as if He paid for all sins." Can you show me this in Scripture?

You say, "He can attribute that payment to as many people as He chooses." He already chose, before the foundation of the world.

You say, "I’m confident that you would agree that if He chose to pardon everyone the sacrifice He made would be sufficient to cover all of their sins?" What is this— a joke? If he had chosen to save everyone, yes, of course he would have also chosen to pay for everyone's sins. But he didn't and he didn't.

Why do you continue with this narrative that what we do, happens to God? You're looking at it backwards.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why would there be a payment for the devil? The righteous man, Christ, was sacrificed as a representative of man.

I think of Christ sacrifice as a payment for sin. From my perspective our sins are not paid until we receive the payment. There is however a payment for everyone's sin. I think is another way to put it, what BNR described in the post above.

I don't know why. I was just trying to figure out @BNR32FAN 's assertion there, and a few logical implications.

I would like to see the theological proof, besides a few misused Scripture passages, that show there is a payment for everyone's sin. Is there a way the reasoning circles back around to support that notion? Something that "clinches it", so to speak? For example, the Universalist demonstrates the necessary result of paying for absolutely everyone's sins; they claim everyone is saved, sooner or later. Arminianism doesn't.

 

[zoidar]

I don't know why. I was just trying to figure out @BNR32FAN 's assertion there, and a few logical implications.

I would like to see the theological proof, besides a few misused Scripture passages, that show there is a payment for everyone's sin. Is there a way the reasoning circles back around to support that notion? Something that "clinches it", so to speak? For example, the Universalist demonstrates the necessary result of paying for absolutely everyone's sins; they claim everyone is saved, sooner or later. Arminianism doesn't.

The best theological proof I can give you is maybe John 3:16-17.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:16-17

I think it is quite obvious from John 3:16 God loved everyone (unless you believe "world" here refers to the elect, which has its own problems) and the proof of that love is that God gave His Son, let His Son be crucified. So His Son was crucified for everyone, since that is how it says God showed His love to everyone. It can hardly say God loved everyone so He let His Son be crucified for those He had chosen.

 

[zoidar]

The accountant does not also require a seond payment of the debt by the debtor if someone else has paid it, even without the debtor knowing it.

You do agree our sins need to be forgiven? Why do you think our sins need to be forgiven, when they are paid?

The thing I'm trying to show you is our sins is not like a wordly dept. To be free from sin we need to A - have a sacrifice for our sins and B - be forgiven our trespasses. To have a payment for my sins is not enough. It seems you merge A and B. Forgiveness of sins is received as we turn to God for forgiveness and we are washed clean thanks to the sacrifice of Christ. It could be said the forgiveness by God washes us clean through the payment of Christ. Our sins are borne away, nailed to the cross.

 

[zoidar]

You say, "I’m confident that you would agree that if He chose to pardon everyone the sacrifice He made would be sufficient to cover all of their sins?" What is this— a joke? If he had chosen to save everyone, yes, of course he would have also chosen to pay for everyone's sins. But he didn't and he didn't.

I thought you guys believed Christ sacrifice was sufficient to cover all sins? Even it didn't ... Maybe you and Clare disagree on this point?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where do you get this poetic notion? "...if He paid for just one single sin the payment would’ve been the exact same as if He paid for all sins." Can you show me this in Scripture?

The wage of sin is death whether it be just one sin or a thousand the wage is still the same.

You say, "He can attribute that payment to as many people as He chooses." He already chose, before the foundation of the world.

Yes according to His foreknowledge but the point was that no matter how many He chose to pardon His sacrifice, the payment, is still the exact same.

You say, "I’m confident that you would agree that if He chose to pardon everyone the sacrifice He made would be sufficient to cover all of their sins?" What is this— a joke? If he had chosen to save everyone, yes, of course he would have also chosen to pay for everyone's sins. But he didn't and he didn't.

Yes He did pay for everyone’s sin that’s exactly what 2 John 2 says.

Why do you continue with this narrative that what we do, happens to God? You're looking at it backwards.

I don’t know what you mean by this.