Limited Atonement and it's faults

[zoidar]

Changing the real issue
from
what it is: acceptance or rejection of the application of the payment
to
what it is not: delay in the application of the payment because of its condition.

If Christ took on himself the punishment that our sins deserve. If I don't receive the atonement then I have no payment for my sins, even Jesus sacrifice was a payment that can expiate my sins. That's one way universal atonement doesn't have to mean double payment.

This is of course only philosophy and payment for sins can mean different things.

 

[Clare73]

You have to be more clear. I don't understand what you mean.

The real issue is whether God can be just and still let people be punished for sins He has paid for. I'm saying He can if He can hold people guilty of sins He paid for.

It's not about holding guilty, it's about punishing twice for the same sin.

 

[Clare73]

Some Calvinists also think the double payment is a not so good argument.

"A few Calvinist theologians saw the fallacy of the double payment, that of conflating atonement provided with atonement applied. In his Dogmatic Theology, W. G. T. Shedd dismisses the idea that God is unjust in punishing an unbeliever for whom atonement is provided.

“The fact that a vicarious atonement has been made that is sufficient to expiate his sins, does not estop justice from punishing him personally for them, unless it can be shown that he is the author of the vicarious atonement. If this were so, then indeed he might complain of the personal satisfaction that is required of him. In this case, one and the same party would make two satisfactions for one and the same sin: one vicarious, and one personal.”[3] In Shedd’s explanation, if a person himself had paid a debt, and was charged again a second time, this would be unjust. But for one who has not personally paid, there is no injustice if satisfaction is required of him later."

The Double Payment Argument and Definite Atonement - Gentleman Theologian

One of the more popular arguments for definite atonement—that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved, and not for mankind as a whole—is the double payment argument. John Owen, in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ makes this argument. In that Owen’s work is...

gentlemantheologian.com

I have no problem with that.

This is not a hill I will die on.

 

[Clare73]

If Christ took on himself the punishment that our sins deserve. If I don't receive the atonement then I have no payment for my sins, even Jesus sacrifice was a payment that can expiate my sins. That's one way universal atonement doesn't have to mean double payment.

This is of course only philosophy and payment for sins can mean different things.

It's not about receiving payment, it's about being punished twice (Jesus and the sinner) for the same sin.

 

[zoidar]

It's not about receiving payment, it's about being punished twice (Jesus and the sinner) for the same sin.

Reread what I wrote. Jesus was not punished for the same sin as the unbeliever, but was punished the way the unbeliever's sin deserved.

It's not that I know if I believe this. Just showing how universal atonement isn't equal to double payment.

 

[zoidar]

It's not about receiving payment, it's about being punished twice (Jesus and the sinner) for the same sin.

"The real issue is whether God can be just and still let people be punished for sins He has paid for (punished twice, one time for Jesus and one time for the sinner). I'm saying He can if He can hold people guilty of punishment (even if it's temporary) of sins He paid for."

Reasoning, if God can be a unjust, He can just as well be very unjust. But on the other hand if He is just, He can just as well be very just.

 

[Clare73]

Reread what I wrote. Jesus was not punished for the same sin as the unbeliever, but was punished the way the unbeliever's sin deserved.

So whose debt did Jesus actually pay?

It's not that I know if I believe this. Just showing how universal atonement isn't equal to double payment.

By distinction without a difference?

 

[zoidar]

So whose debt did Jesus actually pay?

No one's! As we receive the sacrifice our dept is paid.

Christ sacrifice as a payment for sin, not a payment of sin.

 

[Clare73]

"The real issue is whether God can be just and still let people be punished for sins He has paid for (punished twice, one time for Jesus and one time for the sinner). I'm saying He can if He can hold people guilty of punishment (even if it's temporary) of sins He paid for."

You are conflating guilt with punishment.

"Holding guilty of punishment", and "actual punishment" are not the same thing and cannot be equated or equivalent.

Reasoning, if God can be a unjust, He can just as well be very unjust. But on the other hand if He is just, He can just as well be very just.

Contradiction of terms. . .

God/unjust. . .and. . .God/more just.

Universalism takes one down an unprofitable (at best) and harmful (at worst) road.
Leave it alone.

 

[zoidar]

"Holding guilty of punishment", and "actual punishment" are not the same thing and cannot be equated or equivalent.

Why are those punished in Gehenna? Because they are held guilty of punishment.

I have never said it's the same thing. I'm saying it's proving if universal atonement makes God unjust, then limited atonement makes God unjust.

Tell me again how God can be just and hold me guilty of hellfire for stealing 100$ when Jesus has paid the price of this act by his precious blood on the cross? You will say, because the atonement is not received (yet). That is the same argument those holding to universal atonement use. If God can hold us temporary guilty of hellfire for sins He paid for, He can hold us eternally guilty of hellfire for sins He paid for and both are either just or unjust. That is the point!

 

[zoidar]

God/unjust. . .and. . .God/more just.

Universalism takes one down an unprofitable (at best) and harmful (at worst) road.
Leave it alone.

I don't know what Universialism has to do with this. I was just making a point. I have never been an Universialist, will never be one.

 

[Clare73]

Why are those punished in Gehenna? Because they are hold guilty of punishment.
I have never said it's the same thing. I'm saying it's proving if universal atonement makes God unjust, then your view of atonement makes God unjust.
Tell me again how God can be just and hold me guilty of hellfire for stealing 100$ when Jesus has paid the price of this act by his precious blood on the cross? You will say, because the atonement is not received (yet).
That is the same argument those holding to universal atonement use. If God can hold us temporary guilty of hellfire for sins He paid for, He can hold us eternally guilty of hellfire for sins He paid for and both are either just or unjust.

The issue here is not guilt, the issue is applied/exeuted punishment for the same sin, twice.

 

[zoidar]

The issue here is not guilt, the issue is applied/exeuted punishment, twice.

You are either ignoring my point or you don't see it. I can't explain it any better.

 

[Clare73]

You are either ignoring my point or you don't see it. I can't explain it any better.

I understand your point to be guilt, (singled, doubled, tripled matters not), however, my point is punishment for that guilt of a sin cannot be administered twice (single, double does matter) for the same sin; i.e. Christ punished and the sinner also punished, for the same sin.

 

[zoidar]

The issue here is not guilt, the issue is applied/exeuted punishment for the same sin, twice.

Executed punishment has nothing to do with it. It has to do with whether God can justly hold us guilty of punishment He has paid for. If you say He can hold the elect guilty of punishment in hellfire before they believe, for crimes He has paid for, tell me how that is just.

The answer is. I will quote myself:

Biblically it doesn't matter if it's a double payment or not even we may argue against it philosophically. What we know is: sins been paid for don't cancel our dept, but receiving the atonement cancels the dept. If it's a double payment it is, if not it isn't. If it is, we still know it's just and God can demand a double payment if He wants and still be fully righteous. To say like the Calvinist: "Who are you, O man, to speak back to God?"

 

[Clare73]

Executed punishment has nothing to do with it. It has to do with whether God can justly hold us guilty of punishment He has paid for. If you say He can hold the elect guilty of punishment in hellfire before they believe, for crimes He has paid for, tell me how that is just.

If there is no execution of punishment involved, what does it matter if I am guilty?

Guilt then is just an abstract idea that matters not, if there is no punishment as its consequence.

 

[zoidar]

If there is no execution of punishment involved, what does it matter if I am guilty?

Guilt is just an idea that matters not, if there is no punishment as its consequence.

It matters, because it shows the character of God.

 

[Clare73]

It matters, because it shows the character of God.

What does punishment twice for the same offense show?

 

[zoidar]

What does punishment twice for the same offense show?

The same as God holding someone guilty of sins Jesus has already paid for. It shows that God is just or unjust. Either you agree or not to that statement. I would go with that it's just, since God is just. But to be fully honest, I think it means we don't have the full grasp of the atonement of Christ. Because the atonement is universal, but there is no double punishment. How? I don't fully know how, since the Bible doesn't explain how. I will say like you sometimes do Clare: If you have a problem with it, take it up with Jesus!

Ok, what has been my motive for this discussion? Well, to show you the "problem" of a double payment/punishment in unlimited atonement might not be as problematic as we think at a first glance. Maybe I have failed to convince you Clare, but someone else out there might have been.

 

[Clare73]

The same as God holding someone guilty of sins Jesus has already paid for. It shows that God is just or unjust. Either you agree or not to that statement. I would go with that it's just, since God is just. But to be fully honest, I think it means we don't have the full grasp of the atonement of Christ. Because the atonement is universal, but there is no double punishment. How? I don't fully know how, since the Bible doesn't explain how. I will say like you sometimes do Clare: If you have a problem with it, take it up with Jesus!

Ok, what has been my motive for this discussion? Well, to show you the "problem" of a double payment/punishment in unlimited atonement might not be as problematic as we think at a first glance. Maybe I have failed to convince you Clare, but someone else out there might have been.

I appreciate the discussion, and actually, it is not something I am certain about since it is not specifically stated, nor a hill I will die on.