Ask a non-Calvinist: Limited Atonement

[cdevidal]

First, if you are a Christian, I LOVE you as a brother and sister! I have zero animosity to Arminians and Amyraldians and other brothers who disagree on these aberrant (as contrasted with heretical) issues. We can disagree and go to heaven together. Most of my family is Arminian and I love them.

I hesitate to call myself a Calvinist (my identity is in CHRIST, not a man) but I wholly agree with all five points of TULIP, particularly Limited Atonement. Call me Calvinist if it's easier, I won't flame you. Prefer the term "Calvinist Christian" if anything.

With that out of the way...

I believe the TULIP's definition of Limited Atonement is Biblically correct. When I was a new Christian I didn't believe it, but now I believe it because there is a preponderance of texts that support it.

But

There are also many texts that are used to deny it:
Timothy 2:6
1 John 2:1-2
Hebrews 2:9
2 Corinthians 5:19
John 1:29
2 Peter 2:1 (" ...false prophets...denying the Master who bought them..." (ESV) The Master bought the false prophets? How much better of a proof tex t can you ask for?)

I'm sure there are more.

But

I don't think these verses "sew it up" for the Arminian.*

Why?

Let me first ask you a question:

Would you tell me real carefully what YOU think these texts mean? Do you think, for example, these people who deny the Master are going to heaven because their sins are covered on the cross?


* I'll call you Arminians to save time. I fully realize there are some who deny Limited Atonement but also reject the term Arminian. I also know there are some, like me, who dislike being identified by anyone but Christ. But for the sake of time you're an Arminian here.

 

[James1979]

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

If you compare this verse with:

*** 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

When a unbeliever becomes saved, they will no longer deny Christ in works. They will be obedient and began to bear fruit and will continue to bear fruit. So we know that the believers are bought by Christ as their Saviour. The majority of the unsaved who don't become saved and those who are associated with the gospel and believed they are saved are still disobedient, adominable and will continue to rebell against God. In a sense God bought the world to be a Saviour to the believers and a Judge to the unbelievers.

That's what it means when Christ buys the unsaved. Christ is their Judge, not their Saviour because Christ did not save them from their sins.

 

[cdevidal]

No non-Calvinists want to reply? I'll help you out.

You would probably say that those verses mean that Jesus' blood is effectual in the event that people should choose Christ. You probably would NOT say that those verses teach universal salvation wherein everyone is going to heaven.

Is that what you'd say?

 

[cdevidal]

That's what it means when Christ buys the unsaved. Christ is their Judge, not their Saviour because Christ did not save them from their sins.

That's a handy interpretation, I'm just positioning myself over against the Arminian point of view. I'm feeling pretty confident that even if their point of view is correct on this verse, it doesn't contradict Calvinism (and will explain how shortly).

 

[cdevidal]

If you would say that those verses mean that Jesus' blood is effectual in the event that people should choose Christ and you would NOT say that those verses teach universal salvation wherein everyone is going to heaven, then those verses don't deny the Calvinist's understanding of limited atonement!

End of debate!




What do I mean by that? First, a bit of background.

EVERYONE except universalists believes God limits the atonement, which is why "definite atonement" is a better phrase.

People who agree with TULIP believe God limited the application of the atonement to those He chooses. The doctrine is drawn from a direct and clear reading of Romans 9, John 6, and others. It was for a defined group of people. Defininte atonement.

People who disagree (indefinite atonement) believe God limits the effect of the atonement to the choice of men. Which is one reason I disagree with that, because I am certain that left to myself I would NEVER choose Christ!!

But my experiences aside... to expound my statement.

The reason those verses above don't contradict definite atonement, as I understand it, is because I agree with Arminians when they say Christ's blood is effectual for everyone who would believe. I believe that! I don't deny that!

I don't deny that Chris's blood is sufficient to save all. It is of INFINITE worth. It could redeem every man from ten thousand worlds and have room for more.

So just as the Arminian says, in the event, for example, those teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 should believe, Christ's blood is sufficient payment for them. Which, as far as I can tell, is all the Arminians are saying about these verses.

But is that all Christ bought?

I believe Christ bought more. It's the "more" that Arminians deny.

I believe Christ's blood purchased the New Covenant which was applied to us. That New Covenant pulled out hearts of stone and gave hearts of flesh. It gives life to death and opens eyes so that we might see and believe.

And so the battle for where God drew the limit really falls into "effectual calling" (A.K.A. irresistable grace) which says that people whose eyes have been opened to the glory of Christ will NEVER choose anything BUT Christ! Jesus stands at the door and knocks and the regenerate soul BREAKS THE DOOR DOWN to be with Him. Just as with the Arminian, it is their choice to make, but unlike the Arminian they would NEVER choose any other!

As Ray Comfort puts it, when offered diamonds or water, you'd choose the diamonds, correct? But when in the desert you'd despise the diamonds and go straight for the cool, clear water. When offered the diamonds of sin, sinners despise the water of Christ and go straight for the diamonds. But when the heat of God's judgement is revealed on Judgement day they will cry out for the cool water of Christ!

I don't believe the Bible teaches that anyone who has had their eyes opened to see the depravity of their sin by the Ten Commandments and need for a Savior through the gospel will either reject Him or (key word) ultimately (key word) desert Him.


This isn't intended to be the place to argue for/against effectual calling/irresistable grace. Please start a new thread if that's your contention. If however you disagree that those verses really do refute definite atonement, talk about it here.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

No non-Calvinists want to reply? I'll help you out.

You might have received more replies...if you hadn't posted this question in a Calvinist forum! Not many non-Calvinists here!

 

[cdevidal]

You might have received more replies...if you hadn't posted this question in a Calvinist forum! Not many non-Calvinists here!

There were enough which sabotaged my previous "from Calvinists to Calvinists" questions with a barrage of anti-Calvinist remarks that I thought it a good idea to ask.

I haven't yet received any reply -- at all -- in three forums in which I've asked this question, which makes me uncomfortable, frankly. I'm not used to silence in response. I'm tempted to think that silence therefore makes me correct but I know better.