Everyone Limits the Atonement

[Cement]

I simply see what God has stated and what Men have interpreted from it. Being Non-Denominational means that I have my disagreements and I have my unanswered question but I'm content that I will know one day everything left unanswered until then I wish for all Christians to accept that they may be wrong upon their assumptions and follow all of Christs commands.

 

[zoidar]

The problem I have with God limiting the atonement is what does that say about his character? If God limits the atonement then how can He be a good God? If God loves the whole mankind wouldn't He make the atonement be for everyone? To me, the proof that God loves all men and therefore also me is that atonement was done for every man.

 

[fhansen]

So how do you limit the atonement?

Simple enough. People limit the atonement when they don't accept it. God does His part; He's trustworthy. We're the wildcard in it all.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

His work is perfectly efficacious for all, but yet not all necessarily will be saved.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately self-contradictory, or if you don't understand the meaning of the word. Efficacious: successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective. If not all are saved (they're not), then it is not efficacious for all, or else it was not intended for all. If it was intended for all, then the effect must be there, or it cannot be efficacious, because it did not bring about the intended effect.

No. For example, a person can be thirsty. He/she can drink water to quench it or he/she can not drink it and die from dehydration. Either way the water is the same. It will quench the thirst thus the effect exists for all.

If some people die of dehydration, then the water was not efficacious for all. It would be silly to say that the water saved everyone from dehydration, even though some did, in fact, die of dehydration. The water is only efficacious if it has the effect. If it is not used, then it has no effect, and it must necessarily not be efficacious.

If not everyone is saved (they're not), then the atonement is limited. The effect is the same no matter which side of the fence you're on. The effect is that not everyone is atoned for. The only question is why. In the end, most are not saved, for whichever reason. Either it was not meant for everyone, or else it was meant for everyone and failed to be efficacious for everyone. Either way, the effect is limited.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

If some people die of dehydration, then the water was not efficacious for all.

I believe you are missing the point. The water (Living Water) is for ALL because it is bigger than your argument and anyone of us. But feel free to discuss your point as all it does is cause confusion when there is none.
Blessings

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Maybe a better way to ask is: "In what way is the atonement limited?" i.e. according to your theological scheme.

A better way...In what way do we limit the atonement?

 

[SarahsKnight]

A better way...In what way do we limit the atonement?

Oh, didn't you hear the OP, Miss Maria? Apparently we non-TULIP believers are the ones limiting the atonement by our claiming it is for everyone and not ... limited to just a portion of humankind. ... Because that makes sense.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately self-contradictory, or if you don't understand the meaning of the word. Efficacious: successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective. If not all are saved (they're not), then it is not efficacious for all, or else it was not intended for all. If it was intended for all, then the effect must be there, or it cannot be efficacious, because it did not bring about the intended effect.



If some people die of dehydration, then the water was not efficacious for all. It would be silly to say that the water saved everyone from dehydration, even though some did, in fact, die of dehydration. The water is only efficacious if it has the effect. If it is not used, then it has no effect, and it must necessarily not be efficacious.

If not everyone is saved (they're not), then the atonement is limited. The effect is the same no matter which side of the fence you're on. The effect is that not everyone is atoned for. The only question is why. In the end, most are not saved, for whichever reason. Either it was not meant for everyone, or else it was meant for everyone and failed to be efficacious for everyone. Either way, the effect is limited.

Or it is efficacious for all, but men chose darkness instead of the light, because their deeds were evil. Christ died for all, not in potential, but in fact. All are included in Christ's work. Those who, in the end, are not saved are not excluded, but instead have chosen damnation for themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

Oh, didn't you hear the OP, Miss Maria? Apparently we non-TULIP believers are the ones limiting the atonement by our claiming it is for everyone and not ... limited to just a portion of humankind. ... Because that makes sense.

Limited love
Limited Gospel
Limited Atonement - in the TULIP

 

[BobRyan]

If some people die of dehydration, then the water was not efficacious for all.

Which is nonsense. Water is always the right solution for dehydration.

If a man is convinced that "water is poison" and refuses to drink well it is not a problem in the water or the problem that "water is not efficacious". All that sort of stuff comes from Calvinism but makes no sense in real life.

On the other hand you could "blame the creator" arguing that the man never should have been given free will to imagine that water is poison or to refuse the water. But I don't think that makes sense either.

 

[zoidar]

So the atonement is limited in its effects. It opens up the possibility of salvation, but it does not necessarily save. Jesus died for all, but not all are necessarily saved. Yet all can possibly be saved.

Or it is efficacious for all, but men chose darkness instead of the light, because their deeds were evil. Christ died for all, not in potential, but in fact. All are included in Christ's work. Those who, in the end, are not saved are not excluded, but instead have chosen damnation for themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

How about this analogy? I don't know if it's accurate, but it's one way to see it.

If I have an incurable disease, but a new medicin is given me and miraculously I'm cured. If I throw myself off a cliff because of believing to be dying allready then what use did I have of the medicin? The medicin was effectious, yet I died from unbelief.

I think this is the Lutheran stand.

 

[Tree of Life]

Or it is efficacious for all, but men chose darkness instead of the light, because their deeds were evil. Christ died for all, not in potential, but in fact. All are included in Christ's work. Those who, in the end, are not saved are not excluded, but instead have chosen damnation for themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

@nonaeroterraqueous has it right. You'll see the meaning of "efficacious" more clearly if you think about God's intent for the atonement.

What was God's intention for the atonement?

If his intention was to actually save some, then the Calvinists have it right that the atonement is 100% efficacious. It accomplished exactly what the Father intended. We believe that the atonement "does it all". All those for whom Jesus died will certainly be saved. Regeneration, Adoption, Sanctification, and Glorification were all purchased on the cross for a specific group of people. Blessed assurance!

But if God's intention in the atonement was to actually save all, then we must admit that the atonement is not perfectly efficacious. It did not accomplish exactly what God intended for it to accomplish. Hence, the atonement is limited in its efficacy.

A third option is that God intended in the atonement to possibly save all. In the Arminian scheme, this is exactly what the atonement has done and so God accomplished his purposes in the atonement. But even here God intended that the atonement would be limited in its effects. Rather than Jesus truly atoning for everyone's sins, Jesus only possibly atones for our sins. The atonement does not "do it all" like Calvinists believe that it does. It only makes salvation possible if people will choose to embrace Christ.

I would argue that the Arminian view of the atonement actually does very little to save sinners. Luther would agree (read his "Bondage of the Will")!

 

[MDC]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately self-contradictory, or if you don't understand the meaning of the word. Efficacious: successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective. If not all are saved (they're not), then it is not efficacious for all, or else it was not intended for all. If it was intended for all, then the effect must be there, or it cannot be efficacious, because it did not bring about the intended effect.



If some people die of dehydration, then the water was not efficacious for all. It would be silly to say that the water saved everyone from dehydration, even though some did, in fact, die of dehydration. The water is only efficacious if it has the effect. If it is not used, then it has no effect, and it must necessarily not be efficacious.

If not everyone is saved (they're not), then the atonement is limited. The effect is the same no matter which side of the fence you're on. The effect is that not everyone is atoned for. The only question is why. In the end, most are not saved, for whichever reason. Either it was not meant for everyone, or else it was meant for everyone and failed to be efficacious for everyone. Either way, the effect is limited.

Would agree entirely with what you said. Who believes that the atonement successfully produces the desired intended result? The “Calvinist” of course! The Arminian view completely makes Christ’s atoning work non efficacious. Unless of course he’s a universalist

 

[MDC]

Or it is efficacious for all, but men chose darkness instead of the light, because their deeds were evil. Christ died for all, not in potential, but in fact. All are included in Christ's work. Those who, in the end, are not saved are not excluded, but instead have chosen damnation for themselves.

-CryptoLutheran

Then all would be saved. Your view sounds Arminian and confusing by saying Christ’s atoning work is efficacious for all, but yet some still perish for their sin

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Then all would be saved. Your view sounds Arminian and confusing by saying Christ’s atoning work is efficacious for all, but yet some still perish for their sin

It may be likened to when Jesus went to some towns and healed everyone,
and
when Jesus went to other towns, He didn't.

Even also like Jerusalem, when Jesus Lamented over her, He said He would have taken all her children under His tzitzits(wings) and cared for them and nurtured them and protected them (i.e. saved them),
but they would not. (they were not willing).
So at that time they were cut out, and pagan gentile peoples were permitted to be grafted in (saved), if they endured to the end, lest they be cut out like the original branches were.

 

[MDC]

It may be likened to when Jesus went to some towns and healed everyone,
and
when Jesus went to other towns, He didn't.

Even also like Jerusalem, when Jesus Lamented over her, He said He would have taken all her children under His tzitzits(wings) and cared for them and nurtured them and protected them (i.e. saved them),
but they would not. (they were not willing).
So at that time they were cut out, and pagan gentile peoples were permitted to be grafted in (saved), if they endured to the end, lest they be cut out like the original branches were.

Therefore the atoning work of Christ was not efficacious for those who perish for their sin and unbelief correct?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Therefore the atoning work of Christ was not efficacious for those who perish for their sin and unbelief correct?

Totally mixed up. I don't see what it is you are seeking ?

 

[MDC]

Totally mixed up. I don't see what it is you are seeking ?

The atonement of Christ is efficacious towards believers (elect) only correct?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is this definition a good fitting one to you for your post ? >>
ef·fi·ca·cious
/ˌefəˈkāSHəs/
adjective
formal
adjective: efficacious
(typically of something inanimate or abstract) successful in producing a desired or intended result; effective.
"the vaccine has proved both efficacious and safe"
synonyms: effective, effectual, successful, productive, constructive, potent

The atonement of Christ is efficacious towards believers (elect) only correct?

 

[BobRyan]

The atonement of Christ is efficacious towards believers (elect) only correct?

Those who accept the Gospel - are born again and access the gospel through the Ministry of Christ as High Priest according to Hebrews 8 and 9.