Everyone Limits the Atonement

[ViaCrucis]

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

The Arminian position maintains that Christ's work is only efficacious for those who accept Christ, Arminianism teaches Unlimited Atonement, i.e. that Christ's work applies to all in principle. The Calvinist view is Limited Atonement, Christ's work applies only to the elect.

I'm a Lutheran, what I'm advocating is the Lutheran view: Christ died for all. It applies to all, not merely in principle, but in fact. Objectively Christ's work has saved everyone, all are included in what the Lord has done, not merely some, but all. That is Objective Justification. Subjective Justification, on the other hand, is how Christ's work applies to us individually. Through the Means of Grace the Holy Spirit appropriates to us Christ's objective, all-sufficient work. Dr. Luther explains this pretty succinctly in his Large Catechism this way:

"For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc. But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us."

Objectively all are justified. Subjectively this is appropriated to us by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament, since we know that faith is God's gift (Ephesians 2:8) and is given by the Word (Romans 10:17).

You are reading your own Reformed bias (and let's be clear, Arminianism is just another form of Reform theology) into what I'm saying. Lutheranism is wholly outside of the Reformed microcosm.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

@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")!

I'm not confused about what the word efficacious means. I'm stating, quite plainly I think, that what Christ did is efficacious for all. ALL are saved in Christ--but should we reject, throw away, or despise God's good gifts then we damn ourselves. Fallen man's rejection of the Gospel is not a failure on God's part, it is not a failure or lack in Christ's complete and perfect work, it is man seeking himself and his own destruction apart from God.

The Calvinist/Arminian debate is, quite frankly, a square peg in a round hole.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

The key word is appropriation, the Holy Spirit appropriates Christ's work to us. There is the objective (what Christ has done) and there is the subjective (Christ's work appropriated to us as individuals). If I hear the Gospel and reject it, does that mean the Gospel is defective? Of course not. If I hear the Gospel, believe, and later shipwreck my faith, does that mean my Baptism didn't count? Does it mean the Gospel was defective? Of course not.

Whether a man believes or doesn't believe, he is still the one whom Christ died for, because Christ died for all. Not merely in potential, for Christ did not die to pave the way for men to save themselves, but Christ died to save all, and all indeed are included.

There is no one for whom the Gospel is not efficacious, there is no one for whom Christ did not die. We can look to the Parable of the Sower to see this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm not confused about what the word efficacious means. I'm stating, quite plainly I think, that what Christ did is efficacious for all. ALL are saved in Christ--but should we reject, throw away, or despise God's good gifts then we damn ourselves. Fallen man's rejection of the Gospel is not a failure on God's part, it is not a failure or lack in Christ's complete and perfect work, it is man seeking himself and his own destruction apart from God.

You say that all are saved in Christ but acknowledge that some will be damned. How is this not a contradiction? One cannot be both saved and damned.

 

[zoidar]

You say that all are saved in Christ but acknowledge that some will be damned. How is this not a contradiction? One cannot be both saved and damned.

I think he is saying if we are damned it's not because the atonement is lacking, but because we refuse to believe we are saved.

 

[Jipsah]

I reject the premise that I limit it. I have no such power to limit the atonement that comes from God through Jesus.

You’re a universalist, then?

 

[Jipsah]

I think he is saying if we are damned it's not because the atonement is lacking, but because we refuse to believe we are saved.

Ergo, Christ’s sacrifice was not efficacious in that case.

 

[Jipsah]

you left out the obvious saved by grace through faith solution - the Arminian view - see 17 minutes ago #3

In which scenario the Christ’s sacrifice accomplishes nothing if individuals simply fail to act on it.

 

[BobRyan]

In which scenario the Christ’s sacrifice accomplishes nothing if individuals simply fail to act on it.

Well it saves all those who accept no matter that many others reject -- it still works.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not confused about what the word efficacious means. I'm stating, quite plainly I think, that what Christ did is efficacious for all. ALL are saved in Christ--but should we reject, throw away, or despise God's good gifts then we damn ourselves. Fallen man's rejection of the Gospel is not a failure on God's part, it is not a failure or lack in Christ's complete and perfect work, it is man seeking himself and his own destruction apart from God.

The Calvinist/Arminian debate is, quite frankly, a square peg in a round hole.

-CryptoLutheran

No one is saved until they accept the Gospel and are born again. No lost person is "saved in the lake of fire"

 

[ViaCrucis]

You say that all are saved in Christ but acknowledge that some will be damned. How is this not a contradiction? One cannot be both saved and damned.

We are warned not to be like Alexander and Hymaeus who shipwrecked their faith. How can the elect fall away?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No one is saved until they accept the Gospel and are born again. No lost person is "saved in the lake of fire"

A rejection of salvation by grace alone isn't an option for a Lutheran.

-CryptoLutheram

 

[redleghunter]

(I almost never get a chance to have this discussion with Calvinists because they can't get past the detail of their being in error according to texts iike 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:14)

Universalism cannot be discussed here but only CCT forum.

 

[redleghunter]

Equivocation is a form of logical fallacy which the Arminian group would not need to employ in the 1 John 2:2 example.

Nor the universalists.

 

[redleghunter]

"God so loved the World that He GAVE " -- yes "really"
"That whosoever believes on Him might not perish but have everlasting life" -- 'yes really'

This the part where Arminians affirm "yes really" and Calvinism wishes to parse terms and equivocate

I think there is a qualifier there in that John 3:16 verse which mentions something about those who believe.

So if you are going to use the whole wide world approach to the verses you quote you have to first resolve how the Universalists are wrong in using the same to promote universal reconciliation.

 

[redleghunter]

It saves for those who avail themselves of it.

What makes one avail themselves of it?

 

[redleghunter]

[QUOTE="JerseyChristianSuperstar, post: 73514828, member: 407451"]Honestly, when I became a Calvinist, limited atonement was probably the hardest one to accept, and then became all the more logical to me — if Christ paid for the sins of every single person without exception, then it would follow that nobody would go to Hell, as He bore those sins on Himself,

Which only works if you ignore God's own teaching on what "Atonement means" as He outlines it in His "Day of Atonement" teaching in Lev 16 where it is BOTH the work of Christ as "sin offering" AND the work of Christ as "High Priest" that is needed for the full Bible scope of the term "Atonement".

But Calvinism uses the "limited view" of Atonement - where Lev 16 "ends with the sin offering slain" - that is where Calvinism falls short. Paul says "the main point" Hebrews 8:1 is Christ's ongoing work as High Priest.

Leviticus 16 is limited atonement. It was only for God’s chosen Israel.

 

[redleghunter]

Nevermind? Really? What, truth doesn't matter?

Do you not understand sin is the result of evil? No-one is born evil (or good for that matter) but we learn good and evil which, is how the Lord God could put the tree in the garden in the first place. All of us are born spiritually dead because of Adam's sin but not all of us would have chosen to sin as Adam did had we each had our chance in the Garden and some would not have repented as Adam did but like Lucifer, would have remained unrepentant. After all, that is who the Lake of Fire was originally created for. Men who reject truth and love lies will join him.

Jesus holds the keys to death and hades. His death allows Him to lawfully unlock those doors and allow everyone who has ever entered to come out (at the right time). Not all will come out to receive eternal life but all will come out.

Universalism can only be discussed in Controversial Christian Theology.

 

[redleghunter]

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. The effect is not limited, it is the solution. Just as Christ gave us living waters to drink from. Some drink and some do not. The effect remains the same salvation.

Kind of you can lead a horse to water but can’t make them drink?

Or is it those led to water drink.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Kind of you can lead a horse to water but can’t make them drink?

Or is it those led to water drink.

More like one will eventually drink regardless.