Limited Atonement and it's faults

[BNR32FAN]

"Granting them regeneration" is a misnomer.

Neither natural birth nor spiritual rebirth are "granted."
You can't grant anything to one who does not exist prior to conception (natural) nor
prior to quickening (zoogoneo) by the Holy Spirit (spiritual).

Nor is delivery at birth a matter of "granting," for it is the result of an act with which the new-born (both naturally and spiritually) had absolutely nothing to do in any way whatsoever.

It is: "Without regeneration they cannot repent."
Or: "They cannot repent if they are not regenerated."

The word “granted” means to allow, give, bestow, or impart something to someone.

 

[BNR32FAN]

We have Jesus story how God can forgive a dept and then reinstate it. Is that a double payment? This is one aspect of the atonement.

“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”
— Matthew 18:23-35

That’s a really good point

 

[BNR32FAN]

You can't grant anything to one who does not exist prior to conception (natural) nor
prior to quickening (zoogoneo) by the Holy Spirit (spiritual).

Ok so now we didn’t exist until we were reborn?

 

[Clare73]

The word “granted” means to allow, give, bestow, or impart something to someone.

The mother does not "grant" to her child the act or fact of birth.
The mother brings forth her child, which is natural birth.

The Holy Spirit does not grant the new birth.
The Holy Spirit brings forth spiritual (of the Holy Spirit) life, which is spiritual (of the Holy Spirit) new birth.

 

[Clare73]

We have Jesus story how God can forgive a dept and then reinstate it. Is that a double payment?

No, because there was no payment of the debt in the first place.

Universal atonement is payment of the debt/penalty by Christ, and payment again of the same debt/penalty by the sinner in hell.

This is one aspect of the atonement.
“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”
— Matthew 18:23-35

 

[Clare73]

Ok so now we didn’t exist until we were reborn?

"Spiritual" (of the Holy Spirit) did not exist (in our spirits) until we were reborn.

 

[zoidar]

No, because there was no payment of the debt in the first place.

Universal atonement is payment of the debt/penalty by Christ, and payment again of the same debt/penalty by the sinner in hell.

Point being, the court case scenario might be the wrong understanding of the atonement. At least from looking at this parable of Jesus.

Anyhow, both I and BNR have told you how universal atonement doesn't have to mean double payment. I don't know how many holding to universal atonement believe in double payment, I think most don't.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My argument is that you claim that I’m the one implying that God causes people to sin when I’m only quoting what you’ve said. You said that if people don’t repent that is a sin but I’m quoting you saying that they can’t repent, that they are unable to repent. So if I’m quoting you saying that they are unable to repent and you say that their failure to repent is a sin then how am I the one saying that God is responsible for their sin? You’re saying that yourself, I’m just quoting what you said.

You misunderstood me then. I know very well you don't claim that God causes people to sin —that is MY claim, and, in fact, he causes that they sin in every particular deed they do. There is no fact outside his causation. He is the only source of 'new'. But I don't say that they don't sin, nor that he tempted them, nor that he is the author of sin. Those are not logical results from the premise that he caused every particular fact to come to pass.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It means He has granted them the ability to repent. That should be obvious.

You make a whole lot of self-deterministic steps between what is two simple facts. God regenerated — the regenerated are driven to repent. They desire it. But you want your repentance to be to your credit.

 

[Clare73]

Point being, the court case scenario might be the wrong understanding of the atonement. At least from looking at this parable of Jesus.

Anyhow, both I and BNR have told you how universal atonement doesn't have to mean double payment. I don't know how many holding to universal atonement believe in double payment, I think most don't.

Would you state it again, it doesn't come to mind. . .thanks.

 

[zoidar]

Would you state it again, it doesn't come to mind. . .thanks.

First thing, the argument against universal atonement as a double payment is not a Biblical argument, but a philosophical argument. It can still be a good argument none the less, but I wanted to point that out.

Both those who hold to limited and unlimited atonement agree that at one time we were all under the wrath of God. So even from the view of the Calvinist the atonement is not by itself enough to set anyone free from punishment. Since the elect are under wrath, condemnation, the law of punishment before they receive the atonement, even their punishment has been paid, it leads the Calvinist to a similar dilemma: How can the elect be guilty of punishment when their punishment has been paid?

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]

First thing, the argument against universal atonement as a double payment is not a Biblical argument, but a philosophical argument. It can still be a good argument none the less, but I wanted to point that out.

Both those who hold to limited and unlimited atonement agree that at one time we were all under the wrath of God. So even from the view of the Calvinist the atonement is not by itself enough to set anyone free from punishment. Since the elect are under wrath, condemnation, the law of punishment before they receive the atonement, even their punishment has been paid, it leads the Calvinist to a similar dilemma: How can the elect be guilty of punishment when their punishment has been paid?

In limited atonement, all monies paid for atonement are applied.
No money paid for atonement is left on the table unapplied (unused) and additional monies also required for payment.

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?"

Keeping in mind, the word of God nowhere states that Jesus paid a debt that was nowhere cancelled, so there is no "speaking back to God" here, there is only speaking back to man here.

 

[zoidar]

In limited atonement, all monies paid for atonement are applied.
No money paid for atonement is left on the table unapplied (unused) and additional monies required for payment instead.

Still the problem remains that God holds people guilty of punishment for sin He has paid for, until they receive the atonement. Is that just? It's not the same problem, but a similar problem.

 

[Clare73]

Still the problem remains that God holds people guilty of punishment for sin He has paid for, until they receive the atonement. Is that just?

God's atonement is effected. . .all that God does is effectual. . .nothing that God does is ineffectual.

When his effected atonement is conditional, it is absolutely just that the condition must first be met.

 

[zoidar]

God's atonement is effected. . .all that God does is effectual. . .nothing that God does is ineffectual.

When his effected atonement is conditional, it is absolutely just that the condition must first be met.

Ah, it's just of God to hold people guilty of a punishment He paid, but not just of God to punish people for a punishment they are guilty of He paid?

 

[Clare73]

Ah, it's just of God to hold people guilty of a punishment He paid, but not just of God to punish people for a punishment they are guilty of He paid?

When did it become about delay in application of the payment, rather than about acceptance and rejection of the application of the payment?
That must have been a false construction for the sake of an argument.

God is not in the business of compounding sin with his own saving blood.

All the condemned are guilty by unbelief which denies the blood.

 

[zoidar]

When did it become about delay in application of the payment, rather than about acceptance and rejection of the application of the payment?
That must have been a false construction for the sake of an argument.

God is not in the business of compounding sin with his own saving blood.

How is it a false construction?

All the condemned are guilty by unbelief which denies the blood.

That part we agree on.

But I do intend to answer how universal atonement doesn't have to mean double payment.

 

[Clare73]

How is it a false construction?

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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