Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Xeno.of.athens]

the Greek texts provided there.

Fact check: no Greek text was supplied.

 

[zoidar]

John Piper has his own POV. I don't pretend to hold to the words he uses, nor, necessarily, to agree with what he means, (nor, always, to understand him, haha!).

"Dying FOR the reprobate" can mean several things, but I don't say that atonement was made for them, but for the one way —the same way as atonement was made in the Old Testament for those who ended up condemned anyway. I don't think their sins were actually forgiven them, by the sacrificial system, but they went through the motions.

This may be a reasonably good place to mention something I want to know more about. Rather obviously, not all sin is forgiven the reprobate, if any (I say, none—but that's beside the point). But there is something to the universal fact of Christ restoring the creation to God. I, of course, disagree completely with universalism, but there is something to the death of death, in what Christ accomplished, that I don't think is totally outside the scope of temporal human understanding. Might be fun to start a thread on the question, but I'm afraid of having to deal with all the universalist's use of the matter.

Yes, it's an interesting topic!

 

[Clare73]

Fact check: no Greek text was supplied.

This is not Xeno.

True. . .several translations were supplied for you to check against the translation that you employed, which contained some significant variances.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

True. . .several translations were supplied for you to check against the translation that you employed, which contained some significant variances.

While this is correct it is also of minor significance.

 

[Clare73]

While this is correct it is also of minor significance.

As in the "fact check" to which it responds?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

As in the "fact check" to which it responds?

yes, it is similar but not the same. Both are, however, of minor significance.

 

[Clare73]

yes, it is similar but not the same. Both are, however, of minor significance.

This is not Xeno. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would it have to do with everything aging and dying now, "suffering" diseases, etc.?
Sorta' leaves plain minerals out of the equation. . .

I don't know.

John Owen is probably my favorite author, and he wrote, The Death of Death In the Death of Christ, and it is a fantastic treatment on Limited Atonement and bears on several related subjects, but it left me unsatisfied as to what I want to understand. What, exactly, happened, when Christ restored creation to God? I see the beautiful fact of the power of God, that to any sane temporal mind appears to have "risked" the loss of everything, but Christ secured its redemption. Satan thought he owned it all, or so it seems to me.

The universalist rightly presents all humanity as equally worthy (or unworthy) of God's grace. But that doesn't mean that God is not particular, (and I don't mean particular in the common meaning —that 'he chooses the best'— but in the plain meaning —that he chooses those he made for the purpose— ), whom he saves for his own.

But this subject, though related, is not about that, exactly, (I think), but about the larger context of God's creation and the open wound gashed in it by the defect in creation's purity, which is only by the power of God kept from ruining the whole business. I have been convinced, and there's no real point in me telling anyone just how, that sin is the antithesis to very creation, and the will of God, and the decree of God, and the purposes of God; sin has exalted itself against God, because it "thinks" it has antithetical power against God, but it does not, though God played its game, and beat it at its own game, by the Death of Death, in the Death of Christ.

Anyhow, that's an expression of how I think of it, but I don't understand it, and there is more to it, I'm sure —a lot more. Maybe it's one of those things that when we get to Heaven we will smack our foreheads and say, "There is was, right in front of us the whole time!"

 

[Mark Quayle]

My take on what the discussion seems to be about is not really the atonement that Christ did but more about atonement of man which I don't understand how one can get this from scripture. It also has all the undertones of the satisfaction theory of atonement.
First. Christ did not forgive any sins on the Cross.
Christ performed two things by His death and resurrection. He overcame death and performed a sacrifice for sin. That comprises the atonement of Christ. He defeated the two powers of Satan , death and sin, as well as Satan himself. Heb 2:14-15 which also addresses His Incarnation. He is the Savior of the world - I John 4:14.
This atonement was to God. It was not to man. Col 1:16-20 He was reconciling the world to God, all things. II Cor 5:18-19 makes the very same statement. Then we have texts that refer to one aspect of His Atonement. Like Heb 2:9, He tasted death for all men. And I John 2:2 he propitiated (cover) all sin. That is why Christ's atonement was universal.
Therefore His death/esurrection provided for an eternal existence and the forgiveness of sin.

Here you alude to the aspect of Christ overcoming death. That He reconciled, redeemed recapitulated the world. There are many texts that address this. This is the primary work of the atonement. Without overcoming death, forgiveness of sins means nothing. This is referenced in I Cor 15:12-22. Vs 16-19 particularlly and the summary of overcoming death and given life is summed in vs 20-22 as well as Rom 5:18.
Your fear of Universalism may be based on misunderstanding from what I understand of Universalism. They do not believe all men are "saved in this life. Many will go to hell. However, they believe hell is a temporary, correctional time and eventually all men will be saved. which is not scrriptural either.

Thank you for your answers and your insights. But I'm afraid they only touch on what I want to know. They don't answer it.

You misunderstand me a couple of different ways.

Starting from the last, I do not fear Universalism because of what they believe nor because of their arguments. I fear it because it is wasted time, wasted effort, a lot of weeds to rip out. I fear having to answer them, not because they have substance, but because I am tired of them. (BTW, I love one, even two, universalists I know, one of whom I respect because he sees some of the well-accepted hermeneutic principles as defective that I also see that same way (yet we both come up with what we do, haha!).)

I do not say that Christ forgave our sins. Rather, I say, as Scripture says, that "God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven [us]".

But I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I'm saying there's a lot more meat to it than what I hear you saying, though no doubt it is related. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts, and I will read it more than the three times I already have.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never implied that everyone’s sins have been forgiven, they have simply been paid for. Let’s say that a neighbor comes to your house and smashes your car windshield with a crowbar, then his father says he’ll pay for the damage. The debt has been paid but the person who did the damage has never made amends or even apologized for it. There’s no reason to forgive the guy who smashed the window because he hasn’t done anything to right what he did nor has he even shown any remorse for doing it. In this case even tho the debt was paid the one who committing the crime is undeserving of forgiveness because he hasn’t apologized for what he did or even acknowledge that what he did was wrong.

So what definition of the word “for” do you think is being used here?

And I’ve never implied that a second payment for sin is required.

I find it rather amazing that anyone would liken the debt of rebellion against God to the smashing of a windshield. Sorry, but no. But I'll try to play along so you'll get my point. The debt is more than the cost of repair/replacement. They have personally offended you. The money is only a small part of what they did wrong.

You also say, "...I’ve never implied that a second payment for sin is required." I can't keep up with just who says what. Are you one of those who says that in Hell, nobody pays for their sins, except for the sin of rejecting Christ's death on their behalf? Or what is your reasoning, if not that?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why all this egg talk? It isn't clarifying the meaning of any verses.

How about you explain your understanding of these words, "Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"

I'm sorry. That sounds rather self-explanatory to me. Maybe, because of false teaching, certain notions drawn on those words need dealt with.

But YOU brought it up. What do you think it means? Maybe we can head some of this off at the pass.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm sorry. That sounds rather self-explanatory to me. Maybe, because of false teaching, certain notions drawn on those words need dealt with.

But YOU brought it up. What do you think it means? Maybe we can head some of this off at the pass.

"Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"
Suffering for the unrighteous makes me wonder who that might be.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"
Suffering for the unrighteous makes me wonder who that might be.

Seems to me to be presenting a principle, of the cause and purpose of Christ's suffering, regardless of the particular atonement theology one holds. The "us" are apparently the ones being referred to as the unrighteous, brought to God. He suffered "once for all" (to bring another passage to bear), he being righteous, for us, the unrighteous. I would assume, without more study, that "us" is referring to those he is addressing in his letter —believers.

What is curious is that this is brought to bear on Peter's exhortations concerning suffering for doing what is right, and the virtues of a clear conscience, and several other things; the context does not appear immediately doctrinally instructive, yet here is a doctrinal insertion into the logic of his exhortation.

 

[zoidar]

"Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"
Suffering for the unrighteous makes me wonder who that might be.

Isn't the meaning that Christ suffered death for the unrighteous (unbelievers/sinners), that he might bring those sinners who believe in him to God (make them righteous)?

 

[Cassian]

But I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I'm saying there's a lot more meat to it than what I hear you saying, though no doubt it is related. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts, and I will read it more than the three times I already have.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "a lot more meat"?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Isn't the meaning that Christ suffered death for the unrighteous (unbelievers/sinners), that he might bring those sinners who believe in him to God (make them righteous)?

It struck me, in keeping with the topic, that the unrighteous might mean everyone who is not righteous. Is that not the same - or at least very close to the same - as saying that Christ died for all?

 

[Clare73]

I don't know.

John Owen is probably my favorite author, and he wrote, The Death of Death In the Death of Christ, and it is a fantastic treatment on Limited Atonement and bears on several related subjects, but it left me unsatisfied as to what I want to understand. What, exactly, happened, when Christ restored creation to God?

Past tense. . .are you saying it has been restored?

I see the beautiful fact of the power of God, that to any sane temporal mind appears to have "risked" the loss of everything, but Christ secured its redemption. Satan thought he owned it all, or so it seems to me.

The universalist rightly presents all humanity as equally worthy (or unworthy) of God's grace. But that doesn't mean that God is not particular, (and I don't mean particular in the common meaning —that 'he chooses the best'— but in the plain meaning —that he chooses those he made for the purpose— ), whom he saves for his own.

But this subject, though related, is not about that, exactly, (I think), but about the larger context of God's creation and the open wound gashed in it by the defect in creation's purity, which is only by the power of God kept from ruining the whole business. I have been convinced, and there's no real point in me telling anyone just how, that sin is the antithesis to very creation, and the will of God, and the decree of God, and the purposes of God; sin has exalted itself against God, because it "thinks" it has antithetical power against God, but it does not, though God played its game, and beat it at its own game, by the Death of Death, in the Death of Christ.

Anyhow, that's an expression of how I think of it, but I don't understand it, and there is more to it, I'm sure —a lot more. Maybe it's one of those things that when we get to Heaven we will smack our foreheads and say, "There is was, right in front of us the whole time!"

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This is not Xeno. . .

What do you mean?

 

[zoidar]

It struck me, in keeping with the topic, that the unrighteous might mean everyone who is not righteous. Is that not the same - or at least very close to the same - as saying that Christ died for all?

I think so... though some might say it means the elect unrighteous.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Interestingly enough, virtually everybody who believes in the Nicene Creed, which would include all Christians here at CF believes in a form of limited atonement. Only universalists believe in a truly unlimited atonement where Jesus Christ has, indeed, secured the salvation of people without any conditions. The problem seems to come as to who places limits on the atonement. Monergists (aka Calvinists) squarely and forthrightly believe that God has elected His people from eternity past. Therefore, the atonement is only efficient for the elect, although some might contend that it is sufficient for all of mankind. Synergists (aka Arminians) squarely and forthrightly believe that mankind, through the exercise of individual free will, determines the precise limits of the atonement.

One area in which both agree is that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved. That, of course, leaves out the vast majority of mankind who will have never even heard the name of Jesus Christ, much less have had an opportunity to believe in Him. Thus, the atonement is radically limited, even as God's grace at the Flood was radically limited to only eight humans.