Limited Atonement and it's faults

[Xeno.of.athens]

So the answer to my question is, yes it is the POV of the RCC? I expect then too, this is your POV too?

Yes (in the 18th century English church) then no.

 

[Clare73]

When you and I began exchanges, you were quoting from what I took to be Catholic Authoritative sources of Doctrine. I liked much of it, but now and then saw in your answers a little ambivalence, and from Catholic practices sometimes considerable ambivalence. Perhaps you remember me mentioning the balancing on the fence rail and even attempts to straddle both sides. I don't like the "sort of"-type notions that present. I thought I made that very clear from the beginning. Then you went to the extent of even ascribing heresy and so on, concerning certain precepts of Calvinism to which I also held (at least, I took it that it was from you —perhaps I was mistaken. I do recall someone saying something to the effect that if they had more authority they would call what I had said heresy—I am sorry, if that was not you.).

For a while after that, as I remember, I began avoiding exchanges with you for the most part, as they would seem to me unproductive. Now I have begun again as I see the need for correction concerning the truth, as you have begun multiple threads presenting opposition, even condemnation, to things I believe; and, of course, and as usual, I can't seem to help chiming in when @Clare73 is around.

And thank you for that! . . .I find it most helpful.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

For a while after that, as I remember, I began avoiding exchanges with you for the most part, as they would seem to me unproductive.

My view is similar but more extended. You may not have noticed; I have largely stopped posting in CH.

 

[Hawkins]

Did you not just deny the text of Mt 22:14 (and 1 Pe 1:2, where whomever the Father chooses/elects, the Spirit sanctifies and the Son sprinkles; i.e., election, salvation and sanctification are the sovereign work of the Trinity)?

No I didn't, In contrary it's you who deny the meaning of many are called but few are chosen. You literally advocate that God called many but with an empty promise that Jesus didn't die for those who are called.

God wishes all are saved. He thus died for all even though His foreknowledge nevre failed, but lawfully He can save all if all believed. He didn't die only for HIs Elect but called the many He didn't die for, though at the end He knows that only His sheep will be saved.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God's Grace lawfully covers whoever, not just the few.

 

[Clare73]

No I didn't, In contrary it's you who deny the meaning of many are called but few are chosen. You literally advocate that God called many but with an empty promise that Jesus didn't die for those who are called.

I have not asserted limited atonement.

God wishes all are saved. He thus died for all even though His foreknowledge nevre failed, but lawfully He can save all if all believed. He didn't die only for HIs Elect but called the many He didn't die for, though at the end He knows that only His sheep will be saved.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God's Grace lawfully covers whoever, not just the few.

My Bible says "whoever believes". . .and that's not everybody.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My Bible says "whoever believes". . .and that's not everybody.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that all who believe in him may not perish, but may have eternal life.​

John 3:16

The invitation is for all.

 

[Clare73]

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that all who believe in him may not perish, but may have eternal life.​

John 3:16

The invitation is for all.

"Whoever believes" is not all. . .conditions, by definition, exclude some. . .that grammar is not up for debate.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Whoever believes" is not all. . .conditions, by definition, exclude some. . .that grammar is not up for debate.

That, @Clare73, is equivocation. It is the invitation that is for all, the acceptance of it is not the same thing.

 

[Cassian]

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that all who believe in him may not perish, but may have eternal life.​

John 3:16

The invitation is for all.

Many are addressing who and how many will believe. How many believe has no effect upon the atonement of Christ. It was completed 2000 years ago. It was a sacrifice for sin. A one-time sacrifice sufficient for any and all sin. Whether only one believes or billions has no effect on that sacrifice.
Christ's atonement was universal and it was completed for God. It was Christ reconciling the world to God.

 

[Clare73]

That, @Clare73, is equivocation. It is the invitation that is for all, the acceptance of it is not the same thing.

One man's equivocation is another's man's adherence to the text.

 

[zoidar]

Effective for all who come to Christ. That is, the elect. None others will come to Christ.

The terminology is generally in words to the effect that Christ's death is, "available to (or even 'sufficient for') all people, effective only for the elect".

From what I understand, Calvinists and the Reformed generally have no problem with the terminology of "sufficient for all" and many of them have no problem with "offered to all"; some even insist that it is offered to all.

As far as I know, yes, all are invited.

Here the term "grace" is stated as a general principle. Calvinism/Reformed also hold to resistible grace, but that there is an irresistible grace in God's gift of his Spirit, to indwell the person, directly causing regeneration of the person.

It would sound more realistic to say that the Catholic Church holds that Christ's sacrifice was intended for all people, and not just the elect. Here you are implying that Calvinism does not teach the "sufficiency" of the atonement for all. That, to many Calvinists, is not the truth. Likewise, though perhaps not the same extent of insistence or applicability, the notion of God desiring the salvation of all, is dealt with by some Calvinists as a secondary desire —a wish, not a will, in the sense some take it.


Now, can you show how the RCatholic view does not limit God's atonement, when it claims he paid for the sins of all, yet some end up paying their own anyway?

How is Jesus death available to (or sufficient for) all if he didn't take the punishment for their sins? How does anything change by the fact that Christ could have been punished for their sins, when he in fact wasn't? I have never understood that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How is Jesus death available to (or sufficient for) all if he didn't take the punishment for their sins? How does anything change by the fact that Christ could have been punished for their sins, when he in fact wasn't? I have never understood that.

Just as obedience is available to all. But they can not, because they WILL not to. Always. It is who they are. And so were we all, but for the Irresistible Grace of God. Regeneration by the gift of the Spirit of God. My will has been changed.

But if they would turn to him, which they will not, their sins would already have been paid for at the cross. Why should anything change? I don't get your statement, there.

But if it at least helps you understand the way I see the statement, ('sufficient, but not efficient for all'), I say that God's power was enough that if Christ had died for absolutely all, they would have been forgiven. Christ's sacrifice was therefore sufficient, but it did not actually acquire salvation for anyone but those who actually are saved.

 

[Clare73]

How is Jesus death available to (or sufficient for) all if he didn't take the punishment for their sins? How does anything change by the fact that Christ could have been punished for their sins, when he in fact wasn't? I have never understood that.

Let's reverse the pattern for a while, and I will explain for Mark.

It's a problem of justice, paying the same debt twice.

If Jesus paid for the sin of all men, and unbelievers likewise have to pay again in damnation for their sin, that makes God unjust, requiring two payments of the same debt.

Take it from here, Mark.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's a problem of justice, paying the same debt twice.

All a book keeping exercise is it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

All a booking exercise is it?

You really think that's a fair remark?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You really think that's a fair remark?

Yes; the way it was discussed made it all about debt payment and double payment.

PS: there was a typo in the post. It was intended to say "It's all a book keeping exercise, is it?"

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes; the way it was discussed made it all about debt payment and double payment.

There's a whole world of WHY he did it. @Clare73 is not neglecting it, in discussing WHAT he did.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There's a whole world of WHY he did it. @Clare73 is not neglecting it, in discussing WHAT he did.

By "he" do you mean the Lord, Jesus Christ?

 

[zoidar]

Just as obedience is available to all. But they can not, because they WILL not to. Always. It is who they are. And so were we all, but for the Irresistible Grace of God. Regeneration by the gift of the Spirit of God. My will has been changed.

But if they would turn to him, which they will not, their sins would already have been paid for at the cross. Why should anything change? I don't get your statement, there.

But if it at least helps you understand the way I see the statement, ('sufficient, but not efficient for all'), I say that God's power was enough that if Christ had died for absolutely all, they would have been forgiven. Christ's sacrifice was therefore sufficient, but it did not actually acquire salvation for anyone but those who actually are saved.

Dad makes breakfast and asks his son if he wants to come and have breakfast? His son says "no". It does not matter if his son says "yes" or "no" the breakfast is still available. It's there on the table. That's obedience.

Dad doesn't make breakfast since he knows his son will say "no", then he asks if his son wants to come for breakfast. His son replies "No, thank you!". Is the breakfast available for his son this morning? We can't say it is, can we? It's not even made, how can we say it's available? But if his son would say "yes", it would be a breakfast to be available. That's particular atonement.

That's the logic I get from your argument, that atonement is available for a person if he says "yes" and not available for those who say "no". So, no, I would say it's a false claim to say the atonement is available for all, since it's not available to those God knows will say "no". Sure, if they would say "yes" it would be available, but since they don't it's not available.

So the difference is that in one case the atonement is available and in the other case the atonement would be available.

 

[zoidar]

Let's reverse the pattern for a while, and I will explain for Mark.

It's a problem of justice, paying the same debt twice.

I agree that view has its own problems. But that has not much to do with me, since I don't hold that view

If Jesus paid for the sin of all men, and unbelievers likewise have to pay again in damnation for their sin, that makes God unjust, requiring two payments of the same debt.

Take it from here, Mark.