Limited Atonement

[Cherub8]

When I share my beliefs with Arminian friends and family, they act as if I'm part of a cult, or that I'm some kind of heretic. But perhaps that is because I am not explaining my beliefs as well as I could. One of these is Limited Atonement. Would I be correct in defining limited atonement as:

Sufficient for All, but Intended for a Few.

I can't understand why Limited Atonement is so offensive to Arminians. One of my cousins believes in the other 4 points of TULIP, including Unconditional Election, but he rejects Limited Atonement and considers it 'cultish.'

Am I taking this from the wrong approach?

 

[tigersnare]

I would like some help with this as well.

I think it bites into most of Western Christianity's idea of a warm and fuzzy, only loving, God. The most reoccuring phrase I hear from Arminians and non christians alike is...A Loving God would not do that.

I wish more peole read the Old Testament, for me it really clarified alot more of God's character then strictly reading the new testament.

I guess my only defense to their objection is this....did Christ really die for those who he would not save? Can an all powerful God really not secure the salvation of his people?

 

[cygnusx1]

This should help clarify ...........

​

​

​

THE CALVINISM OF CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON: LIMITED ATONEMENT OR PARTICULAR REDEMPTION
​

By Colin Maxwell
​

Click here for what Spurgeon said about Arminians and Arminianism

Click here to access what Spurgeon said of Calvin and the Calvinists
​

​

Spurgeon described himself as a staunch Calvinist. Going through his sermons and other writings, I have gleaned the following summaries of what he said about this system of doctrine. On other pages, I am in the process of setting out what the great man said about Calvinism as a whole, each of the five points in particular and Arminianism.

It would simply be too great a task to give you the full quote or even every last reference to any one subject. You are encouraged to consult his sermon volumes etc., and check out every reference for yourself e.g. its context etc., My task is MOMENTOUS and will take some time but will prove interesting. Read what this great man - whose praise is in all the churches as a model preacher, evangelist, soulwinner etc., - says about Calvinism and contrast it with what its sworn enemies have to say. Having read many an anti Calvinist booklet, sermon or web site…I THINK I'LL STICK WITH SPURGEON.

WHAT SPURGEON SAID ABOUT LIMITED ATONEMENT
​

The reference system is simply volume and page number i.e. the first reference is to Volume 1 page 100. This is the easiest and quickest way.
​

Note: An early survey of Spurgeon's sermons on limited atonement or particular redemption show that he rejected the idea of an unlimited or general atonement i.e. that Christ died for both elect and non elect alike without any distinction. Since he usually spoke at length on this subject and generally repeated his views, we will forbear from giving every last quote. We will analyse his rejection of universal atonement as follows, along with a clarifying reference and then include later on some of his shorter quotes on the great subject if they say something other than those analysed below.
​

1) IT EFFECTIVELY MEANS THAT CHRIST WAS FRUSTRATED IN WHAT CHRIST SET OUT TO DO i.e. HE FAILED IN HIS ATTEMPT TO REDEEM MANY PEOPLE FOR WHOM HE SHED HIS BLOOD:
​

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]"Many divines say that Christ did something when he died that enabled God to be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for he died for them all, they say; and yet so ineffectual was his dying for them, that though he died for them they are damned afterwards. Now, such an atonement I despise — I reject it." (4:121 )

I cannot therefore imagine, since Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that in his atonement and redemption, his real intention and desire can in any way be frustrated. If I were a Socinian and believed Jesus Christ to be a mere man, I could of course imagine, that the result of his redemption would be uncertain; but believing that Jesus Christ was very God of very God, equal and co-eternal with the Father, I dare not, lest I should be guilty of presumption and blasphemy, associate with that name of Jehovah Jesus any suspicion that the design of his death shall remain unaccomplished.(4:550-551)

I might use a hundred other arguments. I might show that every attribute of Christ declares that his purpose must be accomplished. He certainly has love enough to accomplish his design of saving the lost, for he has a love that is bottomless and fathomless, even as the abyss itself. He certainly has no objection to the accomplishment of his own design, for "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, but had rather that he should turn unto me and live." And certainly the Lord cannot fail for want of power, for where we have omnipotence there can be no deficiency of strength. Nor again, can the design be unaccomplished because it was unwise, for God’s designs cannot be unwise, simply because they are of God — that is to say — they are of infinite wisdom. I cannot see anything in the character of Christ, nor anything the wide world over, that can for one moment make me imagine that Christ should die, and yet it should be said afterwards, "This man died for a purpose which he never lived to see accomplished: the object of his death was only partially fulfilled; he saw of the travail of his soul, but he was not satisfied, for he did not redeem all whom he intended to redeem."(4:552)

[/font]

2) THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST SHOULD NOT BE TOTALLY DEPENDENT UPON THE WILL OF MAN TO MAKE IT EFFECTUAL:
​

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ’s atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself — no not under the gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by good works. (4:121)

[/font]

3) IT MAKES GOD UNJUST BECAUSE HE WILL PUNISH PEOPLE FOR SINS FOR WHICH CHRIST HAS ALREADY PAID THE PRICE:
​

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]I have always believed that Christ was punished instead of men. Now, if he were punished in the stead of all men, I could see no justice in God punishing men again after having punished Christ for them. I hold and believe — and, I think, on Scriptural authority, that Jesus Christ died for all those who believe or will believe; and he was punished in the stead of all those who feel their need of a Saviour, and lay hold on him. The rest reject him, despise him, sin against God, and are punished for their sins. But those who are redeemed, having been blood-bought, shall not be lost. Christ’s blood is too precious to have been shed for men who are damned. It is too awful a thing to think of the Saviour standing in a sinner’s stead, and then that sinner after all having to bear his own iniquities; I can never indulge a thought which appears to be so unrighteous to God, and so unsafe to men. All that the Saviour bought he shall have, all that his heavenly Father hath given him, he says, shall come unto him."(3:545-546)

Once again, if it were Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been disappointed! for we have his own evidence that there is a lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit must be cast some of the very persons, who according to that theory, were bought with his blood. That seems to me a thousand times more frightful than any of those horrors, which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men in hell seems a supposition too horrible for me to imagine: that he was the substitute for the sons of men, and that God having first punished the substitute punished men again, seems to me to conflict with any idea of justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of men, and that afterwards those very men should be punished for the sins which Christ had already atoned for, seems to me, to be the most marvellous monstrosity that ever could have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, ay, to the god of the Thugs, or the most diabolical heathen demons. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise.(4:553)

[/font]

4) IT AFFORDS NO ASSURANCE TO THE BELIEVER
​

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]And, mark, here is something substantial. The Arminian says Christ died for him; and then, poor man, he has but small consolation therefrom, for he says, "Ah! Christ died for me; that does not prove much. It only proves I may be saved if I mind what I am after. I may perhaps forget myself; I may run into sin, and I may perish. Christ has done a good deal for me, but not quite enough, unless I do something." But the man who receives the Bible as it is, he says, "Christ died for me, then my eternal life is sure. I know," says he, "that Christ cannot be punished in a man’s stead, and the man be punished afterwards." "No," says he, "I believe in a just God, and if God be just, he will not punish Christ first, and then punish men afterwards. No; my Saviour died, and now I am free from every demand of God’s vengeance, and I can walk through this world secure; no thunderbolt can smite me, and I can die absolutely certain that for me there is no flame of hell, and no pit digged; for Christ my ransom suffered in my stead, and, therefore, am I clean delivered." Oh! Glorious doctrine! I would wish to die preaching it! What better testimony can we bear to the love and faithfulness of God than the testimony of a substitution eminently satisfactory for all them that believe on Christ? (4:121-122)

[/font]

5) UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT ACTUALLY LIMITS THE ATONEMENT - ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY IN A DIFFERENT WAY TO THAT IMPLIED IN THE PARTICULAR REDEMPTION OF THE CALVINIST:
​

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question — Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer " No." They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say "No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if" — and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will just go back to the old statement — Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did he? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody, We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it. We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way, it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream."(4:228)

[/font]

6) HE BELIEVED INSTEAD IN AN ATONEMENT WHICH SAVES EVERYBODY IT ATONED FOR:
​

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. (4:230)
​

[/font]

7) HE COULD STILL BELIEVE IN PARTICULAR REDEMPTION AND OFFER ASSURANCE OF SALVATION TO EVERY ANXIOUS SINNER:
​

[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Leaving controversy, however, I will now answer a question. Tell me then, sir, who did Christ die for? Will you answer me a question or two and I will tell you whether he died for you. Do you want a Saviour? Do you feel that you need a Saviour? Are you this morning conscious of sin? Has the Holy Spirit taught you that you are lost? Then Christ died for you, and you will be saved. Are you this morning conscious that you have no hope in world but Christ? Do you feel that you of yourself cannot offer an atonement that can satisfy God’s justice? Have you given up all confidence in yourselves? And can you say upon your bended knees "Lord, save, or I perish?" Christ died for you. If you are saying this morning "I am as good as I ought to be; I can get to heaven by my own good works," then, remember, the Scripture says of Jesus, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." So long as you are in that state I have no atonement to preach to you. But if this morning you feel guilty, wretched, conscious of your guilt, and are ready to take Christ to be your only Saviour, I can not only say to you that you may be saved, but what is better still, that you will be saved. When you are stripped of everything but hope in Christ, when you are prepared to come empty-handed and take Christ to be your all and to be yourself nothing at all, then you may look up to Christ, and you may say, "Thou dear, thou bleeding Lamb of God! thy grief's were endured for me, by thy stripes I am healed and by thy sufferings I am pardoned." And then see what peace of mind you will have for if Christ has died for you, you cannot be lost. God will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sin, he will never punish you. "Payment, God’s justice cannot twice demand, first, at the bleeding surety’s hand, and then again at mine."(4:230)

[/font][font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

OTHER STATEMENTS:
​

[/font]Gospel not preached unless based upon particular redemption (1:100) "[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]I am no general redemptionist, I believe Jesus Christ died for as many as will be saved; I do not believe he died in vain for any man alive." (3:545) Could not see atonement in any theory except that of Substitution as explained by Calvinism. (4:121) Despised the doctrine of unlimited atonement (4:121) Quoted John Owen on Limited Atonement with approval (4:122) Called his last point in sermon on the particular extent of the atonement, "the sweetest of all" (4:229) Told Arminians: You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. (4:230)) Interpretedthe word world in a limited sense (4:230) [/font]CLICK HERE FOR WHOLE SERMON ENTITLED PARTICULAR REDEMPTION [font=TimesNewRoman,Bold](Sermon 181 on Matthew 20:28 (4:218) Thousand more horrors associated with unlimited atonement than with particular redemption (4:553) [/font]CLICK HERE FOR WHOLE SERMON ENTITLED: THE MISSION OF THE SON OF MAN [font=TimesNewRoman,Bold](Sermon 204 on Luke 19:10 (4:547) "Last Lord’s day, I thought by God’s good help I was enabled to persuade some of you that the death of Christ was an argument too potent to be ever denied — an argument for the salvation of all for whom he died." (5:430) Although CHS believed that God had limited the purpose of the atonement to the elect, CHS could put the responsibility of missing the work of the Cross on the sinner with words like these: "Limit not the Holy One of Israel. "But, sir, I am such an old sinner." Yea, but limit not God. "But I am such a black sinner." Limit not the efficacy of the cleansing blood. "But I have aggravated him so much." Limit not his infinite longsuffering. "But my heart is so hard." Limit not the melting power of his grace, "But I am so sinful." Limit not the potency of the atonement." (5:656) CHS said the following week: "And now, my dear hearers, I have one question to ask, and I have done. Have you the hope that you are in the covenant? Have you put your trust in the blood? Remember, though you imagine, perhaps, from what I have been saying, that the gospel is restricted, that the gospel is freely preached to all. The decree is limited, but the good news is as wide as the world. The good spell, the good news, is as wide as the universe. I tell it to every creature under heaven, because I am told to do so. The secret of God, which is to deal with the application, that is restricted to God’s chosen ones, but not the message, for that is to be proclaimed to all nations."(5:671)CHS uses strong words: "But art thou a proud, boastful, free-willer, saying, "I will repent and believe whenever I choose; I have as good a right to be saved as anybody, for I do my duty as well as others, and I shall doubtless get my reward" — if you are claiming a universal atonement, which is to be received at the option of man’s will, go and claim it, and you will be disappointed in your claim. You will find God will not deal with you on that ground at all, but will say, "Get thee hence, I never knew thee. He that cometh not to me through the Son cometh not at all." I believe the man who is not willing to submit to the electing love and sovereign grace of God, has great reason to question whether he is a Christian at all, for the spirit that kicks against that is the spirit of the devil, and the spirit of the unhumbled, unrenewed heart. (5:672) Answers the man who opposed particular redemption with arguments hammered out on his own anvil (5:103) Some who opposed particular redemption own fallacious and rotten redemptions (5:121) Spoke of those who once opposed this doctrine but now believe it (4:397) There are others of us who hold what is called the doctrine of particular redemption. We conceive that the blood of Christ was of an infinite value, but that the intention of the death of Christ never was the salvation of all men; for if Christ had designed the salvation of all men, we hold that all men would have been saved. We believe that the intention of Christ’s death is just equal to its effects, and therefore I start this morning by announcing what I regard to be a self-evident truth, that whatever was the intention of Jesus Christ in coming into the world, that intention most certainly shall be fulfilled. (4:549) Limit not the potency of the atonement (5:656) Described the Arminian view of the atonement of "haphazard redemption" as dry meat and wondered not that the Arminian could not find peace (6:207) I never have subscribed — I think I never shall — to the doctrine of universal redemption. I believe in the limitless efficacy of the blood of Christ. I would not say, with some of the early Fathers, that a single drop of Christ’s blood would have been sufficient for the redemption of the world. That seems to me to be an expression too strained, though doubtless their meaning was correct. I believe that there is efficacy enough in the blood of Christ if it be applied to the conscience to save any man and every man. But when I come to the matter of redemption it seems to me that whatever Christ’s design was in dying, that design cannot be frustrated, nor by any means disappointed. When I look at the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, I cannot imagine that such an One, offering such a sacrifice, can ever be disappointed of the design of his soul. Hence I think that all whom he came on purpose to save he will save, all who were graven on the strong affections of his heart as the purchase of his blood he assuredly shall have. All that his heavenly Father gave him shall come to him. All that he chose from before the foundation of the world, he will raise up at the last day. All who were included among the members of his mystic body, when he was nailed to the tree, shall be one with him in his glorious resurrection, and "not a hoof shall be left behind." I know there are some who believe in a disappointed Christ, who affect to lament concerning Christ a design not accomplished, a frustrated cross, agonies spent in vain, blood that was poured out on the ground as water that cannot be gathered up. I believe in no such thing. God createth nothing in vain, nor will I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross in vain in any sense or in any degree whatever. Not a hoof of all his purchased flock shall be left behind.(6:328-329) Christ never did make atonement for those who die as unbelievers or bought them with his blood (7:48) Considered the Arminian notion as a "dreamy atonement" (7:382) CHS traces how free will Arminianism casts a shadow upon the atonement: Hence if man be, as we aver he always is, if he be a bond-slave as to his will, and will not yield to the invitation of God’s grace, then in such a case the atonement of Christ would be valueless, useless, and altogether in vain, for not a soul would be saved by it; and even when souls are saved by it, according to that theory, the efficacy, I say, lies not in the blood itself, but in the will of man which gives it efficacy. Redemption is therefore made contingent; the cross shakes, the blood falls powerless on the ground, and atonement is a matter of perhaps.(8:233) Evangelistic preaching of the atonement - every sinner may say - "Why not for me?" (8:298) Answers one who supposed that particular redemption was not for him (8:868)

[/font]




</SPAN>geovisit();

 

[frumanchu]

When I share my beliefs with Arminian friends and family, they act as if I'm part of a cult, or that I'm some kind of heretic. But perhaps that is because I am not explaining my beliefs as well as I could. One of these is Limited Atonement. Would I be correct in defining limited atonement as:

Sufficient for All, but Intended for a Few.

I can't understand why Limited Atonement is so offensive to Arminians. One of my cousins believes in the other 4 points of TULIP, including Unconditional Election, but he rejects Limited Atonement and considers it 'cultish.'

Am I taking this from the wrong approach?

Well, I would first recommend that they too believe in a limited atonement.

Unless they are Universalists and believe all people go to Heaven, they must believe the atonement is limited in some manner. So the question becomes, HOW is it limited?

The distinction you've provided (sufficient for all, efficient for believers) merely serves to distinguish us from Universalists (who would argue 'sufficient for all, efficient for all'). The answer to the question is found in the intended purpose of the death of Christ. Did He die to merely make salvation possible without knowing who would actually be saved, or did He die with the specific intent of saving those who believe? Note that this does not yet touch on the Reformed view of election. Being an Arminian, I could hold the same view of the atonement as of election itself: that God foreknew who would believe and elected/died for them and them only.

Jesus is called 'Jesus' because He saves His people from their sins. The Good Shephard lays down His life for the sheep. Involved in Christ's sacrifice was expiation (taking away our sins) and propitiation (satisfaction before God). If Christ actually took upon Himself all sins of all men for all time, and became the propitiation for them satisfying God's just demands, then there is no judicial basis by which any man can be condemned. If it is done for all sins, it must too include the sin of unbelief, and thus even unbelief is not grounds for condemnation.

Whether your friends and family believe in the Reformed view of election or not, unless they are Universalists they do indeed believe in a limited atonement. And unless they believe Christ didn't actually save anyone on the cross, but only potentially saved anyone (with the real possibility that nobody would believe and that His sacrifice would have been in vain), they must believe that Christ died only for those who believe (the elect), regardless of how they understand that faith as coming about.

I'll leave you with some words on the issues from R.C. Sproul:

Our election is in Christ. We are saved by him, in him, and for him. The motive for our salvation is not merely the love God has for us. It is especially grounded in the love the Father has for the Son. God insists that his Son will see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. There never has been the slightest possibility that Christ could have died in vain. If man is truly dead in sin and in bondage to sin, a mere potential or conditional atonement not only may have ended in failure but most certainly would have ended in failure. Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain. They are left with a Christ who tried to save everybody but actually saved nobody.


Sproul, R.C. (1986). Chosen by God. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.




​