Limited atonement

[afishamongmany]

I'm hoping this will be a short one .
I want to keep to "limited atonement" please. If pushed I would call myself, at the moment, a 4.5 calvanist.
Why is limited atonement important as a doctrine?
Surely the important thing is that our Lord's sacrifice is completely efficacious for the salvation of those who are saved?
Whether it's efficacy was/is potentially available for those who perish seems to me to be purely an academic point with no real implications for preaching the gospel and living the life?
This is my understanding of the doctrine:
[SIZE=+1]LIMITED ATONEMENT or Particular Redemption
[/SIZE]
This point says that while Christ's blood--indeed, His entire life, death, and resurrection--is infinitely INTENSIVE in saving power and thus unlimited in one sense, it is not infinitely EXTENSIVE and is thus limited, not universal, in the extent of its application; for while everyone CONDITIONALLY or "provisionally" shares in Christ's life, death, and resurrection (thus, if everyone believed, everyone would be joined or married to Christ), only members of Christ's body or bride or flock (ELECT believers) actually share in His blood.


So is this primarily to counter those who would say that non believers/unregenerated people can benefit (in what way?) from Christ's sacrifice??
><>

 

[Eddie L]

I personally think that it is fair to say that every person born has benefited in some way from the work of Christ. When we're talking about salvation, though, it is important to know that Jesus died to ACTUALLY save people, not just make it possible. He is not an opportunity. He is a SAVIOR.

 

[afishamongmany]

Thanks Eddie,
I agree.
But I'm still unclear why those who formulated the five "points" of Calvanism thought limited atonement was an important enough a doctrine to formulate and make one of the five "points"?
><>

 

[twin1954]

Thanks Eddie,
I agree.
But I'm still unclear why those who formulated the five "points" of Calvanism thought limited atonement was an important enough a doctrine to formulate and make one of the five "points"?
><>

The "Five Points" were a response to the Remonstrants who issued five points in opposition to the Reformed theology of Holland in the 1600's. They were not just dreamed up by theologians.

As to why the doctrine of particular redemption is vital: The whole of the Gospel hinges on how you view the atonement of Christ. If you think that Christ died for all men then you will preach a gospel that reflects that. If you believe that Christ accomplished an atonement and saved some folks you will preach the Gospel in that light.
To make the work of Christ's atoning sacrifice a universal atonement is to destroy the atonement of Christ, destroy the power of God and destroy the love of God.

 

[afishamongmany]

Ok thanks Twin. So can we take this further on?


Where is the problem if one views Christ's atonement as “potentially” sufficient enough to atone for all (in that sense without limit) but limited in “effect” to those predestined by God?
Can the sacrifice of The Son who is one with the infinite and eternal Godhead have any “potential” limit?
Is not the love and power of God still evident to us in His giving of Christ and His choosing and saving those He has chosen?
If I preach, “Repent, believe in Jesus Christ and you will saved.” is that the gospel of someone who understands, or who doesn't understand limited atonement?
One thought more, Aren't limited atonement and particular redemption different things? To me it is clear that not all are redeemed and that those who are, are redeemed by virtue of Christ's atonement. But again, if we are talking of the atonement in and of itself separately from it's “application” to chosen individuals, can we not believe that it is without limit?
Looking for clarity not confrontation.
><>

 

[Clare73]

I personally think that it is fair to say that every person born has benefited in some way from the work of Christ. When we're talking about salvation, though, it is important to know that Jesus died to ACTUALLY save people, not just make it possible. He is not an opportunity. He is a SAVIOR.

 

[R Baker]

It is vital to remember that the 5 points of Calvinism are a cohesive, organic whole. They stand or fall together as one united truth of man's lost and desperate condition and God's condescension of sovereign grace in providing the remedy to those who de-merit it. That is why those who call themselves 4 pointers adhere to an inconsistent theology. The single most point of contention is the one you have brought up.

Both sides of this issue, as you have correctly alluded to, "limit" the atonement. One limits its efficacy the other its extent. The importance of the debate lies primarily in who controls, who is the final determiner, and therefore who is sovereign in salvation. Either Christ's atonement definitely accomplishes and applies the salvation of the elect independent of anything in man or Christ's sacrificial, subtitutionary death was only a plan that made salvation possible if...add what you wish - man's effort, man's good works, man's endurance, man's autonomous, libertarian, (independent) freewill to choose to accept the "offer" of redemption because God would never violate man's freedom to accept or reject the Gospel. You see if man is Totally depraved and God Unconditionally elects someone "according to the kind intention of His will" and Limits the atonement to the elect "chose in Him before the foundation of the world" and Irresistibly draws that elect person only (Jn.6) and sovereignly Preserves (1Pet.1:5) that undeserving, totally dependent, lost sinner without reference to anything in man whatsoever (that is spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" Eph.2:1) then God decides and applies redemption to whom He chooses or man decides to apply to himself God's "plan". No small controversy.

 

[Eddie L]

Ok thanks Twin. So can we take this further on?


Where is the problem if one views Christ's atonement as “potentially” sufficient enough to atone for all (in that sense without limit) but limited in “effect” to those predestined by God?
Can the sacrifice of The Son who is one with the infinite and eternal Godhead have any “potential” limit?
Is not the love and power of God still evident to us in His giving of Christ and His choosing and saving those He has chosen?
If I preach, “Repent, believe in Jesus Christ and you will saved.” is that the gospel of someone who understands, or who doesn't understand limited atonement?
One thought more, Aren't limited atonement and particular redemption different things? To me it is clear that not all are redeemed and that those who are, are redeemed by virtue of Christ's atonement. But again, if we are talking of the atonement in and of itself separately from it's “application” to chosen individuals, can we not believe that it is without limit?
Looking for clarity not confrontation.
><>

There's no limit to the potential of the work of Christ. That isn't what is limited. The INTENT is what is limited, and I believe that's why it is important. Jesus knew your name when He went to the cross, and His purpose was to redeem YOU. He had all of us in mind. His work purchased our rebirth, not some option that was made available to us. He ACTUALLY redeemed on that cross, and though the sufficiency to redeem any number of people is there, He purposed to SAVE real people.

 

[twin1954]

Ok thanks Twin. So can we take this further on?


Where is the problem if one views Christ's atonement as “potentially” sufficient enough to atone for all (in that sense without limit) but limited in “effect” to those predestined by God?

The problem with it is that it is only a theological construct that is based in a hypothetical and not in fact. The atonement was sufficient and efficient to do exactly what it was intended to do. Anything more than that is a pointless compromise in order to appease those who hate the truth. Anything less than that is a destruction of the atonement. Christ lived and died to accomplish the everlasting redemption of all He intended to save. That in no way limits the atonement in efficacy but in scope. If He had intended to save every man then His blood would have been sufficient to do so but that was not His intent. To argue for an unlimited efiicacy but a limited intent is a moot argument.

Can the sacrifice of The Son who is one with the infinite and eternal Godhead have any “potential” limit?

Yes, the intended scope. We don't limit the atonement God did.

Is not the love and power of God still evident to us in His giving of Christ and His choosing and saving those He has chosen?

It is evident if He actually accomplishes the purpose of His love and power. If it is only a "potential" then His great love and omnipotent power is pointless because it cannot accomplish that which it intends to accomplish. Those whom God loves He saves or His love is a uselless emotion. His power is useless as well if He cna't do what He intends to do. If God loves a man but can't save him what has the love of God got to do with the salvation of a sinner?

If I preach, “Repent, believe in Jesus Christ and you will saved.” is that the gospel of someone who understands, or who doesn't understand limited atonement?

It is both. But the one who doesn't understand particular redemption has no basis for the claim.

One thought more, Aren't limited atonement and particular redemption different things? To me it is clear that not all are redeemed and that those who are, are redeemed by virtue of Christ's atonement. But again, if we are talking of the atonement in and of itself separately from it's “application” to chosen individuals, can we not believe that it is without limit?

No they are not different. I dislike the term limited atonement because it gives an unclear idea. But TUPIP just doesn't fit very well. You simply cannot separate the application of the atonement from it power or intent. The atonement covered the sin of someone and that someone is saved.

Looking for clarity not confrontation.
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

Ok folks, sorry to have been so long in coming back on this one.
Thanks to all who have been trying to dispel my fog. It does seem clearer now.

This from Eddie;
“There's no limit to the potential of the work of Christ. That isn't what is limited. The INTENT is what is limited …”

And this from Twin;
“That in no way limits the atonement in efficacy but in scope. If He had intended to save every man then His blood would have been sufficient to do so but that was not His intent. To argue for an unlimited efficacy but a limited intent is a moot argument.”
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]indicate to me that I have misunderstood the essence of this teaching. I have been thinking that the dispute was centered on whether the “potential efficacy” was limited or not and wondered why this should take up our time and energy. But now I see that this is indeed a moot point and not central or of the essence.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Once again thanks.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]><> [/FONT]