But because they are not among the Elect, the point is pointless. Or that's how I see it. OF COURSE atonement is limited if Election is true.
Exactly.
So why use the term limited atonement when there are so very many misunderstandings of it? Just going for a moment from what is being said about my understanding on this thread - we can see how these things are misunderstood.(I'm not admitting to any misunderstanding - just using me as a an example.)
I have been a Christian for close to 60 years and most of them have been with a Reformed background. Not bragging, just saying - I have a huge library of Reformed material. Systematic theology is my passion. I listen to a sermon or teaching on MP3 from the Reformed viewpoint on average of several hrs. a week. have been a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church for a long time.
Most of my family and many of my friends are not Calvinists and I take heat constantly for it and defend it often. etc. etc.
All that to say this. If, as you say, I do not understand limited atonement rightly, how much more must most other Christians misunderstand it?
Since, as you say, atonement is limited automatically if election is true - why add all of the angst and misunderstanding associated with the term when all of the other points result in basically the same thing?
It's not like the term limited atonement is inexorably linked to the Westminster or anything such as that. The T.U.L.I.P. acronym has been a fairly recent development. Usually said to date from somewhere in the first half of the 20th century.
If people like myself can't understand it correctly (you say) and virtually every Arminian misunderstands it and bristles at it's mention and shuts off any further attempt to share the doctrines of grace - why do that to ourselves as Reformed types? The bases are covered already just by explaining the other points of grace (which are to my way of thinking much more defensible).
The point I am making is that there is no need to cause this kind of stumbling block.
And - by the way - I understand most of the ways of understanding limited atonement pretty well. And there is a very, very big difference from one person saying that it only has to do with the "intent" of the cross - and someone saying that Christ did not die for everyone in the world.
You or someone else may give me your definition of limited atonement and I may agree fully (as in the ultimate intent of the cross etc.). I am a firm believer in the absolute sovereignty of God. I believe that every single thing that happens has been predestined by God.
Everything that happens in the history of this world will be according to His "intent".
Someone else (right here in this thread) will explain limited atonement by saying that Christ did not die for everyone, He only bore the sins of His sheep, His death was not for the whole world, sheep were on the radar at Calvary and not goats. On and on it goes - you know it does. If one says those things as an explanation of the range of the sacrifice of Christ - I will object most clearly as I have here.
This reminds me a great deal of what we hear all the time concerning who is and who is not "really" Reformed.
Someone will say - "Oh, you are misunderstanding the meaning of limited atonement." And they will say that right after I've received reply after reply and read thread after thread concerning the meaning of "the whole world" and that Christ didn't die for everyone etc.
I KNOW VERY CLEARLY EXACTLY HOW THE RANK AND FILE IN CALVINISM (WHETHER TEACHER OR LAYMAN) EXPLAIN LIMITED ATONEMENT. IT'S AROUND HERE IN THE FORUM FOR ALL TO SEE. IT IS THAT EXPLANATION THAT I AM REFUTING.
I AM REFUTING THE IDEA THAT CHRIST
COULD NOT HAVE DIED FOR EVERYONE OR ELSE EVERYONE WOULD BE IN HEAVEN. I can think of several ways that that could be. Therefore that logic is flawed and unnecessary to believe IMO.