Universal Atonement Refuted

[bitwise]

1. All for whom Christ died will be saved.
2. Some will not be saved.
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for all.

-bit

 

[Raz]

c'mon!

Christ's death didn't actually save anybody; it just gave everyone a possibility of being saved. In other words, it kinda helped everybody out a little bit. Kinda like.........Geico. He didn't pay a debt; He just helped lower everyone's premiums a little.

Geez! Don't you read scripture?!?

 

[BBAS 64]

c'mon!

Christ's death didn't actually save anybody; it just gave everyone a possibility of being saved. In other words, it kinda helped everybody out a little bit. Kinda like.........Geico. He didn't pay a debt; He just helped lower everyone's premiums a little.

Geez! Don't you read scripture?!?

Good Day, Raz

You have to be kiding me.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.


Shall save!!

I guess you missed that one in your reading

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Raz]

Good Day, Raz

You have to be kiding me.

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.


Shall save!!

I guess you missed that one in your reading

Peace to u,

Bill

Ummmm.........I was kidding you

I love it when my sarcasm actually fools

I figured the whole 'Geico' thing would be a dead giveaway. I'm sorry about the caveman jokes, BBAS; I didn't know you guys were still around! j/k

 

[BBAS 64]

Ummmm.........I was kidding you

I love it when my sarcasm actually fools

I figured the whole 'Geico' thing would be a dead giveaway. I'm sorry about the caveman jokes, BBAS; I didn't know you guys were still around! j/k

Good Day, Raz

Missed it ... I guess I picked a bad week to quit smoking.


I am a big FOOL....

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[nwmsugrad]

The scriptural evidence that Christ died for all mankind seems overwhelming.

How does the limited atonement position handle for instance the following passages:

2 Peter 2:1 (NASB95)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Hebrews 2:9 (NASB95)
9 But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

1 Timothy 2:4-6 (NASB95)
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

 

[Reformationist]

c'mon!

Christ's death didn't actually save anybody; it just gave everyone a possibility of being saved. In other words, it kinda helped everybody out a little bit. Kinda like.........Geico. He didn't pay a debt; He just helped lower everyone's premiums a little.

Geez! Don't you read scripture?!?

LOL! That's too funny....

 

[depthdeception]

1. All for whom Christ died will be saved.
2. Some will not be saved.
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for all.

-bit

I do not understand upon what basis point number 1 is assumed to true. I hardly see that it is a necessary supposition. Therefore, if it not actually necessary, the logic of the subsequent attempt at a syllogism is terribly undermined.

If you really want to prove your point, it would be helpful to show why point 1 (i.e., the crux of your statement) is necessary. Until this is done, better luck next time!

 

[Reformationist]

I do not understand upon what basis point number 1 is assumed to true. I hardly see that it is a necessary supposition. Therefore, if it not actually necessary, the logic of the subsequent attempt at a syllogism is terribly undermined.

If you really want to prove your point, it would be helpful to show why point 1 (i.e., the crux of your statement) is necessary. Until this is done, better luck next time!

The very nature of a sovereign God demands that we acknowledge that He accomplishes that which He intends. Job 42:2 is quite clear that all that God purposes He will achieve. Now, either we can conclude that God's purpose in dying was not actually to appropriate salvation for those for whom He died or we can contend that He was perfectly successful. Do either of those options appeal to you?

God bless

 

[RebirthDefender]

1. All for whom Christ died will be saved.
2. Some will not be saved.
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for all.

-bit

I think your logic falls apart at the beginning, when you state your founding assumption that "All for whom Christ died will be saved." The Bible does NOT state that. In fact, the Bible directly contradicts your opening premise. I will show 3 instances:

(1) Paul says in Romans 14:15 "Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." If it is possible to destroy one for whom Christ died, then obviously not everyone for whom he died will be saved.

(2) In Acts 2:38 when Peter preached the first gospel sermon after Jesus' resurrection, Peter said "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Peter DID NOT say "Jesus died for you, so you are AUTOMATICALLY saved by his death." Rather, Peter said "Jesus died for you, so now you must ACCEPT his death by repenting and being baptized in his name." Jesus dying for us does nothing so long as we do not accept his death by repenting and being baptized in his name. The same point was made by Ananias to Paul in Acts 22:16, where Paul who had been a believer for 3 days already and obviously for whom Christ had died, was told by Ananias "Get up and be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on the name of the Lord." Although Jesus died for him already, he was not yet saved, because he had not yet accepted Jesus' death by being burried with him in baptism. Paul later explained in Romans 6:5 "IF we have been planted together into the likeness of Jesus' death (baptism), THEN we will also be in the likeness of his resurrection (newness of life)." We must accept his death in baptism to be saved by his death, because Paul says "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" It is when we are baptized into his death, that his death saves us--before we are baptized into his death, we have no contact with his death and therefore do not receive the benefits of it but are still lost and in our sins. Why else would Ananias tell Paul that he was still in his sins and needed to be baptized before they could be washed away?

(3) In the prophecy of Isaiah 53:8 the prophet says "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." -- This verse means that he had no physical descent because he died before he ever married; who then will declare his generation or who will be his descendants?? We are told the answer in Isaiah 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." In otherwords, it is when we personally accept his death on the cross as an offering for our personal sins that we become children of God. It is when we make his soul an offering for our sins, by accepting his offering as personal for us, that he sees his seed (or his descendants) which are us who accept his death in such a manner.

 

[depthdeception]

The very nature of a sovereign God demands that we acknowledge that He accomplishes that which He intends.

I still do not understand why this is a necessary conclusion. You are assuming that God's sovereignty is equivalent to what a human perception of sovereignty would be. Besides, if the point is acknowledge that "God accomplishes all that God intends," I still do not see how this automatically leads to the conclusion that "those for whom Christ died must be saved."

Now, either we can conclude that God's purpose in dying was not actually to appropriate salvation for those for whom He died or we can contend that He was perfectly successful. Do either of those options appeal to you?

Actually, no, neither of them does. From my understanding of the Bible, the INcarnation and Atonement was something which was--and is--inherently risky for God. In other words, there is no contingency plan for God (i.e., absolute sovereignty) upon which to fall if the plan should fail (i.e., humanity rejecting the risk which God has made). Love does not compel--rather, it sacrifices itself on the chance--not the guarantee--that its sacrifice will be requited.

 

[RebirthDefender]

1. All for whom Christ died will be saved.
2. Some will not be saved.
3. Therefore, Christ did not die for all.

-bit

I think your logic falls apart at the beginning, when you state your founding assumption that "All for whom Christ died will be saved." The Bible does NOT state that. In fact, the Bible directly contradicts your opening premise. I will show 3 instances:

(1) Paul says in Romans 14:15 "Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." If it is possible to destroy one for whom Christ died, then obviously not everyone for whom he died will be saved.

(2) In Acts 2:38 when Peter preached the first gospel sermon after Jesus' resurrection, Peter said "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Peter DID NOT say "Jesus died for you, so you are AUTOMATICALLY saved by his death." Rather, Peter said "Jesus died for you, so now you must ACCEPT his death by repenting and being baptized in his name." Jesus dying for us does nothing so long as we do not accept his death by repenting and being baptized in his name. The same point was made by Ananias to Paul in Acts 22:16, where Paul who had been a believer for 3 days already and obviously for whom Christ had died, was told by Ananias "Get up and be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on the name of the Lord." Although Jesus died for him already, he was not yet saved, because he had not yet accepted Jesus' death by being burried with him in baptism. Paul later explained in Romans 6:5 "IF we have been planted together into the likeness of Jesus' death (baptism), THEN we will also be in the likeness of his resurrection (newness of life)." We must accept his death in baptism to be saved by his death, because Paul says "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" It is when we are baptized into his death, that his death saves us--before we are baptized into his death, we have no contact with his death and therefore do not receive the benefits of it but are still lost and in our sins. Why else would Ananias tell Paul that he was still in his sins and needed to be baptized before they could be washed away?

(3) In the prophecy of Isaiah 53:8 the prophet says "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." -- This verse means that he had no physical descent because he died before he ever married; who then will declare his generation or who will be his descendants?? We are told the answer in Isaiah 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." In otherwords, it is when we personally accept his death on the cross as an offering for our personal sins that we become children of God. It is when we make his soul an offering for our sins, by accepting his offering as personal for us, that he sees his seed (or his descendants) which are us who accept his death in such a manner.

 

[sojourner]

nwmsugrad,

That is just a mere beginning,

What about I Tim 4:10, we clearly have a group who are not believers.

Or even a verse such as Col 1:15-20 with special emphasis on vs 20. Just how much or just what part of creation did Christ reconcile. It seems all, because all the previous verses clearly state that He is the creator of all, He is the firstborn over all creation. In Him all things consists, might that not mean all of mankind as well.
Does not this mean that Christ in His fullness, in His human nature, is the firstborn of that new restored creation, glorified Head of all creation. Christ ends the alienation between God and the created order, bringing everything as a sacrament into a living union with God. By this Work He restored man to His rightful place in the created order as prophet, priest and king.

This concept is corroberated in Eph 1:10

Other verses as John 12 31-32. Christ clearly is stating that the Cross is the judgement of the world and that the power of Satan will be cast out. Vs 32 would not be possible if Christ had not first died for all of mankind. If only some, then only some could be called.

Luke 2:30-32. What other groups are there in the Bible besides Gentiles and Israel? Does it say some of each or all of each.

I Cor 15:12-19, These are very interesting verses if it means that only some are only redeemed. The clear language is that if Christ did indeed arise there will be a resurrection of the dead. Have not all men died? Are there any who have not died for which no resurrection is necessary.
To that the answer is Yes, but they are those living at the time of His arrival on the clouds, consumating this age. But for all others, not some, not few, but I would say ALL.
Vs 18 separates all of mankind from believers.
vs 20 is the victory song of Paul. If Christ is risen and has become the firstfruits of them that slept, question, how many sleep?
Does anyone believe that there are some who never slept, are still alive, were eternally alive, were never condemned under Adam?

Vs 22 is the deathknell for anything that purports to be limited, or partial or anything lacking in totality. Unless, of course you believe that some do not die. Or at least do not die in Adam.

Romans 5:19 is quite emphatic as well. As in Adam all die, as In Christ all shall be made alive.
In which language does not all mean all when there are no qualifiers and is compared to an opposite to which no one seems to object. That we all die. That we are all mortal.
So, As in Adam, so in Christ.

 

[sojourner]

Bit,

All for whom Christ died will be saved.

As others have alluded you have an incorrect premise.
What it does say, is that all for whom Christ died have already been saved. His resurrection and maybe we should include the Ascension, the completed Work of Christ on earth, finished His work for all of mankind. He restored the fallen universe, including mankind from the fall.
Very specifically from Death and sin. Redemption and atonement respectively. He saved us from Adam's judgement.
He saved us in order that man could once again continue in his salvation. The salvation of man is not the same as the saving of mankind from the fall.
The fall was the gap that needed correction between Adam walking with God in the Garden and we walking with Him by faith.
God reconciled all things to Himself through Christ, His Son. He made right what Adam made wrong. We did not need correction or redemption respective of our walk with God. The fall made it impossible to have communion and union with God.
The salvation of man is the end of man, the goal of man, the purpose of man which Christ made possible by His redemptive work.
He desires all to be saved (salvation) and He made sure that every single soul had that opportunity and none would be lost, destroyed or unjustly condemned by the judgement through Adam. If we are going to be judged and condemned or saved (salvation) it will be by man's freely chosing to do so as we were created to be.
That is why we have been freed from the bondage to death and sin and none of creation, including all of mankind will never be destroyed.

 

[Van]

Lets go over it yet again. God is holy. Fallen mankind is unholy. Our unholiness created a separation between us and God. Nothing we could not, no amount of good works, could get us back to a state of holiness whereby we could have a right (unseparated) relationship with God. This is the lesson of the Law.

Now God changed this condition, the separation of fallen mankind from God, by placing Christ between fallen mankind and God. Thus He reconciled fallen mankind to Himself, Christ paid the ransom for all men, all men have been redeemed meaning Christ paid the ransom. But note this General Redemption does not establish a right (unseparated) relationship with God.

Now when we trust in Christ, and God accepts our faith as sufficient for His purpose, God puts us in Christ. In Christ we are converted, our body of flesh (sin) is removed, and we are born again from above. We are no longer seen as unholy, because we are covered with the blood of the lamb. So "in Christ" we are united with God, now that we are in Christ and Christ is in us, the separation no longer exists, we have received the reconciliation provided by the finished work of the cross.

 

[Reformationist]

I still do not understand why this is a necessary conclusion. You are assuming that God's sovereignty is equivalent to what a human perception of sovereignty would be. Besides, if the point is acknowledge that "God accomplishes all that God intends," I still do not see how this automatically leads to the conclusion that "those for whom Christ died must be saved."

It appears that you either do not believe God is sovereign or that you have no clue what "sovereign" means. God is not only capable of doing all that He wills, He is inclined to do so. This means that what God decrees shall stand.

Actually, no, neither of them does. From my understanding of the Bible, the INcarnation and Atonement was something which was--and is--inherently risky for God. In other words, there is no contingency plan for God (i.e., absolute sovereignty) upon which to fall if the plan should fail (i.e., humanity rejecting the risk which God has made). Love does not compel--rather, it sacrifices itself on the chance--not the guarantee--that its sacrifice will be requited.

You don't believe God is sovereign, you think the incarnation and atonement were risky for God, and you acknowledge the potential for failure by God? That is assuredly the strangest, and most unbiblical, thing I've ever heard a Christian claim.

The influence of God's work of regeneration and sanctification is not compulsion in the sense that you imply. It is impulsion. God works within us to do His will by changing our nature that we are aligned in heart and soul with His holy Law.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Now God changed this condition, the separation of fallen mankind from God, by placing Christ between fallen mankind and God. Thus He reconciled fallen mankind to Himself, Christ paid the ransom for all men, all men have been redeemed meaning Christ paid the ransom. But note this General Redemption does not establish a right (unseparated) relationship with God.

Now when we trust in Christ, and God accepts our faith as sufficient for His purpose, God puts us in Christ. In Christ we are converted, our body of flesh (sin) is removed, and we are born again from above. We are no longer seen as unholy, because we are covered with the blood of the lamb. So "in Christ" we are united with God, now that we are in Christ and Christ is in us, the separation no longer exists, we have received the reconciliation provided by the finished work of the cross.

You see bitwise, certain people will claim a foundation of a mythical, universally applied "general redemption" which doesn't seem to actually accomplish a single person's redemption while also claiming that the reason we are "put in Christ" is because God accepts our faith as sufficient to personally reconcile us to Him. Once again, man centered theology at its worst.

 

[sojourner]

Van,

Now God changed this condition, the separation of fallen mankind from God, by placing Christ between fallen mankind and God. Thus He reconciled fallen mankind to Himself, Christ paid the ransom for all men, all men have been redeemed meaning Christ paid the ransom. But note this General Redemption does not establish a right (unseparated) relationship with God.

You were just clicking along, Van, I thought you might have understood the historical meaning of redempton. Everything you say is correct until your last sentence.
That is precisely what redemption, reconciliate, atonement means, to be put into a correct relationship, to be restored, to make right. That is the only thing God needed to do and did so through Christ. He became the second Adam, the corrected Adam.
God could never offer salvation to man if He had not first made the aleination between God and man correct. right. He did this for everything that exists in creation which included every single human being. His Work is finsihed and as accomplished everything God planned to accomplish.
The rest is up to man. God created man free, now that He has been freed from bondage to death and sin, man is able to respond to the general call to repentance. How man response and lives His life IN Christ is all about the salvation of man. This parti is all a cooperative work whereas the Work of redemption has absolutely nothing to do with man having any hand in it. It is solely, completely objective.

 

[nwmsugrad]

2 Peter 2:1 (NASB95)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Ill bring this passage up again. I do not hold to limited atonement and do not suspect that my views will change as the result of someones argument on this forum. Nor do I feel it is likely that i will change anyone elses view. But I am curious how those who hold to limited atonement deal with this particular verse, since it seems to on the surface to contradict the limited atonement view. Could someone be so kind as to comment on this passage in particular. Anyone have a strong counter.

 

[holdon]

2 Peter 2:1 (NASB95)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Ill bring this passage up again. I do not hold to limited atonement and do not suspect that my views will change as the result of someones argument on this forum. Nor do I feel it is likely that i will change anyone elses view. But I am curious how those who hold to limited atonement deal with this particular verse, since it seems to on the surface to contradict the limited atonement view. Could someone be so kind as to comment on this passage in particular. Anyone have a strong counter.

Atonement is very vague. It is both universal AND limited. The truth is there are 2 aspects to 'atonement'.
The first is Propitiation. This is re. the restoration of God's glory. If there were no propitiation, God would have no reason to be propitious towards this world to even consider substitution. So, propitiation is universal: through it God can now display His favor to all sinners.
The second is Substitution. This is re. the personal guilt of each sinner. He has to confess his sins and claim a substitute (Christ) who can bear his sins. Substitution is limited: only for those who confess that their sins have been borne by Christ on the cross.

Concerning purchase and redemption we have an analogous but different picture. There is a difference maintained in Scripture between purchase and redemption. Purchasing is transfer of ownership/property. Redemption signifies delivery. Christ purchased (bought) the whole world. 2 Pet 2:1; Mt 13:44. So, in Corinthians: you were bought with a price. It is clear that the false teachers of 2 Pet 2:1 were not redeemed, not true believers, but they nevertheless have to answer to the Lord, who owns them.
But the believer can see that he has been redeemed by his blood. Eph 1:7 He can live in that state, that knowledge of being redeemed. The unbeliever cannot say that: he does not recognize the Lord who owns him nevertheless.