Unlimited Atonement is the teaching of Scripture

[Edward65]

Here are several reasons why I hold that unlimited atonement is true and limited atonement is unscriptural:

1. It's a sin not to believe in Christ and unbelievers are held to account for not believing in Him, therefore it follows that Christ is also their Saviour who died for them as well, otherwise they would have no reason to believe in Him and wouldn't be required to do so. (Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. John 3:18, ESV)
   
   
2. If limited atonement was true and all those who have had their sins atoned for are saved then being righteous would depend upon whether Christ had atoned for your sins or not, and not on your faith. However Scripture teaches that being righteous depends upon your faith. (and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— Philippians 3:9, ESV)
   
   
3. The Gospel is the message to each and every person that if they believe in Christ they'll be saved, so therefore He must have atoned for everyone's sins otherwise this Gospel couldn't be proclaimed. (Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:30-31, ESV)
   
   
4. Paul states that Christ has reconciled the entire cosmos to God so all men are obviously included and therefore unlimited atonement is the teaching of Scripture: (For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:19-20, ESV)

By the way I also hold that Scripture teaches that God predestines people to heaven and hell and that we have no free will to believe or disbelieve in Christ.

 

[AMR]

On the other hand...

LIMITED ATONEMENT (Particular Redemption) - "...you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." (Matt 1:21)
In order to accomplish the specific will of the Father, Christ took to the Cross the sins of the elect. Christ died for the sins of men without distinction as to race or nationality (that is, Jew or Gentile) that no man can number. He provided a complete and effectual atonement for their sins. Those whom Christ redeemed, Christ really and truly redeemed (actual not potential). Though infinite in value, Christ's atoning work was specific in its design. Some prefer to call this "definite atonement" or "particular redemption". The death of Christ at Calvary does not make men savable, but rather it saves men completely. The Cross is a completed, successful work that requires no assistance from man. Christ died for all of the sins of the elect. Other views of the scope of the atonement must avoid the idea of all the sins lest these views proclaim a universal salvation. For, if Christ died for all of the sins of all men without exception, upon what basis would any man be denied heaven? Remember, unbelief is a sin and therefore a sin for which Christ died if He has truly died for all the sins of all men without exception. More here.

See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Luke 1:68, Luke 2:1-2, Luke 19:10, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 5:13, John 6:35-40, John 10:11, John 10:14 -18, John 10:24-29, John 12:32, John 17:1-11, John 17:20, John 17:24-26, Acts 20:28, Romans 5:8-10, Romans 5:18, Romans 8:32-34, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 1:3-4, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:15-16, Ephesians 5:25-27, Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:14, Colossians 1:21-22, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, 1 Timothy 1:15, 2 Timothy 2:4-6, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 4:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 5:9.

See also:
http://heidelblog.net/2013/12/the-reformed-tradition-on-the-free-or-well-meant-offer-of-the-gospel/

 

[Edward65]

Christ died for all of the sins of the elect. Other views of the scope of the atonement must avoid the idea of all the sins lest these views proclaim a universal salvation. For, if Christ died for all of the sins of all men without exception, upon what basis would any man be denied heaven? Remember, unbelief is a sin and therefore a sin for which Christ died if He has truly died for all the sins of all men without exception.

Christ has died for all the sins of the world except that of persistent unbelief. If a person continues in a faithless state of unbelief then obviously he can’t be saved seeing as belief in Christ is necessary in order to be saved. Christ’s death wasn’t a potential atonement but an actual one for everyone, but no one can participate in it without faith seeing as justification is through faith.

If Christ had only atoned for the sins of the elect then it would be unjust to condemn unbelievers for not believing in Him since He wouldn’t have been sent to them as their Saviour. So the mere fact that unbelievers are condemned for not believing in Him shows that He atoned for their sins as well.

 

[AMR]

The lost were "in Adam" from the womb. All are sinners from birth and sin because they are sinners. God owes no one mercy, only justice.

The state of the lost seems clear to me from Scripture.

The lost...

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

The faith you speak about is the instrument from God alone of one's justification and ultimate redemption. The lost are not able to appropriate this faith until given a new heart of flesh by the Holy Spirit, replacing their heart of stone such that they cannot not fail to believe the Good News. This is the regenerative efficacious grace of God.

There is no injustice here as Romans 1 teaches us. The lost are without excuse.

 

[Edward65]

The lost were "in Adam" from the womb. All are sinners from birth and sin because they are sinners. God owes no one mercy, only justice.

The state of the lost seems clear to me from Scripture.

The lost...

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

The faith you speak about is the instrument from God alone of one's justification and ultimate redemption. The lost are not able to appropriate this faith until given a new heart of flesh by the Holy Spirit, replacing their heart of stone such that they cannot not fail to believe the Good News. This is the regenerative efficacious grace of God.

There is no injustice here as Romans 1 teaches us. The lost are without excuse.

I agree with your analysis above. I also believe in predestination and that unless a person has been elected to salvation and renewed by the Holy Spirit that he can't believe in Christ and be saved. But it doesn't follow from this that Christ only atoned for the elect.

It might seem logical to conclude that Christ wouldn't atone for the sins of those who aren't elected to salvation, but I don't accept that this is the teaching of Scripture. For the reasons I've given above and for other Scriptural reasons, I hold that Christ atoned for everyone and not just the elect. 4-point Calvinists also believe the same.

 

[iambren]

Why would He do that?

 

[Edward65]

Why would He do that?

I’m not exactly sure from which angle you’re coming at this from. Are you asking why would Christ atone for the sins of the world, or why God elects and predestines only some people from eternity to be saved? If it’s the first then Christ atones for the sins of everyone in the world because He’s a God of love and desires that everyone should be saved. However If you’re asking why does God then elect only certain people to be saved and not everyone, that’s difficult to answer.

Given the fact that Scripture teaches that God through Christ desires the salvation of everyone it would be natural to conclude that He would elect to save everyone, but Scripture teaches differently, and I don’t understand why God doesn’t elect to save everyone myself.

It might be helpful if I refer you to Luther’s book The Bondage of the Will because he commented on the justice of God’s actions, and said basically we don’t understand how it can be just for God to leave some to a fate from which they can’t extricate themselves from (i.e. going to hell), but we will in eternity. Here’s the first part of his defence of God’s justice in His dealings with men:

You may be worried that it is hard to defend the mercy and equity of God in damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly persons, who, being born in ungodliness, can by no means avoid being ungodly, and staying so, and being damned, but are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish; as Paul says: "We were all the children of wrath, even as others" [Eph. 2:3], created such by God Himself from a seed that had been corrupted by the sin of one man, Adam. But here God must be reverenced and held in awe, as being most merciful to those whom He justifies and saves in their own utter unworthiness; and we must show some measure of deference to His Divine wisdom by believing Him just when to us He seems unjust. If His justice were such as could be adjudged just by human reckoning, it clearly would not be Divine; it would in no way differ from human justice. But inasmuch as He is the one true God, wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to man's understanding, it is reasonable, indeed inevitable, that His justice also should be incomprehensible; as Paul cries, saying: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" [Romans 11:33]. They would not, however, be "unsearchable" if we could at every point grasp the grounds on which they are just. What is man compared with God? How much can our power achieve compared with His power? What is our strength compared with His strength? What is our knowledge compared with His wisdom? What is our substance compared with His substance? In a word, what is all that we are compared with all that He is? If, now, even nature teaches to acknowledge that human power, strength, wisdom, knowledge and substance, and all that is ours, is nothing compared with the Divine power, strength, wisdom, knowledge and substance, what perversity is it on our part to worry at the justice and the judgment of the only God, and to arrogate so much to our own judgment as to presume to comprehend, judge and evaluate God's judgment!

 

[iambren]

Neither.
Why would God waste His agonizing shed blood for those He knew weren't going to receive it. Even one ounce would be wasted.

No,"whomever,whosoever" words are metaphors for the Elect. It's the only thing that makes sense with an omniscient God.

Otherwise,why would He do that? unless you limit omniscience.

 

[Edward65]

Neither.
Why would God waste His agonizing shed blood for those He knew weren't going to receive it. Even one ounce would be wasted.

No,"whomever,whosoever" words are metaphors for the Elect. It's the only thing that makes sense with an omniscient God.

Otherwise,why would He do that? unless you limit omniscience.

So what you’re saying then is that Christ didn’t atone for the sins of those God didn’t elect to save. So how then do you explain why unbelievers are condemned for not believing in Him?

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, ESV)

If you are correct in asserting that Christ only atoned for the elect what are unbelievers guilty of in not believing in Him? They believe that Christ isn’t their Saviour but that is the truth if Christ didn’t die for them. The above verses only make sense if Christ also died for unbelievers who refuse to believe the truth that Christ is their Saviour.

 

[Meanstreak]

So what you’re saying then is that God didn’t atone for the sins of those He didn’t elect to save. So how then do you explain why unbelievers are condemned for not believing in Him?

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, ESV)

If you are correct in asserting that Christ only atoned for the elect what are unbelievers guilty of in not believing in Him? They believe that Christ isn’t their Saviour but that is the truth if Christ didn’t die for them. The above verses only make sense if Christ also died for unbelievers who refuse to believe the truth that Christ is their Saviour.

The only requirement for responsibility is a lawgiver - in this case, God. Even if you don't know the law, you're still responsible. If you were driving down the street and you violated an ordinance that was just recently passed, you're still getting a ticket, and justly so. You don't have to like it - but that's just the way it is.

I understand your discomfort with this - but that doesn't make it any less true. You asked how unbelievers can be condemned given the fact that they are unilaterally incapable of salvation. Curiously, the Romans asked this same question. Paul's reply can be found in Romans 9:19-23.

 

[Edward65]

The only requirement for responsibility is a lawgiver - in this case, God. Even if you don't know the law, you're still responsible. If you were driving down the street and you violated an ordinance that was just recently passed, you're still getting a ticket, and justly so. You don't have to like it - but that's just the way it is.

I understand your discomfort with this - but that doesn't make it any less true. You asked how unbelievers can be condemned given the fact that they are unilaterally incapable of salvation. Curiously, the Romans asked this same question. Paul's reply can be found in Romans 9:19-23.

You've misunderstood me. If you haven't read all the posts please start from the beginning and read through them. Thanks.

 

[Meanstreak]

I read from the top. These are your questions:

So how then do you explain why unbelievers are condemned for not believing in Him?

what are unbelievers guilty of in not believing in Him?

Unbelievers are condemned because they are in rebellion against God. They violate the law. They are guilty. And they have no atoning sacrifice to cover their sin.

"Not believing in Him" is only a fraction of their sin.

In what way did I misunderstand you?

 

[iambren]

" So how then do you explain why unbelievers are condemned for not believing in Him? "

Yes,Meanstreak stole my thunder but the nonElect will die in their sins inherited from the Fall. Words like "whosoever,whomever" are part of universal message that will be received only by the Elect (which God knows and particularly applies grace to).

Example: at a Billy Graham revival he speaks the Word,he will say "whomever wants saved come out of your seat and come down" but we(and God) know there are those who will reject the Word and the invitation. So a public "all" is used to gather those in who will respond by Gods grace.

 

[Edward65]

The only requirement for responsibility is a lawgiver - in this case, God. Even if you don't know the law, you're still responsible. If you were driving down the street and you violated an ordinance that was just recently passed, you're still getting a ticket, and justly so. You don't have to like it - but that's just the way it is.

I understand your discomfort with this - but that doesn't make it any less true. You asked how unbelievers can be condemned given the fact that they are unilaterally incapable of salvation. Curiously, the Romans asked this same question. Paul's reply can be found in Romans 9:19-23.

Your analogy supports unlimited atonement because the only reason why any and every lawbreaker can be accused of a crime is because the law applies to everyone equally. If limited atonement was true it would mean you could be accused of law-breaking when you hadn’t committed any crime because the law didn’t apply to you. This is the same as limited atonement - Christ didn’t atone for the non-elect and isn’t their Saviour nevertheless they are condemned for not accepting Him.

I didn’t ask how unbelievers can be condemned given the fact that they are incapable of salvation. I asked how they could be condemned for not believing in Christ when Christ isn’t their Saviour and didn’t atone for their sins.

In both John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:9-12 the reason given why unbelievers are condemned is because they don’t believe in the truth which can save them (i.e. they don’t believe in Jesus). But if you believe in limited atonement there is nothing which could save them, because the truth according to those who believe in limited atonement is that Christ didn’t come to save the non-elect by atoning for their sins. Therefore those who believe in limited atonement are involved in a paradox which is that unbelievers are condemned for believing the truth that Christ isn’t their Saviour.

 

[Meanstreak]

Your analogy supports unlimited atonement because the only reason why any and every lawbreaker can be accused of a crime is because the law applies to everyone equally. If limited atonement was true it would mean you could be accused of law-breaking when you hadn’t committed any crime because the law didn’t apply to you. This is the same as limited atonement - Christ didn’t atone for the non-elect and isn’t their Saviour nevertheless they are condemned for not accepting Him.

I didn’t ask how unbelievers can be condemned given the fact that they are incapable of salvation. I asked how they could be condemned for not believing in Christ when Christ isn’t their Saviour and didn’t atone for their sins.

In both John 3:18 and 2 Thess 2:9-12 the reason given why unbelievers are condemned is because they don’t believe in the truth which can save them (i.e. they don’t believe in Jesus). But if you believe in limited atonement there is nothing which could save them, because the truth according to those who believe in limited atonement is that Christ didn’t come to save the non-elect by atoning for their sins. Therefore those who believe in limited atonement are involved in a paradox which is that unbelievers are condemned for believing the truth that Christ isn’t their Saviour.

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with the conclusion you've drawn. You seem to be saying that the ONLY reason they are condemned is BECAUSE they do not believe in Christ. On a certain level, that is true. But, technically speaking, if they were sinless to begin with, they wouldn't NEED to believe in Christ, i.e. they wouldn't need a savior. The law would still apply to them, but since they perfectly complied with the law, they require no savior and hence cannot be condemned. So just because they do not believe in Christ, this is not the ONLY reason they are condemned - they are condemned because they are sinners AND they have not believed in Christ. We are sinners first - this gives us the requirement to believe in Christ.

 

[Edward65]

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with the conclusion you've drawn. You seem to be saying that the ONLY reason they are condemned is BECAUSE they do not believe in Christ. On a certain level, that is true. But, technically speaking, if they were sinless to begin with, they wouldn't NEED to believe in Christ, i.e. they wouldn't need a savior. The law would still apply to them, but since they perfectly complied with the law, they require no savior and hence cannot be condemned. So just because they do not believe in Christ, this is not the ONLY reason they are condemned - they are condemned because they are sinners AND they have not believed in Christ. We are sinners first - this gives us the requirement to believe in Christ.

In the New Testament the only sin which condemns people to hell is not believing in Christ, and the only reason why not believing in Christ brings condemnation upon people is because Christ has atoned for everyone. There’s no other possible explanation.

 

[Meanstreak]

In the New Testament the only sin which condemns people to hell is not believing in Christ, and the only reason why not believing in Christ brings condemnation upon people is because Christ has atoned for everyone. There’s no other possible explanation.

Sounds like you've got your mind made up.

So in all the instances of Jesus and John the Baptist calling sinners to "repentance," that just means "belief in Christ" then? Repentance is synonymous with belief?

 

[Edward65]

Sounds like you've got your mind made up.

So in all the instances of Jesus and John the Baptist calling sinners to "repentance," that just means "belief in Christ" then? Repentance is synonymous with belief?

John the Baptist was sent to point the way to Christ as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and belief in Christ includes repentance because to believe in a saviour from sin involves the acknowledgement that one is a sinner who needs to be saved from the consequences of sin.

Christ said to the Jews: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life”. (John 5:39-40, ESV)

Christ wouldn’t be truthful in saying to the Jews that their refusal to come to him was the reason they didn’t have eternal life if He’d only atoned for the sins of the elect. If limited atonement was true then the reason why those who didn’t believe in Him didn’t have life would be because they hadn’t had their sins atoned for by Christ, not because they refused to come to Him in order to receive it.

Since the reason why unbelievers don’t have eternal life is because they refuse to go to Christ in order to receive it, this presupposes that Christ can give them eternal life, which in turn relies upon the fact that Christ has atoned for their sins as well.

 

[Edward65]

Yes,Meanstreak stole my thunder but the nonElect will die in their sins inherited from the Fall. Words like "whosoever,whomever" are part of universal message that will be received only by the Elect (which God knows and particularly applies grace to).

Example: at a Billy Graham revival he speaks the Word,he will say "whomever wants saved come out of your seat and come down" but we(and God) know there are those who will reject the Word and the invitation. So a public "all" is used to gather those in who will respond by Gods grace.

The true Gospel is that Christ has atoned for everyone’s sins and that those who believe will be saved. The Gospel applies to everyone and is a universal proclamation of forgiveness, even though not all will be believe it. Believers in limited atonement don’t have a universal message of forgiveness that applies to everyone, but only a restricted message which applies to the elect.

Yes only the elect will be saved because salvation depends on God’s choice not on man’s, but the reason why unbelievers are condemned is because they refuse to believe in Christ, not because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins. The Scriptures lay the blame on why a person is damned on them not believing in Christ. The Scriptures don’t say anywhere that Christ hasn’t atoned for the sins of unbelievers. To believe that is unscriptural.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18, ESV)

 

[iambren]

"Yes only the elect will be saved because salvation depends on God’s choice not on man’s, but the reason why unbelievers are condemned is because they refuse to believe in Christ, not because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins. The Scriptures lay the blame on why a person is damned on them not believing in Christ. The Scriptures don’t say anywhere that Christ hasn’t atoned for the sins of unbelievers. To believe that is unscriptural."

This writing is so wrong it tires me to correct it.