Unlimited Atonement is the teaching of Scripture

[Edward65]

Someone (Skala) on the Ask a Calvinist forum (which I’m not allowed to debate on) in answer to the question “What do calvinists do with verses that seem to say Jesus died for the whole world, not just the elect? Example would be 1 John 2:2” said the following:

If "world" means every single individual, even those who ultimately end up in hell, why would John devalue his own argument by suggesting that believers have assurance in Christ when they sin because Christ died for them, by also saying that Christ died for those who end up in hell, too?

How does that give me any assurance that Christ propitiated for my sins? If Christ propitiated for "Bob"s sins too, and Bob ends up in hell, John isn't making a very good argument nor making Christ look too appealing and trustworthy, is he?

My reply:
If you have faith in Christ then everything that Christ has done for you (which He’s also done for everyone else) is yours. Faith in the limited atonement worldview is like a footnote whereas in the Scriptures it shares centre stage with atonement. In the limited atonement worldview atonement occupies sole centre stage and faith is relegated to a position of relative unimportance, and is merely assumed to be provided to a person as part of the package - if you’ve had your sins atoned for then the provision of faith automatically follows. This however isn’t the teaching of Scripture.

Christ is completely trustworthy and the fact that some who have had their sins atoned for end up in hell has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of Christ. Luther said something to the effect that if there was a king who promised a beggar that He would let him share his kingdom and the beggar turned round and in disbelief walked off thinking the king was some sort of joker, that the king was within his rights to rescind everything he’d promised the beggar because of his unbelief, and that I think is a good analogy for the role of faith and what happens when you don’t have it.

 

[Edward65]

"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.

Unlimited atonement is like a banquet to which everyone is invited and where the tables have enough food for everyone, and all that remains is to sit at the tables and eat (i.e. have faith). But if you don’t eat you can’t be nourished by the food, and in this example you die of hunger even though there’s enough food for everyone.

Limited atonement on the other hand is like a table that’s laid out only for certain guests who have been specifically invited and where there’s no option but to eat the food. (i.e. faith is automatically supplied). The starving masses on the outside therefore die not because they didn’t eat (i.e. exercise faith) but because they were never invited in the first place.

The above analogy shows that limited atonement isn’t the teaching of Scripture because in the Scriptures damnation is as a result of not believing in Christ (i.e. not eating the food that’s provided) – e.g. “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)

 

[Meanstreak]

Unlimited atonement is like a banquet to which everyone is invited and where the tables have enough food for everyone, and all that remains is to sit at the tables and eat (i.e. have faith). But if you don’t eat you can’t be nourished by the food, and in this example you die of hunger even though there’s enough food for everyone.

Limited atonement on the other hand is like a table that’s laid out only for certain guests who have been specifically invited and where there’s no option but to eat the food. (i.e. faith is automatically supplied). The starving masses on the outside therefore die not because they didn’t eat (i.e. exercise faith) but because they were never invited in the first place.

The above analogy shows that limited atonement isn’t the teaching of Scripture because in the Scriptures damnation is as a result of not having faith or believing in Christ (i.e. not eating the food that’s provided) – e.g. “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)

If God has elected you from before the foundation of the universe, then predestined you to be conformed to the image of His Son, then regenerated you thereby giving you repentance and faith, why would the atonement apply to those not elected and predestined to be regenerated?

You're holding to two verses in the Bible, and building a mini-doctrine around it, all while ignoring the plethora of verses that AMR mentioned in post #2 of this thread that gives your two verses CONTEXT.

Your analogy of the banquet is skewed. Everyone is invited to the banquet, but not everyone is going to come and there is no requirement that you've demonstrated for food to be available for people who we know are not going to come. The default position of all humans is to NOT come to the banquet - and they CHOOSE not to come to the banquet out of their OWN WILL. God elects us, predestines us, regenerates us (which allows us to see our sin) resulting in repentance and faith. Yes, God GIVES us repentance and faith. It's only THEN that we desire to come to the "banquet" - and we do so out of our own WILL. We owe everything to God.

You have not demonstrated that it's necessary to provide banquet food for people that are not going to show up.

 

[Don Maurer]

Unlimited atonement is like a banquet to which everyone is invited and where the tables have enough food for everyone, and all that remains is to sit at the tables and eat (i.e. have faith). But if you don’t eat you can’t be nourished by the food, and in this example you die of hunger even though there’s enough food for everyone.

Limited atonement on the other hand is like a table that’s laid out only for certain guests who have been specifically invited and where there’s no option but to eat the food. (i.e. faith is automatically supplied). The starving masses on the outside therefore die not because they didn’t eat (i.e. exercise faith) but because they were never invited in the first place.

The above analogy shows that limited atonement isn’t the teaching of Scripture because in the Scriptures damnation is as a result of not believing in Christ (i.e. not eating the food that’s provided) – e.g. “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)

I would strongly disagree with this picture of both unlimited and limited atonement.

In limited atonement all men everywhere are invited to the banquet. There is food sufficient for all men everywhere. No one chooses to come (John 6:44) because of original sin. God changes the mind of some by drawing them (regeneration) and all of them come.

Your illustration is a misrepresentation.

 

[Edward65]

I would strongly disagree with this picture of both unlimited and limited atonement.

In limited atonement all men everywhere are invited to the banquet. There is food sufficient for all men everywhere. No one chooses to come (John 6:44) because of original sin. God changes the mind of some by drawing them (regeneration) and all of them come.

Your illustration is a misrepresentation.

I don’t see how what I said misrepresented the true position. In unlimited atonement Christ dies for everyone and the reason why people are damned is because people don’t accept him as their Saviour and have faith in Him. Whereas in limited atonement Christ only atones for the elect and the non-elect are therefore damned not because they don’t believe in Him but because they haven’t had their sins atoned for.

Your explanation of limited atonement in your middle paragraph by the way is actually a description of unlimited atonement. What you’ve just stated is what I believe, and what I believe in isn’t limited atonement. Also your description includes predestination and election which isn’t under discussion. I fully believe that only the elect will be saved and that only those the Father draws to Christ will and can believe in Christ, but that’s a separate issue. At the moment what’s under discussion is the extent of the atonement and when you say that there is food sufficient for all men everywhere that is a description of unlimited atonement where Christ has provided the means of salvation to everybody and not just the elect.

If there is food sufficient for all men everywhere as you say then all men potentially can be saved and that’s unlimited atonement. Limited atonement is where Christ only atones for the elect (i.e. provides food only for them) and there is no potential salvation for any of the non-elect.

 

[Edward65]

If God has elected you from before the foundation of the universe, then predestined you to be conformed to the image of His Son, then regenerated you thereby giving you repentance and faith, why would the atonement apply to those not elected and predestined to be regenerated?

You're holding to two verses in the Bible, and building a mini-doctrine around it, all while ignoring the plethora of verses that AMR mentioned in post #2 of this thread that gives your two verses CONTEXT.

Your analogy of the banquet is skewed. Everyone is invited to the banquet, but not everyone is going to come and there is no requirement that you've demonstrated for food to be available for people who we know are not going to come. The default position of all humans is to NOT come to the banquet - and they CHOOSE not to come to the banquet out of their OWN WILL. God elects us, predestines us, regenerates us (which allows us to see our sin) resulting in repentance and faith. Yes, God GIVES us repentance and faith. It's only THEN that we desire to come to the "banquet" - and we do so out of our own WILL. We owe everything to God.

You have not demonstrated that it's necessary to provide banquet food for people that are not going to show up.

Please see my reply to Don Maurer above because there seems to be some misunderstanding on what exactly limited atonement is, although maybe you don't share that misunderstanding.

 

[Don Maurer]

I would strongly disagree with this picture of both unlimited and limited atonement.

In limited atonement all men everywhere are invited to the banquet. There is food sufficient for all men everywhere. No one chooses to come (John 6:44) because of original sin. God changes the mind of some by drawing them (regeneration) and all of them come.

Your illustration is a misrepresentation.

I don’t see how what I said misrepresented the true position. In unlimited atonement Christ dies for everyone and the reason why people are damned is because people don’t accept him as their Saviour and have faith in Him. Whereas in limited atonement Christ only atones for the elect and the non-elect are therefore damned not because they don’t believe in Him but because they haven’t had their sins atoned for.

Your explanation of limited atonement in your middle paragraph by the way is actually a description of unlimited atonement. What you’ve just stated is what I believe, and what I believe in isn’t limited atonement. Also your description includes predestination and election which isn’t under discussion. I fully believe that only the elect will be saved and that only those the Father draws to Christ will and can believe in Christ, but that’s a separate issue. At the moment what’s under discussion is the extent of the atonement and when you say that there is food sufficient for all men everywhere that is a description of unlimited atonement where Christ has provided the means of salvation to everybody and not just the elect.

If there is food sufficient for all men everywhere as you say then all men potentially can be saved and that’s unlimited atonement. Limited atonement is where Christ only atones for the elect (i.e. provides food only for them) and there is no potential salvation for any of the non-elect.

Again, your are completely misrepresenting limited atonement. I bolded and underlined a statement by you which illustrates where you do not understand reformed doctrine. If Christ were to save not just the elect, but a few million more, he would still not need to shed any more blood. Neither would he need to suffer a little more to save them. If God had decided to save trillions and trillions more then the elect, Christ substitution on the cross would have been sufficient for all of them, and far more. The value of the Christ substitition is not the question, but the extent of the atonement is the question. If Christ death were equated to life rafts that could save even dead people and the ocean were filled with those people that were already dead and drowned, then Christ has an unlimited number of life rafts, but he threw them all to the elect. He saves the elect to the uttermost because the value of that shed blood is infinite, but not one drop of it is wasted on those whom Christ does not intend to save.

When Christ died on the cross, was he somehow trying to save those already in hell from the OT? Was he somehow trying to provide for them "a chance?" What kind of chance would that be?

 

[Edward65]

Again, your are completely misrepresenting limited atonement. I bolded and underlined a statement by you which illustrates where you do not understand reformed doctrine. If Christ were to save not just the elect, but a few million more, he would still not need to shed any more blood. Neither would he need to suffer a little more to save them. If God had decided to save trillions and trillions more then the elect, Christ substitution on the cross would have been sufficient for all of them, and far more. The value of the Christ substitition is not the question, but the extent of the atonement is the question. If Christ death were equated to life rafts that could save even dead people and the ocean were filled with those people that were already dead and drowned, then Christ has an unlimited number of life rafts, but he threw them all to the elect. He saves the elect to the uttermost because the value of that shed blood is infinite, but not one drop of it is wasted on those whom Christ does not intend to save.

When Christ died on the cross, was he somehow trying to save those already in hell from the OT? Was he somehow trying to provide for them "a chance?" What kind of chance would that be?

I’m not misrepresenting limited atonement. It’s just that I misunderstood what you were meaning. When you said “There is food sufficient for all men everywhere” I understood you to be meaning that the food was available to everyone everywhere. Now I see that you don’t mean that because you’ve explained that although Christ has at his disposal any number of life rafts he only throws them to those He chooses to. It wasn’t clear to me that you were meaning this when I replied in my last post. But I haven’t misrepresented anything. Limited atonement is as I said that Christ only atones for the elect, and He doesn’t atone for those who end up in hell, which means that those who do end up in hell do so because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins. I hope you accept that I have not misrepresented the limited atonement position.

With regards to your second paragraph people in Old Testament times were saved through faith in the coming Messiah, so if they died without faith there’s no second chance for them now.

The Scriptures teach that unbelief is the reason why people are damned, therefore limited atonement is false because in the limited atonement model the reason why people are damned is because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins.

 

[Don Maurer]

I’m not misrepresenting limited atonement. It’s just that I misunderstood what you were meaning. When you said “There is food sufficient for all men everywhere” I understood you to be meaning that the food was available to everyone everywhere. Now I see that you don’t mean that because you’ve explained that although Christ has at his disposal any number of life rafts he only throws them to those He chooses to. It wasn’t clear to me that you were meaning this when I replied in my last post. But I haven’t misrepresented anything. Limited atonement is as I said that Christ only atones for the elect, and He doesn’t atone for those who end up in hell, which means that those who do end up in hell do so because Christ hasn’t atoned for their sins. I hope you accept that I have not misrepresented the limited atonement position.

I see no reason in the reformed doctrine of limited atonement that salvation is not available to each and every person. Of course while it is available, they cannot receive it because they want no part of it. That is called "Original sin."
In John 6:37 Jesus says... "All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Anyone who comes to Christ will never be cast out. He saves to the uttermost all who come, the reason some do not come is because they are not given to the Son by the Father. Also, later in verse 44 it tells us they do not come because they cannot come. John 6 44 says no man can come, but the one who comes does this because he is drawn by the Father. "No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day." So then the Father gives the ones who come to the Son, and then on the day of their salvation he draws them. The passage never says salvation is not available to all who come, it merely says not all have the ability to come.

With regards to your second paragraph people in Old Testament times were saved through faith in the coming Messiah, so if they died without faith there’s no second chance for them now.

Of course in Reformed theology, the only human requirement for justification is faith and after death there is not 2nd chance. But that has nothing to do with what I said in that 2nd paragraph. If the intent of the atonement is to save all men everywhere at all times, then how can Christ intend to save those in hell before his death? I did not say there is a 2nd chance, and did not suggest you said that. I merely pointed out the inconsistency of saying that in the death of Christ he was trying to save all men in all times. If his death provided no salvation, but only a theoretical possibility of salvation for everyone, in what theoretical way could he save people that were already condemned and in hell?

I see many differences. You weaken the doctrine of original sin. You weaken the power of the atonement to save, you cannot consistently claim to believe that we are saved by grace alone, you deny the all sufficiency of the atonement to save. Yet somehow, I think you picture Reformed soteriology as denigrating the atonement.

Everyone believes in an atonement limited in some way. The only exception would be the universalist that believes every single person that ever lives will go to heaven. Either you believe in an atonement that is limited in its ability to save, that it is a theoretical possibility of atonement for all, or you believe that the extent of the atonement is limited. So then, actually, there is a sense in which you do not believe in an "unlimited atonement." A better term for your theology would be "General Atonement." This would be General atonement as opposed to the penal substitutionary theory of atonement believed by Reformed people.

 

[Edward65]

I see no reason in the reformed doctrine of limited atonement that salvation is not available to each and every person. Of course while it is available, they cannot receive it because they want no part of it. That is called "Original sin."
In John 6:37 Jesus says... "All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Anyone who comes to Christ will never be cast out. He saves to the uttermost all who come, the reason some do not come is because they are not given to the Son by the Father. Also, later in verse 44 it tells us they do not come because they cannot come. John 6 44 says no man can come, but the one who comes does this because he is drawn by the Father. "No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day." So then the Father gives the ones who come to the Son, and then on the day of their salvation he draws them. The passage never says salvation is not available to all who come, it merely says not all have the ability to come.

If salvation is available to each and every person that's the definition of unlimited atonement. You're contradicting yourself. In your last post you argued that Christ has an endless supply of life rafts but he only throws them to the elect, in which case salvation isn't available to everyone but only those who can get into a life raft.

What you've just said above is what I believe. I believe that salvation is available to everyone but that unless a person has been elected to salvation and drawn by the Father he isn't able to believe in Christ.

 

[Don Maurer]

If salvation is available to each and every person that's the definition of unlimited atonement. You're contradicting yourself. In your last post you argued that Christ has an endless supply of life rafts but he only throws them to the elect, in which case salvation isn't available to everyone but only those who can get into a life raft.

What you've just said above is what I believe. I believe that salvation is available to everyone but that unless a person has been elected to salvation and drawn by the Father he isn't able to believe in Christ.

One more step, those who are made able to "come" to Christ because they are drawn by the Father, those are the ones he raises up on the last day.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
The one being raised up is saved, not a theoretical possibility of salvation, but completely absolutely saved. In this verse, you can see how the phrase "I will raise him up on the last day" speaks of salvation.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

So then, no one has the ability to come to Christ, unless God intervenes and draws them. All those drawn are raised up to salvation.

 

[Edward65]

One more step, those who are made able to "come" to Christ because they are drawn by the Father, those are the ones he raises up on the last day.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
The one being raised up is saved, not a theoretical possibility of salvation, but completely absolutely saved. In this verse, you can see how the phrase "I will raise him up on the last day" speaks of salvation.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

So then, no one has the ability to come to Christ, unless God intervenes and draws them. All those drawn are raised up to salvation.

If Christ death were equated to life rafts that could save even dead people and the ocean were filled with those people that were already dead and drowned, then Christ has an unlimited number of life rafts, but he threw them all to the elect.

I see no reason in the reformed doctrine of limited atonement that salvation is not available to each and every person.

I can well understand your desire to soften the limited atonement position by suggesting that each and every person within the limited atonement model can have salvation available to him, because it doesn’t sound very loving that Christ has an endless supply of life rafts but He only chooses to throw them to the elect. If we did that in a situation of a ship-wreck when there were many people in the water who we could easily help then we would rightly be accused of murdering others because we had the means of saving them but choose not to. Such behaviour is extremely unloving and not defensible particularly when Christ teaches us to love our enemies. (“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you”, Luke 6:27, ESV).

So I can understand if you should recoil from the picture of Christ leaving people to drown when He had an endless supply of life rafts. However the reality is since you’ve adopted the limited atonement model this model doesn’t allow you to make salvation available to everyone. In the limited atonement model salvation is available only to the elect because only they have had their sins atoned for. So if you want to soften the limited atonement view of Christ as someone who only loves a select few, and doesn’t care about saving others, you are going to have to believe in unlimited atonement which is the teaching of the Bible that Christ atoned for everyone and desires to save everyone and makes life rafts available to everyone.

If I may say what I find when I read the responses of those who believe in limited atonement is that they constantly go off the subject of atonement and start talking about election and predestination which isn't the subject under discussion. This is what you've done in your last post which I quoted first above. I'm trying to discuss atonement and you're talking about election and predestination. I know only those drawn by the Father are saved. I've argued that a good number of times myself with those who believe in Arminianism. I'm just as much a believer in predestination to heaven and hell as you appear to be. I agree with Luther who wrote the Bondage of the Will and completely demolished Erasmus's view that the Scriptures teach free will.

There's nothing inconsistent with believing in both predestination and unlimited atonement. The idea that you can't consistently believe in both is nonsense. That's just a falsehood.

 

[Skala]

Someone (Skala) on the Ask a Calvinist forum (which I’m not allowed to debate on) in answer to the question “What do calvinists do with verses that seem to say Jesus died for the whole world, not just the elect? Example would be 1 John 2:2” said the following:

If "world" means every single individual, even those who ultimately end up in hell, why would John devalue his own argument by suggesting that believers have assurance in Christ when they sin because Christ died for them, by also saying that Christ died for those who end up in hell, too?

How does that give me any assurance that Christ propitiated for my sins? If Christ propitiated for "Bob"s sins too, and Bob ends up in hell, John isn't making a very good argument nor making Christ look too appealing and trustworthy, is he?

My reply:
If you have faith in Christ then everything that Christ has done for you (which He’s also done for everyone else) is yours. Faith in the limited atonement worldview is like a footnote whereas in the Scriptures it shares centre stage with atonement. In the limited atonement worldview atonement occupies sole centre stage and faith is relegated to a position of relative unimportance, and is merely assumed to be provided to a person as part of the package - if you’ve had your sins atoned for then the provision of faith automatically follows. This however isn’t the teaching of Scripture.

Christ is completely trustworthy and the fact that some who have had their sins atoned for end up in hell has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of Christ. Luther said something to the effect that if there was a king who promised a beggar that He would let him share his kingdom and the beggar turned round and in disbelief walked off thinking the king was some sort of joker, that the king was within his rights to rescind everything he’d promised the beggar because of his unbelief, and that I think is a good analogy for the role of faith and what happens when you don’t have it.

If you take a close look at your view, you are arguing that our trust is really in ourself and our faith, rather than in what Christ did for me.

In your view, Christ died equally for "Bob" (headed to hell) and "Jim" (headed to heaven). Therefore the difference is not in what Christ did for them, but what Jim did for himself. Jim cannot have assurance in what Christ did for him, because Christ did that same thing for Bob, too, but Bob is heading to hell. Therefore, Jim's assurance is his own activity and contribution. He has faith, therefore, he can trust in that.

I cannot get on board with this. The Christian has assurance because of what Christ did for him, and part of what Christ did is bringing him to faith because the Father elected him from eternity past to be the object of love, salvation, and the recipient of grace. All credit, literally, goes to the Trinity. The Father elected me. Christ died for me securing everything i need for salvation. The Spirit, in time during my life, at the time of his choosing, regenerates me and brings me to a knowledge of my salvation and brings me to faith in Christ.

 

[Edward65]

If you take a close look at your view, you are arguing that our trust is really in ourself and our faith, rather than in what Christ did for me.

In your view, Christ died equally for "Bob" (headed to hell) and "Jim" (headed to heaven). Therefore the difference is not in what Christ did for them, but what Jim did for himself. Jim cannot have assurance in what Christ did for him, because Christ did that same thing for Bob, too, but Bob is heading to hell. Therefore, Jim's assurance is his own activity and contribution. He has faith, therefore, he can trust in that.

I cannot get on board with this. The Christian has assurance because of what Christ did for him, and part of what Christ did is bringing him to faith because the Father elected him from eternity past to be the object of love, salvation, and the recipient of grace. All credit, literally, goes to the Trinity. The Father elected me. Christ died for me securing everything i need for salvation. The Spirit, in time during my life, at the time of his choosing, regenerates me and brings me to a knowledge of my salvation and brings me to faith in Christ.

I don't accept that I'm arguing that one's trust isn't in Christ but in one's faith. You say in my view “Christ died equally for "Bob" (headed to hell) and "Jim" (headed to heaven). Therefore the difference is not in what Christ did for them, but what Jim did for himself.”

The difference between a Christian headed to heaven and an unbeliever headed to hell is that the Christian has faith in Christ and an unbeliever doesn’t, but since true faith isn’t something a person manufactures for himself but is God given, Jim doesn’t do it for himself, God does it for him.

I don’t accept that Christ’s atonement includes the provision of faith. Election to salvation relies upon the fact that Christ has atoned for a person’s sins, but it doesn’t follow that because Christ has atoned for a person’s sins that he is therefore predestined to be saved. Christ’s atonement is universal but election to salvation isn’t. Not everyone is elected to be saved but everyone has his sins atoned for by Christ. I don’t find it problematic in believing in universal atonement and particular election as that’s what the Scriptures teach, and I accept what Scripture teaches.

I would just like to add the following:

Justification equals atonement plus faith. Christ's atonement on its own doesn't equal salvation because it needs the addition of God-given faith to activate it in a person life. Atonement on its own is reconciliation from God's side but it needs the addition of our faith in the fact that God is reconciled to us before complete reconciliation takes place, otherwise it's like the situation of the beggar thinking the king who promises him a share in his kingdom is a joker and walking away in disbelief.

If a person doesn't take God seriously when He says He's reconciled to us through the death of His Son he isn't reconciled to God. It needs both God and man to be reconciled to each other, and the way man becomes reconciled to God is through God-given faith. Paul in 2 Cor 5:18 -22 says to be reconciled to God because God is reconciled to us - and this is done through faith on man's part. But only those elected to salvation can have faith because the Father draws only the elect to Christ.

 

[Edward65]

God’s desire to save people before Christ’s incarnation and death on the cross for the sins of the world was evident in the fact that He sent the prophets to prophesy about Christ so that people could be saved by faith in the coming Messiah. But of course at the same time God only elected to save some and not all of those who heard the message of the prophets. So there is a seeming incompatibility between His desire to save all and His intention to save only some which is difficult to understand. However we have to accept that God is mysterious and that we can’t understand how God operates and why He does what He does. Paul says: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways”! (Romans 11:33, ESV). Inscrutable means impossible to understand, analyse or investigate. So He does things which to us seem somewhat illogical. He sends Christ to atone for the sins of the world because He truly does love us and desires to save us yet He only elects to save some people and not all.

The mistake of those who believe in limited atonement is that although they believe rightly in God’s election and predestination they assume wrongly that God doesn’t really love the non-elect and therefore Christ didn’t atone for the sins of the world (meaning everyone). However If you read the Bible without trying to impose a foreign straitjacket on it the natural meaning of the text is that God loves everyone, desires to save everyone and Christ atoned for everyone.

 

[Don Maurer]

I can well understand your desire to soften the limited atonement position by suggesting that each and every person within the limited atonement model can have salvation available to him, because it doesn’t sound very loving that Christ has an endless supply of life rafts but He only chooses to throw them to the elect. If we did that in a situation of a ship-wreck when there were many people in the water who we could easily help then we would rightly be accused of murdering others because we had the means of saving them but choose not to.

You changed my illustration in an interesting way. I will admit my illustration was not the most clear illustration, but here is what I said...

If Christ death were equated to life rafts that could save even dead people and the ocean were filled with those people that were already dead and drowned, then Christ has an unlimited number of life rafts, but he threw them all to the elect.

Notice the life rafts are thrown to dead people in my illustration. I guess there is a sense in which Christ throws life rafts to even the dead people in that we are to evangelize everyone, even those who will never respond to the gospel. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that the people in the ocean are dead. Ephesians 2 tells us we are dead in our sins and trespasses. What that is speaking of is a text like John 6:44 and "no man can come to me." Spiritual death is spiritual inability. 1 Cor 2 says that the "natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God." Romans 5 tells us that all are dead in Adam. All sinned in Adam. The real huge area of our disagreement is right there. We view original sin in very different ways. In fact, where I am sitting, it looks like you do not believe in original sin. Where I am sitting, you have to greatly weaken doctrines like original sin, and also weaken the grace of God. Gods grace does not save in your view, but is spread like chicken feed and the spiritual strong get the feed and the rest go to hell.

Now where my illustration broke down is that I did not say that Christ makes some alive

Such behaviour is extremely unloving and not defensible particularly when Christ teaches us to love our enemies. (“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you”, Luke 6:27, ESV).

Yes, we are to love our enemies, and God is longsuffering to rebels and sinners, but he still sends them to hell. Even Joseph did not punish his brothers and ask "am I in the place of God." We are to love our enemies, but this does not mean God cannot judge our enemies. Is your God really sovereign?

Also, I can accept that God loves all men in one way. But Romans 9 tells us that he hated Esau. While you have to weaken that text, I do not. The passage is a soteriological passage so while God may have loved Esau with common grace, he hated him and did not love him in some soteriological way.

So I can understand if you should recoil from the picture of Christ leaving people to drown when He had an endless supply of life rafts. However the reality is since you’ve adopted the limited atonement model this model doesn’t allow you to make salvation available to everyone. In the limited atonement model salvation is available only to the elect because only they have had their sins atoned for. So if you want to soften the limited atonement view of Christ as someone who only loves a select few, and doesn’t care about saving others, you are going to have to believe in unlimited atonement which is the teaching of the Bible that Christ atoned for everyone and desires to save everyone and makes life rafts available to everyone.

Again, your miss the point of the people in the water being dead. What good is a life raft if they already drowned? How is it loving to throw a life raft to those who are dead?

If I may say what I find when I read the responses of those who believe in limited atonement is that they constantly go off the subject of atonement and start talking about election and predestination which isn't the subject under discussion. This is what you've done in your last post which I quoted first above. I'm trying to discuss atonement and you're talking about election and predestination. I know only those drawn by the Father are saved. I've argued that a good number of times myself with those who believe in Arminianism. I'm just as much a believer in predestination to heaven and hell as you appear to be. I agree with Luther who wrote the Bondage of the Will and completely demolished Erasmus's view that the Scriptures teach free will.

There's nothing inconsistent with believing in both predestination and unlimited atonement. The idea that you can't consistently believe in both is nonsense. That's just a falsehood.

The above makes very little sense. I must admit I have not read all of Luthers "bondage of the will." Have you? I really wonder how you can say you agree with it? Your the inspired person to say if you believe in free will or not, but I do not see how you can deny believing in some form of free will. Otherwise, how would men respond to the Gospel? Are you going to suggest some form of universal ineffectual saving grace; a universal prevenient grace? Where is that in the scripture?

The bottom line is men are dead and as John 6:44 says, they cannot come to Christ. Even coming to Christ is the work of Christ. The Father draws them. And only those drawn are raised up to salvation. John 6:44 very much speaks of the limited atonement. Why does the Father not draw each and every person that ever lived in John 6:44?

I continue to think you do not understand the limited atonement.

 

[Don Maurer]

God’s desire to save people before Christ’s incarnation and death on the cross for the sins of the world was evident in the fact that He sent the prophets to prophesy about Christ so that people could be saved by faith in the coming Messiah.

This does not deal with my statement. At the time of Christs death, when he shed his blood, the OT sinners were in hell. If Christ was trying to save them at the time he died, then he is trying to save someone already in hell.

But of course at the same time God only elected to save some and not all of those who heard the message of the prophets. So there is a seeming incompatibility between His desire to save all and His intention to save only some which is difficult to understand. However we have to accept that God is mysterious and that we can’t understand how God operates and why He does what He does. Paul says: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements and how inscrutable his ways”! (Romans 11:33, ESV). Inscrutable means impossible to understand, analyse or investigate. So He does things which to us seem somewhat illogical. He sends Christ to atone for the sins of the world because He truly does love us and desires to save us yet He only elects to save some people and not all.

Also, even if I hypothetically take your view here... and assume that the prophets showed Christs universal intent to the atonement... what about the Gentiles who never heard the prophets? Then I can still assume Christ did not love them?

The mistake of those who believe in limited atonement is that although they believe rightly in God’s election and predestination they assume wrongly that God doesn’t really love the non-elect and therefore Christ didn’t atone for the sins of the world (meaning everyone). However If you read the Bible without trying to impose a foreign straitjacket on it the natural meaning of the text is that God loves everyone, desires to save everyone and Christ atoned for everyone.

As I mentioned before, there are different kinds of Grace, a common grace. God extends his love to all men everywhere in common grace. But God does not love all men in the same way. Some he loves soteriologically and saves. Some he hates soteriologically and leaves them and does not intervene in their destiny. He reprobates them by taking away his restrain of sin.

If God desires all men to be saved, why does he reprobate them in Romans 1 by no longer restraining sin?

I know the references in 1 Tim 2 and Ezek on God's desire. I am also aware of Pipers reading, and MacArthers reading of those texts, but do not take the position of the majority Reformed reading of those passages that there are two wills of God. This is something you might be unfamiliar with. This is also a whole different discussion.

 

[Edward65]

Everyone in their natural state is dead in original sin (which I assure you I believe in), but if you believe in limited atonement then Christ didn’t die for everyone and can’t offer salvation to everyone, so therefore He didn’t love everyone as He taught us to love each other. And therefore it follows He would be saying to us; “Do as I say but not as I do, because I don’t care to save everyone and don’t desire to. I’m only going to atone for the sins of those I choose to and the rest can go off to hell.” The Scriptures don’t teach that Christ was like this. They teach that Christ came to offer salvation to everyone and to atone for the sins of everyone.

With respect to predestination I fully accept that God from eternity chose only to save some and not all and that this seems paradoxical given that He sent Christ to atone for the sins of everyone and desires to save everyone, but I believe that the Scriptures teach both that Christ atoned for everyone’s sins and that God elects only some to be saved. I don’t try and create like Calvinists do a neat logical sytem which has God only providing atonment for those He elects to save. If this was taught in the Scriptures then of course I would believe it. But it isn’t. Christ loved everyone, desired to save everyone and atoned for the sins of everyone.

I would just like to add that I believe and hold that only the elect will be saved, and that no-one has free will to respond to the Gospel because we are all blind and dead in sin, and that unless the Father draws a person to Christ he can’t believe. This is also Luther's position in The Bondage of The Will where he affirmed both predestination to heaven and hell as well as unlimited atonement. Luther taught that God has two wills, His hidden will through which He predestines everything that happens, and His revealed will though which He desires the salvation of everyone and by which Christ atoned for everyone's sins.

 

[Don Maurer]

Everyone in their natural state is dead in original sin (which I assure you I believe in),

I remain skeptical that you understand and agree with original sin. I am guessing we are having terminology issues here. When I see phrases like "dead in original sin" I think of that ocean in which all men are already dead... drowned. So if the life raft is thrown to them, it would not mean much because they are already dead. If Christ wants to save them, if he is trying to save them, if the extent of the atonement covers all men everywhere, then why did God not make all men everywhere alive in Christ?

There are also issues with the terminology "limited atonement." Its true that all Christians believe in a limited atonement. The only exception would be the person who believes that all men everywhere will go to heaven. You believe the atonement is limited in its power to save, I do not.

but if you believe in limited atonement then Christ didn’t die for everyone and can’t offer salvation to everyone,

How remarkable your statement is here on the differences in the views of the atonement. In your view, the atonement does not save. I say this because of your statement above. To you, the atonement means God can "offer salvation to everyone." Can you show me a verse in the bible which shows this view of the atonement that Christ merely earned the right to offer salvation? Where does the scripture speak about such insufficiency of the atonement to save? Where does the scripture speak of the atonement as merely earning the right to offer salvation?

Now anyone can pick out verses where salvation is offered, but that of course is not the question. The question is not about the offer of salvation, but the question is about the nature of the atonement as merely offering salvation. We both believe that God can offer salvation to every man that ever lived on condition of faith. The difference is that I believe no man can accept this offer without Christ first making him alive (as in Eph 2). This making him alive happens when one is under the atonement.

so therefore He didn’t love everyone as He taught us to love each other. And therefore it follows He would be saying to us; “Do as I say but not as I do, because I don’t care to save everyone and don’t desire to. I’m only going to atone for the sins of those I choose to and the rest can go off to hell.” The Scriptures don’t teach that Christ was like this. They teach that Christ came to offer salvation to everyone and to atone for the sins of everyone.

You are continuing to misrepresent the issue here. Concerning the love of God, God does love everyone like we love each other. There is the love a Christian has for all mankind and will try to be charitable and meet the needs of all mankind. But then there is also the love a man has for his wife. That is a different love. I must admit that I do not love all mankind like I love my wife. While I agree the scriptures teach that God loves all men, I do not agree that he loves all men in the same way. God shows common grace to all men, but he does not show his salvific love to all men. While we must love our enemies, we do not need to love our enemies in the same identical way that we love our wives. I consider your statements a category error.

With respect to predestination I fully accept that God from eternity chose only to save some and not all and that this seems paradoxical given that He sent Christ to atone for the sins of everyone and desires to save everyone, but I believe that the Scriptures teach both that Christ atoned for everyone’s sins and that God elects only some to be saved. I don’t try and create like Calvinists do a neat logical sytem which has God only providing atonment for those He elects to save. If this was taught in the Scriptures then of course I would believe it. But it isn’t. Christ loved everyone, desired to save everyone and atoned for the sins of everyone.

I am glad you accept predestination. I am glad we have no disagreement in that doctrine. Where we might disagree is when you make a statement like this... "I don’t try and create like Calvinists do a neat logical sytem which has God only providing atonment for those He elects to save." I would see Romans 8 as providing a biblical link in the doctrinal chain.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I think paying attention to the pronouns is the key. Each and every person that God foreknew was foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son. Each and every person foreordained was called (probably effectual calling). Each and every person called was justified. All justified were glorified.

Now my question, where does the scripture say that God foreknew the reprobate? Where does the scripture say that the reprobate are covered under the atonement?

To believe in predestination and election is one thing, but I have difficulty seeing those doctrines as unrelated to the atonement. I have no trouble with anyone saying that Christs atonement is of great enough value that if the entire human race is of far less value. But the doctrine of the limited atonement says that God is not trying to save the reprobate. They are not under the blood.

I would just like to add that I believe and hold that only the elect will be saved, and that no-one has free will to respond to the Gospel because we are all blind and dead in sin, and that unless the Father draws a person to Christ he can’t believe. This is also Luther's position in The Bondage of The Will where he affirmed both predestination to heaven and hell as well as unlimited atonement. Luther taught that God has two wills, His hidden will through which He predestines everything that happens, and His revealed will though which He desires the salvation of everyone and by which Christ atoned for everyone's sins.

 

[Don Maurer]

I would just like to add that I believe and hold that only the elect will be saved, and that no-one has free will to respond to the Gospel because we are all blind and dead in sin, and that unless the Father draws a person to Christ he can’t believe. This is also Luther's position in The Bondage of The Will where he affirmed both predestination to heaven and hell as well as unlimited atonement. Luther taught that God has two wills, His hidden will through which He predestines everything that happens, and His revealed will though which He desires the salvation of everyone and by which Christ atoned for everyone's sins.

I am aware that this is also a common reformed position. People such as John Piper, John MacArther. I think I read in John Owen book, Death of Death, that he takes this position. Many others in the reformed tradition teach the two will of God. This would make for a good thread., but a specific exegetical discussion on that issue would take this thread too far away from the OP. I just want to mention that I do not fit in here with the majority reformed opinion. The major passage in this discussion in 1 Timothy 2, especially verse 4 and several passages in Ezekiel.

Also, Edward, I recognize that you are close to a reformed soteriological position. The big L is your big issue. In a way, Dort was unfortunate. Now if people can recite TULIP they think they understand reformed soteriology. TULIP has done us a great disservice when it is not understood. Please do not take this as a complaint because I am fully aware that I myself once was a 4 pointer, and much further from reformed soteriology than what you are. While a 4 pointer I did affirm free will, and would not have understood total depravity and original sin correctly. Now, I do not see the 5 points as divisible. The 5 points express one theology, the real core of the 5 points is the concept of regeneration as the cause of faith.


The subject of the limited atonement is not easy to discuss. Not all Reformed think in the same way even about this subject. The agreement is general, but if we were to dig deeper, you would find a lot of differences even among the reformed. I think most reformed would agree that regeneration causing faith sits in the background of any discussion on the atonement. All those under the atonement are effectually called during regeneration, and since regeneration is limited in its extent, so then the atonement is limited in its extent. There is also the high priestly ministry of Christ. Is Christ the intercessor of the whole world? Did Christ lay his blood on the heavenly alter in the New Covenant alter for those he wants to save, or all men everywhere? If Christ offered his blood for all men everywhere, does he then go before God and appeal his blood for all men as their great high priest? I myself am unable to break up the atonement into itty bitty pieces as would be necessary in many other views.

As I speak of the high priestly ministry of Christ, I thirst to go even deeper into the issue of the limited atonement, but if I were to do that, even the reformed would split on issues of limited atonement and the New Covenant in Hebrews.

Well, Edward, may God be with you.