That is not how I understand "Limited Atonement".
How do you understand it? I guess the way I interpreted it above is not the correct interpretation, so I guess any other interpretation I would have to disagree with the "L" also. However.....
Limited Atonement - Christ bore the sin only of the elect, not everyone who ever lived.
- Christ's blood was sufficient for all, but not all sin was imputed to Christ. Christ's blood is sufficient to cover all people. But the sufficiency relates to his divine value which is different than our legal debt. Sin is a debt (Matt. 6:12 with Luke 11:4) since it is breaking the Law of God (1 John 3:4). In limited atonement, Calvinists are saying that there was a limit to whose sins were imputed to Christ in a legal sense. They are not denying the sufficiency of Christ's blood to cover all people. Instead, they look at the legal aspect of the sin debt. Peoples' sin debts were transferred to Jesus (1 Pet. 2:24) and were canceled on the cross, not when we believe (Col. 2:14). Therefore, legally speaking, those canceled sins cannot be held against the sinner because their quality of being a debt has been canceled by being paid on the cross (John 19:30; Col. 2:14). If the debt is canceled, it does not exist and cannot be held against the debtor/sinner. Therefore, Christ only legally bore the sins of the elect even though his blood was sufficient to cover all. Also, consider 1 Sam. 3:14 which says, "Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."
The way I see the above is, if someone doesn't choose Jesus as their Savior (Righteousness), then they will be in the wrong standing at judgment.
I have also listened to this, it's 10 mins Pastor John audio....he does a great job clarifying the "L". Listen and see what you think? Link is below.
In What Sense Did Christ Die for the Non-Elect?
Last edited: