LIMITED ATONEMENT: US vs THEM (the L of TULIP)

[Scott Downey]

No sinner can and will of their own, ever "seek" the True God of the Bible, they must be "convicted" by the Holy Spirit of the Truths as Taught in God's Word, of their lostness, and their urgent need for Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord.

Jesus, the Word, says taught by the Father...as Does John the apostle.

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, [h]“Do not murmur among yourselves.
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who [i]has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

The context of the above is for those being saved by God, they are taught by God to know the truth that is Christ, so they have an anointing from God and will not be deceived. Not ALL people as in each and every unsaved person is taught by the Father, or then salvation is universal and all get saved, so to say God teaches every single, without exception, person. is a lie from Satan, who is the father of lies (and liars). The ones taught by the Father are the ones drawn by the Father. v45 directly links back to v44.

John also says it later like this
1 John 2
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to [f]deceive you.
27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you [g]will abide in Him.

 

[atpollard]

Care to elaborate?

You guys and your cowardly "hit-and-run" posts . . .

Have you read “Animal Farm”? (It impacts whether or not you will understand the explanation.)

 

[atpollard]

The atonement and the purpose of the atonement are two different things. However you still have not shown how the atonement can be limited.
I gave you two questions, can you answer them? If you can then you have provided evidence of a limited atonement.

Yes, I can, but I won’t.
Your original challenge was for a definition of what the term meant (provided) and an explanation of how it worked (also provided). Beating a dead horse in a pretext of changing anyone’s mind is pointless. There are many good books on Reformed Theology, I suggest the Baptist Confession of 1689 since it is free, online and includes scripture verse links to support every claim it makes.

 

[Rightglory]

Yes, I can, but I won’t.
Your original challenge was for a definition of what the term meant (provided) and an explanation of how it worked (also provided). Beating a dead horse in a pretext of changing anyone’s mind is pointless. There are many good books on Reformed Theology, I suggest the Baptist Confession of 1689 since it is free, online and includes scripture verse links to support every claim it makes.

Definition of a word is meaningless outside of context. You gave no scriptural explanation of how the atonement could be limited. You gave the purpose of the atonement, but nothing about the atonement, how it could be limited,
I understand your position and I am not interested in reading any reformed theology. There is enough of it on this forum and thread. The problem is that limited atonement in not scriptural. Which is why you cannot find any evidence for it.
You are certainly free to believe whatever you desire. I just find it strange that you would believe a man-made theory imposed on scripture 1500 years after the gospel was given, Especially when it denies one of the hallmarks of historical Christianity, the Incarnation of Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Have you read “Animal Farm”? (It impacts whether or not you will understand the explanation.)

Yes I did. Animal Farm is a book that most kids used to read in Jr. High school.
It's about the threat of socialism and communim - not the Church.

 

[atpollard]

Yes I did. Animal Farm is a book that most kids used to read in Jr. High school.
It's about the threat of socialism and communim - not the Church.

Then you will probably remember the scene in the book where the Pigs moved into the house and the animals went to check the rule they remembered that prohibited such a thing, but the Pigs had edited the rules (changed the past) to add "in a bed" thus creating a loophole whereby THEIR violation was an exception rather than a violation.

You proclaim, as if PAPAL Infallibility declared it so, that the Doctrine of the church has NEVER changed and any time an example of a change in Church Doctrine from the Past is presented, you scribble the equivalent of "in a bed" after the event as your apologetic modus operendi for supporting your apriori claim that it cannot have changed. That was how your apologetic appears to this "mare" to have learned its tactics from "Animal Farm".

Since you have claimed revisionist ownership of the past ... I offer you an example from the future: "Is Mary co-redemptrix?"
(When the answer ceases to be "No", and it eventually will, then Church Doctrine will have changed.)

 

[atpollard]

Definition of a word is meaningless outside of context.

Merriam-Webster will be disappointed to hear this.

So was this just "click-bait"?

To all who hold to Limited Atonement

I have never read any post that actually explains what Limited atonement might be. You assert it but never explain.
So here is your opportunity to explain just how Limited Atonement works.

Since you now claim to KNOW what it means, but just want to argue about it and convince me that I am wrong.

 

[atpollard]

Especially when it denies one of the hallmarks of historical Christianity, the Incarnation of Christ.

How does Jesus dying to redeem the saints deny His incarnation?

You are speaking foolish nonsense. I understand and disagree with Universal Atonement, but I don't make wild and unfounded claims about what my Lutheran and Wesleyan Brothers in Christ believe. I just point out the consequence that Jesus' blood was ineffectively* shed paying for sinners that are damned and ineffectively* shed for sins that will be punished for all eternity on the "day of wrath". Universal Atonement has some sins paid for TWICE ... Christ bore their sin and they bear their own sin.

[* ineffective: (definition) Jesus shed blood did not save those that spend eternity in hell; Jesus' shed blood did not forgive the sins that are actually punished on the day of wrath. It is not a matter if "insufficiency" of Jesus' atoning blood, merely a fact of its application. The DAMNED are not SAVED and the GUILTY are not FORGIVEN ... that is just a fact.]

 

[Rightglory]

Merriam-Webster will be disappointed to hear this.

So was this just "click-bait"?

Since you now claim to KNOW what it means, but just want to argue about it and convince me that I am wrong.

I know what scripture defines as Christ's atonement but I still do not know how you can limit that atonement. That you have not explained.
You show examples as to the purpose of the atonement, thinking that since all mankind does not believe that is somehow a restriction on the atonement.
I'm not here to convince you or anyone else about what they might believe. I'm just pointing out that limited atonement is not scriptural, it is an impossibility to limit the atonement. That you think it can be limited in some way, on what is it based. At this point you have not shown how it can be limited, so if you have no evidence why do you believe it?

 

[Rightglory]

How does Jesus dying to redeem the saints deny His incarnation?

It starts with the fall of man. Adam was created to be in union with God. He was to work with God in this created universe to bring both himself and creation back to God as a living sacrifice. To grow to spiritual maturity and attain immortal life. He was created with a will independent of God so that He could freely love and serve God or choose not to serve Him. He could either become mortal if he disobeyed God's commandment and was told he would die. or if he remained faithful he would attain immortality.
We know Adam sinned. The result was death, physical death, dust to dust. God told Adam that a delieverer would come at some time in the future.
Heb 2:14-18. explains that Christ took on man's human nature, became like unto us in all things that by sharing that humanity, He might defeat Satan who held the power of death and sin, by his own death.
We also know from the stories of Christ's birth in the Gospels that he was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.
Scripture also states in Heb 2:9 that Christ tasted death for all men.
Overcoming death is the primary function of the Incarnation since it gave both mankind and the world which also suffered death, would be given an eternal existence again. This would happen in the eschaton where all the dead will be raised and judged and given eternal life with God or eternal damnation. We know by Rom 5:12 that death came to all men. Paul also explains in vs 18 that all men were given life as well.

Other texts that show the universality of Christ overcoming death, physical death are, I Cor 15:12-22, !5:53, IITim 1:10, Col 1:16-20, II Cor 5:18-19, Rev 20 11-13, as well as several others stating the resurrection of the dead.
Secondly, so that God could have a relationship with man, a perfect sacrifice was needed, shed blood. That sacrifice was acommplished by Christ and Incarnated man who lived a life on this earth and did not sin. His death and shed blood propitiated, covered all sins. I John 2:2. One drop is necessary for one sin, and sufficient for all sins man could possible produce.
Thus the universality of the atonement. Christ was the sacrifice but also became the High Priest over that sacrifice so that when man confesses their sins, He is able to forgive their sin.
Note that atonement of Christ is to God. God was in the world reconciling the world to God. Made man and the world right with God.

Now, why does universal atonement deny the Incarnation. It denies the fact that Christ took on our human natures for the purpose of defeating death. Our human nature is consubstantal with the world since we were created from the dust of this earth, and
Christ also in His human nature was consubstantial with us. Thus a change in one human nature is a change in all human natures which is what I Cor 15:20-22 states so clearly.
What I hear so often from Calvinists is that Christ died ONLY for the elect and ONLY the elect will be raised to immortality. That he saved the elect of all their sin, past, present and future by virtue of dying on the Cross. Christ did not forgive any sins from the Cross. He also does not arbitrarily, or automatically forgive sins either. Sins must be repented of, confessed so that He as our High Priest can forgive our sins. He did not do that from the Cross.
This may fit very nicely within the 5pt framework of Calvinism, but none of it is scriptural, nor Incarnational.

As to the sacrifice, How can it be limited. Essentially we are looking at a drop of blood. It is the amount of blood that us used for the forgiveness of sin of those that believe, in deference with those that don't believe? Just how do you explain limited sacrifice?

You are speaking foolish nonsense. I understand and disagree with Universal Atonement, but I don't make wild and unfounded claims about what my Lutheran and Wesleyan Brothers in Christ believe. I just point out the consequence that Jesus' blood was ineffectively* shed paying for sinners that are damned and ineffectively* shed for sins that will be punished for all eternity on the "day of wrath". Universal Atonement has some sins paid for TWICE ... Christ bore their sin and they bear their own sin.

Your understanding of being 'Paid" is not scriptural as I pointed out. Christ propitiated sin on the Cross, did not forgive any sin on the Cross. Sins are paid for at the time one repents/confesses those sins. Those that never believe has NEVER had their sins forgiven so it cannot be a double payment. Scripture also states that He bore the sins of His people. Meaning, only those that believed will have their sins forgiven as long as they live a life of confessing their sins and remain IN Christ.

[* ineffective: (definition) Jesus shed blood did not save those that spend eternity in hell; Jesus' shed blood did not forgive the sins that are actually punished on the day of wrath. It is not a matter if "insufficiency" of Jesus' atoning blood, merely a fact of its application. The DAMNED are not SAVED and the GUILTY are not FORGIVEN ... that is just a fact.]

See above.

 

[atpollard]

It starts with the fall of man. Adam was created to be in union with God. He was to work with God in this created universe to bring both himself and creation back to God as a living sacrifice. To grow to spiritual maturity and attain immortal life. He was created with a will independent of God so that He could freely love and serve God or choose not to serve Him. He could either become mortal if he disobeyed God's commandment and was told he would die. or if he remained faithful he would attain immortality.
We know Adam sinned. The result was death, physical death, dust to dust. God told Adam that a delieverer would come at some time in the future.
Heb 2:14-18. explains that Christ took on man's human nature, became like unto us in all things that by sharing that humanity, He might defeat Satan who held the power of death and sin, by his own death.
We also know from the stories of Christ's birth in the Gospels that he was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.
Scripture also states in Heb 2:9 that Christ tasted death for all men.
Overcoming death is the primary function of the Incarnation since it gave both mankind and the world which also suffered death, would be given an eternal existence again. This would happen in the eschaton where all the dead will be raised and judged and given eternal life with God or eternal damnation.
Other texts that show the universality of Christ overcomeing death, physical death are, I Cor 15:12-22, !5:53, IITim 1:10, Col 1:16-20,

You must have a different definition of ATONEMENT ... apparently your "atonement" only involves raising corpses to receive judgement (and damnation) rather than obtaining eternal life for the people Christ Atoned for.

I don't deny Christus Victor, I just think that ATONEMENT is about more than undoing death so sinners can face Judgement. Christ defeated DEATH without propitiating those sins that remained unpropitiated at the Judgement by those souls that stood "already judged" (as John 3:18 put it) and were to be eternally damned. That does NOT deny the Incarnation, it gives it more than a token meaning ... Jesus ACTUALLY SAVES by His Incarnation and Atonement, not merely "undoes original sin".

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then you will probably remember the scene in the book where the Pigs moved into the house and the animals went to check the rule they remembered that prohibited such a thing, but the Pigs had edited the rules (changed the past) to add "in a bed" thus creating a loophole whereby THEIR violation was an exception rather than a violation.

You proclaim, as if PAPAL Infallibility declared it so, that the Doctrine of the church has NEVER changed and any time an example of a change in Church Doctrine from the Past is presented, you scribble the equivalent of "in a bed" after the event as your apologetic modus operendi for supporting your apriori claim that it cannot have changed. That was how your apologetic appears to this "mare" to have learned its tactics from "Animal Farm".

Since you have claimed revisionist ownership of the past ... I offer you an example from the future: "Is Mary co-redemptrix?"
(When the answer ceases to be "No", and it eventually will, then Church Doctrine will have changed.)

Whereas doctrine develops – and may be defined later – it NEVER changes.
So your whole “Animal Farm scenario is moot . . .

As for “Co-Redemptrix” – you have a flawed understanding.
The prefix, “Co” comes from the Latin “Cum”, which doesn’t necessarily mean “Equal to”. I can also mean “With” – as in the case with Co-Redemptrix. Mary cooperates with God’s plan for salvation – she is not equal to Him.
We are ALL co-redemptors in this sense.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

WRONG.
Your sins are only forgiven when you repent and asj for forgiveness.

Acts 3:19
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out

No I am right for I agree with you. Atonement is only potential until one receives it by faith.

Propitiation is accomplished but atonement and propitiation are not eh same thing.

Propitiation is the acceptable sacrifice for something while atonement is the removal of sin from one.

 

[atpollard]

Whereas doctrine develops – and may be defined later – it NEVER changes.
So your whole “Animal Farm scenario is moot . . .

As for “Co-Redemptrix” – you have a flawed understanding.
The prefix, “Co” comes from the Latin “Cum”, which doesn’t necessarily mean “Equal to”. I can also mean “With” – as in the case with Co-Redemptrix. Mary cooperates with God’s plan for salvation – she is not equal to Him.
We are ALL co-redemptors in this sense.

It was about this time that the pigs suddenly moved into the farmhouse and took up their residence there. Again the animals seemed to remember that a resolution against this had been passed in the early days, and again Squealer was able to convince them that this was not the case. It was absolutely necessary, he said, that the pigs, who were the brains of the farm, should have a quiet place to work in. It was also more suited to the dignity of the Leader (for of late he had taken to speaking of Napoleon under the title of "Leader") to live in a house than in a mere sty. Nevertheless, some of the animals were disturbed when they heard that the pigs not only took their meals in the kitchen and used the drawing-room as a recreation room, but also slept in the beds. Boxer passed it off as usual with "Napoleon is always right!", but Clover, who thought she remembered a definite ruling against beds, went to the end of the barn and tried to puzzle out the Seven Commandments which were inscribed there. Finding herself unable to read more than individual letters, she fetched Muriel.

"Muriel," she said, "read me the Fourth Commandment. Does it not say something about never sleeping in a bed?"

With some difficulty Muriel spelt it out.

"It says, 'No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets,'" she announced finally.

Curiously enough, Clover had not remembered that the Fourth Commandment mentioned sheets; but as it was there on the wall, it must have done so. And Squealer, who happened to be passing at this moment, attended by two or three dogs, was able to put the whole matter in its proper perspective.

"You have heard then, comrades," he said, "that we pigs now sleep in the beds of the farmhouse? And why not? You did not suppose, surely, that there was ever a ruling against beds? A bed merely means a place to sleep in. A pile of straw in a stall is a bed, properly regarded. The rule was against sheets, which are a human invention. We have removed the sheets from the farmhouse beds, and sleep between blankets. And very comfortable beds they are too! But not more comfortable than we need, I can tell you, comrades, with all the brainwork we have to do nowadays. You would not rob us of our repose, would you, comrades? You would not have us too tired to carry out our duties? Surely none of you wishes to see Jones back?"
-Animal Farm by George Orwell, Chapter 6

["Him who has ears, let him hear." - Jesus]

 

[BreadOfLife]

No I am right for I agree with you. Atonement is only potential until one receives it by faith.
Propitiation is accomplished but atonement and propitiation are not eh same thing.
Propitiation is the acceptable sacrifice for something while atonement is the removal of sin from one.

WRONG.

Neith propitiation NOR atonement are forgiveness.
Forgiveness requires our cooperation.

You cannot be forgiven if you don’t repent - or if you refuse to forgive others.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It was about this time that the pigs suddenly moved into the farmhouse and took up their residence there. Again the animals seemed to remember that a resolution against this had been passed in the early days, and again Squealer was able to convince them that this was not the case. It was absolutely necessary, he said, that the pigs, who were the brains of the farm, should have a quiet place to work in. It was also more suited to the dignity of the Leader (for of late he had taken to speaking of Napoleon under the title of "Leader") to live in a house than in a mere sty. Nevertheless, some of the animals were disturbed when they heard that the pigs not only took their meals in the kitchen and used the drawing-room as a recreation room, but also slept in the beds. Boxer passed it off as usual with "Napoleon is always right!", but Clover, who thought she remembered a definite ruling against beds, went to the end of the barn and tried to puzzle out the Seven Commandments which were inscribed there. Finding herself unable to read more than individual letters, she fetched Muriel.

"Muriel," she said, "read me the Fourth Commandment. Does it not say something about never sleeping in a bed?"

With some difficulty Muriel spelt it out.

"It says, 'No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets,'" she announced finally.

Curiously enough, Clover had not remembered that the Fourth Commandment mentioned sheets; but as it was there on the wall, it must have done so. And Squealer, who happened to be passing at this moment, attended by two or three dogs, was able to put the whole matter in its proper perspective.

"You have heard then, comrades," he said, "that we pigs now sleep in the beds of the farmhouse? And why not? You did not suppose, surely, that there was ever a ruling against beds? A bed merely means a place to sleep in. A pile of straw in a stall is a bed, properly regarded. The rule was against sheets, which are a human invention. We have removed the sheets from the farmhouse beds, and sleep between blankets. And very comfortable beds they are too! But not more comfortable than we need, I can tell you, comrades, with all the brainwork we have to do nowadays. You would not rob us of our repose, would you, comrades? You would not have us too tired to carry out our duties? Surely none of you wishes to see Jones back?"
-Animal Farm by George Orwell, Chapter 6

["Him who has ears, let him hear." - Jesus]

“And he who has courage should explain and actually engage in discussion instead of pasting text from a fictitious book.” – Bread of Life

In other words – how about NOT beating around the bush and just spit it out?

 

[Rightglory]

No I am right for I agree with you. Atonement is only potential until one receives it by faith.

Propitiation is accomplished but atonement and propitiation are not eh same thing.

Propitiation is the acceptable sacrifice for something while atonement is the removal of sin from one.

Propitiation is part of the atonement. Christ accomplished two things in His atonement. Overcame death, and propitiated for sin, made a sacrifice. This atonement is to God. Christ was redeeming, reconciling this world to God. So by your definition, if atonement means removal of sin. then whose sin was removed, God's or Christ's sin.?
The atonement of Christ was to make this created universe right with God.
The two purposes of that atonement was to restore an eternal existence to His creation that was destroyed in the fall. Secondly, the sacrifice provided a means by which Christ who was the sacrifice made it possible for God to have a relationship with His creatures. As the Holy Spirit is calling all men to repentance, those that see and believe can have a relationship when they repent/confess their sins to make that union possible.

 

[MatthewG]

Jesus Christ death on the cross was for one time, and one time only, his victory over death along with the return would ensue the defeat of the devil. Also sin, hell, death.

It was for everyone and just because they don’t believe doesn’t mean that they have not been saved from these things what it does mean is that they are not saved to the kingdom of heaven, due to non-faith, no love for God no love for others.

People suggest limited atonement because of well you must accept Jesus Christ first, will God, except Jesus Christ first, and he said that his blood was good enough, and that because of this the whole world was to be reconciled to god, and with that infers, is reconciliation of all men.

Everyone is like a blank slate. Some people are building up treasury in heaven. Some people are not building on any spiritual things whatsoever.

With this in mind, it wouldn’t be fair to say that only Jesus died for some, and not the world like the Bible explicitly tells you it’s amazing that most people don’t believe it.

 

[Rightglory]

You must have a different definition of ATONEMENT ... apparently your "atonement" only involves raising corpses to receive judgement (and damnation) rather than obtaining eternal life for the people Christ Atoned for.

I don't deny Christus Victor, I just think that ATONEMENT is about more than undoing death so sinners can face Judgement. Christ defeated DEATH without propitiating those sins that remained unpropitiated at the Judgement by those souls that stood "already judged" (as John 3:18 put it) and were to be eternally damned. That does NOT deny the Incarnation, it gives it more than a token meaning ... Jesus ACTUALLY SAVES by His Incarnation and Atonement, not merely "undoes original sin".

The most important and primary purpose of the atonement is for Christ to overcome death. Death destroyed His creation. His death and resurrection recapitulated the created order.Without overcoming death there is no eternal existence. There would be no need for either heaven or hell. The creation and man would simply be dissolved by death. That all will occur when Christ comes again.
But in the meantime, God created man to have relationship with Him while in this world. That was the vocation of Adam and why He was created. God did not get rid of sin for this life as physical death gets rid of sin in our mortal bodies. That is why we are to die once, to rid this body of sin. Thus the sacrifice was for the purpose that God could have a relationship with man when man confessed his sin, Christ as the High Priest could forgive our sin.
Yes, scripture is very clear that Christ is the Savior of the world. He saved mankind/world from death and sin.
But that does not address the salvation of us as individuals. Our personal salvation can only happen if Christ first overcomes death and sin.
A person's sin is ONLY forgiven when one repents/confesses their sin. Christ did not forgive sins on the Cross. He does not arbitrarily forgive sins either nor does He forgive ones past, present and future sins with a one time act of faith.
Christ still saves but our personal salvation is a mutual union between God and man.

 

[atpollard]

“And he who has courage should explain and actually engage in discussion instead of pasting text from a fictitious book.” – Bread of Life

In other words – how about NOT beating around the bush and just spit it out?

I did, but you ignored it.
That wasn't FOR you, it was ABOUT what you were doing.