Limited Atonement (Joelkaki versus doogieduff) commentary

[dizzle]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the debate between Joelkaki and doogieduff on Limited Atonment located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=50135#post50135


Bottles are prohibited, face paint is encouraged.

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[PuritanD]

Joel's arguments are directly aligned with the high Calvinist understanding of limited atonement. It is a good case and has a "tightness" to it.

Here is one problem that I see in it. Joel has set himself up in such a way that if one passage or more talk about a person interceding on the behalf of any person that their sin or action be forgiven, those people must be saved or the prayer is outright ignored.

The best example is Luke 23:34. Though it is highly debated by some as to whether this prayer of Jesus belongs in the text. The external evidence is strong to state it shouldn't be there but internal evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Most believe that it is original.

Jesus' prayer for God to forgive the sin of crucifing him must either than be ignored completely or that all that were there must have been saved. There is a third option for the high Calvinist though more difficult to prove. It is that the prayer was just for the few who would come to Christ eventually.

However, if one was to believe that Jesus can atone for all the sins of the elect, why can He not also atone for certain sins of non-believers of whom a saint intercede on their behalf without saving them?

PuritanD

[Act9_12Out]

I agree with doogie's conclusion that The "L" in the TULIP is a direct result of the other 4 points of Calvinism. The "L" is the 5th prong, if you will. It seems to be the last, logical conclusion in a flawed system. Since the first 4 points are illogical, then it stands to reason that the 5th point is illogical as well.

I think doogie did a great job showing that the blood is available to those who freely choose Christ. Ultimately, the blood will save only those who have trusted in Him because even though "God desires all men to be saved," we know some freely reject Christ. The point I think doogie is attempting to develop is that He disagrees with the premise of Unconditional Election. If the Calvinistic doctorine of election is false, then the blood is available to all who choose Christ of their own free will.

As a side note... I have been told that John Calvin himself did not believe in Limited Atonement. Can anyone verify if this is or is not true?

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

joel's second post totally failed to show limited atonement. joel is forced to presuppose election into all of his points. For example, of course Christ loves the church and calls husbands to love their wives in the same way. However, joel is forced to say that "the church" is made of of individuals whom God chose. In a marriage relationship (using joel's analogy), men and women freely choose who their mate will be. In that same way, "the church" which Christ loves, is made up of those who freely accept Him.

doogie's second post has many great points. I checked the original of 2 Peter 3:9 to see why he translated it the way he did. I'm happy to say, he's right on! The word choreo translated "come" in the english translations of 2 Peter 3:9 does not mean "come" at all. In fact, doogie is correct by showing that the word choreo menas "to have room for." This same word is used in John 2:6 referring to the water pots "having room for two or three measures each." If God has indeed counseled boule that all men would have room for repentance, then that idea totally destroys the calvinistic doctorine of election and therefore limited atonement. doogie's take on Romans 5:12 & 18 was very interesting as well. I'll have to do some more research on that, but the way he presented it sounds pretty solid to me. Nice job once again doogie!

Now I will wait to see how they rebutt each other...

--Jeremy

[CT292]

Jeremy wrote:

As a side note... I have been told that John Calvin himself did not believe in Limited Atonement. Can anyone verify if this is or is not true?

Calvin scholars have debated that question and the weight of the evidence appears to show that Calvin did believe in Limited Atonement.

This is Roger Nicole's 1985 article on the topic
John Calvin's view of Limited Atonement (http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm)

Robert Peterson's 2000 book, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement is one scholarly examination of the question.

Paul Helm's book, Calvin's Calvinism is another defense of Calvin's view on Limited Atonement (http://www.the-highway.com/articleJuly02.html).

The best treatment is the 1990 book by Jonathan Rainbow entitled, The Will of God & the Cross : John Calvin & the Doctrine of Limited Redemption.

BTW its difficult to see how Calvin could not have held to limited Atonement since it is a view that is logically required given the scriptural premises of the other 4 points. Yet it was Calvin's friend, Theodore Beza who had given more attention to the doctrine in clearly rejecting Peter Lombard's twelve century "common solution" of "Christ died sufficiently for all, efficiently only for the elect" and giving Limited Atonement a more precise statement than Calvin ever did.

And to this day, John Owen's mid-17th century defense of Limited Atonement remains unaswered. Gary Long's recent book, Definite Atonement is also very good.

Colin

[smilax]

04-08-2003 @ 05:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59445#post59445)
Act9_12Out:
In a marriage relationship (using joel's analogy), men and women freely choose who their mate will be.Anachronistic mixing of metaphors... Marriages in Biblical times were mostly arranged. The Father gives to the Son. Genesis xxiv, 14 shows Isaac and Rebekah as a type of Christ and the church, with even a sort of "predestination" by God of whom Isaac would marry.

I don't see how the elect body could lack individuals, given the parable of the hundred sheep, with Christ going back to find the one, lost sheep. Collectivists did not necessarily lack the notion of an individual; they simply gave priority to the group.

[dizzle]

Now that the debate is over, the participants are free to post in this commentary thread.

[joelkaki]

I really wanted/needed one last post. Oh well, such it goes in debates.


Joel

[doogieduff]

post it here joelkaki, i'm game!

[joelkaki]

Hey, actually, if you want to, we could continue it over in the Tennis Court.

Joel

[mickiel]

[ Salvation is only limited in the mind and belief system of man. Its how God views salvation that is of importance. Jesus came to save the world, but men would rather he condemn it. Is Christ "able" to save all of mankind, does he have that kind of power, love and mercy? He most certainly does. Men just don't have it.

[PuritanD]

And to this day, John Owen's mid-17th century defense of Limited Atonement remains unaswered. Gary Long's recent book, Definite Atonement is also very good.

Colin

Though I have not read Gary Long's recent book, I must say that the idea that Owen's defense is unaswered is unwarranted. His logic ruins his exegesis to the point of possibly being eisegesis especially of Luke 23:34.

It is fascinating to note that at the Synod of Dort, it was there where the idea of atonement being sufficient for all but efficient for the elect originated thanks to the Puritans of England.

PuritanD