Limited atonement?

[lee_merrill]

Did Jesus only atone, on the cross, for those who would believe in him?

Colossians 1:20 ... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Timothy 2:6 ... who gave himself as a ransom for all men...

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all...

And then this would be atonement for everyone.

Certainly Jesus did lay down his life for the sheep (Jn. 10:15). And is there a verse saying Jesus laid down his life for everyone, too?

John 6:51 This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

What is the good news that the non-elect are being commanded to repent and believe? That God loves other people? That the elect's sins have been paid for?

Now the reply might be that "repent and believe the good news" is only directed really to the elect. But this verse seems to indicate differently:

2 Thess. 2:10 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

What then is the truth, that if they had loved it, would have saved them, if Christ did not die for them? What can Paul mean, if there is no atonement for them? His statement seems to imply clearly that the alternative to their unbelief was salvation.

2 Thess. 2:12 ... and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Why are they condemned for not believing that God does not love them, that Christ did not pay the price for their sins, for refusing to believe that there is no atonement for them?

So then what was the truth they were to believe? Must this not be the gospel? For if they had believed it, they would have been saved.

But for the non-elect, if limited atonement is true, Christ did not die for them, thus would it have saved them, if they had somehow believed that Christ did not pay the price for their sins?

Blessings,
Lee

[Sparko]

[Cow Poke]

The atonement is for everyone as a free gift but each of us has to take that gift. It is useless if you ignore it or don't even believe it is there. Like a governor giving a free pardon to any prisoner who asks to be let out of prison. If they don't know about the offer or don't ask to be set free how will they be set free? that is why we should be telling our fellow prisoners about the offer.

Have you ever looked at the curious case of the man who refused a presidential pardon from the death penalty, and SCOTUS ruled that the pardon could not be forced upon him?

The Man Who Refused A Pardon

[rogue06]

That seems logical

[ReformedApologist]

I hold the position of common grace. Christ died for all without distinction, but the benefits of it are only for those who trust in him.

[Sparko]

Have you ever looked at the curious case of the man who refused a presidential pardon from the death penalty, and SCOTUS ruled that the pardon could not be forced upon him?

The Man Who Refused A Pardon

I decided to look that up because sometimes these example seem to good to be true and made up to fit a sermon or something. But this is real! I found the actual court decision!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/32/150

[Cow Poke]

I decided to look that up because sometimes these example seem to good to be true and made up to fit a sermon or something. But this is real! I found the actual court decision!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/32/150

Yes, I almost included the SCOTUS reference, for that very reason. I don't like using sermon illustrations that I can't validate as true, and the internetzweb makes that pretty easy. For this one, I'll include the actual supreme court reference - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/150/

One of my other favorite illustrations is on faith - the guy who crossed Niagara Falls with a man in a wheel barrow -- that's also real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Blondin

[mikewhitney]

The passages that seem to apply to all humanity may actually have different meanings than expected.

John 3:16-17 may imply, in part, that the world would have needed to be destroyed if the Messiah had not come. Without this saving of the world the alternative may have been the destruction of the world like with Noah.

A distinction may be found between being saved and being justified -- or there may be some other distinctions why a passage may be misconstrued as giving everyone eternal life

The use of "all" often has a limited scope derived from the context. We often can recognize the limited meaning of "all" in a given text.

[tabibito]

The passages that seem to apply to all humanity may actually have different meanings than expected.

John 3:16-17 may imply, in part, that the world would have needed to be destroyed if the Messiah had not come. Without this saving of the world the alternative may have been the destruction of the world like with Noah.

A distinction may be found between being saved and being justified -- or there may be some other distinctions why a passage may be misconstrued as giving everyone eternal life

The use of "all" often has a limited scope derived from the context. We often can recognize the limited meaning of "all" in a given text.

By way of adding to your post:

Given that "all" has use, both as hyperbole and in the circumscribed sense (informally in English, more formally in Koine Greek), "all" must be read with care. Koine Greek has an "all without exception:" apas ("a" being added to the ordinary "all," pas) - though "apas" is not necessarily needed to indicate all without exception. "All" (pas) is used interchangeably with "most" in at least one Septuagint passage.

Distinction between "justified" and "saved" is explicit in Romans 10:10

[lee_merrill]

The passages that seem to apply to all humanity may actually have different meanings than expected.
...
The use of "all" often has a limited scope derived from the context. We often can recognize the limited meaning of "all" in a given text.

whether things on earth or things in heavenwho desires all men to be savedtherefore all died

[KingsGambit]

I think JP Holding said something to the extent of "what difference does it make", and that's the stance I take as well. It's a theoretical dispute but all that matters is that only those who are saved will take advantage of the atonement.

[The Remonstrant]

By way of adding to your [mikewhitney s] post:

Given that "all" has use, both as hyperbole and in the circumscribed sense (informally in English, more formally in Koine Greek), "all" must be read with care. Koine Greek has an "all without exception:" apas ("a" being added to the ordinary "all," pas) - though "apas" is not necessarily needed to indicate all without exception. "All" (pas) is used interchangeably with "most" in at least one Septuagint passage.

Distinction between "justified" and "saved" is explicit in Romans 10:10[.] [Emphasis added.]

For in the heart is belief unto righteousness, and in the mouth is confession unto salvation. (Rom. 10.10, BLB*)

[Cow Poke]

I think JP Holding said something to the extent of "what difference does it make", and that's the stance I take as well. It's a theoretical dispute but all that matters is that only those who are saved will take advantage of the atonement.

In a way, it's kinda like the argument about OSAS -- what is your spiritual condition NOW?

[The Remonstrant]

I think JP Holding said something to the extent of "what difference does it make" [regarding the scope of the atonement], and that's the stance I take as well. It's a theoretical dispute but all that matters is that only those who are saved will take advantage of the atonement.

Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point CalvinismThe Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016); and, most recently, idem, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019). Allen demonstrates the importance of carefully distinguishing between the intent, extent, and application of the atonement. Allen takes the position of a universal/unlimited atonement with particular/limited application: the number for whom Christ died and the actual salvation of persons are not necessarily co-extensive (a proposition which is anathema to high Calvinists).

In contrast with strict/high Calvinists, Arminians, non-Calvinists, and moderate (i.e. Amyraldian, four-point) Calvinists alike affirm that the extent of the atonement encompasses the whole of humankind (universal/unlimited atonement). Differences amongst these groups emerge, however, when the intent of the atonement is under consideration. As regards the applicationExtent of the Atonement

[Rushing Jaws]

Did Jesus only atone, on the cross, for those who would believe in him?

Colossians 1:20 ... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Timothy 2:6 ... who gave himself as a ransom for all men...

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all...

And then this would be atonement for everyone.

Certainly Jesus did lay down his life for the sheep (Jn. 10:15). And is there a verse saying Jesus laid down his life for everyone, too?

John 6:51 This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

What is the good news that the non-elect are being commanded to repent and believe? That God loves other people? That the elect's sins have been paid for?

Now the reply might be that "repent and believe the good news" is only directed really to the elect. But this verse seems to indicate differently:

2 Thess. 2:10 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

What then is the truth, that if they had loved it, would have saved them, if Christ did not die for them? What can Paul mean, if there is no atonement for them? His statement seems to imply clearly that the alternative to their unbelief was salvation.

2 Thess. 2:12 ... and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Why are they condemned for not believing that God does not love them, that Christ did not pay the price for their sins, for refusing to believe that there is no atonement for them?

So then what was the truth they were to believe? Must this not be the gospel? For if they had believed it, they would have been saved.

But for the non-elect, if limited atonement is true, Christ did not die for them, thus would it have saved them, if they had somehow believed that Christ did not pay the price for their sins?

Blessings,
Lee

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about:
But evermore came out
By the same door as in I went.