Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Limited atonement?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Limited atonement?

    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
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  • #2
    I thought Jesus was pretty clear about this:

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

    18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

    19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.


    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      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

      Imagine being convicted of a crime you deeply regretted – intentional or unintentional – and being offered a pardon to absolve you of any penalty. Would you accept it? Let me tell you about a man who did not.

      In 1829 two men, George Wilson and James Porter, robbed a United States mail carrier. Both were subsequently captured and tried in a court of law. In May 1830 both men were found guilty of six charges, including robbery of the mail “and putting the life of the driver in jeopardy.” Both Wilson and Porter received their sentences: Execution by hanging, to be carried out on July 2.

      Porter was executed on schedule, but Wilson was not. Influential friends pleaded for mercy to the President of the United States, Andrew Jackson, on his behalf. President Jackson issued a formal pardon, dropping all charges. Wilson would have to serve only a prison term of 20 years for his other crimes. Incredibly, George Wilson refused the pardon!

      An official report stated Wilson chose to “waive and decline any advantage or protection which might be supposed to arise from the pardon….” Wilson also stated he “…had nothing to say, and did not wish in any manner to avail himself in order to avoid sentence….” The U.S. Supreme Court determined, “The court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it…. It is a grant to him: it is his property; and he may accept it or not as he pleases.” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws…. (But) delivery is not completed without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and…we have no power in a court to force it on him.”
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #4
        That seems logical

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #5
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            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

            Imagine being convicted of a crime you deeply regretted – intentional or unintentional – and being offered a pardon to absolve you of any penalty. Would you accept it? Let me tell you about a man who did not.

            In 1829 two men, George Wilson and James Porter, robbed a United States mail carrier. Both were subsequently captured and tried in a court of law. In May 1830 both men were found guilty of six charges, including robbery of the mail “and putting the life of the driver in jeopardy.” Both Wilson and Porter received their sentences: Execution by hanging, to be carried out on July 2.

            Porter was executed on schedule, but Wilson was not. Influential friends pleaded for mercy to the President of the United States, Andrew Jackson, on his behalf. President Jackson issued a formal pardon, dropping all charges. Wilson would have to serve only a prison term of 20 years for his other crimes. Incredibly, George Wilson refused the pardon!

            An official report stated Wilson chose to “waive and decline any advantage or protection which might be supposed to arise from the pardon….” Wilson also stated he “…had nothing to say, and did not wish in any manner to avail himself in order to avoid sentence….” The U.S. Supreme Court determined, “The court cannot give the prisoner the benefit of the pardon, unless he claims the benefit of it…. It is a grant to him: it is his property; and he may accept it or not as he pleases.” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws…. (But) delivery is not completed without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and…we have no power in a court to force it on him.”

            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

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              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
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                  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
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    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.
                    Though I think the context indicates all people here:

                    "For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
                    and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." (Col 1:19–20)

                    "... who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
                    For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
                    who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time." (1 Tim. 2:4–6)

                    "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died;
                    and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." (2 Co 5:14–15)

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        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*)

                        Contextually, ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosunéσ) and ‘salvation’ (σωτηρία, sótéria) are employed by Paul more or less interchangeably in a parallelism, though salvation is the broader of the two terms or categories (vv. 9–10; cp. 1.16–17).


                        * Berean Literal Bible (2016), emphases added.
                        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          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 first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            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.
                            ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist David L. Allen has written extensively on the atonement in idem, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; idem, The 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 application of the atonement, for those who have heard the proclamation of the good news, strict Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the benefits of Christ’s atonement are applied exclusively to those who respond in faith. High Calvinists are unique in their insistence that Christ did not die in a saving sense for the non-elect (‘reprobate’); rather, they believe that the scope of the atonement is restricted to a particular portion of humankind, not humankind as a whole.

                            I personally am of the opinion that the question ‘For whom did Christ die?’ is worthy of serious consideration and should not be relegated to the heap of impractical, conjectural footnotes of theology (of which there surely are more than a few). See Allen’s final chapter, ‘Why Belief in Unlimited Atonement Matters’, in his Extent of the Atonement (2016), pp. 765–791.
                            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              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
                              The NT affirms both limited atonement, and universal atonement. So both doctrines have NT support. Any convincing apologia for either case, has to deal with all the NT evidence for the other, and has to dispose adequately of all the evidence that does not agree with the doctrine being supported by the apologia. Otherwise, such an apologia is not dealing with everything that the NT says on the topic.

                              Obviously, this applies with equal force to all attempts to construct a “Biblical doctrine of X”.

                              I don’t see much in discussing the issue, since no case for a given position is ever so convincing that it can’t be disputed by those it does not convince. Omar Khayyam seems apposite here:

                              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.
                              Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 05-05-2019, 04:19 PM.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X