On Atonement...

[Sheepdog]

this is the main point of disagreement i have with real Arminians, that i pretty much agree with the Calvinist wording of Limited Atonement: "It is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect" (or something like that, Calvies please correct me if i am wrong). but, lately i have been rethinking this, so i was wonder what Minians have to show for their doctrine (General Atonement, is it called? or Unlimited Atonement?)

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 07:27 PM post located here
Sheepdog:

this is the main point of disagreement i have with real Arminians, that i pretty much agree with the Calvinist wording of Limited Atonement: "It is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect" (or something like that, Calvies please correct me if i am wrong). but, lately i have been rethinking this, so i was wonder what Minians have to show for their doctrine (General Atonement, is it called? or Unlimited Atonement?)

As you've worded Limited Atonement, everyone except for universalists would agree with you. I think that what you're arguing is Unlimited Atonement. If I were to argue for Limited Atonement I would phrase it as: "The Death of Christ is infinite in power, but limited in purpose and application."

This I think is the best formulation of Limited Atonement. The only disagreement with Arminians would be the 'purpose' part. The Limited Atonement proponent would argue that the purpose of God in the Atonement was to bring the elect to salvation. Arminians would say that the purpose of the Atonement was to save everyone. They avoid Universalism by holding that the Atonement is only effecaious to those that performe the act of faith.

[Arminian]

this is the main point of disagreement i have with real Arminians, that i pretty much agree with the Calvinist wording of Limited Atonement: "It is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect" (or something like that, Calvies please correct me if i am wrong). but, lately i have been rethinking this, so i was wonder what Minians have to show for their doctrine (General Atonement, is it called? or Unlimited Atonement?)

It's not that there is a problem with the wording, per se; its that the meaning of the words are "loaded" for the Calvinist in a way that the Arminian would object.

Romans 3:25 sums up the Arminian postition:

God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood.

In other words, His atonement is presented, and it applies to those who do already believe.

Now as for His death being applied to the elect, there's no doubt about it. However, I object to the idea that there is such a thing a elect unbelievers, since in Jewish thought it requires covenant membership. So, yes, Christ did die to save a people, and His atonement is applied to them because they already believe, as Paul indicated above. But the idea that His atonement was only for the elect misses the point that His death was for those in the first Adam and is applied to those in the Second, so as to purify a people for Himself.

I can address the usual proof texts later.

[Arminian]

I should add that, because I'm not really an Arminian, my use of words is usually incommensurable with the typical Arminian explanations.

[Jaltus]

I was going to say that Arminian's answer is a bit off from what I would say, and I fit much better into the Arminian model than Arminian does (I know, don't ask, but the sentence made sense when I typed it).


I agree with his critique, namely that the terms are loaded.

Arminians believe that Jesus' death was intended for all, but effecacious only for those who have faith.

[Arminian]

I was going to say that Arminian's answer is a bit off from what I would say,

[Sheepdog]

hmm. i see. so the disagreement isn't in application nor even potentiality, but purpose (to rob some words form you guys). that makes a heck of a lot more sense than what i characterized-- considering my next question would have been how atonement could be universal while salvation is not. nm

so basically, i have been more or less Arminian. cept, i'm still not convinced on the corporate election thing, but that's another issue.

[Arminian]

so basically, i have been more or less Arminian. cept, i'm still not convinced on the corporate election thing, but that's another issue.

Just don't think of it as a doctrine, because that's not what it's meant to be. Rather, think of it as description of what's going on in the text. (It neither affirms nor denies individualism. More coming to the BT folder nearest you.)

But CE really isn't utilized by Arminians, in general.

[mickiel]

[


Just don't think of it as a doctrine, because that's not what it's meant to be. Rather, think of it as description of what's going on in the text. (It neither affirms nor denies individualism. More coming to the BT folder nearest you.)


I see this as reasonable. The elect are basically the second wave of humans called by God, the prophets, apostles and decipiles being the first harvest. The calling of God is just a matter of time, not personality, not goodness, not reward for human effort. None will be left out of the number that no man could number. Eventually God will call, or draw (same thing) all men to himself. That is the beginning of the conversion process, -- God calls the human, this is not an open door policy. God will harvest the whole world, this is the universal view of a universal God.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 07:26 PM post located here
Arminian:

Just don't think of it as a doctrine, because that's not what it's meant to be. Rather, think of it as description of what's going on in the text. (It neither affirms nor denies individualism. More coming to the BT folder nearest you.)

But CE really isn't utilized by Arminians, in general.

coo. really, i don't necessarily reject corporate election, either. (i was being a goober)

[Arikka]

[Sheepdog]

lol, Arikka. first post, just to put in a smilie. i know i'll like you welcome to TWeb.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 09:14 PM post located here
Arminian:
It's not that there is a problem with the wording, per se; its that the meaning of the words are "loaded" for the Calvinist in a way that the Arminian would object.
Romans 3:25 sums up the Arminian postition:
God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood.
In other words, His atonement is presented, and it applies to those who do already believe.

How do you figure this? That it is presented and applies to those who already believe?

Now as for His death being applied to the elect, there's no doubt about it. However, I object to the idea that there is such a thing a elect unbelievers, since in Jewish thought it requires covenant membership. So, yes, Christ did die to save a people, and His atonement is applied to them because they already believe, as Paul indicated above. But the idea that His atonement was only for the elect misses the point that His death was for those in the first Adam and is applied to those in the Second, so as to purify a people for Himself.

But the former were in Adam before they could do anything about it, and the same applies to the later. Justification through faith in his blood (the propitiation) follows on from election into and union with Christ the Head. God elected a people in order to save them - they weren't potentially in Christ, anymore than we were potentially in Adam; Christ therefore came for the elect, his flock, his body, his bride - he shall save his people from their sins.
Which sacrifices under the old covenant - up to and including the Day of Atonement (the mention of propitiation is related to the latter, as noted in your commentary Dr. Moo), give the impression that they were generally and nonspecifically for sin as such, sufficient for all, effective for some; and which were for sins?



slly5

[Arminian]

Solly,

How do you figure this? That it is presented and applies to those who already believe?

Because that's how the verse is phrased.

Justification through faith in his blood (the propitiation) follows on from election into and union with Christ the Head.

Talk about LOADED!

they weren't potentially in Christ, anymore than we were potentially in Adam;

Thanks for making my point.

Christ therefore came for the elect, his flock, his body, his bride - he shall save his people from their sins.

Exaclty, his covenant people. Those who did not obey were "cut off." (Acts 3:23) Those who did were grafted in.

Which sacrifices under the old covenant - up to and including the Day of Atonement (the mention of propitiation is related to the latter, as noted in your commentary Dr. Moo), give the impression that they were generally and nonspecifically for sin as such, sufficient for all, effective for some; and which were for sins?

That's the question YOU need to answer because YOU are the one proposing that the atonement is applied some who do not believe. I, on the other hand, believe that the objective atonement would apply to anyone who joined Israel. (Ruth 1:16)

[Solly]

Today @ 09:26 AM post located here
Arminian:

Solly,

Talk about LOADED!

Dang it, that systematics will get you every time. :brow:

Thanks for making my point.

No not really. All ARE in Adam. Not by belief. The elect ARE in Christ. Not by belief.

Exaclty, his covenant people. Those who did not obey were "cut off." (Acts 3:23) Those who did were grafted in.

So, let me get this right. This applies to the covenant people. And some did not believe and were cut off. And some did believe and were grafted in. But if they were grafted in, they weren't covenant people. Covenantal Nomism is about staying in; this is about getting in.

That's the question YOU need to answer because YOU are the one proposing that the atonement is applied some who do not believe. I, on the other hand, believe that the objective atonement would apply to anyone who joined Israel. (Ruth 1:16)

I have not proposed that the atonement applies to some who do not believe. Sufficient for the elct, effective for the elect is my position. Paul Rom 3.25 is not talking about the extent of the atonement here, but its declaration. If all have sinned, how shall man be just with God: at this point, where God will meet with men, and sin is dealt with. Received by faith to Jew and Gentile alike.

All have sinned, etc - the conclusion of his accusation up to that point
Being justified freely by his grace, etc - what God has done about it
Whom God set forth, declared, - particluarly in the Gospel, Paul's Gospel, which is what this letter is about 1.1
Through faith - only effective to those who believe, not work, cf v 20
declaring his righteousness - though it seems God has not dealt with sin
just in justifying - who? the ungodly who believe, not the "righteous who work".

This is not about staying in, but getting in, because ALL are out 3.9-18

As for joining Israel: CHRIST is faithful Israel, not the nation, since Paul has written them off. And we are already united to him as Head and Second Adam.

hope that helps


slly5