Thread: Limited Atonement Disputed

I would be interested in hearing some responses to this argument offered here (offered by a Lutheran I know):
*********************

Even though I spent many years with Calvinist beliefs it is unclear why Limited Atonement is needed in the mind of a Calvinist in order to have the Gospel. A dyed in the wool Calvinist as I was at one time will argue till the last breath that Jesus did not die for every person but rather only those who would believe. One of the verses that those who believe in Limited Atonement have attempted to hang their hats on is Matthew 25:13. The person will say “See Jesus does not even know the unbeliever!” Well lets paste that verse back into the context and see to whom that verse refers.

Matthew 25:1 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ 10 And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.ESV

Notice that all 10 were invited to the wedding. Those who were foolish did not provide for the late arrival of the bridegroom not really believing he would come at any hour. The wise ones came prepared with extra oil for they believed he would come regardless of the hour. So the foolish were representing unbelievers who do not trust the promises of God to do what he says he will do. Placing that verse back into the context we see that it does not teach Limited Atonement at all. Parables are sayings of Jesus which admittedly are not clear at times. So we take clear passages to understand what is meant by the unclear.

We read in Ephesians 2 that we are dead in trespasses and sins. Dead not in the way that we are not breathing or moving about. Dead in this sense is being separated from God. Those with faith later on in chapter 2 were made alive in Christ so we are seated in the heavenly places with him. Those who are outside of the faith are not seated with Christ and have no part of him. So the fact that he states he does not know them is explained by the fact of not being in Jesus. Those of us in Jesus are known and loved as sons and daughters of our Father. So yes it refers to those outside of Christ but in no way says they are outside of Jesus because he did not die for them.

So we see once again that Limited Atonement must be cooked up outside of scripture and in this passage once again read down on top of it to make scripture teach it. We should never seek to peer into the eternal decrees of God any further then he has given us scripture. Reason is a wonderful and needful thing to get through this fallen world. But it is a horrible practice to use it to try to figure out how God has ordered things.

By reason of the faith we are given we receive the benefits Jesus earned for us on the cross when he suffered the forsakenness of our Father in heaven for the sin of the world. What a horrible thing that is and so unnecessary for their sins were paid for by Jesus objectively but did not receive it by faith to their subjective justification.

Thank you Holy Spirit for the faith you have given us. Grant true repentance and faith to those we care for and others we do not know who are still outside of Jesus. Amen. †

Why does your friend think this passage has anything to do with the atonement (and therefore with its extent)?

Personally, I find limited atonement in other places, not this parable. John 10:15, 26, 19:30 (for a definite accomplishment of salvation for His people) are a few passages I would go to for limited atonement. Of course, it is preferable to speak of definite atonement, rather than limited. Of course the atonement is limited in some degree. Even the Arminians believe in a limiting of the atonement. It is just that their limitation is of the efficacy of the atonement, whereas the Reformed folks' limitation is of those for whom it happens. Unless one is a universalist, then one has to believe in a limitation of some kind on the doctrine of the atonement.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Why does your friend think this passage has anything to do with the atonement (and therefore with its extent)?

Well, I have no idea. I just read this on his blog today. I am drafting a response. What made for some interesting reading is the Lutheran idea of "objective and subjective justification". It is interesting (though I disagree with their arguments).

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 10:45:49 EST-----

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Personally, I find limited atonement in other places, not this parable. John 10:15, 26, 19:30 (for a definite accomplishment of salvation for His people) are a few passages I would go to for limited atonement. Of course, it is preferable to speak of definite atonement, rather than limited. Of course the atonement is limited in some degree. Even the Arminians believe in a limiting of the atonement. It is just that their limitation is of the efficacy of the atonement, whereas the Reformed folks' limitation is of those for whom it happens. Unless one is a universalist, then one has to believe in a limitation of some kind on the doctrine of the atonement.

Lane,

Agreed. As Todd indicated, the passage used (as well as his treatment of Eph 2) is queestionable.

Hello William,

Here is what I found to be interesting in the quote...

Reason is a wonderful and needful thing to get through this fallen world. But it is a horrible practice to use it to try to figure out how God has ordered things.

The reason I found this interesting is that the doctrine of Limited Atonement for me is a necessary consequence (reasoning) of the atonement. Did Christ, through the cross, propitiate God or not? If so and if one rejects universalism, then it seems to me that Limited Atonement is a logically necessary consequence.

By reason of the faith we are given we receive the benefits Jesus earned for us on the cross when he suffered the forsakenness of our Father in heaven for the sin of the world. What a horrible thing that is and so unnecessary for their sins were paid for by Jesus objectively but did not receive it by faith to their subjective justification.

If X is objectively true, then it follows by reason that X is subjectively true. You cannot have an objective truth that is not universal in scope. If it is not universal in scope, then it is not objective. As such, there is no such thing as an objective propitiation that does not apply subjectively. The bottom line is this, there are no grounds for God to punish the sinner if Christ has already paid the sinner's debt. Anyways, this is how I would answer the article. Again, the key thing for me is what was actually accomplished in the atonement.

Sincerely,

Brian

I can't follow his argument, I just simply do not see the correlation he is trying to make. You might direct him to our own Dr. Clark's page at Westminster Seminary California clark though

Originally Posted by Hungus

I can't follow his argument, I just simply do not see the correlation he is trying to make. You might direct him to our own Dr. Clark's page at Westminster Seminary California clark though

Yes, thanks! I sent that along to him.

Why does your friend think this passage has anything to do with the atonement (and therefore with its extent)?

that's just what I was thinking....hmmmm....

By reason of the faith we are given we receive the benefits Jesus earned for us on the cross when he suffered the forsakenness of our Father in heaven for the sin of the world. What a horrible thing that is and so unnecessary for their sins were paid for by Jesus objectively but did not receive it by faith to their subjective justification.

My observation is that there are a few misunderstood concepts in this whole post...that's a starting point.

Where I would go from here is John 6:35-45. My opinion is that we go to where the concept is specifically being taught first; then work our way to more ambiguous passages.

Limited Atonement:

John 6:35
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty.

But I told you that you have seen me and still do not believe.

Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. Now this is the will of the one who sent me – that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day.

I'd talk about why Jesus is speaking about their unbelief and that it's because they have not been given by the Father.


1Pe 2:8-9 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.


It would seem that their are two types; those who are destined to disobey and those who were called.


Joh 10:3-4 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has
brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice....I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.


It would seem that Jesus has "his sheep" who know his voice and they follow him...the alternative is that everyone are his sheep?

And don't forget Jesus' high-priestly prayer:

Joh 17:6-12 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.


clearly there are two classes; those whom the father gave to the son, and "the rest of them"

I don't know how you could come to the conclusion that Jesus died for all from these passages.


if what your friend is saying is that he needs a verse like "Jesus only died for the elect and not for everyone" then I think he's out of luck.


I've found this article to be useful (it's from AOMIN)

Lutherans are able to be cordial and respectful. Although, sometimes they can be very quick to play the "according to the plain teaching of Scripture" card in their own cause.

Of course, "the plain teaching" is frequently not as objective as people claim.

Lutherans resort to this "subjective/objective" Justification distinction, because (according to them) the "for whom Christ died" question is "the plain teaching of Scripture"--by which they mean "for everybody."

But for our part, that intra-Justification distinction is a complete extra-biblical fabrication. I even heard the host of IssuesEtc. say it's necessitated because of their prior commitment to "the plain teaching of Scripture." (I listen to the program, I appreciate it a lot)

Let me get this straight... it's FINE for a Lutheran to start "dividing up" Justification statements in the Bible ("this refers to objective Justification, and this refers to subjective Justification"), but for a Calvinist to distinguish between the indiscriminate offer and provision of the Atonement, and its efficacious intent--that's NOT FINE?

Oh-Kay, just checking on that double standard.