Thread: A dialog regarding limited atonement

Calvinist: Why do you not accept the doctrine of limited atonement?
Arminian: Because I believe the scripture teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, everyone in it.
C: If Jesus dies for the sins of the whole world, then why is not everyone saved?
A: Because they must repent of their sins and believe in him to receive the forgiveness of their sins.
C: But isn't their failure to repent and believe in him also a sin?
A: It is.
C: So isn't that one also atoned for on the cross?
A: Possibly.
C: Then everyone is saved, even those who reject the gospel and don't believe.
A: No. Perhaps they are forgiven of all their sins, except that one, the rejection of the gospel.
C: Well then there are going to be people in hell who are being punished—not for lust, nor for murder, but only for disbelief in Jesus Christ; and that seems strange. But not only that, if that is the only sin for which men are to be damned, then we ought not to preach the gospel in order that as many people as possible never commit that sin.
A: No, we are supposed to preach the gospel.
C: Then either the rejection of the gospel is not a sin, or it is also atoned for on the cross.
A: It is a sin, that much is sure.
C: Then it is also atoned for on the cross. Why then does not everyone go to heaven?
A: Perhaps persons are damned for that sin, of rejection of the gospel, but also for the sin of disbelief in God due to natural revelation.
C: Well then not only do the pagans who've never heard the gospel go to hell, but you and I also, because no doubt we also have disbelieved in God despite natural revelation at one point in time, and Christ did not die for that sin.
A: No, it can't be that you and I are damned, for we believe.
C: Then Christ died for that sin also.
A: Perhaps Christ does not die for every sin, but rather only for most sins, no matter what the sins he doesn't die for are.
C: Then no one goes to heaven, because everyone has unforgiven sins that they cannot “work off.”
A: No, that can't be it either.
C: Why then isn't everyone saved?
A: Perhaps Christ does not actually die in the place of anyone, but only dies, and makes persons such that anyone if they wanted to could benefit from his death.
C: How might a person benefit from his death?
A: If they willingly repent of their sins and believe in him, then his death will count for them.
C: But if they have to willingly repent of their sins and believe, free of coercion, then it is possible that Christ die and no one believe.
A: Yes, it is.
C: But clearly that can't be true. The purpose of the death of Christ is to save persons; if he doesn't accomplish his purpose, which is possible if your account of his death is correct, then he fails. But it is not possible that an omniscient and omnipotent character like God ever fail in accomplishing his means, so your account of the death of Christ is not possible.
A: Perhaps Christ does not die for anyone specifically, but still God chooses some to believe in him and causes them to do so.
C: The scripture teaches that Christ died in our place, suffered for our sins, not that he didn't die for anyone in particular. He himself says this much when he says, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays his life down for his sheep.” Also, if God causes men to believe, then they do not have free will.
A: Perhaps Christ dies for everyone, but some people are still damned anyway.
C: That is not just of God, and not fair to Christ. If I willingly serve a prison sentence for my brother, and then the judge later decides to charge him for the same crime and imprison him, then my sacrifice was a waste of time and valueless; it is unfair to me.
A: Then everyone goes to heaven.
C: That is clearly not the case, because to be justified, faith is necessary; and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and if you do not hear, you cannot have faith; and without faith, you cannot be justified. Not only that, Christ says at the end of the age the wicked ones will be thrown in the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
A: Then Christ does not die for everyone.

Sounds like the argument put forth by Dr. John Owen, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Vice Chancellor of Oxford University.

AMR

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Calvinist: Why do you not accept the doctrine of limited atonement?
Arminian: Because I believe the scripture teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, everyone in it.
C: If Jesus dies for the sins of the whole world, then why is not everyone saved?
A: Because they must repent of their sins and believe in him to receive the forgiveness of their sins.
C: But isn't their failure to repent and believe in him also a sin?
A: It is.
C: So isn't that one also atoned for on the cross?
A: Possibly.
C: Then everyone is saved, even those who reject the gospel and don't believe.
A: No. Perhaps they are forgiven of all their sins, except that one, the rejection of the gospel.
C: Well then there are going to be people in hell who are being punished—not for lust, nor for murder, but only for disbelief in Jesus Christ; and that seems strange. But not only that, if that is the only sin for which men are to be damned, then we ought not to preach the gospel in order that as many people as possible never commit that sin.
A: No, we are supposed to preach the gospel.
C: Then either the rejection of the gospel is not a sin, or it is also atoned for on the cross.
A: It is a sin, that much is sure.
C: Then it is also atoned for on the cross. Why then does not everyone go to heaven?
A: Perhaps persons are damned for that sin, of rejection of the gospel, but also for the sin of disbelief in God due to natural revelation.
C: Well then not only do the pagans who've never heard the gospel go to hell, but you and I also, because no doubt we also have disbelieved in God despite natural revelation at one point in time, and Christ did not die for that sin.
A: No, it can't be that you and I are damned, for we believe.
C: Then Christ died for that sin also.
A: Perhaps Christ does not die for every sin, but rather only for most sins, no matter what the sins he doesn't die for are.
C: Then no one goes to heaven, because everyone has unforgiven sins that they cannot “work off.”
A: No, that can't be it either.
C: Why then isn't everyone saved?
A: Perhaps Christ does not actually die in the place of anyone, but only dies, and makes persons such that anyone if they wanted to could benefit from his death.
C: How might a person benefit from his death?
A: If they willingly repent of their sins and believe in him, then his death will count for them.
C: But if they have to willingly repent of their sins and believe, free of coercion, then it is possible that Christ die and no one believe.
A: Yes, it is.
C: But clearly that can't be true. The purpose of the death of Christ is to save persons; if he doesn't accomplish his purpose, which is possible if your account of his death is correct, then he fails. But it is not possible that an omniscient and omnipotent character like God ever fail in accomplishing his means, so your account of the death of Christ is not possible.
A: Perhaps Christ does not die for anyone specifically, but still God chooses some to believe in him and causes them to do so.
C: The scripture teaches that Christ died in our place, suffered for our sins, not that he didn't die for anyone in particular. He himself says this much when he says, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays his life down for his sheep.” Also, if God causes men to believe, then they do not have free will.
A: Perhaps Christ dies for everyone, but some people are still damned anyway.
C: That is not just of God, and not fair to Christ. If I willingly serve a prison sentence for my brother, and then the judge later decides to charge him for the same crime and imprison him, then my sacrifice was a waste of time and valueless; it is unfair to me.
A: Then everyone goes to heaven.
C: That is clearly not the case, because to be justified, faith is necessary; and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and if you do not hear, you cannot have faith; and without faith, you cannot be justified. Not only that, Christ says at the end of the age the wicked ones will be thrown in the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
A: Then Christ does not die for everyone.

This is suspiciously John Owenish.

It is precisely Owen's argument. I just put it in the form of a dialog.

I've been blogging about it and discussing with other persons (or at least I've been putting out that that I want to discuss it with other persons; the Arminians seem to not respond to me...) so I wanted to basically lay it all out in one place.

I’ve been discussing 'L' quite a bit actually. Many would have it be particular or something more palatable, I have no problem with L. What specifically are you looking to engage on? Iron sharpens iron, yes?

Well I've been considering one of the last statements in the dialog for a few days now:

C: That is not just of God, and not fair to Christ. If I willingly serve a prison sentence for my brother, and then the judge later decides to charge him for the same crime and imprison him, then my sacrifice was a waste of time and valueless; it is unfair to me.

If that is true, that it really would be unjust of God to do that to Christ, then the only way to go is limited atonement.

Allow me to point out an important thread that can be tugged on in this argument.

Allow me to illustrate:

Calvinist: Why do you not accept the doctrine of limited atonement?
Arminian: Because I believe the scripture teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, everyone in it.
C: If Jesus dies for the sins of the whole world, then why is not everyone saved?
A: Because they must repent of their sins and believe in him to receive the forgiveness of their sins.
C: But isn't their failure to repent and believe in him also a sin?
A: It is.
C: So isn't that one also atoned for on the cross?

Me: Here I think it is important to remember that before the elect believe they are still objects of wrath. In other words, after their sins have been atoned for on the cross they are still in a state of condemnation (that is, until they believe). If that is right, then might that provide a rationale for the non-elect dying and being condemned, for the atonement wasn't applied to them. The provision was made, but not applied.

I think that should factor in to the discussion. In other words, be prepared to argue that point.

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Allow me to point out an important thread that can be tugged on in this argument.

Allow me to illustrate:

Calvinist: Why do you not accept the doctrine of limited atonement?
Arminian: Because I believe the scripture teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, everyone in it.
C: If Jesus dies for the sins of the whole world, then why is not everyone saved?
A: Because they must repent of their sins and believe in him to receive the forgiveness of their sins.
C: But isn't their failure to repent and believe in him also a sin?
A: It is.
C: So isn't that one also atoned for on the cross?

Me: Here I think it is important to remember that before the elect believe they are still objects of wrath. In other words, after their sins have been atoned for on the cross they are still in a state of condemnation (that is, until they believe). If that is right, then might that provide a rationale for the non-elect dying and being condemned, for the atonement wasn't applied to them. The provision was made, but not applied.

I think that should factor in to the discussion. In other words, be prepared to argue that point.

True they are still objects of wrath. When discussing this point it is important to remember God's sovereignty and his decrees. We would do well to remember John 6 in all of this.
Even if you held to on Unlimited atonement and explained people being damned by saying they did not exercise faith, you will still have the same problem...God intended to save but was unsuccessful. Christ's blood was wasted and his plan of redemption was imperfect.

Grissly,

Can I continue to play devil's advocate?

>>>>>Even if you held to on Unlimited atonement and explained people being damned by saying they did not exercise faith, you will still have the same problem...God intended to save but was unsuccessful. Christ's blood was wasted and his plan of redemption was imperfect.<<<<<<<

What if we say that it was God's design to die for all, but only apply the atonement to the elect (through effectual calling, etc.). Why not say that His plan was perfectly fulfilled? He saved the elect perfectly and infallibly. The non-elect refused to excercise faith and their condemnation is even more poignant in light of God's actually going to the extent that He did for them?

Originally Posted by steven-nemes

Calvinist: Why do you not accept the doctrine of limited atonement?
Arminian: Because I believe the scripture teaches that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, everyone in it.
C: If Jesus dies for the sins of the whole world, then why is not everyone saved?
A: Because they must repent of their sins and believe in him to receive the forgiveness of their sins.
C: But isn't their failure to repent and believe in him also a sin?
A: It is.
C: So isn't that one also atoned for on the cross?
A: Possibly.

They could say that it's not atoned for on the cross because it is the sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable.

There is a time element here which should be noted. If blaspheming the Holy Spirit is particularly the ongoing sin of denying the Gospel then that explains how Christians who once denied the Gospel would not be considered as committing this sin.

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Grissly,

Can I continue to play devil's advocate?

>>>>>Even if you held to on Unlimited atonement and explained people being damned by saying they did not exercise faith, you will still have the same problem...God intended to save but was unsuccessful. Christ's blood was wasted and his plan of redemption was imperfect.<<<<<<<

What if we say that it was God's design to die for all, but only apply the atonement to the elect (through effectual calling, etc.). Why not say that His plan was perfectly fulfilled? He saved the elect perfectly and infallibly. The non-elect refused to excercise faith and their condemnation is even more poignant in light of God's actually going to the extent that He did for them?

This argument destroys the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

Originally Posted by austinbrown2

Grissly,

Can I continue to play devil's advocate?

>>>>>Even if you held to on Unlimited atonement and explained people being damned by saying they did not exercise faith, you will still have the same problem...God intended to save but was unsuccessful. Christ's blood was wasted and his plan of redemption was imperfect.<<<<<<<

What if we say that it was God's design to die for all, but only apply the atonement to the elect (through effectual calling, etc.). Why not say that His plan was perfectly fulfilled? He saved the elect perfectly and infallibly. The non-elect refused to excercise faith and their condemnation is even more poignant in light of God's actually going to the extent that He did for them?

Austinbrown2,

Thanks for playing devil's advocate. It would be at this point in the debate that I would cease the philosophical and hypothetical argumentation and then go to Scripture and show just what God's specific purpose was (to save His elect) and how (through sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ). Otherwise the Arminian or the Amyraldian and the Calvinist will continue to go around and around in argumentative circles.

A: If they willingly repent of their sins and believe in him, then his death will count for them.
C: But if they have to willingly repent of their sins and believe, free of coercion, then it is possible that Christ die and no one believe.
A: Yes, it is.

Great job with the dialog format. It is engaging and penetrating. I think this part of the argument might be able to be strengthened a bit more. The last line by A seems like he's giving up too easily. Any respectable non-Calvinist would argue foreknowledge here, something like this:

A: Yes, it is hypothetically possible, but God foreknew that many in fact would believe in Him, and thus did not actually risk anything in the atonement.

Then C needs to address this line of argumentation, perhaps by positing the incongruity between God's alleged desire to save everyone and his adoption of a plan He "foreknows" will only save some.

According to Romans 3:25, God's intention was to set forth a propitiation through faith in His blood. No faith, no propitiation; therefore there cannot be a hypothetical intention to provide a propitiation distinct from a real intention to make the merits of Christ efficacious for the removing of the guilt of those who exercise faith in His blood.

I also argued there cannot be a world where Christ dies and no one believes because an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot fail at any of his goals; Christ dying and no one believing would constitute failure, so it cannot happen.

My argument is that Christ not dying for anyone in specific and leaving it up to the free choice of men entail an impossibility. If it is true, then an impossibility is true; an impossibility cannot be true, so it is not true.

Here I think it is important to remember that before the elect believe they are still objects of wrath. In other words, after their sins have been atoned for on the cross they are still in a state of condemnation (that is, until they believe). If that is right, then might that provide a rationale for the non-elect dying and being condemned, for the atonement wasn't applied to them. The provision was made, but not applied.

1. If a person is to be saved, then there is a necessary means to accomplish the end (faith in Christ, let's say).
2. If Christ dies for an individual, the individual must be saved.
3. Therefore, if Christ dies for an individual, the individual must go through the necessary means to accomplish the end.

So it is not as if Christ can die and persons who never believed just end up going to heaven; if there is a necessary means, which there is, then they must go through it.

What if we say that it was God's design to die for all, but only apply the atonement to the elect (through effectual calling, etc.). Why not say that His plan was perfectly fulfilled? He saved the elect perfectly and infallibly. The non-elect refused to excercise faith and their condemnation is even more poignant in light of God's actually going to the extent that He did for them?

Seems a waste of time and unfair to Christ to die for persons he's going to damn anyway.

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

A: If they willingly repent of their sins and believe in him, then his death will count for them.
C: But if they have to willingly repent of their sins and believe, free of coercion, then it is possible that Christ die and no one believe.
A: Yes, it is.

Great job with the dialog format. It is engaging and penetrating. I think this part of the argument might be able to be strengthened a bit more. The last line by A seems like he's giving up too easily. Any respectable non-Calvinist would argue foreknowledge here, something like this:

A: Yes, it is hypothetically possible, but God foreknew that many in fact would believe in Him, and thus did not actually risk anything in the atonement.

Then C needs to address this line of argumentation, perhaps by positing the incongruity between God's alleged desire to save everyone and his adoption of a plan He "foreknows" will only save some.

I've used this line of reasoning before when discussing Calvinism with an Arminian, and as soon as I got to the point, "then it is possible that no one would be saved by the death of Christ," he immediately asked me, "are you sure YOU are saved; that if you died, you would go to heaven?" By using that argument, he was trying to show that, even though it was theorectically possible, it's not actually true.

Just be aware of that trap. It's a diversionary tactic. Go for the jugular. Respond by asking him a question, "what is your salvation based on?" If he says the death of Christ, say "Exactly!" Then ask him why he is arguing with you and really basing his salvation on his choice.

The point is it is not possible that Christ die and no one believe; such would be failure, and failure is not possible for an omnipotent and omniscient person.

Steven, I like the idea of putting that into a dialog. That was really easy to follow(a lot easier than reading Owen).