Limited Atonement is THE most important point of Calvinism. Here is why:

[MilitaryBrat2007]

Limited Atonement is THE most important point of Calvinism. Here is why:

Let’s suppose Unlimited Atonement is correct...

Unlimited Atonement is the belief that the entire debt of sin for all of humanity has been paid off by Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. This should mean there’s no eternal hell. Right? If Jesus paid all of God’s wrath off, then there should be no punishment at all.

But we have Matthew 25:46 and Revelation 20:15 (not going to cite every verse about hell because this should be obvious, duh!). These verses tell us that hell is a place of eternal punishment. There will be people going to hell forever (universalism is destroyed once again...).

So in order for unlimited atonement and a non-empty eternal hell to coexist, we must make this conclusion: Jesus’ atonement is like an umbrella that He offers: we all can choose to go under this covering or not. Only those who believe in Jesus will be saved, but this decision is for everyone.

This ability to choose tells us one thing: We are not totally deprived. We are only partially deprived because we can choose Jesus or not. So Total Depravity is off the table.

Oh! And that “or not option” then gives us the ability to resist God’s grace. We can say “no.” So now irresistible grace is off the table because we have the option to not choose God. This covering that He offers us is resistible.

Anyways… continuing…. Now we have the option to choose, we then are brought up with a question: Is this decision active or not? Sure, God knowing is not limited by time; He is outside of time. Just because God knows what we are going to do does not mean we are not making a choice of our free will to do it. Predestination is different from pre-knowledge. God foreknows who will be saved and who will be not because He is outside of time, but this is not the same as predestination. Therefore, the doctrine of Unconditional Election is also wrong.




OKAY! Let’s get out of that train of thought and return to Calvinist Station...

Conclusion: Limited atonement holds together three other vital points of Calvinism. If you are to deny limited atonement, you will eventually fall towards Arminianism if you think about it. If you accept Unlimited Atonement, the other points of Calvinism you believe are now way more vulnerable.


For you guys: Am I going too far with saying this? If you support unlimited atonement and are a Calvinist, what flaws do you find in my arguments? Any further thoughts?

 

[Theoretical]

Edited

For having a job that's dependent on reading comprehension, I think I missed your key point as being within the Calvinist system.

I would tend to say that it's an error that really afflicts the second generation while you stay within a Calvinist framework, especially if you're a theologian or teacher. In oneself, I think one can stay more or less fully monergistic while denying this point in themselves, but it'll be hard for anyone taught by them or downstream of their teaching to not drift in a more Arminian direction while staying within Calvinism. For every Jordan Cooper who goes Lutheran, I think there's probably 10+ who go in some diluted grace direction, either Arminian or Romish (a la FV)

----

Original missed comprehension post:

I don't think it necessarily holds that Arminianism is the outcome, as Lutheranism is a distinct system that doesn't require these particulars and is still monergistic (we would say it's not consistent and they would say we're rationalists). If you stay in a Reformed framework, then yes you probably will end up moving towards a more Arminian position almost by default.


So in order for unlimited atonement and a non-empty eternal hell to coexist, we must make this conclusion: Jesus’ atonement is like an umbrella that He offers: we all can choose to go under this covering or not. Only those who believe in Jesus will be saved, but this decision is for everyone.



This ability to choose tells us one thing: We are not totally deprived. We are only partially deprived because we can choose Jesus or not. So Total Depravity is off the table.



They're wrong but a Wesleyan would tell you that God's prevenient grace enables this choice. Within that system, you're still dead in sin but enabled to believe if you want to by grace that stops at the midpoint. The problem with Wesleyanism is that it basically makes the decision to believe a 50-50 proposition with eternal stakes. They fail to recognize that being left anywhere near the midpoint with your eternal fate in jeopardy is honestly kind of sadistic on God's part.



Similarly, a Lutheran would say that the atonement is universal while recognizing that there are damned. That paradox is held because both are in Scripture in their view. In Lutheranism, free will is a major liability for the person not the great and wonderful thing Wesleyans like to use.



Total depravity is generally something Wesleyans would affirm but say it's mitigated by God's grace. Lutherans would fully affirm it with only quibbles about application.



---

The real differentiation between the three systems shows in Christians who fall away



The Wesleyan & Roman Catholic system believes that you're not in-in until you're dead and the book is closed. Any assurance is presumptive and false. You can reject God on your deathbed and you're going to hell.



The Lutheran system is a bit confusing here but essentially believes that more than 100% of the elect can be saved at any one time (believing in Jesus and faith granted by baptism); however, only the elect actually end up being saved because the non-elect (who ARE saved for a time) fully and truly apostatize or end up sticking around but prove themselves to have been the "I never knew you" types (incidentally, the I never knew you one is a strike against this viewpoint). With the elect, confessional ones would pretty much be arm-in-arm with us as to electing grace and only being saved because of being regenerated by grace alone. Here's a Q&A that kind of outlines it: https://wels.net/faq/possible-to-fall-from-faith/



The Reformed system would say only the elect are actually ever saved and so anyone who falls away may look like, walk like, sound like, and so on "like" a believer but ultimately never have been brought to saving faith by God's regenerating grace. They either apostatize or also show themselves to be "I never knew you types"



---



Re: that last, I don't think anyone's allowed to be a member of this board who doesn't fully affirm the 5 points given that we require confessional subscription. Dordt is absolutely superb in its clarity and I think is the best statement on the subject.

 

[DanSSwing]

Back when I was a 4-pointer, I would have probably said that the atonement was unlimited but did not cover one sin--unbelief. I wasn't persuaded to become Reformed because I thought my previous position was inconsistent but rather that it wasn't biblical.

 

[dsanch1120]

Would you say this applies to a non-Owen/mainstream view of limited atonement?