Limited Atonement

[mbj0680]

I am a High-Calvinist but have issues with limited atonement. I understand it and agree with it, but I do think it is an inferred doctrine and has little value building unity in a church. When we saw it work its way through our church it did more harm than good. It seems to have more ability to divide than to lift each other up to the glory of God. Not many people in our church walked away going God is amazing because He only died for the elect and not for everyone else.

The question I pose is: Is time better spent trying to figure out how we can move forward in our walk and serve Jesus Christ, or is time better spent looking back and asking I wonder if Christ died for only the elect. It seems like with the doctrine of limited atonement more time is spent looking backwards than forwards.

Another question is how can we put the doctrine of limited atonement in our tool box and use it where the rubber meets the road in our day to day life? The average response we get is it points us to the glory of God and how awesome He is. Not that this is bad application, but it seems we can find the glory of God through out the Bible without the inference that Christ only died for the elect. Maybe inferred is the wrong word, maybe amplified is better. Or maybe the point about limited atonement is enlarged unnecessarily.

Anyone else feel this way? Any feed back would be appreciated.

[Mod. Moved from Calvinism Chart thread]

 

[BJClark]

mbj0680;

Not sure if this answers your questions...but these are my thoughts..

something I have come to understand is that it is not up for me to decide or worry whom God shows mercy..it is only for me to share God's Gospel..after it is shared it is up the Holy Spirit to speak to and work in their heart or not..

Where rubber meets the road (for me) is doing as God has called me to do..Share the Gospel with those God calls me to share the gospel, be it to the softening or hardening of their hearts I do not know...nor is it my concern...as long as I do as God has called me to do..

 

[AV1611]

I understand it and agree with it, but I do think it is an inferred doctrine and has little value building unity in a church.

Unity can only be built upon truth

 

[Herald]

Mark - I have a question to ask. Is your church fairly new to the doctrines of sovereign grace? If so, this is the reason why limited atonement is problematic. Arguably it is the most difficult part of TULIP. My Presbyterian brethren who have grown up with TULIP may not understand. Those who embraced Calvinism later in life know exactly what I'm talking about.

How can you effectively support/teach Limited Atonement while not encountering the problems you have encountered? First, consider the problems you have experienced in your local church to be a good thing. Limited atonement goes against the grain of Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism which has held sway in the church for well over 100 years. I went kicking and screaming. It wasn't easy for me. The Lord may open the door for those who have ears to hear to understand this truth of scripture. Second, I like to explain Limited Atonement in a way that doesn't seem argumentative. Theologically I know that only the elect will come to faith in Christ, and that means that Christ's sacrifice is only effectual for the elect. That's the theological component. But which one of us can say with surety who is elect? I certainly can't. Since I don't know who is elect I believe in proclaiming the gospel to all, to plead with all men to be reconciled to Christ. This is the way I have chosen to look at Limited Atonement. In other words - the atonement may be limited, but so is our understanding.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Mark,

I really hear what you're saying. Predestination and its associated doctrines are very strong meat, and often those who need milk aren't ready for it yet until certain fundamentals are in place first (i.e. the milk has been drunk and growth has occurred). Giving a new born baby steak is not responsible. Moreover, the public church service is that place where both spiritual babes and giants are present, and to edify all of them is a formidable task!

It seems to me that that's why expository preaching is so important, because we will get God's emphasis rather than our own (hobbyhorses). Just think how many times predestination arises in the 4 gospels. Not never. But not much. Issues like the Kingdom of God and the like are so important to have in place.

One of the reasons, as I see it, that LA has been so controversial is because it requires some critical nuances (that account for all of Scripture on the topic) which many popular presentations do not provide, and hence create confusion. To simply say that Christ "died for the elect" is not good enough (In my humble opinion). There are multiple purposes behind the atonement (not least the glory of God!). The 17th century divines said that Christ's death was sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. This was interpreted in a few different ways, but it seems to me without a discussion of the distinction we have a reductionism of LA.

Every blessing brother.

 

[A5pointer]

Mark, May I suggest that we all must judge if any doctrine is proved by the biblical text and not make our judgements based on the pragmatics of whether people recieve it to the positive or negative. As far as milk/meat , my experience has been that new converts have very little problem with the doctrines of grace. As to Limited atonement, I can never understand those that ascent to the other 4 points and object to the "L" without understanding that limited atonement is a neccesarry logical chain link in the system.

 

[elnwood]

I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.

The main disagreement is whether atonement can be thought of a genuine atonement and be conditional upon on faith. Could it be that Christ paid for everyone's sins, yet the payment is not effectual unless the Holy Spirit calls them? There's an inconsistency in 4-point Calvinistic thought there, but I think the 5-point Calvinist runs into the same inconsistency when he says the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer, yet it is conditional upon faith.

I think both are defensible by Scripture, and both can be defended logically (4-point Calvinism works logically using an Amyraldian order of decrees rather than an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian order), and as far as I can tell both are compatible with the Reformed creeds. I don't see any practical reason why differences of opinion on this topic ought to be divisive.

 

[reformedman]

a multi-billionaire goes to an orphanage to adopt a child, he looks around and decides he will take 2 specific children of the available 137 children. He makes himself known to the two and reveals to them how well they will be taken care of. They trust him and believe that he will be able to provide (er yeah, they are 2 and 3 years old and are settling finances in their mind). The billionaire squares the cost of taking them out and sign the necessary forms.

The billionaire is able to get all the children but he chose only a few.
If he had offered to take all the children, each one of them would not be special in his eyes.
Since he chose only 2, the value of those special two are special to him, and their value increases.

For me, the application of the doctrine of limited atonement means that salvation is so much more than I deserve, therefore the glory to God is greater than if I believe that I am only saved because I did something that somebody else could have, but didnt.
Salvation becomes a bigger deal.
The gospel becomes clearer and more meaningful.

Note: by saying that he chose 2 and not all, I dont mean to say that these two were any better in any way, but only to say that the bible says, he didnt choose us because of anything we were or did but because of his will (mystery).

 

[A5pointer]

I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.

The main disagreement is whether atonement can be thought of a genuine atonement and be conditional upon on faith. Could it be that Christ paid for everyone's sins, yet the payment is not effectual unless the Holy Spirit calls them? There's an inconsistency in 4-point Calvinistic thought there, but I think the 5-point Calvinist runs into the same inconsistency when he says the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer, yet it is conditional upon faith.

I think both are defensible by Scripture, and both can be defended logically (4-point Calvinism works logically using an Amyraldian order of decrees rather than an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian order), and as far as I can tell both are compatible with the Reformed creeds. I don't see any practical reason why differences of opinion on this topic ought to be divisive.

An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.

 

[elnwood]

Frank, is that not more an application of the doctrine of unconditional election, and not the doctrine of limited atonement?

 

[elnwood]

An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.

To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.

For example, when you were an unbeliever before you came to faith in Christ, were your sins atoned for? Was the wrath of God propitiated? Did God hold your sins against you? It wasn't until you had faith that was credited as righteousness that the wrath of God was propitiated against you.

The 4-point Calvinist applies this same logic to say that faith in Christ is necessary for atonement to be effectual.

 

[A5pointer]

An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.

To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.

For example, when you were an unbeliever before you came to faith in Christ, were your sins atoned for? Was the wrath of God propitiated? Did God hold your sins against you? It wasn't until you had faith that was credited as righteousness that the wrath of God was propitiated against you.

The 4-point Calvinist applies this same logic to say that faith in Christ is necessary for atonement to be effectual.

You are making my point by suggesting that the atonement is in some cases innefectual, I say that would be absurd, are you of the 4 point school?

 

[elnwood]

An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.

To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.

For example, when you were an unbeliever before you came to faith in Christ, were your sins atoned for? Was the wrath of God propitiated? Did God hold your sins against you? It wasn't until you had faith that was credited as righteousness that the wrath of God was propitiated against you.

The 4-point Calvinist applies this same logic to say that faith in Christ is necessary for atonement to be effectual.

You are making my point by suggesting that the atonement is in some cases innefectual, I say that would be absurd, are you of the 4 point school?

So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?

I don't take a position, but as I said, I think both 4-point and 5-point positions are defensible biblically and logically.

 

[tdowns]

I can never find it....

I can't remember where I read it, I thought it was in one of the Confessions, that the doctrine of election, is tough, and we should be sensitive to the nature of it, when discussing it with others....Maybe Westminster?

Anyway, I think that wherever I found it, it served to me as a reminder, we can share God's Sovereignty, His Grace, His Mercy, His atonement to, ALL WHO PUT THEIR FAITH IN Christ; all in truth, using biblical language, without bringing up Limited Atonement, or even T.U.L.I.P. I think, for those interested, and when they start with the questions, and when their theological mind is ready, great stuff! But we often want to make sure T.U.L.I.P. is part of our Gospel Presentation, and I don't think that is necessary.

Although I agree with above poster, that it just makes the Gospel all that more special, when I hear it!

 

[A5pointer]

So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?

Going down this trail has no bearing on what we have been discussing

 

[elnwood]

So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?

Going down this trail has no bearing on what we have been discussing

Sure it does. If the atonement is can be made on behalf of an elect person, and yet that elect person is not treated as being atoned for until that person is called unto faith in Christ, then it is also possible that the atonement could be made on behalf of an unelect person, and yet that person is never treated as being atoned for because that person was not chosen to have the Holy Spirit effectually call him.

I'm not saying that the 4-point position is correct, only that both the 4-point position and the 5-point position make the atonement conditional upon faith.

 

[Israelite]

Unity can only be built upon truth

the doctrine of particular redemption is an essential gospel doctrine, and there is no gospel without it. It is the very heart of the gospel.

 

[A5pointer]

So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?

Going down this trail has no bearing on what we have been discussing

Sure it does. If the atonement is can be made on behalf of an elect person, and yet that elect person is not treated as being atoned for until that person is called unto faith in Christ, then it is also possible that the atonement could be made on behalf of an unelect person, and yet that person is never treated as being atoned for because that person was not chosen to have the Holy Spirit effectually call him.

I'm not saying that the 4-point position is correct, only that both the 4-point position and the 5-point position make the atonement conditional upon faith.

There is a great difference between discussing when the atonement is considered efectual and a discussion that claims the atonement to ultimately have no effect for some that were atoned for.

 

[A5pointer]

Unity can only be built upon truth

the doctrine of particular redemption is an essential gospel doctrine, and there is no gospel without it. It is the very heart of the gospel.

 

[elnwood]

There is a great difference between discussing when the atonement is considered efectual and a discussion that claims the atonement to ultimately have no effect for some that were atoned for.

I note that you're using the phrase "considered effectual" instead of "effectual." I think you are using that term because you want to say that for the elect who has not yet been called, the atonement is effectual but not considered effectual? How can you make a distinction between considered effectual and actually being effectual? Logically, isn't the atonement effective or it's not?

 

[Greg]

I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.

I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have enlarged upon the will and plan of the Father.

 

[Israelite]

I'm not saying that the 4-point position is correct, only that both the 4-point position and the 5-point position make the atonement conditional upon faith.

No x 1million, salvation is NEVER ever conditioned on anything the sinner does.

Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation.

 

[elnwood]

I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.

I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have enlarged upon the will and plan of the Father.

Greg, you are assuming here an infralapsarian or supralapsarian order of decree in which the decree of atonement follows the decree of election. Note your order: election, then Christ atones.

If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.

I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have enlarged upon the will and plan of the Father.

Greg, you are assuming here an infralapsarian or supralapsarian order of decree in which the decree of atonement follows the decree of election. Note your order: election, then Christ atones.

If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.

Now, I may be confusing things, but if Christ was actually sent into the world and died to atone for all before God elected a people, then there are two major problems:

1) All of the millions of people who lived during Old Testament times could not be elect because they died before God elected.

2) God is a liar because Ephesians say we have been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world and Revelation describes the Lamb's Book of Life as having the names written in them from the foundation of the world.

 

[Calvibaptist]

There is a great difference between discussing when the atonement is considered efectual and a discussion that claims the atonement to ultimately have no effect for some that were atoned for.

I note that you're using the phrase "considered effectual" instead of "effectual." I think you are using that term because you want to say that for the elect who has not yet been called, the atonement is effectual but not considered effectual? How can you make a distinction between considered effectual and actually being effectual? Logically, isn't the atonement effective or it's not?

NO! The atonement is effectual for the elect at all times. The only reason the Holy Spirit calls them is because they are already atoned for. If the atonement was not effectual for them, they would not be called.

The problem is that universal atonement is actually a universal "possible" atonement. God makes atonement possible for everyone if they will just respond in faith. The Bible never suggests a possible atonement, but a definite one.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Unity can only be built upon truth

the doctrine of particular redemption is an essential gospel doctrine, and there is no gospel without it. It is the very heart of the gospel.

again

Here is a paraphrase of something I was told when I was having my initial negative reaction to LA. "If something in God's Word rubs your fur the wrong way then the wisest thing for you to do is turn the other direction."

 

[mbj0680]

Hi everyone,

Just to clarify things I want to point out that I believe in the doctrine of LA, but it seems to be an unnecessary drawn out conclusion from what the doctrine of election already says.
I see the glory of God in our salvation through the doctrine of election. We clearly see that in Ephesians 1. You can not come to the book of Ephesians and not see how unbelievable it is to what God has done for us in Christ before the foundations of the world.
It is a foregone conclusion and almost a "well ya, of course" to say that not everyone is going to believe if some where elected to heaven and some were not. Therefore the atonement is logically limited/effectual to those who believe.
The Biblical emphasis is on election though and not LA. Therefore the logical discourse to LA seems to be eisegetical instead of exegetical. I can not go to the text and exegete the doctrine of LA. I need the aide of something other than verse by verse exposition of text to lead me there. Does that make since?
I can go to the Bible and exegete the doctrine of election. That to me speaks volumes as to what God wanted to emphasize. This might be hard for some people to swallow, but it doesn't matter how many people the atonement effected and who it did/didn't effect from our standpoint because it is all about our great God and Savior Jesus Christ and what He did for Himself from the foundations of the world. It's not about what He did for us, it's all about what He did for Himself and for His own glory and His plans. We are merely creatures that have a great privilege to aide Him in those plans He choose for us to be involved with. What a blessed privilege it is!
God choose us to serve Him in love. Our sphere of life is designed for one reason. God's purpose. We are to appropriate what He has already given us before the foundation of the world. We don't know who he has elected, or what that number is, but we search for the elect. We preach the gospel hoping to find those God has chosen.
I just don't think we need to take it any farther than that and debate if the atonement is limited, or unlimited, does everyone have a chance to believe or is it a done deal for some and they really have no choice. Let's fight the good fight and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Parable of the talents, what are we doing with what we got for the glory of God?


In the precious name of Jesus Christ

Blessing on you all,

-MJ

 

[MW]

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.

 

[mbj0680]

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.

Intersting points, Thank you.

-MJ

 

[AV1611]

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.

I would also suggest Crisp's sermon Faith, the Fruit of Union