Why is the "L" so difficult for many people?

[panicbird]

Why is limited atonement so hard to accept for some? It seems that this is one issue upon which Calvinists and Arminians should agree. Even in the Arminian system God knows who will and who will not believe. Thus, it would be ridiculous for God to say, "OK, I know Steve will believe and John will not, but Christ shall die for both of them anyway." It seems that limited atonement should be a hallmark of both systems, as it is just as consistent with Arminianism as it is with Calvinism.

Sorry. I had to get that out.

Lon

 

[Learner]

The term "limited atonement"has unfortunate connotations.Arminians think it limits God in some fashion.Specific redemption,or particular redemption might be better choices for this Bible doctrine.But whatever we call it, Arminians will not like it.They ride on the surface of texts and do not care to dig deeper."World means world.And that's it!"There should be a curiousity to examine the issue.However they stubbornly refuse to budge,prefering to stay comfortable within their traditions.As an Arminian I got angry at so-called Calvinistic teachings such as limited atonement.My defences weakened when I read Dr.D.M.Lloyd-Jones,R.C.Sproul and others.But I think it takes a determination to personally investigate the matter.I started to write down the "offensive texts"and was staggered to realize how pervasive this and related doctrines were.It became addictive.Personally writing out the texts is showing you really care what God says on any given subject.Then when I came across John Owens' book:"The Death Of Death In The Death Of Jesus Christ"I was thrilled!He was comprehensive and clear.

 

[dado6]

Biblical argument:

IF...John 10:11-18

THEN..... how could Christ have died for every human being?

Logical argument:

IF....Jesus died for every human being

THEN.... either God is a failure as the attonement is of no effect for some portion of the race and/or some folks are punished for their sins despite Christ already having paid their penatly . How can God fail and/or what does Christ's death accomplish for those who are in hell?





These are usually mouth-closing argumets, but only for the average inconsistent Arminian. Thoroughgoing ones will argue for the 'Moral Government' theory regarding Christ's death. That is that He died not save us but to show us....sacrifice, love, suffering, etc.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[panicbird]

My point is that even under the Arminian scheme limited atonement is still necessary. Their version of election still holds that God knows who will believe (and from this foreknowledge He elects them). Therefore, to say that Christ died for all is inconsistent with their own system, as it has the Father electing a certain number (even if it is based on foreseen faith...He still knows who will believe and who will not) and Christ still dying for all.

Limited atonement should be the one point agreeable to all.

Lon

 

[ABondSlaveofChristJesus]

If Jesus took the punishment for those who would still end up going to hell, then he got the shaft, because he suffered some in vain. Which means God isn't just. Arminians believe Jesus died for all our sins except for the sin of unbelief.

 

[Me Died Blue]

[quote:aaf2fd0149="panicbird"]Limited atonement should be the one point agreeable to all.

Lon[/quote:aaf2fd0149]

I totally see your point. However, growing up in an Arminian church myself, it seems to me that the reason it's not is because most of them have a totally different concept altogether of what the atonement even does. For Calvinists, the atonement cleanses people of their sin and imputes Christ's righteousness to them. For most Arminians, the atonement itself doesn't actually "do" anything at all, it simply makes it [i:aaf2fd0149]possible[/i:aaf2fd0149] for them to "do" so by believing. [i:aaf2fd0149]For Calvinists, the atonement saves people[/i:aaf2fd0149], which is why a universal atonement is ludicrous to us. [i:aaf2fd0149]But for most Arminians, the atonement merely makes people saveable[/i:aaf2fd0149] - which is why they believe Christ died for every person, thus enabling each of them to be able to save themselves by exercising faith.

However, some non-Calvinists, like Dave Hunt, would vigorously deny having such a view of the atonement. People like him believe that the atonement actually did cleanse people from sin, but make the ridiculously random claim that unbelief does not "count" as a sin, and thus that since everyone's "sin" is forgiven, whenever someone goes to hell, it's not because of their sins, but solely because of their unbelief. I'm not kidding, he actually gives this very concept of the atonement in [i:aaf2fd0149]What Love Is This?[/i:aaf2fd0149]

So the way non-Calvinists are able to keep their universal atonement is by either denying its direct substitutionary, propitiatory nature, or simply by making the ridiculous distinction between unbelief and all other sin.

 

[4ndr3w]

You go MDB!

 

[wsw201]

You also have to remember that Arminius's main problem with Calvinism was the Decree of Predestination, ie; election and reprobation. For Arminius, though God foreknew who would come to faith, only Christ was elect. Election and Reprobation was not based on a decree from God before the foundations of the world. A person became elect when they became a believer and were "in Christ". Those whom God foreknew who would not come to faith would be the reprobate, thus not subscribing any evil toward God. Plus the elect who were "in Christ" could loose their election through apostacy. Thats why Weslyan Arminianism evolved into Weslyan Perfectionism.

Does loosing ones elect status sound familiar?

 

[SmokingFlax]

MDB:

Wow! ...if what you say is correct, (and I'll assume that it is), then I can totally understand how some people proclaim that the Arminian system is the road back to Rome. It seems to be only a handshake away from the Romish infused righteousness doctrine.

 

[SmokingFlax]

Oh yeah...

Even when I was a confused Arminian (unknowingly) I never had a problem with the Limited atonement concept simply because of the 'God hated Esau' verse. By the time I heard TULIP explained it was an easy thing to accept.

 

[panicbird]

Chris,

Even accepting their view of Christ's death they still should have no problem with a limited atonement. Why would God "make savable" men and women whom He knew would never come to faith? It is still ludicrous. If their system was consistent, God would "make savable" only those whom He knew would eventually believe in Him.

Lon

 

[Me Died Blue]

[quote:79cf99d536="SmokingFlax"]MDB:

Wow! ...if what you say is correct, (and I'll assume that it is), then I can totally understand how some people proclaim that the Arminian system is the road back to Rome. It seems to be only a handshake away from the Romish infused righteousness doctrine. [/quote:79cf99d536]

Indeed.

[quote:79cf99d536="SmokingFlax"]Oh yeah...

Even when I was a confused Arminian (unknowingly) I never had a problem with the Limited atonement concept simply because of the 'God hated Esau' verse. By the time I heard TULIP explained it was an easy thing to accept.[/quote:79cf99d536]

My own struggle was similar; for me, the most difficult thing to accept (and the one that took the longest time to accept) was the "unconditional" in unconditional election. I came up with my own twisted doctrine of soteriology, wherein I held to all the other four points but the "U." Particular Redemption was definitely much easier for me to accept than was unconditional election.

[quote:79cf99d536="panicbird"]Chris,

Even accepting their view of Christ's death they still should have no problem with a limited atonement. Why would God "make savable" men and women whom He knew would never come to faith? It is still ludicrous. If their system was consistent, God would "make savable" only those whom He knew would eventually believe in Him.

Lon[/quote:79cf99d536]

I agree that even with their view of Christ's death, there doesn't have to be any problem with limited atonement. But their view of the efficacious nature of the atonement that I discussed above isn't so much something that stops them from holding to limited atonement as it is something that [i:79cf99d536]allows[/i:79cf99d536] them to keep holding to universal atonement. They [i:79cf99d536]want[/i:79cf99d536] to hold to a universal atonement, because they feel uncomfortable with the notion that Christ only died for certain people. Even with regard to those God foreknew would reject the Gospel, non-Calvinists feel that it would be cruel and unjust of God to not still give them a [i:79cf99d536]potential[/i:79cf99d536] atonement - which is just what the Arminian atonement is. They want to be able to tell everyone they meet, "Jesus died for you." And since they're so desperate to be able to keep their universal atonement (since it feels [i:79cf99d536]"politically correct" to their hearts[/i:79cf99d536] per se), they either change the substitutionary nature of the atonement, or deny that unbelief is a sin; anything to keep their universal atonement for sentiment's sake.

 

[johnny_redeemed]

The reason i think this is hard for most people to get is that it is NOT what os taught in the Church, as a whole, today. most pastors teach that Christ died for all, so when people here the "L" it goes against what they have heard and been taught.

 

[Scot]

[quote:ba7755b308]The reason i think this is hard for most people to get is that it is NOT what os taught in the Church, as a whole, today. most pastors teach that Christ died for all, so when people here the "L" it goes against what they have heard and been taught.[/quote:ba7755b308]

That was the case with me. I only went to church up to about eleven years old (my parents got divorced and we quit going). That was the only thing that I ever heard or was taught. Up until I was around 22 years old, I never even heard of Arminianism or Calvinism. When I first heard that Christ died for only an elect people, I dusted off my old Bible and set out to prove the doctrine wrong. By God's grace, the opposite happened. When I started searching for a church to attend, I found out I was a Calvinist.

 

[Ranger]

To quote one of my young students from last night, "To believe that Jesus died for the whole world means that he is a failure...that ain't my Jesus."

This point is really hard to handle, simply because it fights against the loving Jesus that we know. Until I really thought through what it meant to "save sinners," I struggled drastically with the doctrine. But, if you sit back and start thinking about what Christ accomplished on the cross, this is the only conclusion that fits with Scripture, ya know?

I also think that the name "Limited Atonement" turns people off immediately, because it seems like Christ's atonement was insufficent. I prefer Particular Redemption, or Purposed Atonement for that very reason.

What are some illustrations that you guys use to present particular redemption in a more understandable way? I use the classic Owen of either:

1. Christ died for all the sins of all people
2. Christ died for some of the sins of all people
3. Christ died for all of the sins of some people
4. Christ died for some of the sins of some people

That usually get them thinking at least. What other ways do ya'll use?

 

[Scot]

I have a sermon somewhere on limited atonement that I haven't listened to for awhile. It's by one of the Free Presbyterian pastors but I forget which one. Anyway, he says when we call it "Limited" atonement the arminian has the advantage because he can say "Well, I believe in an unlimited atonement", which sounds better. He says that he likes the term "Definate" atonement better. What's the arminian going to say? "I believe in an indefinate atonement"?

 

[Learner]

This was not from a concordance...

...when I became convinced of Christ's sacrifice for His elect it was through the reading ,studying ,and writing down the many , many, verses that dealt with the subject . I prefer the ESV now, but back then I used the NIV. This is just one of the papers I had prepared with the subject heading "Election ".


Matt. 1:21

...He will save His people from their sins.

Matt. 24:22

...for the sake of the elect...

Matt. 24:24

...even the elect..

Ps. 65:4

Blessed are those You choose to bring near to your courts!...

John 10:11

...The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

John 10:14

...I know my sheep and they know Me.

John 10:15

...I lay down my life for the sheep.

Acts 20:28

...the church of God which He bought with His own blood.

Acts 18:10

...I have many people in this city.

Acts 15:14

...by taking from the Gentiles a people for Himself.

Romans 8:29

For those God foreknew He also predestined...

Romans 8:30 --summarized

Those He predestinated,called,justified,glorified.

Romans 8:33

Those whom God has chosen.

Romans 9:11

...in order that God's purpose in election might stand.

Romans 9:23

...the objects of His mercy whom He prepared in advance for glory.

Romans 11:2

...His people whom He foreknew.

Romans 11:4

...I have reserved for Myself...

Romans 11:5

...a remnant chosen by grace.

Romans 11:7

...the elect

Romans 11:28

...the election...

Romans 16:13

...chosen in the Lord...

1 Cor.1 :27

But God chose...God chose

1 Cor. 15:23

...those who belong to Him.

Eph 1:4

For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...

Eph.1;4,5

In love He predestinated us...in accordance with His pleasure and will.

Eph. 1:9

...According to His good pleasure which He purposed in Christ.

Eph. 1:11

...We were also chosen...having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will.

Phil. 4:3

...whose names are written in the book of life.

Col. 3:12

...God's chosen people...

1 Thess. 1:4

...He has chosen you.

1 Thess. 5:9

God appointed us to receive salvation...

2 Thess. 2:13

...From the beginning God chose you...

 

[Ranger]

Thanks for the wonderful list of Scriptures. What do you guys consider standard reading on the subject? I've read "The Death of Death" by Owen, and "Redemption Accomplished and Applied" by Murray, and they were both very helpful, any other suggestions?

 

[Learner]

Gordon Clark. I think it is called "Predestination in the Old and New Testaments ". Originally it was two individual books. Check out the Quotes forum with a section of Gordon Clark's quotes.

 

[Scot]

"A Price For A People" by Tom Wells is very good. It's published by Banner of Truth.

 

[cupotea]

Tim,

I like your list of verses.

Here's another one that I believe would fit into the list ...
[quote:e8909f231b]Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;[/quote:e8909f231b]

It seems to be rather limiting to me. What do y'all think?

 

[Learner]

Hi Dan ,

I like Eph. 5:25 . I usually use it alongside of Acts 20:28 and other texts . The portions of verses that I listed on August 13th were just a warm-up . I have handwritten many more . Just yesterday I gave some more out . However I do not dwell only on these kinds of passages . Just this morning a J. W . woman I witnessed to about a month or more ago finally replied to my two e-mails I sent her regarding the diety of Christ .
Isn't the Word of God powerful ? Let it speak . Proclaim it .

 

[cupotea]

OK. Just thought I'd make sure that verse was included in the list of "L" verses. Acts 20:28 is good, too. Thanks for that one.

By the way ... I hope you are successful in sharing the truth about Jesus' diety with the JW woman. She may be one of the lost sheep.