Limited Atonement, is it Biblical?

[guanophore]

The Riddle

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the LAST, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” [Ps. cxxx.2] We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty.” [Isa. ii. 20, 21]

If the SECOND, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the FIRST, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins.

Let them choose which part they will.
An extract from John Owen’s – The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ, Book I, Chapter III –

How do you account for the passage that says:

1 Tim 2:2-5
3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I just can’t help but noting the irony that this quote comes from someone who either

(a) Does not believe in the immaculate conception
(b) Or has changed the meaning of all (using his own standard of measure) in Romans 3:23 to exclude Mary.

Just observing the irony here.

Are you saying that infants have sinned?

 

[cfrancis]

The word all or the world has to be understood in context. Otherwise, you would be a universalist (everyone will be saved). It appears you qouted Romans 5 as a universalist application (post 1). Romans 5 needs to be understood in the light of 1 Cor 15. The word all is qualified in two groups of humanity.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Reformed’s words highlighted above reveal a fundamental problem with his view of Scripture. If what Reformed says is true, it must have been true from the beginning of Christianity as well.
Yet we have no evidence each Christian community had every writing that would eventually become the NT; that means many Christians did not have either Paul’s letter to the Romans or his 2nd letter to the Corinthians (we call it 1st Cor, but Paul had written to them before - 1 Cor 5:9).
Where, exactly, does the Bible tell us Romans 5 must be understood in light of 1 Cor 1???
Why should we accept your opinion on this?

 

[guanophore]

The word all or the world has to be understood in context.

I find this fascinating. When Catholics use this reasoning with regard to “all have sinned”, we are vigorously contested by those who reject the Marian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. However, when it comes to this verse, suddenly. “all” does not really mean “all”.

Otherwise, you would be a universalist (everyone will be saved).

No, this is a logical fallacy. God does not save everyone because some reject His purpose for themselves.

It appears you qouted Romans 5 as a universalist application (post 1). Romans 5 needs to be understood in the light of 1 Cor 15. The word all is qualified in two groups of humanity.

1 Corinthians 15:22

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Yet, we know that not “all” are made alive, because some reject the invitation. Notice in the wedding parable that was read in Mass last Sunday, the good and the evil were all invited. The only one who was thrown out was the one who did not wear the wedding garment. It was his choice.

 

[StashLazarus]

How do you account for the passage that says:

1 Tim 2:2-5
3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. ?

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

In this passage it was not the entire world that was taxed, but the Roman world. The author uses “all the world” to express that all the Roman world was taxed even though people were aware of the fact that there were lands beyond Roman control.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Surely you will not be hated by your brothers in Christ. “All men” doesn’t mean all the men in the world, but in this case it seems to be referring to men outside the Church.

Mark 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.

In this passage Jesus had attracted a large following due to the miracles He performed. When He went to a solitary place to pray, “All men” were looking for Him. It wasn’t all men in the world that were seeking Him, but all men in that particular area.

So far, you argument is based on a small number of verses that don’t support your position with as much clarity as you seem to believe. And you simply keep repeating those verses. Can you take that last part of John 6 and explain how it fits with your view?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

So far, you argument is based on a small number of verses that don’t support your position with as much clarity as you seem to believe. And you simply keep repeating those verses. Can you take that last part of John 6 and explain how it fits with your view?

Here’s a more relevant challenge for you. Please explain why the verses listed mean something different than what they say in clear english.

The examples you give are explainable and I think we can agree on their meaning.

Can we reach agreement on the verses in the OP?

 

[cfrancis]

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

In this passage it was not the entire world that was taxed, but the Roman world. The author uses “all the world” to express that all the Roman world was taxed even though people were aware of the fact that there were lands beyond Roman control.

Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Surely you will not be hated by your brothers in Christ. “All men” doesn’t mean all the men in the world, but in this case it seems to be referring to men outside the Church.

Mark 1:37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.

In this passage Jesus had attracted a large following due to the miracles He performed. When He went to a solitary place to pray, “All men” were looking for Him. It wasn’t all men in the world that were seeking Him, but all men in that particular area.

So far, you argument is based on a small number of verses that don’t support your position with as much clarity as you seem to believe. And you simply keep repeating those verses. Can you take that last part of John 6 and explain how it fits with your view?

Which part of Jn 6?

 

[mercygate]

Everybody believes in a form of limited atonement or particular atonement unless you believe in universalism. Do you think all individuals will be saved from the wrath of God and enter Heaven? If you answer no, you believe in a form of limited atonement.

Bingo. The OP sounded more like a push for universalism than limited atonement. Although Christians believe that the atonement was made FOR ALL, we believe that not all will accept it.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Bingo. The OP sounded more like a push for universalism than limited atonement. Although Christians believe that the atonement was made FOR ALL, we believe that not all will accept it.

Limited atonement as defined by Calvinism means that Jesus only died for a select group of individuals.

That’s not what the bible teaches.

We now have a chance to accept God’s grace.

 

[StashLazarus]

CHESTERTONRULES:
Here’s a more relevant challenge for you. Please explain why the verses listed mean something different than what they say in clear english.

The examples you give are explainable and I think we can agree on their meaning.

Can we reach agreement on the verses in the OP?

The Bible must be consistent. If two passages seem to contradict each other, the question is can either passage be interpreted in a way as to be consistent with the other. The verses you have given can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the passages that support limited atonement, so can you take those passages that support limited atonement and make them support your view.

 

[cfrancis]

The Bible must be consistent. If two passages seem to contradict each other, the question is can either passage be interpreted in a way as to be consistent with the other. The verses you have given can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the passages that support limited atonement, so can you take those passages that support limited atonement and make them support your view.

Aren’t your words equally true for you? “The verses you have given can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the passages that refute limited atonement, so can you take those passages that refute limited atonement and make them support your view”

 

[StashLazarus]

Which part of Jn 6?

Starting with verse 37

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The Bible must be consistent. If two passages seem to contradict each other, the question is can either passage be interpreted in a way as to be consistent with the other.

I agree.

The verses you have given can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the passages that support limited atonement, so can you take those passages that support limited atonement and make them support your view.

I disagree with your assessment.

Limited atonement is not in any way compatible with these two passages in particular:

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

Paul is clearly speaking about all of humanity.

 

[StashLazarus]

Aren’t your words equally true for you? “The verses you have given can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the passages that refute limited atonement, so can you take those passages that refute limited atonement and make them support your view”

I thoughts that’s what we just did. You gave some verses that refute limited atonement and I showed how they don’t necessarily refute limited atonement.

 

[Reformed]

Bingo. The OP sounded more like a push for universalism than limited atonement. Although Christians believe that the atonement was made FOR ALL, we believe that not all will accept it.

I agree with your posting. Actually, I read a book by John Calvin on the Atonement about two months ago. Mister Calvin wrote on two aspects of atonement of being universal and limited. So, what’s the beef with the OP? We know that Roman Catholicism teaches two aspects of atonement too. All mankind are actually commanded by God to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sin. This is more than a choice. It is actually a command of God.

 

[mercygate]

I agree.

I disagree with your assessment.

Limited atonement is not in any way compatible with these two passages in particular:

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

Paul is clearly speaking about all of humanity.

Sure. The Good News IS for ALL humanity. Everyone is under the mercy; some will chose not to accept the mercy. You know that.

I think your quibble is with double predestination more than with limited atonement – at least insofar as Catholics understand that accepting the gospel requires our response to grace and persevering in it.

 

[StashLazarus]

I agree.

I disagree with your assessment.

Limited atonement is not in any way compatible with these two passages in particular:

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
1Cor. 15:21-22

Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. Rom. 5:18

Paul is clearly speaking about all of humanity.

Now, your getting into the question of “original sin”. Something else which I don’t believe in. Not that I want to open another can of worms.

 

[Reformed]

Sure. The Good News IS for ALL humanity. Everyone is under the mercy; some will chose not to accept the mercy. You know that.

I think your quibble is with double predestination more than with limited atonement – at least insofar as Catholics understand that accepting the gospel requires our response to grace and persevering in it.

I can agree with this posting too.

 

[Reformed]

Now, your getting into the question of “original sin”. Something else which I don’t believe in. Not that I want to open another can of worms.

I have to stand with Roman Catholicism with original sin. We both side with Augustine on this one.

 

[Reformed]

Are you saying that infants have sinned?

All infants sinned in Adam according to Augustine and King David (Bible).

Psalm 58:3

The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

Psalm 51:5 NIV

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.