Limited atonement

1,092 Views | 17 Replies | Last: 17 days ago by dermdoc
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not wanting to derail the other thread so creating a new one looking at what Scripture says about this topic
Forgive the screen shots but I was too lazy to type these all out






Thought this was a great list of Scripture against limited atonement.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now list the verses that apparently support condemnation and explain how they can be reconciled with universal atonement.
Mostly Peaceful
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I could be wrong here, but I think at its core limited atonement means that Jesus' died for whosoever would believe in Him. How is it that His death covers every sin ever committed if non-believers still have to pay the penalty themselves? Obviously, this doesn't fit with universal reconciliation, so your objection is completely understood.

The best way I've heard it explained is Jesus's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but only effective for those who believe. And I think that is consistent with the passages you referenced.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jabin said:

Now list the verses that apparently support condemnation and explain how they can be reconciled with universal atonement.


Unlimited atonement only means everybody can be saved. Salvation is offered to everyone.It does not mean universal salvation.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mostly Peaceful said:

I could be wrong here, but I think at its core limited atonement means that Jesus' died for whosoever would believe in Him. How is it that His death covers every sin ever committed if non-believers still have to pay the penalty themselves? Obviously, this doesn't fit with universal reconciliation, so your objection is completely understood.

The best way I've heard it explained is Jesus's sacrifice is sufficient for all, but only effective for those who believe. And I think that is consistent with the passages you referenced.


And I am okay with that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
think a lot of this conflict just a basic misreading of "atonement" and the day of atonement. if you don't understand the leviticus ritual, you can't understand the reference St Paul makes to it when talking about the cross.

"atonement" doesn't and can't mean "forgiveness of sins". the priest "makes atonement" for the altar, the mercy seat, and they are inanimate objects. we have to remember "atonement" was a made-up word for english used to translate the hebrew word "kephar" which is related to covering (noah covers the ark with pitch - same word). the chapter after the day of atonement ritual explains - blood is given on the altar to "cover" for our souls, and the blood makes a covering by life.

leviticus is clear that sin leaves a stain or a residue, sin is the stuff of death. when the people commit individual sins, they leave that stain of sin on the camp. the stuff of life, the blood, is used to cover and obviate or cancel out that stuff of death. God cannot be in the presence of sin because His holiness will consume it (meaning the people and the camp).

the day of atonement has several parts:

- two goats and a bull are used. lots are cast to pick between two goats - one for God, one for azazel (the devil)

- the high priest sacrifices a bull as a sin offering to cover the sins of himself and his family. he fills the holy place with a cloud of incense (to prevent him from seeing God and dying) and takes the blood of the bull and sprinkles it on the mercy seat.
- then he kills the goat to cover the sins of the people, and uses that blood to sprinkle inside the veil again.
- those two sprinklings cover for the sins of the people and their uncleanness.
- he does the same for the tent of meeting, and then for the altar

- next he takes the other goat (for azazel) and confesses over it the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the people. this goat is not sacrificed. it is unclean, it cannot be sacrificed to God. it is led out to the wilderness, taking the sins of the people with it - back to the devil, where they came from.

- then he washes himself, takes the fat from the bull and the goat and burn them on the altar. the rest of the offerings are taken outside of the camp and burned.

the atonement / covering ritual takes "life stuff" and uses it to cover up and clean "death stuff". the sins themselves are taken away and removed. their residual taint / filth are cleaned by blood. this must be repeated year after year, because the high priest still sins, and the people still sin. if it is not, God cannot dwell there in the midst of sin.

/////

so how then do we understand the cross as atonement? St John mixes his metaphors when he says "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Sin is singular, not plural. Not the 'sins' but sin.

the short answer is Christ Jesus is both goats. He is the goat which is sacrificed, pure, and His blood makes a covering for the residual taint of sin - over the whole world. This is why St Paul says "He became [a sin offering] for us." That is what the goat for Yahweh is - a sin offering. That's why St Peter says "he bore our sins in His body on the tree."

But He is also the goat which takes on the sins of the people, but rather than becoming unclean, He makes them clean. We see this multiple times in His ministry when he encounters uncleanness and cleanses it rather than becoming unclean Himself. Darkness meets Light, and the Light overcomes the darkness. Death encounters Life, and Life consumes it.

//////

now maybe we can go back to the original question. how did Christ's atonement affect people? everyone, or some? the answer is clearly everyone - this is the only reason the people of the other nations could approach and worship God, or have His Spirit dwell within them. they were unclean, now they have been made clean: "do not call anything impure what God has made clean."

this allows the gentiles, the people of the other nations, to come close - as St Paul says, "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near." How? "through the blood of Christ." That is, through the atonement. His covering sacrifice overlooked the previous sins, "through the shedding of His blood" to be received by faith, with no distinction between Jew or Gentile.

Why do we who are made unclean by sin have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place? because of this atonement - "by the blood of Jesus" who is the great high priest.

This atonement, covering, reconciled the world - not just Israel - to God (2 Cor 5:19) and so "He is the covering for our sins, and not only for ours, but for those of the whole world."

////////

does this mean all are saved? no - because being able to draw near, having your former sins overlooked, says nothing about whether you will wash yourself and be clean, turn from your evil ways, hate evil and do good, etc.

But the scriptures are clear - the atonement / covering was once for all. that is why all nations can draw near ot Christ Jesus and have the Holy Spirit dwell within them.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

think a lot of this conflict just a basic misreading of "atonement" and the day of atonement. if you don't understand the leviticus ritual, you can't understand the reference St Paul makes to it when talking about the cross.

"atonement" doesn't and can't mean "forgiveness of sins". the priest "makes atonement" for the altar, the mercy seat, and they are inanimate objects. we have to remember "atonement" was a made-up word for english used to translate the hebrew word "kephar" which is related to covering (noah covers the ark with pitch - same word). the chapter after the day of atonement ritual explains - blood is given on the altar to "cover" for our souls, and the blood makes a covering by life.

leviticus is clear that sin leaves a stain or a residue, sin is the stuff of death. when the people commit individual sins, they leave that stain of sin on the camp. the stuff of life, the blood, is used to cover and obviate or cancel out that stuff of death. God cannot be in the presence of sin because His holiness will consume it (meaning the people and the camp).

the day of atonement has several parts:

- two goats and a bull are used. lots are cast to pick between two goats - one for God, one for azazel (the devil)

- the high priest sacrifices a bull as a sin offering to cover the sins of himself and his family. he fills the holy place with a cloud of incense (to prevent him from seeing God and dying) and takes the blood of the bull and sprinkles it on the mercy seat.
- then he kills the goat to cover the sins of the people, and uses that blood to sprinkle inside the veil again.
- those two sprinklings cover for the sins of the people and their uncleanness.
- he does the same for the tent of meeting, and then for the altar

- next he takes the other goat (for azazel) and confesses over it the iniquities, transgressions, and sins of the people. this goat is not sacrificed. it is unclean, it cannot be sacrificed to God. it is led out to the wilderness, taking the sins of the people with it - back to the devil, where they came from.

- then he washes himself, takes the fat from the bull and the goat and burn them on the altar. the rest of the offerings are taken outside of the camp and burned.

the atonement / covering ritual takes "life stuff" and uses it to cover up and clean "death stuff". the sins themselves are taken away and removed. their residual taint / filth are cleaned by blood. this must be repeated year after year, because the high priest still sins, and the people still sin. if it is not, God cannot dwell there in the midst of sin.

/////

so how then do we understand the cross as atonement? St John mixes his metaphors when he says "behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Sin is singular, not plural. Not the 'sins' but sin.

the short answer is Christ Jesus is both goats. He is the goat which is sacrificed, pure, and His blood makes a covering for the residual taint of sin - over the whole world. This is why St Paul says "He became [a sin offering] for us." That is what the goat for Yahweh is - a sin offering. That's why St Peter says "he bore our sins in His body on the tree."

But He is also the goat which takes on the sins of the people, but rather than becoming unclean, He makes them clean. We see this multiple times in His ministry when he encounters uncleanness and cleanses it rather than becoming unclean Himself. Darkness meets Light, and the Light overcomes the darkness. Death encounters Life, and Life consumes it.

//////

now maybe we can go back to the original question. how did Christ's atonement affect people? everyone, or some? the answer is clearly everyone - this is the only reason the people of the other nations could approach and worship God, or have His Spirit dwell within them. they were unclean, now they have been made clean: "do not call anything impure what God has made clean."

this allows the gentiles, the people of the other nations, to come close - as St Paul says, "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near." How? "through the blood of Christ." That is, through the atonement. His covering sacrifice overlooked the previous sins, "through the shedding of His blood" to be received by faith, with no distinction between Jew or Gentile.

Why do we who are made unclean by sin have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place? because of this atonement - "by the blood of Jesus" who is the great high priest.

This atonement, covering, reconciled the world - not just Israel - to God (2 Cor 5:19) and so "He is the covering for our sins, and not only for ours, but for those of the whole world."

////////

does this mean all are saved? no - because being able to draw near, having your former sins overlooked, says nothing about whether you will wash yourself and be clean, turn from your evil ways, hate evil and do good, etc.

But the scriptures are clear - the atonement / covering was once for all. that is why all nations can draw near ot Christ Jesus and have the Holy Spirit dwell within them.
Great post. Your last two paragraphs sums it up for me.

And I want to repeat, unlimited atonement is not universal salvation. Unlimited atonement means Christ died for all. And I think Scripture is clear about that.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mostly Peaceful said:

I could be wrong here, but I think at its core limited atonement means that Jesus' died for whosoever would believe in Him.

This is taking the prescient view of foreknowledge and would be rejected by the reformers. So it depends on whose definition of limited atonement is being asked about.
Mostly Peaceful
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

I could be wrong here, but I think at its core limited atonement means that Jesus' died for whosoever would believe in Him.

This is taking the prescient view of foreknowledge and would be rejected by the reformers. So it depends on whose definition of limited atonement is being asked about.

Not if those who believe were predestined to do so.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mostly Peaceful said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

I could be wrong here, but I think at its core limited atonement means that Jesus' died for whosoever would believe in Him.

This is taking the prescient view of foreknowledge and would be rejected by the reformers. So it depends on whose definition of limited atonement is being asked about.

Not if those who believe were predestined to do so.


Unless God predestines all to be saved then it is limited atonement, correct?

How does that fit with the Scriptures I posted?

Truly curious as Scripture seems very clear on this subject.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Mostly Peaceful
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

I could be wrong here, but I think at its core limited atonement means that Jesus' died for whosoever would believe in Him.

This is taking the prescient view of foreknowledge and would be rejected by the reformers. So it depends on whose definition of limited atonement is being asked about.

Not if those who believe were predestined to do so.


Unless God predestines all to be saved then it is limited atonement, correct?

How does that fit with the Scriptures I posted?

Truly curious as Scripture seems very clear on this subject.

It brings us back to the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. And I promise you, I really struggle with that. I see where Scripture says God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, but that they may turn to Him and live. But I also see where Scripture says we were predestined according to the council of His will, not because of what the decisions we would make. And that our names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world.

So I can't take one and elevate it above the other to try to make myself understand how it all works. I have to sit in the tension knowing that God is good and just, and far beyond my ability to understand.

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mostly Peaceful said:

dermdoc said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

10andBOUNCE said:

Mostly Peaceful said:

I could be wrong here, but I think at its core limited atonement means that Jesus' died for whosoever would believe in Him.

This is taking the prescient view of foreknowledge and would be rejected by the reformers. So it depends on whose definition of limited atonement is being asked about.

Not if those who believe were predestined to do so.


Unless God predestines all to be saved then it is limited atonement, correct?

How does that fit with the Scriptures I posted?

Truly curious as Scripture seems very clear on this subject.

It brings us back to the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. And I promise you, I really struggle with that. I see where Scripture says God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, but that they may turn to Him and live. But I also see where Scripture says we were predestined according to the council of His will, not because of what the decisions we would make. And that our names were written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world.

So I can't take one and elevate it above the other to try to make myself understand how it all works. I have to sit in the tension knowing that God is good and just, and far beyond my ability to understand.




I hear you but the preponderance of Scripture and church tradition to me clearly supports free will and our ability to reject or accept God.

Guess we will not know for sure until we are in His presence.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think one problem is taking translations of things like "predestined" or "foreordained" and putting too much weight on the translated word vs the original language concept. The other is subjecting God to the flow of time which is necessary when you start talking about before/after.

Once you remove these, the tension goes away and you can read all of it in harmony without conflict. St John says verbatim Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world. We shouldn't feel the need to add "…but" afterward, because he doesn't.

Fatalism is a pagan and prechristian / subchristian view of the world. We should avoid it.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is very easily solved if you see that His will is that we express our own free will to choose Him or not. Our choice IS His will. He knows what we will choose, so He knows it since before we existed, and in that way we are predestined. But it was always our choice, as He willed it to be.

There doesn't need to be a tension
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

This is very easily solved if you see that His will is that we express our own free will to choose Him or not. Our choice IS His will. He knows what we will choose, so He knows it since before we existed, and in that way we are predestined. But it was always our choice, as He willed it to be.

There doesn't need to be a tension


From my reading, there never was this tension until Calvin and several others completely changed the concept of election and predestination.

And I have no idea why.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

The Banned said:

This is very easily solved if you see that His will is that we express our own free will to choose Him or not. Our choice IS His will. He knows what we will choose, so He knows it since before we existed, and in that way we are predestined. But it was always our choice, as He willed it to be.

There doesn't need to be a tension


From my reading, there never was this tension until Calvin and several others completely changed the concept of election and predestination.

And I have no idea why.


An allergic reaction to the idea of "works" and a literal interpretation of "faith alone". Basically just used common sense to get to the logical end of these two qualifiers.
Mostly Peaceful
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fair points all around. I think God being outside of time is key and very difficult to wrap my mind around.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mostly Peaceful said:

Fair points all around. I think God being outside of time is key and very difficult to wrap my mind around.


Agree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.