Recently, I have been told by a few Calvinists, that although "limited atonement" is a biblical doctrine. It should not be brought up when talking to the unregenerate.
Tom said: Recently, I have been told by a few Calvinists, that although "limited atonement" is a biblical doctrine. It should not be brought up when talking to the unregenerate.
Do you agree with this thinking?
I strongly disagree. The sufficiency of Christ to infallibly secure the redemption of those whom He died for is of great significance for several reasons. 1) It puts the entire focus of salvation upon the merits of Christ and His atoning work. 2) It removes the possibility of one looking to themselves to append the completed work of Christ, e.g., one's "free-will choice" to vote Christ into the "office" as their Saviour and/or Lord; it dispels any notion of a "possibility salvation", which is no salvation at all. 3) It serves to establish a believer's assurance, knowing that Christ actually died for "them" in particular; i.e., when the Son of God took upon Himself human flesh and gave Himself as a sacrifice to atone for sins, He specifically came to redeem actual individuals whom the Father gave Him. Doubtless more reasons could be offered, but those I think should be sufficient. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
One of the reasons, that I have heard for not telling an unregenerate person about 'limited atonement', is that in the book of Acts, where salvation is preached (I haven't checked this out yet) 'limited atonement' is not mentioned.
But, even Jesus talked about 'limited atonement' in verses like John 6:37, to the unregenerate.
Pilgrim, does the sufficiency of Christ to infallibly secure the redemption of those whom He died for when talking to the unregenerate conflict with the concept that Jesus' blood was shed sufficiently for all?
The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? Charles Hodge
The atonement is sufficient in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and this fact should be stated because it is a fact. There are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinite atonement has not been provided. "All things are now ready." Therefore the call to "come" is universal. It is plain, that the offer of the atonement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy. W.G.T Shedd
It is God's purpose to receive and save all that believe on his Son, elect or not...We believe as fully as they do (a) that the Atonement is sufficient for all...If the non-elect believes, he will none the less be saved because of his non-election. If he elect does not believe and persevere to the end, he will none the more be saved because of his election. A.A. Hodge
Yankee said: Pilgrim, does the sufficiency of Christ to infallibly secure the redemption of those whom He died for when talking to the unregenerate conflict with the concept that Jesus' blood was shed sufficiently for all?
Hi Yankee!
I don't accept the concept that "Jesus' blood was shed sufficiently for all". What I do accept is that Christ's death was inherently sufficient, in and of itself, to atone for all the sins of all men without exception, IF it had been purposed that He offer Himself as a sacrifice for all. The purpose of the atonement, i.e., that He die to redeem the elect; those whom the Father gave Him, limits its efficacy and thus it is sufficient to save only the elect.
However, when it comes to proclaiming the Gospel, we do so to all mankind without exception and without qualification we may declare that Christ's blood is sufficient to save ALL who will come to Him by faith. There is no contradiction here for no other reason that we are not privy to who the elect are. And since Christ's atonement infallibly secured all whom He gave His life as a substitute, then none ever need worry that there is no atonement for them. We don't call men to discern their election (although some hyper-Calvinists do insist upon this), but we call men to repentance and faith in the Lord Christ. There are no exceptions, for ALL may and indeed must come to Him to receive remission of sins and to be reconciled to God in Him.
One of the reasons, that I have heard for not telling an unregenerate person about 'limited atonement', is that in the book of Acts, where salvation is preached (I haven't checked this out yet) 'limited atonement' is not mentioned.
First of all Tom I'd tell your "friends" that to develope your theology from Acts instead of the didactic portions of the Scripture is contrary to reason.
Quote
As the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God. As many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Ac 13:48)
Also, by inference not all the Gentiles that heard the gospel believed only those appointed (ordained) to eternal life. Ergo a limited group was atoned for.
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Boanerges I agree with you that our theology shouldn't come from the book of Acts. However, I would say that within the book of Acts we find examples of how the apostles preached the gospel to the unregenerate.
You are of course correct the inference of Acts 13:48, is 'limited atonement'. However, I don't think we can say from that particular verse, that the apostles preached 'limited atonement' in their gospel presentations. Don't misunderstand me; I am with you that in one way or another 'limited atonement' should be preached to the unregenerate.
What about sharing the gospel to the unregenerate? Obviously, you cannot say to the person that Christ died for him because he may be one of the reprobate for whom Chirst did NOT die. Doesn't sound like "good news" to me - to you? Imagine Paul or Peter preaching to the people and saying that Christ died for the elect only. There's not much hope for the unconverted:
* Am I one of the elect or not? * Did God elect me to salvation or excluded his saving grace from me, deciding not to enable me to come? * Let me repent and believe to make sure I'm one of elect. * Oh, but what if I have repented but not truly been regenerated because God had already decided that I should be one of the non-elect. * Oh, oh, why this dark decree?
The good news is that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), for all (2 Cor. 5:14), and for the world (1 Jn. 2:2). This is why Peter could say that the "Prince and Saviour might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (Acts 5:31) - not just a few Israelites, but all the people.
You said that we cannot build our theology from the Book of Acts. But you've just done so by quoting from Acts 13:48 for limited atonement. Actually, it's a great proof-text for the Calvinian doctrine of unconditional election.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/nonochimp.gif)
I strongly disagree. The sufficiency of Christ to infallibly secure the redemption of those whom He died for is of great significance for several reasons. 1) It puts the entire focus of salvation upon the merits of Christ and His atoning work. 2) It removes the possibility of one looking to themselves to append the completed work of Christ, e.g., one's "free-will choice" to vote Christ into the "office" as their Saviour and/or Lord; it dispels any notion of a "possibility salvation", which is no salvation at all. 3) It serves to establish a believer's assurance, knowing that Christ actually died for "them" in particular; i.e., when the Son of God took upon Himself human flesh and gave Himself as a sacrifice to atone for sins, He specifically came to redeem actual individuals whom the Father gave Him. Doubtless more reasons could be offered, but those I think should be sufficient. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
