REDEMPTION/ATONEMENT: US vs THEM (the L of TULIP)

[atpollard]

There are different theories about REDEMPTION.

We all, if we are Christian, believe that Jesus Christ died to redeem.

Beyond that, different people teach a different NATURE of the atonement and a different DESIGN of the redemption. With what follows, I propose to lay out in clear and logical terms how THEIR view is wrong and OUR view is correct. Nothing more and nothing less.

PART I: THEM​

THEY claim that Jesus Christ did not die with the intent to save any particular person. When Jesus died, that death did not, all alone and completely by itself, secure the salvation of any specific living human being beyond any shadow of a doubt. THEY teach that Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible for all men and available to all men … that because of Christ’s work of redemption, any man who pleases may obtain eternal life by doing something else.

If THEY are willing to be honest, then THEY will be forced to admit that IF no man was willing to give way and voluntarily surrender to God’s grace, then Christ’s atonement would have saved no one. THEY must admit that in their belief there is no PARTICULARITY in the atonement of Christ for one individual over another. According to THEM, Jesus Christ died on the cross for Judas in hell as much as for Peter in heaven. THEY believe that for every person who is consigned to the eternal fires of hell, there was a redemption made that was every bit as real, and was identical to, the redemption made for every person who stands before the throne in heaven.

PART II: US​

WE believe that when Jesus Christ died, that He had an objective in view. WE believe that objective will with complete assurance and beyond any shadow of a doubt be accomplished. WE measure the intent of the death of Christ by the effect that it accomplished. If THEY were to ask US the question:

“What was the purpose or intention of Christ’s death?”

WE would respond with the obvious answer: “What the death of Christ accomplished.” The measure of the effect IS the measure of the intent when one is speaking of God’s Love. Is is nonsense to think that God Almighty’s intentions could be frustrated by anything! It beggars the imagination that the design of something so great as the Atonement could have in any way, shape or form missed the mark in any measure.

Therefore, WE are not afraid to believe, proclaim and firmly hold that Jesus Christ came into the the world to accomplish exactly what He did accomplish … to save “a multitude which no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. Furthermore, because of this, WE believe that every person for whom Christ died must - beyond the shadow of a doubt certain:

• be cleansed from sin
• be washed in His blood
• stand redeemed before the Father’s throne

WE do not believe that Jesus made any atonement for those that are damned. Christ only makes EFFECTUAL atonement, Christ does not fail in atoning for people. WE cannot think that the blood of Christ was spilled with the intention of saving those whom GOD Foreknew could never be saved. WE cannot believe that the precious blood of Christ was pointlessly shed for those that were already damned and in hell when (as THEY would have US believe) Christ died to save them!

PART III: THE FALSE ACCUSATION​

THEY will often make the accusation of US:

“Calvinism limits the atonement of Christ because WE say Christ did not die to bring Sanctification to all men.”

This accusation is false, it is THEY that limit the atonement. WE do not.

THEY say Christ died for all men, but that death did not secure the salvation of all men. (Even THEY are not UNIVERSALISTS arguing that there is no hell). THEY teach that Christ did not UNCONDITIONALLY secure the salvation of any man in particular. They teach “Christ died so that any man may be saved if …” - then come the conditions for salvation. Above and beyond this, THEY typically believe that a man can fall from Grace even after they have been justified. So then … who is it that really limits the death of Christ? THEM! THEY say that the death of Christ did not irresistibly secure the death of anybody, but accuse US of limiting the death of Christ.

WE say that Jesus Christ died to, with complete certainty, secure the salvation of “a multitude that no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. WE say that through Christ’s death this multitude of individuals not only MAY be saved, but MUST be saved, and WILL be saved … there is no possibility of any outcome other than their being saved!

So who really has a limited view of Christ’s death: US or THEM?

Charles Spurgeon presented this issue with a terrific analogy. THEY (Arminians / Free Will / General Atonement) is like a great wide bridge that spans only half way across a river: it does not secure salvation for anybody, but has room for everybody. WE (Calvinist / Reformed / Particular Atonement) is like a narrow bridge that spans all the way across the river: it secures salvation for all who cross it and none others.

“Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.“ - C.H. Spurgeon

Me, too.

PART IV: THE VERSE​

Those that know me, know that I like a scripture verse to support what I say. Recently I have observed that posting many verses just leads to many bunny trails. Therefore I offer just one verse (from two places):

• Matthew 20:28 [NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• Mark 10:45 [NKJV] "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

 

[Albion]

The logic is missing from an argument that says no one could be saved until Christ's sacrifice, but then afterwards, when everyone has been given the opportunity at eternal life although not everyone takes it and so those people perish...that's described in the Original Post as being a view of the atonement that limits salvation!?

It's obviously not the atonement that does any "limiting."

The Calvinistic view instead holds that only some certain people were given salvation by the atonement. Other people were left out. And we here are supposed to think this view of the atonement is NOT limiting???

The only way that particular contention can be upheld is if the language is tortured and misused and made to say what it does not.

If there is any doubt about the traditional, Biblical understanding of the atonement, which holds that everyone has been given the chance at salvation OR about the Calvinistic POV which restricts it, believing that it's Christ's will (!) that many others will be lost eternally, here is your own clarification--

WE cannot think that the blood of Christ was spilled with the intention of saving those whom GOD Foreknew could never be saved.

 

[tango]

The logic is missing from an argument that says no one could be saved until Christ's sacrifice, but then afterwards, when everyone has been given the opportunity at eternal life although not everyone takes it and so those people perish...that's described in the Original Post as being a view of the atonement that limits salvation!?

It's obviously not the atonement that does any "limiting."

The Calvinistic view instead holds that only some certain people were given salvation by the atonement. Other people were left out. And we here are supposed to think this view of the atonement is NOT limiting???

The only way that particular contention can be upheld is if the language is tortured and misused and made to say what it does not.

If there is any doubt about the traditional, Biblical understanding of the atonement, which holds that everyone has been given the chance at salvation OR about the Calvinistic POV which restricts it, believing that it's Christ's will (!) that many others will be lost eternally, here is your own clarification--

If there are some who are "unelect" and can therefore never be saved, how can we have any assurance of salvation? For all we know we might be the tares who will be separated out and thrown into the fire.

As you say, the atonement isn't doing any limiting - to use the bridge analogy from the original post we can say that anyone is invited to cross the bridge, and those who choose not to cross don't get to complain that they never made it to the other side. The idea of some who can never be saved is limiting - it implies that the bridge is for ticketholders only and, sorry, you don't have a ticket.

 

[atpollard]

Does God know who will never believe and ultimately spend eternity in Hell?
Has God always known this or is His OMNISCIENCE growing?

Did Christ shed blood for those that were already in Hell? (The Rich man Jesus spoke of)
Do they have a chance at redemption?
For what purpose was that blood shed?

 

[Albion]

If there are some who are "unelect" and can therefore never be saved, how can we have any assurance of salvation?

Obviously, we cannot.

For all we know we might be the tares who will be separated out and thrown into the fire.

Indeed.

As you say, the atonement isn't doing any limiting - to use the bridge analogy from the original post we can say that anyone is invited to cross the bridge, and those who choose not to cross don't get to complain that they never made it to the other side.

That's the conclusion that makes sense.

The idea of some who can never be saved is limiting - it implies that the bridge is for ticketholders only

Without question.

 

[Albion]

Does God know who will never believe and ultimately spend eternity in Hell?

It is rudimentary--and anybody who wants to enter into a discussion about this particular topic ought to know it--that God's foreknowledge does NOT equate to him predestining any elect or excluding anyone from the possibility of salvation.

That's particularly true, considering that the Bible, the word of God, spends page after page calling upon any and all people to turn from their sins and take the offer of salvation that Jesus Christ won for mankind by his sacrifice on the Cross.

 

[Messy]

Does God know who will never believe and ultimately spend eternity in Hell?
Has God always known this or is His OMNISCIENCE growing?

Did Christ shed blood for those that were already in Hell? (The Rich man Jesus spoke of)
Do they have a chance at redemption?
For what purpose was that blood shed?

God already knew, but what use is it to tell ppl that? There are loads of Dutch reformed who were still worried on their death bed that they weren't elected, while they had done confession and went to church every sunday. Whenever they shared the Gospel in theBible, like Peter, they didn't say: maybe you're not elected. Only Jesus said that in John 6 when they didn't want Him.

 

[Messy]

If there are some who are "unelect" and can therefore never be saved, how can we have any assurance of salvation? For all we know we might be the tares who will be separated out and thrown into the fire.

As you say, the atonement isn't doing any limiting - to use the bridge analogy from the original post we can say that anyone is invited to cross the bridge, and those who choose not to cross don't get to complain that they never made it to the other side. The idea of some who can never be saved is limiting - it implies that the bridge is for ticketholders only and, sorry, you don't have a ticket.

But you got a ticket. You believe in Jesus. Everyone who calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. And for instance my dad and grandpa, they didn't believe, but I don't care. For them I used texts like me and my house and they got saved. I was in a church lately and one guy who preached sounded a bit calvinistic, cause he said he was worried about his brother. Maybe he wasn't elected. Evangelical church. What?? So oh lol and women had to be quiet there, so I gave him a book from Lee Thomas, How to pray for the lost.

 

[Albion]

The TULIP stuff is appealing in a way because it is such an orderly construct. One point leads logically to the next, and so on. But the "problem" with that is that this is HUMAN reasoning we are talking about, and the message of the Bible in so many ways is about God acting outside of our own puny intellectual processes.

The Creator becomes one of his own creatures. He takes on the sins of all mankind by dying a criminal's death even though he is innocent. He shows, by his own resurrection, that there is a life after physical death. None of that accords with our own reasoning about how the universe works.

All of us normally would agree. We recognize that miracles happen with God, BUT THEN some of us fall back upon proving that God can't do what he meant to do...because we think it would be
illogical!

 

[Josiah]

.

Universal Atonement:
The usual theological name for the echo of Scriptures that state Jesus died for all, for everyone, for all people.


Here are just some of the Scriptures that state this:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

John 1:29 “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people.

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all"

1 Timothy 2:6 "Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.

There are more.


Notes:


1. Universal Atonement does NOT mean that ergo all people have faith - and thus personal justification. There are those for whom Christ died that nonetheless are not saved (justified - narrow sense) since they don't have faith. Universal Atonement embraces that Christ died for all, not that all have faith or that all have personal justification.


2. Universal Atonement does NOT hold that salvation ONLY depends on the Cross (so that if Christ died for all, all are saved - that's called Universalism, an entirely different and heretical position flowing from Calvinism). Personal faith is also essential (another doctrine). And Universal Atonement does NOT hold that faith is something the dead, unregenerate, atheistic sinner creates in self and gives to self (that too is another doctrine, a heretical one). Universal Atonement holds that Christ died for all, for everyone.


3. Some latter-day radical Calvinists renounced all the Scriptures that specifically verbatim state Universal Atonement, invented the doctrine of LIMITED Atonement, that Christ did NOT die for all, for everyone, for all people.... but ONLY for some unknown few. However, they have not one verse that states that and must reject MANY that specifically state the exact opposite of their view.


4. Universal Atonement is Gospel. Without it, NO ONE could even guess as to whether Jesus died for THEM (in Limited Atonement, He probably did not). We KNOW the Gospel is for us, we KNOW the Cross applies to us for one and only one reason: It applies to ALL, to EVERYONE. If it just some select, unknown FEW then no one CAN know if it applies to them, if it is for them, because there is no list of names in the Bible about who Christ died for and those He did not. Universal Atonement means we can present the Gospel to all because it applies to all, we don't have to add after John 3:16, "But this probably doesn't mean you, He probably wasn't given for you." The Gospel indeed rests on this for without this we are left with a "terror of the conscience" never knowing if God has grace, mercy, forgiveness, the Christ, the Cross FOR ME. Otherwise, the whole point of Christianity falls.... it's probably not even available or offered to ME.



Limited Atonement
The name for the invention of some latter-day radical Calvinists that Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY for some few.

Here are the Scriptures that state that:

Crickets.

The TULIP stuff is appealing in a way because it is such an orderly construct. One point leads logically to the next, and so on. But the "problem" with that is that this is HUMAN reasoning we are talking about, and the message of the Bible in so many ways is about God acting outside of our own puny intellectual processes.

@Albion You hit the nail on the head.

This is the fundamental problem with radical, latter-day, TULIP Calvinism. Scripture, history/tradition are all just swept away and replaced with what those theologians insisted is "logical" in spite of flat-out contradicting what Scripture verbatim and repeatedly states. Brain of self trumps God's words. Now, I admit, IF we accept that God says we sometimes end up with things we don't understand, with what Christians for 2000 years call "divine mystery." But for those who consider themselves smarter than God, who appoint self to correct God and make Him humanly logical, the job of self is to eliminate that and make God make sense. As I read the stuff of radical, latter-day Calvinists, I often think of Luther's comment: "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." And the frequent Lutheran comment, "God gets the last word."




.

 

[atpollard]

It is rudimentary--and anybody who wants to enter into a discussion about this particular topic ought to know it--that God's foreknowledge does equate to predestining any elect or excluding anyone from the possibility of salvation.

That's particularly true, considering that the Bible, the word of God, spends page after page calling upon any and all people to turn from their sins and take the offer of salvation that Jesus Christ won for mankind by his sacrifice on the Cross.

They were a matched set:

Does God know who will never believe and ultimately spend eternity in Hell?
Has God always known this or is His OMNISCIENCE growing?
Did Christ shed blood for those that were already in Hell? (The Rich man Jesus spoke of)
Do they have a chance at redemption?
For what purpose was that blood shed?

 

[atpollard]

It's obviously not the atonement that does any "limiting."

That view MAKES the atonement (death of Christ) limited … It did not effectively save anyone. Something more is needed (Faith from the person, accepting the gift, people describe this “something else” differently). What all NON-CALVINISTS agree on is that Jesus did not die EXCLUSIVELY for those that He intended to save and HIS DEATH does not guarantee the salvation of every person (WITHOUT EXCEPTION) that He died for. The Calvinist view makes the EFFICACY of the Atonement 100% without limits.

Absent UNIVERSALISM, the atonement must be limited in either its efficacy or its applicability.

• Available to all, but saving none (alone).
• Available to some and saving all who receive (only).

WE do not limit its efficacy … we say that the blood of Jesus really saved sinners (period).
THEY must limit its efficacy … not everyone is saved (SOMETHING ELSE must be required).

WE do limit its applicability … His blood was not shed for all without exception.
THEY do not limit its applicability … His blood was shed for all, those in heaven and those in hell.

 

[Albion]

atpollard--

Big apologies for a typo in my earlier post, the one you quoted in post #11. The word "NOT" was accidentally omitted from "God's foreknowledge does (NOT) equate to predestining any elect...."

I don't know to what extent that slip-up affected your reply.

 

[Albion]

That view MAKES the atonement (death of Christ) limited … It did not effectively save anyone.

Because no one then living or who would live in the future was excluded, it's obviously not the case that the Atonement was limited to any elect group.

By your own statement here, you are thinking of the Atonement as if it means a lifetime guarantee of salvation. When a sinner comes to Christ, he is forgiven his sins (Original or Actual), but he is not made incapable of sinning thereafter or even of committing apostacy later in his life.

 

[Josiah]

By your own statement here, you are thinking of the Atonement as if it means a lifetime guarantee of salvation.

Again, you hit the nail on the head.

1. CLEARLY, the Bible repeatedly states that Jesus died for all (and NEVER says He ONLY died for some).

2. These radical, latter-day Calvinists who invented TULIP also named the two views here. The biblical position (Jesus died for all) THEY named "universal atonement". And their new invention (Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some few) THEY named "Limited Atonement." Call the views whatever, those are the two views here: Jesus died for all, Jesus did for ONLY a few.

3. But to defend their new invention, they have to CHANGE their OWN definitions. "Universal Atonement" they insist means that everyone has personal justification (a view ONLY held by a break off of radical Calvinism, the Universalists). So, they reject the teaching that Jesus died for all by noting that not everyone has personal justification. In other words, they attempt to repudiate a position by CHANGING it to something entirely different, something the supporters of it never teach. Silly, desperate, but obviously what they are doing. It's all they've got.



.

 

[Albion]

Again, you hit the nail on the head.

1. CLEARLY, the Bible repeatedly states that Jesus died for all (and NEVER says He ONLY died for some).

2. These radical, latter-day Calvinists who invented TULIP also named the two views here. The biblical position (Jesus died for all) THEY named "universal atonement". And their new invention (Jesus did not die for all but ONLY for some few) THEY named "Limited Atonement." Call the views whatever, those are the two views here: Jesus died for all, Jesus did for ONLY a few.

3. But to defend their new invention, they have to CHANGE their OWN definitions. "Universal Atonement" they insist means that everyone has personal justification (a view ONLY held by a break off of radical Calvinism, the Universalists). So, they reject the teaching that Jesus died for all by noting that not everyone has personal justification. In other words, they attempt to repudiate a position by CHANGING it to something entirely different, something the supporters of it never teach. Silly, desperate, but obviously what they are doing. It's all they've got.

So let's take a closer look at some of what was posted in reaction to our explanations.

We were told this--

WE say that Jesus Christ died to, with complete certainty, secure the salvation of “a multitude that no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. WE say that through Christ’s death this multitude of individuals not only MAY be saved, but MUST be saved, and WILL be saved … there is no possibility of any outcome other than their being saved!

HE says that everyone who was given the chance at salvation by the Atonement must also BE saved eternally. And what is the basis given for this claim? Oh, it's that a multitude that no man can number will be saved as a result.

But that verse doesn't say it's a select group.

And it doesn't point to any particular number that will be saved, just that it's a lot and beyond counting.

...which is what anyone who holds the conventional belief about this matter--such as you and I, historic Christianity, and most denominations do, even as we are in the midst of debating it here!

So, that's what "THEIR" refutation of the Biblical meaning of the Atonement amounts to, at least according to our friend.

 

[atpollard]

atpollard--

Big apologies for a typo in my earlier post, the one you quoted in post #11. The word "NOT" was accidentally omitted from "God's foreknowledge does (NOT) equate to predestining any elect...."

I don't know to what extent that slip-up affected your reply.

It had no effect … your meaning was clear and the intended NOT was obvious.
I had no illusions that you were HALF Calvinist.

 

[atpollard]

Because no one then living or who would live in the future was excluded, it's obviously not the case that the Atonement was limited to any elect group.

What about “those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” … you know, THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE who are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified … all by HIM. [You know the verses.] Were they an “elect” (which just means “chosen”) group?

I happen to believe that THEY are “whosoever believes” and the recipient of the “gift” of Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

[atpollard]

and NEVER says He ONLY died for some

Will you accept “many” … or MUST it be the exact word “some”?

 

[atpollard]

Revelation 7
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

… the WHOLE WORLD that God so Loved and Jesus died for!