Universal Atonement or Unlimited Atonement

[Particular]

Is there a difference? If so, what is the difference?

 

[NewCreation435]

Universalism implies that everyone will be or is already saved. That conflicts with scripture. Jesus referred to two people groups the sheep and the goats. The lost or the saved. Universalism is really just wishful thinking that ignores scripture

 

[Particular]

Universalism implies that everyone will be or is already saved. That conflicts with scripture. Jesus referred to two people groups the sheep and the goats. The lost or the saved. Universalism is really just wishful thinking that ignores scripture

That's not the question, jsimms.
The question is if there is a difference between universal atonement and unlimited atonement.
I am unsure if universalism has anything to do with atonement.
I tried to find a difference in an internet search. I couldn't find a difference. But, I have heard both terms used so I wondered if anyone knows the difference.

 

[RichWh1]

Is there a difference? If so, what is the difference?

They are one and the same thing Read below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement

 

[Josiah]

Is there a difference?

In the mid to late 16th Century, a few radical Calvinist theorized that Jesus died for ONLY some mysterious, unknowable subset of humans.... It is known as Limited Atonement (Christ died only and exclusively for a limited few). It seems not one Christian in over 1500 years had such a horrible idea and they had no Scripture to support this.

There really isn't a term for the historic, ecumenical, biblical view that Jesus died for all.... although many simply take the Calvinist invention of LIMITED Atonement and counter it with "Unlimited atonement." The term "universal atonement" is used for the same pov, to support the biblical, historic, ecumenical, Gospel view as opposed to the horrible invention of a few Calvinists, then I suspect the two terms are ways of expressing that Jesus died for all rather than for some mysterious, unknowable, subset of people (limited).

If so, what is the difference?

The teaching that Jesus died for all is biblical whereas that He died for only some mysterious, unknowable subset of humans (odds are, not you or me) is not.

The teaching that Jesus died for all is the historic position of Christianity, whereas this horrifying theory was invented out of thin air in the mid 16th Century by a tiny subset of Calvinists.

The teaching that Jesus died for all is Gospel and comforting since no one needs to wonder if Jesus is their Savior AND it makes faith IN CHRIST always salvic, whereas the horrible theory that He died for only a few means that not one person can know if Jesus is THEIR Savior (odds are, He's not however) or if their faith in Him is salvic or totally irrelevant since they are trusting in One who isn't THEIR Savior. It destroys any assurance, comfort and hope - replacing it with the greatest terror possible.

Universalism....

[MENTION=59]jsimms435[/MENTION]


Universalism is entirely irrelevant and not t all the issue here.

"Unlimited atonement" does NOT teach that all are saved, only that Jesus died for all. Unless we follow the example of many Calvinists who held that faith is irrelevant to justification, faith IS also an issue. The historic Protestant and Reformation view on justification is SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS- SOLA FIDE, the last part is not irrelevant. While God loves all and Christ died for all, not all have faith. It's irrelevant HERE if that faith is a result of God's gift or man's choosing, the point HERE is whether that faith means anything. The traditional view (Unlimited atonement) means all faith IN CHRIST means justification (because SOLA GRATIA - SOLUS CHRISTUS - SOLA FIDE is in place) whereas this horrible invention means faith means nothing since there is no way to know if the person is trusting in one who is THEIR Savior (odds, not).

It's helpful to know that while "Jesus Died for ONLY a Few" is a part of the Calvinist "TULIP", I have been told by numerous Reformed Christians (including ALL in my extended family) that this Reformed doctrine is "universally rejected" today among Reformed Christians. It is now understood that while the historic, biblical view that Jesus died for ALL is correct, the EFFECT of that is not for all (a view none disagree with), a reinvention that brought those Reformed Christians back within the fold of biblical, orthodox, historic Christianity (although repudiating TULIP on that point); just one example of Reformed Christians rejecting their roots and returning to the Gospel.




Some Scriptures in support of Jesus died for all....


1 John 2:2

Titus 2:11

1 Timothy 4:10

John 3:16

Hebrews 2:9

Isaiah 53:6

1 John 4:14

1 Corinthians 5:14-15

1 Timothy 2:6

2 Peter 2:1

2 Corinthians 5:19

1 Timothy 2:5-6

There are no Scriptures that state, "Jesus did not die for all but only for a few... Pray that your faith in Christ is not in vain but that Jesus died for you.... Your faith in Christ is probably meaningless since you don't know if Jesus died for you...."





A blessed Christmas Season to all...



- Josiah




.

 

[Particular]

In the mid to late 16th Century, a few radical Calvinist theorized that Jesus died for ONLY some mysterious, unknowable subset of humans.... It seems not one Christian in over 1500 years had such a horrible idea and they had no Scripture to support this.







The teaching that Jesus died for all is biblical whereas that He died for only some mysterious, unknowable subset of humans (odds are, not you or me) is not.

The teaching that Jesus died for all is the historic position of Christianity, whereas this horrifying theory was invented out of thin air in the mid 16th Century by a tiny subset of Calvinists.

The teaching that Jesus died for all is Gospel and comforting since no one needs to wonder if Jesus is their Savior AND it makes faith IN CHRIST always salvic, whereas the horrible theory that He died for only a few means that not one person can know if Jesus is THEIR Savior (odds are, He's not however) or if their faith in Him is salvic or totally irrelevant since they are trusting in One who isn't THEIR Savior. It destroys any assurance, comfort and hope - replacing it with the greatest terror possible.





.

Is there a difference between universal atonement and unlimited atonement?
It seems you have an axe to grind toward John Calvin.