Default: nkjv niv
Limited Atonement in Light of Scripture
Download 0.79 Mb.
|
Limited Atonement in Light of ScriptureUnlimited atonement Sunday school Guts of Grace, Hawley, 160 Fisk, Calvinistic Paths, 217 Shank, Elect in the Son, Chapter 3, p. 59f
There are two theological camps regarding issue. One camp argues that Jesus’ death was intended to secure salvation for a limited number of people. This view is typically called “limited atonement” because God is said to have limited the effect of Christ’s death to a specific number of elect persons. This view is also called “particular redemption” because advocates of this view believe redemption was provided only for a particular group of people (i.e., the elect). The second camp (my view) holds to what is called “unlimited atonement” or “general redemption.” This camp argues that God did not limit Christ’s redemptive death to the elect, but allowed it to be for humankind in general. In this view, Christ’s death made the provision of salvation for all humanity, but salvation becomes effective only for those who exercise faith in Christ. Salvation becomes effective only for God’s elect. Why important?
So it is vitally important to know who Christ died for so that we can speak the truth when we share the Gospel. What are the arguments? Limited Atonement Rom 9:13; 9:22; 1 Peter 2:7-8 Verses where God is said to hate sinners Could Christ's blood or work be wasted or ineffective? Going from a above, and logical statements like Owens, they have developed their belief of limited atonement. However, as most of you know, the Bible as a whole seems to teach differently, and so they must explain these verses in such a way so that they fit their system. They do this in a variety of ways… Redefine "World" John 1:29; 2 cor. 5:19; 1 jn. 4:14 Limit "Whosoever" Acts 2:21; 10:43; rom. 10:13 John 3:16–18 – if you redefine all the terms, it makes no sense: "For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever among the elect believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son unto the elect to judge the elect, but that the elect should be saved through Him. 18 Any elect who believes in Him is not judged; any elect who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Limit "all" and "us" 1 tim 2:6; titus 2:11; heb 2:9;
1 john 2:2 luke 19:10 rom 5:6
Unlimited Atonement Advocates of this view seek to take Scripture at his clear meaning, and then develop their theology around it, rather than bend Scripture to fit their theology. So basically, every Scripture mentioned above is proof for Unlimited ___ when understood as it sounds. Here are some of the strongest arguments in support of UA. The gibberish above if carried out consistently. No one would ever be saved: If God loves only the saints, and does not offer salvation to those who are not elect, then a person must be a saint before God will love them, which will never happen, because God will not love unbelievers. The only way to break out of this is for God to love all people. KEY: The command to preach the Gospel is "by far the most important and plausible of the scriptural arguments in support of UA" IF Christ died only for the elect, then why take that message to the nonelect? Why does God tell us to invite all men if Christ did not provide for all? It makes God a trickster and a liar to offer something that he will not provide. He is provoking and taunting the non-elect if he waves salvation before their faces and then withholds it from them. No maxim appears more certain than that a salvation offered implies a salvation provided. God will not tantalize his creators by tendering them with that which is not in his hand to bestow. It is available to all and he offers it to all. The resurrection of the wicked dead. Resurrection of all the dead (both elect and non-elect) is based solely upon Christ's resurrection. The wicked dead are just as much a part of the resurrection program as are the righteous dead. And both will be raised by the power of Christ's resurrection. This being true, it must be admitted that even the nonelect were included in the Savior's death since it is on the basis of His death that they shall one day be resurrected to live a conscious existence forever. Verses:
1 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1; john 13:1-2 Response to Owen The error in his logic is in his premise, which is unstated. What is the premise that he builds on? Christ's death saves. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Christ's death saves anyone. Rather it is faith in Christ's death on our behalf that saves us. Faith alone in Christ alone that saves us. Therefore with this in mind, let us look again to Owen's argument and reverse his argument onto himself: "If Christ's death apart from any other consideration included the sin of unbelief, why does God ask men to believe since they would not be lost for not believing?" Did you get that? Owen agrees, as we all should, that unbelief is a sin. Owen's argument is that Christ died for all the sins of the elect, but notice, THESE SINS MUST INCLUDE THE SIN OF UNBELIEF, WHICH THEN MAKES FAITH UNNECESSARY FOR THE ELECT. If Christ's death alone is what saves, and Christ died for all the sins of only the elect, then he died for their sin of unbelief as well, which means they are forgiven if they do not believe. So the refutation of his argument is that the only possibility is that Christ died for all the sins of all men, and that the Death of Christ is not what saves. Christ died for all men. His sacrifice is available to all. However, it is only effective on those who act in faith to receive it. If a dad buys his three kids tickets to a circus, they are bought and paid for. However if the kids never take the tickets when offered to them, they will never see the circus. So, Christ died for all, paid for the sins of all, and forgiveness is made available to all, but it is only effective on those who are distinguished by taking the free gift by faith. Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement Why does it matter? What are the arguments? How can we respond to the logic of John Owen? Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014 2014 -> For want of a nail 2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter 2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six 2014 -> United states patent and trademark office 2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus 2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now 2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender Download 0.79 Mb. Share with your friends:
|