# Show Me What Ya Got: Limited Atonement and Scripture



## Frosty (Mar 24, 2011)

Friends,

I have been in discussion with a close friend in regards to the Doctrines of Grace.

He says that he can, at the very least, understand where Calvinists find T, U, I, and P in the Bible (and he may even agree with a couple of those).

As usual, Particular Redemption is the big sticking point. My friend says that for the life of him, he cannot find how we Calvinists derive that doctrine from Scripture. I have my own set of verses/passages that I believe teach this doctrine, but I wanted to see what yinz guys (my Pittsburghese, sorry) could help me come up with.

_Is it best described as something that is not in-your-face-directly taught (as in the Trinity), but is indirectly taught throughout the scope of Scripture?_

_So, once again, are there any passages or verses that would be really helpful to me in presenting the evidence for Particular Redemption to my friend?_ He 1) has an excellent knowledge of Scripture and 2) would like my proof to be Scripture-based (obviously). He claims that the only reason that doctrine is included is because it is needed based on the other 4 points, yet rejects it is actually taught in the Bible.

Thanks in advance for the help.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 24, 2011)

See:

DOCTRINES OF GRACE ? CATEGORIZED SCRIPTURE LIST

AMR

---------- Post added at 07:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

To me, the matter of the understanding the doctrines of grace begins with our human inability, for example, see John 6:44, 65; Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Cor 4:7. If unsaved man is unable to turn of himself to God, because of this _spiritual inability_, then divine _election_ must be _unconditionally_ dependent upon solely the _sovereign good pleasure of God_ since man is unable to respond of himself favorable to God. Now if election is unconditional then _redemption_, since not all are re-born, must necessarily be _particular_ for those who are elected unconditionally. And if redemption is particular, that is, for the elect, and if the elect are unable to come to God of themselves, then the _grace_ that brings them to Christ must be _effectual_. Finally, if the grace that brings the elect to Christ is effectual, and if they are elected to eternal life, then they must _persevere_ by God's grace in that life.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 24, 2011)

Maybe these will help:

John Hurrion THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF PARTICULAR REDEMPTION, STATED AND VINDICATED
or 
William Ruston A DEFENSE OF PARTICULAR REDEMPTION
or 
John Sladen THE DOCTRINE OF PARTICULAR ELECTION STATED AND DEFENDED


----------



## Frosty (Mar 24, 2011)

Joshua said:


> Your friend, as well as any Christian wondering, needs to consider the nature and definition of the word "atonement." It means something and it accomplished something. It didn't make men savable, but actually procured the justification of men.




Well done, sir. Breaking it down to the level of, "what is the nature and definition of ATONEMENT?" may be of great help.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 24, 2011)

Hebrews 10:10-18


> 10 For since the law has but va shadow wof the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, xit can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But yin these sacrifices zthere is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For ait is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
> 
> 5 Consequently, bwhen Christ9 came into the world, he said,
> 
> ...



In my estimation, it is a grave error to read the above and deny the power of the atonement and conclude that Christ's atonement does not utterly deal with sin. It is crystal clear that Christ's death completely atones for sin, once-for-all. 

We can conclude the following:

1. If the atonement is applied to a person's sins then his sins are completely covered and dealt with, once-for-all.
2. If Christ has atoned for the sin of all men, then all men's sins are completely covered and dealt with, once-for-all.

Usually people who limit the atonement do so on the basis of decision: Christ's atonement + My Decision = Atonement. Under this schema, the "limitation" of the atonement is now in its _effect_. In other words, these same people who don't want to limit the atonement in _scope_ will limit the _effect_ of the atonement. Christ's atonement is not strong enough to atone by itself but my decision has to be added to something that is universally given to all men.

Thus, if one insists upon a universal application of the atonement of Christ to all men, either:
1. They deny Hebrews 10 on the power of the atonement and require decision be added to Christ's atonement to fully atone.
or
2. They affirm power of the atonement, maintain that all men's sins are atoned for, and insist upon universalism as an undeniable consequence.


----------



## Frosty (Mar 24, 2011)

I agree that if we take that Christ died for all men to its logical conclusion, then we must reach the conclusion that all are saved. As Spurgeon discussed, "who is it that limits the atonement? The Arminian or the Calvinist?" I think we all know the answer to that one.

Unfortunately, the person I am discussing this with holds that both free will and God's sovereign choice are taught in Scripture (in an attempt to take all of Scripture "literally"). This makes it hard to pin him down and really get to the heart of the matter.

Thanks for the help, guys. It is much appreciated.


----------



## toddpedlar (Mar 24, 2011)

An additional piece of info (though arminians I know have some kind of explanation) is from the Good Shepherd discourse in John's Gospel. 

Christ there clearly says that the Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (thereby saving them), and just as clearly spells out the fact that not everybody is one of his sheep. (hence his life is not laid down for such people). One cannot read that discourse and logically conclude that Christ died for all in order to offer potential salvation to all. Hey lays down his life to secure the lives of his sheep (and not those who are not his sheep).


----------



## py3ak (Mar 24, 2011)

Perhaps you could walk through Isaiah 53 with him.

But it might also be good to call his attention to the validity of good and necessary consequence. As the Brothers Grimm affirm, "He who says A must also say B". One good place for that is to consider how Christ argues for the resurrection from the Scriptural statement that God is the God of Abraham.


----------



## Andres (Mar 24, 2011)

learn the difference between these two words - "efficient" and "sufficient". Explain the difference to your friend how Christ's death was sufficient for all men, but only efficient for His elect.


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 24, 2011)

Andres said:


> learn the difference between these two words - "efficient" and "sufficient". Explain the difference to your friend how Christ's death was sufficient for all men, but only efficient for His elect.



While a good point I worry that this often used description of limited atonement can lead to confusion if one is not careful. It can lead an individual to believe that Christ died sufficiently for all men in the sense that his intention was to die for all. At least that is how I know some people have ran with that line of thinking.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 24, 2011)

Frosty said:


> Unfortunately, the person I am discussing this with holds that both free will and God's sovereign choice are taught in Scripture (in an attempt to take all of Scripture "literally"). This makes it hard to pin him down and really get to the heart of the matter.


Sounds like he is selective about "literally" else he would be assuming God has hands and feet, too. Literality encompasses the literary form, context, etc., of Scripture, not just mechanical reading of words. Your friend is over-reaching and you should not be taking the bait (not that you are). You might also note that we Reformed also argue our will is free, just not as the libertarian free-willer does. Ours is a _liberty of spontaneity_, while theirs is the a _liberty of indifference_. The latter is an impossibility, since we always choose according to our greatest inclinations at the moment we so choose. 

AMR


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 24, 2011)

> (1Pe 2:5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
> 
> (1Pe 2:6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
> 
> ...



John Owen....

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?


----------



## athanatos (Mar 24, 2011)

Joshua said:


> Your friend, as well as any Christian wondering, needs to consider the very nature, idea, and definition of atonement. It means something and it accomplished something. It didn't make men savable, but actually procured the justification of men.


I feel like there is a missing piece here. I am not justified until I have faith, and thus the payment is not disbursed until that time and I am still dead in my sins. That being said, it seems very appropriate to talk about not being atoned until I am reconciled, of being savable but not saved, and hence elect and yet not justified. Justification is accomplished (if that is the appropriate word) when the Holy Spirit enables me, replaces the heart of stone for flesh, that by grace I have faith in Christ's work He already did.


----------

