# Arguements Against Universal Atonemant/General Ransom Presented for Consideration, from the Sufficie



## terry72 (Oct 3, 2005)

Hey guys. I haven\'t posted here in quite awhile. Good to see that the board is still going strong.

I have been in some discussions recently with a couple of \"Calvinist\" friends of mine who have recently adopted the dualistic atonement/unlimited imputation view. One of reasons they give for adopting this view (among others) is that it provides grounds for a \"well meant\" offer.

I want to know what you guys think of the following arguments against this idea that just occurred to me tonight.



1. Christ´s offering, to satisfy the justice of God, was necessarily of equal value to the holiness of God, therefore, being infinite, there is nothing left to be added to it, all conditions are met, i.e. purchased by this one offering.

2. To argue for an additional condition is to imply the insufficiency of the offering to (1) satisfy God´s justice, and (2) provide, alone, grounds upon which forgiveness is granted.

3. To then argue that God withholds this additional condition from many who are unable to meet the condition is to undermine any grounds for a "œwell meant" offer, the inherent sufficiency of the offering being undermined by the additional condition which is added.

4. The doctrine of limited imputation, by contrast, leaves the inherent sufficiency of Christ´s offering intact, therefore providing a reasonable grounds for a "œwell meant" offer, by all conditions being met in the perfect/all sufficient offering of Christ.

There are a couple of additional things I wanted to add, but they slipped my mind before I could write them down...  Maybe I can remember them later.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by terry72_
> 
> I have been in some discussions recently with a couple of \"Calvinist\" friends of mine who have recently adopted the dualistic atonement/unlimited imputation view. One of reasons they give for adopting this view (among others) is that it provides grounds for a \"well meant\" offer.


Could you clarify what your freinds mean by these terms? I've never heard of them before. Is it a hypothetical univeralistic view like Baxter?


----------



## terry72 (Oct 4, 2005)

They are advocating a view that the sin of every man were imputed to Christ = unlimited imputation, but the limit is in the application God granting regeneration to only the elect = dualistic atonement. It's more than just "hypothetical" they say that Christ in his expiation died for all men without exception, but that this universal expiation is only applied to the elect God granting to the elect the condition of faith through regeneration.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 4, 2005)

This sounds like a Armyaldianism or an offshoot of it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by terry72_
> They are advocating a view that the sin of every man were imputed to Christ = unlimited imputation, but the limit is in the application God granting regeneration to only the elect = dualistic atonement. It's more than just "hypothetical" they say that Christ in his expiation died for all men without exception, but that this universal expiation is only applied to the elect God granting to the elect the condition of faith through regeneration.
> 
> Blessings,
> Terry



They do not understand the covenantal work of Christ. Christ came specifically to save His people. His obedience and propitiation are bound by His federal representation (Rom. 5). He specifically came to save those whom the Father had given Him (John 6), His sheep(John 10). Only those whom he represents are included in our sins being imputed to Him, and His righteousness to us. 

The warrant for the free offer is not grounded in the extent of the atonment but in the promise of God. All are sinners. All need a Savior. God has only provided one Savior for mankind in Jesus Christ. He has promised that all who come to Him will be saved. 

You also must understand the horrible compromise of God's justice in the universal atonement scheme. Call it double jeopardy. God cannot justly send people to hell when His wrath against them has been completely quenched in Christ. He is in effect sending innocent people to hell, a hell which Jesus already suffered on the cross. 

But this scheme also overlooks what the obedience of Christ obtained for those whom He represented. All the gifts of salvation were inherited by Christ's obedience. Everything we enjoy, justification, sanctification, glorification, etc. were obtained by Chrsit for His people. In other words, because of Christ's obedience to and inheritance from the Father, God has bound Himself to bring all whom Christ represented to a complete salvation. If Christ died for all, He also obeyed for all, and hence inherited eternal life for all. All of the blessings of salvation must be granted to those for whom Christ died. Otherwise, the Father is not honoring the substitutionary and covenantal work of the Son. 

Hope that helps you out.


----------

