Mr. Bultitude
Puritan Board Freshman
Lutheran argument against limited atonement
How would we respond to this? From Responding to Calvinist Arguments Against Universal Atonement:
How would we respond to this? From Responding to Calvinist Arguments Against Universal Atonement:
Limited atonement is the logical conclusion to the other four points of Calvinism. One particular rational argument has been highly influential since John Owen’s “The Death of Death” was published in the 17th century. The argument proceeds as follows:
Christ’s death was a propitiation of God’s wrath toward sin. The punishment of sin was laid upon the shoulders of God’s Son so that those whom he represented need no longer bear the punishment themselves. 'ἱλαστερισν can only be defined by the actual turning of way of wrath rather than potential turning away of wrath upon the condition of faith. If Christ died for the unbeliever, then God’s wrath has been propitiated toward the unbeliever. Therefore, the unbeliever could not go to hell. For the unbeliever to end up in hell is an affront to God’s justice because they would be bearing a punishment which was already paid through the cross. Thus, in order for God to be just, if the unbeliever goes to hell, his punishment could not have been paid — Christ could not have possibly died for them.
The common response of the proponent of universal atonement is that though Christ died for the sins of unbelievers, their unbelief negates a reception of that gift. But, the Calvinist denies this possibility. Unbelief is a sin. If all sin has been paid for on the cross, then unbelief has also been paid for on the cross. No sin can negate the turning away of God’s wrath which has occurred through the cross. Thus, the Calvinist argues, one must either adopt total universalism, wherein everyone is saved from hell, or limited atonement.
Though this argument has been prominent since the formulation of Puritan theology, it is severely flawed. … The moderate infralapsarian Calvinist does not believe the statement he is trying to prove. If the cross negates that God’s wrath can be placed upon those for whom Christ died, then eternal justification is a logical necessity. Eternal justification, never a mainstream Calvinist doctrine, is the teaching that man from eternity is justified through the cross. Faith simply acknowledges that which is already true. However, in most Calvinist teaching, even the elect man for whom Christ died is under the wrath of God prior to faith. Through faith one is forgiven, not simply given the knowledge that he is forgiven already. Thus even the Calvinist admits that faith is necessary for one to receive Christ’s benefits. Calvinism teaches that one can be under the wrath of God due to unbelief even though God’s wrath has already been propitiated on that cross for that person. It is only when faith is given that one is placed under grace and the benefit of Christ’s work is applied. Thus, the argument fails.
Last edited: