Paradox of Both Universal and Limited Atonement

[Justified]

I have always felt that the two are paradoxical. Universal atonement seems like it's limited in power. Contrariwise, limited atonement seems unlimited in power. I'm currently in a church that adheres to usually 3 or 4 points but never limited atonement. Universal atonement is the position that lacks power. It essential says that the blood of Jesus Christ is strong enough to save some but not others. According to their position, it seems that some people need more grace than others. This is something brought up in my church often and it really upsets me. Also they always claim that its living. How can this be loving? Just imagine God saying, "Although I have paid for every single one of your sins, I will send you to hell anyway. " Any input would be greatly treasured.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Here is an insightful comment from Spurgeon:

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. [Particular Redemption 1861]

 

[Justified]

Here is an insightful comment from Spurgeon:

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. [Particular Redemption 1861]

That quote really exemplifies what I'm trying to express. It's awesome quote. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

It's awesome quote. Thanks for sharing it.

My pleasure. Enjoy!

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I've actually recently broken over the last 6 months, with my old group, over TULIP. The last time I hung out with my family who have been there fellowshipping with me for years, is the first time I brought up limited atonement and the response I got was: "It is always the same thing with you Peter."

As far as paradox goes, the definition implies it can be solved. Mystery not so much, but paradox is an APPARENT contradiction. I was listening to James White today and he said this: "I've always felt it was absolutely necessary for me to honor God, to be consistent in my thoughts about Him and statements about Him, but evidently I'm weird. Even when I was in seminary I remember talking with some folks and struggling with something, they were like 'You know what I haven't really put a lot of thought about that... you know what... you just.. you know you just don't leave enough room for mystery.' Which is a nice way of saying 'you keep bringing your various parts of your faith together and seeing if they fit...just leave them out there man...its a whole lot better that way.' That just never worked for me. And that means I am very, very weird."

He was talking about limited atonement in relation to the divine decrees. He mentions leaving his church he was married, a long time ago, because the pastor preached that we can limited God by our lack of faith. That Jesus wanted to do more, but there wasn't enough faith. And that is the converse of the divine decrees, where either God can decree something and you cannot limit its efficatiousness, or God can't and its a free for all. This episode I quoted 1/2/2014 Today on the First Radio Free Geneva of 2014 - YouTube

 

[Justified]

'You know what I haven't really put a lot of thought about that... you know what... you just.. you know you just don't leave enough room for mystery.' Which is a nice way of saying 'you keep bringing your various parts of your faith together and seeing if they fit...just leave them out there man...its a whole lot better that way.'

This is the one of the things I hear so often at my church and is frustrating. I'll give sufficient evidence for a claim such as limited atonement or (full) election (all our elders and pastors believe in some sort of pseudo-election, where it's "both" election and not election), and after giving evidence they just say it's a 'mystery' or its something we cannot understand. I never am given any scriptural support and if it is then it is taking out of context. Dispensationalists can be frustrating!