The Atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.

God'sElectSaint

Puritan Board Freshman
I have been studying the Atonement quite a bit lately trying to grow in understanding of what was actually accomplished at the Cross. I'd like to give a quick summary of my understanding thus far and would welcome critiques and advice or insight. From what I have gathered about the atonement and specifically "limited atonement" is as follows. From my understanding "but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." "for us", a specific people(those given Him of the Father). And although God commands all men to repent and many "un"elect folks may hear the gospel call the salvific effects of it in no wise is extended to them. I understand the word propitiate to mean "to satisfy wrath"? What I have come to also is that repentance,faith, and eternal redemption were all purchased in Christ at the Cross. So basically when we say "limited" atonement the limit is only placed on the scope of it, correct? The effect of the atonement to the elect, is essentially unlimited or maybe simply perfect. My terminology could probably use some help but I am close to the mark? and is there anything anyone would add?
 
Edward, as you note, it is just a matter of phrasing.

Apart from the unconditional universalist, who believes that all shall be saved, every system holds "limitation" with respect to the atonement. The conditional universalist, e.g., the Arminian, teaches the atonement is limited in what it has accomplished, and requires the condition of faith to make it effective. The particularist, i.e., Calvinist, teaches the atonement itself fully satisfies God's justice, and has purchased faith to those for whom it was made; but this is limited to the elect.

The old illustration, popularised by Spurgeon if I recall correctly, is that the conditional universalist has a bridge as wide as the world which only goes half way across the river, while the particularist has a bridge somewhat narrower (but as wide as it needs to be) which reaches all the way to the other side.

Now for faith, it follows that the universalist has to place faith in his faith to get him to the other side, whereas the particularist has faith as a gift, and by it he receives full and free salvation as a gift.
 
Edward, as you note, it is just a matter of phrasing.

Apart from the unconditional universalist, who believes that all shall be saved, every system holds "limitation" with respect to the atonement. The conditional universalist, e.g., the Arminian, teaches the atonement is limited in what it has accomplished, and requires the condition of faith to make it effective. The particularist, i.e., Calvinist, teaches the atonement itself fully satisfies God's justice, and has purchased faith to those for whom it was made; but this is limited to the elect.

The old illustration, popularised by Spurgeon if I recall correctly, is that the conditional universalist has a bridge as wide as the world which only goes half way across the river, while the particularist has a bridge somewhat narrower (but as wide as it needs to be) which reaches all the way to the other side.

Now for faith, it follows that the universalist has to place faith in his faith to get him to the other side, whereas the particularist has faith as a gift, and by it he receives full and free salvation as a gift.

Yes I seen that from Spurgeon and he makes a good point. James White's The Potter's Freedom has been a good help too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top