Does this one verse destroy unlimited atonement?

MilitaryBrat2007

MilitaryBrat2007

Puritan Board Freshman
Limited atonement is definitely one of the most contended points of Calvinism. In fact, many ‘Calvinists’ drop this point and say they are “Four-Point Calvinists.” They believe that Jesus died for the whole world (John 3:16), and often reference 1 John 2:2 “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”

Though of course, we do not believe that Christ died for everyone. Because if that happened, all of the debt of sin is canceled, it does not exist and cannot be held against humanity (of course this has bred the sect of Universalism).

Though, a large number of Christians believe that anyone who chooses by his own free will to believe and accept God's gift of grace will be saved. Meaning that the road is open and we can choose whether to join or not because Christ died for everyone.

However, I found a verse that destroys the doctrine of unlimited atonement.

1 Samuel 3:14: “And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

If unlimited atonement is the doctrine that all sin (past, present, and future) is paid for, then this verse should not exist. The term ‘unlimited’ is very very broad, and this one example ends it. Christ did not die for the house of Eli; He did not die for everyone.

Therefore, there is only limited atonement.

Tell me, have you used this against people who subscribe to unlimited atonement? What would be their response to this?
 
I would caution against a “slam dunk” approach to this issue for a number of reasons. First of all, there is significant diversity within the Reformed community on this issue. Consider Heidelberg 37:

37. Q. What do you confess when you say that He suffered?

A. During all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end, Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.[1] Thus, by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice,[2] He has redeemed our body and soul from everlasting damnation,[3] and obtained for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.[4]

[1] Is. 53; I Tim. 2:6; I Pet. 2:24; 3:18. [2] Rom. 3:25; I Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 10:14; I John 2:2; 4:10. [3] Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 3:13; Col. 1:13; Heb. 9:12; I Pet 1:18, 19. [4] John 3:16; Rom. 3:24-26; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 9:15.

You can read exactly what Ursinus meant in his commentary where he clearly advocates that there is a certain sense which Christ did die for the entire human race, though it is only applied by faith. (This is also my position.)

If Christ died only for the elect in any sense, why is there a time when they are children of wrath (see Eph. 2:3)? It is because they have not yet had that sacrifice applied to them by the means of faith (I’m assuming you do not advocate eternal justification). If this is true of the elect, could it not be true for the remainder of humanity who never apply the sacrifice by faith? In other words, the “double jeopardy” argument is often not consistently applied to both elect (prior to regeneration) and reprobate when the argument is made. Charles Hodge has an excellent section in his ST on this issue.

All this to say, I world hope you’ve considered some of the diversity within the Reformed camp which will shed some light on how we discuss with others outside of the reformed understanding.
 
timfost said:
I would caution against a “slam dunk” approach to this issue for a number of reasons. First of all, there is significant diversity within the Reformed community on this issue. Consider Heidelberg 37:

37. Q. What do you confess when you say that He suffered?

A. During all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end, Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.[1] Thus, by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice,[2] He has redeemed our body and soul from everlasting damnation,[3] and obtained for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.[4]

[1] Is. 53; I Tim. 2:6; I Pet. 2:24; 3:18. [2] Rom. 3:25; I Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; Heb. 10:14; I John 2:2; 4:10. [3] Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 3:13; Col. 1:13; Heb. 9:12; I Pet 1:18, 19. [4] John 3:16; Rom. 3:24-26; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 9:15.

You can read exactly what Ursinus meant in his commentary where he clearly advocates that there is a certain sense which Christ did die for the entire human race, though it is only applied by faith. (This is also my position.)

If Christ died only for the elect in any sense, why is there a time when they are children of wrath (see Eph. 2:3)? It is because they have not yet had that sacrifice applied to them by the means of faith (I’m assuming you do not advocate eternal justification). If this is true of the elect, could it not be true for the remainder of humanity who never apply the sacrifice by faith? In other words, the “double jeopardy” argument is often not consistently applied to both elect (prior to regeneration) and reprobate when the argument is made. Charles Hodge has an excellent section in his ST on this issue.

All this to say, I world hope you’ve considered some of the diversity within the Reformed camp which will shed some light on how we discuss with others outside of the reformed understanding.
Click to expand...
While Hypothetical Universalism is your hobby horse, it is rejected by the Westminster Confession of Faith. Faith as a condition to interest is not something that the elect contribute to their salvation that "activates" an otherwise available atonement. The condition to interest is secured by Christ and enacted by the Spirit. In no sense is faith understood to be a condition that is "waiting" to be fulfilled by a sinner's "contribution" of faith. That justification is historical does not separate it from God's decree of salvation, and your description of the condition of Christ's sheep prior to their conversion is a facile reduction of the nature of Christ's Mediation and the Evangelical graces He procures.

I think you are so singularly focused on defending the idea that Christ's atonement is for all that you consider Evangelical graces apart from Christ as Mediator and break the graces up as so many parts to be examined independently. Seen in relation to their Mediator, however, how does Christ's Office as Priest act apart from all the other Evangelical graces He procures and, by His Spirit, grants to His elect? For all He dies, for some He prays, for some He grants faith, etc?

As for the OP, I'm not into "Check and mate" verses.
 
I actually have no problem with Scripture saying Christ died for all men, provided we understand it is for all who believe, which we even as the Reformed can agree and Arminians do as well unless you're a full blown universalist.
 
Pulling one verse out of context to prove a point is generally outside the approach you'll find in reformed circles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top