Showing posts with label Limited Atonement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Limited Atonement. Show all posts

Thursday, August 21, 2008

A Deeper Look: Limited Atonement

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" --Mark 4:10-12


As the most controversial pillar in the TULIP acrostic, limited atonement is often the "hitch in the giddy-up," per se, of many four-point Calvinists. Many people often look at this point as being unfair, or even cruel. Why would a perfect, loving God deny salvation to some, even if they have "done great works in His name," while granting it to others? This is a hard concept to grasp, and that is why I endeavor to make clearer this profound Calvinist doctrine.

Some would argue against the doctrine of limited atonement by saying that it is not scripurally backed. While this is a seemingly formidable argument, and would pose a great problem were it true, I find that there are scripture passages supporting it. Take for example this scripture taken out of the Gospel of Mark, and is also the header for this post:

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, 'The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ' 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!''" --Mark 4:10-12

This passage is very profound. It has Jesus Himself admitting to the fact the He did not come to preach the gospel to all people. What Jesus is saying is He preaches parables to all. Those He pre-ordained to understand the parables would understand them and believe. The rest would hear, but they would not understand. They would see the signs, but they would not perceive them as being the work of God, and therefore would not believe. It was all planned by God beforehand.

One might argue that this is grossly unfair, but allow me to bring you back to Romans 9 for a moment. Does not the potter have power over the clay? Does not God have the right to do what He sees fit to do with His creation? As I said in my last post, each and every one of us deserves nothing but death and judgement. The only thing that is unfair is that God would choose to save any of us.

Another common objection to limited atonement is the fact that there are many. many verses in the Bible that say Jesus died for all men, or "the whole world." This, I think, is a simple misinterpretation of scripture. Think about it this way.

Do you believe that Jesus died for all sins of the whole world? The answer to this question is generally a resounding yes; especially from hard core Ariminians.

Do you believe that unbelief is a sin? The answer to this quetsion HAS to be yes, because by nautue not accepting God is denial of Him, and denial of Him is a sin. There is no other answer to this question but yes.

Do you believe that God died for the sin of unbelief of the whole world? The answer to this question MUST be a resounding NO. If He had, then we would all be in heaven one day. Let me explain. If God had died for unbelief,then man would be saved automaticly. One might argue that no, it is a gift and you have to accept it, but think about it. Unbeief is the state of mind when you refuse to choose it. God, having already forgiven this sin on the cross, would ahve already saved everyman. This simply does not make sense.

So what exactly did John mean when he said "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?" It is quite simple. Jesus did not diefor every person, but rather every nation. There are elect in every trib tounge and nation, and God died for all of them. This verse was more directed to those people who thought that the death of Christ would only be for one nation or people group, namely the Jews. John was simply making the statement that, no, Jesus was dying for people all over the world, not just Jews.

Notice and compare these verses:

"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" --John 1:29

"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." --1 John 2:2

"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." --1 John 4:14

Notice how, when these verses refer to "the world' they are rather vague as to what "the world" means. Nowcompare them to these verses:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” --Ephesians 5:25

In this verse we have an argument that Christ died only for the Church. It tells us that He loved the church, but notice it does not mention anyone else...

“I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” --John 17:9

"I am not praying for the world..." This is a profound statement to say the least. Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemone, was not praying for the whole world, but only for those who God gave him. This right here is a strong case for both limited atonement and predestination.


“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” --Matthew 26:28

This verse puts it more plainly that I can I think. It is plain evidence, if not proof, that Jesus did not shed Hs blood for all people. It say right there in black and white "which is poured out for MANY." If Jesus had died for all people, this verse would say "poured out for all."

People like to use verse like john 3:16 as evidence against limited atonement. I think that this is an unreasonable argument. In John 3:16 all it says is "whosoevere believes in Me." It does not give any indication as to HOW these people were saved. This verse is entirely ambiguous as to the means of salvation.

All said and done, limited atonement is not a shot in the dark. It is not a completely unbiblical dactrine making God into a big bad guy, but is a reasonable, scripturally backed doctrine. I hope I have made this, usually the holdup in the dactrine, a little more easy to understand.

Thanks for reading!

Renzzy


"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." --2 Corinthians 4:3-4