A Polemic Against Limited Atonement by Calvinist & author, Austin Brown.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Subscribe to Method Ministries!
Also Subscribe on Rumble: rumble.com/use...
#theology #christianity #jesusislord #atonement #apologetics
Free E-book and Amazon book link
soundofdoctrin...
www.amazon.com...
Method Ministries puts out content that is focused on teaching the Biblical Method of God's Word so the Kingdom of Christ can be advanced, and to equip the saints to help build His Kingdom. If you're looking for an online ministry that can help you with this path then subscribe to the channel!
The way I see the atonement myself! Is that Christ procured a non guilty verdict for the world at Calvary. (1 Corinthians 5:19), this is a form of general atonement that we preach to the world. Now this reconciliation (atonement) is the gospel and must be apprehended by faith, for a particular individual to be included in this reconciliation (atonement). The doctrine of the atonement is incredibly simple and can be summarized in 2 sentences as I just did, but I am not sure what I just said would please calvinists or arminians, the former because I speak of general reconciliation of the world and the latter because I state that only particular individuals (the elect) were reconciled at Calvary. But this is exactly what Colossians 1:20-23 teaches.
That sounds accurate.
Why don't you stick with 2nd Corinthians 5:2 hidden mystery of conciliation speak the scriptures don't make up things
The problem is that, when Scripture is taken as a whole, you are left with the reality that every single person who ever lived is justified before God, by the shedding of Christ's blood. This is not some "potential" or "theoretical" propitiation that Jesus provided. What He did on the cross was a perfecting work, according to Romans 8 and Hebrews 9. He came to take away the sins of the world. He didn't come to merely make a way for us to have our sins taken away. HE did it. So in whatever sense "the world" benefits from the atonement, it's certainly not salvific. For me, the closest analogy to what happened on the cross is Israel as a whole being delivered from Egypt. But that didn't in any way redeem every individual Israelite. God always had His remnant who were His righteous ones.
I cannot disagree with what you said. Now, think about your comparison to Israel, it is true not every Israelite was redeemed in the sense you mention, and not everybody made it to the promised land either, many died in the desert for disobedience. At the same time God took every Israelite out of Egypt through the Red Sea, including those that perished.later. So there is a sense in which redemption is universal, and a sense in which it is not. When Scripture states that God is the Saviour of all men, specially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10j, we cannot ignore the universe aspect without destroying the word of God.@@heartofalegend
@@henrka Those are also good thoughts, my friend. No analogy is going to fully reveal the mystery of the atonement, but it sounds like we agree that there is a universal aspect to it, as was the general position of the early reformers, as I am learning. What's interesting is a statement I heard this morning from an outspoken Amininian around the time of Dort who essentially said the reason he rejects penal substitution is because he rejects limited atonement. He went on to say, that there's no way you can believe in penal substitution and hold to universal atonement at the same time. I think he was on to something. Christ's righteousness was not imputed to every single person who ever existed or everyone would be justified. So, the area of study that presents the challenge is trying to best understand in what sense, Christ's death benefits the non-elect. I believe that it does and I think those aspects are crystalizing more each day, but it's still a work in progress. Perhaps you can relate.
This is good stuff.
Glad you enjoy it!
I've been doing a deep dive into this subject, as of late. I think Curt Daniel and Jeff Spryy have done some good work on this topic. Again and again, it comes back to WHAT Christ accomplished on the cross. If the word "propitiation" has any significant meaning at all, then one can't possibly apply it to every single person that ever lived. This for me, is the heart of the issue.
Why not ? God does not commit to forgive all hose for whom Christ died, because the propitiation is through faith in his blood (Romans 3:25). There is a condition in Christ satisfaction, faith. This was pointed out by Ursinus in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism. Had Christ’s death atoned for sin, without requiring repentance and faith, then you would be correct, but that is not the case.
@@henrka See, this is the rub. I agree with Michael Horton who points out that we're making faith the BASIS of our justification, rather than simply the INSTRUMENT God uses to bring it about. Paul tells us plainly in Romans 5 that we're justified by His blood. He says it again in Romans 8. It's the shedding of Christ's blood that justifies the elect, who God brings to trust in that shed blood in His appointed time. As I remarked elsewhere, a prominent Arminian around the time of Dort cited limited atonement as his reason for rejecting the doctrine of penal substitution, rightly recognizing that to accept penal substitution is to acknowledge the limited nature of the atonement. Christ's righteousness was not imputed to every single person who ever lived.
@@heartofalegend I agree totally that we are justified by his blood, and that faith is not the material cause of our salvation, but the instrumental. That said Romans 5:2 though, mentions we have access into this grace (Christ) by faith. Reformers like Ursinus, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, etc. , all affirmed that Christ’s death and resurrection is the cause of our justification, yet they all affirmed unlimited atonement. Just stating that faith is a condition for salvation, does not mean denying that the true cause of our justification is Christ and not our faith. It is like eating (faith), we must eat to live, but everybody knows that the nutrients come from the food (Christ) we eat . If we eat dirt we get no nutrients. Faith in and of itself does not save, it is the object of faith that saves. Nonetheless this does not deny what I said, that faith is necessary for salvation, even though It is Christ that saves, because through faith we access Christ (Romans 5:2). I do not disagree with Horton, as to the role of Christ in salvation, but I would disagree that this demands a limited atonement. Every Lutheran would agree with Horton as well, that Christ is the saviour, and not our faith, but every Lutheran would also firm unlimited atonement. Horton is right as to his understanding of the relationship between faith and Christ, wrong as to his conclusion that the atonement must be limited because of it.
@@henrka I'm curious how you would feel if it turned out the Bible taught that God's intention in the atonement was to perfectly save Christ's elect people rather than just make salvation a possibility for everyone who ever lived. Hypothetically speaking, would this strike you as unfair or unjust in any way?
@@heartofalegend The question is not whether it would strike me as unfair or unjust. The problem I have is there are so many passages where it states God wants all men to be saved, God does not delight in the death of the wicked but desires the wicked to turn, Christ wept for Jerusalem and tried to no avail to gather its people like a hen gathers its chicks, Christ came to his own but his own received him not etc. All these passages would contradict your hypothesis that God’s intent is to save the elect alone, so I cannot see Christ’s intent to save the elect alone in his atoning work either because Christ’s intent would be in contradiction with the Father that wants all men to repent and believe and be saved and his own revealed intent to save those that ultimately rejected him.
Al Go Rhythm🎉
😂 I never heard anyone try and make an argument for being inconsistent before in regard to theology. I mean at this point why are we even having a conversation at all?
I think you’re referring to him saying that regarding the system of Limited Atonement. Not theology as a whole.
I have recently started to affirm the other four points of Calvinism, and when it comes to the atonement, I honestly think the proper understanding is that the atonement is limited in intent and unlimited in extent/provision. This is my understanding of 1 Tim 4:10.
High Calvinist: Did Christ die to save the elect, or did he die to potentially save everyone (implying maybe he saved no one)?
Moderate Calvinist: Both.
I find the discussion about perseverance interesting. Those who hold that there isn't a possibility for salvation to be lost are often anti-Calvinist and especially limited atonement.
I think part of the reason that people like to argue against the extent of the atonement is also that it walls off non-Calvinistic views. If a moderate Calvinist view is correct, then Arminianism or provisionism (depending on if salvation intrinsically can be lost) are only incomplete rather than radically different understandings of soteriology. It is also interesting that the bad arguments against moderate Calvinism are often arguments that only work against Arminianism and provisionism.
Yes, I'm moving more into this camp. What I'm trying to get clarity on is this: In what way does the atonement provide for the non-elect? So far, the main aspect that most commentators on this subject agree upon is that the whole world benefits from Jesus triumphing over Satan on the cross. Also, there is, in the unlimited sufficiency of Christ to save, a built-in guarantee that anyone to whom the gospel is given, can be assured that Christ's sacrifice can save them and will save them, if they're placing their trust in Jesus.
This was really thought provoking.
His book is just as good! One of the best on the subject I've read.
I’m really curious to see how he manages to maintain PSA and unlimited atonement.
His point is that Calvin, Luther, and other prominent Reformers didn’t hold to it.
from one who is convinced that God is Sovereign in all things - including salvation:
. . Jesus was sent to cleanse mankind from sin, so that we could be with God and He could be with us.*
. . That is the ‘why’ of the atonement, the reason He gave His life in sacrifice - so that our personal sins could be forgiven, so that our individual wrongdoing could be washed clean.
. . How He accomplished that - the 'how' of the atonement - was by being made sin/a-sin-offering** for us (2Corinthians 5:21), taking the full and final punishment for sin upon Himself - death . . not only physical death but spiritual death - separation from God. (Matt 27:6; Mark 15:34 - from Psalm 22:1, a Messianic psalm)
. . Because of who He is - the eternal Son of God who became a real, unfallen human being - the value of His atonement has no limit; it is more than enough for everyone - forever.
. . Genuine, saving faith is a heart-deep belief/trust in Jesus Christ, a heart-deep allegiance to Him (which comes from God, in His mercy & grace***)
. . By faith in Him - by entrusting ourselves to Him - our hearts, our very souls, become joined to Him. His sacrifice then counts for us - our penalty/debt paid, our guilt erased. He Himself becomes our salvation (1Corinthians 1:30-31).
. . We are joined to Him as He now is, both crucified and risen.
*. . 1Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10; 1John 2:2; 2Peter 2:1; the parable of the banquet - Matthew 22:2-14, Luke 14:16-24; Matthew 23:37; John 1:29, 3:14-17, 4:42; 1John 4:14
** . . when the Hebrew word for ‘sin’ occurs in the context of the Old Covenant sacrificial system, it is sometimes translated ‘sin-offering’ - because that is what it’s referring to in that context . . a few examples: Exod 29:10-14, 36; Lev 4:24,29
*** . . for those who believe are born of God (John 1:12-13) - God the Father brought-us-forth/gave-birth-to-us by the word of truth (James 1:17-18) (‘word of truth’ = ‘the gospel’ - Ephesians 1:13) - we are born of His Spirit, through His word (John 3:7-8, 1Peter 1:23-25)
. . faith is also described as a freely given gift of His grace to us (Eph 2:8-10; Phil 1:29) . . and 1Corinthians 1:30 - of God are we in Christ - to be united to Christ through faith is to be ‘in Christ’
. . and if anyone’s desire to see - to know - the truth leads them to ‘the truth’ - that outcome, including that desire, is from God’s mercy & grace (Matthew 20:29-34 - a living parable; Romans 3:10-12)
. . God does not have mercy on us because we are good - He has mercy on us in order to make us good
Thank you for taking the time to be so thorough in stating your position. I largely agree with what you said. But just for clarification, can you discuss in what way Jesus made atonement for the non-elect and in what way He made atonement for the elect? Was His sacrifice a perfecting work for both groups? Did he bear God's wrath for people who will bear God's wrath themselves in Hell? Just trying to understand how you see these issues.
You need to read the Bible it says God wills all men to be saved and then sitting there will be manifest in his own time
Friend, that verse has been answered a million times. A good rule of thumb for anyone to use when reading passages that contain the word "all" is to ask yourself two things: 1. All of WHO? 2. All of WHAT? To just casually assume that passages like this automatically refer to every single individual who ever lived is to force your tradition on the passage every bit as much as the Calvinist is accused of doing. Do you even ALLOW for the possibility that this passage is NOT referring to every single individual who ever lived? If so, I submit there's very good reason to believe that, especially in this passage.
You speak of what it's just that's not the gospel
Huh? I honestly don't know what this sentence means.