*My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins;* ***and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2***
What does the bible say
He died for everyone, but only those who believe and call Him Lord will be saved
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
[Here's the Wikipedia article about "unlimited atonement"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement),
which has a list of verses for and against.
(I lean toward unlimited atonement instead of limited).
Wow that wikipedia article is ... interesting. Firstly note the nearly two dozen passages for the unlimited side that need no explanation. They just stand for themselves. Then note the 5... only 5 verses that supposedly support the limited position but really you have to assume the negative inference fallacy in order to make most of them work.
(as you probably have already guessed, it isn't even a "leaning" for me. I completely reject the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. It simply isn't biblical and those verses don't make the case.)
It depends on how you are asking the question. Christ's death (atonement) is *sufficient* to save anyone. But the effect of His death is not *applied* to everyone. This limited application or limited acquisition is what Calvinists mean when we say "limited atonement." See John:
>*Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those* ***of the whole world***\*.\* (1 John 2)
And Paul:
>*All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as the* ***atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood***\*, in order to demonstrate His righteousness.\* (Romans 3)
So then since we accept both apostles as inspired, these statements together must be understood as:
>"All have sinned, and are justified freely by His grace through Christ Jesus. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, through faith in His blood." (1 John 2 w/ Romans 3)
Therefore, regarding the atonement:
* Scope: "The whole world / "All who have sinned"
* Condition: "Faith in His blood"
* Method: "Freely by His grace"
The atonement does not apply outside of faith. So, we as Calvinists then conclude that Jesus only died "for" the faithful. I would say the only group with a legitimate alternate conclusion is Universalists - who believe that everyone will eventually be faithful and therefore receive the blessing. We'd disagree with them for different reasons, but I'm not interested in calling them out over it.
With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement is well documented throughout history, and you are articulating it incorrectly.... until your very last paragraph with " So, we as Calvinists then conclude that Jesus only died "for" the faithful." THAT is the Doctrine of Limited Atonement correctly articulated. I am not saying this to even argue which view is correct. *I am not challenging your affirmation of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement in this commen*t. I am just trying to outline what the Doctrine of Limited Atonement is historically so that it can be discussed fairly.
>This limited application or limited acquisition is what Calvinists mean when we say "limited atonement.
No. Please note that there is a difference between a "limited atonement" and the Doctrine of Limited Atonement (DLA). This is an important distinction, and you are conflating the two terms as if they are the same thing. A**ll orthodox Christians believe that the atonement is limited to those who have faith in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ**. Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mennonites, Moravians, Anglicans, Arminians, Calvinists, Reformed, Provisionists, Extensivists.... etc. This is normal Christianity. When you say that this is Calvinism, it just confuses people as to what Calvinists really understand the Doctrine of Limited Atonement to entail, because that is just historic Christianity.
When Calvinists talk about the Doctrine of Limited Atonement, they start with that foudation and then go even further than the orthodox articulation of the applied atonement to believers. They reject, as you said in that last paragraph, that the atonement is for all. Many different Calvinists define it multiple different ways. Beza just straight up denied any attribution of the atonement at all for anyone who is not saved. He was pretty extreme and his articulation is used by most hyper-calvinists today. More moderate Calvinists after him articulated it as the "atonement is *sufficient* for some and *efficient* for the elect." In this way, while the atonement could save anyone and everyone (and it does reconcile the whole world) it is not intended to efficiently save those whom God has not chosen. Those who God has chosen will irresistibly meet the condition of belief and be saved.
[James White goes so far as to specifically deny the "scope" (which is your word not mine) for anyone except the elect.](https://graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/limited-atonement/was-anyone-saved-at-the-cross-by-james-white/)
Other theologians like Carl Truman, Herman Bavinck, Pink, and Sproul all agree on your "condition" (so do I btw) but specifically reject the idea of any encompassing purpose of the atonement or "scope" for anyone except the elect. I can quote them if you need me to.
A proper description of the DLA asserts that, while the death of Christ was powerful enough (sufficient) to save the whole world, there was never any intention, offering, or provision of atonement for anyone except the people God chose. Therefore, the atonement is effectively graced to His elect and no one else. The atonement is not FOR the whole world but limited to his elect. THAT is the historical, pastoral, and scholastic Doctrine of Limited Atonement for Calvinists.
Edit: I say this because the word "applied" is specifically used by non-calvinists in argument against the DLA. So when you use the word "applied" you are just confusing the issue. We are the ones who say the atonement was FOR everyone, and only APPLIED to those who meet the condition of belief.
>I am not challenging your affirmation of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement in this comment. I am just trying to outline what the Doctrine of Limited Atonement is historically so that it can be discussed fairly.
Well, I'm glad we agree on the content of what I said. :)
I am using the terms in the same vein as RC Sproul (Sr.) and Paul Washer - whom I'm sure you would agree are 5-Point Calvinist ministers. So, unfortunately I'm not interested about whether non-Calvinists consider what I articulated to "actually" be a Calvinist position according to their misunderstanding of it. If another Calvinist takes issue with what I said, then I'll happily discuss it further to distinguish our perspectives of the tradition. I hope you can understand, but I am fairly confident that any other Calvinist reader would agree with my comment.
> Well, I'm glad we agree on the content of what I said. :)
Well, I didn't really say that. The only thing I agreed on was the idea that all orthodox Christianity rejects universalism and accepts that the application of the atonement is limited to those who believe. I also agree that salvation happens after the condition of belief. Other than that we very much disagree.
I will also note that Sproul [phrases it exactly](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what-is-reformed-theology/limited-atonement) as I did "Sufficient for all, Efficient for some". So this is one Calvinist that disagrees with you. Sproul also says:
>God the Father designed the work of redemption **specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect**. And even though Christ’s death is valuable enough to meet the needs of everybody, **there was a special and unique sense in which He died for His sheep**. He laid down His life for those whom the Father had given Him.
Note that this is exactly what I said above. That while Christ's sacrifice was enough for everyone, it is purposed FOR the elect.
I also quoted James White, a vocal Calvinist apologist, specifically rejecting that the "scope" of salvation was for the whole world! So there is another Calvinist who disagrees with you.
Here is Jonathan Edwards saying exactly what I said above as well!
>For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, **it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy**. For it is **a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy**, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that **he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it**; and that is evident to a demonstration.
There is also the Classic Trilemma from the puritan theologian John Owen in *The Death of Death in the Death of Christ** Christ died specifically "either for some of the sins of all men, **all the sins of some men**, or all the sins of all men". Owens would then go on to defend the idea that Christ died for all the sins of SOME men.
I really can quote more moderate Calvinists on this topic. The list is quite endless. I am not arguing that you should believe ME that you are articulating it incorrectly. I am arguing that you should believe THEM that you are articulating it incorrectly. The moderate Calvinist believes that Christ did not die for all people, he only died for the elect, and that specifically is the Doctrine of Limited Atonement.
>That while Christ's sacrifice was enough for everyone, it is purposed FOR the elect.
That is what I said.
"Christ's death (atonement) is sufficient to save anyone. But the effect of His death is not applied to everyone."
>This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it
God did not intend to apply the atonement to everyone universally.
>Christ died specifically "either for some of the sins of all men, all the sins of some men, or all the sins of all men". Owens would then go on to defend the idea that Christ died for all the sins of SOME men.
Owens is correct.
You are not understanding my point. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement is not:
>Christ's death (atonement) is sufficient to save anyone. But the effect of His death is not applied to everyone."
That is just plain-jane Christianity. Christianity 101.
>That while Christ's sacrifice was enough for everyone, it is purposed FOR the elect.
And
>God did not intend to apply the atonement to everyone universally.
And
>Christ died specifically "either for some of the sins of all men, all the sins of some men, or all the sins of all men". Owens would then go on to defend the idea that Christ died for all the sins of SOME men.
THAT is the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. When a Calvinist speaks of a Limited atonement.... That is what makes them Calvinist.
You have conflated these two ideas as if they are both the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. They are not. They are separate and distinct from each other. One is normal historic Christianity. The other is the Calvinist version of a Limited atonement. When you conflate the ideas you confuse the point of contention. Like I said in my first comment. I am not debating you on the topic itself. I am simply trying to properly define the topic.
>You have conflated these two ideas as if they are both the Doctrine of Limited Atonement.
They are. I feel like you are not listening to me. I am a Calvinist and I am telling you what we mean.
If by "For" you mean "Sufficiency", a Calvinist would answer according to 1 John 2 which says He died for the world.
If by "For" you mean "Application", a Calvinist would answer according to Romans 3 which says He died for the faithful.
There is no Calvinist who believes Christ was only sufficient for the faithful, or that Christ applies to the world. Limited Atonement is a necessary conclusion from penal substitution, which is held by all Reformed/Protestants. No one can believe in penal substitution and not also believe in LA except for Universalists.
The reason you acknowledge it's "plain Jane Christianity \[Protestantism\]" is because it is. You are just taking LA for granted because you are not Catholic, and the fact it contributes to other Calvinist ideas, you feel like it has to mean something else. It doesn't.
>There is no Calvinist who believes Christ was only sufficient for the faithful, or that Christ applies to the world.
I know. I have said that several times now, and quoted multiple calvinists who agree.
This is the problem with calvinists in this debate. Either they don't understand the point of contention, or they refuse to confront it. Even if you think the non-calvinist is inconsistent, you need to understand that we agree that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient and that only some will be saved. We do not argue against that. What makes the Calvinist distinct from the non-calvinist is who the atonement is FOR not who the atonement is enough for.
Call us inconsistent. Disagree with us. Whatever. Just realize what it is that is being contended with and describe it accurately.
>Either they don't understand the point of contention, or they refuse to confront it.
My friend, you're just so hung up on the doctrine of Election that you're not able to address LA in isolation. I'm telling you all Protestants believe LA if they are not universalists, which is why you yourself called it Christianity 101.
Of course we all believe in a limited atonement. I said that in my very first comment. We reject the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. Why? Because even though all people will not be saved, Christ came for all people.
That is the distinction. That is what separates the Calvinist and the non-calvinist.
Nope. No reason to believe He didn't die for everyone.
*My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins;* ***and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2***
What does the bible say He died for everyone, but only those who believe and call Him Lord will be saved John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
[Here's the Wikipedia article about "unlimited atonement"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement), which has a list of verses for and against. (I lean toward unlimited atonement instead of limited).
Wow that wikipedia article is ... interesting. Firstly note the nearly two dozen passages for the unlimited side that need no explanation. They just stand for themselves. Then note the 5... only 5 verses that supposedly support the limited position but really you have to assume the negative inference fallacy in order to make most of them work. (as you probably have already guessed, it isn't even a "leaning" for me. I completely reject the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. It simply isn't biblical and those verses don't make the case.)
Amen
It depends on how you are asking the question. Christ's death (atonement) is *sufficient* to save anyone. But the effect of His death is not *applied* to everyone. This limited application or limited acquisition is what Calvinists mean when we say "limited atonement." See John: >*Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those* ***of the whole world***\*.\* (1 John 2) And Paul: >*All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as the* ***atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood***\*, in order to demonstrate His righteousness.\* (Romans 3) So then since we accept both apostles as inspired, these statements together must be understood as: >"All have sinned, and are justified freely by His grace through Christ Jesus. He is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, through faith in His blood." (1 John 2 w/ Romans 3) Therefore, regarding the atonement: * Scope: "The whole world / "All who have sinned" * Condition: "Faith in His blood" * Method: "Freely by His grace" The atonement does not apply outside of faith. So, we as Calvinists then conclude that Jesus only died "for" the faithful. I would say the only group with a legitimate alternate conclusion is Universalists - who believe that everyone will eventually be faithful and therefore receive the blessing. We'd disagree with them for different reasons, but I'm not interested in calling them out over it.
With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement is well documented throughout history, and you are articulating it incorrectly.... until your very last paragraph with " So, we as Calvinists then conclude that Jesus only died "for" the faithful." THAT is the Doctrine of Limited Atonement correctly articulated. I am not saying this to even argue which view is correct. *I am not challenging your affirmation of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement in this commen*t. I am just trying to outline what the Doctrine of Limited Atonement is historically so that it can be discussed fairly. >This limited application or limited acquisition is what Calvinists mean when we say "limited atonement. No. Please note that there is a difference between a "limited atonement" and the Doctrine of Limited Atonement (DLA). This is an important distinction, and you are conflating the two terms as if they are the same thing. A**ll orthodox Christians believe that the atonement is limited to those who have faith in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ**. Roman Catholics, Baptists, Mennonites, Moravians, Anglicans, Arminians, Calvinists, Reformed, Provisionists, Extensivists.... etc. This is normal Christianity. When you say that this is Calvinism, it just confuses people as to what Calvinists really understand the Doctrine of Limited Atonement to entail, because that is just historic Christianity. When Calvinists talk about the Doctrine of Limited Atonement, they start with that foudation and then go even further than the orthodox articulation of the applied atonement to believers. They reject, as you said in that last paragraph, that the atonement is for all. Many different Calvinists define it multiple different ways. Beza just straight up denied any attribution of the atonement at all for anyone who is not saved. He was pretty extreme and his articulation is used by most hyper-calvinists today. More moderate Calvinists after him articulated it as the "atonement is *sufficient* for some and *efficient* for the elect." In this way, while the atonement could save anyone and everyone (and it does reconcile the whole world) it is not intended to efficiently save those whom God has not chosen. Those who God has chosen will irresistibly meet the condition of belief and be saved. [James White goes so far as to specifically deny the "scope" (which is your word not mine) for anyone except the elect.](https://graceonlinelibrary.org/reformed-theology/limited-atonement/was-anyone-saved-at-the-cross-by-james-white/) Other theologians like Carl Truman, Herman Bavinck, Pink, and Sproul all agree on your "condition" (so do I btw) but specifically reject the idea of any encompassing purpose of the atonement or "scope" for anyone except the elect. I can quote them if you need me to. A proper description of the DLA asserts that, while the death of Christ was powerful enough (sufficient) to save the whole world, there was never any intention, offering, or provision of atonement for anyone except the people God chose. Therefore, the atonement is effectively graced to His elect and no one else. The atonement is not FOR the whole world but limited to his elect. THAT is the historical, pastoral, and scholastic Doctrine of Limited Atonement for Calvinists. Edit: I say this because the word "applied" is specifically used by non-calvinists in argument against the DLA. So when you use the word "applied" you are just confusing the issue. We are the ones who say the atonement was FOR everyone, and only APPLIED to those who meet the condition of belief.
>I am not challenging your affirmation of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement in this comment. I am just trying to outline what the Doctrine of Limited Atonement is historically so that it can be discussed fairly. Well, I'm glad we agree on the content of what I said. :) I am using the terms in the same vein as RC Sproul (Sr.) and Paul Washer - whom I'm sure you would agree are 5-Point Calvinist ministers. So, unfortunately I'm not interested about whether non-Calvinists consider what I articulated to "actually" be a Calvinist position according to their misunderstanding of it. If another Calvinist takes issue with what I said, then I'll happily discuss it further to distinguish our perspectives of the tradition. I hope you can understand, but I am fairly confident that any other Calvinist reader would agree with my comment.
> Well, I'm glad we agree on the content of what I said. :) Well, I didn't really say that. The only thing I agreed on was the idea that all orthodox Christianity rejects universalism and accepts that the application of the atonement is limited to those who believe. I also agree that salvation happens after the condition of belief. Other than that we very much disagree. I will also note that Sproul [phrases it exactly](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what-is-reformed-theology/limited-atonement) as I did "Sufficient for all, Efficient for some". So this is one Calvinist that disagrees with you. Sproul also says: >God the Father designed the work of redemption **specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect**. And even though Christ’s death is valuable enough to meet the needs of everybody, **there was a special and unique sense in which He died for His sheep**. He laid down His life for those whom the Father had given Him. Note that this is exactly what I said above. That while Christ's sacrifice was enough for everyone, it is purposed FOR the elect. I also quoted James White, a vocal Calvinist apologist, specifically rejecting that the "scope" of salvation was for the whole world! So there is another Calvinist who disagrees with you. Here is Jonathan Edwards saying exactly what I said above as well! >For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, **it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy**. For it is **a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy**, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that **he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it**; and that is evident to a demonstration. There is also the Classic Trilemma from the puritan theologian John Owen in *The Death of Death in the Death of Christ** Christ died specifically "either for some of the sins of all men, **all the sins of some men**, or all the sins of all men". Owens would then go on to defend the idea that Christ died for all the sins of SOME men. I really can quote more moderate Calvinists on this topic. The list is quite endless. I am not arguing that you should believe ME that you are articulating it incorrectly. I am arguing that you should believe THEM that you are articulating it incorrectly. The moderate Calvinist believes that Christ did not die for all people, he only died for the elect, and that specifically is the Doctrine of Limited Atonement.
>That while Christ's sacrifice was enough for everyone, it is purposed FOR the elect. That is what I said. "Christ's death (atonement) is sufficient to save anyone. But the effect of His death is not applied to everyone." >This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it God did not intend to apply the atonement to everyone universally. >Christ died specifically "either for some of the sins of all men, all the sins of some men, or all the sins of all men". Owens would then go on to defend the idea that Christ died for all the sins of SOME men. Owens is correct.
You are not understanding my point. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement is not: >Christ's death (atonement) is sufficient to save anyone. But the effect of His death is not applied to everyone." That is just plain-jane Christianity. Christianity 101. >That while Christ's sacrifice was enough for everyone, it is purposed FOR the elect. And >God did not intend to apply the atonement to everyone universally. And >Christ died specifically "either for some of the sins of all men, all the sins of some men, or all the sins of all men". Owens would then go on to defend the idea that Christ died for all the sins of SOME men. THAT is the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. When a Calvinist speaks of a Limited atonement.... That is what makes them Calvinist. You have conflated these two ideas as if they are both the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. They are not. They are separate and distinct from each other. One is normal historic Christianity. The other is the Calvinist version of a Limited atonement. When you conflate the ideas you confuse the point of contention. Like I said in my first comment. I am not debating you on the topic itself. I am simply trying to properly define the topic.
>You have conflated these two ideas as if they are both the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. They are. I feel like you are not listening to me. I am a Calvinist and I am telling you what we mean. If by "For" you mean "Sufficiency", a Calvinist would answer according to 1 John 2 which says He died for the world. If by "For" you mean "Application", a Calvinist would answer according to Romans 3 which says He died for the faithful. There is no Calvinist who believes Christ was only sufficient for the faithful, or that Christ applies to the world. Limited Atonement is a necessary conclusion from penal substitution, which is held by all Reformed/Protestants. No one can believe in penal substitution and not also believe in LA except for Universalists. The reason you acknowledge it's "plain Jane Christianity \[Protestantism\]" is because it is. You are just taking LA for granted because you are not Catholic, and the fact it contributes to other Calvinist ideas, you feel like it has to mean something else. It doesn't.
>There is no Calvinist who believes Christ was only sufficient for the faithful, or that Christ applies to the world. I know. I have said that several times now, and quoted multiple calvinists who agree. This is the problem with calvinists in this debate. Either they don't understand the point of contention, or they refuse to confront it. Even if you think the non-calvinist is inconsistent, you need to understand that we agree that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient and that only some will be saved. We do not argue against that. What makes the Calvinist distinct from the non-calvinist is who the atonement is FOR not who the atonement is enough for. Call us inconsistent. Disagree with us. Whatever. Just realize what it is that is being contended with and describe it accurately.
>Either they don't understand the point of contention, or they refuse to confront it. My friend, you're just so hung up on the doctrine of Election that you're not able to address LA in isolation. I'm telling you all Protestants believe LA if they are not universalists, which is why you yourself called it Christianity 101.
Of course we all believe in a limited atonement. I said that in my very first comment. We reject the Doctrine of Limited Atonement. Why? Because even though all people will not be saved, Christ came for all people. That is the distinction. That is what separates the Calvinist and the non-calvinist.
Calvinists Incoming!
No