Unlimited Atonement

[iLogos]

The following is the oldest teaching of Christianity yes from the beginning, Unlimited Atonement, Jesus died for every one!

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

This was never questioned for the first 400 years, not until Augustine took on the extremist Pelagius did any of these questions begin to surface. There was no question concerning the death of Christ before then. Augustine died A.D. 429, and up to his time, at least, there is not the slightest evidence that any Christian ever dreamed of a propitiation for the elect alone. Even after him, the doctrine of a limited propitiation was but slowly propagated, and for long but partially received.

More recent advocates of unlimited atonement are as follows: D.L.Moody, Albert Barnes, L.S.Chafer, John Walvoord, Robert Lightner, William Newell, R.C.H. Lenski, D.Edmond Hiebert, Robert Gromacki, E.Schuyler English, R.A. Torrey, Charles Ryrie and all the members of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America who have made unlimited atonement part and parcel of their doctrinal statement. Unlimited atonement seems also to be the position of the GARBC (Regular Baptists) because the Regular Baptist Press published the original edition of Robert Lightner’s book, The Death Christ Died, which presents a strong case for unlimited atonement and also David Nettleton’s book Chosen to Salvation. Nettleton refers to "the erroneous doctrine of limited atonement" and says that "limited atonement is not a necessary corollary of the sovereign election of God"

We see many threads pop-up here regarding free will, the elect, who chooses who, Predestination, Calvinism, Arminian, Pelagian, and we see Calvinists hotly argue that there can be no free will without weakening God's Sovereignty. They insist, God can not be in complete control and allow man to have free will, indeed I can see how some may fall for that trap. But the truth is they are the one's who weaken God by insisting God is incapable of remaining in full control if man has free will! As if man with his free will can ever over ride God's power of Will. It is they who weaken God, not us!

I maintain that God can and is always in complete control, never at the mercy or chance of man's free will! Yet God can be all Powerful and still give man free will and still carry out His Will! As amazing and difficult this is for some namely Calvinists to grasp is no reason to dismiss it, yet they will jump thru many hoops, twist scriptures beyond measure to make it so it fits thier system and view. Not their fault. They have been conditioned to think and respond that way. You need to understand how they think and why before you can have any meaningful dialog with Calvinists because any thing out side of what Calvin said, will be a lie or wrong.

But that is not our problem. This thread is a direct response to their claim of Limited Atonement, which has been very adequately refuted over and over again many times through out history.

So for fair play and representation I feel it's right to provide a starting point on where to find support on the Internet for the case of free will and Unlimited Atonement. if your stuck in the middle, not sure, need to or want to read every side of this debate, then this thread is for you! Rest assured, there is plenty!

FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?

NOT CHOSEN TO SALVATION
An Answer to David Nettleton's Book, “Chosen to Salvation”
A Defense of Unlimited Atonement by Dr Max Younce

if any others would like to add resources and links, please feel free to as you will

In closing I would like to add and emphasize that Calvinists will now come and attempt to weaken God with Unlimited Atonement, call him a failure, liken him to a confused entity if we have free will and if Jesus died for all. They will attempt to discredit any one who dares to disagree with them. Remember it is they who attempt to weaken God and make him resemble a man who loves some and hates others. We hold God is not weakened and is very capable of doing more then two things at once and still being Sovereignt and carrying out His Will in complete control!

Was Jesus weak when he was being humiliated, mocked, beaten and finally crucified? Could He not have summon legends of angels to his defense? yet it was by His strength and great love he allowed what appeared to be a indication of over powering him. This is one example of how we see in part and not the whole picture! We in our limited capacity will never be able to fully explain all the mechanics, then whys and hows of God.

God Bless!

 

[AndOne]

Are you a universalist?

 

[iLogos]

Are you a universalist?

lol, no. Are you?

 

[AndOne]

Just checking....

Have fun with your thread....

 

[iLogos]

Ok so we now know for sure I am not a universalist. Glad we got that out of the way. Back to the topic, which is Unlimited Atonement.

I'd like to share a story in Ezekiel chap 18. It describes the plight of the righteous and not so righteous. Why is it important? It displays free will.

4 “Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. 5 But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right; 6 If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity; 7 If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 8 If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man; 9 If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully– He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord GOD. 10 “If he begets a son who is a robber Or a shedder of blood, Who does any of these things 11 And does none of those duties, But has eaten on the mountains Or defiled his neighbor’s wife; 12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy, Robbed by violence, Not restored the pledge, Lifted his eyes to the idols, Or committed abomination; 13 If he has exacted usury Or taken increase– Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. 14 “If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise; 15 Who has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife; 16 Has not oppressed anyone, Nor withheld a pledge, Nor robbed by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes– He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live! 18 “As for his father, Because he cruelly oppressed, Robbed his brother by violence, And did what is not good among his people, Behold, he shall die for his iniquity. 19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 “None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? 24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. 25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 “When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 “Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 “Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 “Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? 30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 “Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”

Indeed just one of many stories that show man does indeed have free will. We should and must walk in the spirit and do what is pleasing to the Lord our God and Savior! Amen!

 

[billybtennessee]

My input is that salvation, everything regarding 'soteriology', is in JESUS CHRIST. Believing in Him, trusting Him, obeying Him, following and serving Him. Jesus Christ is central to everything to us who are being saved.

The trouble I see in many threads found here, is that many feel how we view theology is what saves. Which particular 'ism', or 'ology' we line up with. The fact that there HAD to be a protestant movement, a reformation, in that both went back to the teachings we find in scripture, proves that we need to be grounded in the teachings we find within the scripture. The restoration movement was begun for the same.

It is important, our doctrines, we get FROM SCRIPTURE. We will each, individually, give account for what we have built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ. And for yet others, what has been built on another foundation entirely, Jesus Christ was/is just an add-on, if you will.

But many make a point to others that unless one holds to their 'ism', or other, that they are not saved, they trust another Jesus, another gospel. And most times, that is going too far. And that is the biggest problem here, in this section of forum. For just one example, one regular poster says that the 'Nazarene' follow a false gospel. I am not one of them but I do know a lot of them, and they are very dedicated to JESUS CHRIST, and will be the first to say they are not trusting works for their salvation.

I agree with your point here. "The Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe" It is why they will be condemned. They loved the darkness, and would not come to the Light. But He died for all, and all are invited to come. Let it continue, and it surely will. God Bless.

 

[heymikey80]

The following is the oldest teaching of Christianity yes from the beginning, Unlimited Atonement, Jesus died for every one!

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

Looks conditional to me -- "believes in Him".

This was never questioned for the first 400 years, not until Augustine took on the extremist Pelagius did any of these questions begin to surface. There was no question concerning the death of Christ before then.

About what?

Augustine died A.D. 429, and up to his time, at least, there is not the slightest evidence that any Christian ever dreamed of a propitiation for the elect alone.

Augustine's not the first. Here's a list someone else compiled.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book VI, §25, p. 201.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Great, therefore, is the mystery of Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and bewildered. For this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a servant, thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee. “If I had not come,” saith the Scripture, “and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.” Who, then, hates Christ, if not he who speaks to His dishonor? — for as it is love’s part to render, so it is hate’s to withdraw honor. He who hates, calls in question; he who loves, pays reverence. NPNF2: Vol.: Volume X, Of the Christian Faith, Book IV, Chapter 2, §27.

Ambrosiaster: The people of God hath its own fulness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all men. See Works of John Owen, Vol. 10, p. 423.

Jerome (347-420) on Matthew 20:28: He does not say that he gave his life for all, but for many, that is, for all those who would believe. See Turretin, Vol. 2, p. 462.

Hilary of Arles (c. 401-449) commenting on 1 John 2:2: When John says that Christ died for the sins of the “whole world,” what he means is that he died for the whole church. Introductory Commentary on 1 John. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 177.

 

[Hammster]

So what exactly did Chris's death accomplish? Did He atone for all sins? What?

 

[iLogos]

Forsake of argument, lets say Augustine was not the first,

then lets assume that Ambrose (who?) started questioning the Atonement the first year he was born at 339. That still means no record of any one questioning it for the first 339 years Until Ambrose was born.

 

[AndOne]

Forsake of argument, lets say Augustine was not the first,

then lets assume that Ambrose (who?) started questioning the Atonement the first year he was born at 339. That still means no record of any one questioning it for the first 339 years Until Ambrose was born.

Nobody questioned the authority of the pope for nearly a thousand years - does that mean it was real?

 

[nobdysfool]

In closing I would like to add and emphasize that Calvinists will now come and attempt to weaken God with Unlimited Atonement, call him a failure, liken him to a confused entity if we have free will and if Jesus died for all. They will attempt to discredit any one who dares to disagree with them.

Wondering when and where this is supposed to happen....doesn't seem to have happened yet....disappointed?

 

[iLogos]

Wondering when and where this is supposed to happen....doesn't seem to have happened yet....disappointed?

Hammster: So what exactly did Chris's death accomplish? Did He atone for all sins? What?

Actually I'm relieved and hopeful, but no bets.

 

[Hammster]

Forsake of argument, lets say Augustine was not the first,

then lets assume that Ambrose (who?) started questioning the Atonement the first year he was born at 339. That still means no record of any one questioning it for the first 339 years Until Ambrose was born.

Was it an issue before then?

 

[heymikey80]

Forsake of argument, lets say Augustine was not the first,

then lets assume that Ambrose (who?) started questioning the Atonement the first year he was born at 339. That still means no record of any one questioning it for the first 339 years Until Ambrose was born.

You want me to back up further?

If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognize Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him? -- Justin Martyr, ca 135 AD

I point it out again. When dealing with the offer of the Atonement, the offer is general. The call to Christ is general.

The fact that the call is general is not "unlimited atonement". The question is whether the Atonement itself is universal -- whether the Atonement actually atones for everyone.

It's pretty clear it does not, and historically has not been understood to do so.

 

[Hammster]

Actually I'm relieved and hopeful, but no bets.

I'm guessing, then, that you just wanted a thread where everyone agrees with you and holds hands and sings "Jesus Loves Me".

 

[AndOne]

I'm guessing, then, that you just wanted a thread where everyone agrees with you and holds hands and sings "Jesus Loves Me".

kumbia my love.... kumbia...

 

[Hammster]

kumbia my love.... kumbia...

. I wonder if this will launch an attempt to discredit us?

 

[Eddie L]

You're making odd demands. First, you want evidence of some church guy within 300 years of the resurrection that supported limited atonement, but all your examples of proponents of unlimited atonement are recent. Finding such a person on either side of the issue would be hard to find, though, since the terminology for unlimited or limited atonement wasn't even needed until it was necessary to debate the differences. You are assuming that everyone held your view until someone came along and changed it. We could just as easily say that everyone held our view until Pelagius.

It is much more likely to say that there were people with a variety of views from the very beginning, since most of the theological documentation in even the New Testament was written to counter the errors of the day.

This is a side note, but isn't it wild to think that we wouldn't have the beautiful writing in Galatians without the errors of the Judaizers? We wouldn't have the writings of 1 John or James had it not been for anti-gnomians and gnostics. Even the gospel of John used language to counter Greek philosophy. Augustine and Pelagius probably woudn't have had a reason to write much if they hadn't been countering each other, and Luther and Erasmus wouldn't have, either. It was his problem with both Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists that gave us many beautiful sermons from Spurgeon. It seems that God uses error to show us truth, darkness to show us light, and pain to produce wisdom. Again, this is a side-note, and has nothing at all to do with your OP. I guess that means I'm rambling.

 

[iLogos]

You're making odd demands. First, you want evidence of some church guy within 300 years of the resurrection that supported limited atonement, but all your examples of proponents of unlimited atonement are recent. Finding such a person on either side of the issue would be hard to find, though, since the terminology for unlimited or limited atonement wasn't even needed until it was necessary to debate the differences. You are assuming that everyone held your view until someone came along and changed it. We could just as easily say that everyone held our view until Pelagius.

It is much more likely to say that there were people with a variety of views from the very beginning, since most of the theological documentation in even the New Testament was written to counter the errors of the day.

This is a side note, but isn't it wild to think that we wouldn't have the beautiful writing in Galatians without the errors of the Judaizers? We wouldn't have the writings of 1 John or James had it not been for anti-gnomians and gnostics. Even the gospel of John used language to counter Greek philosophy. Augustine and Pelagius probably woudn't have had a reason to write much if they hadn't been countering each other, and Luther and Erasmus wouldn't have, either. It was his problem with both Arminians and Hyper-Calvinists that gave us many beautiful sermons from Spurgeon. It seems that God uses error to show us truth, darkness to show us light, and pain to produce wisdom. Again, this is a side-note, and has nothing at all to do with your OP. I guess that means I'm rambling.

Where you get that from? You should read up on this first. Universalism is older then limited Atonement, end of 1st century. Unlimited Atonement, is the oldest, from the start. Limited Atonement, 300 years later. Apparently God is not a Calvinist, or changed his mind?

 

[Eddie L]

I really doubt that Paul was a universalist, or Jesus, for that matter.

Good grief... what's with all the universalists in a Christian forum?