jgredline said:
While I understand what the ''L'' means, this is one of the areas of Calvinism, I have trouble with....While it is correct in saying that the Atonement that was provided by Jesus Christ blood is ''Limited'' to those who would accept it...it gives the impression that it was not sufficient for all...But as Vic said...It was enough for the elect....I just don't like the term...It cheapens what Christ really did....
jgredline,
I need to be charitable here, because I once believed the same identical think you said. I once thought that Calvinists taught that the term limited atonement taught that the value of Christs death was insufficient to save the non-elect. Then I read what Calvinists are saying. The accusation is a straw man. There might be some 5 point Calvinist out there somewhere that might think such a thing, but I have yet to read one that says that Christs death is limited in its value.
The word I see 5 pointers use to refer to the way the atonement is limited is in the word "
intent." What they are saying, is that moment (not in space-time) after Christ ascended to heaven, when he entered the holy place in the heavenly tabernacle, and applied the blood to the alter, who did it save? Of course I am referring to the book of Hebrews. Was the blood applied to unbelievers? Was God somehow trying to save unbelievers but he just could not get the job done with the blood of Christ? Was Gods
intent to save unbelievers but he failed?
Calvinists (5 pointers) believe that Christ blood is of much more value then either the elect, or the world, or an infinite number of worlds full of an infinite number of sinful men. When one sinner repents, it no more lowers the level of Gods provision of grace then a thimble of water is taken out of the ocean and poured on the land. (please do not take that analogy as though it would somehow lower the level of the oceans.) Christ blood has value to save every person, dog, cat, star, moon, planet, and an infinite number of universes full of people.
The question of the limited atonement is not what value did Christs blood have, but it has to do with who did Christ intend to save. Who did he apply the benefits of his blood too in Hebrews?
Now I recognize one thing. If the actual definition of the limited atonement is allowed to stand, there is not really anything to fight with Calvinists about. Who would believe that God applied the blood to unbelievers and tried to save them too? This definition of the limited atonement should be accepted by anyone but a universalist. The proper definition of limited atonement should be the least controversial point Calvinist are making.
I have no idea why in our evangelical churches we feel the need to perpetuate this myth that Calvinists believe that Christs blood has limited value. It seems uncharitable. You are not the only evangelical to say things like this, I have read evangelicals over and over stating that Calvinists believe that the value of the atonement is limited. Yet, when I went to primary sources (Calvinists themselves) they are not saying that Christ was unable to save unbelievers, but that he never intended to save unbelievers.
---Please excuse me if I misread you. I know Calvinists have invented other terminology to avoid the implications of a limited value on the atonement. I think it was Spurgeon that used the synonym "particular redemption." But this term does not change what Calvinists are saying, it is merely a change in terminology.
: Now that I looked again, I see mondar never mentioned my name. I assumed because you and I see this in much the same way. But anyway, you're welcome!