Another verses that absolutely destroys limited atonement:
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
No, rather
another example demonstrating your inability to interpret Holt Writ. You merely respond you do not like the answer for various personal cavils about whom the answer came. :AMR:
Round two:
There is an intrinsic worth of Our Lord's atonement. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite
worth and
value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
Accordingly, any discussion of the atonement will inevitably come down to a discussion of its "
limitations," if we are to speak of
efficacy over against
worth.
If the atonement actually effects a work, then the person worked upon is atoned for. If the atonement is effectual for all men without exception, then all men without exception have been absolved. No one has any sins to account for, because the whole sin-debt has been paid. Hell therefore is empty.
If hell is not empty, then the atonement isn't universal. So then, what "
limitation" has been imposed? Has the atonement been limited as to its
power, or its
extent? Many doctrinal positions limit the atonement's
power. There are a number of explanations as to how, but it boils down to this: God has made man savable by virtue of Christ's propitiation, but the "
powerful blood" does not atone unless some man claims it. The power-in-the-blood is
potential, until a man throws the switch. This view often is referred to as
hypothetical universalism, for it it
hypothetically possible that all men are able to "throw the switch" and be saved. It is also hypothetical universalism in the negative, for it was hypothetically possible, before the first man "threw the switch," for all men to "
not throw the switch." Given that we know from Scripture some actual named person are indeed saved, this negative hypothetical universalism is no longer relevant to the discussion.
In the scenario above, the
propitiation of Jesus Christ saves no one by its own virtue.
Statistically it saves
some, but it might have saved
none. The blood of Jesus was not poured out and sprinkled at the cross for anyone in particular, even a specific number and specific names. It is simply precious in God's sight, and also in the sight of anyone who happens to impute high-value to it. And that human judgment, in effect, renders the atonement effectual individually for him.
Consider an alternative...
On the other hand, the view (my view) that "
limits" the atonement's
extent, but not its
power, reckons the death of Jesus was
intentional and
purposeful for a specific number and specific names. The blood of Christ powerfully and effectually cleanses and reconciles a specific man to God in the act itself. The sacrifice of Christ doesn't make men
savable; it
saves the elect (a specific multitude of named persons no man can number). Statistically the blood saves
all for whom it was shed; it could not have saved one less.
John's intent in speaking as broadly as he does, "...
but also for the sins of the whole world," is to eliminate exclusivity from the minds of his hearers. Jesus is not only "
the propitiation for OUR sins," here in this church, or in this small corner of the world, or for just the Jewish audience to whom he was speaking. No, he turns away the wrath of God for people of every stripe all over the world. Red, Yellow, Black, White; in every language, in every nation. The
worth of the sacrifice is infinite, and might have satisfied for ten-thousand worlds worse than ours. The
efficacy of the atonement is for this world (and not for demons), and its sweep is fully "
as far as the curse is found," yes, to the earth's remotest end.
Our Lord declared, John 3:36 ,"
...he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." If there is no limit set to the
power of Christ's propitiation (
hilasmos, turning aside of wrath), then how can this statement be true, assuming Christ tasted death for every man in exactly the same sense (Heb. 2:9)? Do people go to hell, yet having all their sins forgiven? On what basis, then?
If the
power is limited, then salvation is only
potential, and the choice is "
up to us." If the power remains unlimited (able to save to the uttermost), but the
scope is limited to "
those who come to him by faith," who were "
chosen in him before the foundation of the world," then the only question that remains is, "
To what world is John referring?" Determining the "
world" of any particular discourse is part of the responsibility of the reader / interpreter. Does it make sense to think that the "
world" means every atom of creation? Does it make sense to think that the "
world" refers to every living soul in all history (past, present, future), down to the zygote? Are there cogent reasons to think that John is not speaking in terms of individuals; but rather in aggregate, generalized, or comparative terms?
AMR