Is "Limited Atonement" doctrine in Calvinism satanic heresy?

[yogosans14]

Jesus said he died for everyone not for "the elect"

What say Ye?

 

[ThomistColin]

Here's the thing, let us not say that it is Satanic Heresy or Unbiblical, because
A) It is Biblical, meaning it has evidence from the Bible
B) Satanic Heresy is a misnomer and a misuse of the word Heresy, meaning to hold a view outside of orthodoxy, and an overemphasis on Satanic, that which pertains to Satan or his nature.

Now, I do believe it is heresy in the strictest sense of a view outside of orthodoxy. However, it is not Apostasy, to hold a view or position that nullifies the possibility of being a Christian (such as denying the divinity of Jesus). Calvinists are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Here's an interesting point:
According to the Arminians, the Calvinists are saved, they just don't know how they are saved.
According to the Calvinists, the Arminians are saved, they just don't know how they are saved.

Neither side, from their basic understandings, automatically deny the other's salvation, just the other's intelligence (I'm joking slightly there).

So, at the end of the day, I do believe it is a heresy, just not Satanic nor does it remove them from the family.

 

[Skinski7]

Jesus said he died for everyone not for "the elect"

What say Ye?

Absolutely it is heresy. Damnable heresy.


The Limited Atonement view is a result of the doctrine of Penal Substitution which teaches that Jesus "paid the sin debt" of those whom are saved. Thus logically Jesus could not have paid the sin debt of those whom are not saved.

Here is what Reformed theologian John MacArthur states...

And Christ died as your substitute and He bore your sins on the cross, therefore you died with Him there. This is a limiting aspect of the death of Christ. It necessarily limits the application of the atonement. The atonement, listen carefully, can only be a real substitution for those who died in Christ. I'll say that again. The atonement can only be a real substitution for those who died in Christ on the basis of those statements in that verse. The all is everyone who died in Christ, everyone for whom Christ was the substitute. That is the sense of the atonement which is limited.

...

But when you talk about substitution, you now are talking about the limited aspect of it. It is limited to those who died in Christ. Now you have to ask the question...who are those who died in Christ? To answer that, look at Romans chapter 3--Romans chapter 3. In Romans chapter 3 this is very important, verse 25, well verse 24 talks about the gift of God's grace which is the salvation or redemption in Christ. In verse 25 God displayed publicly as a propitiation, a satisfaction, a covering, appeasing the wrath of God, He displayed Christ as that. So He's talking about Christ's redeeming work, His justifying work, His work of salvation. And then in verse 26 we get right down to it. The middle of the verse, "All this that Jesus Christ and that God whose purpose it is might be just and the justifier of the one who...what?...has faith in Jesus." There's the qualifier.

...So He is the substitute only for those who believe. That's the point. Otherwise you've got a major problem because you've got Christ dying as a substitute for the whole world, that means He was bearing the sins of the whole world in a substitutionary sense. And if, in fact, He was carrying Himself to the cross as a substitute for the sins of every person who ever lived, He would therefore have done away with the wrath of God and procured for them eternal life, and we'd all be universalists. So there has to be a limiting feature.

A Ministry of Integrity, Part 3


The Penal Substitution is a teaching which was invented only 400 years ago when Reformers took the Satisfaction view of Anselm (11th Century) and added a literal "penal aspect" to it. The doctrine is foreign to the Bible and was foreign to Christianity for 1600 years.

Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have extensively refuted the doctrine in the following thread on the Atonement...

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/108833-atonement.html

The main problems with the theory can be summarised with the following...

Problems with Penal Substitution

1. Penalty Paid = Penalty Not Forgiven

2. Penalty Paid = Limited Penalties Paid (Jesus only died for a select few) or All Penalties Paid (Universal Salvation)

3. Penal Substitution is only 400 years old.

4. Early Church did not teach anything remotely close to Penal Substitution

5. Bible does not teach anything remotely close to Penal Substitution, the doctrine is read into select passages via the use of rhetoric and conjecture.

6. Penal Substitution destroys the Gospel because reconciliation with God is premised on a mere "legal exchange" as opposed to the "true state of the heart." In other words Penal Substitution teaches that it is God that has to change in the reconciliation process not man. God merely PRETENDS the sinner is innocent and righteous due to the double imputation legal exchange taught in the Penal Model.

7. Penal Substitution necessitates the destruction of any notion of "heart purity" being a necessary aspect of genuine salvation due to its forensic application as it relates to the reconciliation process.

 

[Skinski7]

It is impossible to logically and consistently to hold to the Penal Substitution view and also teach that Jesus died for everyone, unless one wants to promote universal salvation.

Penal Substitution is a worthless doctrine which needs to be thrown on the rubbish heap of history where it belongs.

 

[Skinski7]

Information Links (so people can do their own research)

Christus Victor (early church)
Christus Victor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral Influence (early church)
Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.theopedia.com/Moral_Influence_theory

Recapitulation (early church)
Recapitulation theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Recapitulation theory of atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Ransom (early church)
Ransom theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Satisfaction (11th Century)
Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Satisfaction theory of the atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Moral Government (16th Century)
Governmental theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Governmental theory of atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Penal Substitution (16th Century)
Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Penal substitutionary atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Atonement
Atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

The word atonement, is almost the only theological term of English origin. It was mostly used in Tyndale's English translation as derived from the adv. phrase atonen, meaning "in accord," literally, at one.^[1]^ In the English Bible, it is mainly used to translate the Hebrew word kipur, although it is used once in the King James New Testament to translate the Greek word katallage (see Romans 5:11). Most modern translations render this word "reconciliation" in its other occurrences throughout the N.T.

 

[Skinski7]

[video=youtube;8qCPqH3Judg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qCPqH3Judg[/video]

 

[notuptome]

The atonement is wholly sufficient for all men. The atonement is efficacious only for those who believe and receive.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Skinski7]

Here is also an English rendered extract from the Septuagint of Isaiah 53.

53:1 O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 We brought a report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but he had no form nor beauty. 3 But his form was ignoble, and inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not esteemed. 4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. 5 But he was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his bruises we were healed. 6 All we as sheep have gone astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave him up for our sins.
7 And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth: he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. 8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death. 9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft with his mouth. 10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed: 11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins. 12 Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.

Esaias

Here is an English rendition of the Masoretic text...

1 'Who would have believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground; he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look upon him, nor beauty that we should delight in him. 3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. 6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and with his generation who did reason? for he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. 9 And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich his tomb; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.' 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand: 11 Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah 53 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

The Apostle Paul used the Septuagint and this is why one will find some apparent "misquotes" in the New Testament KJV when Paul is making reference to the Old Testament.

Not a single person in the early church ever referred to Isa 53 or 2Cor 5:21 as teaching that Jesus was literally punished as a substitute for the sinner. That view was not to come about for 1600 years.

Many people choose to believe in Penal Substitution simply because they want to and any evidence to the contrary is just dismissed.

 

[JimmieD]

Not a single person in the early church ever referred to Isa 53 or 2Cor 5:21 as teaching that Jesus was literally punished as a substitute for the sinner. That view was not to come about for 1600 years.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 111.

 

[Skinski7]

Here's an interesting point:
According to the Arminians, the Calvinists are saved, they just don't know how they are saved.
According to the Calvinists, the Arminians are saved, they just don't know how they are saved.

You have presented a false paradigm. The Bible does not teach either the Arminian or the Calvinist view points. They are both false and any debate engaged within such a context is merely in the confines of oppositions of science falsely so called and ought to be completely avoided.

One of the most effective means of deceiving people is via the use of a false dialectic consisting entirely within the framework of error. Error versus error always results in error.

Satan is not stupid. Foolish yes, not stupid.

 

[Skinski7]

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 111.

Not only does that reference say not a single word about Penal Substitition, it even defends the cessation of sin in salvation.

Justin: And that it was declared by symbol, even in the time of Moses, that there would be two advents of this Christ, as I have mentioned previously, [is manifest] from the symbol of the goats presented for sacrifice during the fast. And again, by what Moses and Joshua did, the same thing was symbolically announced and told beforehand. For the one of them, stretching out his hands, remained till evening on the hill, his hands being supported; and this reveals a type of no other thing than of the cross: and the other, whose name was altered to Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, and Israel conquered. Now this took place in the case of both those holy men and prophets of God, that you may perceive how one of them could not bear up both the mysteries: I mean, the type of the cross and the type of the name. For this is, was, and shall be the strength of Him alone, whose name every power dreads, being very much tormented because they shall be destroyed by Him. Therefore our suffering and crucified Christ was not cursed by the law, but made it manifest that He alone would save those who do not depart from His faith. And the blood of the passover, sprinkled on each man's door-posts and lintel, delivered those who were saved in Egypt, when the first-born of the Egyptians were destroyed. For the passover was Christ, who was afterwards sacrificed, as also Isaiah said, 'He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.' Isaiah 53:7 And it is written, that on the day of the passover you seized Him, and that also during the passover you crucified Him. And as the blood of the passover saved those who were in Egypt, so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed. Would God, then, have been deceived if this sign had not been above the doors? I do not say that; but I affirm that He announced beforehand the future salvation for the human race through the blood of Christ. For the sign of the scarlet thread, which the spies, sent to Jericho by Joshua, son of Nave (Nun), gave to Rahab the harlot, telling her to bind it to the window through which she let them down to escape from their enemies, also manifested the symbol of the blood of Christ, by which those who were at one time harlots and unrighteous persons out of all nations are saved, receiving remission of sins, and continuing no longer in sin.

CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109-124 (Justin Martyr)

 

[JimmieD]

Not only does that reference say not a single word about Penal Substitition, it even defends the cessation of sin in salvation.



CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 109-124 (Justin Martyr)

I mean, he doesn't use the phrase "Penal Substitution" but it's pretty clear Justin's saying that Christ was a sacrifice in place of the sinner, just as the Passover lamb was a sacrifice for the 1st born among the Israelites in Egypt. If the Israelites hadn't put the blood on their door, the angel of death would have taken their firstborn. The analogy is clear - if the sinner is not covered by the blood of Christ, the sinner receives the punishment. He uses Isaiah 53 and the Passover lamb to make his point.

 

[ThomistColin]

You have presented a false paradigm. The Bible does not teach either the Arminian or the Calvinist view points. They are both false and any debate engaged within such a context is merely in the confines of oppositions of science falsely so called and ought to be completely avoided.

One of the most effective means of deceiving people is via the use of a false dialectic consisting entirely within the framework of error. Error versus error always results in error.

Satan is not stupid. Foolish yes, not stupid.

Never said Arminianism is truth, nor did I say Calvinism is truth. Both are heresies. But they are not damnable. For neither denies Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Neither deny the Trinity. Neither deny God as God.

To say either are damnable is then to say that any theological error is damnable, which would mean...We are all going to Hell.

 

[MarcR]

Absolutely it is heresy. Damnable heresy.


The Limited Atonement view is a result of the doctrine of Penal Substitution which teaches that Jesus "paid the sin debt" of those whom are saved. Thus logically Jesus could not have paid the sin debt of those whom are not saved.

Here is what Reformed theologian John MacArthur states...


A Ministry of Integrity, Part 3


The Penal Substitution is a teaching which was invented only 400 years ago when Reformers took the Satisfaction view of Anselm (11th Century) and added a literal "penal aspect" to it. The doctrine is foreign to the Bible and was foreign to Christianity for 1600 years.

Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Penal substitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have extensively refuted the doctrine in the following thread on the Atonement...

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/108833-atonement.html

The main problems with the theory can be summarised with the following...

It seems to me that either view is tenable if not linked to limited atonement.

Jesus died to pay the penalty for SIN.

The only thing that will send any person to Hell is rejection of Jesus' provision for your sin, &/or His claims on your life.

 

[MarcR]

Jesus claims of ownership on your life:

1) the right of Creator Jn 1:1

2) The right of redemption We are purchased with His blood.

 

[The_highwayman]

Jesus said he died for everyone not for "the elect"

What say Ye?

So are you still a Catholic this week, or back to being a baptist?, or did you go to the Assembly of God or Word of Faith?

 

[Elin]

Here's the thing, let us not say that it is Satanic Heresy or Unbiblical, because
A) It is Biblical, meaning it has evidence from the Bible
B) Satanic Heresy is a misnomer and a misuse of the word Heresy, meaning to hold a view outside of orthodoxy, and an overemphasis on Satanic, that which pertains to Satan or his nature.

Now, I do believe it is heresy in the strictest sense of a view outside of orthodoxy. However, it is not Apostasy, to hold a view or position that nullifies the possibility of being a Christian (such as denying the divinity of Jesus). Calvinists are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Here's an interesting point:
According to the Arminians, the Calvinists are saved, they just don't know how they are saved.
According to the Calvinists, the Arminians are saved, they just don't know how they are saved.

Neither side, from their basic understandings, automatically deny the other's salvation, just the other's intelligence (I'm joking slightly there).

So, at the end of the day, I do believe it is a heresy, just not Satanic nor does it remove them from the family.

Well, these are the things you have to deal with in this regard:

1) Jn 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Ro 8:28-39; Eph 1:3-14; 1Pe 1:20 where
God speaks of having chosen a great number and having sent Christ to save them.

2) Jn 10:15-18, 27-29; Ro 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1Jn 4:9-10; Rev 1:4-6, 5:9-10
where Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups, with the clear implication that
his death has secured their salvation.

3) Jn 17:9, 20 where before his sacrifice, Christ prayed only for those the Father had given
him, specifically not for the "world" (the rest of mankind), assuming he wouldn't choose
to not pray for any whom he intended to die for.

And all in perfect agreement with the promise that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy
(Jn 6:35, 47-51, 54-57; Ro 1:16, 10:8-13).

 

[Elin]

Problems with Penal Substitution

1. Penalty Paid = Penalty Not Forgiven

2. Penalty Paid = Limited Penalties Paid (Jesus only died for a select few) or All Penalties Paid (Universal Salvation)

3. Penal Substitution is only 400 years old.

4. Early Church did not teach anything remotely close to Penal Substitution

5. Bible does not teach anything remotely close to Penal Substitution, the doctrine is read into select passages via the use of rhetoric and conjecture.

6. Penal Substitution destroys the Gospel because reconciliation with God is premised on a mere "legal exchange" as opposed to the "true state of the heart." In other words Penal Substitution teaches that it is God that has to change in the reconciliation process not man. God merely PRETENDS the sinner is innocent and righteous due to the double imputation legal exchange taught in the Penal Model.

7. Penal Substitution necessitates the destruction of any notion of "heart purity" being a necessary aspect of genuine salvation due to its forensic application as it relates to the reconciliation process.

None of which addresses the following Scriptures, and is premised on a wrong understanding of "forgiveness," assuming forgiveness means the debt is not paid.

The whole OT sin sacrifice (propitiation) system was substitutionary atonement.

"He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. . .
the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:5-6)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree." (2Pe 2:24)

"And he is the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 2:2)

". . .he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins." (1Jn 4:10)

"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (propitiation) through faith in his blood (death)."
(Ro 3:25)

Wounding--bruising--death (capital punishment) is penal,
our iniquity laid on him, bore our sins is substitutionary,
and propitiation is atonement.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Jesus said he died for everyone not for "the elect"

What say Ye?

1 John 2:1,2 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Quote: notuptome: The atonement is efficacious only for those who believe and receive.

The atonement is available for all to believe and receive, but is effective only for those who believe and receive.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 Jesus gave his life a ransom for many [Matt. 20:28] - for all who believe and receive. Jesus shed his blood for many for the remission of sins. [Matt. 26:28]

 

[Skinski7]

I mean, he doesn't use the phrase "Penal Substitution" but it's pretty clear Justin's saying that Christ was a sacrifice in place of the sinner, just as the Passover lamb was a sacrifice for the 1st born among the Israelites in Egypt. If the Israelites hadn't put the blood on their door, the angel of death would have taken their firstborn. The analogy is clear - if the sinner is not covered by the blood of Christ, the sinner receives the punishment. He uses Isaiah 53 and the Passover lamb to make his point.

Jesus Christ was our sin offering and it is via the blood we approach God and are cleansed of our past sins. Just as the Death Angel passed over the Israelites in Egypt, the judgement of God likewise passes over those who appropriate the death of Christ in the correct manner.

The blood of Jesus is for this...

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

It is for that cause that Jesus is our mediator and it is for that cause that Jesus died to put into effect the New Covenant. We approach God via the blood with a true heart walking in the light in order to be cleansed.

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Having been cleansed there is to be no more willful sin lest we come again under judgement.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

There is only no condemnation over those whom are WALKING after the Spirit.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

That is what Justin Martyr believed, not Penal Substitution. That passage by Justin Martyr does not say a single word about Penal Substitution. The doctrine of Penal Substitution was unknown in ancient times because it had not been invented yet. That invention was over a 1000 years into the future.

People only believe it today because they want to. There is no evidence to substantiate the doctrine at all. None. Zip. Zero.