We specialize in hard to find items
All Categories
*Price and Stocks may change without prior notice
*Packaging of actual item may differ from photo shown
- Electrical items MAY be 110 volts.
- 7 Day Return Policy
- All products are genuine and original
- Cash On Delivery/Cash Upon Pickup Available
About Limited Atonement: Refuted
The debate concerning Christ’s atonement apexes over the issues of extent and application. Limitarians typically limit the extent of the atonement in order to secure a full application. This would mean that the blood of Christ actually does something real all by itself and is not hypothetical in any way. In this view, Christ does not make salvation possible; rather, he saves without conditions. So they conclude, Christ could not have atoned for those who end up in the lake of fire. Counter to this view, Unlimitarians typically limit the application of Christ’s propitiation to some degree in order to secure a full extent that is inclusive of every person that has ever existed. In this view, the atonement can only cover over someone’s sins after certain conditions are met by that sinner, meaning the atonement does not change anything on its own. Both of these positions present problems. It is easy to understand why the Limitarians restrict the extent of the atonement after meditating on certain truths. The atonement is spoken of not only as appeasement but also as redemption. If person tells you a man redeemed a thing, they are telling you that this man purchased and now owns that thing. Now ask yourself how often does a man buy something and in the midst of that purchase debate with that thing about whether or not it wants to belong to him. The thing being purchased has no right or ability to stop the redeemer’s purchasing power. The same can be said for the redemption that Christ secured over mankind. When Christ redeemed people, did he stop to ask them if they would like to be redeemed? No, he completely bought them with his blood while they were his enemies. So, It would seem that a purely hypothetical atonement is problematic. When considering this view, I can’t help but ask myself what did Christ even accomplish on the cross. Did Christ actually appease the Father? When he says “it is finished” at the end of the crucifixion what did he finish? If the atonement is purely hypothetical, it is hard to say. On the other hand, The Limitarian view presents unique challenges of its own. When the atonement is limited from all humans to only those that will be glorified with everlasting life, a massive amount of passages in the Bible become contradictory. It is exceedingly unpersuasive to hear Limitarians tell us that Jesus did not die for everyone, then turn compelling proof texts for unlimited atonement into overtly complex statements that truly appear to be void of the author’s original intent. The Judicial Transfer Theory, a new theory that finds a stronger middle ground, argues that the extent and the application of Christ’s atonement are both universal, while maintaining that the non-elect suffer eternal damnation even after the atonement has been extended and applied to them. The judicial transfer theory uniquely clarifies how the Bible can speak in ways that show complete application as the Limitarians maintain while the extent of his sacrifice reaches across the entire human race. Ultimately, the Judicial Transfer Theory is a variation of unlimited atonement that affirms aspects of limited atonement while denying its most obvious blunders.
