Subject: Is Limited Atonement Bibical? |
Bible Note: Greetings John! Sorry about that! I thought I was on the right article. I haven't read the whole article yet, but I did read the section on particular redemption. I have two main problems with his statement: a) It is very short on Scripture. He mostly lays out his views and very seldom gives any Scripture (at least in this section). b) His whole argument is based not on Scripture, but on Calvinism. Consider the following quotes: 1) "I say this is exactly the answer for us Presbyterians to make, because we believe in God's universal predestination as certain and efficacious; so that the whole final outcome of his plan must be the exact interpretation of what his plan was at first. And this statement the Arminian also is bound to adopt, unless he means to charge God with ignorance, weakness, or fickleness" (Source - http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/5Points_Dabney.html) 2) "Hence, it is absolutely impossible for us to retain the dogma that Christ in design died equally for all. We are compelled to hold that he died for Peter and Paul in some sense in which he did not for Judas. No consistent mind can hold the Calvinistic creed as to man's total depravity towards God, his inability of will, God's decree, God's immutable attributes of sovereignty and omnipotence over free agents, omniscience and wisdom, and stops short of this conclusion. So much every intelligent opponent admits, and in disputing particular redemption, to this extent at least, he always attacks these connected truths as falling along with the other." (Source: http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/5Points_Dabney.html) Notice the logic of these two statements. We cannot believe in unlimited atonement, not because there is a verse which says that Christ did not die for all, but because our theology demands that we not believe in it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |