Saw the following statement on Christ’s atonement made by Charles Haddon Spurgeon over at Puritanism Today. They say, and I agree, that it is regretful that those who are Calvinist speak of “limited atonement" since that isn’t the actual issue. The real issues is whether the atonement is effacacious or inefficacious, not whether it is limited or unlimited.
Spurgeon said this regarding the atonement:
“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question – Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They say ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say ’No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if’ – and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limit’s the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it”
So whose position really limits atonement?
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Recap: A Three-Way Republican Primary in Iowa Senate District 1 - May 24, 2018
- Update: Nate Boulton Suspends Gubernatorial Campaign - May 24, 2018
- Jim Mowrer’s Illegal Endorsement of Himself - May 23, 2018