We have seen that to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Scripture teaches particular redemption, an advocate would need to show an explicit negation: a denial that Christ provided atonement for the non-elect. Instead of such a negation, we find references to universal provision of atonement. We find application of Christ’s atonement limited to the elect,… Continue Reading
Proponents of definite atonement wish to avoid a “hypothetical” atonement by asserting that the elect’s sins were actually atoned for, when Christ died in A. D. 33. This has the unintended logical consequence of eternal justification: the hyper-Calvinist notion that the elect were justified before their birth. To avoid this logical consequence, proponents of particular… Continue Reading
Limited Atonement, also known as definite atonement and particular redemption, is regarded by some as a kind of Shibboleth of Reformed or Calvinistic Orthodoxy. Disavow particular redemption, and you are a closet Arminian, an Arminian in Calvinist clothing, or even an inconsistent Universalist. If your TULIP lacks the middle petal, it’s a disfigured flower, they… Continue Reading