Limited vs unlimited atonement

[Protoman2050]

I'm trying to resolve the "limited vs unlimited atonement" debate w/i Christianity:

Is there any logical difference b/w saying "Christ died for all" or "Christ died for only those who accepted Him"?

Thanks!

[Khethil]

... it sure sounds like it. One is "all", one divides the all into those meeting a specific criteria; those that have accepted.

Perhaps a contextual reference might give a more meaningful response.

[urangutan]

The death of Jesus was for the purpose of redefining laws that were unjust, so as to mark an ever increase in a humane judgement. Christ is no other life except sin, if you are to believe He died for the sins you have committed. Two thousand years on, we Christian nations are no closer to any true form of humanity and those that preach the gospel won't accept their part in the process of our evolution. I don't think we are ready to stand in ovation, for the achievements of today that grew from our conquests of yesterday.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Khethil

... it sure sounds like it. One is "all", one divides the all into those meeting a specific criteria; those that have accepted.

Perhaps a contextual reference might give a more meaningful response.

As in, would there be any difference between me offering a free cookie to everyone, or me offering a free cookie only to those who accept my offer? Let's clear it up: when I say Christ's death, I meant Christ's offer of salvation.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

As in, would there be any difference between me offering a free cookie to everyone, or me offering a free cookie only to those who accept my offer? Let's clear it up: when I say Christ's death, I meant Christ's offer of salvation.

I'm no expert, to be sure. But I'd say Yes, there's a big difference.

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Khethil

I'm no expert, to be sure. But I'd say Yes, there's a big difference.

Is there a difference in the effect?

[Khethil]

Ok, I'll follow down this rabbit hole; I love a good adventure!

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

Is there a difference in the effect?

If I understand Christian Teachings sufficiently, I'd say yes: In one case all people would be the recipients of that which came from the sacrifice. In the second case, only those who accepted Him would reap the rewards of that sacrifice.

But this all seems to be self evident. Don't get me wrong, I love a good ride, but where exactly are we going?

[Protoman2050]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Ok, I'll follow down this rabbit hole; I love a good adventure!



If I understand Christian Teachings sufficiently, I'd say yes: In one case all people would be the recipients of that which came from the sacrifice. In the second case, only those who accepted Him would reap the rewards of that sacrifice.

But this all seems to be self evident. Don't get me wrong, I love a good ride, but where exactly are we going?

No, because the key point of salvation is that you must ACCEPT it to get it's effect. Me putting a free cookie on the table requires someone to take the cookie, right?

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

No, because the key point of salvation is that you must ACCEPT it to get it's effect. Me putting a free cookie on the table requires someone to take the cookie, right?

I think we just took a flying leap off the deep end of the pool.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Protoman2050

No, because the key point of salvation is that you must ACCEPT it to get it's effect. Me putting a free cookie on the table requires someone to take the cookie, right?

No the cookie is free only when has no ownership restrictions. As soon as someone takes the cookie it is no longer free. Sure someone received a free cookie is no longer free unless offered with no restriction.

Off the deep end it goes...that is if it hadn't already.