Limited Atonement Defended

This is a response to Mr. Albrecht's video "Limited Atonement, further examined" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8hMzF3AvdI&feature=channel_page ).

Mr. Albrecht has already conceded the main point of the discussion in his video by noting that Limited Atonement is not a heresy. That's for the best, since the position OneTrueChurch (Glenn) took that Calvinism's doctrine of Limited Atonement is heresy, is an untenable position.

There are a few other things to clear up, however:

1. Cut-n-Paste - There are Two Kinds

a) Bad - when you cut and paste arguments from Jimmy Akin to try to use them as your own arguments without understanding what Akin was trying to say.

b) Good - when you quote a church father verbatim.

2. The Church Fathers At Issue

a) Theodoret

Whether or not Christ "thirsts for the salvation of all men" is at best tangential to the issue of the extent of the atonement. And I was surprised that Albrecht would be so blatant about telling his listeners to ignore the context - but there you have it!

However, the statement that Christ was not offered to bear the sins of the non-elect is directly relevant, since that's the claim of limited atonement (though sadly, Albrecht does not understand this).

2. Augustine

Likewise, the statement that Christ did not redeem all humans is directly relevant to the issue of limited atonement, since that's the claim of limited atonement.

3. Chrysostom

Same as with Theodoret - the question of "bearing the sins of all" is the point that is relevant to Limited Atonement (not the question of why he did not bear the sins of the others).

4. Bede

Bede's interpretation of the important (to the discussion) text of 1 John 2:1-2 is supportive of the doctrine of the Limited Atonement, which Albrecht would understand if he understood Limited Atonement.

-TurretinFan

Category:

Education

Tags:

• GNRHead
• OneTrueChurch
• Limited Atonement
• Patristics
• Theodoret
• Chrysostom
• Augustine
• Bede