Limited Atonement Defended (Against Albrecht)

This is a response to Mr. Albrecht’s video “Limited Atonement, further examined” (link).

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.


4 Responses to “Limited Atonement Defended (Against Albrecht)”

  1. natamllc Says:

    Well now, I haven't listened to your response "yet".I will after posting these remarks.First to be noted is the "self" person, Mr. Albrecht, that is speaking here. TF, as much of you that I do know, only hereon and by a few emails directly back and forth from you and me, what I have read now over this period of time, I can say that there is very little of "self" with you; and with regard to this ongoing series of debatable articles by and between you and Mr. Albrecht, there is a lot of self with him. This response underscores that fact clearly to me.As for citations and seeking "first" the author's approval, it seems very hard for me to believe Mr. Albrecht actually understood what he said? How can you go to the dead to get their tacit approval first? Hmmmmm?Second, the use of the living dead's wisdom, knowledge and understanding, their extant writings are very valuable to the debate. Granted, when you are going to cite someone who is living and you first seek approval, well and good. That simply is not an argument in this sort of debate to "find" fault with your process with such tools of the day, this blog forum and the internet. It also applies to Mr. Albrect. I will say the live broadcast and podcast debates that you have done as well as the Q and A I have listened to on the Dividing Line add to and enhance my affection for what you posit and publish. I cant' say that about Mr. Albrecht.The difference is clear. It is found here and hopefully it won't be lost in meaning now after so many years have passed when it first was penned by Luke: Act 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'– Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, Act 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. Act 4:29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, Act 4:30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus." Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. Act 4:32 Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. I would just add this remark directly through this combox to Mr. Albrecht. "Mr. Albrecht, when once you too give a "living" testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, I will gladly accept it. You could be used by God as does those TF references do, with citations or not, it does not matter to me, as what is utmost is, when whoever by whatever means, His Present Grace is conjoined to the listener. Here is the work of the Church, [the edification of the Body] by that work given to one to be done and finished. TF clearly has been given a work to do to which he will be held to account for doing or not doing it during his stay upon the earth. I believe if you too would come under that judgment, your life would be so much more affective as a True Work of Christ in all your debates, whoever you are debating!"

  2. natamllc Says:

    Well, just finished listening to the response to the response to the debate.Hmmmmm, a bit sharper tone. I hope a weariness has not set in with you and this debate, TF?Well, in any event, if so, that weakness only allows for His Strength to supply you even more a fuller time of refreshing in the Presence of the Lord!As for the content, well, it goes without saying, but I will, again; there is enough substance in it one wonders why Mr. Albrecht even goes further with you in debating?I believe, as his response indicates, "by the many emails" he has received, that they are the fuel for him to continue.That can be and most likely is "the" trap that has sprung on him and his pride will not be able to leave off the bondage to it.The bondage to his own will, hmmmmm, do we know about that, now don't we? :)

  3. Lucian Says:

    Well, Turretin, as I said: either we (or, at least I), misunderstood what Your ancestors in the faith were trying to say all along, or You're the one not knowing (or not rightly presenting) their doctrine. If "limited atonement" means that not all will (unfortunately) be saved (because they did not accept Christ or His sacrifice), then that's what every other Christian believes (and that's what all Your patristic examples or sample-texts seem to imply also). But then, that's not what all the fuss here is about, so…

  4. Turretinfan Says:

    Well – the fathers were not unanimous on the issue of the atonement, Lucian. Some held to a Limited Atonement view. By the late medieval period, some held to a doubly-limited view (not even did Christ die for all the sins of the elect, in that view). It's quite a hodge-podge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: