Objections To The Doctrine
Unlimited atonement is contrasted with the Calvinist doctrine of Limited atonement. In many ways, at their core, the Arminian concept of Unlimited atonement and the Calvinist concept of Limited atonement are very similar, differing primarily in the presuppositions that come from their respective views on election & predestination.
Points of Agreement Between Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement
- The call of salvation can be genuinely made universally—to all
- Jesus paid the penalty only for those who have faith in Him
- Jesus' death was a substitutionary atonement only for those who accept Him
(see also Conditional election, Unconditional election, and Prevenient Grace)
Read more about this topic: Unlimited Atonement
Famous quotes containing the words the doctrine, objections and/or doctrine:
“When the doctrine of allegiance to party can utterly up-end a man’s moral constitution and make a temporary fool of him besides, what excuse are you going to offer for preaching it, teaching it, extending it, perpetuating it? Shall you say, the best good of the country demands allegiance to party? Shall you also say it demands that a man kick his truth and his conscience into the gutter, and become a mouthing lunatic, besides?”
—Mark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835–1910)
“Miss Western: Tell me, child, what objections can you have to the young gentleman?
Sophie: A very solid objection, in my opinion. I hate him.
Miss Western: Well, I have known many couples who have entirely disliked each other, lead very comfortable, genteel lives.”
—John Osborne (1929–1994)
“A doctrine serves no purpose in itself, but it is indispensable to have one if only to avoid being deceived by false doctrines.”
—Simone Weil (1909–1943)