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 objections and/or doctrine:
“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)
“You ask if there is no doctrine of sorrow in my philosophy. Of acute sorrow I suppose that I know comparatively little. My saddest and most genuine sorrows are apt to be but transient regrets. The place of sorrow is supplied, perchance, by a certain hard and proportionately barren indifference. I am of kin to the sod, and partake of its dull patience,—in winter expecting the sun of spring.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)