PaulThomson said:
The
law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true
in the same sense at the same time,
A paradox is a
seeming contradiction that is not
a true contradiction.
To
prove that X and Y are
a paradox, a seeming contradiction, but not
a true contradiction, one needs to explain how statements X and Y are not truly assertions about
the same thing at the same time in the same way, but there is actually some obfuscated difference between the two statements in regard to their subject, object, time or manner. The existence of a paradox relies on some kind of
equivocation in the two statements that makes it
seem like they are equivalent when they are not actually equivalent statements, i.e. not truly
describing the same thing in the same way at the same time.
You are dishonestly framing the issue here. You say, "But it's also important to understand the UNSPOKEN, implicit truth in this particular theology: This same group also believes that the atonement is limited qualitatively since Christ's death alone did not efficaciously procure anyone's salvation, as it only made one's salvation a possibility." No one who rejects limited atonement says or believes that the atonement is limited qualitatively. That is a position that you are dishonestly attributing to your opponents to present a fallacious tu quoque argument. You are trying to frame things as, "Yes, those claiming limited atonement agree they are asserting faith in a paradox, but those who reject limited atonement are doing the same thing." However, no proponent of unlimited atonement sees a paradox in their view. Our view is logically very straight-forward. Atonement is not salvation, but is one of the initial steps in the process of salvation, and unless other steps are taken, there will not be a complete salvation for the person who has been atoned for.
If a One World Order decreed that all humans on the planet are entitled to drive a vehicle and issued a vehicle to every person on the planet, they would need to issue ignition keys to every person. The gift of a vehicle and keys is both quantitatively and qualitatively universal. But in order for a person to actually be a driver they will need to seat themselves in their gifted vehicle, close the door, insert the gifted key, turn the ignition, engage the gears, and pump the accelerator, as they release the brake. Anyone who fails to do those steps that follow being gifted the vehicle and keys, will not be a driver. The fact that someone does not become a driver does not mean that the gift of vehicle and keys was
qualitatively limited. They we given a perfect car and a perfect key. There is no need to invent and claim a paradox to explain why any particular person was given a vehicle and a key but did not become a driver. It is obvious why they did not become a driver; because it is obvious that receiving a vehicle and key is only one step in a process of becoming a driver.
Those who reject limited atonement and believe in universal atonement see Jesus atoning as a step in a process toward salvation; a step that needs to be followed up with subsequent steps that the recipient is responsible to perform by grace through faith.
So we can easily see that it is only those promoting limited atonement who need to invent the extra-biblical categories "quantitatively limited atonement" and "qualitatively universal atonement" and claim to see a paradox, to excuse their misreading of scripture. Those who believe in universal atonement do not need to invent two categories that paradoxically conflict. with one another. We do not hold to the "UNSPOKEN implicit truth" you falsely attribute to us.