Limited Atonement - Page 2

A5pointer · #41 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 02:22 PM

Don, do you really believe "the atonement was a potential payment for all" is a viable option given the biblical evidence on the subject? Are saying that the biblical record is not clear on this question?

elnwood · #42 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Don, do you really believe "the atonement was a potential payment for all" is a viable option given the biblical evidence on the subject? Are saying that the biblical record is not clear on this question?

Yes, I think it is a viable option.

I probably need to clarify what I mean when I wrote "potential." I don't mean potential in that potentially the non-elect will be saved. By potential I mean that the nature of the atonement itself may be that it is conditioned upon faith of the recipient.

elnwood · #43 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.

Then the atonement was superfluous for the non-eleect.

We can also throw in Owen's double jeopardy argument. See it defended by reformed baptist Greg Welty here. The 4-pointer has to explain why a just God would punish doubly for sins.

Yet the 5-point Calvinist would say that the atonement is "sufficient for all, effective for the elect."

The 5-point Calvinist runs across the same inconsistencies.
1. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is the atonement not already superfluous?
2. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is not God's punishment of Jesus more than what was needed? Are not the sins of the non-elect punished doubly?

Should not God have made it sufficient for the elect only?

The "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments assume that punishment of Christ on the cross is an exacting amount of punishment for the elect -- any more, and God is not being just. Some Calvinists believe that, but most do not.

What Calvinists mean by "sufficient for all" is that the intrinsic value of the atonement to cover sin is infinite, and the atonement should not be thought of as an exact amount of punishment meted out on Christ, as if Christ would suffer more or less depending on the number of elect.

When this is understood, the "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments become moot.

A5pointer · #44 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

Don, do you really believe "the atonement was a potential payment for all" is a viable option given the biblical evidence on the subject? Are saying that the biblical record is not clear on this question?

Yes, I think it is a viable option.

I probably need to clarify what I mean when I wrote "potential." I don't mean potential in that potentially the non-elect will be saved. By potential I mean that the nature of the atonement itself may be that it is conditioned upon faith of the recipient.

I will not grant you that the scriptures are unclear on specific atonement but even if that were the case it still would be the only viable logical outworking of gracious election. You are at the least on very slippery ground with your position. Would you say that "it is possible that the Christ suffered the wrath of God for men who are then to recieve the wrath again in their own bodies" ?

elnwood · #45 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

I will not grant you that the scriptures are unclear on specific atonement but even if that were the case it still would be the only viable logical outworking of gracious election. You are at the least on very slippery ground with your position. Would you say that "it is possible that the Christ suffered the wrath of God for men who are then to recieve the wrath again in their own bodies" ?

See above post.

Would you say that Christ's death is "sufficient for all"?

A5pointer · #46 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

Quote:

Originally Posted by A5pointer

I will not grant you that the scriptures are unclear on specific atonement but even if that were the case it still would be the only viable logical outworking of gracious election. You are at the least on very slippery ground with your position. Would you say that "it is possible that the Christ suffered the wrath of God for men who are then to recieve the wrath again in their own bodies" ?

See above post.

Would you say that Christ's death is "sufficient for all"?

No I would not, as you say it can pose problems. I would say sufficient for it's specific intention, that being the elect only. It certainly could have been sufficient for all if that had been the Lord's intention.

Greg · #47 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

What Calvinists mean by "sufficient for all" is that the intrinsic value of the atonement to cover sin is infinite

I agree. The value or worth of the blood shed by the Holy One of God is of eternal worth.

Quote:

and the atonement should not be thought of as an exact amount of punishment meted out on Christ, as if Christ would suffer more or less depending on the number of elect.

Why not if it's the express plan and design of redemption to completely secure, for all time, the salvation of those given to the Son by the Father? Though the worth and value of Christ's blood is infinite, it's application is limited to the elect by nature of the design and application of God's redemptive plan.

If Christ didn't actually atone for the actual sins of all the elect, positively securing their salvation, then can it truly be called an actual atonement?

tartanarmy · #48 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 04:44 PM

The issue is Divine intention. That cuts through all of the double speak. What does the Triune God intend to happen in and through the Atoning death Of Jesus?

Everything else is just noise.
Sorry for being so direct, but this issue, or rather this doctrine has been hijacked these days, and instead of clarity, there is much mud being thrown about into the mix.

I am more and more of the opinion, that even a 4.99 Calvinist is a no point Calvinist!

Blessings
Mark

Andrew P.C. · #49 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

I want to pick up with what MJ said: "I can not go to the text and exegete the doctrine of LA." This is essentially why I don't really take a position on this issue. I've yet to find a passage that says that Jesus died on behalf of the elect and the elect only.

You can make logical arguments based on God's consistency or trying to get into God's mind and figure out his logical order of decrees, but I don't see a clear teaching from Scripture one way or another.

I'm happy to just to state things the way John Calvin did and say the atonement was given in some manner out of God's universal love, and the atonement is only effectual for the elect, and not take a hard or divisive position on whether the atonement was a potential payment for all or an actual payment for the elect.

Don,

I would like to ask you: whats the point of Christ dying for the non-elect? What does it accomplish? I understand that some people say common grace, yet, Christ taught that from creation God exhibited His "common" grace. Matt 5:45(I'm not saying that's what you believe.. I thought I would give an example of what I mean)

Andrew P.C. · #50 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.

armourbearer, you write that "You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving" and quote John 3:16 to support. And yet John Calvin, in his commentary on John, clearly connects the loving of John 3:16 to the elect and non-elect alike.

I'm not saying John Calvin was a 4-point Calvinist, but clearly he made a connection between the love of God universally with the sending of his Son.

Quote:

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Commentary on John - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Don,

I think you should re-read what Calvin is saying here:

Quote:

he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers

Quote:

Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life

Calvin is referring to the universal call of repentance and faith in Christ, also known as the general call.

Andrew P.C. · #51 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 05:38 PM

Calvin:

Quote:

Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

Notice that Calvin uses human race as a general term. And this is so, since we are of the human race. If God did not love the human race none of us would be saved.

Now, does this mean I believe in universal atonement? Absolutely not.

Jim Johnston · #52 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.

Then the atonement was superfluous for the non-eleect.

We can also throw in Owen's double jeopardy argument. See it defended by reformed baptist Greg Welty here. The 4-pointer has to explain why a just God would punish doubly for sins.

Yet the 5-point Calvinist would say that the atonement is "sufficient for all, effective for the elect."

The 5-point Calvinist runs across the same inconsistencies.
1. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is the atonement not already superfluous?
2. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is not God's punishment of Jesus more than what was needed? Are not the sins of the non-elect punished doubly?

Should not God have made it sufficient for the elect only?

The "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments assume that punishment of Christ on the cross is an exacting amount of punishment for the elect -- any more, and God is not being just. Some Calvinists believe that, but most do not.

What Calvinists mean by "sufficient for all" is that the intrinsic value of the atonement to cover sin is infinite, and the atonement should not be thought of as an exact amount of punishment meted out on Christ, as if Christ would suffer more or less depending on the number of elect.

When this is understood, the "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments become moot.

So I take it I answered the "genuine offer" "inconsistency." ;-)

On to the next...

The 5-point (or, true) Calvinist doesn't run accross the "same inconsistencies." (And, I fear you didn't quite grasp what I said was inconsistent on the 4-point schema. The inconsistency had to do with the argument *against* the 5-pointer regarding the "genuine offer." Please re-read the argument and then comment again.) Anyhow, the atonement being "sufficient for all" says *nothing* about an atonement *actually* being made for subjects. Now, if you don't think the atonemrnt was actually *made for* all persons, then you hold to the L. If not, the double jeopardy argument applies. Why do some who had the atonement made for them *end up* in hell? This argument doesn't apply to the 5-pointer because the atonement was made *for them* yet is was *sufficient* for them *in that* there would have been *no more* suffering required *if* they had, *contrary to fact,* been included among the elect.

So, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments work if you assume that the atonement was made *for them* (i.e., the non-elect). You've neither answered, nor grasped, the weight of the problem; or so it appears.

Israelite · #53 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tartanarmy

The issue is Divine intention. That cuts through all of the double speak. What does the Triune God intend to happen in and through the Atoning death Of Jesus?

Everything else is just noise.
Sorry for being so direct, but this issue, or rather this doctrine has been hijacked these days, and instead of clarity, there is much mud being thrown about into the mix.

I am more and more of the opinion, that even a 4.99 Calvinist is a no point Calvinist!

Israelite · #54 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 06:32 PM

4 point calvinism and arminianism are near enough the same false gospel in the fact they they both don't believe the difference between salvation and damnation is the work of Christ ALONE but their own faith.

The only difference is that the 4 point calvinists believes in the reformed version of salvation conditioned on the sinner.
i.e "God gave me the faith to meet the condition of salvation which is faith"

and the arminian just blatantly believes in salvation conditioned on the sinner.
i.e "Jesus died for everyone, he has done his part now we must do our part and choose to accept or reject what Christ has done for us."

elnwood · #55 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Don,

I would like to ask you: whats the point of Christ dying for the non-elect? What does it accomplish? I understand that some people say common grace, yet, Christ taught that from creation God exhibited His "common" grace. Matt 5:45(I'm not saying that's what you believe.. I thought I would give an example of what I mean)

It's very hard to give a good satisfactory answer to "what's the point" questions because I cannot read the mind of God. If in fact Christ died for the non-elect, certainly an exhibition of his love towards them (as you alluded to) could be an answer. John Calvin believed that the Father gave the Son out of a universal love. You could ask John Calvin, "What's the point" as well.

elnwood · #56 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Don,

I think you should re-read what Calvin is saying here:

Quote:

he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers

Quote:

Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life

Calvin is referring to the universal call of repentance and faith in Christ, also known as the general call.

It is certainly referring to the universal call, but it is also talking about God's love for the world. Note Calvin says "Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used" in John 3:16, "For God so loved the World."

elnwood · #57 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

The 5-point (or, true) Calvinist doesn't run accross the "same inconsistencies." (And, I fear you didn't quite grasp what I said was inconsistent on the 4-point schema. The inconsistency had to do with the argument *against* the 5-pointer regarding the "genuine offer." Please re-read the argument and then comment again.) Anyhow, the atonement being "sufficient for all" says *nothing* about an atonement *actually* being made for subjects. Now, if you don't think the atonemrnt was actually *made for* all persons, then you hold to the L. If not, the double jeopardy argument applies. Why do some who had the atonement made for them *end up* in hell? This argument doesn't apply to the 5-pointer because the atonement was made *for them* yet is was *sufficient* for them *in that* there would have been *no more* suffering required *if* they had, *contrary to fact,* been included among the elect.

So, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments work if you assume that the atonement was made *for them* (i.e., the non-elect). You've neither answered, nor grasped, the weight of the problem; or so it appears.

You're exactly right. The 4-point Calvinist doesn't assume the atonement was "made for them" because for them, the atonement is potential, not "actual." Thus, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments don't work because they assume an "actual" atonement.

armourbearer · #58 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

armourbearer, you write that "You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving" and quote John 3:16 to support. And yet John Calvin, in his commentary on John, clearly connects the loving of John 3:16 to the elect and non-elect alike.

I suggest you read the Doctor of Geneva again: "For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Eph. i. 5.)" Then for the connection of love and atonement: "For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us?"

Jim Johnston · #59 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

It's very hard to give a good satisfactory answer to "what's the point" questions because I cannot read the mind of God. If in fact Christ died for the non-elect, certainly an exhibition of his love towards them (as you alluded to) could be an answer. John Calvin believed that the Father gave the Son out of a universal love. You could ask John Calvin, "What's the point" as well.

I'd search the archives because Matthew Winzer has pretty much shredded the using of Calvin for 4-pointer arguments.

Anyway, (a) you're use of "love" is subject to ambiguity. Frequently divine "love" is intimately connected to divine "foreknowledge" whcih is intimately connected to "election." Look before you leap! (b) Jesus says that "I lay down my life for my sheep." Not "for my sheep and the wolves." (c) In fact, this atoneing "love" is "the *greatest*" kind of love one could express. How would this not lead to salvation. (d) The "ransom" is for "many." Though 'all' doesn't necessarily mean 'all,' 'many' never means 'all' (universally). (c) How does this tie into your reformed baptist views of Hebrews? The covenant? The role of Christ as high priest? Christ's *death* was the offering of a *priest* for *the people.* So are all men in the new covenant, in a sense? Systematics comes in helpful here. :-)

Jim Johnston · #60 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

You're exactly right. The 4-point Calvinist doesn't assume the atonement was "made for them" because for them, the atonement is potential, not "actual." Thus, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments don't work because they assume an "actual" atonement.

Then you can't see how you've refuted the 4-pointers.

They say "Christ died for everyone."

We do not.

If Christ did not die *for everyone* then atonement is *limited.* To say that you hold *exactly to the 5-point view* but then call yourself (or, those guys) 4-pointers, is misleading.

I don't even think you've understood *their* arguments, now.

The amyraldian says that Christ did die for all men, that this made all men "saveable," but that not all men would take hold of this atonement *made for them* by faith. I mean, why even bring up the "genuine offer" problem if you say that 4-pointers *don't say* that Christ dies for all men! I think you've made your arguments inconsistent now. Nicole summarizes

Quote:

In this book [by Amyraut] the following positions were espoused:

1.Sin is he result of the darkening of the understanding.

2.God moved by an earnest desire to save all mankind, decided to give in ransom His Son Jesus Christ, who died “equally for all men” and to make a universal offer of salvation to all men.

3.God has predestined all men and every man unto salvation, provided they believe; and in nature there is a sufficient presentation of truth so that men may exercise faith if they only will do so.

4.Although man is not precluded from believing by any external constraint, his corruption has rendered him morally unable to accept God’s offer. It is therefore necessary that God himself should produce faith in the hearts of those whom he has chosen to redeem.

5.This he does only for the elect.

E. Palmer, ed. The Encyclopedia of Christianity (NFCE 1964), 1:186.

Furthermore, the *main* motivation for 4-pointers seems to me to be upholding the sincere offer of the gospel. But I answered that above, showing how it can*easily* be maintained on the 5-pointer. If something loses it's main endorsement for the position, we should drop that something. Not only can the 5-pointer easily answer the problem, we saw that the same problem arises *even on Amyraldianism.* This undercuts the motivation for it.

And, as Paul Helm points out:

“Saving faith is not a person’s belief that he has been saved by Christ nor even that Christ has died for him in particular. It cannot be this because until he trusts in Christ in order to be saved he has no reason to think that Christ has died for him in particular or that Christ has saved him,” The Beginnings: Word & Spirit in Conversion (Banner of Truth 1986), 69.

elnwood · #61 (**permalink**) 09-11-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I'd search the archives because Matthew Winzer has pretty much shredded the using of Calvin for 4-pointer arguments.

Reference? I'm not saying that Calvin is a 4-pointer, only that his use of love in John 3:16 in reference to Jesus has the same "inconsistencies" that 5-pointers accuse 4-pointers of.

Quote:

Anyway, (a) you're use of "love" is subject to ambiguity. Frequently divine "love" is intimately connected to divine "foreknowledge" whcih is intimately connected to "election." Look before you leap! (b) Jesus says that "I lay down my life for my sheep." Not "for my sheep and the wolves." (c) In fact, this atoneing "love" is "the *greatest*" kind of love one could express. How would this not lead to salvation. (d) The "ransom" is for "many." Though 'all' doesn't necessarily mean 'all,' 'many' never means 'all' (universally). (c) How does