Deleted due to error.

__________________
David
PCA
Richardson, Texas

Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God's grace.
--C.H. Spurgeon

Wow! I will have to read this when I"m not so sleepy! Looks interesting!

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Do you agree with WLC Q #44?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

David -

You have left out significant information in your attempt to understand the atonement. Christ, as the good shepherd laid down his life for his sheep ONLY. He did not lay down his life for the world. Hence you need to understand the passages where "all" is used in connection with God's will to save, and with Christ's death offered up, in a way that does not mean "each and every human". The word "all" is clearly not a universal word in several places in Scripture - the Greek "panta" very often (in fact usually, some argue) does not mean "each and every". 1 Timothy 6:13 argues that God quickens ALL things. Not a universal. 2 Timothy 1:15 says "all in Asia turned away". Each and every person? What about those Paul didn't come into contact with? 2 Timothy 2:7 says "Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things". Pinochle? Nuclear physics? No - all here, and in many, many instances, cannot - simply cannot - mean "each and every". One more pertinent example - if 1 John 2:2's "all" statement means that Jesus died for every person's sins, then Jesus paid the price for every persons's sins, and each and every human being ever conceived will be in Heaven. We know this cannot be true - so Christ cannot have died for each and every person who has ever been conceived. (unless we wish to denigrate Christ's death as ineffectual to save - which contradicts Scripture blatantly)

In short, if God intends that all men be saved by offering His Son's substitutionary atonement for them, and in fact all men are not saved, then God is incompetent to accomplish His will, and Christ imperfect to save them. Your understanding runs contrary to the confessional and Scriptural teaching of limited atonement. I'd suggest you check out "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by Owen, or "The Atonement" by Henry Martyn.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The value of Christ's blood and of Christ's righteousness are no more in question than is Christ's Person. But this is how the waters always get muddied. We are not truly seeking to assess the value of Christ, we are seeking to rightly assess the measure of His suffering.

J.L. Dagg, wrote in the early 19th century saying:

The advocates of the hypothesis urge, that the atonement is moral, and not commercial; and they object, that the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, degrades it into a mere commercial transaction. … The argument is not conclusive. It is not true, that the principle of distributive justice repels the notion of so much suffering for so much sin. Justice has its scales in government, as well as in commerce; and an essential part of its administration consists in the apportionment of penalties to crimes. It does not account the stealing of herbs from a neighbor’s garden, and the murder of a father, crimes of equal magnitude; and it does not weigh out to them equal penalties.
The justice of God has a heavier penalty for Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorrah. Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it. The objection that it is commercial, is not well founded.
Though justice in government, and justice in commerce, may be distinguished from each other, it does not follow, that whatever may be affirmed of the one, must necessarily be denied of the other. Distributive justice is not that which determines the equality of value, in commodities which are exchanged for each other: but it does not therefore exclude all regard to magnitudes and proportions.
In the language of Scripture, sins are debts, the blood of Christ is a price, and his people are bought. This language is doubtless figurative: but the figures would not be appropriate, if commercial justice, to which the terms debt, price, bought, appertain, did not bear an analogy to the distributive justice which required the sacrifice of Christ. …
The wisdom and justice of God have decided this single case, and have decided it right. Christ did endure just so much suffering, as would expiate the sins that were laid on him.
The "Sufficient for all, Efficient for the elect" model has been IMO a weakness in some Calvinistic writers for many years.

Some Calvinists, myself included, find more consistency in saying that it was only the sins of the elect that Christ bore. You shall call His name Jesus and He shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins

Several writers have articulated this view:

“To say that his death is sufficient for everyone, but not that everyone receives forgiveness, is to say that God accomplishes the greater but not the lesser. He sets in motion a cause__the most powerful and compelling spiritual and moral cause conceivable__that does not consummate in an effect.
As can be well seen, both streams of thought have a healthy and biblical concept of the relation of atonement to law. This understanding, that all legal obstacles to salvation have been removed, is right and cannot be surrendered. … To remove the necessary connection between atonement and satisfaction of the divine law denudes Christ’s death of all its moral sublimity and reduces it to an amazing piece of whimsical and romantic extravagance.” __Dr. Tom Nettles

"While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude, that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent, as a sponsor, when he died on the cross. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrtine of redemption by our adorable Jesus.__We may therefore, safely conclude that our Lord’s voluntary substitution, and redemption by his vicarious death, are both of them limited to those, for whom he was made SIN__for those whom he was made a CURSE__and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he actually paid the price of his OWN BLOOD. Consequently, that redemption is particular, and peculiar to the chosen of God."__Abraham Booth

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

Ditto to Todd. In our [Calvinists] zeal to defend the doctrines of grace, we needn't capitulate to the Arminians' or Amyraldians' distortion of certain prooftexts whilst also completely disregarding the whole thrust and scope of what the Scriptures collectively teach concerning the atonement and the anthropomorphic expressions of God's "desires."

Quote extracted from the OP:
It seems to me that the above quoted view essentially identifies the doctrine of effectual calling with atonement! It removes any efficacy from the atonement itself and makes Christ’s work on the cross merely tentative! If He has died for all sufficiently and the only particularity is in the personal application by the Spirit, then I cannot see how one distinguishes this from the universal atonement of the Arminians, who claim that Christ died for all men, with its benefits accruing only to those who believe. The difference between the two does not lie in the atonement, but in the Spirit’s effectual calling.

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

Deleted due to error.

I would suggest you pick up and read The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen(my avatar). It greatly helped in my understanding of our Saviors Satisfaction, and he argues directly from scripture

-----Added 8/31/2009 at 12:46:35 EST-----

As far as your claim that the bible says ALL PEOPLE, don't you think this could be referring to Every KIND of PEOPLE as opposed to every single person who ever lived?

Observe-

Revelation 5:9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

__________________
~ Charles Stephen Barribeau ~
Christ Presbyterian Church , OPC (They sing alot of Psalms!)
Original Westminster Standards (I need to study more...)
The Puritans were best! Also... I NEED TO READ MORE!!!
Philipians1:29(KJV) For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Janesville, Wisconsin (In the fellowship of Bob Vigneault and Matt+Megan Meisberger)

If I read you right, David, you are saying that whatever Christ accomplished on the cross, he accomplished for all alike. If so, this is not the Reformed understanding, it is not 5-point Calvinism, it is not consistent with the WCF or LBCF, and it is not the accepted view on the PB.



Peace and grace, brother.

David -

Let's backtrack here.

What did Christ's death accomplish for the non-elect, since you assert (contrary to the confessional standards you pledged to uphold) that He died for each and every person ever conceived?

Your statement concerning "all people" is outright wrong. "all" does not mean "each and every" as has already been demonstrated, though you have ignored that fact. Also, rather than simply repeat the argument you made previously, would you care to actually deal with the questions raised about what you said? Thank you.

If I understand your position correctly here are some questions to think about in the time it takes you to find Death of Death by John Owen on monergism.com for free

If Christ died in any way for every single person who ever lived then isn't God the father UNJUST because He does not give Christ every single person who He paid for? Those people were bought! Why doesn't Christ receive what He paid for?

If people go to heaven because of sin but Christ paid for the sin of all people who ever lived then will anybody ever go to hell?

If Christ died for ALL SIN including the SIN of UNBELIEF then isn't the SIN of unbelief made up for as well, and if so then why isn't every single person who ever lived considered a son of God?

Hmm...I'll leave the rest to John Owen as he does better than I ever could, but seriously, do yourself a favor and read The Death of Death,
God Bless you in your studies

David,
To interpret the highlighted text you must, as always, consider the context.

1 Timothy 2:1-6 1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

Clearly the all men is defined and limited in this passage to those whom hold in their power the temporal peace of the church.

I love it when Baptists and Presbyterians unite to defend truth

Ok. Spurgeon and I might be wrong here. I need to review.

I do indeed hold these confessions and the doctrine of limited atonement. My post was't about if the atonement is limited but why it is limited while the gospel call remains genuine.

Don't worry. I am a 5 point calvinist.

Is faith a necessary part of the atonement?

Faith is the necessary means by which the atonement is applied.

I think Spurgeon would say the atonement is limited by intent rather then application;

Taken from Morning By Morning, September 25

As Cited by J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” in John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ Banner of Truth, p14.)

Excerpt from A Defence of Calvinism (The spurgeon collection, Autobiography, Diary and letters Vol 1, p189)

A puritan catechism

__________________
Jonathan
Deacon (full time)
Independent Reformed Baptist (BCF 1689)
Tinshill Free Church, Leeds, UK.

The Scriptures teach the atonement is limited only in its extent, where as Arminians limit the atonement in its efficacy. In extent, the Reformed faith teaches that its intent, thrust, scope and purpose is for the elect alone. In limiting its efficacy, Arminians (and IMHO, Amyraldians) teach that the atonement merely makes men savable, but actually has no power in and of itself, unless a man believes. If that's not insulting, I don't know what is.

As for Spurgeon, yes, he was wrong about the passage in Timothy, as is anyone who thinks that all in those passages means all without exception. To do so is to ignore what the rest of the Scriptures teach concerning the "special" nature of the elect, etc. The specific purpose and necessity of the atonement, etc. The immediate context of the Timothy passage, as well as the hermeneutical principle of the Analogy of Scripture demands that these passages cannot mean each and every person without exception. If so, Christ has failed in His endeavor, and the Lord is frustrated in His "desires."

What the Lord wants, the Lord gets. What He has decreed is what He wants. And that's what He'll get.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

Romans 3:25 teaches that propitiation (1.) is the intention of God, and (2.) requires faith. As "atonement" is God's provision and is made to God's justice, it is folly to separate its accomplishment from its application. Those who separate the two do not take into account the fact that atonement is a provision of God's grace as well as a payment to His justice, Larger Catechism, 71.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Thanks for all of the input everyone. I came to that conclusion sometime after studying that Spurgeon sermon I linked above. I know Spurgeon isn't perfect but I have agreat deal of respect for his views, so they can impact my thinking.

I will look into the works recommended and simply take it at face that Christ died only for the elect.

Can someone explain how one can profane the blood of the covenant if that blood wasn't poured out for them, however:

Hebrews 10:26-31 ESV
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Its a question of "how do we explain apostasy?" John says they never really belonged to us, which evidence is that they went out form us, 1Jn.2:19.

A couple of points on the Heb.10 passage.
1) the "he" of the clause "blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" could refer to "the Son of God," as some exegetes have preferred, making the latter portion further descriptive of the nature of that blood, rather than describing further the profane person.

2) If it is the profane person, it certainly does no violence to the tenor of the passage to accept that apostasy is real. But if so, then how do we understand it? Well, in covenant theology we speak of the external and the internal administrations of this covenant.

Externally, we are incorporated into the body, the church, for whom Christ is said to have died. But it's obvious that many things are said to be done for the church ideally, which cannot be predicated of each and every visible member. For many of them are false sons.

Shall we say that Paul, Eph.1:18, teaches that everyone in the church has "the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints." They are all going to heaven? Surely, this is too great a confidence.

Or that all the Thessalonians are elect? 1Thes.1:4, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God." Can't be. So, simply to point out that some it may be said were participants in the blessings of the church, and have now abandoned them, cannot be construed as meaning to insist that the blood of the Son of God must be for him in a full, atoning way; particularly if there are other ways to read the text which remove conflicts with other passages that seem clearly to forbid the other understanding for consistency's sake.

So, would it be possible then to say, however, of an Ephesian who left the church, that he had spurned the inheritance that was his? Or that a Thessalonian had "unselected" himself? Why not, if we are simply reversing the general statements, and the judgment of charity Paul makes toward them?

So too, one of those Hebrews with one foot out the door--he is being urged not to despise or profane holy things, for which he had one protested the greatest attraction. He was incorporated outwardly into the church; was that all he had, the outward administration? The ancient people had that covenant identity, and yet many of them "trampled underfoot the blood of the old covenant by which they had been sanctified in a purely outward manner, Heb.9:19. They perished because of unbelief, not having the inward, Spirit-administration. They thought they could steal the one with lip-service and ignore him otherwise, and they outraged him thereby.

Taking part outwardly in holy things is serious business. If it wasn't, then the whole thing would be inward, and those with the inward reality could just abandon the outward forms. So to trifle with the display of the cross, and the testimony of God's greatest sacrifice and price paid for the purchase of a people (in which the apostate claimed a portion)--this is profanity of the greatest moment.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

In context 'profane' simply means to make common. The writer is talking about how one who has been taught all about the holiness of Christ's blood, and even at one time appeared to be washed in it, is treating that blood if they depart from their professed faith, they treat Christ's blood as if it is a common thing, no more special then any other blood.

Thanks everyone for correcting my hiatus.

I just learned that my error has a name. It is generally referred to as Fullerism. Whast I posted originally canbe called a form of fullerism anyway. Apparently it is easy for Calvinists to fall into and many big name Calvinists have advocated a form of it at one point or another.



Here is an article about it:

Calvinism+Arminianism=Fullerism - Old School Baptist A Primitive Baptist Website

David,

Is that Ella's artical? I think he does Fuller a great disservice, which is a shame because much of what he writes can be worth while. Fuller presented nothing but a return to balanced Calvinism. He saught to combat the extremes of John Gill's hyper calvinism. Something that influenced many within the british particular baptists at the time.

More is made of his statements regarding the infinite worth of the blood of Christ, then should be, and that leads some to conclude that he was perhaps borderline Amyraldian, or at least Baxterian (is that a word?) in his soteriology. His comments taken in context align with Spurgeon, Owen, and Dort and are totally Calvinistic in my opinion.

I'm not sure. I was told it was fulleristic on another forum and then the article was presented with Fullers views and the quote of John Macarthur advocating in 1978 the same thing I advocated in the OP.

So, you don't believe fullerism is a bad word that means universal propitiation?

I don't know how many people use the term fullerism. Some people use lables well, other do not. I certainly wouldn't equate Fuller with universal propitiation though. In his confrontation with hyper calvinsim Fuller argued that it was good and proper to extend the gospel offer to all who would hear. He said this based on is understanding of the value of the atonement, just as the Canons of Dort do;