__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Daddy
Member of TRBC. My Blog
The Puritan Pub (Team Blog)
Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

No, someone who claims to be a 4-pointer is either really a 5-pointer who misunderstands the fifth point (definite atonement), or one who is no calvinist at all. There are theologians who could would probably fit into a 4.5 point calvinist cathegory like James Ussher and Charles Hodge, becauce while they maintain that the atonement was definite for the elects, they say that it also contains some universal benefits and proffers to both the elects and reprobates, and so in this sense Christ died "especially" for the elects, but not for them only. Like John Owen, I personally hold to a strictly limited atonement, without any bits of grace for the reprobates. I also deny that Christ died to purchase common grace for all men, unlike some Reformed theologian hold, since common grace is more properly called "providential goodness" and does not need atonement to be bestowed.

To be labelled as "reformed," one must hold to all the following:

-A reformed confession (may also include LBC 1689).
-The Regulative Principle (with some calvinistic hymns permitted with moderation).
-Sabbath-keeping.
-Covenant theology (those who hold to NCT or Dispensationalism are not truly reformed).
-Reformed soteriology (the 5-points etc).
-strict or moderate cessationism (those who believe that supernatural gifts of prophecy and tongue-speaking are still commonly around (like C. J. Mahaney) are not truly reformed.

According to this list, it is possible for a baptist to be "reformed," like Spurgeon and John Gill, but the large majority of calvinistic baptists would not necessarily qualify.

__________________
Jean-David Jutras
URCNA
Alberta

Although a 4 point calvinist could (and did) call themselves a puritan.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

In my experience it's because there are a raft of verses which suggest that Christ died for more than the elect; he died for the "world", "all" etc. (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 4:10 ...).

Moreover, in my experience, "limited atonement" is regularly misconstrued by all sides of the debate. The popular books on the 5 points of Calvinism often misrepresent Dort concerning particular redemption. For a look at the primary sources in the reformed tradition go here.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Can you be a little more direct? What in your view is the essence of the misrepresentation of Dort with respect to particular redemption?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


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

The Heidleberg Catechism is considered to be 'Reformed' yet it leans very heavily toward the UL position. See this thread: The Heidelberg Catechism and unlimited atonement

__________________

Sure. Most of the early reformed tradition, and indeed Dort, did see a universal end as well as a particular end in the atonement. This is, at least, what somone like Richard Muller would seem to affirm (so here). Moreover, the school of Saumur (in Muller's eyes) fits in with Dort (so here).

This universal end (alongside of the particular end) in the atonement was affirmed to make sense of the classic universal texts (esp. 1 John 2:2).

The issue of "limited atonement" is a little more subtle than just the standard statement "Christ died for the elect".

God bless Todd.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

"The language of Amyraldus, the Marrow Men, Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, and Brown is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth. All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by now that the original position of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has . . . been distracted as to the ‘double will’ of God, or the ‘double reference’ of the Atonement. If men will be consistent in their adherence to these ‘Novelties,’ they must become Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the ‘Novelties’.” (A. A. Hodge, The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, pp. 374-375)

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

In the "Cause of God and Truth" John Gill points out that the attacks that Arminians have launched against the doctrine of limited atonement have basically been centered around the same argument that the Roman Catholics have against justification by faith alone. That is, because the Bible certainly does not add the word "only" or "alone" for both doctrine, then it is wrong for us to add it. From studying the question personally, I came to the conclusion that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was actually harder to prove from Scripture than that of Christ dying for the elects alone. Compare the following passages, and tell me which ones appear more paradoxial:

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Rom. 3:28).

1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1).

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(James 2:24).

15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. (John 10:15)

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (Eph. 5:25)

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

Because the words "world" and "all men" in the Bible are quite ambiguous, and definitely more so than the word "works", the doctrine of limited atonement is actually easier to prove (at least in my perception) from Scripture than that of justification by faith alone. And yet, Arminians and those Bible thumbers who have thrown these "universal" passages in opposition to Christ dying for the elect only have completely disregarded the same problem that they could have had by applying their same arguments to justification.

__________________
Jean-David Jutras
URCNA
Alberta

Dear Neogillist,

Linguistically speaking words are not "ambiguous" per se. Almost every word we use has more than one meaning, but that doesn't make them ambiguous. How do we know which meaning a word takes when it is used? The answer (scientifically) is context. Hence, when we see words like "works", "justification", "all", "world" used, it is the context that determines their meaning. This is just standard linguistics.

I struggle to agree with this. All one has to do is look at the Christian tradition to see the disagreement over limited atonement and justification. It is the former that has cause way more of a stir.

Your problem with James 2:24 is easily solved when contextually we see that James uses the word "justification" in a very different sense to Paul. In context James is talking about how one shows they are Christian (justification = "to prove righteous"), whereas in context Paul is talking about how one becomes a Christian (justification = "to declare righteous"). Tyndale, Calvin, et. al. showed that a long time ago. It's never been a problem.

Arminians may use those passages "in opposition" to the particular passages, but the vast majority of the early reformed tradition formulated a harmony between them. That's precisely the point.

God bless you.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Dear Brother Gomarus,

... Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Oecomlampadius, Pierre Viret, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Heinrich Bullinger, Wolfgang Musculus, Ursinus, Paraeus, Kimedoncius, Zanchius, William Twisse, Robert Rollock, Coverdale, Bucanus, Keckermann, Scudder, Manton, Flavel, ... (see here)

This precisely is the point that is being questioned by people like Richard Muller. The reformed tradition may well have been misread when it comes to a universal element in the atonement. A. A. Hodge is a part of that tradition that may well have misconstrued the tradition. Moreover, his father Charles Hodge held a different position to him (see his Systematic Theology).

Every blessing dear brother.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Marty,

I'm uncomfortable with your ambiguity here and I want to be very explicit so you might determine whether or not you are within the boundaries of discussion that we permit on this board.

This is what the Confessions define by Limited Atonement that we affirm here unequivocally. You will have to decide whether you can bound your opinions to this view or not:

and further:

I frankly don't know how one can read the Book of Hebrews about the once-for-all, perfectly sufficient sacrifice and intercessory work of Christ for His own and come to the conclusion that its benefits are applied in any but a limited fashion. To conclude otherwise is to conclude that something more must be added to the Sacrifice to propitiate the wrath of God.

The analogy of faith demands that we do more than read a sentence in 1 Tim 4 that doesn't elaborate on the precise nature of the Atonement itself and use that to overthrow what we know about the nature of the Atonement from lengthy didactic passages elsewhere. I also reject your assertion that there are a "rash of verses" that speak about Christ dying for all men and John 3:16 is hardly a prooftext for this when the only spoken of as having obtained any benefit from the One sent are the believing ones. Would you care to document the "rash of verses" that speak of a universal atonement or are 1 Tim 4 and John 3:16 the two you had in mind?

Now, if you are arguing toward some sort of view that sees a more universal aspect in the offer of salvation itself to men at large then that is one thing but to argue that Christ's Sacrifice was efficient to atone for the sins of all mankind and that something must be mixed with/added to the Atonement is not permitted here.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

I'm not sure it's so simple, Marty. What does "atonement" mean if it doesn't mean "redemption"?

In what sense (consistent with Dort, Westminster, etc.) can anybody claim that Jesus ATONED for the sin of any but the elect? There is no such sense, of course, since the Biblical picture of atonement is a one-for-one exchange which redeems. I can't see any consistency between Dort/Westminster and any "intent" on God's part in providing atonement/redemption for any but the elect. Those confessions (and indeed the confessional standards that are upheld in this board) are crystal clear with respect to God's intent in providing Christ as the propitiation for sin. Those who claim an intent or will of God to give Christ as exchange for non-elect (which will/intent is thwarted by the conditional response of the individual) are simply at odds with our confessional standards (and with Scripture).

Can you clarify your position?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


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

I whole heartedly agree.

Well put!

I just realized we are in "The Wading Pool" so I want to state for the record that I believe the Bible teaches LA.

But, the OP asked if someone could hold to UA and still be called 'Reformed'. It would be difficult, IMO, to deny UAers the title of 'Reformed' because one of the Reformed confessions (which is an accepted confession on PB) sure sounds a lot like UA.

I think the WCF was an improvement over the HC in this area.

__________________

Except, Ken, that just like in Scripture, the HC cannot be taken piecewise without reference to context and the other teachings that are explicitly in it that deny UA. (just as you were answered clearly when you asked if the HC taught unlimited a