Angus Stewart: For whom did Christ die?

Status
Not open for further replies.

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
I liked a number of his points, particularly points 9-10 as well as the proof texts for particular redemption (14-18).

However, I do think that we need to be careful to maintain that although Christ did no die for the salvation of all of Adam's posterity (as if His purposes could be frustrated), we also need to maintain that "whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves." (Canons of Dort, Second head, Article 6) In this way, Christ's death has reference to all, though was not designed to save all. This has prompted some reformed men to speak about His death being for all, since it is sufficient for all.

At the end of the day, we need to uphold the doctrine of particular redemption without wavering, while being equally careful not to go beyond scripture.

Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. (Canons of Dort, Conclusion)
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
A well written and biblically argued case.

The one weakness is that which Hugh Martin observed many, many moons ago:

it must be laid down at the outset, as a proposition of transcendent importance, —

That the Doctrine of the Atonement ought to be discussed and defended as inside the Doctrine of the Covenant of Grace.
 

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
A well written and biblically argued case.

The one weakness is that which Hugh Martin observed many, many moons ago:

it must be laid down at the outset, as a proposition of transcendent importance, —

That the Doctrine of the Atonement ought to be discussed and defended as inside the Doctrine of the Covenant of Grace.
Cage stage? I say this rather half jokingly in that I am surprise how often this issue comes up with those who do not believe in the L, and I find myself curiously unconstrained to speak up when it does come up. :)
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Cage stage?
I have no doubt Rev. Stewart is pastorally motivated. Atonement is the method God has chosen to save sinners. Anyone who makes it unlimited in extent can only do so by redefining its nature as something less than definite, and an indefinite atonement does not save. Some additional act is then required by the sinner for his salvation. Anyone who has the well-being of souls at heart will see this as an important matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top