Limited Atonement

[KMK]

Leave it Don to stir the pot! However, Don is simply trying to answer the OP and not press a particular stance. I agree with him in a way. The OP as I understand it is basically a question: "Can we have unity w/o agreement on LA?" I say, "Absolutely." I think that eventually disagreement in this area might become a problem but no two Christians are ever going to agree on absolutely everything. In regards to the Lord's Supper, even the Westminster Divines could not agree on whether we should sit "about it" or "at it".

I agree with Don in that both views can be exegeted from scripture for a time. Eventually one comes to the doctrine of predestination and that ruins the argument for UA. I think unity dealbreakers are those where someone's postition is based on editing or adding to the Bible. Such as with the doctrines of male headship, fornication, authority/sufficiency of Scripture etc.

I remember pastor Morecraft III saying that when he preaches to groups who do not know him, he does not come right out and say that he is a Calvinist but he knows that if he preaches truth, that Calvinism will be heard. If we all stick to truth then our unity will guide us all into all truth.

 

[Jim Johnston]

but I think the 5-point Calvinist runs into the same inconsistency when he says the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer, yet it is conditional upon faith.

Saying people are wrong isn't divisive.

In answer to the above: There's no inconsistency if you knew how hypotheticals work. Is it sincere to tell people the truth? Are you being genuine? Of course. Now, a *hypothetical* qua *conditional statement* can be *sincere* or *geneuine* without the antecedant being instantiated. For example, this is a genuinely sincere statement: If I flip the coin, then it will fall to the ground. That's genuine, sincere, true, etc., even if I don't actually flip it. Same with this hypothetical: If you repent and believe, you will be saved by the atoning work of Christ. That's *true* and *genuine* and *sincere* ... *as a hypothetical.* And, the offer *is* a hypothetical: "If you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved." And that can be *genuinely* said to *all* people, and when it is, it is *a true claim.*

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

Then the atonement was superfluous for the non-eleect. The 4-pointer still holds a limited atonement in two ways:

1) It is limited in *power.* Not all who have Christ's blood shedd will have redemption.

and

2) It is limited because God chooses who will have faith. He asn't chosen everyone. And so there's a limit.

a) Notice the "genuine offer" problem works here too. If God doesn't "choose everyone to have faith" then how is the Gospel offer sincere? What does it mean to say that Christ died for them? And, what does it matter if God hasn't "chosen them" to have faith?

So, there's no logical inconsistency with the 5-pointer, and there looks like there is one with the 4-pointer.

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.

 

[A5pointer]

Leave it Don to stir the pot! However, Don is simply trying to answer the OP and not press a particular stance. I agree with him in a way. The OP as I understand it is basically a question: "Can we have unity w/o agreement on LA?" I say, "Absolutely." I think that eventually disagreement in this area might become a problem but no two Christians are ever going to agree on absolutely everything. In regards to the Lord's Supper, even the Westminster Divines could not agree on whether we should sit "about it" or "at it".

I agree with Don in that both views can be exegeted from scripture for a time. Eventually one comes to the doctrine of predestination and that ruins the argument for UA. I think unity dealbreakers are those where someone's postition is based on editing or adding to the Bible. Such as with the doctrines of male headship, fornication, authority/sufficiency of Scripture etc.

I remember pastor Morecraft III saying that when he preaches to groups who do not know him, he does not come right out and say that he is a Calvinist but he knows that if he preaches truth, that Calvinism will be heard. If we all stick to truth then our unity will guide us all into all truth.

No and No

 

[tdowns]

What I was referring to.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.a

a. Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,a that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.b So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;c and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.d

I made bold the part, that I take, to mean, these doctrines are difficult to understand, and, maybe, just maybe, the average Christian, does not need to tackle the Limited Atonement issue, to the depth, that many enjoy...it is a great thing, the discussion on this thread, I love it...but, part of the original question, I took to mean, is it necessary, for your average Christian, to need to struggle with it??????

Obviously, the theological types, love to tackle this and more, but isn't it important to remember, not all Christians are called to dive in and understand some of these deeper doctrines, at the "mystery" level.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

The link to Greg Welty's defense was broken for me, but I think this is the page:
Founders Ministries Blog: Garrett on Calvinism in the Alabama Baptist, Pt. 1

 

[Israelite]

The Elect’s Propitiation: Jesus Christ The Righteous

When most religious people speak about the death of Christ, their words reveal they have little or no respect for the holiness, justice, or the grace of God. They speak of Christ suffering, bleeding, and dying for ALL MEN AND WOMEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION, including those who at present are suffering eternal torment in hell. They would never admit it, but they accuse the true and living God of something our own legal system would never allow: DOUBLE JEOPARDY! Their doctrine (teaching) declares Christ suffered the penalty of sin for every man, i.e., ETERNAL CONDEMNATION - “The wages of sin are death” (Romans 6:23a), and then God turns around and punishes some people for the EXACT SAME SINS Christ suffered for at Calvary. This kind of theology unwittingly charges God with injustice. Actually if this were true, God is found to be the cruelest of all because He would have NEEDLESSLY punished His Son who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heaven’s” (Hebrews 7:26).

When you point out this reasonable argument, they immediately say: “The difference between the sinner who is in hell and the one who goes to heaven is that one BELIEVES, and the other doesn’t BELIEVE.”

Let the Apostle Paul answer this foolish statement - “Not by works of righteousness (INCLUDING OUR GOOD WORKS OR OUR FAITH) which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
(Titus 3:5)

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness (THE HOLINESS OR SATISFACTION TO LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRED TO ALLOW A SINNER TO CONTINUE IN GOD’S PRESENCE) come by the law (by any sinner’s obedience or faith), THEN Christ IS DEAD IN VAIN.”
(Galatians 2:21)

Surely when we speak of the redemptive work of Christ at Calvary for those He represented, we venture onto holy ground and must with great care seek to honor every attribute of God’s redemptive character as both a “just God”, who will not overlook the least of sin in the best of men, and “a Savior”, who delights to show mercy and grace in a way that is consistent with His holy nature. The Apostle John wrote of Christ’s work at Calvary as a PROPITIATION - “And 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)

John didn’t write that Christ was trying to be the “propitiation” (satisfaction to both the penalty and precept of God’s holy law) for every man, woman and child. Rather, He clearly declared Christ “IS” the “propitiation for OUR SINS.” (Those He represented or THE ELECT). When we read of propitiation in the Scriptures, it always involves perfect satisfaction and reconciliation through an appropriate sacrifice. The Greek word for “propitiation” is used three times in the New Testament, and in every case it always declares Christ and His righteousness ALONE as the hope of our being propitiated (declared legally righteous and holy) to God - (Read Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10)

Christ’s life, death, and resurrection weren’t an attempt by God to make men savable, if they fulfilled certain conditions, even INCLUDING FAITH. It was His actual accomplishment of the justification of EVERY ELECT SINNER who Christ represented by His obedience unto death at Calvary. May we always honor this glorious work of Redemption with our words and our works!

RICHARD WARMACK

 

[elnwood]

I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have enlarged upon the will and plan of the Father.

Greg, you are assuming here an infralapsarian or supralapsarian order of decree in which the decree of atonement follows the decree of election. Note your order: election, then Christ atones.

If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.

Now, I may be confusing things, but if Christ was actually sent into the world and died to atone for all before God elected a people, then there are two major problems:

1) All of the millions of people who lived during Old Testament times could not be elect because they died before God elected.

2) God is a liar because Ephesians say we have been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world and Revelation describes the Lamb's Book of Life as having the names written in them from the foundation of the world.

Calvibaptist, you're confusing order of decrees with a chronology of events. Order of decrees does not have to do with events taking place in time. All of the order of decrees happen before the foundation of the world. The supralapsarian vs. infralapsarian vs. Amyraldian positions are all disputes about the logical order of decrees of God that was before the foundation of the world.

 

[elnwood]

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.

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

 

[Calvibaptist]

Now, I may be confusing things, but if Christ was actually sent into the world and died to atone for all before God elected a people, then there are two major problems:

1) All of the millions of people who lived during Old Testament times could not be elect because they died before God elected.

2) God is a liar because Ephesians say we have been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world and Revelation describes the Lamb's Book of Life as having the names written in them from the foundation of the world.

Calvibaptist, you're confusing order of decrees with a chronology of events. Order of decrees does not have to do with events taking place in time. All of the order of decrees happen before the foundation of the world. The supralapsarian vs. infralapsarian vs. Amyraldian positions are all disputes about the logical order of decrees of God that was before the foundation of the world.

I was quoting the decrees as YOU stated them:

If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.

I know what the disputes between the different lapsarian positions are. But you stated the decrees as if they were events that played out in time, not before creation. That is why I said I was confused.

 

[elnwood]

Hi everyone,

Just to clarify things I want to point out that I believe in the doctrine of LA, but it seems to be an unnecessary drawn out conclusion from what the doctrine of election already says.
I see the glory of God in our salvation through the doctrine of election. We clearly see that in Ephesians 1. You can not come to the book of Ephesians and not see how unbelievable it is to what God has done for us in Christ before the foundations of the world.
It is a foregone conclusion and almost a "well ya, of course" to say that not everyone is going to believe if some where elected to heaven and some were not. Therefore the atonement is logically limited/effectual to those who believe.
The Biblical emphasis is on election though and not LA. Therefore the logical discourse to LA seems to be eisegetical instead of exegetical. I can not go to the text and exegete the doctrine of LA. I need the aide of something other than verse by verse exposition of text to lead me there. Does that make since?
I can go to the Bible and exegete the doctrine of election. That to me speaks volumes as to what God wanted to emphasize. This might be hard for some people to swallow, but it doesn't matter how many people the atonement effected and who it did/didn't effect from our standpoint because it is all about our great God and Savior Jesus Christ and what He did for Himself from the foundations of the world. It's not about what He did for us, it's all about what He did for Himself and for His own glory and His plans. We are merely creatures that have a great privilege to aide Him in those plans He choose for us to be involved with. What a blessed privilege it is!
God choose us to serve Him in love. Our sphere of life is designed for one reason. God's purpose. We are to appropriate what He has already given us before the foundation of the world. We don't know who he has elected, or what that number is, but we search for the elect. We preach the gospel hoping to find those God has chosen.
I just don't think we need to take it any farther than that and debate if the atonement is limited, or unlimited, does everyone have a chance to believe or is it a done deal for some and they really have no choice. Let's fight the good fight and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Parable of the talents, what are we doing with what we got for the glory of God?


In the precious name of Jesus Christ

Blessing on you all,

-MJ

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.

 

[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?

 

[elnwood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.]

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.]

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.

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:

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

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

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Calvin:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Don,

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

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

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]

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.

 

[MW]

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]

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]

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

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.