Limited Atonement

[elnwood]

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.

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.

Certainly there are many types of love. I point you to D. A. Carson's excellent book "Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God."

I'm not convinced "many" can never mean "all" -- it's in the context of one man giving his life for many, so I think the point of such passages is the relative difference in amount, not to constrain the number.

For example, if I went to a Baptist convention, and five people showed up, I'd say "There weren't many Baptists." If I went and, say, all the Baptists in the world showed up, I'd say "There were many Baptists attending." If I gave a speech, I'd say "I gave a speech to many Baptists." The word "many" has to do with the relative amount. It has nothing to do with whether all the Baptists were there.

 

[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

You'll have to restate this point again. I don't understand.

I agree with you that the 4-point position is that the atonement makes people "savable." How has this been refuted? When did I say I hold "exactly to the 5-point view"?

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.

You essentially formulated the "genuine offer of the gospel" in a hypothetical sense, i.e. if you believe, Christ has paid for your sins.

The question is not whether the person offering the gospel is genuine, but whether the offer itself is genuine. After all, it's called "genuine offer," not "genuine offerer."

Let's say I'm giving away a scholarship for black students. Assuming you're not black and I knew that, could I genuinely offer you that scholarship? I could tell you, "If you are black, you can receive this scholarship." Is that a genuine offer?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Certainly there are many types of love. I point you to D. A. Carson's excellent book "Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God."

Got it. Good book.

I'm not convinced "many" can never mean "all" -- it's in the context of one man giving his life for many, so I think the point of such passages is the relative difference in amount, not to constrain the number.

I said "in Scripture" 'all' can (and does) mean "not all" but "many" never means "all" universally.

For example, if I went to a Baptist convention, and five people showed up, I'd say "There weren't many Baptists." If I went and, say, all the Baptists in the world showed up, I'd say "There were many Baptists attending." If I gave a speech, I'd say "I gave a speech to many Baptists." The word "many" has to do with the relative amount. It has nothing to do with whether all the Baptists were there.

I don't know why you'd say "there were many baptists attending" if "all the baptists in the world showed up." Seems ad hoc. Seems likke you'd say, "Wow! I went to a conference an EVERY SINGLE BAPTIST IN THE WORLD SHOWED UP!!!!" "Even Carson." "Yep! EVERY." "Even Wellum?" "Yes, I said 'ALL'!"

But, you said that Christ didn't "die for all." So, this is all pointless. You've refuted Amyraldianism for us.

 

[Jim Johnston]

You'll have to restate this point again. I don't understand.

I agree with you that the 4-point position is that the atonement makes people "savable." How has this been refuted? When did I say I hold "exactly to the 5-point view"?

You said 4-pointers don't say "Christ died for all men." You said, "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." But, if Christ died "for all" then, logically, he died "for them" (i.e., the non-elect). I was showing that your misrepresented the 4-point system. They *do say* that the "atonement was made *for them.*"

You essentially formulated the "genuine offer of the gospel" in a hypothetical sense, i.e. if you believe, Christ has paid for your sins.

No, the Gospel offer is: If you repent and believe, you will be saved." It's the "good news" of "salvation." And, that's *exactly* how it comes to us in the Bible. Since you like to quote from the NKJV: Rom. 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Since the *truth value* of the condition is *true,* because it would be impossible for the antecedant to be true and the consequent false, then when you tell *anyone* that, you've told them the *truth.* I take it as an undeniable fact that, if you tell someone the truth, you've been genuine or sincere with them. Hence the "sincere" offer of the gospel is fully consistent (despite your previous complaint) with 5-point Calvinism.

The question is not whether the person offering the gospel is genuine, but whether the offer itself is genuine. After all, it's called "genuine offer," not "genuine offerer."

The offer itself *is* genuine. Since the condition *itself* has a true truth-value.

Let's say I'm giving away a scholarship for black students. Assuming you're not black and I knew that, could I genuinely offer you that scholarship? I could tell you, "If you are black, you can receive this scholarship." Is that a genuine offer?

The conditional statement is *true* and it is genuine in that sense. That I am not Black has *nothing* to do with the truth or genuineness of the statement.

But, you have the same problem on *your* reading. That is, when you tell someone "if you believe, you will be saved," and *you knew* that they were non-elect (say, they didn't have the red E tattoo on their forehead), would you be sincere? If so, how? They *can't* believe since God must regenerate them, and God has only chosen to regenerate some.

Therefore, again, I point out that the main motivator for amyraldianism has been rendered moot.

 

[elnwood]

I'm not convinced "many" can never mean "all" -- it's in the context of one man giving his life for many, so I think the point of such passages is the relative difference in amount, not to constrain the number.

I said "in Scripture" 'all' can (and does) mean "not all" but "many" never means "all" universally.

Do you have anything to back up that assertion?

Even if true, it does not prove LA. Saying Christ died for the elect does not mean that Christ did not also die for the non-elect in some manner also. If you had a verse saying, "Christ died for the elect and not the non-elect," you'd have something.

But, you said that Christ didn't "die for all." So, this is all pointless. You've refuted Amyraldianism for us.

I don't believe I ever said this. Perhaps you misunderstood me?

If you were referring to this exchange:

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.

I was using your phrase, "made for them," to say that the atonement was not "made for them" in the sense that a 5-pointer (in this case, you) was arguing -- an actual, not potential, atonement. As you said, the 4-pointer believes in a potential atonement that is conditional upon faith. I thought that was clear in the above post.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I was using your phrase, "made for them," to say that the atonement was not "made for them" in the sense that a 5-pointer (in this case, you) was arguing -- an actual, not potential, atonement. As you said, the 4-pointer believes in a potential atonement that is conditional upon faith. I thought that was clear in the above post.

And I was using it in *any* sense, not in a 5-pointer sense.

So, perhaps you can now go back and answer the arguments.

As far as backing up the assertion, James White makes it, for one. And, I'm not going to list every verse in the bible, so you need to find a counteraxmple.

Anyway, the Bible says that the ones Jesus lays his life down for are *his sheep* and that *his sheep* - the ones he died for - *know* him. Do non-elect know him?

And, how do you answer the high priest argument? On his way to offer *atonement,* Jesus says:

John 17
Jesus Prays for Himself
1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should[a] give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Jesus Prays for His Disciples

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world,[c] I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept;[d] and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
Jesus Prays for All Believers

20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[e] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

And,

Hebrews 9
The Earthly Sanctuary
1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
Limitations of the Earthly Service

6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; 8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
The Heavenly Sanctuary

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
The Mediator’s Death Necessary

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
Greatness of Christ’s Sacrifice

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

 

[elnwood]

As far as backing up the assertion, James White makes it, for one. And, I'm not going to list every verse in the bible, so you need to find a counteraxmple.

Not going to bother. I don't think it's clear either way, which is why I don't take a position.

Anyway, the Bible says that the ones Jesus lays his life down for are *his sheep* and that *his sheep* - the ones he died for - *know* him. Do non-elect know him?

No, the non-elect do not know them. I already answered this point above. Does Jesus laying his life down for the elect mean that he did not also lay down his life for the non-elect? It doesn't logically follow.

And, how do you answer the high priest argument? On his way to offer *atonement,* Jesus says:

What's the argument? I need to know how you are interpreting the Scripture you quoted.

 

[Jim Johnston]

If Christ died for someone, he died *as priest.* If Christ is your high priest, he makes intercession for you. If Christ died for you, he makes intercession for you. He does not interceed for everyone. Therefore, he did not die for everyone. QED.

 

[MW]

Don -- we believe and therefore speak. The Scriptures say Christ died for the sheep. How do we know He didn't also die for non-sheep in some way? We don't. Scripture is silent on that point, which means we should be silent too.

 

[Jim Johnston]

What's the argument? I need to know how you are interpreting the Scripture you quoted.

It's obvious to me as you read Heb. 9.

And, 10 for that matter:

Hebrews 10
Christ's Sacrifice Once for All
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

I guess I'd need to see why these don't refute the 4-point position.

I also think you're doing damage to one of the most popular and strongest of the RB arguments. The death of Christ as *something other than* high priest is foreign to Scripture. Either Christ died for the non-elect as a non-priest, or he didn't. He didn't. Therefore he died for the non-elect as a high priest. If Christ is your high priest then you're in the NC. Christ died for all men. All men are in the NC. No non-elect are in the NC (baptist premise). Therefore 4-pointerism contradicts reformed baptist polemics.

 

[elnwood]

Don -- we believe and therefore speak. The Scriptures say Christ died for the sheep. How do we know He didn't also die for non-sheep in some way? We don't. Scripture is silent on that point, which means we should be silent too.

Hi armourbearer,

Thank you for that. I follow your argument, and I agree that we don't know for sure that Christ did not also die for non-sheep in some way. My conclusion, though, is to not take a position and affirm with the original poster that this should be a non-essential.

I think there is enough ambiguity of interpretation in verses like Isaiah 53:6, 2 Cor 5:14-15, 1 Tim 2:6, 1 John 2:2, John 3:16-18, 2 Peter 2:1, Hebrews 2:9 and many others that some or all of these can legitimately be interpreted either particularly or universally. I'm not a trained exegete in the original languages, but I know there are good bible scholars on both sides.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Don,

Just to let you know, though I do think this is a vital issue, vitally important, with disasterous implications if L is rejected, I do not think it is something to divide over. Sometimes I feel like reformed people act as if Christ's death doesn't cover theological sins too (with obvious exceptions such as damnable heresy).

 

[MW]

Don -- we believe and therefore speak. The Scriptures say Christ died for the sheep. How do we know He didn't also die for non-sheep in some way? We don't. Scripture is silent on that point, which means we should be silent too.

Thank you for that. I follow your argument, and I agree that we don't know for sure that Christ did not also die for non-sheep in some way. My conclusion, though, is to not take a position and affirm with the original poster that this should be a non-essential.

But we do know for sure that Christ died for His sheep. Scripture is clear as day on this point. Therefore we should speak where Scripture speaks, and be silent where Scripture is silent, and let the scholars run themselves ragged over the electric impulses of their own brains.

 

[elnwood]

I guess I'd need to see why these don't refute the 4-point position.

I also think you're doing damage to one of the most popular and strongest of the RB arguments. The death of Christ as *something other than* high priest is foreign to Scripture. Either Christ died for the non-elect as a non-priest, or he didn't. He didn't. Therefore he died for the non-elect as a high priest. If Christ is your high priest then you're in the NC. Christ died for all men. All men are in the NC. No non-elect are in the NC (baptist premise). Therefore 4-pointerism contradicts reformed baptist polemics.

I would argue that Christ does not intercede until a person comes to faith. If Christ is interceding for you as a high priest, then you are in the New Covenant. The RB position is that everyone in the NC is regenerated. The elect who have not been regenerated yet are therefore not in the NC. This is consistent with RB teaching. What you are proposing is that the unregenerate elect are in the NC since they have Christ as their high priest, which is inconsistent with RB teaching.

In the Old Testament, what determined whether or not God was pleased with the sacrifices that the priests offered? God says he is not pleased with the burnt offerings because the people are disobedient.

A 4-pointer could argue that, in the same way, God will not be pleased with Christ's sacrifice on behalf of the non-elect if the non-elect is disobedient. So in that sense, it seems consistent with the priestly sacrifice motif in the Old Testament.

 

[elnwood]

Don,

Just to let you know, though I do think this is a vital issue, vitally important, with disasterous implications if L is rejected, I do not think it is something to divide over. Sometimes I feel like reformed people act as if Christ's death doesn't cover theological sins too (with obvious exceptions such as damnable heresy).

I understand and appreciate your convictions. Thank you for that.

 

[cih1355]

If Jesus was actually punished for everyone and God's justice was satisfied, but some people go to hell, then God's justice would be perverted. If the punishment for someone's sins has already been taken care of, but that person still goes to hell to be punished for his sins, then God's justice is perverted.

 

[elnwood]

But we do know for sure that Christ died for His sheep. Scripture is clear as day on this point. Therefore we should speak where Scripture speaks, and be silent where Scripture is silent, and let the scholars run themselves ragged over the electric impulses of their own brains.

I can tell people all day that Christ laid down his life for his sheep, God has a particular love for his elect, and that God's purpose was to save the elect through the atonement. That much is clear. I always try to stick to that, and not get into theological arguments. Except on PB, and among friends, of course!

 

[Israelite]

If Jesus was actually punished for everyone and God's justice was satisfied, but some people go to hell, then God's justice would be perverted. If the punishment for someone's sins has already been taken care of, but that person still goes to hell to be punished for his sins, then God's justice is perverted.

Curt, not everyone is logical like yourself, some men like to pervert God's justice.

the 4 point calvinist doesn't see things the scriptural way that you do, they don't believe the difference between salvation and damnation is the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ ALONE but rather their own faith.

the 4 point calvinists believes that salvation is conditioned on his faith as Elnwood as pointed out in his previous posts on this thread.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Anyway, the Bible says that the ones Jesus lays his life down for are *his sheep* and that *his sheep* - the ones he died for - *know* him. Do non-elect know him?

No, the non-elect do not know them. I already answered this point above. Does Jesus laying his life down for the elect mean that he did not also lay down his life for the non-elect? It doesn't logically follow.

Don,

John 10:26

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

If a prerequisite(i guess you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said he lays His life down for the sheep, yet, he tells the jews here that they are not of his sheep.... wouldn't this conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about who he is laying his life down for.( I would like to note, this isn't from some "logical" conclusion about election)

 

[Israelite]

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

If a prerequisite(i guess you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said he lays His life down for the sheep, yet, he tells the jews here that they are not of his sheep.... wouldn't this conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about who he is laying his life down for.( I would like to note, this isn't from some "logical" conclusion about election)

 

[Jim Johnston]

I would argue that Christ does not intercede until a person comes to faith.

Well, what was he doing in John 17? Was he not interceeding for "all those that *will* believe?

If Christ is interceding for you as a high priest, then you are in the New Covenant. The RB position is that everyone in the NC is regenerated. The elect who have not been regenerated yet are therefore not in the NC. This is consistent with RB teaching. What you are proposing is that the unregenerate elect are in the NC since they have Christ as their high priest, which is inconsistent with RB teaching.

Well, not to get into a side debate, but there is disagreement within the RB tradition on that. Some say that the *elect* are in the NC. For example, Jesus is the *priest* of the *invisible church* which includes "all the elect who have, are, and will live.

Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Anyway, that's the way *some* RBs have argued.

In the Old Testament, what determined whether or not God was pleased with the sacrifices that the priests offered? God says he is not pleased with the burnt offerings because the people are disobedient.

A 4-pointer could argue that, in the same way, God will not be pleased with Christ's sacrifice on behalf of the non-elect if the non-elect is disobedient. So in that sense, it seems consistent with the priestly sacrifice motif in the Old Testament.

Right, but the problem is that Hebrews says that this is how the NC is better. If atonement is made, you get saved. That was not the case in the OC.

Heb. 2:17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

and

Heb. 10: 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

and

He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

At any rate, how could you be outside of the New Covenant and yet have Jesus as your high priest. Even in the OT if you didn't come to God by faith, you were still a covenant member. The idea that one is outside of the covenant, with Jesus as his atoning high priest, is foreign to Scripture.

 

[mbj0680]

It's interesting to observe this much debating and disagreements between Calvinists themselves. I think we should listen to Lenski when he talks about election and things pertaining to eternal acts of God.

Here is a great quote from Lenski:

"Any eternal act of God's pertaining to "us" in time is bound to offer difficulty to our minds and our thinking. Calvinism and synergism rationalize in order to remove the difficulty; it remains, we must let it remain."

-MJ

 

[Iconoclast]

good verses

Many good verses have been offered,with good biblically based explanations on this thread.
The verses from John17 and Hebrews,concerning the priestly work of our Great High priest are overwhelmingly conclusive if studied out.
I would like to add this section of Hebrews dealing with the eternal covenant of redemption explained as introducing our Lord and Saviour as having a unique and eternal Priesthood,on behalf of the seed of Abraham. It does not say he took on the seed of Adam

but He took on Him the seed of abraham. This viewed in context of the once for all time sacrifice, in chapter 10, and having accomplished redemption in chapter 9 , It is hard to see any other position as viable. Here is the Hebrews 2 section;
13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The list of verses that were offered,that seem to speak of ,all,or many,etc cannot hold up to the clearer passages like this one.
It is a vital doctrine,but definately not milk. If someone has not studied it out they might not be really equiped to present these truths evangelistically,or to defend the arguments of the natural men who resist and supress the truth.
John Murray in Redemption.Accomplished and Applied wades through all of the universalist verses offered and makes short work of them.
A. W. Pink on Hebrews 2 does a great job working through these verses

 

[mbj0680]

I would like to say again that I believe and understand LA. I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if Christ's death was sufficient for all, and effective only for the elect".

I would also like to add that since this thread has begun it has reinforced my view that the doctrine of LA is not that important of a doctrine, because not even Calvinists can agree on it. We are not encouraging each other in the love of Christ. We are building an exclusive club of we are theologically right and you are not. Somehow if you are not fully a 5 point Calvinists then you haven't quite arrived and are still only drinking the milk of the Word.

Well gentleman this thread has driven me to conclude that I am not a Calvinist nor want to be if this is how Calvinism builds each other up.

In the precious name of Jesus Christ,

Blessisng,

-MJ

 

[AV1611]

I would like to say again that I believe and understand LA. I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if Christ's death was sufficient for all, and effective only for the elect".

Canons of Dordt, Head 2, Article 3 - "This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

 

[KMK]

But we do know for sure that Christ died for His sheep. Scripture is clear as day on this point. Therefore we should speak where Scripture speaks, and be silent where Scripture is silent, and let the scholars run themselves ragged over the electric impulses of their own brains.

Wisdom for the ages!

 

[tartanarmy]

Calvinists may argue till the cows come home, I care not a wit!
Besides, let's face it, many today who align themselves as "Calvinists" are not even remotely close to being such!

As far as the sentiment that the "L" is not that important a teaching, such tells me all I need to know.

Anyway, unless the Lord intervenes, these kinds of discussions shall soon become the test as to whether we even have an objective and meaningful gospel to talk about.
I fear that 5-10 years from now, the subjects being discussed among those who love truth, shall look more like post modernism on steroids rather than anything remotely connected with absolutism in any meaningful sense. If in fact, we are not already at that reality.

Knowing that Christ really redeems and actually and really conquers sin and death for some, is the glue that holds any objective assurance within our grasp as Christians, and without it, we enter a slippery slope that leads nowhere good that I am aware of.

Mark

 

[tartanarmy]

Oh and another thing..Even though may may just let the scholars run ragged with their electrical impulses and all of that, let us remember, that many of these Scholars are in positions of authority, and hence are exposing ordinary people to their drivel, and such shall have an impact in due time.

Mark

 

[Jim Johnston]

I would like to say again that I believe and understand LA. I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if Christ's death was sufficient for all, and effective only for the elect".

I would also like to add that since this thread has begun it has reinforced my view that the doctrine of LA is not that important of a doctrine, because not even Calvinists can agree on it. We are not encouraging each other in the love of Christ. We are building an exclusive club of we are theologically right and you are not. Somehow if you are not fully a 5 point Calvinists then you haven't quite arrived and are still only drinking the milk of the Word.

Well gentleman this thread has driven me to conclude that I am not a Calvinist nor want to be if this is how Calvinism builds each other up.

In the precious name of Jesus Christ,

Blessisng,

-MJ

**Sarcasm on**

I would like to say again that I believe and understand foreknowledge and freewill . I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if God can foreknow the actions of libertarian free men and how this affects the doctrine of omniscience".

I would also like to add that since I have read the various works and treatments of this subjects by Arminians it has reinforced my view that the doctrine of omniscience, foreknowledge, and libertarian freedom is not that important of doctrines, because not even Arminians can agree on it. We are not encouraging each other in the love of Christ. We are building an exclusive club of we are theologically right and you are not. Somehow if you are not fully an Open Theist then you haven't quite arrived and are still only drinking the milk of the Word.

Well gentleman this thread has driven me to conclude that I am not an Arminian nor want to be if this is how Arminianism builds each other up.

**Sarcasm off**

This doctrine does have implications worth fighting over. I, for one, think it is not a waste of my time to defend the atonement as not being wasted on men who will never come. Jesus' death was so important. The pinnacle of history. Yet some want to say his blood was wasted on many. That he intended to save all, yet his blood could not do this. That he needed your cooperation. That he lay down his life for his sheep and the wolves. That he went forth as the great high priest, yet nothing changed. The blood of bulls and goats were unable to take away sin, and so was Jesus death! Why not just stick to the beggerly sacrifices of the Old Testament? What was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice? What, it was of no more strength and value than the blood of farm animals?

So, my friend, you bet we get fired up over this. Treating the saviors blood as weak gets under our skin, for some reason. And, let's not pretend that you don't believe in Limited Atonement. You don't limit the subjects of the atonement maybe, but you do limit its power.

Next time you take communion, remember that you should say: Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for [EVERYONE IN THE WORLD]," he said to them."

In fact, why not serve communion to everyone in the world?? The body was broken for everyone, the blood was shed for everyone, right?

 

[elnwood]

John 10:26

"But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

If a prerequisite(i guess you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said he lays His life down for the sheep, yet, he tells the jews here that they are not of his sheep.... wouldn't this conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about who he is laying his life down for.( I would like to note, this isn't from some "logical" conclusion about election)

Possibly, but not logically necessary unless Christ specifically says "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep."

Let's say I love eating cashews, and I love buying cashews. I tell the peanuts, "I love buying and eating cashews. You are not cashews." Does that mean I don't also buy peanuts? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I buy both, but I have a special particular love for cashews.