Sufficient but not efficient?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would the Apostles have not chosen to pen down the word in the Greek then for just for the elect and not for all?

We interpret scripture with scripture, and we also understand that doctrines can be deduced from scripture. We know explicitly from scripture that Christ came to effectually save the elect alone. This is something that we all agree with, even when we disagree about some of the particulars. Can we go farther along this train of thought and conclude that Christ in no way died for anybody but the elect? I believe not, though probably most others on this board would disagree. I believe that it is speculative to go further than what the scriptures clearly reveal on this issue and that some universality in Christ's sufferings can be more persuasively deduced. I find Dort instructive in this regard:

"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."

Unfortunately, such strong positions seem to prevail when these things are discussed, and heavy accusations are promptly used. Unfortunately, historical positions are often neglected or redefined and caricatures are made of the doctrine. I wish it were not so, but it seems to be the cold reality.
 
We interpret scripture with scripture, and we also understand that doctrines can be deduced from scripture. We know explicitly from scripture that Christ came to effectually save the elect alone. This is something that we all agree with, even when we disagree about some of the particulars. Can we go farther along this train of thought and conclude that Christ in no way died for anybody but the elect? I believe not, though probably most others on this board would disagree. I believe that it is speculative to go further than what the scriptures clearly reveal on this issue and that some universality in Christ's sufferings can be more persuasively deduced. I find Dort instructive in this regard:

"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."

Unfortunately, such strong positions seem to prevail when these things are discussed, and heavy accusations are promptly used. Unfortunately, historical positions are often neglected or redefined and caricatures are made of the doctrine. I wish it were not so, but it seems to be the cold reality.
Think that we can safely conclude here that on this doctrine, along with certain others, there is no 100 % agreement on it as to what the scriptures say, but that we can still hold to our positions as long as not making it a proof if one is Reformed enough?
 
Think that we can safely conclude here that on this doctrine, along with certain others, there is no 100 % agreement on it as to what the scriptures say, but that we can still hold to our positions as long as not making it a proof if one is Reformed enough?

Where we all agree on what the scriptures say, there is some diversity on the what it means. There is much more that unites what we believe than divides it, though. The diversity on this issue is not what makes somebody a four or five "pointer". Rather, Dort embraced much of this diversity and formulated a confession that allowed for this diversity and yet carried a united front against the Remonstrance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top