The Five Points of Calvinism

Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by Bladestunner316, Jun 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. smhbbag

    smhbbag Puritan Board Senior

    Scott, you respond to me by saying:

    [quote:a5eb02f2e2]There is a max number; the elect! God does not add to the elect as time goes on. The elect were chosen prior to the foundation of the world.....

    As far as the power of the blood goes, the blood was shed only for the sheep; no one else. It is that powerful and precious. Everyone that has been given to Christ by the Father WILL come to Jesus. No more, no less! [/quote:a5eb02f2e2]

    I 1000% agree! The elect were certainly chosen before the foundation of the world, their number and identity does not change from God's foundational decree. And Christ's blood was surely offered to satisfy the wrath of God on the elect only....not intended to justify those God had chosen to leave in their sin.

    What I mean by the "max number" bit is this - Christ's work on the cross would be totally sufficient to atone for and redeem ANY number the Father had given Him before the foundation of the world. This the sum total of what I'm saying!

    Of course, that number is fixed, and couldn't have been any other way, according to the mysteries and wisdom of His will.

    By your response, I think you misunderstand what I am saying.

    Here's another way of putting it:

    Christ's blood is valuable enough to have purchased forgiveness for all the sinners in 10,000 worlds. In that sense, it is of infinite and unlimited value (sufficiency). But it was neither intended nor designed to do so. But its power is NOT the heart of "Limited Atonement," for every Arminian I know would gladly assent to its unlimited value, and every calvinist I know as well (until this discussion) - rather, it is the intent and effectiveness of the sacrifice that matters and distinguishes Reformed Theology. LA contradicts Arminian doctrine in that it is only intended to be propitiatory for the elect, and that it is absolutely and always effective in doing so.

    Good citations, Westmin.

    The atonement is limited in its intent, design, purpose, and efficacy.....but unlimited in its value (sufficiency).

    Hope I didn't muddy the waters more, I'm hoping that's clear.

    enjoying it as well, Scott...


    [Edited on 6-15-2004 by smhbbag]
     
  2. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    I believe you are misunderstanding what is being actually stated by Dordt, i.e. misappropriating the sufficiency. Surely John MacArthur does not agree with Dordt on these grounds, after all this is why we have been discussing this topic. The previous posts are arguing for MacArthurs. What I am endeavoring for is to clearify that what MacArthur believes [and those I am debating with here] is Not the historic view...

    Christ is surely sufficient! However, when Dordt makes this claim, it is not along the same lines as MacArthur's claim.

    Also, when the word 'world' is referenced by Dordt, it is referenced in the same reformed light as how the refornmed view the term when it is used to describe the elect <world>, not all mankind.

    [Edited on 6-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]
     
  3. Bryan

    Bryan Puritan Board Freshman

    I believe myself to be a 5-pointer. I'm a 5-pointer as much as Spurgeon was one:

    "I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work." - A Defense of Calvinism

    Bryan
    SDG
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Puritan Board Freshman

    Scott,

    [quote:9da4ec9417]
    I believe you are misunderstanding what is being actually stated by Dordt, i.e. misappropriating the sufficiency.
    [/quote:9da4ec9417]

    Well if I am I stand in good company. If I was home I'd offer some quotes from various systematic theologies. But Bryan already offered Spurgeon in support of the position.
    [quote:9da4ec9417]
    Surely John MacArthur does not agree with Dordt on these grounds, after all this is why we have been discussing this topic.
    [/quote:9da4ec9417]
    Maybe, I don't know. Opinions here seem to be divided on Johnny Mac. I don't think sufficient quotes have been offered to provide a definitive conclusion on what he believes. I do know that MacArthur often expresses himself in ways reminiscent of his decisional regeneration days and at other times is expressly Reformed in his soteriology. And that comes from occasionally hearing him on the radio. I haven't read MacArthur. But the article by Johnson does seem to support a 5 point conclusion and Gilliard says that his study Bible is explicitly 5 point. <shrug>
    [quote:9da4ec9417]
    Also, when the word 'world' is referenced by Dordt, it is referenced in the same reformed light as how the refornmed view the term when it is used to describe the elect <world>, not all mankind.
    [/quote:9da4ec9417]
    That, in my opinion, is a stretch. If it was being used as such it is a useless redundancy. The definite, limited scope of application is clearly expounded in the canons, particularly in articles 8 and 9 of the second head making any discussion of sufficiency unnecessary. If Christ's death is efficacious for the elect it is obviously sufficient to accomplish that purpose. But it is there for another reason. It is there to assure that the Gospel is preached to all men everywhere promiscuously and without distinction contra the hypers, and to counter the remonstrant charge that the Calvinistic view de-valued the infinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. So they took the time to make clear statements about both value and efficacy showing that the two are not antithetical.

    Anyway I'm done.

    Mark
     
  5. raderag

    raderag Puritan Board Sophomore

    nt

    [Edited on 6-15-2004 by raderag]
     
  6. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    When Dordt says:

    "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."

    ...they must mean the same thing as John and Paul:

    1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of [b:e5b5b6a7b2]the whole world.[/b:e5b5b6a7b2]

    Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth [b:e5b5b6a7b2]the whole world:[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

    Romans 5:18 the free gift came upon [b:e5b5b6a7b2]all men[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] unto justification of life.

    1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have [b:e5b5b6a7b2]all men to be saved,[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

    1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, [b:e5b5b6a7b2]who is the Saviour of all men,[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] specially of those that believe.

    As a matter of fact, when you look at commentaries on the Synod, they quote these very verses as proof texts for this head.

    What Scott is saying is NOT dubious. Dordt is saying the exact same thing John and Paul said. Now it is up to you to figure out what Paul and John mean. When you have, then you have nailed Dordt.

    Let's ask a simple question:

    Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's sacrifice was "sufficient for all but efficienct for the elect?"

    I CAN tell you where Amyraut says this, or even Arminius to a certain degree, but what about the Bible?

    [Edited on 6-15-2004 by webmaster]

    [Edited on 6-16-2004 by webmaster]
     
  7. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Thank you Matt.:judge:
     
  8. Bryan

    Bryan Puritan Board Freshman

    You guys are re-interperating Dort.

    If God's elect was more would Christ have to stayed on the cross for longer?

    Bryan
    SDG
     
  9. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:d214260812][i:d214260812]Originally posted by Bryan[/i:d214260812]
    You guys are re-interperating Dort.

    If God's elect was more would Christ have to stayed on the cross for longer?

    Bryan
    SDG [/quote:d214260812]

    We quote the apostles and scripture in contrast to Dordt, you quote Dordt sans scripture. Thats quite bold of you Bryan........

    Do us all a favor, answer the questions Matt posed. Why would Dordt contradict the apostles?



    [Edited on 6-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]
     
  10. smhbbag

    smhbbag Puritan Board Senior

    to clarify the positions of scott and the webmaster:

    Are you guys saying that Christ's blood is not sufficient for all, allowing for that possibility or only that, because you see scripture as silent on the issue, it is not for us to speculate on?
     
  11. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    I did not say that Dordt does not mean what it says. What I said that dordt needs to mean what Paul and John say in the Bible.

    History lesson that should help clarify.

    During the framing of the 3rd chapter of the Westminster confession, E. Calamy got up and voiced his opinion on the concept "sufficient for all, efficient for some."

    Warfield, in his treatment of the minutes of the confession says, "it was the enunciation of what is known as the "Hypothetical Universalistic schema." Calamy then had to defend himself saying he was not an Arminian, and was not an Amyraldian.

    Pause: At this point it should suffice to say that this idea is a bad one, and that it causes theological problems.

    Calamy said, "In the point of election I am for special election; and for reprobation, I am for masssa corrupta...those to whom He...by virtue of Christ's death, there is ea administratio of grace to the reprobate, and that they willfully damn themselves."

    Pause: Snowball is building. Calamy is in trouble here.

    Calamy inferred a "double intention" on Christ's part in his work of redemption - that he died absolutely for the elect, and conditionally for the reprobate. Theologically, his position has as its closest affinity the section in Dordt that was quoted earlier, which is basically am attempt to improve the Amyraldian concept further. Warfield says, "logically it was open, to all the objections which were fatal to it as well as to others arising from its own lack of consistency." True enough.

    Calamy was opposed by men such as Rutherford, Gillespie, Palmer, Reynolds, Wilkinson, Burgess, Lightfoot, Price, Goodwin and Harris.

    His thoughts were overruled by the Confession, and this Amyraldian pressure is not found in the Confession for good reason. In other words, the Westminster Assembly tossed it because of its inaccuracies.

    Modern day:

    So what do WE say?

    Here is my position: Christ's death was infinite, and it had to be for many obvious reasons, one of which was NOT to be sufficient for all. If Christ's death was intended to be for anyone other than the elect in any way, then we would have more people saved.

    Christ's death had to be infinite because MY SIN against God is INFINITE because it is against and infinite God. It is biblically unattainable to say that it was sufficient for anyone other than the elect because of God's intent, and the outcome of that intent.

    The Bible NEVER speaks of Christ' death as "possible" for anything. It ALWAYS speaks about it as fact, and what it was intended for - the elect and them only (which is why the WCF states it that way).

    To plan a hypothetical possibility upon the cross in ANY WAY is to travel into Amyraut's camp.

    Rutherford and Gillespie tore Calamy up on this when they began exegeting the Scriptures dealing with "world", "all," , "all men," etc. Which is exactly what I asked you fellow to do for me - where does the BIBLE say that is was "sufficient for all?" Answer - no place.

    If you want to be an Amyraldian, or enjoy his companionship, by all means, use that lingo. Dordt did, and the Assembly bowled them over on it for adding ideas into the text, or the Cross, to "appease" the Arminians in certain concessions.

    In any case, I see the cross as sufficient for the elect, and efficient for them, and for no one else.

    To say it is sufficient for all is to say absolutely nothing either hypotehtically, or biblically in terms of God's intention and purpose for Christ and the cross.
     
  12. Scot

    Scot Puritan Board Sophomore

  13. Ianterrell

    Ianterrell Puritan Board Sophomore

    Matt,

    Excellent point! If Christ's death had been sufficient for all then all would be saved.
     
  14. Bryan

    Bryan Puritan Board Freshman

    [quote:b85df7ec4b]
    Christ's death was infinite, and it had to be for many obvious reasons, one of which was NOT to be sufficient for all. If Christ's death was intended to be for anyone other than the elect in any way, then we would have more people saved.
    [/quote:b85df7ec4b]

    Now that I understand your position much better Matt I agree with you 100%. Would you then say that it would be more percise for me to say, instead of "Christ's death was sufficient for all but effective only on the elect" to say "Christ's death was infinite to atone for the sins of the elect becase their sins require an infinite atonment"?

    And yes, I do believe I was mistaken to say that Dort was being mis-repersented. It seems I was thinking the same thing as Matt but couldn't express myself as well as he can.


    Bryan
    SDG
     
  15. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    [quote:b193a092f2][i:b193a092f2]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:b193a092f2]
    to clarify the positions of scott and the webmaster:

    Are you guys saying that Christ's blood is not sufficient for all, allowing for that possibility or only that, because you see scripture as silent on the issue, it is not for us to speculate on? [/quote:b193a092f2]

    "Are you guys saying that Christ's blood is not sufficient for all,...."

    No. It IS sufficient for ALL; all of the elect."

    ".....because you see scripture as silent on the issue"

    Scripture is not silent on the position that we take. It is, however, silent on the sacrifice being for anyone other than the elect. Hence, my charge of "specuation".

    "it is not for us to speculate on?"

    Not a safe practice.............
     
  16. smhbbag

    smhbbag Puritan Board Senior

    [quote:e1ff872c4b]Pause: Snowball is building. Calamy is in trouble here.

    Calamy inferred a "double intention" on Christ's part in his work of redemption - that he died absolutely for the elect, and conditionally for the reprobate [/quote:e1ff872c4b]

    This is absurd and he deserved to be called out on it. I would have joined in hammering him on this. I will gladly affirm with you guys that Christ had precisely zero positive intention for the non-elect on the cross. Every intention of Christ was to glorify God and save His people.

    [quote:e1ff872c4b]If Christ's death was intended to be for anyone other than the elect in any way, then we would have more people saved.

    Christ's death had to be infinite because MY SIN against God is INFINITE because it is against and infinite God. [/quote:e1ff872c4b]

    Absolutely agreed again. Christ's blood is infinitely valuable because He is infinitely holy, and God's infinite wrath on my infinite sin was all wholly poured out on Him. This is precisely why the heart of limited atonement is intent and effectiveness, not value. It is intended only for the elect, and it is always effective in justifying those for whom it is offered. Hopefully, I have fully dispelled any notion of me being amyraldian or arminian by now.

    Now, there are 2 possibilities.....either Christ's blood was sufficient to justify every man - if God had ordained every man come to Him.....or it wasn't. There is no 3rd option or in-between answer.

    so here's the simple question, and one I believe you have yet to answer: [b:e1ff872c4b]If Christ's blood is infinitely valuable.....How could it NOT be valuable enough to save more sinners? [/b:e1ff872c4b] If it is infinite in value, how is it not worth enough?

    My answer: yes, it is worth enough, but it was never intended in such a way.

    And as far as asking me to provide interpretations and exegesis of the passages using "all" and "world" with regards to the atonement......I don't see why this is necessary....I don't see a point where we disagree on any of those passages. Every passage on atonement in scripture that I know of, speaks only to the sacrifice offered for the elect, its effectiveness and power to save them. I will freely and openly say, [i:e1ff872c4b]as I already have [/i:e1ff872c4b], that scripture never directly speaks to the sufficiency of the cross for more than the elect.

    [quote:e1ff872c4b]If you want to be an Amyraldian, or enjoy his companionship, by all means, use that lingo. Dordt did, and the Assembly bowled them over on it for adding ideas into the text, or the Cross, to "appease" the Arminians in certain concessions. [/quote:e1ff872c4b]

    I deplore the Amyraldian view of the cross; it makes a mockery of God's work. I think it should be clear that I am fully reformed with regards to limited atonement. If this is applied towards me, go ahead and call Spurgeon an Amyraldian and an Arminian-pleaser as well, because he and I agree on this (as has already been shown by his quote).

    Could you let me in on what you see are the dangers of this idea? That seemed to be a central idea in your response, Webmaster, that this could cause a windfall of trouble in other theological areas......but because I totally reject Calamy's position....the dangers it had for him do not apply similarly to me.


    [quote:e1ff872c4b]"There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. [i:e1ff872c4b]The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work[/i:e1ff872c4b]." [/quote:e1ff872c4b] (emphasis mine)

    - the infamous Amyraldian, Charles Spurgeon


    [Edited on 6-16-2004 by smhbbag]
     
  17. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    [quote:14a65198fc]
    "Christ's death was infinite to atone for the sins of the elect becase their sins require an infinite atonment"?
    [/quote:14a65198fc]

    Exactly.
     
  18. Guest

    Guest Puritan Board Freshman

    I was going to address things directly but Jeremy's post is excellent I'll merely comment on his.
    [quote:918ec1fb45]
    Hopefully, I have fully dispelled any notion of me being amyraldian or arminian by now.
    [/quote:918ec1fb45]
    It is unfortunate that you had to for at no time was there any reason to suspect either of those positions from your comments.
    [quote:918ec1fb45]
    so here's the simple question, and one I believe you have yet to answer: If Christ's blood is infinitely valuable.....How could it NOT be valuable enough to save more sinners? If it is infinite in value, how is it not worth enough?
    [/quote:918ec1fb45]
    Once more you are right on the money. Does Scripture speak directly to the issue? No. But does it need to? The infinite worth of our Savior makes any other conclusion impossible. It is, as the WCF would affirm, that which is deducible "by good and necessary consequence".
    [quote:918ec1fb45]
    And as far as asking me to provide interpretations and exegesis of the passages using "all" and "world" with regards to the atonement......I don't see why this is necessary....
    [/quote:918ec1fb45]
    It isn't, nor should it even have been requested. It appears designed to draw attention away from the actual issue summarized succinctly in your question above. That this discussion is about value, not intent, should be obvious.
    [quote:918ec1fb45]
    [i:918ec1fb45]If you want to be an Amyraldian, or enjoy his companionship, by all means, use that lingo.[/i:918ec1fb45]

    I deplore the Amyraldian view of the cross; it makes a mockery of God's work. I think it should be clear that I am fully reformed with regards to limited atonement.
    [/quote:918ec1fb45]
    It is clear and has been clear the entire time. The shot, italicized in the quote above, is nothing more than veiled ad hominem and is reprehensible.
    [quote:918ec1fb45]
    If this is applied towards me, go ahead and call Spurgeon an Amyraldian and an Arminian-pleaser as well, because he and I agree on this (as has already been shown by his quote).
    [/quote:918ec1fb45]

    But why stop at Spurgeon?

    Loraine might be surprised to know that he is an Amyraldian

    The sufficiency of the death of Christ should never be made a matter for dispute. [b:918ec1fb45]It is acknowledged that if God had decreed that all men in all of history were to be saved the work of Christ at Calvary is sufficient to save.[/b:918ec1fb45] It is the efficacy of the atonement that the Scriptures set forth as being limited in design. (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith)

    James is a Baptist. Who can take him seriously?

    James White affirms the same when he quotes Boettner in his "Was Anybody Saved at the Cross?". In that same article he also says this "Yet, if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain impure for all eternity. [b:918ec1fb45]Was Christ's death insufficient to cleanse them? Certainly not."[/b:918ec1fb45]

    Schwertly. Who ever heard of him anyway?

    The inconsistent universalist and particular redemptionist both limit Christ's death in some manner. The Arminian limits the power of Christ's death to save, while the Calvinist limits the design of it. The Calvinist teaches that Christ's death is of infinite value to God because Christ was the divine-human mediator. [b:918ec1fb45]Christ's death was sufficient to save every man, woman and child who ever lived. In fact, it was sufficient to save everyone on a thousand planets, if God so desired. [/b:918ec1fb45]What limits Christ's death is that by God's design and purpose Jesus died only for the elect, those chosen to be saved before the foundation of the world. His death is directed to and actually saves particular persons; not an indefinite mass of people or a hypothetical humanity. Christ offered a definite atonement. It is personal. He knows His own by name (Jn. 10:14). (Brian Schwertly-An Examination of the Five Points)

    Hoeksema: uhm...Dutch Treat?

    That is the basic idea also in that sometimes-debated expression in Article 3 of Canons II: "...abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." That cannot mean, you know, that Christ intended to die for the whole world conceived of as all men. That would be the Arminian doctrine. That is just exactly what the fathers were fighting against in Canons II. It does not mean that at all. The article does not say either that Christ made satisfaction for the whole world. [b:918ec1fb45]The idea is that in itself that death of Christ is so precious that in itself it is sufficient for the whole world. If God had wanted to save the entire world, head for head and soul for soul, He would not have needed another sacrifice. As one of the theologians of Dordrecht put it in his written opinion for the Synod of Dordrecht, the death of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world and for a thousand more worlds like it! The death of the Son of God is of infinite value: there is no end to its intrinsic worth![/b:918ec1fb45] (Hoeksema-The Five Points)

    Dabney: Hillbilly Theology?

    [b:918ec1fb45]But sacrifice, expiation, is one--the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam's race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all.[/b:918ec1fb45] We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers. Were the crowd of paupers greater, the bottom of the bag would be reached before every pauper got his alms, and more money would have to be provided. I repeat, this notion is utterly false as applied to Christ's expiation, because it is a divine act. It is indivisible, inexhaustible, sufficient in itself to cover the guilt of all the sins that will ever be committed on earth. (RL Dabney-The Five Points)

    Murray the post redemptionist?

    [b:918ec1fb45]The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction.[/b:918ec1fb45] The doctrine of limited atonement any more than the doctrine of sovereign election does not raise a fence around the offer of the gospel. The overture of the gospel offering peace and salvation through Jesus Christ is to all without distinction, though it is truly from the heart of sovereign election and limited atonement that this stream of grace universally proffered flows. If we may change the figure, it is upon the crest of the wave of divine sovereignty and of limited atonement that the full and free offer of the gospel breaks upon our shores. The offer of salvation to all is bona fide. All that is proclaimed is absolutely true. Every sinner believing will infallibly be saved, for the veracity and purpose of God cannot be violated. (John Murray-The Reformed Faith and Arminianism)

    R Scott Clark: From the land of fruits and nuts?

    [Peter] Lombard's teaching on the atonement is most famous for his use of the distinction between the sufficiency of Christ's death and its efficiency. Though they are not familiar to many of us today, from their publication in the late 12th century until the late 16th century, Peter's Sentences were the most important theological text in the Latin-speaking world. Theological students even earned Bachelor's and Master's degrees in the Sentences In Book 3, distinction 20 he taught that [b:918ec1fb45]Christ's death was "sufficient" to redeem all (quantum ad pretii) but it is "efficient" only "for the elect" (pro electis)[/b:918ec1fb45] (R Scott Clark-Limited Atonement)

    And finally from that heretical purveyor of ante-applicationism Charles Hodge:

    Accordingly, Lutherans and Reformed, although they agree entirely as to the nature of the atonement, differ as to its design. The former maintain that it had an equal reference to all mankind, the latter that it had special reference to the elect. In the second place, [b:918ec1fb45]the question does not concern the value of Christ's satisfaction. That Augustinians admit to be infinite. Its value depends on the dignity of the sacrifice; and as no limit can be placed to the dignity of the Eternal Son of God who offered Himself for our sins, so no limit can be assigned to the meritorious value of his work.[/b:918ec1fb45] It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been. [b:918ec1fb45]What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all.[/b:918ec1fb45] Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is sufficient for any one plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary for each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite number and variety of plants and animals which fill the earth. [b:918ec1fb45]All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood.[/b:918ec1fb45] In the third place, the question does not concern the suitableness of the atonement. What was suitable for one was suitable for all. The righteousness of Christ, the merit of his obedience and death, is needed for justification by each individual of our race, and therefore is needed by all. It is no more appropriate to one man than to another. Christ fulfilled the conditions of the covenant under which all men were placed. He rendered the obedience required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred; and therefore his work is equally suited to all. In the fourth place, the question does not concern the actual application of the redemption purchased by Christ. The parties to this controversy are agreed that some only, and not all of mankind are to be actually saved. [b:918ec1fb45]In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died "suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi-" sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect.[/b:918ec1fb45] (Charles Hodge-For Whom Did Christ Die?)

    Spurgeon, Boettner, White, Schwertly, Hoeksema, Dabney, Murray, and Hodge. A pox on the whole heretical bunch.

    Note to those using Reymonds Systematic Theology; Please remove all references to sufficiency in the section on the atonement. (I wonder if Knox Theo knows about this?)

    Later
     
  19. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    [quote:e841d79486]
    Does Scripture speak directly to the issue? No.
    [/quote:e841d79486]

    Correct. That's about all we need to know.

    This is not such a whale of a point that it shoudl cause us all to get upset, or polemical. I think itis a fundamental misunderstanding, or aversion ot certain consequences of the decrees of God, and the will of God. (Which are VERY important ideas to die over).

    I do appreciate the quotes. I am aware of them, and more (unfortunately MANY more!). In any case, I still stick with the WCF, and the framers there, and discard the Amyraldian idea outright, as they did (which is why the WCF does not smack of it at all). Other theologians, as you quoted above, do in fact embrace that point of the Amyraldian system, to their inconsistent demise in respectability. I think they would better employ their pens as to what they can prove from Scripture, rather hypothesizing on dubious theological grounds. As you said, "Does Scripture speak directly to the issue?" I will use your answer - No!! But what it DOES speak on, like God's intention in the cross, is to save the elect by a infinite sacrifice. That is where we should remain.
     
  20. smhbbag

    smhbbag Puritan Board Senior

    You say this view of the sufficiency of Christ's blood is "inconsistent." Could explain why you think this is so? (I presume you mean it is inconsistent for someone who accepts Limited Atonement, as obviously everyone in this thread does)

    As far as the other stuff you posted, I think we've both made our cases pretty fully, I feel no burden to go on for 10 more pages rehashing the same arguments.
     
  21. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Jeremy,
    What Matt said is that the view is inconsistant with the framers. The quotes presented show a bent towards the Amyraldian system.

    Three positions concerning the extent of the atonement
    1) Arminian. Christ died for all people equally.
    2) Calvinistic. Christ died for the elect.
    3) Amyraldian. Christ died hypothetically for all people, but God elected only some.
    Amyraldianism could be called "four-point Calvinism." (Moses Amyraut, 1596-1664,
    French Protestant pastor)

    More here:

    http://www.wrs.edu/Materials for We...icular Atonement and the Order of Decrees.pdf
     
  22. Guest

    Guest Puritan Board Freshman

    [quote:141290bf85]
    Other theologians, as you quoted above, do in fact embrace that point of the Amyraldian system, to their inconsistent demise in respectability.
    [/quote:141290bf85]

    Edited for content.........SPB

    Disgusted



    [Edited on 6-17-2004 by Scott Bushey]
     
  23. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Uh Mark,
    Are the quotes Amyraldian or not?

    Are the definitions I posted above consistant with the quotes in regards to the Amyraldian view?
     
  24. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    Mark, it is not dishonest to say that men fumble in theology, nor does that make any of them men that were quoted Amyraldian, it simply means they blew it on one point.

    I would not say, and did not say that they were Amyraldian, but I would say, and do say, that that fundamental article in which this thread is about is Amyraldian in tendency. See the WCF if you have questions on that, or the Bible. As was said already, "Is this point in the Bible?" The answer to that is "no."

    Sorry you are disgusted. I know it is hard holding a position you cannot prove from the Bible, even though other good men have said the same thing. All I hoped was to demonstrate that fact, which you acquiesced to.

    If that upsets you, and theological debate is too difficult in that way, then this board is definitely not someplace you want to be. We are here looking for truth, that which sanctifies. If these men made a blunder, we should not follow after that blunder. That does not make those men bad guides. It does make them men, for even the best of men are still men.

    I do not think I understand the insult about my ego. Could you explain this?

    Jeremy,

    Here is what I mean in the easiest way I can explain it:

    If God purposes anything, then His will in that "thing" is accomplished. For God, there is no "realm of possibility." God does not think that way. He decrees. If the Cross of Christ was meant to do anything other than its intended end, then we have in God a double will, and that is inconsistent with His character and His decrees.

    Can we "hypothetically" say that Christ could have saved more than He did? NO NO NO. That would impinge on what we know is God's perfect plan. Christ could not have saved any more or any less than who he saved. His atonement was sufficient and efficient ONLY for the elect. I know everyone on this thread believes that. to go BEYOND that, is to leave the arena of "the atonement" and impinge upon inconsistent ideas surround Theology Proper. We should not do that. That is why the Westminster Assembly did not, in any way, add into the Confession anything that could "smell" remotely Amyraldian. Amyraut taught that the Cross was sufficient to save all, but that road leads down a path that befuddles the Attributes and Character of God, and His decrees.

    Mark was upset that good men believed this, and that the bible does not teach it, though it sounds logically plausible. But it is not logically plausible, nor really plausible, nor hypothetically plausible because of what we know of God's decrees.

    We mine as well ask if God can make a rock too big for him to lift!

    [Edited on 6-17-2004 by webmaster]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page