unlimited atonment

[cupotea]

Please kindly refer to this:

Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive Gardner Spring (1785-1873) on Election, Unlimited Atonement and the Free Offer

especially for this:

2. It is no part of the doctrine of Election, that Christ died exclusively for the Elect. Such a representation is an unjustifiable perversion of the doctrine, and exposes it to unanswerable questions. Though there would have been no atonement but for God’s design to save the elect, and though there could have been no designs of mercy toward the elect without an atonement; yet the doctrine of atonement and election are two distinct things. Much idle breath and illiberal crimination might have been spared, by giving them that place in the Christian system which they hold in the word of God. It has never yet been proved that Christ died exclusively for the elect. If language has any meaning, we are bound to believe that “he tasted death for every man.” One would imagine that if the Apostle had intended to put this question forever at rest, he could not have said more than he has in these memorable words: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Any comments?

 

[Hippo]

Limited atonement is not a stand alone doctrine that can be rejected without also rejecting the other wonderful truths of election and atonement. That being said neither should the doctrine be espoused in seperation from those self same truths.

The important point is not the scope of atonement, but the effect of the attonement and when the effect of the attonemnt is understood the scope is self evident.

Someone could just as well say that the doctrine of the atonement should be rejected which of course we would refuse to accept, but that is exactly what someone is proposing when they seek to discard limited atonement.

 

[rbcbob]

It is no part of the doctrine of Election, that Christ died exclusively for the Elect. Such a representation is an unjustifiable perversion of the doctrine, and exposes it to unanswerable questions.

Such an assertion is weak at best. This and other assertions in the quote from Spring undermine the atonement-Purposed, Purchased, and Applied.


Abraham Booth noted:

While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude, that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent, as a sponsor, when he died on the cross. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrtine of redemption by our adorable Jesus.__We may therefore, safely conclude that our Lord’s voluntary substitution, and redemption by his vicarious death, are both of them limited to those, for whom he was made SIN__for those whom he was made a CURSE__and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he actually paid the price of his OWN BLOOD. Consequently, that redemption is particular, and peculiar to the chosen of God.__Abraham Booth

 

[ronlsb]

Hi Duncan!

I would agree with the Puritan John Owen that there is no doctrine of scripture more clearly stated than that of "limited atonement". The number of verses that support this vastly outnumber the few that can be used to refute it. When this occurs in scripture, one of the basic rules of hermeneutics is that the "many" interpret the "few". On a human level, Owen proposed a syllogism that I think is helpful and has yet to be refuted since he penned it in the 1600's:

Only three possibilities exist concerning the question of "for whom did Christ die"?

1. Christ died for all the sins of all the men that ever lived.
2. Christ died for some of the sins of all the men that ever lived.
3. Chirst died for all the sins of some of the men that ever lived.

The direction each of these choices takes us is pretty ovbious. #1 leads to universalism, which is clearly unbiblical. #2 leads to no one being saved, also clearly unbiblical. #3 is what the scripture teaches, and results in a multitude as large as the stars in the sky or the sand on the ocean being in heaven rejoicing in our God and Savior for all eternity.

Blessings

 

[MW]

Any comments?

Please be aware that the site to which you are linking merely aims to throw doubt on the Calvinist tradition as represented by such luminaries as John Owen. By and large it specialises in comic book theology as it cuts and pastes from here, there, and everywhere to caricature the Calvinist tradition. No serious attempt is made to place the writings within an historical context, to show the relationship of the author to the tradition, or even to locate the specific issues which the author is attempting to answer.

Spring's "Scripture proof" allusion to Hebrews 2:9 shows a lack of acquaintance with the exegetical questions involved with the text. The bare reference to "every man" does not settle the issue. When Paul said the "manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man," 1 Cor. 12:7, he obviously did not mean every man in the world, but every man who is a member of the body of Christ, as the context reveals. Context determines what restrictions must be placed on universal terms. Hebrews 2:10 restricts the referent to "many sons." The whole section is emphasising what Christ has done to accomplish the salvation of His brethren. The text, therefore, does more to prove limited atonement than to cast doubt upon it.

 

[OPC'n]

There's a song by Shai Linne Called Mission Accomplished which I was going to put a link to utube for you to hear but it breaks the 2nd Commandment so here are the words. When you read them you see how limited atonement makes complete sense.

Verse 1

Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide
For years it’s had Christians lining up on both sides
By God’s grace, I’ll address this without pride
The question concerns those for whom Christ died
Was He trying to save everybody worldwide?
Was He trying to make the entire world His Bride?
Does man’s unbelief keep the Savior’s hands tied?
Biblically, each of these must be denied
It’s true, Jesus gave up His life for His Bride
But His Bride is the elect, to whom His death is applied
If on judgment day, you see that you can’t hide
And because of your sin, God’s wrath on you abides
And hell is the place you eternally reside
That means your wrath from God hasn’t been satisfied
But we believe His mission was accomplished when He died
But how the cross relates to those in hell?
Well, they be saying:

God knows He tried (8x)

Verse 2

Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one
Working as a unit to get things done
Our salvation began in eternity past
God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass
A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever
When it comes to the church, peep how they work together
The Father foreknew first, the Son came to earth
To die- the Holy Spirit gives the new birth
The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them
The Spirit is the One who resurrects them
The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them
The Spirit renews them and produces fruit in them
Everybody’s not elect, the Father decides
And it’s only the elect in whom the Spirit resides
The Father and the Spirit- completely unified
But when it comes to Christ and those in hell?
Well, they be saying:

God knows He tried (8x)

Verse 3

My third and final verse- here’s the situation
Just a couple more things for your consideration
If saving everybody was why Christ came in history
With so many in hell, we’d have to say He failed miserably
So many think He only came to make it possible
Let’s follow this solution to a conclusion that’s logical
What about those who were already in the grave?
The Old Testament wicked- condemned as depraved
Did He die for them? C’mon, behave
But worst of all, you’re saying the cross by itself doesn’t save
That we must do something to give the cross its power
That means, at the end of the day, the glory’s ours
That man-centered thinking is not recommended
The cross will save all for whom it was intended
Because for the elect, God’s wrath was satisfied
But still, when it comes to those in hell
Well, they be saying:

God knows He tried (8x)

 

[Scott1]

Admittedly, the "L" (limited atonement) of TULIP is often most difficult to accept. Probably second most difficult is "U" (unconditional election).

That is why there are people who imagine themselves to be "three" or "four" point "Calvinists." Some have even jokingly referred to themselves as 3.14159 point.

All five points are necessarily and logically dependent on and related to one another.

Often, not seeing the relation results from not understanding the "T" (total depravity). That man is born with a natural tendency, bias, bondage toward his sin nature that prevents him from resting faith in Christ alone for salvation. The tendency is toward self-reliance, self-justification, disobedience and away from the demands of a holy God.

But the even larger issue, in context, is the sovereignty of God.

Dr. RC Sproul

If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, then God is not sovereign.

And if God is not sovereign, God is not God.

 

[Skyler]

That is why there are people who imagine themselves to be "three" or "four" point "Calvinists." Some have even jokingly referred to themselves as 3.14159 point.

I would if I could, but that'd be dishonest. I'm a five-pointer.

Though I suppose I could pull a James White and refer to myself as a 6.022142 point Calvinist...

 

[David J Houston]

...

John Piper is more reformed than any of you. He's a SEVEN point calvinist!

What does Piper mean when he says he's a seven-point Calvinist? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

 

[TKarrer]

Though Calvin may have written that, those quotes certainly don't exhaust his theology of the atonement. An article that details some works written to unveil Calvin's views of the atonement can be found here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm

Simply put, he seems to have believed it was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect only; which certainly isn't as descriptive a view as, say, that of John Owen. Regardless of what Calvin believed, and though we should definitely study his works on the subject, John Owen's work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ", is one any person who is desiring to nail down their doctrine of the atonement should study in-depth.

 

[ewenlin]

Though Calvin may have written that, those quotes certainly don't exhaust his theology of the atonement. An article that details some works written to unveil Calvin's views of the atonement can be found here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm

Simply put, he seems to have believed it was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect only; which certainly isn't as descriptive a view as, say, that of John Owen. Regardless of what Calvin believed, and though we should definitely study his works on the subject, John Owen's work "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ", is one any person who is desiring to nail down their doctrine of the atonement should study in-depth.

The sufficient for all, efficient for the elect only formula is a classical formula widely accepted during Calvin's time. Not after Beza did issues surrounding the formula surface. We recently glossed over this in another thread.

But Owen's Death of Death is the work to read.

 

[captivewill]

Limited atonement is not a stand alone doctrine that can be rejected without also rejecting the other wonderful truths of election and atonement. That being said neither should the doctrine be espoused in seperation from those self same truths.

The important point is not the scope of atonement, but the effect of the attonement and when the effect of the attonemnt is understood the scope is self evident.

Someone could just as well say that the doctrine of the atonement should be rejected which of course we would refuse to accept, but that is exactly what someone is proposing when they seek to discard limited atonement.

Then why does Calvin not affirm the doctrine? In fact he speaks forthrightly of unlimited atonement. Was Calvin not a Calvinist ? And what are the ramifications IF Calvin was a four-point Calvinist ?

 

[Prufrock]

Limited atonement is not a stand alone doctrine that can be rejected without also rejecting the other wonderful truths of election and atonement. That being said neither should the doctrine be espoused in seperation from those self same truths.

The important point is not the scope of atonement, but the effect of the attonement and when the effect of the attonemnt is understood the scope is self evident.

Someone could just as well say that the doctrine of the atonement should be rejected which of course we would refuse to accept, but that is exactly what someone is proposing when they seek to discard limited atonement.

Then why does Calvin not affirm the doctrine? In fact he speaks forthrightly of unlimited atonement. Was Calvin not a Calvinist ? And what are the ramifications IF Calvin was a four-point Calvinist ?

This is a poor, tired horse which has been beaten frequently. We must understand the point in time and doctrinal development in which Calvin stood, and not attempt to impose later categories on him. So yes, to say that Calvin taught the same *precise, nuanced* teaching on "limited atonement" which developed later would be anachronistic; however, to say that Calvin taught "unlimited atonement" is just plain wrong on another level entirely!

Since you are making the assertion that Calvin taught unlimited atonement, please present the evidence upon which you are basing that claim; I'm sure that, placing Calvin in his appropriate context, it will soon be clear to any willing to listen that this is a false label to attach to his teaching.

 

[Prufrock]

You raised another question ("What would be the ramifications if...") which I think deserves addressing, since it rests on a generally held misunderstanding of Reformed theology. Even if Calvin did teach "unlimited atonement" (which I adamantly deny he did), what of it? Reformed theology is not a one man show: in fact, in many areas, several of Calvin's contemporaries and even predecessors were just as influential, and often much more influential than Calvin in the formation of our teachings. Bullinger (esp. with respect to teachings on the Covenant) and Melanchthon (esp. with respect to Theological Method and the relationship of Philosophy to Theology) were predecessors to Calvin whose teachings on certain topics were more influential than Calvin. From Calvin's own day, the same can be said about Musculus and Vermigli, especially the latter's teachings on Predestination, which largely set the tone for subsequent developments. Also from Calvin's day, and immediately following, teachers such as Beza (esp. with respect to New Testament exegesis and textual matters, and also predestination), Daneau (who, together with Vermigli and Zanchi, brought a large Thomistic influence to the shape of Reformed theology), Hyperius (like Melanchthon, he was especially important with respect to Theological Method), Zanchi (who, almost single handedly, determined the future shape of Protestant discussions of the Doctrine of God) and Aretius. These were all men from either before Calvin, or the same time as Calvin, in addition to scores of other important theologians, who often were more influential that Calvin.

So as to the question, "What would be the ramifications if Calvin taught unlimited atonement?" (Which he did not). The answer: "What of it?" It would be an unfortunate aberration in Reformed theology from one of its luminaries. We would look back and correct his teachings based upon those of his contemporaries. Reformed teaching in no way rises or falls with Calvin.

 

[captivewill]

Limited atonement is not a stand alone doctrine that can be rejected without also rejecting the other wonderful truths of election and atonement. That being said neither should the doctrine be espoused in seperation from those self same truths.

The important point is not the scope of atonement, but the effect of the attonement and when the effect of the attonemnt is understood the scope is self evident.

Someone could just as well say that the doctrine of the atonement should be rejected which of course we would refuse to accept, but that is exactly what someone is proposing when they seek to discard limited atonement.

Then why does Calvin not affirm the doctrine? In fact he speaks forthrightly of unlimited atonement. Was Calvin not a Calvinist ? And what are the ramifications IF Calvin was a four-point Calvinist ?

This is a poor, tired horse which has been beaten frequently. We must understand the point in time and doctrinal development in which Calvin stood, and not attempt to impose later categories on him. So yes, to say that Calvin taught the same *precise, nuanced* teaching on "limited atonement" which developed later would be anachronistic; however, to say that Calvin taught "unlimited atonement" is just plain wrong on another level entirely!

Since you are making the assertion that Calvin taught unlimited atonement, please present the evidence upon which you are basing that claim; I'm sure that, placing Calvin in his appropriate context, it will soon be clear to any willing to listen that this is a false label to attach to his teaching.

Of course it is well known that Dort was 40 years after Calvin.
RT Kendall's book "Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649" quotes Martin Lloyd Jones as being "fully convinced that John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement." ML Jones did believe in limited atonement.
Calvin Institutes III.i.1 "...Christ died for every person without any exception..."
Calvin Sermons on Isaiah "...it is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world."
But your follow up remarks are absolutely correct in that truth is not dependant on John Calvin. But it is potentially interesting in our implications for fellowship IF John Calvin was himself a four-point Calvinist. And the irony is amusing as well.

 

[Prufrock]

1.) The fact that someone or something led Martin Lloyd Jones to believe that Calvin did not teach limited atonement tells us nothing other than what someone led Martin Lloyd Jones to believe. I could produce a list of hundreds of people who did believe Calvin taught limited atonement. What of it?

2.) R.T. Kendall's thesis is based upon misconceptions which historical scholars have by now thoroughly demolished. He mistakenly assumed that Calvin was Christocentric and the later tradition had Predestination for a central dogma. Both of these are false, and many studies in the last few decades have demonstrated this.

3.) Institutes III.i.1 has no such quote. Period.

4.) Even if it did, be very wary of anyone who comes to you with bit quotes from an author on some topic whereby they attempt to show that the author did not teach what everyone in all ages has believed them to teach. Context is most important.

5.) Please provide a more narrow reference than "Sermons on Isaiah," especially for such a small bit quote, so that we can look at and understand what Calvin is actually saying.

 

[toddpedlar]

Limited atonement is not a stand alone doctrine that can be rejected without also rejecting the other wonderful truths of election and atonement. That being said neither should the doctrine be espoused in seperation from those self same truths.

The important point is not the scope of atonement, but the effect of the attonement and when the effect of the attonemnt is understood the scope is self evident.

Someone could just as well say that the doctrine of the atonement should be rejected which of course we would refuse to accept, but that is exactly what someone is proposing when they seek to discard limited atonement.

Then why does Calvin not affirm the doctrine? In fact he speaks forthrightly of unlimited atonement. Was Calvin not a Calvinist ? And what are the ramifications IF Calvin was a four-point Calvinist ?

If he did affirm unlimited atonement (which he does NOT) then he would be wrong. The Bible very clearly teaches it, regardless of what Calvin says.

 

[Christusregnat]

Then why does Calvin not affirm the doctrine? In fact he speaks forthrightly of unlimited atonement. Was Calvin not a Calvinist ? And what are the ramifications IF Calvin was a four-point Calvinist ?

Another thing to recall in this discussion is that Calvin may have not been entirely consistent with his own premises. Later generations may take the basic premise, and think it through with more rigor and precision. This is precisely what I would argue happened at Dort: they were more consistent with Calvin's premises (which were nothing less than the teachings of Scripture) than Calvin was. The same way that Calvin was more consistent with some of Augustine's basic thoughts than Augustine was.

Therefore, although (as Paul noted), we may not impute later categories onto earlier persons, it is not mistaken to recognize the premises and seeds planted which would later be known as "5-point Calvinism".

Cheers,

 

[CharlieJ]

Calvin Sermons on Isaiah "...it is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world."

If you read Calvin's The Eternal Predestination of God and The Secret Providence of God, Calvin quotes Isaiah over and over again against Pighius. Calvin's point, however, is that "whole world" in the Bible refers to all the nations of the earth vs. the Jews only. Thus, the supposedly universal passages in Scripture are not universal in a distributive sense, but in a geographical/ethnic sense. He is arguing directly against what some have tried to make him say.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Calvin Institutes III.i.1 "...Christ died for every person without any exception..."
.

Where does it say this?

Book 3
CHAPTER 1. - THE BENEFITS OF Christ MADE…

1. We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for 463private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him,274274 Eph. 4:15; Rom. 6:5; 11:17; 8:29; Gal. 3:27. all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him. And although it is true that we obtain this by faith, yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of Christ which is made by the gospel, the very nature of the case teaches us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of the Spirit, to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings. I have already treated of the eternal essence and divinity of the Spirit (Book 1 chap. 13 sect. 14,15); let us at present attend to the special point, that Christ came by water and blood, as the Spirit testifies concerning him, that we might not lose the benefits of the salvation which he has purchased. For as there are said to be three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, so there are also three on the earth, namely, water, blood, and Spirit. It is not without cause that the testimony of the Spirit is twice mentioned, a testimony which is engraven on our hearts by way of seal, and thus seals the cleansing and sacrifice of Christ. For which reason, also, Peter says, that believers are “elect” “through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” (1 Pet. 1:2). By these words he reminds us, that if the shedding of his sacred blood is not to be in vain, our souls must be washed in it by the secret cleansing of the Holy Spirit. For which reason, also, Paul, speaking of cleansing and purification, says, “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6:11). The whole comes to this that the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually binds us to himself. Here we may refer to what was said in the last Book concerning his anointing.