Pelagianism: The Boogie Man

People keep saying that Arminius believed in four of the five points of Calvin. This is simply not true. Limited atonement states that Jesus only died for the Elect. The statement below is from Works of Arminius volume two. It is in reference to "did Jesus die for all, or only the Elect". In his answer, he gives two possible ways that statement can be interpreted. Then he rejects one and accepts the other. He rejects the definition of Unlimited atonement which would agree with Universalism, and agrees with the definition of Unlimited Atonement that is held by real Arminians, that Jesus died for all, but that the redemption is only applied to believers.

That Christ has died for all men and for every individual.

ANSWER

This assertion was never made by me, either in public or private, except when it was accompanied by such an explanation as the controversies which are excited on this subject have rendered necessary
For the phrase here used possesses much ambiguity: Thus it may mean either that ‘the price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every one,’ or that ‘the redemption, which was obtained by means of that price is applied and communicated to all men and to every one.’

“(1) Of this latter sentiment I entirely disapprove, because God has by a peremptory decree resolved that believers alone should be made partakers of this redemption.

“(2) Let those who reject the former of these opinions consider how they can answer the following Scriptures which declare that Christ died for all men [2 Cor. 5.14]; that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2.2); that He took away the sin of the world (John 1.29); that He gave His flesh for the life of the world (John 6.51); that Christ died even for that man who might be destroyed with the meat of another person (Rom. 14.15); and that false teachers make merchandise even of those who deny the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2Peter 2.1, 3).

“He therefore who speaks thus speaks with the Scriptures; while he who rejects such phraseology is a daring man, one who sits in judgment on the Scriptures and is not an interpreter of them.

“But he who explains those passages agreeably to the analogy of faith performs the duty of a good interpreter and prophesier (or preacher) in the Church of God.

 

Sufficient for all, efficient only for those who believe is correct. But Arminius went further. He said that the price of death was given for all and every one, but it is not communicated to all and ever one (only to those who believe.)

Does TULIP's Limited Atonement teach that the price of death was given for all and every one, but only applied and communicated to those who believe? If yes, then I will accept Limited Atonement as taught in Tulip

 

I can live with Dr. Toms acrostic (which I have forgotten) It's much better than TULIP.

I can see it now Those who like it will Latinize his name and be called after his label Cassidius - Cassidians

Maybe Semi-Cassidians too?

 

OK, I have printed it out and stored it as a document.

 

I agree with your answer, BUT I did not ask if Calvinists believe that He died for all. I asked if the PRICE OF DEATH WAS PAID FOR EVERY MAN, as stated in the article of Arminius I posted earlier.

The way I understand the issue is that the price of death (wages of sin) was paid for every man, but the price is ONLY communicated and applied to those who believe. Does this agree with Calvinism's Limited Atonement? If yes, then I accept it.

As far as people who are ignorant of their own ignorance we are only going by what we have read from Calvinists. I can give many quotes by some of the most respected Calvinists that say Christ did not die for all men. But if the price of death was paid for every man, then Christ died for all men. The fact that it is not communicated and applied TO all does not mean He did not die FOR all. In fact, I don't see how the fact that the benefits of His death are not applied or communicated TO all negates paid or given FOR all in any way.

Christ died (paid the price of death) FOR all but it is not communicated or applied TO all, (it is applied only TO those who believe.)

SO I agree with you, but you state it more precisely than others.

But I really appreciate your posts and your patience with me. I am not trying to debate you, I really am trying to better understand Calvinism.

 

G4M Might I suggest that we are all looking to understand the Bible better. Calvin is/was a man, Arminius as well and both of which attempted to better understand the scripture.

I don't think we can fully understand a great many things this side of heaven.

But all we need is the Bible (with all due human respects to the Institutes of the Christian Religion).
And IMO Dr Tom's explanations can be a meeting place for both C and A.
His acrostic (though its not a recognizable word ) can be that meeting place with private qualifications if needed.

 

Obviously, if Christ died for all, He died for the non elect too. There must be something God intended to and did accomplish in Christ dying even for the non elect. You can say it is to demonstrate His love

I agree with the points He made, but with one condition. He said God's grace never fails of its intended purpose. I agree. But if Christ died for all, that is a grace unto all. But not all are saved. Only the believer. So it is not God who failed, it is the one who would not believe.

But if God never intended to save that person, than redeeming grace through Christ's death is not available for them, and Christ dying for them can only result in greater condemnation. Is this God's sole intention in Christ dying for non-elect? I know it does increase condemnation for those who reject Christ, but if it is impossible for them to believe, and irresistable grace is the only way they are able to believe, than condemnation and reprobation are also irresistable.

so what you have is Christ dying for all, with no intention of saving MANY who Christ died for. This is the part I find hard to accept.

 

May i humbly say (if possible) our problem with trying to figure out God's way of salvation and the counsel of His own will in the administration of that plan is possibly explained in the following passage

Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I believe it was Martin Luther who said - paraphrase - If a scripture gives you a problem leave it alone for a while, don't let it make you stumble.

In other words if our energy (even in spiritual things) is being consumed in endeavors which brings limitations to our witness of the grace of God through His Son Jesus Christ then that endeavor cannot be of God and will only end in harm.

Followed by this passage:

Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

We should leave the matter in His capable hands we are left here after the light dawns upon us to show forth that light not to be apologists for God.

That is not to say that we do not need apologists for God, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven"

 

Did the death of Jesus reconcile all sinners back to God?

 

No. That was stated when I quoted Arminians as inferring that the price of death was paid for all men, but only applied to those who believe. The statement I am replying to is where people say Arminians believed in Limited Atonement as taught in TULIP. It is my assertion that he did not.

 

I agree with your post, brother. Yet what I am replying to is the assertion that Arminius agreed with four points of Tulip, and specifically Limited Atonement. I am wondering if Calvinists are willing to affirm Arminius' view of Atonement, which was that the price of death was paid for every man, but not applied or communicated to every man, only to those who believe

If not, then Arminius did not agree with their view of Limited Atonement.

I am not even trying to argue for or against either way. I challenging the assertion that Arminius held to L.A as taught by Calvinists. If Calvinists do believe the view of Atonement as described above, I will rejoice

 

OK, Personally I like to think of the 5 blind guys trying to describe what an elephant looks like.
I don't think we have enough information probably because (for one thing) we are not yet able to see the whole scope - you know, like watching the parade of time pass by through a little knot hole.

But the Lord sees the end from the beginning.

The fruit of the Spirit is evident as supernatural and needs no apologetic and there is no law against love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control...

Although as I said previously apologetics have their place.

 

So then the only way I can interpret what you are saying is that Calvinists that believe as you do are in agreement with premise that in Christ's death, the price of death was paid for all, but only communicated and applied to those who believe. Thank you for the clarification.

As to the rest of your post, I also heartily agree. I agree with and like much of what you say. I know I am probably coming off as argumentative, but that is not my intention at all. Blessings.

 

Another analogy is that when we look at the picture piecemeal without looking at the overall picture, we miss much. I agree with you, and no worries. I'm not trying to defend a position one way or another. These latest posts are not meant to be polemic or apology. Blessings, my brother.