Featured A Scripture question [particularly for Calvinists]

Because that passage is referring to false converts. They have tasted of the good things of God by acting the part of a believer (wittingly or unwittingly) and benefited by being part of the gathering of believers.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Great reply!

 

I understand it as those that Christ died for will NOT lose their eternal salvation.

 

It's a "hypothetical" situation.

He's not being literal there.
Christ's sheep cannot fall away.

He's stating that if they could, the entire crucifixion and shedding of blood would need to be repeated for them in order to be renewed again to repentance.

 

How does it not support "limited atonement" ( Particular Redemption )?

Everyone that Christ died for ( Matthew 1:21, John 10:11 ) is reconciled to God by the death of His Son ( Romans 5:10 ).
So, if one of the elect were to fall away, and God is not willing that any of them perish ( John 6:39-40, John 10:28-29, 2 Peter 3:8-9 ), then Christ would have to be re-sacrificed in order to bring them back again to repentance.

That would put the Lord Jesus to an open shame, for having to repeat what He said was "finished" ( John 19:30 ).
One sacrifice, once ( Hebrews 10:10 ).

That is all it took, and that is all that was needed in God the Father's eyes.
Perfect, complete, and fully cleansing His children of their sins ( Hebrews 1:3 ), justifying them by the blood ( Romans 5:9 ) and making them holy and sanctified in His sight ( Ephesians 1:4-6, Colossians 1:21-22 ).

 

I couldn't tell you what the standard "I follow each and every teaching of John Calvin" position is.
That is what I see and understand when I read it...but I did not always read that passage that way.

It came to me over time...no one told me what it meant.

 

Let us say that "Bob" makes a profession of faith and joins the First Baptist Church of Anywhere, USA. As far as the leadership and members of First Baptist Church know, Bob is a professed Christian. As time goes by Bob starts missing worship services. He never breaks off his old sinful associations and practices. Eventually, Bob stops attending church altogether. Before he can face church discipline, Bob leaves First Baptist and repudiates his profession of faith. He claims he longer believes and is not a Christian. By the way, except for the name "Bob", this situation occurred exactly as stated to one of my dearest friends and the best man at my wedding. So, what do we make of Bob? Consider the following passage:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

When Bob made his profession of faith, was baptized and joined First Baptist Church, he became part of the visible body of believers (visible = what the eye can see). First Baptist accepted his profession at face value. There is no litmus test to prove whether a person who says they are a Christian actually is one. Whereas the visible body of believers may have tares among the wheat, the invisible body (or as it also called "the invisible church") are all those who are truly born again. The term "invisible" is used because it denotes the actual salvific work of the Holy Spirit in the life of an individual, not just an outward profession that may be true or false. If Bob was truly saved, if he was part of the invisible body/church, he could not have fallen away from the faith (c.f. 1 John 2:19). That does not mean Bob could not fall into sin and even continue in sin for a period of time. In that case, the kindness and mercy of God will bring Bob to repentance and restoration to the visible body.

What if Bob never repents? What if he continues in his apostasy until death? While we may never know whether God granted Bob repentance in the last moments of his life, we must assume that his apostasy (i.e. leaving the faith) was due to the fact that he was never a Christian, to begin with. Does this in any way affect limited atonement? Not at all. Why? Because limited atonement (or as I like to refer to it as "definite atonement") explains that Christ atoned for the sins of the Elect. Because Bob was a false convert he was never part of the Elect. For the time that he was a member of First Baptist Church, he may have experienced the love and care of his fellow church members. He may even have had his emotions stirred upon hearing the word preached. But in his inner man, Bob was never converted The Holy Spirit never regenerated his darkened heart. There was never any atonement for Bob's sins and his apostasy placed him in a worse state than he was before his profession.

 

Theologically the atonement is 100% a positive teaching based on the the Covenant of Redemption between the trinity.

The working out of the failing religious efforts of the reprobate is here explained in some detail.

 

How does it disprove limited atonement?

 

I think you interpret this passage incorrectly. The author of Hebrews (it is an arguable point whether Paul wrote Hebrews) is using a figure of speech. He is not saying that a person can actually crucify the Lord Jesus Christ a second time or even that a person can lose their salvation and then regain it (as some people actually teach). The figure of speech the author of Hebrews used is a metaphor. The author is conveying the thought that a person who claimed to be saved and then walked away from that profession is making light of Christ's sacrifice, i.e. shaming and mocking Christ. Such a person was always lost in his trespasses and sins and, as I wrote previously, his apostasy placed him in a worse state than he was before his profession.

I think you are looking for a disputation over definite atonement that the text does not support. I am sure someone else in this thread will accommodate you further but I will not.