John Calvin: From Limited Atonement to Unlimited Atonement?

It didn't say anything new, Aki.
Sure it gave the verses Calvin allegedly cited to
bite his own tongue, but can you yourself look up the books on which these alleged refutations can be found if you had wanted to read them yourself ?

 

The Website is a major distortion of Calvin's belief. He is either ignorant of Calvinism or willfully misquotes Calvin.

First of all the writer leaves out part of Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2:2 where Calvin states,

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.

He probably has never read any of Calvin's works.
His viewing that Calvin using the term WHOLE HUMAN RACE, WORLD is teaching against limited atonement shows he does not understand the Calvinist view of the atonement. When Calvin or any Calvinist uses the term we are meaning that Christ sacrifice is not limited to one race, nation, ethnic group etc...If he would have read Calvin's complete comments in 1 John 2 and John 3:16 he would have understood that.

In short it is a very poor anaylsis of Calvin's views and I doubt he has even read Calvin but probably read books on it by John R. Rice who was ignorant of Calvinism.

[ May 29, 2002, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

That link goes to one of the poorest written articles I have seen trying to defend the unScriptural idea of general atonement. He doesn't deal at all with verses that clearly teach particular redemption. At least Calvinist attempt to deal with the verses that many think promote the idea of general atonement.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

Calvin's error is that he thought of Christ's suffering as Christ taking all our punishment rather than shedding his blood as a SACRIFICE. BOTH are aspects of the Atonement - notice:

(1) TAKING OUR PUNISHMENT

Can this apply to a gentile who had not the Law and was therefore not under the curse of the law (the curse being: anyman that does not do ALL the Law must die)? Gentiles were neither under the Law nor the curse - the Law was to the Jews only as Peter affirms in Acts 15! So did Christ take our physical punishment on the cross? IF we are Jewish he did.

Did Christ suffer hell for us? Even if Christ suffered 3 days of hell (which he didn't) that would not be taking our punishment for we deserved an eternity. I know many who have rejected Jesus because of a false understanding of the Atonement which Calvinism causes. "How could Christ take my place in hell if he was only there 3 days? He rose from hell and sold me out!" they say. Christ did not take our punishment in hell! He took the Jews punishment, the curse of the Law, which curse was physical death. When the Bible says he went to hell the word is actually hades, the realms of the dead - it simply means he died. In fact, he told the thief "this day you will be with me in paradise" and that certainly doesn't sound like hell!

(2) Sacrifice

Here Christ Atoned not only for Jews by removing their curse, but for Gentiles by offering himself for sin. He shed his blood as a sacrifice, and bought the church with it. He washes us by it coninually if we are truly Christians and walking in the light.

Calvinism thinks of Christ's blood as deminishing when used. "Christ only shed enough to cover the elect" they say - not one drop more or less. How stupid! "There is a fount drawn from Immanuel's vains, and sinners plunged beneath that fount lose all their guilty stains!" When Christ's blood is applied to one heart it doesn't dry up on that heart (as Calvinism seems to indicate), but continues to be in the fount.

[ June 02, 2002, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

The atonement of Christ was a substitutionary death - the righteous one for the unrighteous.

As God, Christ Jesus could suffer all eternal punishment for His people as quickly as the Father purposed. Trying to understand this in some mechanical way won't work in this instance anymore than it works in trying to understand the virgin birth in a mechanical way.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

But to make his Atonement merely a vicarious death is to discount the shedding of blood - the Bible teaches that remission comes from the shedding of blood, not the dishing out of punishment.

 

Not really. Calvinism does think that Christ's atonement is effective for a particular group of people, not because Christ's blood is "used up" after it is applied to that group, but because the atonement was made on behalf of that particular group.

One of the ways the Bible describes Christ's role in the atonement as that of Priest. Christ was like the OT priest who made the atonement sacrifice for the people of Israel. The priest represented all of the children of Israel, whether they were smaller in number or greater; thus, the sacrifice was effective for all of them, but not effective for any in the neighboring nations--not because of a deficiency in the sacrifice, but because the priest did not represent those outside of the nation Israel. So too, it is with Christ: His role as Priest is to represent a particular group of people.

For indeed, He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2: 16, 17)

Christ represented His people, His brethren, the spiritual seed of Abraham, and the sacrifice He offered is effective for them, but not for those outside this group.

Christ atoning work is also substitutional. Christ, while He was on the cross, stood in place of people. All those who are "in Him" were "in Him" before the foundation of the world, and were, in a real way, "in Him" while He was on the cross. The Bible speaks of this as "dying with Christ," or being "crucified with Christ." Christ's death is effective for all those who have died with Him, but not for those who have not died with Him.

It is our relationship with Christ that makes Christ's atonement effective for us, not whether the blood is "used up" before it gets to us or not. If you must think of it as a strictly commercial enterprise, which is what the words "used up" seem to imply--so much blood "to buy" each person--then it is much more like buying a family pass. A family pass is effective for every member of a family, whether the family is large or small, but not for a neighbor. It is the relationship (family member) that counts, not the particular number of family members.

[ June 02, 2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]