Calvinism - TULIP - "L"imited Atonement

[jdlongmire]

Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption)

Historical or mainline Calvinism has consistently maintained that Christ’s redeeming work was definite in design and accomplishment - that it was intended to render complete satisfaction for certain specified sinners, and that it actually secured salvation for these individuals and for no one else. The salvation which Christ earned for his people includes everything involved in bringing them into a right relationship with God, including the gifts of faith and repentance. Christ did not die simply to make it possible for God to pardon sinners. Neither does God leave it up to sinners to decide whether or not Christ’s work will be effective. On the contrary, all for whom Christ sacrificed himself will be saved infallibly. Redemption, therefore, was designed to bring to pass God’s purpose of election.

All Calvinists agree that Christ’s obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race. It would have required no more obedience nor any greater suffering for Christ to have secured salvation for every man, woman, and child who ever lived than it did for him to secure salvation for the elect only. But he came into the world to represent and save only those given to him by the Father. Thus, Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value, for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.

The Arminians also place a limitation on the atoning work of Christ, but one of a much different nature. They hold that Christ’s saving work was designed to make possible the salvation of all men on the condition that they believe, but that Christ’s death in itself did not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.

Since not all men will be saved as the result of Christ’s redeeming work, a limitation must be admitted. Either the atonement was limited in that it was designed to secure salvation for certain sinners, but not for others, or it was limited in that it was not intended to secure salvation for any, but was designed only to make it possible for God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe. In other words, one must limit its design either in extent (it was not intended for all) or in effectiveness (it did not secure salvation for any). As Boettner so aptly observes, for the Calvinist, the atonement “is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.”

Jesus Actually Saves

Matthew 1:21; Luke 19:10; Acts 5:31; Romans 3:24-25; Romans 5:8-9; Romans 5:10; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:3-4; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:3-4; Ephesians 2:15-16; Ephesians 5:25-26; Philippians 1:29; Colossians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 1:15; Titus 2:14; Titus 3:5-6; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 13:12; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 1:7.

Jesus Fulfills the Eternal Covenant

John 6:35-40; John 10:11; John 10:14-18; John 10:24-29; John 17:1-11; John 17:20; John 17:24-26; Romans 5:12; Romans 5:17-19; Ephesians 1:3-12.

How Jesus Died for “All” and Yet for a Particular People (2)

These texts speak of Christ’s saving work in general terms: John 1:9; John 1:29; John 3:16-17; John 4:42; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:1-2; 1 John 4:14.

One reason for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone. Such phrases as “the world,” “all men,” “all nations,” and “every creature” were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (i.e., he died for Jews and Gentiles alike), but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (i.e., he did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

These texts speak of Christ’s saving work in definite terms and show that it was intended to infallibly save a particular people, namely, those given to him by the Father: Matthew 1:21; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; John 10:11; John 11:50-53; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:32-34; Ephesians 5:25-27; Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 9:28; Revelation 5:9.

In response to this thread

IP on the way!

Adapted from the former blog of Joel Barnes; the explanations of TULIP and corresponding biblical text arrangements have been adapted from David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism (Second Edition), P and R Publishing, 2004, pp. 17-71. Further explanation adapted from James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom, Calvary Press Publishing, 2000, pp. 135-151.

 

[jdlongmire]

Full text here.

T
U
L
I
P

 

[jdlongmire]

In my own words:

Limited Atonement: seemingly the most controversial of the 5 points, and sometimes referred to as Particular Redemption, merely points out the fact that though Christ's sacrifice is infinite in worth, it is self-limited by God in application only for the Elect. This point is a self-evident hedge against universalism - that is - if Christ's atonement for sin is not limited, either by God's choice or Man's, His infinitely worthy sacrifice must save all mankind without exception.

 

[Allan]

Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption)

All Calvinists agree that Christ’s obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race. It would have required no more obedience nor any greater suffering for Christ to have secured salvation for every man, woman, and child who ever lived than it did for him to secure salvation for the elect only. But he came into the world to represent and save only those given to him by the Father. Thus, Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value, for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.

The Arminians also place a limitation on the atoning work of Christ, but one of a much different nature. They hold that Christ’s saving work was designed to make possible the salvation of all men on the condition that they believe, but that Christ’s death in itself did not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.

Since not all men will be saved as the result of Christ’s redeeming work, a limitation must be admitted. Either the atonement was limited in that it was designed to secure salvation for certain sinners, but not for others, or it was limited in that it was not intended to secure salvation for any, but was designed only to make it possible for God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe. In other words, one must limit its design either in extent (it was not intended for all) or in effectiveness (it did not secure salvation for any). As Boettner so aptly observes, for the Calvinist, the atonement “is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.”

Unfortunately, you have a perpetuated falisy based upon a misunderstanding of anothers view.

In the non-Cals (even the Arminian) view the "Atonement" is not limited for it was made on behalf all (every person). However, the actual redemption via the atonement is that which is limited because it is imparted by or through faith. IOW - the propitiation is through faith. (Rom 3:25; 1 John 2:2)

Thus the Atonement is unlimited in that it is made oh behalf every man just as the OT sacrifice of Atonement was made on behalf of all or every Jew. And just like the OT sacrifice not all of those for whom the sacrifice were saved because they received the not redemptiong by His (or it's - the sacrifices) blood through faith.

So it was sufficient TOWARD all but it was only efficient FOR those of faith.

One reason for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone. Such phrases as “the world,” “all men,” “all nations,” and “every creature” were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (i.e., he died for Jews and Gentiles alike), but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (i.e., he did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner).

While it is true that Christ died for all men without distinction (Jews and Gentiles) it is also true that according to scripture that Jesus death for man was without limitation.
Take for instance this verse :

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

John himself is very specific with his usage of the phrase 'whole world' and that each of the four times he used it refered to the unregenerate, wicked and deceived = the unsaved.

Now this verse paralells another verse he wrote but it speaks most specifically regarding the Jews and the Gentiles. (which is why John speaks more concisely of the propitiation being for more that just the saved or regenerate or better not for them only):

Jhn 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
Jhn 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Notice something that seems quite often over looked in this. Jesus "died for 'that' nation". This is an all inclusive phrase since it is referencing the entire Jewish Nation as a whole and Christ Jesus death was for 'that' nation just as in the OT on the day of Atonement the sacrifice was for the whole or everyone in the Nation. Now here is a $10 question:
1. Was everyone in that Nation (the Jewish Nation) saved in either the OT sacrifice or in the NT death of Jesus?

Secondly notice that John states Jesus death was not for 'that nation only'.. so John states Jesus death was for more than just 'that' nation but by implication His death was for other Nations as well (the Jewish Nation and Gentile Nations). These are not terms made in a general sense but are specific and inclusive and not mystically exclusive with the right understanding and theological view.
This is from Vincent's Word Studies on the word 'Nation' in John 11:5

Nation (ἔθνους)

John does not used the word λαός, people, which Caiaphas had just employed. The Jews were no longer a people, only one of the nations of the world. He wishes to set the Gentiles over against the Jews, and this distinction was national. Moreover, John points out in this word the fact that the work of Christ was not to be for any people as specially chosen of God, but for all nations.

We can note this as John makes his wording more precise in 1 John 2:2.

Also regarding 1 John 2:2 in Vincent Word Studies regarding sins and whole world

For the sins of the whole world (περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου)

The sins of (A. V., italicized) should be omitted; as in Revelation, for the whole world. Compare 1 John 4:14; John 4:42; 7:32. “The propitiation is as wide as the sin” (Bengel). If men do not experience its benefit, the fault is not in its efficacy. Düsterdieck (cited by Huther) says, “The propitiation has its real efficacy for the whole world; to believers it brings life, to unbelievers death.” Luther: “It is a patent fact that thou too art a part of the whole world; so that thine heart cannot deceive itself, and think, the Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me.” On κόσμου see on John 1:9.

The "L" is not really a biblically supportable view - IMO.

 

[jdlongmire]

Allan - you have an unclosed quote - makes it hard to see where your thoughts begin.

 

[Allan]

Allan - you have an unclosed quote - makes it hard to see where your thoughts begin.

Thank you

 

[webdog]

Was the atonement made on behalf of the Israelites in the OT limited?

 

[Revmitchell]

Was the atonement made on behalf of the Israelites in the OT limited?

That is an interesting question for those of the covenant theology pursuasion

 

[EdSutton]

Hey! Guess what folks?? We have found another 'Calvinist' on the BB, namely jdlongmire.

Ed

 

[pinoybaptist]

Was the atonement made on behalf of the Israelites in the OT limited?

Allow me, if I may.
Yes.
It was limited to Israelites, and only Israelites.
It did not cover the Amalekites, the Egyptians, the Jebusites, Canaanites, the Termites, and all the other -ites outside of the Israelite nation.
In that same token, the scapegoat carried only the sins of national Israel into the wilderness.
The above fact pictures that atonement and the blood thereof was limited and efficacious only for the true Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Jarthur001]

Hey! Guess what folks?? We have found another 'Calvinist' on the BB, namely jdlongmire.

Ed

What does this bring the total count to?

 

[jdlongmire]

Allow me, if I may.
Yes.
It was limited to Israelites, and only Israelites.
It did not cover the Amalekites, the Egyptians, the Jebusites, Canaanites, the Termites, and all the other -ites outside of the Israelite nation.
In that same token, the scapegoat carried only the sins of national Israel into the wilderness.
The above fact pictures that atonement and the blood thereof was limited and efficacious only for the true Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.

Thanks! Was wondering where the rest of the "team" was

 

[webdog]

Allow me, if I may.
Yes.
It was limited to Israelites, and only Israelites.
It did not cover the Amalekites, the Egyptians, the Jebusites, Canaanites, the Termites, and all the other -ites outside of the Israelite nation.
In that same token, the scapegoat carried only the sins of national Israel into the wilderness.
The above fact pictures that atonement and the blood thereof was limited and efficacious only for the true Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.

Let's go with this...were all Israelites righteous?

 

[Allan]

Allow me, if I may.
Yes.
It was limited to Israelites, and only Israelites.
It did not cover the Amalekites, the Egyptians, the Jebusites, Canaanites, the Termites, and all the other -ites outside of the Israelite nation.
In that same token, the scapegoat carried only the sins of national Israel into the wilderness.
The above fact pictures that atonement and the blood thereof was limited and efficacious only for the true Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.

Please my brother.. allow me?

You are correct in the above but with some information that needs to be added for clarification.

Were all other nations forbidden to forsake their way and become part of the Jewish Nations if they so desired?
Answer: No

Do we have any non-Jews who became a part of the Jewish people/Nation?
Answer: Yes

Then apparently the Gentile poeple were not excluded from being apart of Gods people but it was their choice, just as abiding in God was part of Israel choice.


Secondly, Was every person's sin who was a Jew atoned for just because the sacrifice was made on all the Jews behalf??
Answer: No.

Example - for instance the ungodly kings of Israel, who were unrepentant and workshiped other Gods. At the sacrifice of Atonement was their sins forgiven as well even while remaining unrepentent and in spiritual adultry?
Answer: No, because the propitiation of that atonement is only applied through faith (Rom 3:25)

All that we have from God is obtained by or through faith:

It is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is 'by faith' we are sanctified (Acts 26:18,)
It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)
It is 'by faith' we receive (obtain) the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14)

 

[jdlongmire]

And saving faith is the gracious gift of God to His elect.

Romans 1

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

as opposed to any other faith:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

[Allan]

And saving faith is the gracious gift of God to His elect.

Romans 1

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

This neither says nor has anything to do with God giving a person faith.
So I have no clue what you are referencing this for. ? ?

It states the "righteous" shall "live" by faith.
One is not righteous before God unless he is justified and that justifcation according to scripture comes by faith. Thus the one who has already been saved through fatih will also continue in the same faith.

as opposed to any other faith:


Quote:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

And this is my point. Faith in and of itself is meaningless and has no value. The only value faith can have is the value of the object to which faith clings.

There are not different types of faith (other a faith that saves and one that is vain) because faith is still just that - faith.

I should say that Faith (in the verb sense) has no value by itself. The only value faith has is in the object to which faith has been set toward or fastened upon. So whether vain faith or saving faith it is by nature the same thing - faith. The nature of verb form of faith is 'the acting upon' but the value of faith is contengent upon the object for and toward that which faith has been fastened.

Faith in the sense of the Noun, IS the value from which our action (faith) comes, and the object of our faith (Jesus).

The only difference between the saving faith and vain faith is the object OF faith, and it is that object which faith fastens itself to that saves not faith itself.

IOW - It is the object to which faith clings that makes it saving or vain, not the faith itself.

 

[jdlongmire]

Allan - take a look again at Eph 2:7-9 and Romans 1: 16-17:

Ephesians 2:8
7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

and

Romans 1

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

IOW: Salvation is the result of faith, given as a gift by a gracious God to effectuate righteousness in Man and made possible through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (the gospel="while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us").

You need to get past the "everybody has faith" paradigm, thus equating faith types. My faith is not the faith of the unregenerate - it is a gift from God. Praise Him!

Saving faith is not "just faith" - saving faith is the power of God to make the dead alive.

And it does not originate from me.

 

[Allan]

Allan - take a look again at Eph 2:7-9 and Romans 1: 16-17:


and

Salvation is the result of faith, given as a gift by a gracious God to effectuate righteousness in Man and made possible through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (the gospel="while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us").

Again, your still wrong. This does not state that faith is a gift from God. The two passages you cite have nothing to do with each other in the way you are trying to force feed you view into them, and yes I looked at them again.

In the Eph 2 - we see salvation being the gift of God recieved through faith. No matter how you try it will not say anything more than this.

The Romans 1 passage is simply stating it is the gospel that is power of God unto salvation to the one who believes. And what is the object of the gospel (Good News) is it not Christ Jesus. And the power of God (Jesus) saves them who cling to him. Their faith does not save them Jesus does. Their faith however clings to Him that He would save them.

It is a picture much like a condemned person clinging to the leg of leg of an official who has the power to save them. Their faith alone can do nothing for them thus it has no value - but when they place their faith in something (such as in the one who can save them) then that faith is only as valuable (saving or not) as the ability of the object/ or one they are believing in to save them. It was grace that even allowed them an audiance and it was because of that grace the his mercy could be sought after.

You need to get past the "everybody has faith" paradigm, thus equating faith types. My faith is not the faith of the unregenerate - it is a gift from God. Praise Him!

Everyone does have faith and that is biblical so I can't just pretend it doesn't exist. Unfortunately for you your faith is exactly the same kind of faith as the unregenerate - but your salvation is a the free gift of God. So yes - Praise Him!!

Saving faith is not "just faith" - saving faith is the power of God to make the dead alive.

See here is part of your problem and why you are so mixed up. Faith saves no one, Grace does! You are saved by grace my friend, you are not saved by faith. Did you notice there are no scriptures to back up your claim that "saving faith is the power of God to make the dead alive". The reason is because it is God who makes the dead alive, not faith, and it is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation - not some mystical gift of saving faith.

What makes faith a saving faith, is it the type of faith? No, it is the object to which faith clings. Saving faith simply refers that which you have placed your faith in not the faith itself.

 

[Allan]

We are highjacking your own thread here :laugh:

I will back of this so that we can continue on with your OP on Limited Atonement.
And it is good to seperate the OP's as you did but as you see each one actaully needs to be broken down a little more on some aspects at times.

Your threads are going pretty well and I'm enjoying them so I don't want to degenerate to far from your OP brother.

I agree with 3 points of the 5 but one point I see a little differently in how it is determined but not in what it speaks to - the "U".

Have a good day brother in the Lord.
He and He alone is worthy of all praise, and yes, my salvation is completely due to Him and His love for me.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Let's go with this...were all Israelites righteous?

Are all who call themselves Christians "righteous" ?
Ultimately, the One who knows who among His people is righteous is the One who imputes righteousness, because "known unto God are all His works from the beginning".
Paul himself said it: 'they are not all Israel who are of Israel'.
Similarly we can say they are not all of Christ who say of themselves they are of Christ.
The ceremony of the sprinkling of blood was exclusive to the Jews or to Israel, who were a national people exclusive to Jehovah, created by Jehovah from one man, Abram/Abraham.
Israel was herself a picture of the true Spiritual Israel, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, to whom and for whom only the blood was efficacious.