How About An Agreement ...

[Reformed]

The reason I prefer “particular redemption” over “limited atonement” is that the cross was not God’s only instrument in His plan of redemption. Without the cross, there is no salvation, and without faith there is no salvation.

Jon,

What do you mean when you say "the cross was not God's only instrument in His plan of redemption"? Did God have another vehicle or instrument other than the Cross? The Atonement was accomplished on the Cross.

 

[Yeshua1]

To borrow from Isaac Watts regarding the limited atonement conflict:

“When the Remonstrants assert that Christ died for all mankind merely to purchase conditional salvation for them; and when those who profess to be the strictest Calvinists assert that Christ died only to procure absolute and effectual salvation for the elect; it is not because the whole Scripture asserts the particular sentiments of either of those sects with an exclusion of the other. But the reason of these different assertions of men is this, that the holy writers in different texts pursuing different subjects, and speaking to different persons, sometimes seem to favor each of these two options; and men, being at a loss to reconcile them by any medium, run into different extremes, and entirely follow one of these tracks of thought and neglect the other.”

My view is that we cannot take God’s redemptive plan, cut it up in to small sections, place those small sections into little boxes, hold up one of those boxes alone and say “this is salvation in its entirety.” The reason I prefer “particular redemption” over “limited atonement” is that the cross was not God’s only instrument in His plan of redemption. Without the cross, there is no salvation, and without faith there is no salvation.

Is faith something that we have as sinners to exercise in jesus, or a gift granted to us by God?

 

[JonC]

Jon,
What do you mean when you say "the cross was not God's only instrument in His plan of redemption"? Did God have another vehicle or instrument other than the Cross? The Atonement was accomplished on the Cross.

No, God did not have another vehicle other than the Cross. What I mean is that salvation is impossible without the cross...but it is also impossible without faith. Some speak of the Christ’s sacrifice as salvic in and of itself apart from and even without faith. Someone here on the BB, I can’t remember who, pointed out to me that he referred to the Atonement as the complete work of salvation (to include the resurrection, grace through faith, etc), but I realize that many do not hold that view when defending "Limited Atonement." What I mean is that when Christ died I was not saved…although I do believe that He secured my salvation. I was saved by grace through faith into a salvation that Christ secured and made certain by the Cross. Where you and I may disagree is that I do believe Christ died for all men…but that He died to secure and make certain the salvation of His elect.

Is faith something that we have as sinners to exercise in jesus, or a gift granted to us by God?

Yeshua1, faith is of God…not man. Salvation is entirely a work of God.

 

[Reformed]

Where you and I may disagree is that I do believe Christ died for all men…but that He died to secure and make certain the salvation of His elect.

Jon, help me understand you better. How did Christ die for all men if all men are not elect? I would like to know how you reconcile that without dipping into Arminianism.

Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, God did not have another vehicle other than the Cross. What I mean is that salvation is impossible without the cross...but it is also impossible without faith. Some speak of the Christ’s sacrifice as salvic in and of itself apart from and even without faith. Someone here on the BB, I can’t remember who, pointed out to me that he referred to the Atonement as the complete work of salvation (to include the resurrection, grace through faith, etc), but I realize that many do not hold that view when defending "Limited Atonement." What I mean is that when Christ died I was not saved…although I do believe that He secured my salvation. I was saved by grace through faith into a salvation that Christ secured and made certain by the Cross. Where you and I may disagree is that I do believe Christ died for all men…but that He died to secure and make certain the salvation of His elect.



Yeshua1, faith is of God…not man. Salvation is entirely a work of God.

Some seem to hold that the elect were eternally saved, but still see their need to receive jesus thru faith to get saved!

 

[JonC]

Jon, help me understand you better. How did Christ die for all men if all men are not elect? I would like to know how you reconcile that without dipping into Arminianism.

Thanks.

Scripture denies any ability or willingness in man to move towards God. Arminianism, on the other hand, places the crux of individual salvation on man rather than God. Narrowing it down to the Atonement, this system of thought holds that Christ died to secure the salvation of all men or that He provided every man with sufficient grace to cooperate with God. I reject this position as I cannot reconcile it with Scripture.

But I also reject the notion that the Cross was only to secure the salvation of the elect. Instead, I do believe that Christ’s death made salvation possible to all men but also that His death secured and made certain the salvation of the elect. Scripture is clear that faith is essential to salvation. If we are born “spiritually dead,” then there is a provisional element to the salvation secured at the cross…but God Himself meets that provision.

Consider also John Calvin's insistence that the "whosoever" of John 3:16 is an invitation to "all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off excuse from unbelievers." I do believe that the world is under condemnation for rejecting the Light...that the unregenerate are actually sinning by rejecting Christ - which implies possibility. I think that we are all under that condemnation, but that God draws the elect to Himself.

But in short, the difference is why Christ died. Some groups in both camps tend to oversimplify the Atonement and come up with a singular reason. For the elect, yes, Christ died to secure salvation. But for all men the Cross made salvation a possibility...a legitimate result of faith...if they would believe. But both the elect and reprobate refuse to believe in and of themselves. This faith is of God.

While we may continue to disagree, I do hope that you understand how I differ in terms of Arminianism.

Some seem to hold that the elect were eternally saved, but still see their need to receive jesus thru faith to get saved!

Elect before the foundation of the earth...but not eternally saved. I would think that "eternally saved" would be considered heresy at worst, denial of Scripture at best.

 

[Reformed]

I do believe that Christ’s death made salvation possible to all men but also that His death secured and made certain the salvation of the elect.

How can Christ's death make salvation possible to all men when all men cannot be saved?

Is the atoning work of Christ powerful enough to save all (if Christ did, indeed, die for all men)? Certainly. There is no lack of power in the Atonement.

When you use the word 'possible' it creates a logical fallacy if the Atonement can only be efficacious for the Elect. Possible gives the idea of potential. IOW the Atonement has the potential to save all men. But that would only be true if election was not according to God's will of decree.

I guess I am having a difficult time with what I see as fence sitting. On the one hand you say Christ died for all men, but on the other hand you confess that that the Atonement is only efficacious for the Elect. I do not know how you can have it both ways.

 

[JonC]

Reformed,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. This one is a bit longer...sorry. That’s the problem with “debate forums.” Sometimes you run into people like me that may not articulate well. Perhaps I did not take enough care in choosing my words. I was trying to answer the question about how my view did not dip into Arminianism.

How can Christ's death make salvation possible to all men when all men cannot be saved?

I would start by saying I believe all men can be saved, but all men reject that salvation. But God draws the elect to Himself. So I would reword your question to be “How can Christ’s death make salvation possible to all men when all men won’t be saved?” Which I would view as an irrational question. (Think of Spurgeon’s - they could if they would, but that’s not the question. The question is they won’t).

Is the atoning work of Christ powerful enough to save all (if Christ did, indeed, die for all men)? Certainly. There is no lack of power in the Atonement.

I do not know of any soteriological scheme that denies the potency of the Cross. I do not understand why you are throwing this out there…although it does seem to get tossed out a lot. It is a response to an objection no one is stating.

When you use the word 'possible' it creates a logical fallacy if the Atonement can only be efficacious for the Elect. Possible gives the idea of potential. IOW the Atonement has the potential to save all men. But that would only be true if election was not according to God's will of decree.

If faith is necessary for salvation, then your conclusions are taking into many assumptions not related to Christ’s death on the cross and your statement is a deductive fallacy (apart from faith, Christ's death is not effective towards salvation of the elect either). If, however, you believe that faith is a product of salvation (one is saved and then one believes), then we are working off entirely different definitions…which is another issue altogether.

I guess I am having a difficult time with what I see as fence sitting. On the one hand you say Christ died for all men, but on the other hand you confess that that the Atonement is only efficacious for the Elect. I do not know how you can have it both ways.

Although we disagree, I may be able to help here. It is not fence sitting, but rather rejecting the notion that there are only two views (from, BTW, the same root theological system)…that is a strict post-Dort Calvinism vs Arminianism. My disagreement is that I do not believe Christ’s death of itself saves the elect (which would make faith unnecessary). We differ on the “why” more than the “who.” I see two purposes in the Atonement. First, to secure and make certain the salvation of the elect. Second, to … as Calvin put it … “cut off excuse from unbelievers.” It is not that I see two conflicting “who’s,” but that I see two rather distinctive “whys.” It seems to me that you see only one… securing salvation to the elect, which it actually effects in and of itself - apart from faith.

BTW...and to clarify...by post-Dort Calvinism I mean that Limited Atonement was rejected in much of the writings of the Reformed Church prior to Dort. It was not that they were on the fence or hadn't thought it through (although it was less an issue, I suppose). I already mentioned Calvin's writings, but also the Heidleberg Catechism (1563)... in part II. http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/heidelberg-catechism

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Reformed,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. This one is a bit longer...sorry. That’s the problem with “debate forums.” Sometimes you run into people like me that may not articulate well. Perhaps I did not take enough care in choosing my words. I was trying to answer the question about how my view did not dip into Arminianism.



I would start by saying I believe all men can be saved, but all men reject that salvation. But God draws the elect to Himself. So I would reword your question to be “How can Christ’s death make salvation possible to all men when all men won’t be saved?” Which I would view as an irrational question. (Think of Spurgeon’s - they could if they would, but that’s not the question. The question is they won’t).



I do not know of any soteriological scheme that denies the potency of the Cross. I do not understand why you are throwing this out there…although it does seem to get tossed out a lot. It is a response to an objection no one is stating.



If faith is necessary for salvation, then your conclusions are taking into many assumptions not related to Christ’s death on the cross and your statement is a deductive fallacy (apart from faith, Christ's death is not effective towards salvation of the elect either). If, however, you believe that faith is a product of salvation (one is saved and then one believes), then we are working off entirely different definitions…which is another issue altogether.



Although we disagree, I may be able to help here. It is not fence sitting, but rather rejecting the notion that there are only two views (from, BTW, the same root theological system)…that is a strict post-Dort Calvinism vs Arminianism. My disagreement is that I do not believe Christ’s death of itself saves the elect (which would make faith unnecessary). We differ on the “why” more than the “who.” I see two purposes in the Atonement. First, to secure and make certain the salvation of the elect. Second, to … as Calvin put it … “cut off excuse from unbelievers.” It is not that I see two conflicting “who’s,” but that I see two rather distinctive “whys.” It seems to me that you see only one… securing salvation to the elect, which it actually effects in and of itself - apart from faith.

BTW...and to clarify...by post-Dort Calvinism I mean that Limited Atonement was rejected in much of the writings of the Reformed Church prior to Dort. It was not that they were on the fence or hadn't thought it through (although it was less an issue, I suppose). I already mentioned Calvin's writings, but also the Heidleberg Catechism (1563)... in part II. http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/heidelberg-catechism

O K Jon but here is how I see it..... you are making the death of Christ both Particular and General at the same time. And unfortunately I view it as backdoor Arminianism.

 

[JonC]

O K Jon but here is how I see it..... you are making the death of Christ both Particular and General at the same time. And unfortunately I view it as backdoor Arminianism.

EW&F,

I can understand how you would view it as a “middle ground” and perhaps a compromise between the two positions. I tend to think that this is how some arrive at their conclusions…their doctrine is reactionary, guarding against a view, rather than derivative of Scripture (and indeed, as we know TULIP, it was reactionary). So I do agree that my position is not one of guarding against Arminianism…but it is also not “backdoor Arminianism.” The “scope of the Atonement” is not the singular hinge upon which either position hangs. And I'm sure if I were Arminian except for this one point, it'd be called "backdoor Calvinism" by someone.

 

[Bro. James]

"I once was lost; but now I'm found, was blind but now I see..."

What did Jesus tell a Master of Religion in John 3? "Ye must be born again--from above".

We seem to be mired in "Kosher BACON".

What was the acronym before Chauvin?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[JonC]

We seem to be mired in "Kosher BACON".

:laugh: I like that. I finished my physical yesterday...Doc told me I eat too much fat and I asked if bacon counted (it does, BTW).

 

[Yeshua1]

Jon, help me understand you better. How did Christ die for all men if all men are not elect? I would like to know how you reconcile that without dipping into Arminianism.

Thanks.

Wouldn't that be 4 point calvinism, as Jesus actually died in the place of all sinners, but that God Himself choses just whom he shall grant the faith required to get saved by Him too?

 

[Yeshua1]

How can Christ's death make salvation possible to all men when all men cannot be saved?

Is the atoning work of Christ powerful enough to save all (if Christ did, indeed, die for all men)? Certainly. There is no lack of power in the Atonement.

When you use the word 'possible' it creates a logical fallacy if the Atonement can only be efficacious for the Elect. Possible gives the idea of potential. IOW the Atonement has the potential to save all men. But that would only be true if election was not according to God's will of decree.

I guess I am having a difficult time with what I see as fence sitting. On the one hand you say Christ died for all men, but on the other hand you confess that that the Atonement is only efficacious for the Elect. I do not know how you can have it both ways.

Amyraldism , seen by some as being wihin calvinism...

 

[steaver]

My, my, my, Jesus tried to make this as simple to understand as He possibly could. All sin forgiven except unbelief. It's not complex. Could he have said it any clearer for us?

 

[JonC]

Wouldn't that be 4 point calvinism, as Jesus actually died in the place of all sinners, but that God Himself choses just whom he shall grant the faith required to get saved by Him too?

Or maybe my "L" petal is just droopy.

It would be what some call "4 point", perhaps Amyraldianism in that I believe God ordained some to election but not all (He created some as vessels of mercy and others as vessels of wrath...the difference being grace through faith and not the Atonement). Personally, I believe it is the view of much of pre-Dort Calvinism...perhaps even 5 point if one is speaking of effectual redemption rather than supposing God intended no relation of the Atonement to the lost (but I did not come to my conclusions via "Calvinism"). I will note that it is within the bounds of what Spurgeon spoke of affirming "all five points." I think we're getting lost in tradition instead of Scripture here. I really don't care what label my understanding falls under...but I am open to discussion and correction of my views if I understand it to be in error (I will consider your view if you consider mine, and we can work through things even if we still part disagreeing).

 

[Rippon]

All who are really redeemed are all those, and those only that He intended to redeem.

Christ was the Substitute for certain ones and not all. How can one be a substitute if He doesn't act in the place of a particular person or group? I have never heard of a "potential" substitute before.

Christ is the Savior of those He saves. He doesn't save everyone --therefore He is not the Savior of their souls. Those He doesn't save did not have their sins paid for --they will pay for their own sins in everlasting Perdition. Can anyone in Hell possibly address Christ as Savior? Of course not. He is Master ...Lord of all, but not savior of every human head-for-head.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

All who are really redeemed are all those, and those only that He intended to redeem.

Christ was the Substitute for certain ones and not all. How can one be a substitute if He doesn't act in the place of a particular person or group? I have never heard of a "potential" substitute before.

Christ is the Savior of those He saves. He doesn't save everyone --therefore He is not the Savior of their souls. Those He doesn't save did not have their sins paid for --they will pay for their own sins in everlasting Perdition. Can anyone in Hell possibly address Christ as Savior? Of course not. He is Master ...Lord of all, but not savior of every human head-for-head.

What do ya mean he doesn't save everyone?!? Oh no, you must be one of them there mean spirited Calvinists that try to say that Gaud aint fair....well I will tell ya mister Jean Calvinist ( Creepy Frog Guy).... Gaud puts it all on you....If ya make yourself a gift to Him & humble yourself, you will be Saved.....say Alleluia say Amen. All is right in Pennsylvania! well maybe when we get rid of use guys & the Catliks.....:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My, my, my, Jesus tried to make this as simple to understand as He possibly could. All sin forgiven except unbelief. It's not complex. Could he have said it any clearer for us?

Haaaaa ha ha ha, yea clear as mud:laugh:

 

[The Archangel]

My, my, my, Jesus tried to make this as simple to understand as He possibly could. All sin forgiven except unbelief. It's not complex. Could he have said it any clearer for us?

From where are you citing this?

The Archangel