Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[quantumfaith]

Sounds like interpretations alright. An interpretation is the ideas men came to on their own. Biblical truth on the other hand is not interpreted. It is given by God.
MB

MB, isn't this essentially what we all do, we in sense, pejoratively jab each other with a somewhat "sarcastic" retort of "and you think you are the only one to have a handle of biblical truth". This is NOT a personal jab at you, rather an observation that I make about most who participate in the discussion.

 

[Luke2427]

It was already made. Hodge disavows your view that Christ suffered just so much for so many...

No, I think Hodge is right. Jesus did not suffer just so much for so many.

I think Hodge is absolutely right about the whole "debt paid" idea not being the historical orthodox view of the church.

So I ask you again, what is your point?

 

[Winman]

Barnes Notes on 1 John 2:2 (snipped for brevity only)

If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If that's what Barnes wrote, and you haven't pulled it out of context, then he was entirely wrong. It is entirely possible to assign it a sense in which is is definitely true.

All one has to do is to get away from the view that 'world' has to mean 'all the people in the world.'

Steve

 

[preacher4truth]

If that's what Barnes wrote, and you haven't pulled it out of context, then he was entirely wrong. It is entirely possible to assign it a sense in which is is definitely true.

All one has to do is to get away from the view that 'world' has to mean 'all the people in the world.'

Steve

The thing is that the sacrifice of Christ is utterly perfect in all aspects, and that its value to God to secure souls and save from sin is potentially enough to save the entire world.

I've said all along as you have here, define "all" which is met with resistance for obvious reasons.

Specifically, Christ died to save His people from their sins. It is very specific and applies only to those whom God has chosen.

Confusion comes in when a person thinks that in reality they actually did the choosing themselves, but Scripturally it is God who has chosen them. Thus, those who then truly understand this stand in awe of why He did so choose them. It is of course because of His grace.

Obviously we do not know who those persons are who are elect, so we preach the Gospel to all men. It is a romantic idea that even the "non-elect" can be saved, but nothing in the Scriptures provide for this avenue. None who are saved in actuality are non-elect. In this we see the wisdom and Sovereignty of God in His purpose and plan.

So I ask, are there any saved who are non-elect, or saved that God had not chosen? Of course there are not any in such a case.

 

[Winman]

If that's what Barnes wrote, and you haven't pulled it out of context, then he was entirely wrong. It is entirely possible to assign it a sense in which is is definitely true.

All one has to do is to get away from the view that 'world' has to mean 'all the people in the world.'

Steve

Ya gotta love it, you have folks that call laymen like me morons, and that we should consult real "theologians" that know Greek, and when we do, if that theologian disagrees with you, you say he is wrong. LOL

I also provided an article written by a Calvinist that has literally dozens of quotes by Calvinists of the past that support Unlimited Atonement.
Google "The Case for Unlimited Atonement (by Ron Rhodes)" without the quotes to see that article.

It just goes to show that many are not open to scriptural interpretation that disagrees with their presuppositions. The fact is, there are MANY Calvinists of the past who did not agree with Limited Atonement. In fact, according to this article, the vast majority of theologians before the Reformation, and nearly all the early church fathers believed in Unlimited Atonement. Read that article and see for yourself.

 

[Skandelon]

No, I think Hodge is right. Jesus did not suffer just so much for so many.

Then why do you say, "so long as he is not suffering for sins that will still be punished."

You say, "The cross is perfectly sufficient for the sins of those who will be saved by it." But you fail to acknowledge that some Calvinistic scholars believed and taught that the atonement is sufficient for every individual...even the non-elect.

There is a difference in saying that the atonement is merely valuable enough to be sufficient and saying that it IS sufficient.

Luke, please understand, I'm not asking you to agree with this view, just acknowledge it as existing within the Calvinistic system and being promoted by some Calvinistic scholars throughout history. And acknowledge the distinction in the two views while providing defense for your view in light of that distinction. Is that too much to ask?

 

[Winman]

The thing is that the sacrifice of Christ is utterly perfect in all aspects, and that its value to God to secure souls and save from sin is potentially enough to save the entire world.

I've said all along as you have here, define "all" which is met with resistance for obvious reasons.

Specifically, Christ died to save His people from their sins. It is very specific and applies only to those whom God has chosen.

Confusion comes in when a person thinks that in reality they actually did the choosing themselves, but Scripturally it is God who has chosen them. Thus, those who then truly understand this stand in awe of why He did so choose them. It is of course because of His grace.

Obviously we do not know who those persons are who are elect, so we preach the Gospel to all men. It is a romantic idea that even the "non-elect" can be saved, but nothing in the Scriptures provide for this avenue. None who are saved in actuality are non-elect. In this we see the wisdom and Sovereignty of God in His purpose and plan.

So I ask, are there any saved who are non-elect, or saved that God had not chosen? Of course there are not any in such a case.

Well, Barnes (and many other gifted theologians) disagrees with you. He said 1 Jn 2:2 could not possibly apply to the elect only. Are you more qualified to interpret scripture than he was?

 

[Winman]

Then why do you say, "so long as he is not suffering for sins that will still be punished."

You say, "The cross is perfectly sufficient for the sins of those who will be saved by it." But you fail to acknowledge that some Calvinistic scholars believed and taught that the atonement is sufficient for every individual...even the non-elect.

There is a difference in saying that the atonement is merely valuable enough to be sufficient and saying that it IS sufficient.

Luke, please understand, I'm not asking you to agree with this view, just acknowledge it as existing within the Calvinistic system and being promoted by some Calvinistic scholars throughout history. And acknowledge the distinction in the two views while providing defense for your view in light of that distinction. Is that too much to ask?

I just quoted Albert Barnes, a Calvinist theologian, his commentary was the best selling commentary of the 19th century, hardly a novice. He said 1 Jn 2:2 could not POSSIBLY be understood to apply to the elect only.

 

[preacher4truth]

Well, Barnes (and many other gifted theologians) disagrees with you. He said 1 Jn 2:2 could not possibly apply to the elect only. Are you more qualified to interpret scripture than he was?

"Barnes" who and where is his quote within this thread? "Many other gifted theologians" is intangible evidence not provided and doesn't count, neither are you capable of proving because of "their" ideas that the non-elect get saved.

Without going down the road of who is more qualified than another which is worthless comparison of one to another, and condemned by Scripture, consider the fact I totally disagree with you and "Barnes" that "non-elect" can be saved, to which "he" has not proven they in fact can, but to be fair, others have again romanticized this concept, which, by the way, is not Scriptural.

Instead of this, provide Scripture showing that non-elect can be saved, or that somewhere within Gods Word someone someplace, non-elect, happened to "get in."

None of these theologians have said non-elect have been saved, they've simply romanticized such an idea.

None that are saved are non-elect.

 

[Winman]

Barnes who and where is his quote within this thread?

Without going down the road of who is more qualified than another which is worthless comparison of one to another, and condemned by Scripture, including the fact I totally disagree with you and "Barnes" that "non-elect" can be saved.

Instead of this, provide Scripture showing that non-elect can be saved, or that somewhere within Gods Word someone someplace, non-elect, happened to "get in."

None of these theologians have said non-elect have been saved, they've simply romanticized such an idea.

None that are saved are non-elect.

You are twisting what Barnes said, he said;

If he died only for the elect, it is not true that he is the "propitiation for the whole world" in any proper sense, nor would it be possible then to assign a sense in which it could be true"

Barnes did not say the unelect are saved as you intentionally twist and misrepresent, he said that 1 Jn 2:2 cannot possibly be interpreted to say that Jesus died only for the elect.

I can't copy and paste (phone), but his commentary is easily found online, simply Google, "Barnes 1 John 2:2"

I quoted Barnes verbatim.

 

[Herald]

Ya gotta love it, you have folks that call laymen like me morons, and that we should consult real "theologians" that know Greek, and when we do, if that theologian disagrees with you, you say he is wrong. LOL

Friend, I understand why you appear frustrated; but please take a moment to consider why Barnes is rejected as a credible source by most Calvinists. The following excerpt is take from a work authored by D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, "Turning Points in American Presbyterian History Part 5: The Plan of Union, 1801":

Taylor's influence in Presbyterian circles was most evident in the preaching of Albert Barnes (1798-1870). This Presbyterian pastor hailed from western New York, the region through which New Englanders traveled as they moved west. He trained at Princeton Seminary before taking his first call in Morristown, New Jersey. In 1829, he delivered his most famous sermon, "The Way of Salvation," which showed that the New Haven Theology had found a home in the Presbyterian Church. In this sermon, Barnes denied the doctrine of original sin much as Taylor did. He declared that the Bible did not say

"that the sinner is held to be personally answerable for the transgressions of Adam, or of any other man; or that God has given a law which man has no power to obey. Such a charge, and such a requirement, would be most clearly unjust. The law requiring love to God, supreme and unqualified, and love to man, is supposed to be equitable; fully within the reach of every mortal, if there was first a willing mind."

Although no charges were brought against Barnes for teaching doctrines contrary to the Westminster standards, the situation changed dramatically when he moved to Philadelphia in 1830 to become pastor of that city's First Church. New England views had trespassed upon old Scotch-Irish turf.

The Presbytery of Philadelphia in 1831 condemned the ideas contained in Barnes's sermon, "The Way of Salvation." He appealed the ruling to the General Assembly in ways remarkably similar to the spirit of New England's theologians. Barnes claimed that his sermon reflected an honest investigation of the Bible, "to look at that book as a source of independent information." He added that he never examined Scripture according to "what particular opinions have been held or denied by any class of men." If this made his views heretical, then he was as much a heretic at the time of his appeal as when he first wrote the sermon. Barnes clearly stood in that theological trajectory that "called no man father," even if his subscribing to the Westminster standards might have implied otherwise.

The controversy over Barnes was largely responsible for the formation of a party of Presbyterian conservatives who would eventually start the Old School Presbyterian Church. These churchmen were concerned about the increasing disparity between New England Calvinism and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church. Opposition to Barnes was the initial outlet for this concern. But it also percolated up to the level of the General Assembly and resulted in several contentious meetings between 1834 and 1838. Barnes himself would never be formally condemned by the Assembly. But if the Presbyterian Church had rejected his teaching as contrary to the Westminster standards, it might have escaped the division that was looming on the horizon. As it happened, Barnes made inevitable a referendum on the Presbyterian Church's relationship to New England's Congregationalist churches.

Barnes' denial of original sin, and his support for a universal atonement, put him at odds with old school Presbyterianism and even the Calvinistic Baptists of his day. No one who holds to the DoG denies original sin or definite atonement. So-called 4 point Calvinists are actually Amyraldians. They are a theological belief system all to themselves. They have never been accepted into the mainstream of Reformed or Calvinistic scholarship. Barnes went beyond simple Amyraldianism. His denial of original sin had him brought up twice on heresy charges within the Presbyterian church that was the result of liberal theology. Barnes' theology lead to the eventual formation of the PC-USA, the most liberal Presbyterian denomination in the United States.

So, please don't get upset if Barnes' credibility is suspect.

 

[preacher4truth]

You are twisting what Barnes said, he said;

Barnes did not say the unelect are saved as you intentionally twist and misrepresent, he said that 1 Jn 2:2 cannot possibly be interpreted to say that Jesus died only for the elect.

I can't copy and paste (phone), but his commentary is easily found online, simply Google, "Barnes 1 John 2:2"

I quoted Barnes verbatim.

I'm not intentionally twisting a thing. What you are arguing is ambiguous (unclear) concerning placing Barnes in disagreement with me. Where is he in disagreement with me here?


World doesn't mean "people", it means age. Do you understand this? World also doesn't mean "every person who ever lived." This is part of your mistake.

No need for you inserting the "twisting" nonsense, OK? Leave it out.

Tell me where "Barnes" disagrees with me on this, to which you took offense and replied:

The thing is that the sacrifice of Christ is utterly perfect in all aspects, and that its value to God to secure souls and save from sin is potentially enough to save the entire world.

I've said all along as you have here, define "all" which is met with resistance for obvious reasons.

Specifically, Christ died to save His people from their sins. It is very specific and applies only to those whom God has chosen.

Confusion comes in when a person thinks that in reality they actually did the choosing themselves, but Scripturally it is God who has chosen them. Thus, those who then truly understand this stand in awe of why He did so choose them. It is of course because of His grace.

Obviously we do not know who those persons are who are elect, so we preach the Gospel to all men. It is a romantic idea that even the "non-elect" can be saved, but nothing in the Scriptures provide for this avenue. None who are saved in actuality are non-elect. In this we see the wisdom and Sovereignty of God in His purpose and plan.

So I ask, are there any saved who are non-elect, or saved that God had not chosen? Of course there are not any in such a case.

Show me where your problem is within my statement coupled with Barnes interpretational error.

I've simply, and within Scriptural limitation shown that:

1) Only the elect will be saved (do you disagree, and state that non-elect will also be saved?);

2) The sacrifice of Christ is only effective for the elect, His chosen, His people, only.

Show me where Barnes disagrees with what I have stated. You're not understanding what he says, that is part of the problem here.

What is the exact point that Barnes made that you find me going against? Name it concisely.

 

[Winman]

Why don't you believe Barnes? He is a theologian isn't he? Isn't that the argument some put forth, we are not to rely on what we personally believe the scriptures say, but rely on the theologians?

Which theologians? Catholic? Reformed? Methodist? Pentacostal? All of these have gathered together those who can interpret the scriptures to agree with their doctrine, is this not so?

I realized this when I was a boy. That is why I read the scriptures and ask God to help me know the truth.

I have read the scriptures, and they say Jesus died for all men, not just the elect.

 

[preacher4truth]

Why don't you believe Barnes? He is a theologian isn't he? Isn't that the argument some put forth, we are not to rely on what we personally believe the scriptures say, but rely on the theologians?

Which theologians? Catholic? Reformed? Methodist? Pentacostal? All of these have gathered together those who can interpret the scriptures to agree with their doctrine, is this not so?

I realized this when I was a boy. That is why I read the scriptures and ask God to help me know the truth.

I have read the scriptures, and they say Jesus died for all men, not just the elect.

Oh, so you're not going to answer me directly, as to where you and Barnes disagree with what I've said. I figured as much. This must mean you've found nothing, and are onto another trail now.

Who has said that we are to rely on theologians? Another extreme gesture from you against others who study and employ other men of God as teachers. Let me guess, you rely on "Bible Alone Only" correct? All of everything you believe came only from having ever read the Bible, right, no man has taught you a thing, you need no man to teach you, you're an island and a maverick, correct? You got saved, then no man taught you a thing, from salvation, until now, it has all come from your own personal study and prayer, yes?

You have read the Scriptures? Well, we hope so, that should be a given.

Jesus died for the sins of the age. Salvificly (as far as salvation being applied) this will only effectually apply to His elect.

I don't know. (in answer to your statement that denoms only gather together those who agree with their doctrine.) You've claimed by implication that your denominations named above gathered only those theologians together which happen to agree with them.

Got proof?

What you're implying here is that you're a Bible only fella. But really winman, you're not at all. I can't congratulate you for that because it is not worthy of congratulations (if you actually were Bible Only, but, you're not). I find it neither wise nor spiritual to be "Bible only", and the only reason a person alludes to this concerning themselves is to come across as "spiritual."

In addition, you've consulted and have employed Barnes for one specific reason: he agrees with your views, and he here is in error as well as you. This also makes you not "Bible Only." Nonetheless you are guilty of what you've alleged to other denoms yourself; employing only those who agree with you. Wonder if good ol' Barnes was a "Bible Onlyist" as you "are?" There's not a chance of that at all.

 

[Winman]

I quoted Barnes to support Skandelon who said that not all Calvinists support Limited Atonement. I was not speaking to you at all when I originally posted that.

I also wrote of an article written by a Calvinist who wrote a good article to support Unlimited Atonement. This was also written to show that many Calvinists, including Calvin himself did not hold to Limited Atonement.

I have not quite figured out what you believe.

 

[Herald]

I quoted Barnes to support Skandelon who said that not all Calvinists support Limited Atonement.

Friend, I understand that. I think the contention is that Barnes really wasn't a Calvinist as the term has been historically defined. His view on the atonement and original sin placed him outside mainstream Calvinist thought. My previous post goes into that more in detail.

 

[Winman]

And P4T, you disagreed with Barnes in post #125 when you wrote;

Specifically, Christ died to save His people from their sins. It is very specific and applies only to those whom God has chosen.

You are in disagreement with Barnes here who said that it is not possible that 1 Jn 2:2 could be saying Christ died for the elect only.

Happy now?

 

[Winman]

Friend, I understand that. I think the contention is that Barnes really wasn't a Calvinist as the term has been historically defined. His view on the atonement and original sin placed him outside mainstream Calvinist thought. My previous post goes into that more in detail.

Well, from what I have read, Barnes was acquitted twice, so obviously there were many other Calvinists who supported him.

And if you read that article, you would see that the majority of theologians and early church fathers before the Reformation held to Unlimited Atonement. So, is Barnes a heretic because he agreed with the early theologians and church fathers? Or was it those who adopted Limited Atonement after Calvin?

Answer that.

 

[Herald]

Well, from what I have read, Barnes was acquitted twice, so obviously there were many other Calvinists who supported him.

And if you read that article, you would see that the majority of theologians and early church fathers before the Reformation held to Unlimited Atonement. So, is Barnes a heretic because he agreed with the early theologians and church fathers? Or was it those who adopted Limited Atonement after Calvin?

Answer that.

If you study the background of his trials he was acquitted by the new school branch of the Presbyterian church. That is the branch that gave modern day Presbyterians the PC-USA; the same PC-USA that ordains homosexual and female ministers. Barnes' teaching was rejected by the confessional Presbyterians of his day; those Presbyterians who subscribed to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Regarding the early church fathers; many of them rejected books that are in our modern day bible. A good many of them were paedobaptists. Some even strayed into the error of preterism; believing that there is nothing left on the prophetic clock. Most theologians exercise caution when reading the works of the early church fathers. The first few centuries of the New Testament church were fraught with chaos and confusion. Gnostic heresy was rampant; influencing much of the theology of the time. Pelagius, a contemporary of Augustine, did much damage to the church by teaching against original sin. The heresies bearing his name (Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism) are with us today.

The Reformation was a time of rebirth, so to speak. Remember, except for isolated pockets of truth during the Dark Ages, such as the Waldensians, the Scriptures were closed to the masses. Once the bible started to be printed in the vulgar language of the day (the vernacular) there was a renewed interest in theological learning. It's not that new doctrines were invented, rather, old truths were rediscovered.