Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[Herald]

So, since this view was their defense for the argument against Calvinism regarding the genuineness of the gospel's appeal and you reject it, what is your defense against it?

How is something genuinely offered to those to whom it's not made available? Historically Calvinists have taken Calvin/Hodge's approach (which your reject). The Hyper-Cal approach is to deny that the gospel is sent to all. What is your approach?

The Gospel is freely offered to all, even though all are not able to believe it. The free offer of the Gospel is not contingent on human ability.

 

[Skandelon]

The cross is perfectly sufficient for the sins of those who will be saved by it.

Yet Hodge, Calvin and other Calvinistic scholars quoted teach that it is really sufficient to save everyone, not just the elect. Do you disagree? If so, why?

It obviously does not save those who are not saved.

We are not debating that point. We are discussing its sufficiency for all, not its efficacy for all.

The problem with Arminianism is that it denies substitutionary atonement.

No it doesn't. As a matter of historical fact Arminianism affirms substitutionary atonement.

Under common misconceptions is listed #3: Arminianism denies Jesus' substitutionary payment for sins: "Both Arminius and Wesley believed in the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's atonement through penal substitution.[48] Arminius held that God's justice was satisfied individually,[49] while Hugo Grotius and many of Wesley's followers taught that it was satisfied governmentally.[50]"

So if he atoned for all the sins of every person in the world then NNE WILL BE IN HELL.

Unless the atonement is "provisional" - i.e. OT Covenant required the provision of circumcision (law)...NT Covenant requires the provision of faith in Christ who fulfilled the law as a SUBSTITUTE.

 

[Skandelon]

The Gospel is freely offered to all, even though all are not able to believe it. The free offer of the Gospel is not contingent on human ability.

Yet, the reason men like Calvin and Hodge took the approach of explaining that the atonement sufficiently removed legal impediments is because of the clear contradiction that a free offer cannot be sincerely presented to those for whom its not made available.

It would be like buying 9 super bowl tickets and offering them to 10 of your friends because one of them you secretly disliked. You can't sincerely offer a gift to someone that you haven't purchased, can you? Can God sincerely offer reconciliation to those he hasn't made reconciliation possible? Hodge and Calvin seem to think not which is why they draw this distinction. How do you get around it without slipping into Hyperism?

 

[JesusFan]

I understand that these quotes are from the context in which Calvinists are defending the universal aspect of the Gospel's call within the Calvinistic system, but notice they do so based upon the FACT that the legal requirements HAVE been satisfied for every person. I'm asking if you agree with that argument or not.

Has the legal requirements been satisfied for every individual or not? Is their "unwillingness" truly the only impediment for their being saved?

the atoning work of the Lord upon the Cross is indeed sufficient to save any and all who would come unto him and be saved, yet the problem is the sinner whose heart and mind is darkened by their sinful state will not be able to respond to the offer of salvation, unless/until the Lord effectual applies the Grace of the Cross unto their behalf, openning up their hearts/minds to receive Him...

So the work of the Cross can and will save all who come unto Jesus, its just that those whom are able to come unto Him and get saved will be elected and chosen by God!

His death has provided that ALL might be saved, its just that all who will get saved are those whom God has effectually applied grace to!

 

[preacher4truth]

the atoning work of the Lord upon the Cross is indeed sufficient to save any and all who would come unto him and be saved, yet the problem is the sinner whose heart and mind is darkened by their sinful state will not be able to respond to the offer of salvation, unless/until the Lord effectual applies the Grace of the Cross unto their behalf, openning up their hearts/minds to receive Him...

So the work of the Cross can and will save all who come unto Jesus, its just that those whom are able to come unto Him and get saved will be elected and chosen by God!

His death has provided that ALL might be saved, its just that all who will get saved are those whom God has effectually applied grace to!

...and the highlighted (by me) is the part they have trouble with. That, and not rightly and contextually quoting the theologians they cut and paste, nor understanding what they, nor the Scriptures mean, contextually, concerning all.

I have no clue why people struggle with this. "How do you know if you're elect, or not?" they ask.

Look, if Christ has done a work of regeneration in your heart, if you came to faith in Him, you have been saved, therefore you're elect.

 

[freeatlast]

So are you one of the elect? If so, how do you know?

Your answer is in the book of 1 John. Start as chapter 5:13 and then go back and read 2:4-11 and 3:9 then you will know.

 

[InTheLight]

I thought it obvious that I was referring to knowing whether others are elect. Obviously, in this forum, you need to make your statements water tight.

At my old church the pastor was a Calvinist and he stated that the Puritans believed that no one could know who the elect were, only God knew that. He went on to say that the Puritans believed that they themselves would not know until they died. So I just wanted to have you clarify your position.

And yes, sometimes you really have to elaborate on your positions in this forum!

 

[Luke2427]

Yet Hodge, Calvin and other Calvinistic scholars quoted teach that it is really sufficient to save everyone, not just the elect. Do you disagree? If so, why

?

That has to do with the quality of it- not the availability of it.

We are not debating that point. We are discussing its sufficiency for all, not its efficacy for all

.

So long as you don't have Christ dying for people who will never be saved; so long as he is not suffering for sins that will still be punished- I do not care. But the impression you give here is that Christ died for every single sin of every single person.

This has Christ destroying sins that he will still punish people for. Of course that is madness.

No it doesn't. As a matter of historical fact Arminianism affirms substitutionary atonement

.
.[50]"[/URL][/I]

Yes, but it undermines the principle of it.

 

[Skandelon]

?

That has to do with the quality of it- not the availability of it.

You may need to tell them that because they actually use the word "available."

From the OP: "his work is equally available for all..." C. Hodge

So long as you don't have Christ dying for people who will never be saved; so long as he is not suffering for sins that will still be punished- I do not care. But the impression you give here is that Christ died for every single sin of every single person.

I'm trying to help you see that there are Calvinists (including Calvin Himself and most classic/historical Calvinists) who affirm that the legal impediments of the law have been fulfilled once and for all. And though they believe salvation itself will only come to the elect, they argue that the gospel appeal is genuine BECAUSE the work of Christ is available for all. This is why some Calvinists relabel Limited Atonement as "particular redemption."

This has Christ destroying sins that he will still punish people for. Of course that is madness.

And to that view C. Hodge says this:

"This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches, nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."

 

[Herald]

At my old church the pastor was a Calvinist and he stated that the Puritans believed that no one could know who the elect were, only God knew that. He went on to say that the Puritans believed that they themselves would not know until they died. So I just wanted to have you clarify your position.

And yes, sometimes you really have to elaborate on your positions in this forum!

No harm done. Thanks for your gracious response.

 

[Herald]

Yet, the reason men like Calvin and Hodge took the approach of explaining that the atonement sufficiently removed legal impediments is because of the clear contradiction that a free offer cannot be sincerely presented to those for whom its not made available.

It would be like buying 9 super bowl tickets and offering them to 10 of your friends because one of them you secretly disliked. You can't sincerely offer a gift to someone that you haven't purchased, can you? Can God sincerely offer reconciliation to those he hasn't made reconciliation possible? Hodge and Calvin seem to think not which is why they draw this distinction. How do you get around it without slipping into Hyperism?

I think the phrase "free offer of the Gospel" has not been properly explained. By "free" I mean that there is no condition placed on the Gospel itself. The Gospel is freely offered. Now, can every person freely receive it? If a Calvinist is truthful the answer will be "no." What should not be confused is the difference between ability and expectation. I know that not everyone will/can respond positively to the freely proclaimed Gospel. However, I have an expectant view of the efficacy of the Gospel. Since I believe the promise made to Abraham, that his descendants will be as numerous as the sand on the seashore, I expect that many will respond.

I actually don't get hung up on the election issue when preaching. I know what I believe about the doctrine. I'm totally convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt about the DoG. But when I preach I call on everyone who hears to repent and believe. I expect God to call His sheep into His flock. Where the Gospel is heard the sheep will be. When the shepherd calls the sheep responds.

 

[Skandelon]

Now, can every person freely receive it? If a Calvinist is truthful the answer will be "no."

While I agree with this assessment, most Calvinists would say something like, "they can receive it, but they don't want to." They say this for the same reasons mentioned above regarding the view of atonement. They believe the ONLY impediment is the sinners unbelief. They take this view because they recognize the problem regarding the disingenuous appeal explained in my last post.

Now, I believe this is semantics and in reality the answer should be "no." But the reality is that often it is not.

 

[Herald]

While I agree with this assessment, most Calvinists would say something like, "they can receive it, but they don't want to."

Let me correct this understanding. Calvinists would say something like, "they can't receive it because they are unable to." True, they don't want to, but their lack of desire is rooted in their inability according to how Calvinists view Scripture. Here is a verse that sheds light on this view:

1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

 

[JesusFan]

You may need to tell them that because they actually use the word "available."

From the OP: "his work is equally available for all..." C. Hodge

I'm trying to help you see that there are Calvinists (including Calvin Himself and most classic/historical Calvinists) who affirm that the legal impediments of the law have been fulfilled once and for all. And though they believe salvation itself will only come to the elect, they argue that the gospel appeal is genuine BECAUSE the work of Christ is available for all. This is why some Calvinists relabel Limited Atonement as "particular redemption."

And to that view C. Hodge says this:

"This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches, nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."

isn't this just the doctrine that some of us in Cal circles hold to that Jesus death was sufficient to pay for the Sins of ALL, but that ONLY thom whom God effectual applies thatGrace towards will gets its benefit!

 

[Luke2427]

You may need to tell them that because they actually use the word "available."

From the OP: "his work is equally available for all..." C. Hodge

I'm trying to help you see that there are Calvinists (including Calvin Himself and most classic/historical Calvinists) who affirm that the legal impediments of the law have been fulfilled once and for all. And though they believe salvation itself will only come to the elect, they argue that the gospel appeal is genuine BECAUSE the work of Christ is available for all. This is why some Calvinists relabel Limited Atonement as "particular redemption."

And to that view C. Hodge says this:

"This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches, nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."

This statement still does not have want you want in it. It still does not have Christ paying the penalty for sins which will be punished again in hell.

And the "available" of your quotes is no problem for most of us Calvinists, if you understand what is meant by it.

Salvation is available for all (as in every single person) in the sense of the Gospel call is extended to all, Christ is able to save all, there is no one who comes to him in repentance calling on him as Lord who he will not or does not save, there is no deficiency in the power of the blood to save any single person on earth, etc...

But in the technical sense NNE should believe that Christ paid for sin and then God expects that same sin to be paid for again in hell.

Calvinists are consistent here. They preach that WHOSOEVER shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But only those who DO have had their sins atoned for on the cross.

What Arminians need to be true cannot be true. Christ cannot be a substitute and pay in full for the sins of a man and then that man STILL BE EXPECTED to pay for his own sins as if Christ's substitutionary atonement is not sufficient.

Christ atoned for the sins of those who would call upon the name of the Lord and be saved. Those people alone make up God's elect.

 

[Iconoclast]

I understand that these quotes are from the context in which Calvinists are defending the universal aspect of the Gospel's call within the Calvinistic system, but notice they do so based upon the FACT that the legal requirements HAVE been satisfied for every person. I'm asking if you agree with that argument or not.

Has the legal requirements been satisfied for every individual or not? Is their "unwillingness" truly the only impediment for their being saved?

The legal satisfaction is only available for those who are found to be in Christ
to be outside of Christ is to be under the full wrath of God.
The atonement was a covenant death and an ACTUAL, vicarious satisfaction....it was not at all potential....but actual , and particular.
Everyone limits the atonement,unless they are a heretical universalist.
Some of us like to follow the scriptures that actual speak about the scope of the cross work .

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.[/QUOTE]

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [/QUOTE]

The substitutionary work was not for sin in general, but was actual payment for every single sin committed by those who Jesus came to save...even the sin of unbelief.

 

[preacher4truth]

The legal satisfaction is only available for those who are found to be in Christ
to be outside of Christ is to be under the full wrath of God.
The atonement was a covenant death and an ACTUAL, vicarious satisfaction....it was not at all potential....but actual , and particular.
Everyone limits the atonement,unless they are a heretical universalist.
Some of us like to follow the scriptures that actual speak about the scope of the cross work .

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.[/QUOTE]

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. [/QUOTE]

The substitutionary work was not for sin in general, but was actual payment for every single sin committed by those who Jesus came to save...even the sin of unbelief.

Good Scriptural answer Iconoclast. You are correct that everyone limts the atonement, excluding universalists. For an anti-cal, non-cal, or arminian to deny this, or pretend it doesn't exist is being disengenuous at the very least.

The atonement is particular in its extension and in its application. It is reserved for those whom God has chosen. It is He that has chosen us, this is why we are redeemed, all because of He and He alone. This truth is seen throughout Scripture.

The OP takes quotes out of context of said theologians. We all know what these believed concerning the useage of "all" thus the entie basis of the OP's premise starts on a faulty foundation.

 

[JesusFan]

The legal satisfaction is only available for those who are found to be in Christ
to be outside of Christ is to be under the full wrath of God.
The atonement was a covenant death and an ACTUAL, vicarious satisfaction....it was not at all potential....but actual , and particular.
Everyone limits the atonement,unless they are a heretical universalist.
Some of us like to follow the scriptures that actual speak about the scope of the cross work .

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.[/QUOTE]



Good Scriptural answer Iconoclast. You are correct that everyone limts the atonement, excluding universalists. For an anti-cal, non-cal, or arminian to deny this, or pretend it doesn't exist is being disengenuous at the very least.

The atonement is particular in its extension and in its application. It is reserved for those whom God has chosen. It is He that has chosen us, this is why we are redeemed, all because of He and He alone. This truth is seen throughout Scripture.

The OP takes quotes out of context of said theologians. We all know what these believed concerning the useage of "all" thus the entie basis of the OP's premise starts on a faulty foundation.

have to give credit to Skan in many of his OP here have the ability to make it "seem" those espousing to cal holding different views that what the rest of us do here on BB!

Seems to try to "make a wedge" betwenn the Cal camp, beyween supra/Ifra, 4/5 pointers etc!

 

[Luke2427]

have to give credit to Skan in many of his OP here have the ability to make it "seem" those espousing to cal holding different views that what the rest of us do here on BB!

Seems to try to "make a wedge" betwenn the Cal camp, beyween supra/Ifra, 4/5 pointers etc!

That's EXACTLY what he does.

It is almost ALL he does in debate. Misrepresent some classic Calvinist.

It is almost his ONLY strategy.

You are very astute to notice this.

 

[preacher4truth]

That's EXACTLY what he does.

It is almost ALL he does in debate. Misrepresent some classic Calvinist.

It is almost his ONLY strategy.

You are very astute to notice this.

Then here come the two crowds:

1) The cheerleaders who come in all excited and all :thumbsup: having been hoodwinked into believing what he says, having never looked into it nor having studied what he says. Scriptures say this is not the practice of the wise. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15

2) Others, having studied, typically immediately see how skan has taken these theologians out of context in order to attempt to prove his point. It is then readily shot down with facts and context.

It is obvious skan is on an objective against calvinists. That would include luke2427, icon, EWF, glfrederick, myself, many others here that this would include in this said objective since we are labeled thus.

I find it interesting that ever since I disproved some rather trivial thing he said in a post (which he denied saying, but in fact did) now I get the "I won't respond to you anymore p4t!!!!" Please. That's called holding a grudge and is unforgiveness in 4WD. It's not exactly what I would expect from another Christian man.

If you can't handle being incorrect, or having to eat humble pie, don't post.

- Peace