Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[quantumfaith]

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (NASB: Lockman)

Greek: mia gar prosphora teteleioken (3SRAI) eis to dienekes tous agiazomenous. (PPPMPA)

Amplified: For by a single offering He has forever completely cleansed and perfected those who are consecrated and made holy. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)

Barclay: For by one offering and for all time he perfectly gave us that cleansing we need to enter into the presence of God. (Westminster Press)

NLT: For by that one offering he perfected forever all those whom he is making holy. (NLT - Tyndale House)

Phillips: For by virtue of that one offering he has perfected for all time every one whom he makes holy. (Phillips: Touchstone)

Wuest: for by one offering He has brought to completion forever those who are set apart for God and His service. (Eerdmans)

Young's Literal: for by one offering he hath perfected to the end those sanctified;

 

[quantumfaith]

Verse 14. For by one offering
His death upon the cross.

He hath perfected for ever.
He has procured remission of sins and holiness; fur it is well observed here, and in several parts of this epistle, that τελειοω, to make perfect, is the same as αφεσιναμαÏτιωνποιεω, to procure remission of sins.

Them that are sanctified.
τουςαγιαζομενους. Them that have received the sprinkling of the blood of this offering. These, therefore, receiving redemption through that blood, have no need of any other offering; as this was a complete atonement, purification, and title to eternal glory.

Adam Clark

 

[Amy.G]

The payment is limited to the elect................

That said, I agree that God will refuse no one who comes to him in repentance and faith.

If the payment is limited to the elect only, then God must refuse those who come to Him whose sins He did not pay for.

 

[psalms109:31]

All the work is done what is left is to enter His rest, enter Jesus Christ.

 

[Skandelon]

this quote attributed to Calvin is accurate, IF given in total context. Calvin further states the conditions of believing. Man, of his own innate being, cannot believe. He must be acted upon by God in grace and faith, which is God's prerogative, not fallen man.

Cheers,

Jim

I totally agree Jim and I have never attempted to claim otherwise. I hope those reading along here recognize this.

There is a difference in these two Calvinistic views:

1) Jesus suffered just so much for so many (paid only for the sins of the elect), thus leaving the impediment of 'no atonement provided' for all the non-elect. In other words, the non-elect go to hell due to a lack of atonement AND for their unbelief under this system.

2) Jesus satisfied the legal impediments for all mankind, but God doesn't choose to draw all men to himself (regenerate them so they will believe), so the ONLY reason men go to hell is because of their unbelief, not because there where other legal impediments keeping them from being saved. These are the Calvinists who say things like "they can be saved but they aren't willing." The only way you can claim that is if you believe the atonement was truly sufficient for all, rather than just valuable enough to be sufficient as some claim.

Calvin and Hodge (along with many others) held to the second of these two views, and Hodge even goes so far as to say that the first view is unorthodox and not representative of true Calvinism. These are facts, not opinions. But it appears some here don't want to deal with the facts of the matter in an objective and studious manner.

 

[Tom Butler]

If the payment is limited to the elect only, then God must refuse those who come to Him whose sins He did not pay for.

Except there won't be any of those folks who come to Him. There will be none to refuse.

 

[preacher4truth]

And you have ignored the direct question to provide support for your claim that I've taken these Calvinistic scholars out of context.

In fact, since I posted these things I had a discussion with a notable Calvinistic scholar about this subject (though I don't have his permission to use his name, so I won't), and he confirmed that this has been a point of contention among Calvinistic scholars and that Hodge is in fact making the point that I've presented here and that my quotes are very contextually accurate. He gave me several other sources where Calvinists actually debate out this distinction that I can present if necessary, but before I do more work for you may I suggest you provide support for you accusations or recant them.

But of course, an "invisible Calvninist source" that is "notable" (why would it be otherwise?) that bolsters you and proves what you've said is true and accurate. Nothing tangible there at all. I think it is in sync with your out of context quotes.

I apologize that bothers you, but guess what, this is a debate forum, and these things happen. I totally disagree with what you use as proof, and see it as inaccurate and ripped from a more broad context.

Your quotes are contextually inaccurate, and I've given you the reason why I say this. Did you miss that part? I know you saw it. It surrounds the given meaning to "all."

Recant? What is this an inquisition? I'm recanting nothing as there is nothing to recant. What is this nonsense, someone disagrees with your out of context quotes, shares why they disagree, and now have to recant? Not here.

I'm not the only one to suggest "context" surrounding your quotes. They're accurate, IF taken in context, which when quoted by you, are not in context, accept within the lens you want them viewed from.

 

[preacher4truth]

Except there won't be any of those folks who come to Him. There will be none to refuse.

Exactly. Jesus said of those who come, He will for no reason cast them out. For NO reason whatsoever.

:thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

I am sure that there is some element of understanding I am lacking, which is often the case.

Everyone who comes is welcomed, everyone can come, but many will not come because they can't come.

 

[Amy.G]

Everyone who comes is welcomed, everyone can come, but many will not come because they can't come.

No no no. They can come, but they don't want to come because God did not put the thing(?) in them that makes them want to come, so they won't come. Got it?

 

[Jim1999]

IF I accepted Calvinism, I would be baptizing infants and building a state church and other such viewpoints held by John Calvin. This is true of Hodge, who was not a Baptist.

So, when Baptists speak of Calvinism, we generally refer to the five points opposing Arminianism at that time. These points were made after Calvin's death.

Also, Calvin changed his viewpoints on many doctrines between writing his first book (Institutes) and his book on Romans. It is also important to remember that men like Calvin and Luther were influenced by the Church of Rome and such documents. Baptists were independent, whether they were called Baptists or not. They too had some "funny" doctrines included in their works.

The basic doctrine of "Calvinism" is the absolute sovereignty of God, and everything must fit into that leading doctrine. Hence, we have the so-called free will of man listed under the Permissive Will of God, as a subsection of absolute sovereignty. This is where God says, "This far and no further."

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Herald]

You being a DoGer, I know we will have a lot of disagreements, but I have come to a fondness of the way you post on here.


I say the very same thing when God blesses me to proclaim His Gospel.

Thank you for your kind and gracious words.

I appreciate a good irenic discussion. The vitriol that often accompanies the topic at hand grieves me. Most people would never even consider saying these things face to face. It's easy to hide behind the supposed anonymity of a discussion board. Trust me. I've been known to type out a quick zinger every now and then. All of us need to keep in mind this biblical admonition:

James 1:19-20 19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.

 

[Skandelon]

But of course, an "invisible Calvninist source" that is "notable" (why would it be otherwise?) that bolsters you and proves what you've said is true and accurate. Nothing tangible there at all. I think it is in sync with your out of context quotes.

Well, the 'invisible' source along with all the quotes already provided to which you have yet to actually answer.

I apologize that bothers you, but guess what, this is a debate forum, and these things happen. I totally disagree with what you use as proof, and see it as inaccurate and ripped from a more broad context.

What specifically have I said that is out of context. Even Jim's statement here bolsters my original claim. It is a historical fact that Calvinists have disagreed over this point. To deny that is simply a choice to ignore the historical facts of the case. I can't and won't argue with someone who simply dismisses historical facts out of hand. There really is no point.

Your quotes are contextually inaccurate, and I've given you the reason why I say this. Did you miss that part? I know you saw it. It surrounds the given meaning to "all."

It is very clear that their reference is regarding every person, no one has EVER attempted to make that argument regarding these Calvinistic quotes. No one except you...

May I recommend reading some of the Calvinistic discussion boards where they debate this point of contention among themselves. That may provide the needed clarity to understand the differing points of contention being addressed.

Recant? What is this an inquisition? I'm recanting nothing as there is nothing to recant. What is this nonsense, someone disagrees with your out of context quotes, shares why they disagree, and now have to recant? Not here.

I simply meant "put up or hush up." If you have a case make it and provide argumentation and citation to back it up. That is not an unreasonable request on a debate forum.

I'm not the only one to suggest "context" surrounding your quotes. They're accurate, IF taken in context, which when quoted by you, are not in context, accept within the lens you want them viewed from.

You are the only one suggesting that they aren't really meaning every individual. And if you think the context supports that finding then provide proof. Convince us that your view is correct. That is what debate it all about. It doesn't have to become personal. We are all friends here.

 

[Luke2427]

Well, the 'invisible' source along with all the quotes already provided to which you have yet to actually answer.

What specifically have I said that is out of context. Even Jim's statement here bolsters my original claim. It is a historical fact that Calvinists have disagreed over this point. To deny that is simply a choice to ignore the historical facts of the case. I can't and won't argue with someone who simply dismisses historical facts out of hand. There really is no point.

It is very clear that their reference is regarding every person, no one has EVER attempted to make that argument regarding these Calvinistic quotes. No one except you...

May I recommend reading some of the Calvinistic discussion boards where they debate this point of contention among themselves. That may provide the needed clarity to understand the differing points of contention being addressed.

I simply meant "put up or hush up." If you have a case make it and provide argumentation and citation to back it up. That is not an unreasonable request on a debate forum.


You are the only one suggesting that they aren't really meaning every individual. And if you think the context supports that finding then provide proof. Convince us that your view is correct. That is what debate it all about. It doesn't have to become personal. We are all friends here.

Hodge is right in the quote you provide.

What is your point?

 

[preacher4truth]

Well, the 'invisible' source along with all the quotes already provided to which you have yet to actually answer.

What specifically have I said that is out of context. Even Jim's statement here bolsters my original claim. It is a historical fact that Calvinists have disagreed over this point. To deny that is simply a choice to ignore the historical facts of the case. I can't and won't argue with someone who simply dismisses historical facts out of hand. There really is no point.

It is very clear that their reference is regarding every person, no one has EVER attempted to make that argument regarding these Calvinistic quotes. No one except you...

May I recommend reading some of the Calvinistic discussion boards where they debate this point of contention among themselves. That may provide the needed clarity to understand the differing points of contention being addressed.

I simply meant "put up or hush up." If you have a case make it and provide argumentation and citation to back it up. That is not an unreasonable request on a debate forum.


You are the only one suggesting that they aren't really meaning every individual. And if you think the context supports that finding then provide proof. Convince us that your view is correct. That is what debate it all about. It doesn't have to become personal. We are all friends here.

No, it's been personal for a long time with you. You know that's the truth too.

I say put up or hush up back back at you.

I've already given you my reason, yet you continue to ask for it. It must mean my reason hit the right target. Yes. That is it.

Nothing personal though. OK?

I simply, as Luke2427 see your thread and purpose of it as missing some big point altogether. Are you blowing smoke again?

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, the 'invisible' source along with all the quotes already provided to which you have yet to actually answer.

What specifically have I said that is out of context. Even Jim's statement here bolsters my original claim. It is a historical fact that Calvinists have disagreed over this point. To deny that is simply a choice to ignore the historical facts of the case. I can't and won't argue with someone who simply dismisses historical facts out of hand. There really is no point.

It is very clear that their reference is regarding every person, no one has EVER attempted to make that argument regarding these Calvinistic quotes. No one except you...

May I recommend reading some of the Calvinistic discussion boards where they debate this point of contention among themselves. That may provide the needed clarity to understand the differing points of contention being addressed.

I simply meant "put up or hush up." If you have a case make it and provide argumentation and citation to back it up. That is not an unreasonable request on a debate forum.


You are the only one suggesting that they aren't really meaning every individual. And if you think the context supports that finding then provide proof. Convince us that your view is correct. That is what debate it all about. It doesn't have to become personal. We are all friends here.

I don't see anything "personal" here, rather a request to defend ones position. In fact I see in the closing lines the polar opposite.

"It doesn't have to become personal. We are all friends here."

 

[MB]

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

 

[Skandelon]

Hodge is right in the quote you provide.

What is your point?

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

 

[Winman]

I am on a cell phone, so I cannot copy and paste, but for a very informative article on the unlimited/limited atonement debate please Google;

The Case for Unlimited Atonement (by Ron Rhodes)

You can copy that title and paste it in Google to find the article.

Mr. Rhodes identifies himself as a 4-point Calvinist, and provides MANY quotes from Calvinist and Reformed theologians who support Unlimited Atonement. In fairness he also provides quotes of theologians who support Limited Atonement.

Skandelon is correct, Calvin made many quotes supporting Unlimited Atonement which are shown in this article as well as Luther, Augustine and many early church fathers. In fact, this author shows that the vast majority of theologians before the Reformation held to Unlimited Atonement.

Perhaps someone can copy and paste this article here, it is very well written and informative.

 

[Skandelon]

I don't see anything "personal" here, rather a request to defend ones position.

I believe some fail to understand the concept of providing a defense, but that is okay.

Maybe this question will help clarify the distinction of the various views held by Calvinists:

What limits who will and will not be saved?

The willingness of the individual to believe and follow Christ, or Christ's atonement?

When Dort concluded, "no man perishes for want of atonement," they were saying that "there no other thing which keeps us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."

This is the basis for how Calvinists defend their view of John 3:16. How can you hold to a view of "whosoever will" when their will is not all that impedes their being saved? If you believe that certain men don't have the atonement's benefit available to them then you can't claim "whosoever believes," but instead, "whosoever has been atoned and then believes." And you can't defend the genuineness of the gospel's appeal calling all enemies to reconciliation unless you acknowledge, as Hodge does, that "[God] did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men."