Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

[JonC]

No, I'm talking about this quote of yours before you cleaned it up with the quote above:



He died to save His people from their sins.

OK. Your objection makes more sense but it is without merrit. (It's a "throw out objection," a smoke screen to divert from the argument).



Viewing Christ as the atoning sacrifice for the sins (still focusing on sin, not on the elect or anyone else) of the world still is not presenting Christ as dying for no one because it is one aspect of an argument.



I could, for example, hold Calvin’s view that God invited indiscriminately all to share in the life and cut off every excuse form unbelievers. He uses the term ‘world’ as the “whole world when he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ.” Christ is the propitiation of the sins of the world (descriptive of Christ) who died to save the elect (what he has done). The first portion of the argument does not say that Christ died for people, but for the sins of the world. It would, however, be dishonest for me to say that Calvin believed Christ died for no one. Likewise, as both you and Aaron have read and responded to my posts, it is dishonest or mistaken of you to present my statement in such a fashion.



I have to admit that I was not the best Greek student (but I survived). I did take out of the course the importance of identifying the subject of a particular passage. I was not speaking of what Christ did in terms of atonement, or even the purpose of God in sending His Son, but of Christ as the Lamb of God.

 

[preacher4truth]

OK. Your objection makes more sense but it is without merrit. (It's a "throw out objection," a smoke screen to divert from the argument).

The only smokescreen is yours. I commented on your errant statement. Since then you've gone on to rabbit trails and diversion instead of admitting your statement is fallacious.

That's what I've addressed, from that point you've made attempt to clean up, and pretend.

 

[DaChaser1]

The only smokescreen is yours. I commented on your errant statement. Since then you've gone on to rabbit trails and diversion instead of admitting your statement is fallacious.

That's what I've addressed, from that point you've made attempt to clean up, and pretend.

think that we would do good to address the bad theology that skan and van still like to spread around on this OP!

 

[JonC]

The only smokescreen is yours. I commented on your errant statement. Since then you've gone on to rabbit trails and diversion instead of admitting your statement is fallacious.

That's what I've addressed, from that point you've made attempt to clean up, and pretend.

Your post reflects a lack of integrity on your part or a lack of understanding of my position. If the former, that is something you will have to deal with, but if the latter, it may be that I am not adequately stating my position and I apologize for the inability on my part. Perhaps reading the works of others who differ in view would give you a better understanding of the issue at hand and make up for my inadequacy in explaining the topic.
I commented on your remark, not on you (the accusation that I’m taking diversions instead of admitting error is inappropriate). I may have made the same mistake somewhere, if so I do apologize - I try to keep remarks to what is said, not towards who is speaking. My intent is to examine the objections to a universal aspect of atonement that is prevalent within Calvinism. Like it or not, it is a position that cannot be dismissed by throwing canned remarks on a thread.

The objection that if Christ was a sacrifice for the sin of the world (without application) is not stating that Christ died for no one. I say this is a smoke screen because it is a faulty argument from one position (an argument that is often used, often refuted, but never amounts to anything). If this is beyond you because it does not correspond with your understanding of the atoning sacrifice and you cannot follow the implications of a universal aspect of Christ’s work, that is fine. It is actually the point I was trying to get at and you have nothing to offer and there was no reason for you to respond to the post.

In that, I have offered no “clean up,” no “pretend,” simply a comment that Aaron's “counterargument” was contrived in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The simple fact is that you have not addressed the statement from the position that I was speaking.

 

[JonC]

think that we would do good to address the bad theology that skan and van still like to spread around on this OP!

Yea, Dude. Maybe we could start a club…a Calvinistic club for the Advancement of Calvinism…CCAC...we could like wear “frozen chosen” t-shirts and everything…won’t even have to listen to what they say ‘cause they’re wrong anyway…

 

[preacher4truth]

Your post reflects a lack of integrity on your part or a lack of understanding of my position. .

More personal slams. I can only see it getting worse as you go along. No need for it at all.

Nothing in my response reflects your pejorative charge.

I replied to your errant quote, and addressed it. Since that point you've dodged, made smokescreens, rabbit trails, and now in the end you attack character.

We all know what that means in the end. Yes?

:wavey:

 

[preacher4truth]

think that we would do good to address the bad theology that skan and van still like to spread around on this OP!

Interesting this one says we should accept legitimate arguments:

but they cannot (or will not) acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view.

... yet look how he reacts to the truths given.

 

[JonC]

Interesting this one says we should accept legitimate arguments

I never said you should accept anything. You should acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view, not accept it but deal with it within its own foundation.

More personal slams. I can only see it getting worse as you go along.

I sincerely did not mean my comment to be a personal slam – I’m surprised you took it that way. What I am saying is that your comments reflect a lack of understanding – or -you do understand but lack the integrity to address the issue. I honestly do not know which one is true, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.


If you are not simply trying to cloud the issue, then please continue:


Simply state my position and answer a few questions and verify that it is correct. This way I will know that you actually do understand what I’m saying. Go ahead, you can do this!


1. What is the logical order of election/atonement presupposed by my position?


2.Do I think that God chose to save a particular people and that Christ came to atone for their sins alone or do I think that Christ came to atone for the sins of all people?


3.Do I believe that Christ atoned for the sins of the world?


4.In what context was my statement that “Christ died for the sins of the world” taken? Was it really a standalone statement explaining atonement or an aspect of the atonement?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

... yet look how he reacts to the truths given.

Lets look at that statement by Jon again......"but they cannot (or will not) acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view"

Absolutely absurd! Why would you? :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I never said you should accept anything. You should acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view, not accept it but deal with it within its own foundation.




I sincerely did not mean my comment to be a personal slam – I’m surprised you took it that way. What I am saying is that your comments reflect a lack of understanding – or -you do understand but lack the integrity to address the issue. I honestly do not know which one is true, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.


If you are not simply trying to cloud the issue, then please continue:


Simply state my position and answer a few questions and verify that it is correct. This way I will know that you actually do understand what I’m saying. Go ahead, you can do this!


1. What is the logical order of election/atonement presupposed by my position?


2.Do I think that God chose to save a particular people and that Christ came to atone for their sins alone or do I think that Christ came to atone for the sins of all people?


3.Do I believe that Christ atoned for the sins of the world?


4.In what context was my statement that “Christ died for the sins of the world” taken? Was it really a standalone statement explaining atonement or an aspect of the atonement?

This is difficult to read Jon.....hopefully you can improve on the FONT size. Maybe age is catching up to me.

 

[JonC]

Lets look at that statement by Jon again......"but they cannot (or will not) acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view"

Absolutely absurd! Why would you? :laugh:

In academics, it’s called “integrity”. In religion, it is linked with discernment – you test doctrines - and provide a true witness.



Calvinism was actually born out of such work. Without Erasmus, you wouldn’t have Luther. If it were not for Luther, you would have never had Calvin. Were it not for exploring Arminianism on the grounds of their five articles, the five points of Calvinism would not be. Lutheranism would not have focused as much on free-will had Calvinism not adopted supralapsarianism. Beza wouldn’t have held to the supralapsarian view had he not been exposed to the sublapsarianism of Calvin. There is so much of Protestantism that is reactive, probably because it was born out of a reaction.




Anyway, the reason that you should acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view is that the opposition often has legitimate views. It causes you to, in the case of Calvinism, refine your beliefs. It causes you to, in the case of the Southern Baptists, react to changes in culture and add to your common beliefs. But probably, most of all it allows you to test your own belief and make sure that you actually defend the convictions you hold. In this board there are several I’ve encountered who hold beliefs that they cannot defend. They are not entitled to these beliefs because they actually belong to the one who told them to believe it.




Accepting something as a legitimate argument does not mean accepting it as your own.

 

[JonC]

This is difficult to read Jon.....hopefully you can improve on the FONT size. Maybe age is catching up to me.

If you are like me, your eyes are catching up with you, but the small font doesn't help either. (sorry).:wavey:

 

[Aaron]

I would not argue that Christ died not for the people of all nations, but for the sins of the Jews only. That is ridiculous.

I forgot that you're new to the board. The C/NC debate around here usually centers on the usage of the words "world," "all," none," etc. They go something like:

NC: 1 John 2:2 proves that Christ died for each individual on the earth.

C: No, John was simply saying that Christ died for his elect among all the families of the earth, not among the Jews only.

(Repeat ad infinitum)
​

Of course, the Calvinists are right, but the Noncalvinists will remain unconvinced, so why bother? I was saying that I expected you to argue the NC position.

We were not speaking of for whom Christ died, but whether or not it could be said that Christ died for sins rather than for people. You stated that Christ did not die for sin but for people. I said that He died for our sins.

I know that's what you were saying. Of course he died for sins, but not simply for sins. He died for the sins of His people. Sin doesn't exist where there is no person. He cannot die for sins, without dying for persons. There is no general atonement, as you appeared to be saying, and as Scandal et al assert. There is no atonement without redemption. Saying one's sins may be atoned for, but that the man can remain unredeemed might be a subtle way to reconcile incompatible notions, but when one holds the idea up to the pattern provided in the Pentateuch, it doesn't match up.

You forgot to put in this statement “line up with my pattern and view of the law as applied to the gospel message and apart from covenant theory.”

The beautiful thing about the wisdom of God in providing pictures of the work of Christ at Sinai is that all one need do is point at the diagram that illustrates his point.

First, you have corrected my statement that would have implied that the non-elect do not perish “in their sin.” My statement was poorly worded and indicated that I believed that the sins of the non-elect are actually atoned for (which I do not).

Okay, then I have little argument with you. Scandal asserts just the opposite, you realize.

Since Arminians believe that exactly the same as Calvinists regarding predestination . . .

That gets said a lot around here, usually by noncalvinists. I'm beginning to suspect your motives.

3.

How do you reconcile biblical teachings regarding Gentile vs. Jewish condemnation? By this, I mean, how to you deal with those between Adam (who transgressed the command of God) and Moses (who received the Law)?

That's addressed in Romans 1 and 2.

4.

Why will the world be convicted because they don’t believe in Christ if Christ’s death was isolated specifically to the elect with no purposeful benefit to the non-elect (Jn 16:8-11)?

It helps to start with the correct premise. I could say the Gileadites slayed the fleeing Ephraimites because they couldn't say "Shibboleth," but I'm not saying they were slain for their manner of speech. I'm saying their manner of speech betrayed them, and they were slain for who they were.

Unbelief is not the cause of the world's condemnation. It's not as if the world was uncondemned and scotfree until they were presented with the Gospel. They are condemned already. Their unbelief merely prevents their escape.

 

[JonC]

Aaron,

Thank you for addressing my questions. Regarding the “all” debate, that was not where I was going. I actually agree with some of the Calvinist use of “all” and “world,” except for a few instances (probably the debated cases) where I feel it does damage to the Scripture. But, regardless, I do believe that Christ was an atonement for the redemption of the elect alone – those who do not believe remain in their sin.

I agree with Calvinism to a point. I identify more with Calvin, so some would define my views as Amyraldianism (four point Calvinism), but it depends on who’s defining universal or limited atonement. Like Luther, when the discussion gets to this point I think that it is approaching dangerous ground.

Regarding general atonement, I know that my statements point to general atonement – but this is not what I mean. I do believe in a general call, however I believe that apart from faith there is no atonement. Someone, (I believe Spurgeon) described the general call as a bird generally offering a warning call when predators were around, but a special call to gather her young. Likewise, the non-elect hear a general call, but do not respond because they do not receive an effectual call. Therefore, there is no atonement for the sins of the non-elect because they don’t believe.

There is nothing behind my statement regarding predestination. My point is that they hold to predestination, and base it on the election of God (but the elect chose of their own will to accept Christ). When you get to Wesley there is more difference, but some still hold to classic Arminianism. Classic Lutheranism also holds a view of predestination. I don’t actually hold these beliefs, but thought that your argument would be better served structuring Calvinism off of election rather than predestination – that’s all.

I mostly agree with you regarding the last point. Those who are condemned are condemned because of their nature and they are still in their sins. I do believe, however, that they are also condemned for the sin of unbelief. This, for me, goes back to the general call.

This is what I was trying to say: God sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (man’s sin). When I say this, I am viewing “sacrifice for the sins of the world” as being descriptive of the sacrifice. In that, it is universal and deals with the sufficiency and uniqueness of the Sacrifice (a sacrifice for man’s sin, not for individual men). I am not implying that He died for no one, but that as “the sacrifice for the sins of the world” He died for the salvation of the elect. All are condemned for rejecting this sufficient sacrifice, but God showed mercy and redeemed some through faith. Anyway, I hope that this explains my view a little better. We may never agree on this point, which is fine – I am not trying to sway anyone from their beliefs.

 

[JonC]

Okay, then I have little argument with you. Scandal asserts just the opposite, you realize.

It took me a moment to realize what you were speaking of here. Sorry if it appeared I was ignoring the comment.

Yes, I do believe that people perish because they reject Christ. My understanding is that those who don’t believe already have been judged, because they have not believed in the name of the only son of God. I believe also that they remain in their sins because atonement is not apart from faith, but everything centers on Christ (the elect are saved in Christ; the non-elect perish outside of Christ). So Skandelon and I have some views in common, and there are places where we would disagree. Likewise, we have much in common, and places where we would disagree.

I have concluded that when I come to the point that I know for certain how God effected salvation, when I completely understand His methods and thoughts and am able to stand on those conclusions – that is probably the point when I am most wrong and farthest away from Him.

 

[Aaron]

Regarding general atonement, I know that my statements point to general atonement – but this is not what I mean. I do believe in a general call, however I believe that apart from faith there is no atonement.

Agreed.

Someone, (I believe Spurgeon) described the general call as a bird generally offering a warning call when predators were around, but a special call to gather her young. Likewise, the non-elect hear a general call, but do not respond because they do not receive an effectual call. Therefore, there is no atonement for the sins of the non-elect because they don’t believe.

All are invited to partake of Christ, yes. Only those who believe will do so yes. Only those who've been born again will believe. Faith is a birthmark.

When I say this, I am viewing “sacrifice for the sins of the world” as being descriptive of the sacrifice. In that, it is universal and deals with the sufficiency and uniqueness of the Sacrifice (a sacrifice for man’s sin, not for individual men). I am not implying that He died for no one, but that as “the sacrifice for the sins of the world” He died for the salvation of the elect. All are condemned for rejecting this sufficient sacrifice, but God showed mercy and redeemed some through faith. Anyway, I hope that this explains my view a little better.

I like the way I found Hodge to put it, Christ came to redeem the elect. In doing so, He accomplished what was needed for the salvation of all men, and invites all to enter in.

 

[DaChaser1]

Agreed.[/SIZE][/FONT]

All are invited to partake of Christ, yes. Only those who believe will do so yes. Only those who've been born again will believe. Faith is a birthmark.



I like the way I found Hodge to put it, Christ came to redeem the elect. In doing so, He accomplished what was needed for the salvation of all men, and invites all to enter in.

didn't Calvin hold to a position that jesus death suuficient payment to save all, but would save only those who God effectual applied grace towards, His Elect?

 

[DaChaser1]

Aaron,

Thank you for addressing my questions. Regarding the “all” debate, that was not where I was going. I actually agree with some of the Calvinist use of “all” and “world,” except for a few instances (probably the debated cases) where I feel it does damage to the Scripture. But, regardless, I do believe that Christ was an atonement for the redemption of the elect alone – those who do not believe remain in their sin.

I agree with Calvinism to a point. I identify more with Calvin, so some would define my views as Amyraldianism (four point Calvinism), but it depends on who’s defining universal or limited atonement. Like Luther, when the discussion gets to this point I think that it is approaching dangerous ground.

Regarding general atonement, I know that my statements point to general atonement – but this is not what I mean. I do believe in a general call, however I believe that apart from faith there is no atonement. Someone, (I believe Spurgeon) described the general call as a bird generally offering a warning call when predators were around, but a special call to gather her young. Likewise, the non-elect hear a general call, but do not respond because they do not receive an effectual call. Therefore, there is no atonement for the sins of the non-elect because they don’t believe.

There is nothing behind my statement regarding predestination. My point is that they hold to predestination, and base it on the election of God (but the elect chose of their own will to accept Christ). When you get to Wesley there is more difference, but some still hold to classic Arminianism. Classic Lutheranism also holds a view of predestination. I don’t actually hold these beliefs, but thought that your argument would be better served structuring Calvinism off of election rather than predestination – that’s all.

I mostly agree with you regarding the last point. Those who are condemned are condemned because of their nature and they are still in their sins. I do believe, however, that they are also condemned for the sin of unbelief. This, for me, goes back to the general call.

This is what I was trying to say: God sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (man’s sin). When I say this, I am viewing “sacrifice for the sins of the world” as being descriptive of the sacrifice. In that, it is universal and deals with the sufficiency and uniqueness of the Sacrifice (a sacrifice for man’s sin, not for individual men). I am not implying that He died for no one, but that as “the sacrifice for the sins of the world” He died for the salvation of the elect. All are condemned for rejecting this sufficient sacrifice, but God showed mercy and redeemed some through faith. Anyway, I hope that this explains my view a little better. We may never agree on this point, which is fine – I am not trying to sway anyone from their beliefs.

I hold to Amyraldianism , and would say that calvin Himself seem to bounce back and forth concerning his views on the extent of the atonement!

Think best to remember that both 4/5 pointers affirm that man is spiritual dead in sins, seperation by God by both sin nature and sin commited, and that we cannopt come to Christ unless the Lord first enabled that reaction in us!

Non cals view man has still able to respond by personal /natural faith, as God provides salvation but leaves it up to us to freely decide to accept Chrsit and live!

 

[JonC]

Faith is a birthmark.

I like that (haven’t heard that before).

didn't Calvin hold to a position that jesus death suuficient payment to save all, but would save only those who God effectual applied grace towards, His Elect?

Yes, that was Calvin’s position. It was also the position of Luther. But I think that it is important to remember that the actual scope of atonement was not really debated during that time. They were more concerned with its nature. Calvin and Luther were concerned with preserving Scripture (they were content with leaving some things as a “mystery”). Beza, in my opinion, was more instrumental in developing Calvinism as it is today. Where Calvin looked to Scripture to define his theology, Beza utilized that system to understand Scripture.

Any theological system has to be able to address problems that are contemporary to its environment – and that is what has occurred with Calvinism, Lutheranism, Arminianism, etc. Some will hold to a “classical” view, others will accept refinements to the system.