Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

[JonC]

Iconoclast,Thanks for the link. Previously I had viewed the differences to be based on different definitions of the atonement, and that these differences led to viewing the logical order in different schemes. After listening to Murray, however, I realize that I was mistaking regarding his position. His definition is based on the order of atonement proceeding election and therefore cannot be disassociated from the effectiveness of that work. Perhaps, then, the reason that this position disagrees with that of Calvin is due to the developments that came about from the Arminian controversy.I’m not sure that this provides a satisfactory answer to all that is biblically presented regarding the atonement, but I also have not finished listening to Murray’s work. (it'll take awhile)

 

[webdog]

Hello JonC,
You should note that Skandalon is strongly anti-Calvinistic and therefore seeking his views on the subject is a bit like asking the Big Bad Wolf's opinion on childcare issues.

Steve

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast,Thanks for the link. Previously I had viewed the differences to be based on different definitions of the atonement, and that these differences led to viewing the logical order in different schemes. After listening to Murray, however, I realize that I was mistaking regarding his position. His definition is based on the order of atonement proceeding election and therefore cannot be disassociated from the effectiveness of that work. Perhaps, then, the reason that this position disagrees with that of Calvin is due to the developments that came about from the Arminian controversy.I’m not sure that this provides a satisfactory answer to all that is biblically presented regarding the atonement, but I also have not finished listening to Murray’s work. (it'll take awhile)

Jonc
Take your time and enjoy your studies.The truth delights to be investigated in.The is no greater study than the work of our Lord on the cross.
http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/am_grace.htm
Here is a great source of sermons from several men who believe in the particular redemption of scripture.
if you save these to favorites and work through them....you will see the truth clearly.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

JonC,

You need also to be aware that there are also different ways that Calvinists handle this issue.

Some argue that Christ died ONLY for the elect in that he paid just so much for so many. For these, to suggest that Christ's blood paid for the sins of the world suggests that his blood would be split or wasted on those who are not saved, thus they insist that his blood ONLY provided what was necessary for the elect alone...as if divine justice was only satisfied for those select few.

In other words, the rescue raft God used to take to the lost island was only big enough to carry a preselect number of people off the island, as opposed to the idea that God took a raft big enough for everyone to the island even though not everyone chose to get on.

Other Calvinists (C. Hodge; Shedd, Dabney, AA Hodge, and Calvin himself) taught that Christ's atonement, though only intended to save the elect, was sufficient to appease the wrath of God for every man thus providing the grounds by which to make appeal to all man (i.e. The raft is big enough for everyone), thus no one perishes for lack of atonement, but only a lack of faith. For these Calvinists, the limiting, in other words, is not in the atonement but in the unconditional election and application of irresistible grace.

Intent is what limits salvation to only the elect. The fact that faith is not exercised by the non-elect is the result of the fact that God did not extend the same grace to them that he extended to his own. I do not believe that Hodge argued that God wanted to save these non-elect, intended for them to be saved when Christ died, but did not save them only because they did not believe. The idea is that they did not believe because God did not cause them to believe like he caused others to believe.

 

[JonC]

Hi Luke,I think you are correct in your assessment of the position held by Hodge. I don’t think one would present Hodge as being of the opinion that God wanted and intended to save the non-elect. Saying that “intent is what limits salvation to only the elect” is somewhat vague. As I’m asking about atonement, are you saying that because of God’s intent Christ’s death on the cross was only for the elect rather than for the world? Calvin based his theology on the life of Christ as presented in Scripture. Beza’s starting point was in the divine decrees of election. That said, there seems a degree of separation between Beza’s view of atonement and Calvins. Calvin addressed the scope of atonement by stating that Christ died for every human being, but with the purpose of saving only the elect . Beza based his view of the atonement on the premise that God elected by sovereign decree a group of people, then He sent Christ as an atonement for their sins alone (not a chronological, but a logical order). There is not a difference in God’s decree to elect, but there is a world of difference in the view of the atonement as an event in history. Is Christ’s death sufficient for all of mankind or was Christ’s death hypothetically sufficient? The first position finds its center in Christ, the latter in the decree of God to elect.

 

[Luke2427]

Hi Luke,I think you are correct in your assessment of the position held by Hodge. I don’t think one would present Hodge as being of the opinion that God wanted and intended to save the non-elect. Saying that “intent is what limits salvation to only the elect” is somewhat vague. As I’m asking about atonement, are you saying that because of God’s intent Christ’s death on the cross was only for the elect rather than for the world? Calvin based his theology on the life of Christ as presented in Scripture. Beza’s starting point was in the divine decrees of election. That said, there seems a degree of separation between Beza’s view of atonement and Calvins. Calvin addressed the scope of atonement by stating that Christ died for every human being, but with the purpose of saving only the elect . Beza based his view of the atonement on the premise that God elected by sovereign decree a group of people, then He sent Christ as an atonement for their sins alone (not a chronological, but a logical order). There is not a difference in God’s decree to elect, but there is a world of difference in the view of the atonement as an event in history. Is Christ’s death sufficient for all of mankind or was Christ’s death hypothetically sufficient? The first position finds its center in Christ, the latter in the decree of God to elect.

There's too much here to address in one fell swoop. I'm afraid we'll need to break it down into much more bite size chunks.

Let me begin by saying that I believe the atonement of Christ is of such infinite value that it could completely save every single person born in the history of the world and a trillion world's like it.

Let me put it this way. Do you ever watch the show Fringe? There is an alternate universe in that show with very similar worlds.

If there really were alternate universes, a trillion of them, and each world were very similar filled with comparable numbers of sinners- Christ would not have to enter all of them to save everybody in the history of all of them. He could enter our one world just as he did, and die just as he did and save everybody in the one trillion universes by his death in our one world if he so chose.

He would not have to suffer one ounce more to accomplish such a feat.

 

[preacher4truth]

Jonc
Take your time and enjoy your studies.The truth delights to be investigated in.The is no greater study than the work of our Lord on the cross.
http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/am_grace.htm
Here is a great source of sermons from several men who believe in the particular redemption of scripture.
if you save these to favorites and work through them....you will see the truth clearly.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

One good thing added to e-sword is that each passage has a sermon link to sermonaudio.com, this is a very valuable resource...all is free. You can see each passage linked to a list of audible sermons.

 

[Skandelon]

Hi Luke,I think you are correct in your assessment of the position held by Hodge. I don’t think one would present Hodge as being of the opinion that God wanted and intended to save the non-elect. Saying that “intent is what limits salvation to only the elect” is somewhat vague. ... Is Christ’s death sufficient for all of mankind or was Christ’s death hypothetically sufficient? The first position finds its center in Christ, the latter in the decree of God to elect.

You rightly draw the distinction that I have been asking Luke about for some time now. He wrote...

Intent is what limits salvation to only the elect. The fact that faith is not exercised by the non-elect is the result of the fact that God did not extend the same grace to them that he extended to his own. I do not believe that Hodge argued that God wanted to save these non-elect, intended for them to be saved when Christ died, but did not save them only because they did not believe. The idea is that they did not believe because God did not cause them to believe like he caused others to believe.

As if I didn't already affirm this many times.

I've argued that it is not the Atonement that does the limiting in Hodge's view, but the unconditional election of those He is going to irresistibly grace. Thus, faith is the ONLY hinderence for one being saved (whether that faith is effectually applied through pre-regeneration or not is another issue). Luke has continually denied this because it would require him to concede the point of another argument we had earlier.

I actually agree with Calvin on this point: "As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief." - John Calvin

"What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all...He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." -C. Hodge

[Christ's atonement has indeed] "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men." - A. Hodge

"God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few." - John Calvin

"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." - C. Hodge

NOTICE AA Hodge's quote above. It answers your question regarding wether the atonement is "hypothetically sufficient" or not. I'm not sure Luke fully understands that distinction yet...which is ok, I didn't either for a long time.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I won't address every issue raised since my last post, except to say that from the little of his that I've read, I don't regard Shedd as a Calvinist, but as an Amyraldian.

I do want to address this very silly issue of the worth of Christ's blood.

If I give my son $5 and tell him to go to the shop and buy me a pound of tomatoes, what will he bring me?

If I give him $10 and tell him the same thing, what will he bring me?

If I give him $100 and tell him the same thing, what will he bring me?

If I give him $1,000,000 there might be a chance that he won't come back at all :laugh: but if he does, what will he bring me?

The answer is the same for each question: a pound of tomatoes because that is what I asked him to buy. The amount of money he has is irrelevant; what he has to do is to fulfil his task.

The Lord Jesus tells us: 'This is the will of My Father who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day' (John 6:39). The Father has given to the Son a people to redeem. Not one of those people will be missing on the last day; everyone will be saved by the blood of Christ.

But there's more.

'And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:40). This tells us two things.
1. All the people who will believe in Christ are identical to the ones that the Father has given the Son.
2. Christ's blood is sufficient to save all who come to Him. There is no question of someone repenting and trusting in Christ and being told, "I'm sorry, but you're not one of the elect. Christ's blood isn't quite enough to save you! If you'd repented last week, we could have squeezed you in, but now all the blood's run out." Such an idea is quite blasphemous.

I'm sure that Luke is quite right that Christ's blood would be sufficient to save a zillion sinners and more, but that isn't really the point. It is enough to save all who will come. And when they come, they will know, if they didn't know before, that the reason that they've come is that God, in eternity past, looked on them with lovinkindness, predestined them to salvation and drew them irresistibly to the Saviour to whom He had given them.

Steve

 

[Skandelon]

Steve,

We all understand that you all think the value of the atonement is infinite. No one needs to tell us that again. We get it. That is not what we are asking about. The question is wether the atonement is ACTUALLY sufficient or just HYPOTHETICALLY sufficient.

Do you agree with these quotes:

"As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief." - John Calvin

"What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all...He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." -C. Hodge

[Christ's atonement has indeed] "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men." - A. Hodge

"God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few." - John Calvin

"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." - C. Hodge

If not, why not? If all the legal impediments have ACTUALLY been removed as Hodge states and unbelief is the only true impediment for the unbeliever, as Calvin states, then is what you just argued correct? How so?

 

[JonC]

Hey Martin, I think a better illustration would be that Donald Trump has enough to pay all of my bills. His money is sufficient in value. But is it really sufficient for me? Shedd gives this illustration “it is as naturally impossible that Christ’s death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it, as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat of it.” In this example, the bread is sufficient as it is provided with the potential of saving. The bread in my home is sufficient in value (or substance) to save a starving child in Africa – however it lacks sufficiency as it is not potentially available. The Amyraldian position is Calvinistic. Historically it was viewed as an error, but not as a departure from Calvinism (as opposed to the position of James Arminius). Calvin’s writings also reflect Amyraldianism.

 

[JonC]

Why don't my spaces show up and why does everything runs together when I hit "submit reply"?

 

[DaChaser1]

I need to know if I understand the Calvinistic view of limited atonement (its definition) correctly.
I have read an explanation by John Owen that if Christ died to atone for all of the sins of all men, then all would be saved. If it was atonement for some of the sins of all men, then none would be saved. Therefore Christ died for all of the sins for some men (the elect). Robert Lightner (The Death Christ Died) brings up a good point regarding effectual atonement. If Christ’s death atoned for all of the sins of some men (the elect alone), then faith is not relevant or needed because the elect are saved by the atoning work of Christ – they are saved because their sins were atoned for, not because of faith – or, for that matter, the resurrection of Christ. I’ve read Calvin, where he indicates that Christ atoned for the death of every individual to include the unregenerate, but that His purpose in dying was specifically to save the elect (Commentary on 1 John). But this does not seem to sum up the position.
I understand that the Calvinistic position objects to potential atonement, but agrees in the atonement as sufficient for all – choosing instead to believe that Christ’s death was for the specific sins of specific sinners (the elect) and it is actual for these people rather than potential for all people. (‘Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect’). I suppose this is why many falsely claim that supporters of universal atonement claim that this results in universal salvation – there is a difference in the definition or understanding of atonement itself, not its actual effect. The difference then, seems to be in the definition of atonement and the order in which each aspect of salvation occurs (election then atonement – limited atonement; atonement then election – universal atonement).
So, for me, it boils down to this:
If I view atonement as redemption accomplished, then it is limited in scope only to the elect. If, however, I view atonement as the nature of the work of Christ on the cross (apart from the resurrection, and as an act in time which precedes faith), then it seems it would have to be in relation to sin and God (or God and man) rather than being applied to individual men (and thus universal in scope).
My question is, if Christ’s death atoned for the sins of the elect in an applied manner, then why the Resurrection? Why even suppose a requirement of belief on the part of the elect – they’re saved regardless because their sins are atoned for? If God holds the unregenerate guilty because of evidences of Himself revealed to all, why would he hold the non-elect guilty for rejecting Christ (John 3) if the atonement is entirely foreign to them?
OR, am I looking at atonement as too limited? Does Calvinism consider the work on the cross to include all that is implied in salvation? Am I erroneously separating atonement and redemption?

Would have to say that John calvin had it right in that the death of Christ was unlimited in its value and worth, could have indeed been sufficient to save all peoples, but ONLY those whom God effectually applies it towards receives its benefits!

 

[JonC]

DaChaser1
Yes. I agree. Interestingly enough, not only does Calvin share this view, but so does Shedd, Arminius, Whitefield, Beza, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moody, Sproul, and countless others.
But was the atonement actually provided for the sins of those who would not believe?

 

[Iconoclast]

One good thing added to e-sword is that each passage has a sermon link to sermonaudio.com, this is a very valuable resource...all is free. You can see each passage linked to a list of audible sermons.

sounds really good:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

Would have to say that John calvin had it right in that the death of Christ was unlimited in its value and worth, could have indeed been sufficient to save all peoples, but ONLY those whom God effectually applies it towards receives its benefits!

Here is the BIG question. If the atonement is sufficient to save all AND God is not looking to save those who freely choose to believe and follow him, but instead is interested in making rocks...oops I means men to cry out; then why doesn't He just make everyone believe and worship? Wouldn't that be more glory for Him? Why go to all the trouble of making it appear it really is our choice? What does that accomplish in a world where God supposedly determines how we think anyway?

 

[JonC]

Comparisons of God’s will vs. man’s will has always struck me as somewhat anthropomorphic – but I suppose that can’t be helped.

The answer to that question is found in the definition of free choice. Picirilli, for example, holds that the atonement is sufficient and that God did elect to choose those who freely chose to believe out of a pre-knowledge of that free choice. Spurgeon held that the atonement is sufficient to save, but that potential atonement was not the question (it was not if one could believe, but if one would believe that mattered). Therefore God chose to save those who freely chose to believe but that the ability to believe was a work of grace and not actually a free choice derived apart from grace. Pinnock is another case all together – God has no idea who will believe but instead establishes the premise of the game.

One can hold the sovereign electing purpose of God in salvation congruent with the free agency of man. It depends on one’s definition of free choice or will - and perhaps enough faith not to have to reconcile the two.

What I am trying to understand is the implications of the atonement, from a strong Calvinistic point of view, regarding the non-elect.

 

[jbh28]

Here is the BIG question. If the atonement is sufficient to save all AND God is not looking to save those who freely choose to believe and follow him,

Because no one will freely choose to believe and follow him.

... then why doesn't He just make everyone believe and worship?

You tell me? Why doesn't he. You do believe he has the power to do so right?

 

[Skandelon]

Because no one will freely choose to believe and follow him.

petitio principii

You tell me? Why doesn't he. You do believe he has the power to do so right?

Since I do affirm that God desired us to make free will decisions this isn't the same problem for me as it is for you. It's the same reason we don't allow men to drug women, marry them, call it love and live happily ever after. We know that relationships based around true love involve a since of independent attraction, commitment and choice.

Scripture says, "God Seeks People to Worship Him in Spirit and Truth," it doesn't say that he "makes" people worship him by a irresistible working of his spirit.

 

[Iconoclast]

Comparisons of God’s will vs. man’s will has always struck me as somewhat anthropomorphic – but I suppose that can’t be helped.

The answer to that question is found in the definition of free choice. Picirilli, for example, holds that the atonement is sufficient and that God did elect to choose those who freely chose to believe out of a pre-knowledge of that free choice. Spurgeon held that the atonement is sufficient to save, but that potential atonement was not the question (it was not if one could believe, but if one would believe that mattered). Therefore God chose to save those who freely chose to believe but that the ability to believe was a work of grace and not actually a free choice derived apart from grace. Pinnock is another case all together – God has no idea who will believe but instead establishes the premise of the game.

One can hold the sovereign electing purpose of God in salvation congruent with the free agency of man. It depends on one’s definition of free choice or will - and perhaps enough faith not to have to reconcile the two.

What I am trying to understand is the implications of the atonement, from a strong Calvinistic point of view, regarding the non-elect.

here is another link for you.
http://www.godrules.net/library/pink/261pink2.htm