Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

[jbh28]

petitio principii

Not hardly. But since we are going to throw around logical fallacies, nice straw man since you asked us the question of something you knew we didn't believe. The reason you said this is because you realized that problem with your question.

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.

Sure it is. God has the power to save all. You asked why doesn't he just make all believe. You said it would give him more glory. So, please answer why doesn't he save all if it would give him more glory. Or are you going to make a double standard in your questioning?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

The atonement of Christ is actually sufficient for all who will come to Christ. No man will perish for want of an atonement.

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?

I certainly agree with the first one and the last. I would want to see the context of the others before commenting. I feel no obligation to agree with any man. However, just as some silly people took Paul's words on Free Grace out of context and tried to brand him as an antinomian (Rom 3:8; 6:1-2 etc.), so other silly people try to drive a wedge between other great teachers by pulling quotations out of context and trying to re-brand them as Arminians. When I did my course at a little part-time seminary some years ago, one of the essays I had to write was entitled, 'Was Bishop Ryle an Arminian?' We had to take a quotation from Ryle's writings and put it in its proper context to show that he was nothing of the sort.

Whoever wills may come. No one on the Last day will be able to say that they were prevented by God from coming to Christ. However, due to their own wickedness and the hardness of their hearts, men will not come unless the Father draws them irresistibly into the kingdom. When they do come, they will know that God the Father loved them from eternity and sent the Son to pay for their sins upon the cross, and the Holy Sprit to convict them of their sins and seal them for the day of redemption.

Steve

 

[JonC]

I think it also important to remember that Calvinism was post-Calvin. Beza developed much of what we know as Calvinism based on the decrees of God as defined by Calvin. It may not be fair to expect the writings of Calvin to reflect the thoughts that grew from his work – Calvinists didn’t hold John Calvin as the ultimate source of authority, but instead used and refined the system of theology.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism was not in their view of atonement – historically Calvinists held Amyraldianism, for example, as an error within Calvinism while Arminianism was considered heresy). If the above quotes were presented “as is,” they still wouldn’t imply an arminian view.

My intent was to learn more regarding the stronger Calvinistic view of limited atonement – and it is obvious that none here, other than Iconoclast and Skandalon, has contributed anything in regards to this view of limited atonement. (Many who posted here would benefit from listening to Albert martin’s sermon on the link Iconoclast has provided – he starts off by dismissing the “non-issues” that seem to preoccupy many here and addresses the heart of the matter).

So, my understanding is currently that limited atonement, from a position that Christ atoned only for the sins of the elect, is derived from the purpose of salvation as found in the decrees of God to elect to salvation a particular people. Presupposing that atonement is solely for this purpose, scripture is interpreted to logically exclude the non-elect because the atoning death effects salvation. The work begun is accomplished. My question is, how does this apply to the non-elect? I know that all sides agree that there are benefits from the atonement to the non-elect, but it also appears that there is a condemnation associated with rejection. How is condemnation greater if atonement is limited? How is the judgeship of Christ established if the non-elect are not “guilty” based on the work of Christ?

 

[Skandelon]

I certainly agree with the first one and the last.

So you would agree that it's not the atonement that does the limiting. Instead it is ONLY one's own unbelief that keeps them from being saved, right?

Regardless HOW they come to faith (irresistibly or not) it seems you agree that is the ONLY hinderance or legal impediment between a lost man and heaven. Is that right?

 

[kyredneck]

.... My question is, how does this apply to the non-elect? I know that all sides agree that there are benefits from the atonement to the non-elect, but it also appears that there is a condemnation associated with rejection. How is condemnation greater if atonement is limited? How is the judgeship of Christ established if the non-elect are not “guilty” based on the work of Christ?

I suggest to you that much of the scripture that you may be applying universally applies only to 'that generation' of Jews of Christ's day on earth.

I also suggest to you that as 'The Prophet', Christ had nothing to say to the Church, but came only to the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel'.

The time had come for the reckoning of Lev 26, Dt 28, and the Song of Moses, Dt 31:16- Dt 32. Those that 'rejected Christ', and 'hearkened not unto that prophet', were to be cut off from among the people in 'the wrath to come' (AD 66-70).

 

[Skandelon]

Not hardly. But since we are going to throw around logical fallacies, nice straw man since you asked us the question of something you knew we didn't believe. The reason you said this is because you realized that problem with your question.

Your point wasn't responding to my question. Go back and read it again. You quoted me saying, "If the atonement is sufficient to save all AND God is not looking to save those who freely choose to believe and follow him"

And you said "Because no one will freely choose to believe and follow him." So, you seemed to be responding to my set up of the question which was describing what Calvinists believe. Either way, this answer ASSUMES everyone who has come to Christ didn't do so 'freely,' which is clearly the point up for debate and the basis on which I'm posing my question, which you went on to answer with a "you too" fallacy---which I went on to dismantle.

Sure it is. God has the power to save all. You asked why doesn't he just make all believe. You said it would give him more glory. So, please answer why doesn't he save all if it would give him more glory. Or are you going to make a double standard in your questioning?

I meant that it would give Him more glory within a deterministic system. If God is irresistibly making rocks, I mean men, to worship him then what would it matter if he just made more worship him?

So, there is a double standard because our systems have two different standards of what brings God glory.

In our system of thought, the glory comes from those who choose to worship him in spirit and truth, not from those made to do so...since He has the rocks for that purpose if necessary. Thus, my question still remains. Why doesn't God irresistibly call more? If making a few to worship him through a irresistibly calling brings him Glory, wouldn't making MORE to worship him bring him even more glory?

 

[Aaron]

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?

If you want to understand the Calvinist view, study the law. What Christ accomplished in His work on the Cross is laid out in its individual elements in the laws of the Tabernacle, Priesthood and the Offerings. Is there any part in which the uncircumcised were in view? Were the sins of the Egyptians transferred to the scapegoat?

 

[Andy_S]

This has always seemed to be to deny free will. There's a passage somewhere that says "who resists God's will?"

I think it is one of Paul's epistles. It has always disturbed me.

 

[Iconoclast]

I think it also important to remember that Calvinism was post-Calvin. Beza developed much of what we know as Calvinism based on the decrees of God as defined by Calvin. It may not be fair to expect the writings of Calvin to reflect the thoughts that grew from his work – Calvinists didn’t hold John Calvin as the ultimate source of authority, but instead used and refined the system of theology.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism was not in their view of atonement – historically Calvinists held Amyraldianism, for example, as an error within Calvinism while Arminianism was considered heresy). If the above quotes were presented “as is,” they still wouldn’t imply an arminian view.

My intent was to learn more regarding the stronger Calvinistic view of limited atonement – and it is obvious that none here, other than Iconoclast and Skandalon, has contributed anything in regards to this view of limited atonement. (Many who posted here would benefit from listening to Albert martin’s sermon on the link Iconoclast has provided – he starts off by dismissing the “non-issues” that seem to preoccupy many here and addresses the heart of the matter).

So, my understanding is currently that limited atonement, from a position that Christ atoned only for the sins of the elect, is derived from the purpose of salvation as found in the decrees of God to elect to salvation a particular people. Presupposing that atonement is solely for this purpose, scripture is interpreted to logically exclude the non-elect because the atoning death effects salvation. The work begun is accomplished. My question is, how does this apply to the non-elect? I know that all sides agree that there are benefits from the atonement to the non-elect, but it also appears that there is a condemnation associated with rejection. How is condemnation greater if atonement is limited? How is the judgeship of Christ established if the non-elect are not “guilty” based on the work of Christ?

JonC

Listen to all the sermons on the link...Downing,Resigner,etc all are excellent.
How it applies to the non elect is the same way the flood applied to the world of the ungodly. The ungodly were not rightly related to the place of safety [inside the ark]when the judgement came. The flood waters lifted up the ark and preserved the godly line,while the same flood waters were death to the ungodly world.

In the same way ...the first Exodus was good news to those who identified with Moses, bad news to the egyptians who tried to follow them into the Sea...or those who had not put the blood of the passover over the doorpost.

14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?


The good news is good news to the saved, but certain judgement to those who remain unsaved.

 

[Skandelon]

If you want to understand the Calvinist view, study the law.

Then, if you want to understand Arminianism, study grace. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JonC]

Aaron,

I don’t think that the Calvinist view has the market cornered when it comes to the relationship to the work of Christ compared to the Law. Prior to Lutheranism minimizing the teachings of Luther regarding divine sovereignty, there was not really such a theological gulf between the Lutherans and Calvinists. – and initially there was not such a full understanding of the extent of the atonement (it’s nature was the primary focus rather than the extent). Likewise, Arminius held a view that did not counter the Calvinistic position regarding Christ’s accomplishments as laid out in the elements of the Law. There are many today who are not Calvinists and are not Armianian who recognize what Christ accomplished in His work on the Cross within the construct of the Law.

I think that the starting point is looking at the atonement from the perspective that it is a part of God’s eternal decree to save the elect. I have not finished listening to the sermons Iconoclast has provided, but am making my way through them and so far they seem to agree with that conclusion.

Iconoclast,

Thank you for your illustration. I think that my difficulty was in understanding that Calvinism does not separate the actual atoning for sin from the provision of salvation. As atonement follows election, it seems inappropriate (from this perspective) to divorce it from the divine decree of election or from salvation.

Thanks for your help and suggestions.

 

[Aaron]

There are many today who are not Calvinists and are not Armianian who recognize what Christ accomplished in His work on the Cross within the construct of the Law.

Not really. If they recognized it, they would be Calvinists. Was atonement limited on the Day of Atonement? Yes. To whom? To the elect. Egypt had no stone on the breastplate of the high priest, neither did Philistia nor Ethiopia. Neither were their sins transferred to the scapegoat. Only those of the elect.

So, Christ did not bear the sins of the unsaved. He did not receive their punishment. Only that of the elect. He did not satisfy the law for them. The law, which is against them, still pronounces them guilty and imposes a curse upon them.

Pretty cut and dried. The only reason one might argue would be an attempt to retain the illusion of intellect in noncalvinistic thought.

 

[Skandelon]

Not really. If they recognized it, they would be Calvinists.

:laugh: Yeah, because everyone knows that its impossible to understand a concept without accepting it as truth.

So, Christ did not bear the sins of the unsaved. He did not receive their punishment. Only that of the elect. He did not satisfy the law for them. The law, which is against them, still pronounces them guilty and imposes a curse upon them.

I'll allow Charles Hodge take you to school on that:

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. The secret purpose of God in providing such a substitute for man, has nothing to do with the nature of his work, or with its appropriateness. The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is, that if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing. It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel. ... Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with this, 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. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.'

 

[JonC]

Not really. If they recognized it, they would be Calvinists. Was atonement limited on the Day of Atonement? Yes. To whom? To the elect. Egypt had no stone on the breastplate of the high priest, neither did Philistia nor Ethiopia. Neither were their sins transferred to the scapegoat. Only those of the elect.

So, Christ did not bear the sins of the unsaved. He did not receive their punishment. Only that of the elect. He did not satisfy the law for them. The law, which is against them, still pronounces them guilty and imposes a curse upon them.

Pretty cut and dried. The only reason one might argue would be an attempt to retain the illusion of intellect in noncalvinistic thought.

Actually, Aaron, if you really considered what you believe you would realize that the correct portion of your statement corresponds to what I have stated and what you have failed to affirm regarding my position is actually a failure to recognize your supposed disagreement as a misunderstanding on your part. “Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?” (See, I know Monty Python logic too).

Sacrifices were made by the high priest, sins transferred to the scapegoat, but oddly enough righteousness was reckoned by faith. Various systems have highlighted different aspects of salvation, but I’m not sure that it is fair to conclude that for sixteen centuries the world was in darkness – then John Calvin developed a system that Beza would refine and only those who agreed with their conclusions would be deemed as maintaining an element of intellect.

(Your appropriate response would be – “A witch! A witch!”)

 

[jbh28]

Your point wasn't responding to my question. Go back and read it again. You quoted me saying, "If the atonement is sufficient to save all AND God is not looking to save those who freely choose to believe and follow him"

And you said "Because no one will freely choose to believe and follow him." So, you seemed to be responding to my set up of the question which was describing what Calvinists believe. Either way, this answer ASSUMES everyone who has come to Christ didn't do so 'freely,' which is clearly the point up for debate and the basis on which I'm posing my question, which you went on to answer with a "you too" fallacy---which I went on to dismantle.

It's not a fallacy on my part. You have the same issue. You just refuse to admit it.
1. The atonement is sufficient for all.
2. God has the power to save all
3. Not all are saved.

The only conclusion that can be made is that God has chosen to not save everyone. Now we can debate what that reason is, but both believe God has chosen to not save everyone.

I meant that it would give Him more glory within a deterministic system. If God is irresistibly making rocks, I mean men, to worship him then what would it matter if he just made more worship him?

So, there is a double standard because our systems have two different standards of what brings God glory.

In our system of thought, the glory comes from those who choose to worship him in spirit and truth, not from those made to do so...since He has the rocks for that purpose if necessary. Thus, my question still remains. Why doesn't God irresistibly call more? If making a few to worship him through a irresistibly calling brings him Glory, wouldn't making MORE to worship him bring him even more glory?

Same reason in your system he doesn't just save everyone. If God would have more glory, he could, in your system, regenerate the ones that don't want to come to him and save everyone.

See the problem with this type of questioning is that we have removed ourselves one step from the Bible. We are speculating matters that God has not revealed. This is one reason that some matters of the limited atonement debate I refrain from. The Bible is very clear that the atonement is in some way for everyone. I believe this refers to the sufficiency/power of the atonement. If everyone was saved, nothing more would have had to been done on the cross. The Bible is also very clear that not everyone will be saved. I believe that the atonement was intended only to save the believers(elect). The atonement was never intended to save those that never believe. So I usually prefer to stick with the statement of sufficient for all, efficient for the believers(elect).

 

[JonC]

jbh28,

Do you think that the term “limited atonement” clouds the issue? The idea that atonement is, in some way, for everyone – but intended only to save the elect seems to indicate the term “particular redemption.”

I’ve heard many (on both sides of the debate) state that the terms atonement and redemption are identical – but I understand atonement to have sin as the object and redemption to have men as the object (Christ atoned for the sins of men, but redeemed men).

I suppose it does not really address the issue when comparing limited atonement to universal atonement, but it is perhaps a little farther from speculation as a doctrine.

 

[Winman]

It's not a fallacy on my part. You have the same issue. You just refuse to admit it.
1. The atonement is sufficient for all.
2. God has the power to save all
3. Not all are saved.

The only conclusion that can be made is that God has chosen to not save everyone. Now we can debate what that reason is, but both believe God has chosen to not save everyone.

The issue is not whether God has power, but whether it is just. There are many things God has the power to do, but cannot do because they would be sin and unjust. An example is Lot. God was going to destroy Sodom, Abraham appealed to God that he would spare Sodom if there were even 10 righteous persons there. There was not, but God sent angels to bring out Lot, his wife, and two daughters. The angels told Lot they "cannot do any thing" until he was a safe distance away.

Gen 19:22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

So, this was not about power, God could have easily destroyed Sodom while Lot remained in the city, but could not because he could not destroy the righteous.

 

[JonC]

The issue is not whether God has power, but whether it is just. There are many things God has the power to do, but cannot do because they would be sin and unjust. An example is Lot. God was going to destroy Sodom, Abraham appealed to God that he would spare Sodom if there were even 10 righteous persons there. There was not, but God sent angels to bring out Lot, his wife, and two daughters. The angels told Lot they "cannot do any thing" until he was a safe distance away.

Gen 19:22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

So, this was not about power, God could have easily destroyed Sodom while Lot remained in the city, but could not because he could not destroy the righteous.

Why wouldn’t it be just?

That is a good argument, by the way, against some views of “free-will.” God does not have free will in terms of acting apart from His nature.

 

[jbh28]

The issue is not whether God has power, but whether it is just. There are many things God has the power to do, but cannot do because they would be sin and unjust. An example is Lot. God was going to destroy Sodom, Abraham appealed to God that he would spare Sodom if there were even 10 righteous persons there. There was not, but God sent angels to bring out Lot, his wife, and two daughters. The angels told Lot they "cannot do any thing" until he was a safe distance away.

Gen 19:22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

So, this was not about power, God could have easily destroyed Sodom while Lot remained in the city, but could not because he could not destroy the righteous.

Ok, and what's not "just" about it? No one deserves salvation. No one does anything to earn salvation.

 

[Aaron]

Sacrifices were made by the high priest, sins transferred to the scapegoat, but oddly enough righteousness was reckoned by faith.

Oddly enough Christ's offering of righteousness is reckoned in the law of the offerings as well as His offering for sin. Offerings such as the Burnt Offering are offered in devotion, and sin is not in view in them. They are offered on the brazen altar, and are described as a "sweet savor." Christ's satisfaction of the punishments are reckoned in offerings such as the Sin and Trespass Offerings. These are not offered on the altar. They are burned outside the camp and they do not rise as a sweet savor to God.

When offerings were made, they were always on the behalf of, and effectual for persons. Never was there an offering made without a certain individual for whom it was made personally. In other words, the priests never got together, sacrificed a lamb to create a potential atonement, then put out a general invitation for "whosoever will, let him come and take advantage of the situation created by the offering of this lamb."

Christ made one offering, one time. None of the aspects of that one offering prefigured in the various offerings of the law, whether it's the satisfaction of the justice of the law, the satisfaction of its righteous requirements, or the resulting reconciliation can be divorced from it. Christ's one offering justified and reconciled, and it justified and reconciled persons. It didn't simply create the potential for it, it did it.

But, the noncalvinists on this board, ignorant of the law (a knowledge of which is prerequisite for sound doctrine), are asserting that aspects of Christ's offering are universal, that even nonbelievers are somehow recipients of some effectual element, while other aspects are not so.

Various systems have highlighted different aspects of salvation, but I’m not sure that it is fair to conclude that for sixteen centuries the world was in darkness – then John Calvin developed a system that Beza would refine and only those who agreed with their conclusions would be deemed as maintaining an element of intellect.

Well, then you don't know what the argument is. We're not called Calvinists because we are Calvin's disciples. We are called Calvinists because we believe in Predestination, as taught by Christ an His disciples. I didn't send you to Calvin to understand the Calvinist's view of limited atonement. I sent you to the Scriptures.

(Your appropriate response would be – “A witch! A witch!”)

I don't know about "witch," but pompous windbag might fit.