Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

[Aaron]

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.'

It's hard to imagine that you can misconstrue something as badly as you do here, yet you can read road signs well enough that some state somewhere has granted you a driver's license (but that's govmint for ya). Better than I have shown that you're all wet in your reading of Hodge. I could sooner teach my dog to read.

But even so, who cares about Hodge? I appeal to the true Schoolmaster. The law. And you will not find Egypt represented on the Day of Atonement. No aspect of the offering is effectual for them, whether it's the satisfaction of the law, nor the forgiveness of their sins.

 

[JonC]

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

“pompous windbag” sounds British enough – so I guess it counts. :laugh:

 

[Aaron]

:love2::love2:

 

[JonC]

Aaron,

In all seriousness, while we do probably agree regarding doctrine, I don’t know that you have presented your claims in a favorable light.

Here are the points you make that I have problems with:

1. You state that the Calvinistic belief is derived from a belief in predestination which, if true, makes no logical sense as your belief places predestination in place of the divine decree of election and bases election and atonement on predestination.

2. You present Calvinism as the only method that accepts the Law as a foreshadow of Christ’s work on the cross and that others who claim to do so are either misstating their position or they are Calvinists. (This is a gratuitous claim - it’s meaningless and speaks more of you than of Calvinism or alternate positions).

3. Your picture of Calvinism holds that the Law is the true Schoolmaster regarding the actual doctrines of salvation. This takes liberties with Paul’s comments regarding the Law as a schoolmaster, or tutor, to lead us to Christ so that we may be justified by faith.

4. Your defense of Calvinism ascribes to other positions a Calvinistic view of atonement to show their treatment of atonement does not fit with biblical doctrine (this ascribes a level of dishonesty in Calvinism). - It is actually the reason I started the thread – I had difficulty with understanding the Calvinistic view of atonement and wanted to make sure that I wasn't ascribing to Calvinistic atonement a definition that was foregin to Calvinism.

 

[Aaron]

1. You state that the Calvinistic belief is derived from a belief in predestination which, if true, makes no logical sense as your belief places predestination in place of the divine decree of election and bases election and atonement on predestination.

No, I said we're called Calvinists because we believe in Predestination. One could reject 99% of Calvin's doctrines, yet if he held to Predestination, he would be called a Calvinist. On this side of the Big Pond, anyway. Not sure about the custom on the other side.

2. You present Calvinism as the only method that accepts the Law as a foreshadow of Christ’s work on the cross and that others who claim to do so are either misstating their position or they are Calvinists. (This is a gratuitous claim - it’s meaningless and speaks more of you than of Calvinism or alternate positions).

More accurately, I said if one recognized what Christ accomplished on the Cross within the contruct of the Law, he would be a Calvinist. One may entertain the notion that an offering was made for sin, but that is a far cry from recognizing it's nature, scope and effect within the construct of the law.

The Atonement foreshadowed in the law is indeed limited in every aspect to the elect.

3. Your picture of Calvinism holds that the Law is the true Schoolmaster regarding the actual doctrines of salvation.

That's not exactly what I said, but that is a true statement in so much that the Law is a witness to the verity of the doctrines delivered by the Apostles. I would cite the account of the Bereans, and Paul's statement in Hebrews that the Gospel was preached to the congregation in the wilderness as well as to us.

This takes liberties with Paul’s comments regarding the Law as a schoolmaster, or tutor, to lead us to Christ so that we may be justified by faith.

I think you unduly limit Paul's comments, and the scope of the law. The law's weakness was not in it's subject matter, but in its power.

4. Your defense of Calvinism ascribes to other positions a Calvinistic view of atonement to show their treatment of atonement does not fit with biblical doctrine (this ascribes a level of dishonesty in Calvinism). - It is actually the reason I started the thread – I had difficulty with understanding the Calvinistic view of atonement and wanted to make sure that I wasn't ascribing to Calvinistic atonement a definition that was foregin to Calvinism.

You and I have differing definitions of Calvinism. That's the source of your confusion. For my part, I am not interested in any view of the Atonement that isn't biblical. I am called a Calvinist because I believe in Predestination, but you will find me citing Paul, Christ and the Law, more than I cite anyone else.

 

[JonC]

1. But Arminians also believe in predestination. Their disagreement is in the basis of that predestination. Are Arminians Calvinists too? I didn’t even mention Calvin – maybe you should change the name to Predestinism.

2. Still a gratuitous statement.

3. I see what you are saying regarding the Law as a schoolmaster – I just think that it stretches the meaning to incorporate more than is said.

4. You are correct that I view Calvinism that finds its soteriological basis in predestination confusing.

This is my confusion on #4. I thought that Calvinism taught that God is sovereign in all things and has chosen, from eternity, a particular people as His own particular possession. This is divine election. Whom God elected, He foreknew. This is more than a pre-knowledge, but an actual relationship – God knows and loves His chosen. Those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. (I know this is not what you believe Calvinism to hold - just stating my understanding before continuing).

Here’s my confusion. If Calvinism is based on predestination rather than God’s sovereign election, it gets all mixed up (here’s where I need your help to understand your point). Since Arminians believe that exactly the same as Calvinists regarding predestination (they disagree on the nature of election and perhaps foreknowledge, but as you say, predestination is the key) then Arminianism, like Amyraldianism, is just another form of Calvinism?

 

[JonC]

When we speak of the extent of the atonement, are we saying that Christ is the atonement in that He provided an atonement for our sins, or that He is the atonement as He is the atoning sacrifice (the Lamb)?

I believe both statements are true, but in terms of limited vs universal atonement – which aspect are we dealing with (the atoning sacrifice, or the atonement of the Sacrifice)?

 

[Don]

1. But Arminians also believe in predestination. Their disagreement is in the basis of that predestination. Are Arminians Calvinists too? I didn’t even mention Calvin – maybe you should change the name to Predestinism.

2. Still a gratuitous statement.

3. I see what you are saying regarding the Law as a schoolmaster – I just think that it stretches the meaning to incorporate more than is said.

4. You are correct that I view Calvinism that finds its soteriological basis in predestination confusing.

This is my confusion on #4. I thought that Calvinism taught that God is sovereign in all things and has chosen, from eternity, a particular people as His own particular possession. This is divine election. Whom God elected, He foreknew. This is more than a pre-knowledge, but an actual relationship – God knows and loves His chosen. Those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. (I know this is not what you believe Calvinism to hold - just stating my understanding before continuing).

Here’s my confusion. If Calvinism is based on predestination rather than God’s sovereign election, it gets all mixed up (here’s where I need your help to understand your point). Since Arminians believe that exactly the same as Calvinists regarding predestination (they disagree on the nature of election and perhaps foreknowledge, but as you say, predestination is the key) then Arminianism, like Amyraldianism, is just another form of Calvinism?

Would it help if you understood that arminianism is a branch-off from calvinism?

 

[Skandelon]

It's hard to imagine that you can misconstrue something as badly as you do here, yet you can read road signs well enough that some state somewhere has granted you a driver's license (but that's govmint for ya). Better than I have shown that you're all wet in your reading of Hodge. I could sooner teach my dog to read.

Looking past your ad hominem attacks, lets consider the FACTS:

You said, "He did not satisfy the law for them. The law, which is against them, still pronounces them guilty and imposes a curse upon them."

In contrast Hodge says,

"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."

and

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.

And other Princeton Scholars of the same ilk as Hodge say even more clearly...

"There are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinite atonement has not been provided..." - Shedd

And he even addresses your eroneous point regarding the "guilt."

"It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the Universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is, Because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save." -Shedd

And AA Hodge sticks it right back to you as clear as it can be stated:

The design of Christ in dying was to effect what he actually does effect in the result. 1st. Incidentally to remove the legal impediments out of the way of all men, and render the salvation of every hearer of the gospel objectively possible, so that each one has a right to appropriate it at will, to impetrate temporal blessings for all, and the means of grace for all to whom they are providentially supplied. ...Thus the atonement makes the salvation of every man to whom it is offered objectively possible. The design of Christ's death being to secure the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer of that salvation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of their faith. No man is lost for the want of an atonement, or because there is any other barrier in the way of his salvation than his own most free and wicked will.". How can the condemnation of men for the rejection of Christ be reconciled with the doctrine that Christ died for the elect only?

Now, can you affirm with these Calvinistic Princeton theologians that the legal impediments of the law have been removed, or not? Are you going to stick with your claims that the law hasn't been satisfied for them? Just admit this has been a point of debate among those in your camp historically, and you are either unaware of it, or unwilling to admit you might be at odds with one of your own. And instead of objectively recognizing that distinction, acknowledging it and showing why you disagree with Hodge and these others, you choose to attack the messenger with quips and demeaning comments revealing more about your character and your lack of education on this subject.

 

[JonC]

Don,

No, it wouldn’t. I know that Arminius sought to reform Calvinism. If I remember correctly, it was an inability to defend against the problem of evil that spurred his concern (I may be wrong, but it seems like that was the spark).

I understand predestination in relation to Calvinism and Arminianism. I didn’t quite get this comment:

we're called Calvinists because we believe in Predestination. One could reject 99% of Calvin's doctrines, yet if he held to Predestination, he would be called a Calvinist.

I’m really only trying to understand atonement within the limited position. (I keep getting side tracked)

My question was:

When we speak of the extent of the atonement, are we saying that Christ is the atonement in that He provided an atonement for our sins, or that He is the atonement as He is the atoning sacrifice (the Lamb)?

I believe both statements are true, but in terms of limited vs universal atonement – which aspect are we dealing with (the atoning sacrifice, or the atonement of the Sacrifice)?

 

[Skandelon]

It's hard to imagine that you can misconstrue something as badly as you do here, yet you can read road signs well enough that some state somewhere has granted you a driver's license (but that's govmint for ya). Better than I have shown that you're all wet in your reading of Hodge. I could sooner teach my dog to read.

Oh, I also thought it would be a good reminder for those following along with us that Aaron already admitted to not being in agreement with Hodge and the other Princeton Theologians. You can see that HERE>>>>>

Remember that Aaron?

So, just curious, do you have a driver's license? :laugh:

 

[Don]

Don,

No, it wouldn’t. I know that Arminius sought to reform Calvinism. If I remember correctly, it was an inability to defend against the problem of evil that spurred his concern (I may be wrong, but it seems like that was the spark).

I understand predestination in relation to Calvinism and Arminianism. I didn’t quite get this comment:

I’m really only trying to understand atonement within the limited position. (I keep getting side tracked)

My question was:

When we speak of the extent of the atonement, are we saying that Christ is the atonement in that He provided an atonement for our sins, or that He is the atonement as He is the atoning sacrifice (the Lamb)?

I believe both statements are true, but in terms of limited vs universal atonement – which aspect are we dealing with (the atoning sacrifice, or the atonement of the Sacrifice)?

I think what you're asking can't be answered with a straightforward answer. Limited atoned says that both statements are true; but adds to the two statements by adding the condition that only those who believe are covered by the atonement for sins/atoning sacrifice.

Universal, however, has to be further defined. Universalists, as I understand them, say that both statements are true, and that everyone is covered by both statements. Unless someone wants to further define universalism in a different way.

 

[Forest]

I think the problem is the differing definitions of 'atonement.' Some understand it to be satisfaction of divine justice for the breaking of his law, while others equate it with salvation.

Some (Hodge, Shedd etc) argued that just because Christ has satisfied divine justice once and for all doesn't mean they all will be saved.

As Shedd explained: ""It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the Universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is, Because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner. 'By faith are ye saved. He that believeth shall be saved,' Ephesians 2:8; Mark 16:16. The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made, but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it, would be useless to sinners. 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 it."

No one perishes for a lack of atonement, they perish because they refuse to accept the truth and so be saved, period.

Eph 2:8, The "faith" is not our faith but the faith of Jesus, Gal 2:16. Acts 16:16, The "saved" in this verse is not eternally saved but a timely salvation (deliverance). When we are baptised we are delivered from a guilty conscience. 1 Pet 3:21, Even baptism doth also now save us by the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is a like figure of Moses being delivered from the flood and not eternally delivered from this present evil world.

 

[Forest]

I think the problem is the differing definitions of 'atonement.' Some understand it to be satisfaction of divine justice for the breaking of his law, while others equate it with salvation.

Some (Hodge, Shedd etc) argued that just because Christ has satisfied divine justice once and for all doesn't mean they all will be saved.

As Shedd explained: ""It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the Universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is, Because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner. 'By faith are ye saved. He that believeth shall be saved,' Ephesians 2:8; Mark 16:16. The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made, but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it, would be useless to sinners. 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 it."

No one perishes for a lack of atonement, they perish because they refuse to accept the truth and so be saved, period.

The natural man has no desire to accept the truth or any other thing that is of a spiritual nature, 1 Cor 2:16.

 

[Skandelon]

Forest, please try to stay on topic. You comments seem completely unrelated to the context of the thread or the quotes to which you are responding. Thank you.

 

[Forest]

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.

I don't know why there is so much confusion about who Christ died for. It seems very clear in John 6:37-41 that he died only for those that his Father gave him and that he will not lose one of them but raise them all up at the last day. Those that he gave to his Son were those that he choose before the foundation of the world, Eph 1.

 

[Forest]

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

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.

The non-elect which are the natural man will never choose to serve a spiritual God, 1 Cor 2:14.

 

[preacher4truth]

Forest, I think you've been on topic and have answered well. I appreciate your stand. :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

I don't know why there is so much confusion about who Christ died for. It seems very clear in John 6:37-41 that he died only for those that his Father gave him and that he will not lose one of them but raise them all up at the last day. Those that he gave to his Son were those that he choose before the foundation of the world, Eph 1.

Even Calvinistic scholars are known to say that Christ died for all, but not equally. Some are discussing the manner in which Christ did die for the non-elect. There are many various views on the atonement even within the two soteriological camps, so it may not be quite as simple as you seem to think.

 

[Aaron]

Looking past your immature ad hominem attacks, lets consider the FACTS:

You said, "He did not satisfy the law for them. The law, which is against them, still pronounces them guilty and imposes a curse upon them."

In contrast Hodge says,

And other Princeton Scholars of the same ilk as Hodge say even more clearly...


And he even addresses your eroneous point regarding the "guilt."



And AA Hodge sticks it right back to you as clear as it can be stated:



Now, can you affirm with these Calvinistic Princeton theologians that the legal impediments of the law have been removed, or not? Are you going to stick with your claims that the law hasn't been satisfied for them? Just admit this has been a point of debate among those in your camp historically, and you are either unaware of it, or unwilling to admit you might be at odds with one of your own. And instead of objectively recognizing that distinction, acknowledging it and showing why you disagree with Hodge and these others, you choose to attack the messenger with immature quips and demeaning comments revealing more about your character and your lack of education on this subject.

I agree with the Scriptures. When one brought a sin offering, he also brought a guilt offering. His evil state of existence is remedied in the sin offering, and the consequences of his particular act of sin, which is known by the law, are remedied in the guilt offering.

The Edomite could bring neither, and the Israelite was compelled to bring both.

You have a history of wrenching not only the Scriptures, but the words of men out of their contexts. I've seen you taken to task by better men than I am on that. So I will ask for a citation to the entire works of these Princeton Theologians before I say whether or not I agree with them. But will definitely say that I disagree with what you are making them appear to say. To assert that one aspect of Christ's atonement is universally applied to the elect and non-elect alike, but that other aspects are special is to betray a fundamental ignorance of the Atonement as laid out for our view in the law.

But more than that, it is a dry and barren understanding of the relation between Christ and His church, the Groom and His bride. Just as a man and wife have all things in common, so we have all things in common with Christ. His righteousness is ours, and our sins are His. His rewards are ours and our punishments are His. His satisfaction of the law is ours, but no one else's.

To state the legal satisfaction of the law on one's behalf is something that exists apart from one's union with Christ is like saying your wife is also legally mine, and that the only thing that stands in my way of asserting my nuptial rights is my own notions of it . . . and a very Scandal-ous thing to state it is.