Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

[Skandelon]

I agree with the Scriptures.

But you admittedly disagree with Hodge's (et al) interpretation of scriptures regarding this particular point and yet have the audacity to suggest I can't even read road signs because I'm the one that brings it to your attention.

You have a history of wrenching not only the Scriptures, but the words of men out of their contexts.

Put up or hush up. General unfounded accusations serve no one and accomplish nothing. Quote where I've done this and make a case. Do some actual work and form a real argument. It's called debate. Try it sometime, its kind of fun...:smilewinkgrin:

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.

Google their names and the word 'atonement.' It's not that hard.

But will definitely say that I disagree with what you are making them appear to say.

And so do other Calvinists. That is fine. There has been debate on this matter among Reformed theologians for years. It is just frustrating when people act as if they aren't saying what they have clearly said because they can't bare to think one of 'their own' might have a different approach on this subject than they do. I challenge them (and you) to study up on it before attacking me.

 

[JonC]

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.

Don,

I didn’t expect a straightforward answer because I had enough trouble making a straightforward question! J

It appears to me that God sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (so that seems to be universal in nature) – but that’s actually a description of Christ as the Lamb of God. It also seems to me that Christ died for the purpose of providing atonement for the sins of the elect (and that seems limited) – it has as its subject the action and purpose of the atoning death of Christ – redeeming the elect.

I don’t understand Christ as an atoning sacrifice to be limited or universal to any particular people, but for the sins of the world (similar to the offering at Yom Kippur, the high priest made an offering on the ‘Day of Atonement’ as a sin atonement for Israel). I understand the actual atoning for sin to be for those who believe (It was not obedience, but obedience through faith that was deemed righteousness for the Israelites).

Does that make sense, or am I just a mixed up Baptist?

 

[Iconoclast]

[

[It appears to me that God sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (so that seems to be universal in nature) –
/QUOTE]
It is worldwide in scope.... 50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

but that’s actually a description of Christ as the Lamb of God. It also seems to me that Christ died for the purpose of providing atonement for the sins of the elect (and that seems limited) – it has as its subject the action and purpose of the atoning death of Christ – redeeming the elect

.


Yes it is a covenant death...it is particular and actually accomplishes redemption for those covenant persons

I don’t understand Christ as an atoning sacrifice to be limited or universal to any particular people, but for the sins of the world

every tribe, kindred , tongue


Most baptist churches do not study the covenants as they should be studied..so what you are going through now is a healthy study of the word.

As you understand it clearly...His eternal work and priesthood the false ideas and weak theology ..lift like a fog that obscures what has been there all the time:thumbsup:

 

[JonC]

Thanks Iconoclast

 

[Aaron]

But you admittedly disagree with Hodge's (et al) interpretation of scriptures regarding this particular point and yet have the audacity to suggest I can't even read road signs because I'm the one that brings it to your attention.

Are you saying that Hodge has said that the law no longer stands against both those who are in Christ, and those who are not? That on Judgment Day, the one who is not in Christ is not being judged for his adulteries, murders, lies, etc., but merely on the fact that he has no faith Christ?

Yes or no with explanatory note of no more than 100 words, please.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you saying that Hodge has said that the law no longer stands against both those who are in Christ, and those who are not? That on Judgment Day, the one who is not in Christ is not being judged for his adulteries, murders, lies, etc., but merely on the fact that he has no faith Christ?

Yes or no with explanatory note of no more than 100 words, please.

No. Nothing impedes his entering heaven, save ONLY his own unbelief.

I'm saying that it is a FALSE ASSUMPTION to think that Calvinists (like Hodge) have historically taught that the satisfaction of Christ on the cross was comparable to the payment of a debt for individuals, as if he suffered just so much for so many. Some, like you, seem to think He paid so much for one soul, and so much for another, and any payment made available to a soul that ends up lost in hell would be wasted...or his blood would be split needlessly.

If this is the correct view of the atonement then, according to Hodge, the gospel can only be rightly offered to those whose debts he has actually cancelled. Hodge adamantly reject this view and argues, "That this doctrine was never held by any historical church and the ascription of it to Augustinians can only be accounted for on the ground of ignorance."

Understand?

 

[kyredneck]

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.

Aaron, you've been making some excellent points, I appreciate your insights on the truths of the atonement derived from the law. Sounds like you've read some of Pink, maybe.

Also, I don't think you will, but don't fret about whether you're in agreement with Princeston scholars or not. That means nothing.

 

[Forest]

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.

I am only pointing out that you are misinterpreting Acts 16:16 and Eph 2:8 to comply with your understanding of the scriptures and I am dealing with the context of the post.

 

[Forest]

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.

Erregardless of what John Calvin believes, Christ did not die for all mankind. God said that those who have not the Spirit are none of his. Whom the Lord loveth, he chastens and scourgest every son whom he receiveth. God does not chasten those that are not his, Ps 73:5 and Job 21:9.

 

[Forest]

Don,

I didn’t expect a straightforward answer because I had enough trouble making a straightforward question! J

It appears to me that God sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (so that seems to be universal in nature) – but that’s actually a description of Christ as the Lamb of God. It also seems to me that Christ died for the purpose of providing atonement for the sins of the elect (and that seems limited) – it has as its subject the action and purpose of the atoning death of Christ – redeeming the elect.

I don’t understand Christ as an atoning sacrifice to be limited or universal to any particular people, but for the sins of the world (similar to the offering at Yom Kippur, the high priest made an offering on the ‘Day of Atonement’ as a sin atonement for Israel). I understand the actual atoning for sin to be for those who believe (It was not obedience, but obedience through faith that was deemed righteousness for the Israelites).

Does that make sense, or am I just a mixed up Baptist?

God sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for the "world of his elect", not the whole race of Adam.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Erregardless of what John Calvin believes, Christ did not die for all mankind. God said that those who have not the Spirit are none of his. Whom the Lord loveth, he chastens and scourgest every son whom he receiveth. God does not chasten those that are not his, Ps 73:5 and Job 21:9.

RIGHT.....that is scriptural & the position held traditionally by Salvation by Grace believers...He died for sons, for the sanctified, for the brethren, for the church, and for the children (Heb. 2: 9-15).

 

[Forest]

No. Nothing impedes his entering heaven, save ONLY his own unbelief.

I'm saying that it is a FALSE ASSUMPTION to think that Calvinists (like Hodge) have historically taught that the satisfaction of Christ on the cross was comparable to the payment of a debt for individuals, as if he suffered just so much for so many. Some, like you, seem to think He paid so much for one soul, and so much for another, and any payment made available to a soul that ends up lost in hell would be wasted...or his blood would be split needlessly.

If this is the correct view of the atonement then, according to Hodge, the gospel can only be rightly offered to those whose debts he has actually cancelled. Hodge adamantly reject this view and argues, "That this doctrine was never held by any historical church and the ascription of it to Augustinians can only be accounted for on the ground of ignorance."

Understand?

You have made the statement that ones unblief will keep them out of heaven. How do you explain 2 Tim 2:13? If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. Believing can bring about many timely salvations but not eternal salvation.

 

[Skandelon]

I am only pointing out that you are misinterpreting Acts 16:16 and Eph 2:8 to comply with your understanding of the scriptures and I am dealing with the context of the post.

I don't remember providing you my interpretation of those verses.

 

[Don]

Erregardless of what John Calvin believes, Christ did not die for all mankind. God said that those who have not the Spirit are none of his. Whom the Lord loveth, he chastens and scourgest every son whom he receiveth. God does not chasten those that are not his, Ps 73:5 and Job 21:9.

I think you meant "irregardless." And since "ir" is a prefix meaning "not," and you coupled it with "regardless," which would actually make it "regarding" because of the double-negative implied by "ir" and "less," I think you actually meant "regardless." Unless you actually meant "regarding what John Calvin believes," in which case, my apologies, and please continue.

 

[JonC]

It's regardless. "Regardless of what John Calvin believes..."

"irregardless" aint good English - but it is taken to mean the same as "regardless."

 

[jbh28]

It’s regardless. “Regardless of what John Calvin believes...”
"irregardless" aint good English

You learn them some good english!


Erregardless

Because sometimes improper grammar just isn't enough.



...I hope I didn't misspell anything there.

 

[Aaron]

No. Nothing impedes his entering heaven, save ONLY his own unbelief.

Is there a way to get a straight answer out of this man? He just answered yes and no.

Let me rephrase the question. Does the law stand to convict the unbeliever? Yes or no.

 

[Aaron]

Aaron, you've been making some excellent points, I appreciate your insights on the truths of the atonement derived from the law. Sounds like you've read some of Pink, maybe.

Also, I don't think you will, but don't fret about whether you're in agreement with Princeston scholars or not. That means nothing.

:thumbs:

I'm not worried. I've looked up the works he's citing. Now if we can just get a straight answer out of the boy, Hodge will be exonerated.

 

[Skandelon]

Aaron, you've been making some excellent points, I appreciate your insights on the truths of the atonement derived from the law. Sounds like you've read some of Pink, maybe.

Also, I don't think you will, but don't fret about whether you're in agreement with Princeston scholars or not. That means nothing.

Its fine with him, or you, or Steve, or Luke, or Fredrick to be in disagreement with the Princeton Calvinistic scholars. The problem is when they pretend to know more than they do on the matter and attack me as 'twisting,' 'misrepresenting,' or just being too stupid to understand, when I am the only one QUOTING THEM VERBATIM and providing documentation for my arguments.

Pink would be considered in the "higher" (or more extreme) camp on this issue and I'm glad you at least acknowledge that distinction rather than attacking the messenger. :applause:

 

[Skandelon]

Is there a way to get a straight answer out of this man? He just answered yes and no.

I started my answer with a "NO." And then went on to give you a very THOROUGH explaination as to what Hodge is arguing against. If you can't understand that then may I suggest you study up on it and then come back and try to have a rational discussion with me about how you (and Pink) disagree with him and the other scholars from the Princeton school... Okay?

Let me rephrase the question. Does the law stand to convict the unbeliever? Yes or no.

Yes, but only because of his unbelief, not because of his breaking of the law...

Calvin put it this way: "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."

If the law, in addition to unbelief, stood in the way then Calvin wouldn't have said this.

Jesus, more importantly, said, "I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day."

What will condemn the unbeliever on the last day?
"that very word which I spoke..."