Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

[Iconoclast]

Skan,

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..."

What you miss is that man must keep the law perfectly....they cannot....That is why God came to earth as the last Adam....to keep the law for us.

4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Unbelief gets mentioned because anyone who gets saved...MUST BELIEVE...that Jesus kept the law perfectly for us.

Those who believe not are condemned already jn 3...because they as law breakers ,condemned in Adam, and condemned additonally by their own law braking have no hope outside of Jesus.

Unsaved men are still under a covenant of works...thus condemned.

 

[Aaron]

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

This is not what Hodge is saying. Neither is it what Calvin is saying.

"He was wounded for our transgressions . . ." does not apply to the unbeliever, because he has no union with Christ.

To take the lifeboat example that you lifted from Hodge, those who do not enter the lifeboat do not enter because of unbelief, but it's the water that kills them.

Those who have no union with Christ, do not have one because of unbelief, but it's their transgressions of the law that kill them.

 

[JonC]

Those who have no union with Christ, do not have one because of unbelief, but it's their transgressions of the law that kill them.

As you are using the word "trangression," am I correct in taking it that you are indicating that unbelievers are gulity of transgressing the Law as given to Israel in the Old Testament (as opposed to those from Adam to Moses)?

 

[Luke2427]

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.

What is hypothetically sufficient? What do you mean by that?

If I have eggs enough to feed five families- is that hypothetically sufficient or actually sufficient?

Is it only actually sufficient if they are EATING THEM??

 

[jbh28]

You must be 100% perfect(yes I know that's redundant...) to go to heaven. No one is perfect. Christ came to earth and lived a perfect life. He is our righteousness! Those that are in Christ(believers) will be presented as righteousness because they are in Christ. Those that are not in Christ(unbelievers) will be guilty. They will be guilty of breaking God's law and thus must be punished. Those in Christ receive no condemnation because Christ paid for it on the cross. He is our substitute.

Christ's payment on the cross is of infinite value. If God chose to save everyone, Christ's payment would be sufficient. But no one here believes that God has chosen to save everyone. So Christ's death is sufficient, but only efficient to those in Christ. Those left in Adam will suffer eternal just punishment for their transgression of the law.

 

[JonC]

If I have eggs enough to feed five families- is that hypothetically sufficient or actually sufficient?

Is it only actually sufficient if they are EATING THEM??

If you have eggs enough to feed five families, they are certainly sufficient in value to feed me, and they are actually sufficient for me, provided mine is one of those five families. Of course, if I’m not, then they are only hypothetically significant because they are actually unavailable. An infinite amount of eggs that are unavailable are not significant to satisfy the smallest amount of hunger.

Try this experiment – For the next three weeks I’ll make or buy enough food to feed you breakfast, lunch and dinner – I’ll even set an extra plate on the table. Do not eat except for what I have – it’ll be sufficient (in value) for your hunger (and my wife is a good cook). After week 3, tell me how sufficient it actually was for you.

 

[Van]

Hi JohC

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?

Hi JohC, I read your opening post, but not the intervening posts. Just wanted to inject another word in the mix, reconciliation.

Christ's finished work on the cross provides reconciliation to the whole world, or the propitiation or means of salvation. He laid down His life for all. But in order to receive the benefits of that "general reconciliation" you have to individually receive the reconciliation.

Calvinism takes these two separate spiritual translations, and puts up an ungodly conglomeration, utterly unbiblical.

Why would ambassadors of Christ beg the lost "to be reconciled" to God if it was a done deal. Calvinists solve these kinds of issues by saying we are just doing what we are commanded to do, without any need for the actions to fit the theology. Fiddlesticks.

 

[Aaron]

As you are using the word "trangression," am I correct in taking it that you are indicating that unbelievers are gulity of transgressing the Law as given to Israel in the Old Testament (as opposed to those from Adam to Moses)?

The law as described in Romans 1 and 2.

 

[DaChaser1]

This is not what Hodge is saying. Neither is it what Calvin is saying.

"He was wounded for our transgressions . . ." does not apply to the unbeliever, because he has no union with Christ.

To take the lifeboat example that you lifted from Hodge, those who do not enter the lifeboat do not enter because of unbelief, but it's the water that kills them.

Those who have no union with Christ, do not have one because of unbelief, but it's their transgressions of the law that kill them.

our very natures as sinners already condemned us before God, even before we herad and rejected jesus for first time!

I am assuming here an unsaved person!

 

[JonC]

The law as described in Romans 1 and 2.

Sorry, that was why I asked for clarification.

I thought that you may have been implying that it was for transgressing the Law that the unbelievers perished and I would have suggested reading the first two chapters of Romans.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You must be 100% perfect(yes I know that's redundant...) to go to heaven. No one is perfect. Christ came to earth and lived a perfect life. He is our righteousness! Those that are in Christ(believers) will be presented as righteousness because they are in Christ. Those that are not in Christ(unbelievers) will be guilty. They will be guilty of breaking God's law and thus must be punished. Those in Christ receive no condemnation because Christ paid for it on the cross. He is our substitute.

Christ's payment on the cross is of infinite value. If God chose to save everyone, Christ's payment would be sufficient. But no one here believes that God has chosen to save everyone. So Christ's death is sufficient, but only efficient to those in Christ. Those left in Adam will suffer eternal just punishment for their transgression of the law.

What do you mean by Unbelief? Is it that you reject the Being of God (ie the Trinity) & therefore your an atheist or is it that you continue to sin & your a carnal type of Christian who just never takes it seriously (ie they profess belief but you dont see any fruit). This ways deeply on me so I would appreciate a thought out answer. Thanks.

 

[DaChaser1]

What do you mean by Unbelief? Is it that you reject the Being of God (ie the Trinity) & therefore your an atheist or is it that you continue to sin & your a carnal type of Christian who just never takes it seriously (ie they profess belief but you dont see any fruit). This ways deeply on me so I would appreciate a thought out answer. Thanks.

Think that the sinners are judged based upon first Adams transgression of the Word of the Lord, before the law was even given, and that acrt caused us to all be seperated from God at birth!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Think that the sinners are judged based upon first Adams transgression of the Word of the Lord, before the law was even given, and that acrt caused us to all be seperated from God at birth!

ahhh then you believe in original sin & from that flows all human sins however thats not my question brother. Again please define "Unbelief"

 

[JonC]

“even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe…” Romans 3:22 (NASB)

The Greek word pisteu,w (pisteuô) is translated to believe, or entrust. It’s translated 118 times in the NASB for believe, but also for entrust, and has faith. It means to have a mental persuasion; to be of opinion; to commit to the charge or power of; to be entrusted with.

The Greek word pi,stij (pistis) is translated faith. It’s translated 238 times in the NASB as faith, but also faithfulness, proof. It means faith; belief; firm persuasion.

James 2 defines this faith as one that produces fruit of the Spirit. For “the demons also believe, and shudder.”

So the faith that is required unto salvation is a faith that is not only simple belief as one logically holds to an idea, but also one that produces fruit.

I would assume unbelief to mean the opposite.

 

[JonC]

I am curious, since we’re talking about atonement – well, on and off when we’re not talking about something else that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread J :

If the elect are seen as the object of the atoning sacrifice, just as Israel was seen as God’s elect in the Old Testament, why the shift from corporate to individual atonement in terms of the actual sacrifice?

Annually, the high priest made a sacrifice for the atonement of Israel, but it was by faith the individual Jew was considered righteous (not all Jews, although among the “elect nation,” were actually deemed righteous). But the atonement for the sins of the “world” is taken to mean the “elect all over the world.” Why wouldn’t it be an atonement not only our sins but also the sins of the whole world (literally), but in atonement only by faith to the elect?

 

[Skandelon]

To take the lifeboat example that you lifted from Hodge, those who do not enter the lifeboat do not enter because of unbelief, but it's the water that kills them.

But is there anything except their unbelief preventing them from getting in the life boat, like the size of the raft? THAT is the issue here!

Is the life boat big enough for everyone invited to fit, or was it made just big enough for the ones irresistibly drawn to ride? Was the blood split on the cross just enough to cover the debt for the sins committed by the elect ones, or was the satisfaction of justice made for the elect actually sufficient to cover everyone? If by some cosmic miracle someone who wasn't elected came to genuine faith in Christ tomorrow would Christ's atonement be sufficient, or would he need to die again for their sins?

 

[Skandelon]

What is hypothetically sufficient? What do you mean by that?

Hypothetically sufficient means: IF God had elected the non-elect then the atonement would have been sufficient for them too. IOW, if God wanted there sins to be atoned too then his work on the cross would have been more than enough.

Actually sufficient means: The atonement is sufficient for them IF they believe. Unbelief is the ONLY impediment for them to enter the kingdom, for all else has been paid in full.

 

[Skandelon]

Aaron, Luke and all,

C. Hodge is clearly saying that it is a FALSE ASSUMPTION to think that Calvinists 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 Aaron, 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."

 

[Skandelon]

Do me a favor and compare/contrast the view of Owen and Hodge regarding the Atonement. Do you not acknowledge the difference?

Both are Calvinists, but certainly you realize there is no small distinction on this matter?

 

[JonC]

Do me a favor and compare/contrast the view of Owen and Hodge regarding the Atonement. Do you not acknowledge the difference?

Both are Calvinists, but certainly you realize there is no small distinction on this matter?

Skandelon,

I get the impression that some will simply not accept the legitimacy of an argument unless it corresponds with what they consider to be the correct conclusion.

Of course, one other problem is the various opinions of exactly how far back you go to find historic Calvinistic belief. The formation of theological doctrine is a process, and there are variants within Calvinism.

In other words, I don’t think that you’ll get anywhere with this question. One thing I have taken out of this forum is the conviction that some cannot seem to help but lean on their own understanding. That is exactly what I see in this thread – it is not even a debate because no one accepts that the other has a legitimate argument.