• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Luke2427

Active Member
Not in this context, unless you are saying that the attonement is sufficiently applied to atone for the sins of the non-elect (and if so, then I see the sufficiency).


Sufficiency has nothing to do with availability.

Permit me, please, to try another illustration.

Here is a hole in the ground. It is two cubic feet.

I have also a wheel barrel with three cubic feet of dirt.

Question: Is what I have in the wheel barrel SUFFICIENT to fill the hole?

Certainly.

Whether I EVER decide to put the dirt in the wheel barrel in the hole or not, it is more than sufficient to fill the whole.

It is not only POTENTIALLY sufficient; it is ACTUALLY sufficient.

It does not have to DO anything. It is by it's NATURE sufficient if it never comes within a mile of that hole.

Whether it meets the "need" of that whole or not has nothing to do with its sufficiency.

The hole's "need" has nothing to do with the dirt's sufficiency.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Sufficiency has nothing to do with availability.

Permit me, please, to try another illustration.

Here is a hole in the ground. It is two cubic feet.

I have also a wheel barrel with three cubic feet of dirt.

Question: Is what I have in the wheel barrel SUFFICIENT to fill the hole?

Certainly.

Whether I EVER decide to put the dirt in the wheel barrel in the hole or not, it is more than sufficient to fill the whole.

It is not only POTENTIALLY sufficient; it is ACTUALLY sufficient.

It does not have to DO anything. It is by it's NATURE sufficient if it never comes within a mile of that hole.

Whether it meets the "need" of that whole or not has nothing to do with its sufficiency.

The hole's "need" has nothing to do with the dirt's sufficiency.


Fantastic! I didn’t want to tell you, but I don’t like eggs. I gave them to the dog, and he buried them in the back yard next to the sidewalk. I noticed after the rain that he must have dug them up, and now I also have a 2 cubic foot hole in my yard. Since 3 cubic feet of dirt is obviously sufficient in value to either of our holes, surely it is actually sufficient to fill both. When you’re done with your yard work, please fill the hole in my back yard.

You’re looking at the sufficiency of the Sacrifice (and I agree), but there is also a sufficiency to the believer that is apparently not there for the unbeliever.

Iconoclast posted several links to sermons. You may find the sermonaudio.com site interesting.
(The atonement is infinitely sufficient in value, but I think more of worth than quantity).
 

Luke2427

Active Member
Fantastic! I didn’t want to tell you, but I don’t like eggs. I gave them to the dog, and he buried them in the back yard next to the sidewalk. I noticed after the rain that he must have dug them up, and now I also have a 2 cubic foot hole in my yard. Since 3 cubic feet of dirt is obviously sufficient in value to either of our holes, surely it is actually sufficient to fill both. When you’re done with your yard work, please fill the hole in my back yard.

You’re looking at the sufficiency of the Sacrifice (and I agree), but there is also a sufficiency to the believer that is apparently not there for the unbeliever.

Iconoclast posted several links to sermons. You may find the sermonaudio.com site interesting.
(The atonement is infinitely sufficient in value, but I think more of worth than quantity).

I love sermonaudio. And I agree about worth as opposed to quantity.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
It is the choice of God to not regenerate the unbeliever.

Of course by "choice" I do not mean that he had to consider between two option and then make an actual "choice." ;)

You tell me, but that doesn't answer my question...it just dodges it. :)
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
No brother, it doesn't dodge it. It just doesn't aquiesce to the options you provided.

Since Christ has died, do you believe that what impedes a non-elect man from being saved is:

1. His totally depraved nature, which God chose not to regenerate.

2. His need to have his sins atoned, which God chose not to atone.

3. All of the above

Better?
 

Amy.G

New Member
Since Christ has died, do you believe that what impedes a non-elect man from being saved is:

1. His totally depraved nature, which God chose not to regenerate.

2. His need to have his sins atoned, which God chose not to atone.

3. All of the above

Better?
Answer: We don't know. We can't know.

Why did God choose the particular 12 to be His disciples and not some other group of 12? Don't know.

Why did God choose Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and not someone else? Don't know.

Why did God choose Abraham as the father of the Jews and not someone else? Don't know.

There is no way to answer your question because God hasn't told us why.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Answer: We don't know. We can't know.

Why did God choose the particular 12 to be His disciples and not some other group of 12? Don't know.

Why did God choose Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and not someone else? Don't know.

Why did God choose Abraham as the father of the Jews and not someone else? Don't know.

There is no way to answer your question because God hasn't told us why.

Correct...we are not always directly told.That is why we look to God as Aaron and others said .... He is all wise,and omniscient....so His Holy reasons and plan are the best of all possible choices.

Christ as our surety guarantees the terms of the covenant on behalf of the elect of God. He actually pays for our many sins against God's Holy law...even unbelief.
This guarantee Jesus our surety.....is actual...not potential.

"A surety has to pay what they owe, for whom he is engaged; to do, what is to be done by them, which they cannot perform. 'And if this be not the notion of a surety in this place, the apostle makes use of a word, nowhere else used in the whole scripture, to teach us what it doth never signify among people, which is improbable and absurd.' For the sole reason why he did make use of it was, that from the nature and notion of it among people, in other cases, we may understand the signification of it, and what, under that name, he ascribes unto the Lord Jesus" - Owen.

Having thus proved that εγγυος enguos is properly translated "surety," and that Christ is so styled, in a sense not widely different from what is usually attached to the word - let us next inquire, how Christ discharges this suretyship, or what he does in his capacity of surety? Is he surety to us for God? This last question, by orthodox writers, is for the most part, answered in the negative on the ground that there can be no need of security for God, his promise and his oath being sufficient guarantee that he will fulfil his engagement; on the ground also, that a surety must be some one greater than the party for whom he engages, which, in the case of God, renders the thing impossible, since there is none greater than Heb. Thus, Dr. Owen has argued at great length, and is followed by Guyse, Boston, and many others. Yet there are not wanting writers of great reputation for learning and orthodoxy, who scruple not to say that Christ is surety "for God;" (see Mr. Scott on this place).

He undertook, on the part of the Father. that all the promises should be made good to the seed. He acts in the behalf of God toward us, and assures us of the divine favor. "If it be asked, what need was there of a Mediator to assure us of the fulfillment of the promises made by the God of truth, who cannot lie or deceive us, I answer, the same objection might be made against God's adding his oath to his promise, whereby he intended to give us the greater security of accomplishment? - Pierce. The exclusion of this idea from the suretyship of Christ, on the part of so many divines, doubtless arose from the improper use made of it by Socinians, who unwilling to admit that Christ had become bound for our debt of suffering and obedience, and, in this sense, was surety "for us," resolved the suretyship into a mere engagement "in behalf of God." They could not allow more, without allowing the atonement.

While, however, we see no necessity for discarding this idea, because it has been used for bad purposes, we maintain, that this is neither all, nor even the principal part, of the suretyship of Christ. Revert to the original notion of a surety. He is one who engages, in behalf of another, to pay a debt or discharge a duty, which that other may fail to pay or discharge. Christ engaged to stand in that relation toward us, and therefore he is the "surety for us God," that our debt shall be discharged. God the Father, on his part, engages, that Christ shall see his seed, that they shall be saved; and the Son of God, on his part, becomes bound for the debt of penalty and obedience. This is the covenant of redemption, "the counsel of peace" between the Father and the Son, before all worlds; Zechariah 6:13; Isaiah 53:10, Isaiah 53:12. It is unnecessary further to observe, that Christ, in his capacity of surety, has nobly redeemed his pledge, endured the penalty, and honored the precept of the broken law, and thereby secured for his people the blessings of the covenant.

continued...








Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. Or "covenant", for the word signifies both; and what is intended may be called both a testament and a covenant; a testament, because it is founded in the good will and pleasure of God, and respects an inheritance bequeathed by God the Father to his children, which was confirmed and comes to them by the death of Christ the testator; and a covenant, it being a compact or agreement made by the Father with Christ, as the representative of all the elect; in which promises and blessings of all sorts are provided and secured for them in him; and is called in Scripture a covenant of life and peace, because these are things concerned in it; and is commonly by men called the covenant of grace, because it springs from the grace of God, the subject matter of it is grace, and the end of it is the glory of God's grace: now this is better than the covenant of works broken by man, and which exposes him to the curse and condemnation of the law; or than the covenant of the Levitical priesthood, by which was no perfection; and the form of administration of it under the Gospel dispensation is better than that under the law, for it is now revealed more clearly, and administered without types, shadows, and sacrifices; and the extent of its administration is larger, reaching to Gentiles as well as Jews; and besides, it is now actually ratified and confirmed by the blood of Christ, which is therefore called the blood of the everlasting covenant: and of this testament or covenant Christ is the "surety"; the word signifies one that draws nigh: Christ drew nigh to his Father in the council of peace, and undertook to be the Saviour and Redeemer of his people he substituted himself in their place and stead; he interposed between the creditor and the debtor, and became surety for the payment of the debts of the latter, and so stood engaged for them, and in their room: Christ is not the surety for the Father to his people, but for them to the Father; as to satisfy for their sins, to work out a righteousness for them, to preserve and keep them, and make them happy; which is an instance of matchless love.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
22. surety-ensuring in His own person the certainty of the covenant to us. This He did by becoming responsible for our guilt, by sealing the covenant with His blood, and by being openly acknowledged as our triumphant Saviour by the Father, who raised Him from the dead. Thus He is at once God's surety for man, and man's surety for God, and so Mediator between God and man (Heb 8:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
7:11-25 The priesthood and law by which perfection could not come, are done away; a Priest is risen, and a dispensation now set up, by which true believers may be made perfect. That there is such a change is plain. The law which made the Levitical priesthood, showed that the priests were frail, dying creatures, not able to save their own lives, much less could they save the souls of those who came to them. But the High Priest of our profession holds his office by the power of endless life in himself; not only to keep himself alive, but to give spiritual and eternal life to all who rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. The better covenant, of which Jesus was the Surety, is not here contrasted with the covenant of works, by which every transgressor is shut up under the curse. It is distinguished from the Sinai covenant with Israel, and the legal dispensation under which the church so long remained. The better covenant brought the church and every believer into clearer light, more perfect liberty, and more abundant privileges. In the order of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests one after another; but in the priesthood of Christ there is only one and the same. This is the believer's safety and happiness, that this everlasting High Priest is able to save to the uttermost, in all times, in all cases. Surely then it becomes us to desire a spirituality and holiness, as much beyond those of the Old Testament believers, as our advantages exceed theirs.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Answer: We don't know. We can't know.

Why did God choose the particular 12 to be His disciples and not some other group of 12? Don't know.

Why did God choose Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and not someone else? Don't know.

Why did God choose Abraham as the father of the Jews and not someone else? Don't know.

There is no way to answer your question because God hasn't told us why.
I think he is asking it based on the pre-faith regeneration belief. Based on that understanding one of the answers must apply.
 

DaChaser1

New Member
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?

i would line up with a more "moderate" position, some say that was held by calvin himself...

Death of Jesus on the Cross is sufficient/worth enough to be able to have provoded that ALL sins could have been atoned for by His death, but that ONLY those whom God has chosen to effectually apply it towards receive its merit/benefits though!

the Elect!
 

DaChaser1

New Member
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.



Right there exposes differences between a cal and an arm on this...

Arms would say that its unbelief/rejection of Christ causing one to not have atonement by God...

cals would say that we are already in state of seperation before God, sin nature has damned us already before rejecting jesus, and that is just why God MUST save any who will get saved directly!
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Provide the quote.
. . . it is unscriptural to say that Christ acted for those who were not in Him.

Christ did act as a representative; and what He did secured with certainty the benefits of his work for those for whom He acted. This being conceded, it of course follows that He acted as the representative and substitute of those only who are ultimately to be saved.

He himself, however, says expressly, “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heareth always, and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not actually receive the benefits of his redemption.

They actually say that there are no legal impediment for any man to be saved.
Provide the quote.

Thus making unbelief the ONLY condition to be fulfilled.
Wrong again. Your anticalvinist blinders are tripping you up. You think of the law as one might think of a beast, indiscriminately enraged and combative when hungry but indiscriminately passive and docile when well-fed.

It is a weight and standard, and each one confronted thereby must measure up. One who measures up does not satisfy it for another, unless there is a union with him--unless he is in him, and it's this union that is offered to all freely, but only entered into through faith.

That is what Hodge meant when he said no man perishes for want of an atonement.

A thirdgrader could see this, but, alas, it dodges every one of your attempts of apprehension.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
. . . it is unscriptural to say that Christ acted for those who were not in Him.
That is about intent ('for those'), not the nature of the atonement. You still aren't getting his argument.

Christ did act as a representative; and what He did secured with certainty the benefits of his work for those for whom He acted. This being conceded, it of course follows that He acted as the representative and substitute of those only who are ultimately to be saved.
Again, he is arguing for the design or intent, not the nature of the atonement. He was speaking of the nature of the atonement when he wrote, "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

A thirdgrader could see this
So what does that say about you? :laugh:​
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Aaron, I think I remember you quoted Muller a few times, so maybe you can understand him and respect him enough to actually understand this point:

“There has been some scholarly disagreement on this issue–and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between ‘Calvin’ and the ‘Calvinists,’ ...
The terms ‘universal’ and ‘limited atonement’ do not represent the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed view–or, for that matter, the view of its opponents. The issue was not over ‘atonement,’ broadly understood, but over ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate was never over whether or not Christ’s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective or efficient only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those who were saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ’s work for the faithful alone–and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only. In other words, the inference of a limitation of the efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect alone is found both in Bullinger and in Calvin, despite differences between their formulations of the doctrine of predestination. (Richard Muller, After Calvin, 14).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Again, he is arguing for the design or intent, not the nature of the atonement. He was speaking of the nature of the atonement when he wrote, "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
All Hodge is saying is that even though the law was satisfied only on the behalf of Christ's elect, the nonelect are justly invited to partake, because what was required to save one subset of humanity is all that is required to save them all. Hodge in no way stated, and neither can it be inferred, that the demands of the law are satisfied on the behalf of the unfaithful. They have no substitute, though one is being offered them.

You're making it sound like Hodge was saying that Christ was the substitute for all men, and that the law was satisfied on the behalf of all men. He isn't saying that, and it wasn't. You are of the thinking that Hodge refuted at length. You're thinking of one's duty to the law as a debt, and once that debt is paid then the law is no longer making a demand of anyone.

That is not how Hodge presents it, and he took great pains to deliver it from that assumption.

The law is not a creditor, it is a standard of measurement. It isn't like it met Christ and said, "Oh, there you are. Finally I'm warmed, fed and satisfied. I can go home now. I'm not going to stand in anyone's way." It met Christ, and said, "You are worthy. All blessings are yours." And because Christ is bearing the names of the Children of Israel, the elect, on his breast, the law is meeting Reuben in Christ, and it says, "Reuben is worthy, Simeon is worthy, Judah is worthy, etc."

But when it meets Eliphaz or Reuel, it says, "You are not worthy. A curse upon you." Why? Because Christ did not bear the names of the sons of Esau on his breast. And so the law still pronounces its judgment upon all who are not in Christ.

However, just as Jacob and Esau were brothers, and just as Esau did receive a blessing from Isaac, though not on par with that of Jacob, so the nonelect receive a blessing and benefit of the work of Christ, and that blessing is that they to are invited to unite themselves with Christ. They will, however, consider that birthright an unholy thing, and reject it, and they will do so on their own volition, and having rejected that union, they will meet the law, and it will say, "You are not worthy. A curse upon you."

Your presentation is altogether different, and it takes us back to my initial appraisal of your view of the work of Christ. He saved no one. He simply levelled the playing field so that the one thing that is required is one's own faith, and this he does on his own. Your presentation is Christ plus, and, try as you might to find some ground of orthodoxy for your view in Calvinism, you search Hodge and others in vain.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
I'll leave you with Muller's quote:

The issue was not over ‘atonement,’ broadly understood, but over ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate was never over whether or not Christ’s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective or efficient only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those who were saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all...

According to Muller, this was written to address "some scholarly disagreement on this issue–and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between ‘Calvin’ and the ‘Calvinists.'"

In your own words, Aaron, can you explain that difference, that wedge, that he is referring to? Can you explain the root of the controversy with the "Princeton Theologians" in you own words? Because you seem to want you cake and eat it too by acting as if all Calvinists everywhere take the exact same approach as you do. You don't even notice it but you have already started shifting you language about the atonement after studying up on Hodge. You aren't treating it as if its a payment of certain individual debt, as if Christ's blood was split just so much for so many, as you once did. I don't hear your argument that Christ blood would be wasted if it satisfied divine justice for all mankind anymore. I think you are starting to see the distinction, but so badly want to win a debate that your aren't quite ready to admit you see it.
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
Aaron,

Also notice his statement: "the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice." This has been my point all along.

What do Calvinist believe LIMITS the number of those saved? What is the GROUND of the LIMITATION? Classical Calvinists placed the limitations on man's nature (his unwillingness to believe) NOT the lack of satisfaction for divine justice. People go to hell BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO LOVE THE TRUTH AND SO BE SAVED, not because Christ didn't satisfy the legal impediments. If what you BELIEVE is true then there are two limiting factors: man's unwillingness (his totally depraved nature) AND God's unwillingness to satisfy the legal demand. Hodge and others argument is that there is no basis on which to make a genuine appeal for reconciliation if the satisfaction is not available to all.

I say 'satisfaction' because the word 'atonement' is too often associated with salvation itself and many can't draw the distinction.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
1. All I have ever read of Hodge I read for my interaction in this thread. I have no vested interest in him or in appearing to agree with him. I simply have a high degree of reading comprehension, and I found he was saying something altogether different than your presentation of him.

2. The Muller I've read and quoted is George Muller, and I am not acquainted any other. However, from what I've read of Calvin, I can say that your Muller is all wet. (Either that or your comprehension of him.)

3. My theological views were not shaped by reading Calvin. The most influential men were Luther, Spurgeon and Henry. However, it was the systematic and devout study of the Scriptures that formed my view.

4. If one wants to quibble about the meaning of the word Atonement, then then one need only follow your example of theological promiscuity.

According to the Scriptures, Atonement is whole, complete and purifying reconciliation with God. And that's all that matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top