Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

[Skandelon]

1. All I have ever read of Hodge I read for my interaction in this thread.

That is evident...

I have no vested interest in him or in appearing to agree with him.

Or to understand him apparently...

I simply have a high degree of reading comprehension, and I found he was saying something altogether different than your presentation of him.

Do you mean the parts where I quote him over and over again verbatim saying the exact opposite of what you said?

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.

R. Muller is highly respected among Calvinistic scholars...

Muller obtained his B.A. in History from Queens College, City University of New York in 1969, his M.Div. from Union Theological Seminary, New York in 1972, and his Ph.D. in Reformation studies from Duke University in 1976. He has taught at Fuller Theological Seminary (1980–1992), has been awarded a Mellon Post-Doctoral Research Grant and has held the Belle van Zuylenleerstoel at Utrecht University (1999). He has served on the editorial boards of Sixteenth Century Journal and Reformation and Renaissance Review. He currently serves as the P. J. Zondervan Professor of Historical Theology at the Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The fact that you not only dismiss his scholarship but the facts of his case with such a flippant response reveals more about you than anything else. It is sad, really.

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.

Oh, well then maybe next time we can talk about the Lutheran view of the atonement?

 

[Forest]

[/COLOR]


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!

The atonement is what eternally saves us, trusting in it also saves (delivers)us but not eternally, it is a timely salvtion when we understand the atonement.

 

[Mark_13]

The atonement is what eternally saves us, trusting in it also saves (delivers)us but not eternally, it is a timely salvtion when we understand the atonement.

I understand what you're saying now, and I think I agree that. Just as Paul says he was set apart at least from birth to preach the gospel (and thus presumably also be saved) but experienced a timely salvation on the road to Damascus (or shortly thereafter).

 

[DaChaser1]

The atonement is what eternally saves us, trusting in it also saves (delivers)us but not eternally, it is a timely salvtion when we understand the atonement.

the rconciling to God again/new birth/regeneration/justification etc are ALL from the atonement of Chrsit upon the cross, but occurs to me ONCE I have placed faith in jesus and thus have Grace of God effectually apllied towards me, changing me from sinner to saint!

 

[Forest]

I understand what you're saying now, and I think I agree that. Just as Paul says he was set apart at least from birth to preach the gospel (and thus presumably also be saved) but experienced a timely salvation on the road to Damascus (or shortly thereafter).

right on Mark.

 

[Forest]

the rconciling to God again/new birth/regeneration/justification etc are ALL from the atonement of Chrsit upon the cross, but occurs to me ONCE I have placed faith in jesus and thus have Grace of God effectually apllied towards me, changing me from sinner to saint!

The elect were eternally saved by Christ's work on the cross, but they are not born again until sometime after their natural birth into this world. PlaCING YOUR FAITH IN jESUS WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF YOUR ETERNAL SALVATION.

 

[Forest]

the rconciling to God again/new birth/regeneration/justification etc are ALL from the atonement of Chrsit upon the cross, but occurs to me ONCE I have placed faith in jesus and thus have Grace of God effectually apllied towards me, changing me from sinner to saint!

Placing your faith in jesus was not the cause of your eternal salvation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Placing your faith in jesus was not the cause of your eternal salvation.

I get it.....Its all of God....His grace & mercy. All I did for years is fight it.

 

[JonC]

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!

I am also more in line with your thinking. It seems that the “limited” view of atonement, when applied to the argument is very reactionary. (It was, when initially composed in a systematic fashion, a reaction to Arminianism). The problem for me is that it takes on the method of Arminianism in its argument, but does not actually hold that perspective.
This is what I mean: The argument is about atonement prior to application (which would indicate potential, but much of Calvinism argues only for effectual). Calvinism affirms that the atonement has some effect or benefit upon the non-elect – just not for atoning for their sins. In Romans, Paul states that without faith there is no salvation. Apart from the resurrection, our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins. So Christ as the atoning sacrifice does not have either the elect alone or all men as its subject. The subject is the sins of the world. The purpose is for the redemption of those who believe. Thinking quantity or individual atonement at this point, in my opinion, is an error.
My objection to strict limited atonement in Calvinism is the damage done to Scripture in defense of its position and the dishonesty in representing the opposing view – not their actual conclusions.
Christ’s atoning sacrifice was for the sins of the world (whether it is one man or millions of men is not the issue). The question, “for whom did Christ die,” when applied to the work on the cross apart from faith and apart from the resurrection is an invalid question.
It is like saying that nothing is impossible with God and then getting into a debate on whether or not God can create a square circle.

 

[DaChaser1]

Placing your faith in jesus was not the cause of your eternal salvation.

My faith was a gift from God, so that did not cause the salvation, the Cross of Christ atoning work did, BUT the faith IS the means to have it sirectly applied to my behalf by God!

 

[DaChaser1]

I get it.....Its all of God....His grace & mercy. All I did for years is fight it.

My faith was a gift from god, so that did not cause the salvation, the Cross of Christ atoning work did, BUT the faith IS the means to have it sirectly applied to my behalf by God!

 

[DaChaser1]

I am also more in line with your thinking. It seems that the “limited” view of atonement, when applied to the argument is very reactionary. (It was, when initially composed in a systematic fashion, a reaction to Arminianism). The problem for me is that it takes on the method of Arminianism in its argument, but does not actually hold that perspective.
This is what I mean: The argument is about atonement prior to application (which would indicate potential, but much of Calvinism argues only for effectual). Calvinism affirms that the atonement has some effect or benefit upon the non-elect – just not for atoning for their sins. In Romans, Paul states that without faith there is no salvation. Apart from the resurrection, our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins. So Christ as the atoning sacrifice does not have either the elect alone or all men as its subject. The subject is the sins of the world. The purpose is for the redemption of those who believe. Thinking quantity or individual atonement at this point, in my opinion, is an error.
My objection to strict limited atonement in Calvinism is the damage done to Scripture in defense of its position and the dishonesty in representing the opposing view – not their actual conclusions.
Christ’s atoning sacrifice was for the sins of the world (whether it is one man or millions of men is not the issue). The question, “for whom did Christ die,” when applied to the work on the cross apart from faith and apart from the resurrection is an invalid question.
It is like saying that nothing is impossible with God and then getting into a debate on whether or not God can create a square circle.

Think that even among some calvinist there is a danger in their minds stating that God indeed have jesus "death made for whole world" as they tend to see it meaning the lost have been covered by the atonement but still perishing!

My take is that its limited int he sense ONLY the elect get it effectaul applied towards them by God in a specific fashion, to save thenm from their sins, but rest are still lost,as God did not apply that Grace towards them...

death has infinite value/means to save ALL, but just the elect will get saved by it!
Think this was more in line with what Calvin himself saw regarding it!

 

[JonC]

Think this was more in line with what Calvin himself saw regarding it!

I agree.

It is, of course, good to keep in mind that the limited/universal atonement debate is post-Calvin. The debate prior to Beza was concerned with theories of the atonement, not its extent. (ie. Christus Victor vs. Penal Substitution vs. Governmental, etc.).

I think that the errors in exegesis that are used to support limited atonement are reactionary - they would not have occured except in defence of the position.

 

[Aaron]

So Christ as the atoning sacrifice does not have either the elect alone or all men as its subject. The subject is the sins of the world.

This says Christ died for no one, and ignores the fact that the sacrifices accepted in the type and pattern of Christ were accepted as the substitutes for the offerers.

 

[JonC]

No. Actually, if you have to view it in that manner, that would say that Christ died for everyone (everyone who has sin, that is). But this is neither my point nor what I am saying.

If you look at the Old Covenant sacrificial system, the sacrifices covered the sins of Israel – but not every Israelite. If I apply this to the atonement, then the atonement included a universal provision as well as an individual application, with both aspects finding their origin in the death of Christ.

Now, if you’re talking about atonement as redemption, that has man as its subject and you would be correct – but then, of course, you are not dealing with the aspect of atonement that is in debate. (Unless you are trying to imply that the death of Christ actually atoned for the sins of the elect apart from faith and apart from the Resurrection).

I think that we probably disagree because you seem to put the Law where I would put the Old Covenant. Put it this way – Israel will be saved. All Jews will not.

In other words, I’m refraining from associating atonement with election when it comes to the Christ as the Lamb of God provided for the sins of the world. Instead and in this context I view Christ as the Second Adam.

When it comes to the purpose of Christ’s death for the redemption of the elect alone, then we agree.

 

[JonC]

Aaron,
I gather from your posts that you are not much an admirer of Calvin, but I am. This quote sums up my view of atonement:

“[God] used a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse form unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term ‘world’ which he has used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God’s favor, he nevertheless shows he is favorable to the whole world when he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.”

Or as Luther says: “God Incarnate was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends may who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering.”

This isn’t to be taken as everyone has been redeemed in that their sins are atoned for– because the atonement does not atone for individual sins apart from faith. Paul made this abundantly clear – apart from the resurrection our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins (even though Christ has died). It doesn’t even mean that Christ did not die to provide salvation for the elect alone. It does mean, however, a greater condemnation for the unbeliever.

 

[Iconoclast]

This says Christ died for no one, and ignores the fact that the sacrifices accepted in the type and pattern of Christ were accepted as the substitutes for the offerers.

:applause::thumbs::applause::thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

JonC...could you make your fonts any smaller? I'd like to strain my eyes a bit more. Thanks.

 

[JonC]

:applause::thumbs::applause::thumbs:

What it means is that Christ is the second Adam, a sacrifice for the sins of the world for the redemption of the elect. It amounts to blind arrogance to present your conclusion as valid when one considers the men who held the view.

You have the right to disagree, to debate and to argue. But, even though you may do so , you do not have the right to place these views in your context to disprove them. It is dishonest, unethical and a sin. In case you are doing so out of ignorance - you cannot simply substitute one theological aspect for another - one issue is not independent of another. (Seems like a Calvinist would get that much).

While I agree with reformed theology, I cannot help but abhor the dishonesty that seems to be used in support the position ( actually on both sides).

 

[preacher4truth]

What it means is that Christ is the second Adam, a sacrifice for the sins of the world for the redemption of the elect. It amounts to blind arrogance to present your conclusion as valid when one considers the men who held the view.

You have the right to disagree, to debate and to argue. But, even though you may do so , you do not have the right to place these views in your context to disprove them. It is dishonest, unethical and a sin. In case you are doing so out of ignorance - you cannot simply substitute one theological aspect for another - one issue is not independent of another. (Seems like a Calvinist would get that much).

While I agree with reformed theology, I cannot help but abhor the dishonesty that seems to be used in support the position ( actually on both sides).

Actually, Aaron is correct, and so is Iconoclasts approval against your post which is simply and bluntly amiss. Aaron brings out the logical interpretation of your post, that it is errant. :wavey: