Sorry. It's a test for us aging fellows. (I'm on an iPhone - all looks the same to me)
-
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
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Sorry. It's a test for us aging fellows. (I'm on an iPhone - all looks the same to me)
jesus death upon the Cross was suuficeient enough to be able to save any who would avail Himself of that act, but is ONLY effectual towards those who will come to him and get saved, the Elect...
think we are just saying that "limited atonememnt" to some of us here sounds like saying Jesus death could have ONLY saved his elect, I tend to see it having worth/value to save all, but will save only the elect though!
could say Jesus death in a general sense bought benfits to all, but in a specific sense of salvation just to his elect!
All humans get eternity now, just the eelct have eternal life, others eternal death!
That Christ is an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, sent by the Father to redeem those who are His chosen people…this says that Christ died for no one?
That the elect alone are redeemed by the work of Christ, and that those who are cut off have no excuse because of this work means that Christ died for no one?
You are going to have to explain this, I’m not sure of your logic. Unless it is simply stating that for Christ to have been an atoning sacrifice for the sin of man (corporately and leaving off the atonement for the sins of those who would believe) is atonement in its entirety. Then I’d agree - atonement would have been for no one (but that isn't the argument).
But that would be like me arguing that you are all incorrect because you are stating that men are saved without faith, and that the Resurrection is actually not relevant to redemption simply because you spoke of the Christ’s death alone (which I am not actually claiming because it is a false assumption).
Calvin and Luther, who are not simply and bluntly amiss in regard to logic (although they, like me, may be in error), offered the same explanation of 1 John 2:2. You may be correct, but if so, the conclusion is not simply and bluntly amiss – it is in need of correction.
The more I think about it, you’re right in a way. Christ’s death, apart from the resurrection, would still be the same death and He would still be God – but the faith that we have would be worthless and we would still be in our sins (actually, Paul said as much). So, in that sense, it would be for no actual person per se, only an added condemnation to all who couldn’t fulfill the requirements of God (all of us). But – again, that’s not the argument.
Last edited by a moderator:
I actually agree with those who claim that definite or limited redemption is a better term (and I agree with that usage). It clarifies "limited atonement" to mean what you are stating.
You're saying Christ died for sin. I'm saying Christ died for sinners.
Let's be accurate. It is said that the Lamb of God taketh away the sins of the world. Now my question is, in the sense that you are insisting He died for the sins of the world, did He really take away the sins of the world? Did He take away Esau's sins? What of the sins of Judas or Caiaphas?
And who is reckoned to have sinned but those who were in Adam? In the same vein, Christ died for the sins of those who are in Him.
Christ did not die for sin, but for sinners. In other words, Easu's sins were not atoned on the Cross. Christ died for Jacob. However, what was required to atone for the sins of Jacob was no more or less than is required for Esau. THEREFORE, Esau may enter into Christ if he will. Until that time, the Lamb of God taketh not away his sins, nor the sins of Judas or Caiaphas.
Now, instead of using the verbatim of the text, apply your paraphrase, and you will see that your conclusions are not really supported by the passages to which you appeal. Jesus was not the Lamb provided for Judas or Caiaphas.
One cannot separate the purpose and effect of the sacrifice. Was there a sacrifice prescribed that did not reconcile and restore? All sacrifices were prescribed for people, not merely their acts. And if it was effectual in part, then it was wholly effectual.
And one cannot separate the individual sacrifices of the law, from the one sacrifice of Christ. Christ is the Burnt Offering AND the Peace Offering AND the Meat Offering AND the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering, etc. You're trying to say He was the sin offering for all, but the sin AND trespass offering only for others.
You're not given that privilege. For those who are in Him, Christ is the offering AND the priest AND the altar AND the tabernacle AND the penitent. He is All.
For those who are not in Him, He is none.
Last edited by a moderator:
I find that refreshing about Skandalon, then. Calvinists are a zealous bunch but their theology needs improvement. I'm glad we have diversity on this site, so everyone is not drinking the same coolaid, so to speak.
Exactly. If sin grieves God and he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why did He allow sin into the door to begin with? I know the answer, because I am not a Calvinist and I understand that Jesus did atone for all the sins of the world except for that of willfully and knowingly rejecting God and never repenting of that.
Calvinists fail to comprehend the love of God for the entire human race.
Just because Jesus said that the elect would come to him does not mean that modern theologians are allowed to add their additional opinion that what He meant was to also say that the non-elect cannot come to Him.
In verse 44 Jesus again says nothing about the non-elect, but students of scholars who failed to correctly comprehend the truth have been misled to believe that Jesus only draws the elect (said nowhere in the Bible) and that, since He only draws the elect, then the non-elect are simply excused from having the slightest hope of ever escaping the white-hot wrath of God that will burn against them forever for being the sinners they were created by God to be.
Calvinists alter the scriptures to fit this hateful and slanderous picture of God, Who claims to be a God of love and Who claims that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but Calvinists have straightened that 'mess' out for Him so He needn't be bothered by the weeping and wailing and gnashing of the teeth of the miserable low-lifes who have been rejected while God delights to shine on those glorious Calvinistic saints. What a picture.
Zeal will not make Calvinism true. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Eze. 18:31-32.
Because Jesus became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, those in ignorance without law have no sins imputed to them (Rom. 5:13) except for willfull sins. In other words, Jesus sacrificial atonement covered all sins of ignorance. That is why we now go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
Jesus bought the field which is the world, that He might have the treasure in the field, which is the church (Matt. 13:44). Jesus didn't just buy the elect (the treasure in the field), but He bought the field as well.
"...there shall be false teachers... even denying the Lord that bought them..." (2 Pet. 2:1)
There are very many other scriptures clearly revealing that Jesus' death on the cross was for the sins of the whole world. The only way anyone can be condemned today is by simply refusing to believe and receive the Word of God when the Holy Spirit reveals it to them when He is drawing them to Christ.
Aaron,
Have you noticed that you tend not to answer any of the questions that are presented to you, but rather continue only to evaluate other aspects of the post?
Spurgeon stated the flaw correctly when he identified those who puff up one biblical truth to the point that it covers everything while ignoring others.
Have you noticed that you tend not to answer any of the questions that are presented to you, but rather continue only to evaluate other aspects of the post?
Spurgeon stated the flaw correctly when he identified those who puff up one biblical truth to the point that it covers everything while ignoring others.
Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:22).
The gospel is that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15)
He was delivered over to death for our sins (Romans 4:25)
Yes, Aaron. We disagree. I do firmly believe that Christ died for our sins. He is the propitiation for our sins – in that, He died to save sinners – specifically, He died to save those would by grace believe.
To be accurate, you are misrepresenting the comment. This statement was made by John the Baptist, at the start of Christ’s ministry, identifying Him as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Yes, that is precisely what atonement means. It does not mean that all sinners will be saved – it is foolish of you to imply that it does or that that is the context in which I presented it. It is descriptive and precisely illustrates the nature of Christ as an atoning sacrifice.
I am confident that Christ died for my sin (1 Jn 2:22; 1 Cor 15:1-4; Rom 4:25).
The difference is that I believe the work of Christ has for its ultimate purpose the glorification of God – not merely the salvation of people. Your interpretation of Scripture is very much grounded in God’s choice to elect a particular people. Perhaps the problem is that you derive your understanding of Scripture from your theology rather than deriving your theology from Scripture. I see election as God accomplishing His purpose – His choosing a people for His glory.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
JonC, you are an intelligent, articulate and reasonable fellow. It baffles me how some here can't (or more likely won't) acknowledge a clear distinction without making blatantly false overstatements in order to mischaracterize your view (i.e. 'in your view He dies for no one.'). It just goes to show the sheer lack of objectivity of some to even have a reasonable discussion with others who hold to Reformed doctrine. Baffling....and sad.
I think this statement pretty much sums it up...
That is one of the reasons I respect Calvin. Though I disagree on HOW he interprets some texts, at least he derives his views from the scripture rather than a logical man-made system.
What you've noticed is that I ignore issues and statements that aren't key to the proper understanding of the subject, while you do just the opposite. From our very first interaction, I directed you to the illustrations of Christ's work in the exploded view given to us in the law of the offerings, but you insist on dancing in the periphery.
You could have quoted 1 John 2:2, but then we would argue the very points that are argued interminably on this board. I would argue John was saying that Christ did not die for the sins of the Jews only, but for people of all nations. You would argue the opposite. What's the point?
You want to read the statements you've quoted, and interpret them according to your notions, and I simply ask you if your notions line up with the pattern given in the law.
You're like one cutting crown molding. You thought you had it right on the mitre saw, but when you hold the piece up to the corner—oops!
So, I ask again, was there a sacrifice offered for a non-penitent? Did the scapegoat carry away the sins of Egypt?
If not, then I'd say you've got the wrong angle on "sins of the whole world."
I don’t know about intelligent or articulate, but I did consider myself a reasonable fellow until I came to this board.
It has become very apparent that many here argue what they do not know. They may be well versed in their own understanding, but they cannot (or will not) acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view. The problem is that not only are they unable to actually engage another’s position, but they also cannot validate their own theology in light of this opposition.
For example, the reason I reject libertarian free will has absolutely nothing to do with my view of election or predestination, but my understanding of Scripture. I would not, however, ascribe libertarian free will to the Arminian or Wesleyan view of free will. I may respectfully disagree with their view of free will, but this is because I have taken the time to understand their position which is both logical and based upon Scripture. Too many people hold beliefs which may be true but are to them in reality superstitions because they have no understanding of what they believe.
Although differing in conclusions, Calvin, Luther, and Arminius held Scripture in high regard. They were careful not to allow their theological perspectives dictate their understanding of Scripture but instead to derive their beliefs from the biblical text. This can be seen in Luther’s treatment of atonement and election – he accepts much, but leaves the reasoning to “mystery.” While it is impossible to completely remove all presuppositions from our exegesis, it is important to realize their existence and that there is always a potential for error.
Aaron,
I am not calling you foolish, but you have made a foolish statement.
This is an unfounded assumption. I would not argue that Christ died not for the people of all nations, but for the sins of the Jews only. That is ridiculous. We were not speaking of for whom Christ died, but whether or not it could be said that Christ died for sins rather than for people. You stated that Christ did not die for sin but for people. I said that He died for our sins.
You forgot to put in this statement “line up with my pattern and view of the law as applied to the gospel message and apart from covenant theory.”
But you are right about the crown molding part – I just buy those square blocks for the corners (kinda like your use of Calvinistic theology – hides quite a few imperfections).
I firmly believe that for one to hold a view one must understand the view which he holds. You do seem to understand what you believe, and I don’t want to be misunderstood to be indicating otherwise. But to debate another view you need have the ability to defend that opposing view in that you can understand that position within its foundational context. This is something that you cannot do and it is not correct for me to ask you to evaluate your view in contrast to another (you indicated that you will not examine the atonement in context of positions outside of your held theological perspective, which disqualifies your opinion outside of that context). That said, I do want to understand your position – and apart from a couple of issues I believe I do.
You have contributed to my understanding of this issue in two ways. First, you have corrected my statement that would have implied that the non-elect do not perish “in their sin.” My statement was poorly worded and indicated that I believed that the sins of the non-elect are actually atoned for (which I do not). Secondly, you have directed my references back to the Old Covenant (although we disagree on limiting its implications strictly to the Law).
Here are my questions.
You said:
I asked:
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?
I still don’t understand your claim regarding Calvinism and predestination. It seems predestination predates Calvinism and there are many who believe predestination but are not considered Calvinists. (Martin Luther, James Arminius – for example. For a modern example Robert Picirilli comes to mind ). If you don’t mind, please explain your conclusion – I didn’t realize that Calvinism incorporated so many theories.
My current questions are:
1. If Christ was not an Atoning Sacrifice for sin, then how did He atone for sinners?
2. If it is not correct to state that Christ died for sin, how do you explain Scripture stating that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, that He died for our sins, that he was delivered over to death for our sins?
3. How do you reconcile biblical teachings regarding Gentile vs. Jewish condemnation? By this, I mean, how to you deal with those between Adam (who transgressed the command of God) and Moses (who received the Law)?
4. Why will the world be convicted because they don’t believe in Christ if Christ’s death was isolated specifically to the elect with no purposeful benefit to the non-elect (Jn 16:8-11)?
I am not calling you foolish, but you have made a foolish statement.
This is an unfounded assumption. I would not argue that Christ died not for the people of all nations, but for the sins of the Jews only. That is ridiculous. We were not speaking of for whom Christ died, but whether or not it could be said that Christ died for sins rather than for people. You stated that Christ did not die for sin but for people. I said that He died for our sins.
You forgot to put in this statement “line up with my pattern and view of the law as applied to the gospel message and apart from covenant theory.”
But you are right about the crown molding part – I just buy those square blocks for the corners (kinda like your use of Calvinistic theology – hides quite a few imperfections).
I firmly believe that for one to hold a view one must understand the view which he holds. You do seem to understand what you believe, and I don’t want to be misunderstood to be indicating otherwise. But to debate another view you need have the ability to defend that opposing view in that you can understand that position within its foundational context. This is something that you cannot do and it is not correct for me to ask you to evaluate your view in contrast to another (you indicated that you will not examine the atonement in context of positions outside of your held theological perspective, which disqualifies your opinion outside of that context). That said, I do want to understand your position – and apart from a couple of issues I believe I do.
You have contributed to my understanding of this issue in two ways. First, you have corrected my statement that would have implied that the non-elect do not perish “in their sin.” My statement was poorly worded and indicated that I believed that the sins of the non-elect are actually atoned for (which I do not). Secondly, you have directed my references back to the Old Covenant (although we disagree on limiting its implications strictly to the Law).
Here are my questions.
You said:
I asked:
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?
I still don’t understand your claim regarding Calvinism and predestination. It seems predestination predates Calvinism and there are many who believe predestination but are not considered Calvinists. (Martin Luther, James Arminius – for example. For a modern example Robert Picirilli comes to mind ). If you don’t mind, please explain your conclusion – I didn’t realize that Calvinism incorporated so many theories.
My current questions are:
1. If Christ was not an Atoning Sacrifice for sin, then how did He atone for sinners?
2. If it is not correct to state that Christ died for sin, how do you explain Scripture stating that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, that He died for our sins, that he was delivered over to death for our sins?
3. How do you reconcile biblical teachings regarding Gentile vs. Jewish condemnation? By this, I mean, how to you deal with those between Adam (who transgressed the command of God) and Moses (who received the Law)?
4. Why will the world be convicted because they don’t believe in Christ if Christ’s death was isolated specifically to the elect with no purposeful benefit to the non-elect (Jn 16:8-11)?
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Do you mean like how you keep saying that the issue of irresistible grace (effectual calling) is a peripheral issue in our disagreement and then continue to argue against me as if I don't believe God plays any role in our salvation? This is your MO, Aaron. You minimize or ignore the ACTUAL point of distinction, pigeon hole you 'opponent' into an extreme untenable view, and then attack (classic straw-man fallacy).
Case and point...
Do you really think JonC would argue that Christ only died for the Jews? Come on!?
I obviously disagree with JonC regarding his soterilogical views, but at least he deals with people objectively and according to what they ACTUALLY believe. You would do well to engage with his words and stop with the strawman fallacy.
preacher4truth
Active Member
No, I'm talking about this quote of yours before you cleaned it up with the quote above:
He died to save His people from their sins.
- Status