Quotes On Limited Atonement

I'm not sure who this quote is from, but this sounds like it assumes the Owenic double payment premise. In the Reformed tradition (especially Pre-Owen for the UK) the ones who espoused a universal atonement/particular redemption doctrine affirmed that Christ paid the penalty due every man. This is different from "he died for all men." This nuance is often lost in the discussion.

 

Jarthur001 , your quote was without any uncertainty Charles H. Spurgeon'
s . He made several of those kind of remarks . Which I agree with BTW . The folks on the other side of the aisle don't want to face up to the questions Spurgeon , Owen and others have raised about the "double payment" .

 

Alright, why give a short version of my paraphrase of Dave Ponter's argument when I can just post his argument here:

Hypothetical universalists (Arminian): Christ died equally for all
Limited atonement (high Calvinist): Christ died equally for some
Dualists (low Calvinist): Christ died unequally for all

Now to Dave's quote: "Lets do some history first.

But first an illustration, one I am using a lot nowadays. Those who have
read this before, skip this part.

10 man stand condemned of X, and the same X for all. Theologically, as
an aside of the story aspect: 4 happen to be elect, the remaining 6
reprobate

The Judge is also King, is also, therefore, Lawgiver and Lawmaker. He is
the source of the Law. King has a Son. Son and King agree that Son will
suffer X, the same X that was due to the 10.

So, in this sense, the X of all 10, respectively, is imputed to the Son.
Now, if X were 40 lashes, no one would say that the Son suffered 400
lashes. No, the 40 he suffered would be sufficient for all 10.

Now, King and Son agree to this but add that for any of the, Contrition
is the condition set by the King in order for the sufferings of the Son
to have effect for any of the 10.

So now, the Son stands in for the 10, knowingly, willingly. He
substitutes for the 10, insofar as the X due to each and any of them, he
suffers.

Hold all that.

For the Augustianians, that's a fair description of how they saw the
expiation of Christ. This was the view of most of the early Reformers,
and early English and Lutheran Reformers.

The Augustinians differed from the sem-Ps in that faith, the ability to
meet the condition of contrition was given unconditionally to the 4.
This is the sovereignty of King and God, as sourse of all law etc. Thats
the mysterium of Augustinianism, and original Calvinism.

Arminius, who was an Augustinian operated from out of that theological
context. And there were Lutheran Arminians at the time.

To this construction of expiation, Arminius decided to deny the
Mysterium aspect. Thats his point of attack. He then proposed prevenient
grace and free will.

In response to him and others like him, some Calvinists reconstructed
the expiation according to this fair enough description.

10 men stand condemned to suffer X. King and Son decide that the Son
would stand in for the 4 only, the 4 they had already decided to save.
He does so. So only the X due to the 4 was imputed to Christ. He
suffered 40 lashes only for them.

That construction then gained ascendency in the Reformed community in
its over-zeal to react to Arminianism. For the early Calvinists, the
particularism is not located in the expiation itself, but in the decree
to apply it to the elect, that's the mysterium of Calvinism. For Beza,
Owen, Bucer, the mysterium is relocated in the expiaton itself. You, me
in past times, most of the Calvinists here, have been trained to think
according to the new construction and mysterium.

So, when you now hear the old construction with its older mysterium, it
sounds Arminian to you, exactly because of your relative point perspective.

So for the different between classic Calvinism and Arminian thinking is
the issie of the application of the expiation.

Now, here is another aspect to this. The Augustinians said, Christ died
for all sufficiently, for the elect efficiently. This now makes sense in
the classic Augustian construction. The Son suffered the same X for all
10, but in a sufficient sense. But he suffered for the 4 in an efficient
sense, in that the intention is to apply the benefit of his substitution
suffering to the 4.

When many of us say Christ died for all sufficiently, for the elect
efficiently, hardly anyone knows what that originally meant or how it
could be possible. The Proteccidental benefits come to them, rain, sun
etc. The Prots., Schol (PS from now on, or Owenists) were not happy with
the old formula cos the Arminians were now saying, and quite obviously,
Christ died for all sufficiently, for the elect according to bare
foreknowledge, efficiently. And then Amyraut further complicated things
cos he spotted the shift in how the expiation was understood from Calivn
to the PS, so he stressed that in some sense, the death of Christ is
equally related to every man, as he suffered the same death due to every
man.

So we now have a tradition overlaid on top of an earlier tradition.

Now lets add something else. When Owen worked through all this, he was
responding to two sorts of English dissenters, some Arminians and some
Amyraldian types. For him, the argument for his version could work only
if he added some new concepts. The expiation was a payment, a literal
debt payment. The biblical ransom was not metaphor for deliverance, but
a literal payment to the Father. Owen constructed sin along debt lines,
and legal satisfaction along the lines of an unpaid but due debt. The
Father is the creditor. And here now we see one of the earliest attempts
to posit the double payment fallacy: a debt payment ipso facto remits
debt, and a debt paid cannot be paid again. Owen constructed
justification along these lines: the fine is paid, the man is justified.
The bail-bond is paid, the man is justified. So for Owen, the shift in
justification was moving to something paid, on the cross, literally. You
and I just didn't realise we had been justified for a long time. The
hypers ran with this, especially Gill, and posited eternal
justification. Owen also systematised the idea that faith is purchased
by the expiation. This was a mutation on the earlier medieval idea of
the expiatoin of Christ meriting righteousness. So for all whom the
expiation was made, faith was purchased. If faith was not given to a
person, then it was not purchased for him, and therefore the expiation
was not made for him. But its all fallacious for nowhere is it said that
the expiation purchases faith, or that in and of itself it secures faith
for all whom he was made. Thats a PS (rather bs;-) fabrication.

It was Jonathan Edwards who put the original Calvin Humpty back
together, with a little help from Grotius, Locke and the classics. But
Edwards was only influencial in America, at Princeton, through C Hodge,
who then influences Dabney, and Shedd and a few other minor players. But
in England and Scotland, Owen is still supreme, as mediated now by
Cunningham, and many others.

So these are some of the assumptions that need to be worked through.
From payment expiation, bunches of verses are exegeted accordingly,
J3:16, 1:29, 1 j 2:2, 2 T2:6, etc etc. Hilasmos, in 2:2 is now seen as
something effected and accomplished like a debt payment.

So back to the 10. The Son suffers X, and so fulfills the oiginal
necessary claims of the law against all 10 {note: not the added
condition per se). Now there is no reason why any of them need be
condemned by the law. But the King and Son set a further condition of
contrition. 4 are contrite, as this is gifted by the King, the 6
stubbornly refuse. So they end by suffering X completely themselves. So
in a sense there is a double suffering, one in the surety, then again in
the impenitent."

 

I think the problem with the "40 lashes" idea is that it misunderstands the nature of sin and the atonemnet because it puts a finite punishment on the sinnner. Sin creates an infinite debt, not a finite one. That is why hell is eternal.

In Jesus death, he paid an infinite payment. So if God decreed to save only one, no less would be required. If God decreed to save all, no more would be required.

The issue is whether the atonement is an actual payment or a possible payment. Limited atonement believes it is an actual payment.

 

The Dualist says that it is both possible and actual without contradiction and rejects your false either/or.

Some respond to it as positing word games, but I'll stick with it.

As to the infinite vs. finite stuff...well, I think there's good reason to believe that every persons' penalty is other than infinite since there are specifics in the Biblical witness like sin, death, and hell (you might need to define your understanding of infinite in your post for me to agree or disagree with you-is it undefined, open-ended, everlasting, or just "really big"). However, Larry I must ask how in your understanding Jesus could make an infinite payment (if you mean eternal like you imply) with a once-for-all act? Was His atoning act (not plan or benefits but the act itself) "eternal" like you claim man's punishment to be?

Your post seems to define "infinite" as eternal when dealing with man's punishment and then later more like its true meaning when speaking of Christ's atonement in that it covers all, no?

 

If the penalty for sin was finite, or could be paid in time, then hell wouldn't be eternal. Purgatory would be a correct view. The reason hell is eternal is that finite man cannot pay his debt there. It is an ongoing punishment.

As for the distinction between actual and possible, actual and possible does not refer to the sufficient/efficient distinction. It views the work of God with respect to an individual. For instance, a "possible atonement" would mean that Christ died to make salvation possible. An "actual atonement" believes that Christ died to save, and actually paid for the sin rather than just making a payment available that has to be appropriated or not.

So it's not a false either/or.

There is a sense in which Christ died for the non-elect, but it was not to make salvation possible for them, nor was it to pay for their sins. Some have called it a potential payment, but I don't find that convincing.

In the end, we ask the question, Did Christ die for the elect in the same way that he died for the non-elect? The answer has to be no, no matter where you fall on the reason for the election of some.

 

It is a false either/or because a dualist believes that Christ died unequally for all and have both the actual and possible, which you seem to have something similar in your construct. If you say Christ did something unequal in the atonement then you throw out both unlimited and limited atonement because they are firm on saying Christ died equally for either all or the elect.

As to purgatory, that's a red herring. A definite sentencing of someone to ongoing punishment for sin is less than infinite Larry. Well enough of that for now, I believe this OP was for quotes on limited atonement and I have violated it so I'll bow out.

 

Brandon,

Good summary! It's just as I thought too -- all them "...ians" were just playing "mind games for intellectuals!" Oh, how WISE they were "counting the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin!"

I'm sure heaven and hell both will be full of such souls!

And "mysterium" you say? Did someone have the unbiblical idea that these were the "mysteries" Paul spoke about "being good stewards of -- the mysteries of God" in 1Cor 4:1. Nothing could be further from the truth!! Not once is communion or atonement called a mystery! They are only "mysteries" for the purpose of the clergy holding access to them over the laity! Mysticism is Catholicsim's "gift" to her daughter harlots!

Christ paid for ALL sin ("sin," not people, as someone commented). IMO, there is no practical reason for thinking other than what the Bible says except to divide the body of Christ or bar the "Door" of salvation.

skypair

 

If you think what I said presented a false either/or, then I have miscommunicated. I am not addressing a dualist, though I have never heard it called that before. I am addressing a mutual exclusivity that is not false. I think your categories, as I read what you are saying, are not accurate.

I think you are misunderstanding limited atonement. Limited atonement does not affirm that Jesus died equally or all. Limited atonement typically affirms that Christ intended to save his elect through his atonement, and his death is efficient for them. Limited atonement also affirms that Christ's death is suffcient for all. It acknowledges that if Christ intended to save all, his one death was sufficient. Limited atonement also recognizes that common grace accrues to the non-elect on the basis of the atonement. So it's a lot more than you are trying to make it out to be.

Hell is eternal ... infinite ... precisely because the penalty for sin is infinite. Jesus could pay it with his death because his righteousness was infinite and therefore his death could be meritorious. I think you are overlooking some key things here.

 

And here we are back to the age old problem which your side has never come to terms with. If Christ paid for all sin, then why does anyone go to hell? You make God unjust in demanding a punishment from man that Christ already made.

 

Larry -- you're focusing on the wrong issue! There is eternal hell because men reject any relationship with the eternal God. It isn't sin that has eternal consequences -- it's choosing or failing to choose Christ!

And yours is not very convincing either!! :laugh:

Basic question, Lar -- are you going to heaven because you are elect and your sins paid for or because you chose Jesus Christ?

He died for SIN, Larry. ALL SIN. Hell is eternal because those who go there chose NOT to believe on Christ and have an eternal relationship with God. It's really that simple. Where else would one go -- there's either with God eternally or separated from Him eternally.

skypair

 

First let me say, I missed you. I started a thread for the "closed" one "CURED" called "Effectual Calling." Perhaps you could look it over.

As to the other, let's look at the judgment seat from which they go there, shall we? First off (Rev 20:11-14) that the LOST are resurrected to bodies from hades. Do you see that? Why/How can this be? They died on account of sin -- surely they are not resurrected on account of sin!

They aren't -- they're resurrected on account of SIN PAID FOR!

Now look at the books, Lar. How do you suppose one gets one's name written in "the book of life?" Cause if your name is not found there, it's "off to hell/lake of fire" for you REGARDLESS OF WORKS ("book of works"). You get in the "book of life" by BELIEVING.

Are there any believers who trusted in Christ who don't go to heaven? So really, the moniker of "elect" only refers to believers, right? Believers who repented and received Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Do you find this to be true?

And so the UNBELIEVERS in Christ die again. They experience another PHYSICAL death and their spirits go to an eternal lake of fire (at least that is the way I see the "second death." You may think -- and it's possible -- that they were spiritually alive for that "moment in time" called the GWT since they do bow to Christ. But I bet they die physically and die eternally spiritually as well, right?)

skypair

 

Did Christ taste taste death for all men...or not?

 

I'll pass. Honestly, I have grown really tired of the same old stuff, day after day, with no serious consideration of Scripture. It isn't worth my time. I think at some point, you have to give serious thought to the Scriptures that disagree with you, rather than glibly explaining them away.

Man has an immortal soul. We will all live forever. They are raised because of sin to judgment.

No they're not.

By faith.

Yes.

Yes, of course. But the question on this topic (which is off topic here) is which comes first, faith or election? In Scripture, election always precedes faith. You have not one verse of Scripture showing someone elected because they beleived. That is a death blow for your belief.

Nope. It's not physical death again. It is eternal death, the second death.

None of which actually addresses the question at hand. If Christ paid for all sins, then how are people sent to hell? To say they are sent to hell for unbelief, not for sin, is irrational since unbelief is sin. If all sin was paid for, then the sin of unbelief must also have been paid for and can therefore no longer be the grounds of eternal condemnation. Furthemore, it is unbiblical since Scripture plainly declares that people are sent to hell for sin, not just for unbelief. (Rev 20:11-15; John 5:29; etc.) The case is pretty airtight.

You would be better saying that Christ made payment for sin possible, rather than saying he actually paid for sin. That would have some biblical merit.

 

Brandon,

Interesting stuff. How is the "Dualist" view different from what Pastor Larry said here:

And how does the Dualist view address the Substitionary aspect of the Atonement?

Lastly, would you classify Dabney's view as Dualist?

 

Yes, of course. We discussed that in a previous thread where I fully affirmed that, as all limited atonement advocates do as well.

 

Fair enough Larry, my comments on Limited Atonement, as it has been presented to me, were that Christ died equally for the elect and that's it. Sure, one who holds to limited atonement agrees that hypothetically or potentially He could have saved all with His death if He had designed it that way, but this is weaker than the dualist who claims that Christ paid the penalty due every person.

I'd go back to read "Death of Death" though to see if your presentation of Limited Atonement matches Owen's. I don't think it does, but I could always be wrong. I don't rail against limited atonement and disagree that it stifles evangelism and what not, I just don't think it coheres with Scripture and those who disagree with the dualist position claim likewise. It's not that big of a deal to me.

Take care,
BJ

PS-Yes, Dabney is a dualist. The substitution is the dualist part because Christ paid the penalty due every man and died to save and keep saved the elect.

 

Brandon,

It seems the only difference between the Dualist view and the typical Arminian view is that Christ's sacrifice had Unconditional Election in mind, while the Arminian view says that it had Conditional Election in mind. Is that a fair representation?