# Limited Atonement



## mbj0680

I am a High-Calvinist but have issues with limited atonement. I understand it and agree with it, but I do think it is an inferred doctrine and has little value building unity in a church. When we saw it work its way through our church it did more harm than good. It seems to have more ability to divide than to lift each other up to the glory of God. Not many people in our church walked away going God is amazing because He only died for the elect and not for everyone else.

The question I pose is: Is time better spent trying to figure out how we can move forward in our walk and serve Jesus Christ, or is time better spent looking back and asking I wonder if Christ died for only the elect. It seems like with the doctrine of limited atonement more time is spent looking backwards than forwards.

Another question is how can we put the doctrine of limited atonement in our tool box and use it where the rubber meets the road in our day to day life? The average response we get is it points us to the glory of God and how awesome He is. Not that this is bad application, but it seems we can find the glory of God through out the Bible without the inference that Christ only died for the elect. Maybe inferred is the wrong word, maybe amplified is better. Or maybe the point about limited atonement is enlarged unnecessarily. 

Anyone else feel this way? Any feed back would be appreciated.

[Mod. Moved from Calvinism Chart thread]


----------



## BJClark

mbj0680;

Not sure if this answers your questions...but these are my thoughts..

something I have come to understand is that it is not up for me to decide or worry whom God shows mercy..it is only for me to share God's Gospel..after it is shared it is up the Holy Spirit to speak to and work in their heart or not..

Where rubber meets the road (for me) is doing as God has called me to do..Share the Gospel with those God calls me to share the gospel, be it to the softening or hardening of their hearts I do not know...nor is it my concern...as long as I do as God has called me to do..


----------



## AV1611

mbj0680 said:


> I understand it and agree with it, but I do think it is an inferred doctrine and has little value building unity in a church.



Unity can only be built upon truth


----------



## Herald

Mark - I have a question to ask. Is your church fairly new to the doctrines of sovereign grace? If so, this is the reason why limited atonement is problematic. Arguably it is the most difficult part of TULIP. My Presbyterian brethren who have grown up with TULIP may not understand. Those who embraced Calvinism later in life know exactly what I'm talking about. 

How can you effectively support/teach Limited Atonement while not encountering the problems you have encountered? First, consider the problems you have experienced in your local church to be a good thing. Limited atonement goes against the grain of Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism which has held sway in the church for well over 100 years. I went kicking and screaming. It wasn't easy for me. The Lord may open the door for those who have ears to hear to understand this truth of scripture. Second, I like to explain Limited Atonement in a way that doesn't seem argumentative. Theologically I know that only the elect will come to faith in Christ, and that means that Christ's sacrifice is only effectual for the elect. That's the theological component. But which one of us can say with surety who is elect? I certainly can't. Since I don't know who is elect I believe in proclaiming the gospel to all, to plead with all men to be reconciled to Christ. This is the way I have chosen to look at Limited Atonement. In other words - the atonement may be limited, but so is our understanding.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Mark,

I really hear what you're saying. Predestination and its associated doctrines are very strong meat, and often those who need milk aren't ready for it yet until certain fundamentals are in place first (i.e. the milk has been drunk and growth has occurred). Giving a new born baby steak is not responsible. Moreover, the public church service is that place where *both *spiritual babes and giants are present, and to edify all of them is a formidable task!

It seems to me that that's why expository preaching is so important, because we will get God's emphasis rather than our own (hobbyhorses). Just think how many times predestination arises in the 4 gospels. Not never. But not much. Issues like the Kingdom of God and the like are so important to have in place.

One of the reasons, as I see it, that LA has been so controversial is because it requires some critical nuances (that account for all of Scripture on the topic) which many popular presentations do not provide, and hence create confusion. To simply say that Christ "died for the elect" is not good enough (In my humble opinion). There are multiple purposes behind the atonement (not least the glory of God!). The 17th century divines said that Christ's death was _sufficient for all and efficient for the elect_. This was interpreted in a few different ways, but it seems to me without a discussion of the distinction we have a reductionism of LA.

Every blessing brother.


----------



## A5pointer

Mark, May I suggest that we all must judge if any doctrine is proved by the biblical text and not make our judgements based on the pragmatics of whether people recieve it to the positive or negative. As far as milk/meat , my experience has been that new converts have very little problem with the doctrines of grace. As to Limited atonement, I can never understand those that ascent to the other 4 points and object to the "L" without understanding that limited atonement is a neccesarry logical chain link in the system.


----------



## elnwood

I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.

The main disagreement is whether atonement can be thought of a genuine atonement and be conditional upon on faith. Could it be that Christ paid for everyone's sins, yet the payment is not effectual unless the Holy Spirit calls them? There's an inconsistency in 4-point Calvinistic thought there, but I think the 5-point Calvinist runs into the same inconsistency when he says the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer, yet it is conditional upon faith.

I think both are defensible by Scripture, and both can be defended logically (4-point Calvinism works logically using an Amyraldian order of decrees rather than an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian order), and as far as I can tell both are compatible with the Reformed creeds. I don't see any practical reason why differences of opinion on this topic ought to be divisive.


----------



## reformedman

a multi-billionaire goes to an orphanage to adopt a child, he looks around and decides he will take 2 specific children of the available 137 children. He makes himself known to the two and reveals to them how well they will be taken care of. They trust him and believe that he will be able to provide (er yeah, they are 2 and 3 years old and are settling finances in their mind). The billionaire squares the cost of taking them out and sign the necessary forms. 

The billionaire is able to get all the children but he chose only a few.
If he had offered to take all the children, each one of them would not be special in his eyes. 
Since he chose only 2, the value of those special two are special to him, and their value increases.

For me, the application of the doctrine of limited atonement means that salvation is so much more than I deserve, therefore the glory to God is greater than if I believe that I am only saved because I did something that somebody else could have, but didnt.
Salvation becomes a bigger deal.
The gospel becomes clearer and more meaningful.

Note: by saying that he chose 2 and not all, I dont mean to say that these two were any better in any way, but only to say that the bible says, he didnt choose us because of anything we were or did but because of his will (mystery).


----------



## A5pointer

elnwood said:


> I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.
> 
> The main disagreement is whether atonement can be thought of a genuine atonement and be conditional upon on faith. *Could it be that Christ paid for everyone's sins, yet the payment is not effectual unless the Holy Spirit calls them?* There's an inconsistency in 4-point Calvinistic thought there, but I think the 5-point Calvinist runs into the same inconsistency when he says the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer, yet it is conditional upon faith.
> 
> I think both are defensible by Scripture, and both can be defended logically (4-point Calvinism works logically using an Amyraldian order of decrees rather than an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian order), and as far as I can tell both are compatible with the Reformed creeds. I don't see any practical reason why differences of opinion on this topic ought to be divisive.



An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.


----------



## elnwood

Frank, is that not more an application of the doctrine of unconditional election, and not the doctrine of limited atonement?


----------



## elnwood

A5pointer said:


> An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.



To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.

For example, when you were an unbeliever before you came to faith in Christ, were your sins atoned for? Was the wrath of God propitiated? Did God hold your sins against you? It wasn't until you had faith that was credited as righteousness that the wrath of God was propitiated against you.

The 4-point Calvinist applies this same logic to say that faith in Christ is necessary for atonement to be effectual.


----------



## A5pointer

elnwood said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.
> 
> For example, when you were an unbeliever before you came to faith in Christ, were your sins atoned for? Was the wrath of God propitiated? Did God hold your sins against you? It wasn't until you had faith that was credited as righteousness that the wrath of God was propitiated against you.
> 
> The 4-point Calvinist applies this same logic to say that faith in Christ is necessary for atonement to be effectual.
Click to expand...


You are making my point by suggesting that the atonement is in some cases innefectual, I say that would be absurd, are you of the 4 point school?


----------



## elnwood

A5pointer said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> An atonement that does not atone? That to me is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.
> 
> For example, when you were an unbeliever before you came to faith in Christ, were your sins atoned for? Was the wrath of God propitiated? Did God hold your sins against you? It wasn't until you had faith that was credited as righteousness that the wrath of God was propitiated against you.
> 
> The 4-point Calvinist applies this same logic to say that faith in Christ is necessary for atonement to be effectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making my point by suggesting that the atonement is in some cases innefectual, I say that would be absurd, are you of the 4 point school?
Click to expand...


So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?

I don't take a position, but as I said, I think both 4-point and 5-point positions are defensible biblically and logically.


----------



## tdowns

*I can never find it....*

I can't remember where I read it, I thought it was in one of the Confessions, that the doctrine of election, is tough, and we should be sensitive to the nature of it, when discussing it with others....Maybe Westminster? 

Anyway, I think that wherever I found it, it served to me as a reminder, we can share God's Sovereignty, His Grace, His Mercy, His atonement to, ALL WHO PUT THEIR FAITH IN Christ; all in truth, using biblical language, without bringing up Limited Atonement, or even T.U.L.I.P. I think, for those interested, and when they start with the questions, and when their theological mind is ready, great stuff! But we often want to make sure T.U.L.I.P. is part of our Gospel Presentation, and I don't think that is necessary.

Although I agree with above poster, that it just makes the Gospel all that more special, when I hear it!


----------



## A5pointer

*So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?*

Going down this trail has no bearing on what we have been discussing


----------



## elnwood

A5pointer said:


> *So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?*
> 
> Going down this trail has no bearing on what we have been discussing



Sure it does. If the atonement is can be made on behalf of an elect person, and yet that elect person is not treated as being atoned for until that person is called unto faith in Christ, then it is also possible that the atonement could be made on behalf of an unelect person, and yet that person is never treated as being atoned for because that person was not chosen to have the Holy Spirit effectually call him.

I'm not saying that the 4-point position is correct, only that both the 4-point position and the 5-point position make the atonement conditional upon faith.


----------



## Israelite

AV1611 said:


> Unity can only be built upon truth





the doctrine of particular redemption is an essential gospel doctrine, and there is no gospel without it. It is the very heart of the gospel.


----------



## A5pointer

elnwood said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So is the atonement effectual for the elect who have not yet come to Christ?*
> 
> Going down this trail has no bearing on what we have been discussing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does. If the atonement is can be made on behalf of an elect person, and yet that elect person is not treated as being atoned for until that person is called unto faith in Christ, then it is also possible that the atonement could be made on behalf of an unelect person, and yet that person is never treated as being atoned for because that person was not chosen to have the Holy Spirit effectually call him.
> 
> I'm not saying that the 4-point position is correct, only that both the 4-point position and the 5-point position make the atonement conditional upon faith.
Click to expand...


There is a great difference between discussing *when* the atonement is considered efectual and a discussion that claims the atonement to ultimately have no effect for some that were atoned for.


----------



## A5pointer

Israelite said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unity can only be built upon truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the doctrine of particular redemption is an essential gospel doctrine, and there is no gospel without it. It is the very heart of the gospel.
Click to expand...


----------



## elnwood

A5pointer said:


> There is a great difference between discussing *when* the atonement is considered efectual and a discussion that claims the atonement to ultimately have no effect for some that were atoned for.



I note that you're using the phrase "considered effectual" instead of "effectual." I think you are using that term because you want to say that for the elect who has not yet been called, the atonement is effectual but not considered effectual? How can you make a distinction between considered effectual and actually being effectual? Logically, isn't the atonement effective or it's not?


----------



## Greg

elnwood said:


> I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.



I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have _enlarged upon_ the will and plan of the Father.


----------



## Israelite

elnwood said:


> I'm not saying that the 4-point position is correct, only that both the 4-point position and the 5-point position make the atonement conditional upon faith.



No x 1million, salvation is NEVER ever conditioned on anything the sinner does.

Faith is not a *condition of *or *prerequisite* to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation.


----------



## elnwood

Greg said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have _enlarged upon_ the will and plan of the Father.
Click to expand...


Greg, you are assuming here an infralapsarian or supralapsarian order of decree in which the decree of atonement follows the decree of election. Note your order: election, then Christ atones.

If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.


----------



## Calvibaptist

elnwood said:


> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with mbj0680 that it is an inferred doctrine, and I would disagree with A5pointer in that I don't think it's a necessary logical chain link in the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have _enlarged upon_ the will and plan of the Father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greg, you are assuming here an infralapsarian or supralapsarian order of decree in which the decree of atonement follows the decree of election. Note your order: election, then Christ atones.
> 
> If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.
Click to expand...


Now, I may be confusing things, but if Christ was actually sent into the world and died to atone for all before God elected a people, then there are two major problems:

1) All of the millions of people who lived during Old Testament times could not be elect because they died before God elected.

2) God is a liar because Ephesians say we have been chosen in Him *before the foundation of the world* and Revelation describes the Lamb's Book of Life as having the names written in them *from the foundation of the world.*


----------



## Calvibaptist

elnwood said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a great difference between discussing *when* the atonement is considered efectual and a discussion that claims the atonement to ultimately have no effect for some that were atoned for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I note that you're using the phrase "considered effectual" instead of "effectual." I think you are using that term because you want to say that for the elect who has not yet been called, the atonement is effectual but not considered effectual? How can you make a distinction between considered effectual and actually being effectual? Logically, isn't the atonement effective or it's not?
Click to expand...


NO! The atonement is effectual for the elect at all times. The only reason the Holy Spirit calls them is *because* they are already atoned for. If the atonement was not effectual for them, they would not be called.

The problem is that universal atonement is actually a universal "possible" atonement. God makes atonement possible for everyone if they will just respond in faith. The Bible never suggests a possible atonement, but a definite one.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Israelite said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unity can only be built upon truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the doctrine of particular redemption is an essential gospel doctrine, and there is no gospel without it. It is the very heart of the gospel.
Click to expand...


 again

Here is a paraphrase of something I was told when I was having my initial negative reaction to LA. "If something in God's Word rubs your fur the wrong way then the wisest thing for you to do is turn the other direction."


----------



## mbj0680

Hi everyone, 

Just to clarify things I want to point out that I believe in the doctrine of LA, but it seems to be an unnecessary drawn out conclusion from what the doctrine of election already says. 
I see the glory of God in our salvation through the doctrine of election. We clearly see that in Ephesians 1. You can not come to the book of Ephesians and not see how unbelievable it is to what God has done for us in Christ before the foundations of the world. 
It is a foregone conclusion and almost a "well ya, of course" to say that not everyone is going to believe if some where elected to heaven and some were not. Therefore the atonement is logically limited/effectual to those who believe.
The Biblical emphasis is on election though and not LA. Therefore the logical discourse to LA seems to be eisegetical instead of exegetical. I can not go to the text and exegete the doctrine of LA. I need the aide of something other than verse by verse exposition of text to lead me there. Does that make since? 
I can go to the Bible and exegete the doctrine of election. That to me speaks volumes as to what God wanted to emphasize. This might be hard for some people to swallow, but it doesn't matter how many people the atonement effected and who it did/didn't effect from our standpoint because it is all about our great God and Savior Jesus Christ and what He did for Himself from the foundations of the world. It's not about what He did for us, it's all about what He did for Himself and for His own glory and His plans. We are merely creatures that have a great privilege to aide Him in those plans He choose for us to be involved with. What a blessed privilege it is! 
God choose us to serve Him in love. Our sphere of life is designed for one reason. God's purpose. We are to appropriate what He has already given us before the foundation of the world. We don't know who he has elected, or what that number is, but we search for the elect. We preach the gospel hoping to find those God has chosen. 
I just don't think we need to take it any farther than that and debate if the atonement is limited, or unlimited, does everyone have a chance to believe or is it a done deal for some and they really have no choice. Let's fight the good fight and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Parable of the talents, what are we doing with what we got for the glory of God?


In the precious name of Jesus Christ 

Blessing on you all, 

-MJ


----------



## MW

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.


----------



## mbj0680

> Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.



Intersting points, Thank you. 

-MJ


----------



## AV1611

armourbearer said:


> Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.





I would also suggest Crisp's sermon _Faith, the Fruit of Union_


----------



## KMK

Leave it Don to stir the pot! However, Don is simply trying to answer the OP and not press a particular stance. I agree with him in a way. The OP as I understand it is basically a question: "Can we have unity w/o agreement on LA?" I say, "Absolutely." I think that eventually disagreement in this area might become a problem but no two Christians are ever going to agree on absolutely everything. In regards to the Lord's Supper, even the Westminster Divines could not agree on whether we should sit "about it" or "at it". 

I agree with Don in that both views can be exegeted from scripture for a time. Eventually one comes to the doctrine of predestination and that ruins the argument for UA. I think unity dealbreakers are those where someone's postition is based on editing or adding to the Bible. Such as with the doctrines of male headship, fornication, authority/sufficiency of Scripture etc.

I remember pastor Morecraft III saying that when he preaches to groups who do not know him, he does not come right out and say that he is a Calvinist but he knows that if he preaches truth, that Calvinism will be heard. If we all stick to truth then our unity will guide us all into all truth.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> but I think the 5-point Calvinist runs into the same inconsistency when he says the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer, yet it is conditional upon faith.




Saying people are wrong isn't divisive.

In answer to the above: There's no inconsistency if you knew how hypotheticals work. Is it sincere to tell people the truth? Are you being genuine? Of course. Now, a *hypothetical* qua *conditional statement* can be *sincere* or *geneuine* without the antecedant being instantiated. For example, this is a genuinely sincere statement: If I flip the coin, then it will fall to the ground. That's genuine, sincere, true, etc., even if I don't actually flip it. Same with this hypothetical: If you repent and believe, you will be saved by the atoning work of Christ. That's *true* and *genuine* and *sincere* ... *as a hypothetical.* And, the offer *is* a hypothetical: "*If* you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved." And that can be *genuinely* said to *all* people, and when it is, it is *a true claim.*



> To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.



Then the atonement was superfluous for the non-eleect. The 4-pointer still holds a limited atonement in two ways:

1) It is limited in *power.* Not all who have Christ's blood shedd will have redemption.

and 

2) It is limited because God chooses who will have faith. He asn't chosen everyone. And so there's a limit. 

a) Notice the "genuine offer" problem works here too. If God doesn't "choose everyone to have faith" then how is the Gospel offer sincere? What does it mean to say that Christ died for them? And, what does it matter if God hasn't "chosen them" to have faith?

So, there's no logical inconsistency with the 5-pointer, and there looks like there is one with the 4-pointer.

We can also throw in Owen's double jeopardy argument. See it defended by reformed baptist Greg Welty here. The 4-pointer has to explain why a just God would punish doubly for sins.


----------



## A5pointer

KMK said:


> Leave it Don to stir the pot! However, Don is simply trying to answer the OP and not press a particular stance. I agree with him in a way. The OP as I understand it is basically a question: *"Can we have unity w/o agreement on LA?" I say, "Absolutely." *I think that eventually disagreement in this area might become a problem but no two Christians are ever going to agree on absolutely everything. In regards to the Lord's Supper, even the Westminster Divines could not agree on whether we should sit "about it" or "at it".
> 
> *I agree with Don in that both views can be exegeted from scripture for a time.* Eventually one comes to the doctrine of predestination and that ruins the argument for UA. I think unity dealbreakers are those where someone's postition is based on editing or adding to the Bible. Such as with the doctrines of male headship, fornication, authority/sufficiency of Scripture etc.
> 
> I remember pastor Morecraft III saying that when he preaches to groups who do not know him, he does not come right out and say that he is a Calvinist but he knows that if he preaches truth, that Calvinism will be heard. If we all stick to truth then our unity will guide us all into all truth.



No and No


----------



## tdowns

*What I was referring to.*

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.a

a. Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.

8. *The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care*,a that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.b So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;c and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.d

I made bold the part, that I take, to mean, these doctrines are difficult to understand, and, maybe, just maybe, the average Christian, does not need to tackle the Limited Atonement issue, to the depth, that many enjoy...it is a great thing, the discussion on this thread, I love it...but, part of the original question, I took to mean, is it necessary, for your average Christian, to need to struggle with it??????

Obviously, the theological types, love to tackle this and more, but isn't it important to remember, not all Christians are called to dive in and understand some of these deeper doctrines, at the "mystery" level.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Tom Bombadil said:


> We can also throw in Owen's double jeopardy argument. See it defended by reformed baptist Greg Welty here. The 4-pointer has to explain why a just God would punish doubly for sins.


The link to Greg Welty's defense was broken for me, but I think this is the page: 
Founders Ministries Blog: Garrett on Calvinism in the Alabama Baptist, Pt. 1


----------



## Israelite

*The Elect’s Propitiation: Jesus Christ The Righteous*

When most religious people speak about the death of Christ, their words reveal they have little or no respect for the holiness, justice, or the grace of God. They speak of Christ suffering, bleeding, and dying for ALL MEN AND WOMEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION, including those who at present are suffering eternal torment in hell. They would never admit it, but they accuse the true and living God of something our own legal system would never allow: DOUBLE JEOPARDY! Their doctrine (teaching) declares Christ suffered the penalty of sin for every man, i.e., ETERNAL CONDEMNATION - “The wages of sin are death” (Romans 6:23a), and then God turns around and punishes some people for the EXACT SAME SINS Christ suffered for at Calvary. This kind of theology unwittingly charges God with injustice. Actually if this were true, God is found to be the cruelest of all because He would have NEEDLESSLY punished His Son who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heaven’s” (Hebrews 7:26). 

When you point out this reasonable argument, they immediately say: “The difference between the sinner who is in hell and the one who goes to heaven is that one BELIEVES, and the other doesn’t BELIEVE.” 

Let the Apostle Paul answer this foolish statement - “Not by works of righteousness (INCLUDING OUR GOOD WORKS OR OUR FAITH) which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” 
(Titus 3:5) 

“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness (THE HOLINESS OR SATISFACTION TO LAW AND JUSTICE REQUIRED TO ALLOW A SINNER TO CONTINUE IN GOD’S PRESENCE) come by the law (by any sinner’s obedience or faith), THEN Christ IS DEAD IN VAIN.” 
(Galatians 2:21)

Surely when we speak of the redemptive work of Christ at Calvary for those He represented, we venture onto holy ground and must with great care seek to honor every attribute of God’s redemptive character as both a “just God”, who will not overlook the least of sin in the best of men, and “a Savior”, who delights to show mercy and grace in a way that is consistent with His holy nature. The Apostle John wrote of Christ’s work at Calvary as a PROPITIATION - “And He is the PROPITIATION for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2) 

John didn’t write that Christ was trying to be the “propitiation” (satisfaction to both the penalty and precept of God’s holy law) for every man, woman and child. Rather, He clearly declared Christ “IS” the “propitiation for OUR SINS.” (Those He represented or THE ELECT). When we read of propitiation in the Scriptures, it always involves perfect satisfaction and reconciliation through an appropriate sacrifice. The Greek word for “propitiation” is used three times in the New Testament, and in every case it always declares Christ and His righteousness ALONE as the hope of our being propitiated (declared legally righteous and holy) to God - (Read Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10) 

Christ’s life, death, and resurrection weren’t an attempt by God to make men savable, if they fulfilled certain conditions, even INCLUDING FAITH. It was His actual accomplishment of the justification of EVERY ELECT SINNER who Christ represented by His obedience unto death at Calvary. May we always honor this glorious work of Redemption with our words and our works!

RICHARD WARMACK


----------



## elnwood

Calvibaptist said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. If God the Father has elected before the foundation of the world a definite number of souls unto salvation, which the Bible does in fact teach, and Christ has said that He has come to do His Father's will and that He and the Father are one, for Christ to have atoned for a non elect person would be completely out of accord with the Father's will. Christ would have _enlarged upon_ the will and plan of the Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg, you are assuming here an infralapsarian or supralapsarian order of decree in which the decree of atonement follows the decree of election. Note your order: election, then Christ atones.
> 
> If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, I may be confusing things, but if Christ was actually sent into the world and died to atone for all before God elected a people, then there are two major problems:
> 
> 1) All of the millions of people who lived during Old Testament times could not be elect because they died before God elected.
> 
> 2) God is a liar because Ephesians say we have been chosen in Him *before the foundation of the world* and Revelation describes the Lamb's Book of Life as having the names written in them *from the foundation of the world.*
Click to expand...


Calvibaptist, you're confusing order of decrees with a chronology of events. Order of decrees does not have to do with events taking place in time. All of the order of decrees happen before the foundation of the world. The supralapsarian vs. infralapsarian vs. Amyraldian positions are all disputes about the logical order of decrees of God that was before the foundation of the world.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.



armourbearer, you write that "You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving" and quote John 3:16 to support. And yet John Calvin, in his commentary on John, clearly connects the loving of John 3:16 to the elect and non-elect alike.

I'm not saying John Calvin was a 4-point Calvinist, but clearly he made a connection between the love of God universally with the sending of his Son.



> _That whosoever believeth on him may not perish._ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.


Commentary on John - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


----------



## Calvibaptist

elnwood said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I may be confusing things, but if Christ was actually sent into the world and died to atone for all before God elected a people, then there are two major problems:
> 
> 1) All of the millions of people who lived during Old Testament times could not be elect because they died before God elected.
> 
> 2) God is a liar because Ephesians say we have been chosen in Him *before the foundation of the world* and Revelation describes the Lamb's Book of Life as having the names written in them *from the foundation of the world.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist, you're confusing order of decrees with a chronology of events. Order of decrees does not have to do with events taking place in time. All of the order of decrees happen before the foundation of the world. The supralapsarian vs. infralapsarian vs. Amyraldian positions are all disputes about the logical order of decrees of God that was before the foundation of the world.
Click to expand...


I was quoting the decrees as YOU stated them:



elnwood said:


> If you put aside that presupposition, then you can see that an Amyraldian order decree fits logically. *God creates all people, All people fall, God sends Christ to die sufficiently for all people, and then, seeing that none will have faith, God chooses the elect, and the Holy Spirit draws them.*



I know what the disputes between the different lapsarian positions are. But you stated the decrees as if they were events that played out in time, not before creation. That is why I said I was confused.


----------



## elnwood

mbj0680 said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Just to clarify things I want to point out that I believe in the doctrine of LA, but it seems to be an unnecessary drawn out conclusion from what the doctrine of election already says.
> I see the glory of God in our salvation through the doctrine of election. We clearly see that in Ephesians 1. You can not come to the book of Ephesians and not see how unbelievable it is to what God has done for us in Christ before the foundations of the world.
> It is a foregone conclusion and almost a "well ya, of course" to say that not everyone is going to believe if some where elected to heaven and some were not. Therefore the atonement is logically limited/effectual to those who believe.
> The Biblical emphasis is on election though and not LA. Therefore the logical discourse to LA seems to be eisegetical instead of exegetical. I can not go to the text and exegete the doctrine of LA. I need the aide of something other than verse by verse exposition of text to lead me there. Does that make since?
> I can go to the Bible and exegete the doctrine of election. That to me speaks volumes as to what God wanted to emphasize. This might be hard for some people to swallow, but it doesn't matter how many people the atonement effected and who it did/didn't effect from our standpoint because it is all about our great God and Savior Jesus Christ and what He did for Himself from the foundations of the world. It's not about what He did for us, it's all about what He did for Himself and for His own glory and His plans. We are merely creatures that have a great privilege to aide Him in those plans He choose for us to be involved with. What a blessed privilege it is!
> God choose us to serve Him in love. Our sphere of life is designed for one reason. God's purpose. We are to appropriate what He has already given us before the foundation of the world. We don't know who he has elected, or what that number is, but we search for the elect. We preach the gospel hoping to find those God has chosen.
> I just don't think we need to take it any farther than that and debate if the atonement is limited, or unlimited, does everyone have a chance to believe or is it a done deal for some and they really have no choice. Let's fight the good fight and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Parable of the talents, what are we doing with what we got for the glory of God?
> 
> 
> In the precious name of Jesus Christ
> 
> Blessing on you all,
> 
> -MJ



I want to pick up with what MJ said: "I can not go to the text and exegete the doctrine of LA." This is essentially why I don't really take a position on this issue. I've yet to find a passage that says that Jesus died on behalf of the elect and the elect only.

You can make logical arguments based on God's consistency or trying to get into God's mind and figure out his logical order of decrees, but I don't see a clear teaching from Scripture one way or another.

I'm happy to just to state things the way John Calvin did and say the atonement was given in some manner out of God's universal love, and the atonement is only effectual for the elect, and not take a hard or divisive position on whether the atonement was a potential payment for all or an actual payment for the elect.


----------



## A5pointer

Don, do you really believe "*the atonement was a potential payment for all*" is a viable option given the biblical evidence on the subject? Are saying that the biblical record is not clear on this question?


----------



## elnwood

A5pointer said:


> Don, do you really believe "*the atonement was a potential payment for all*" is a viable option given the biblical evidence on the subject? Are saying that the biblical record is not clear on this question?



Yes, I think it is a viable option.

I probably need to clarify what I mean when I wrote "potential." I don't mean potential in that potentially the non-elect will be saved. By potential I mean that the nature of the atonement itself may be that it is conditioned upon faith of the recipient.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the atonement was superfluous for the non-eleect.
> 
> We can also throw in Owen's double jeopardy argument. See it defended by reformed baptist Greg Welty here. The 4-pointer has to explain why a just God would punish doubly for sins.
Click to expand...


Yet the 5-point Calvinist would say that the atonement is "sufficient for all, effective for the elect."

The 5-point Calvinist runs across the same inconsistencies.
1. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is the atonement not already superfluous?
2. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is not God's punishment of Jesus more than what was needed? Are not the sins of the non-elect punished doubly?

Should not God have made it sufficient for the elect only?

The "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments assume that punishment of Christ on the cross is an exacting amount of punishment for the elect -- any more, and God is not being just. Some Calvinists believe that, but most do not.

What Calvinists mean by "sufficient for all" is that the intrinsic value of the atonement to cover sin is infinite, and the atonement should not be thought of as an exact amount of punishment meted out on Christ, as if Christ would suffer more or less depending on the number of elect.

When this is understood, the "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments become moot.


----------



## A5pointer

elnwood said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don, do you really believe "*the atonement was a potential payment for all*" is a viable option given the biblical evidence on the subject? Are saying that the biblical record is not clear on this question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think it is a viable option.
> 
> I probably need to clarify what I mean when I wrote "potential." I don't mean potential in that potentially the non-elect will be saved. By potential I mean that the nature of the atonement itself may be that it is conditioned upon faith of the recipient.
Click to expand...


I will not grant you that the scriptures are unclear on specific atonement but even if that were the case it still would be the only viable logical outworking of gracious election. You are at the least on very slippery ground with your position. Would you say that "it is possible that the Christ suffered the wrath of God for men who are then to recieve the wrath again in their own bodies" ?


----------



## elnwood

A5pointer said:


> I will not grant you that the scriptures are unclear on specific atonement but even if that were the case it still would be the only viable logical outworking of gracious election. You are at the least on very slippery ground with your position. Would you say that "it is possible that the Christ suffered the wrath of God for men who are then to recieve the wrath again in their own bodies" ?



See above post.

Would you say that Christ's death is "sufficient for all"?


----------



## A5pointer

elnwood said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will not grant you that the scriptures are unclear on specific atonement but even if that were the case it still would be the only viable logical outworking of gracious election. You are at the least on very slippery ground with your position. Would you say that "it is possible that the Christ suffered the wrath of God for men who are then to recieve the wrath again in their own bodies" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above post.
> 
> Would you say that Christ's death is "sufficient for all"?
Click to expand...


No I would not, as you say it can pose problems. I would say sufficient for it's specific intention, that being the elect only. It certainly could have been sufficient for all if that had been the Lord's intention.


----------



## Greg

elnwood said:


> What Calvinists mean by "sufficient for all" is that the intrinsic value of the atonement to cover sin is infinite



I agree. The value or worth of the blood shed by the Holy One of God is of eternal worth.



> and the atonement should not be thought of as an exact amount of punishment meted out on Christ, as if Christ would suffer more or less depending on the number of elect.



Why not if it's the express plan and _design_ of redemption to completely secure, for all time, the salvation of those given to the Son by the Father? Though the worth and value of Christ's blood is infinite, it's application is limited to the elect by nature of the design and application of God's redemptive plan.

If Christ didn't _actually_ atone for the _actual_ sins of all the elect, positively securing their salvation, then can it truly be called an _actual_ atonement?


----------



## tartanarmy

The issue is *Divine intention*. That cuts through all of the double speak. What does the Triune God intend to happen in and through the Atoning death Of Jesus?

Everything else is just noise.
Sorry for being so direct, but this issue, or rather this doctrine has been hijacked these days, and instead of clarity, there is much mud being thrown about into the mix.

I am more and more of the opinion, that even a 4.99 Calvinist is a no point Calvinist!

Blessings
Mark


----------



## Andrew P.C.

elnwood said:


> I want to pick up with what MJ said: "I can not go to the text and exegete the doctrine of LA." This is essentially why I don't really take a position on this issue. I've yet to find a passage that says that Jesus died on behalf of the elect and the elect only.
> 
> You can make logical arguments based on God's consistency or trying to get into God's mind and figure out his logical order of decrees, but I don't see a clear teaching from Scripture one way or another.
> 
> I'm happy to just to state things the way John Calvin did and say the atonement was given in some manner out of God's universal love, and the atonement is only effectual for the elect, and not take a hard or divisive position on whether the atonement was a potential payment for all or an actual payment for the elect.




Don,

I would like to ask you: whats the point of Christ dying for the non-elect? What does it accomplish? I understand that some people say common grace, yet, Christ taught that from creation God exhibited His "common" grace. Matt 5:45(I'm not saying that's what you believe.. I thought I would give an example of what I mean)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

elnwood said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Scripture ties election to the work of Christ, and vice versa; so how do you propose to separate them exegetically in order to avoid what you call eisegesis? God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son. You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving. God commendeth His LOVE toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ DIED FOR US. Again, electing love is manifested in particular redemption. Scripture leads us to distinct and clear views of God's saving purpose so that through patience and comfort of the Scripture we might have hope. The idea you are proposing leads to a nebulous view of saving grace which weakens assurance of God's love.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer, you write that "You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving" and quote John 3:16 to support. And yet John Calvin, in his commentary on John, clearly connects the loving of John 3:16 to the elect and non-elect alike.
> 
> I'm not saying John Calvin was a 4-point Calvinist, but clearly he made a connection between the love of God universally with the sending of his Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _That whosoever believeth on him may not perish._ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Commentary on John - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Click to expand...


Don,

I think you should re-read what Calvin is saying here:


> he has employed the universal term whosoever, both *to invite all indiscriminately *to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers





> Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, *when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ*, which is nothing else than an entrance into life



Calvin is referring to the universal call of repentance and faith in Christ, also known as the general call.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Calvin:


> Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.



Notice that Calvin uses human race as a general term. And this is so, since we are of the human race. If God did not love the human race none of us would be saved.

Now, does this mean I believe in universal atonement? Absolutely not.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To a 4-pointer, the atonement is conditional upon receiving by faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then the atonement was superfluous for the non-eleect.
> 
> We can also throw in Owen's double jeopardy argument. See it defended by reformed baptist Greg Welty here. The 4-pointer has to explain why a just God would punish doubly for sins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet the 5-point Calvinist would say that the atonement is "sufficient for all, effective for the elect."
> 
> The 5-point Calvinist runs across the same inconsistencies.
> 1. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is the atonement not already superfluous?
> 2. If the atonement is "sufficient for all," then is not God's punishment of Jesus more than what was needed? Are not the sins of the non-elect punished doubly?
> 
> Should not God have made it sufficient for the elect only?
> 
> The "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments assume that punishment of Christ on the cross is an exacting amount of punishment for the elect -- any more, and God is not being just. Some Calvinists believe that, but most do not.
> 
> What Calvinists mean by "sufficient for all" is that the intrinsic value of the atonement to cover sin is infinite, and the atonement should not be thought of as an exact amount of punishment meted out on Christ, as if Christ would suffer more or less depending on the number of elect.
> 
> When this is understood, the "superfluous" and "double jeopardy" arguments become moot.
Click to expand...



So I take it I answered the "genuine offer" "inconsistency." ;-)

On to the next...

The 5-point (or, true) Calvinist doesn't run accross the "same inconsistencies." (And, I fear you didn't quite grasp what I said was inconsistent on the 4-point schema. The inconsistency had to do with the argument *against* the 5-pointer regarding the "genuine offer." Please re-read the argument and then comment again.) Anyhow, the atonement being "sufficient for all" says *nothing* about an atonement *actually* being made for subjects. Now, if you don't think the atonemrnt was actually *made for* all persons, then you hold to the L. If not, the double jeopardy argument applies. Why do some who had the atonement made for them *end up* in hell? This argument doesn't apply to the 5-pointer because the atonement was made *for them* yet is was *sufficient* for them *in that* there would have been *no more* suffering required *if* they had, *contrary to fact,* been included among the elect. 

So, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments work if you assume that the atonement was made *for them* (i.e., the non-elect). You've neither answered, nor grasped, the weight of the problem; or so it appears.


----------



## Israelite

tartanarmy said:


> The issue is *Divine intention*. That cuts through all of the double speak. What does the Triune God intend to happen in and through the Atoning death Of Jesus?
> 
> Everything else is just noise.
> Sorry for being so direct, but this issue, or rather this doctrine has been hijacked these days, and instead of clarity, there is much mud being thrown about into the mix.
> 
> I am more and more of the opinion, that even a 4.99 Calvinist is a no point Calvinist!


----------



## Israelite

4 point calvinism and arminianism are near enough the same false gospel in the fact they they both don't believe the difference between salvation and damnation is the work of Christ ALONE but their own faith.

The only difference is that the 4 point calvinists believes in the reformed version of salvation conditioned on the sinner.
i.e "God gave me the faith to meet the condition of salvation which is faith"

and the arminian just blatantly believes in salvation conditioned on the sinner.
i.e "Jesus died for everyone, he has done his part now we must do our part and choose to accept or reject what Christ has done for us."


----------



## elnwood

Andrew P.C. said:


> Don,
> 
> I would like to ask you: whats the point of Christ dying for the non-elect? What does it accomplish? I understand that some people say common grace, yet, Christ taught that from creation God exhibited His "common" grace. Matt 5:45(I'm not saying that's what you believe.. I thought I would give an example of what I mean)



It's very hard to give a good satisfactory answer to "what's the point" questions because I cannot read the mind of God. If in fact Christ died for the non-elect, certainly an exhibition of his love towards them (as you alluded to) could be an answer. John Calvin believed that the Father gave the Son out of a universal love. You could ask John Calvin, "What's the point" as well.


----------



## elnwood

Andrew P.C. said:


> Don,
> 
> I think you should re-read what Calvin is saying here:
> 
> 
> 
> he has employed the universal term whosoever, both *to invite all indiscriminately *to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, *when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ*, which is nothing else than an entrance into life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calvin is referring to the universal call of repentance and faith in Christ, also known as the general call.
Click to expand...


It is certainly referring to the universal call, but it is also talking about God's love for the world. Note Calvin says "Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used" in John 3:16, "For God so loved the World."


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> The 5-point (or, true) Calvinist doesn't run accross the "same inconsistencies." (And, I fear you didn't quite grasp what I said was inconsistent on the 4-point schema. The inconsistency had to do with the argument *against* the 5-pointer regarding the "genuine offer." Please re-read the argument and then comment again.) Anyhow, the atonement being "sufficient for all" says *nothing* about an atonement *actually* being made for subjects. Now, if you don't think the atonemrnt was actually *made for* all persons, then you hold to the L. If not, the double jeopardy argument applies. Why do some who had the atonement made for them *end up* in hell? This argument doesn't apply to the 5-pointer because the atonement was made *for them* yet is was *sufficient* for them *in that* there would have been *no more* suffering required *if* they had, *contrary to fact,* been included among the elect.
> 
> So, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments work if you assume that the atonement was made *for them* (i.e., the non-elect). You've neither answered, nor grasped, the weight of the problem; or so it appears.



You're exactly right. The 4-point Calvinist doesn't assume the atonement was "made for them" because for them, the atonement is potential, not "actual." Thus, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments don't work because they assume an "actual" atonement.


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> armourbearer, you write that "You cannot separate the intense loving from the definite giving" and quote John 3:16 to support. And yet John Calvin, in his commentary on John, clearly connects the loving of John 3:16 to the elect and non-elect alike.



I suggest you read the Doctor of Geneva again: "For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on _the purpose of his will_, (Eph. i. 5.)" Then for the connection of love and atonement: "For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us?"


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> It's very hard to give a good satisfactory answer to "what's the point" questions because I cannot read the mind of God. If in fact Christ died for the non-elect, certainly an exhibition of his love towards them (as you alluded to) could be an answer. John Calvin believed that the Father gave the Son out of a universal love. You could ask John Calvin, "What's the point" as well.



I'd search the archives because Matthew Winzer has pretty much shredded the using of Calvin for 4-pointer arguments.

Anyway, (a) you're use of "love" is subject to ambiguity. Frequently divine "love" is intimately connected to divine "foreknowledge" whcih is intimately connected to "election." Look before you leap! (b) Jesus says that "I lay down my life for my sheep." Not "for my sheep and the wolves." (c) In fact, this atoneing "love" is "the *greatest*" kind of love one could express. How would this not lead to salvation. (d) The "ransom" is for "many." Though 'all' doesn't necessarily mean 'all,' 'many' never means 'all' (universally). (c) How does this tie into your reformed baptist views of Hebrews? The covenant? The role of Christ as high priest? Christ's *death* was the offering of a *priest* for *the people.* So are all men in the new covenant, in a sense? Systematics comes in helpful here.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> You're exactly right. The 4-point Calvinist doesn't assume the atonement was "made for them" because for them, the atonement is potential, not "actual." Thus, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments don't work because they assume an "actual" atonement.




Then you can't see how you've refuted the 4-pointers.

They say "Christ died for everyone."

We do not.

If Christ did not die *for everyone* then atonement is *limited.* To say that you hold *exactly to the 5-point view* but then call yourself (or, those guys) 4-pointers, is misleading.

I don't even think you've understood *their* arguments, now.

The amyraldian says that Christ did die for all men, that this made all men "saveable," but that not all men would take hold of this atonement *made for them* by faith. I mean, why even bring up the "genuine offer" problem if you say that 4-pointers *don't say* that Christ dies for all men! I think you've made your arguments inconsistent now. Nicole summarizes



> In this book [by Amyraut] the following positions were espoused:
> 
> 1.Sin is he result of the darkening of the understanding.
> 
> 2.God moved by an earnest desire to save all mankind, decided to give in ransom His Son Jesus Christ, *who died “equally for all men” and to make a universal offer of salvation to all men*.
> 
> 3.God has predestined all men and every man unto salvation, provided they believe; and in nature there is a sufficient presentation of truth so that men may exercise faith if they only will do so.
> 
> 4.Although man is not precluded from believing by any external constraint, his corruption has rendered him morally unable to accept God’s offer. It is therefore necessary that God himself should produce faith in the hearts of those whom he has chosen to redeem.
> 
> 5.This he does only for the elect.
> 
> E. Palmer, ed. The Encyclopedia of Christianity (NFCE 1964), 1:186.




Furthermore, the *main* motivation for 4-pointers seems to me to be upholding the sincere offer of the gospel. But I answered that above, showing how it can*easily* be maintained on the 5-pointer. If something loses it's main endorsement for the position, we should drop that something. Not only can the 5-pointer easily answer the problem, we saw that the same problem arises *even on Amyraldianism.* This undercuts the motivation for it.

And, as Paul Helm points out:

“Saving faith is not a person’s belief that he has been saved by Christ nor even that Christ has died for him in particular. It cannot be this because until he trusts in Christ in order to be saved he has no reason to think that Christ has died for him in particular or that Christ has saved him,” The Beginnings: Word & Spirit in Conversion (Banner of Truth 1986), 69.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> I'd search the archives because Matthew Winzer has pretty much shredded the using of Calvin for 4-pointer arguments.



Reference? I'm not saying that Calvin is a 4-pointer, only that his use of love in John 3:16 in reference to Jesus has the same "inconsistencies" that 5-pointers accuse 4-pointers of.



> Anyway, (a) you're use of "love" is subject to ambiguity. Frequently divine "love" is intimately connected to divine "foreknowledge" whcih is intimately connected to "election." Look before you leap! (b) Jesus says that "I lay down my life for my sheep." Not "for my sheep and the wolves." (c) In fact, this atoneing "love" is "the *greatest*" kind of love one could express. How would this not lead to salvation. (d) The "ransom" is for "many." Though 'all' doesn't necessarily mean 'all,' 'many' never means 'all' (universally). (c) How does this tie into your reformed baptist views of Hebrews? The covenant? The role of Christ as high priest? Christ's *death* was the offering of a *priest* for *the people.* So are all men in the new covenant, in a sense? Systematics comes in helpful here.



Certainly there are many types of love. I point you to D. A. Carson's excellent book "Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God."

I'm not convinced "many" can never mean "all" -- it's in the context of *one* man giving his life for *many*, so I think the point of such passages is the relative difference in amount, not to constrain the number.

For example, if I went to a Baptist convention, and five people showed up, I'd say "There weren't many Baptists." If I went and, say, all the Baptists in the world showed up, I'd say "There were many Baptists attending." If I gave a speech, I'd say "I gave a speech to many Baptists." The word "many" has to do with the relative amount. It has nothing to do with whether all the Baptists were there.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're exactly right. The 4-point Calvinist doesn't assume the atonement was "made for them" because for them, the atonement is potential, not "actual." Thus, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments don't work because they assume an "actual" atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can't see how you've refuted the 4-pointers.
> 
> They say "Christ died for everyone."
> 
> We do not.
> 
> If Christ did not die *for everyone* then atonement is *limited.* To say that you hold *exactly to the 5-point view* but then call yourself (or, those guys) 4-pointers, is misleading.
> 
> I don't even think you've understood *their* arguments, now.
> 
> The amyraldian says that Christ did die for all men, that this made all men "saveable," but that not all men would take hold of this atonement *made for them* by faith. I mean, why even bring up the "genuine offer" problem if you say that 4-pointers *don't say* that Christ dies for all men! I think you've made your arguments inconsistent now. Nicole summarizes
Click to expand...


You'll have to restate this point again. I don't understand.

I agree with you that the 4-point position is that the atonement makes people "savable." How has this been refuted? When did I say I hold "exactly to the 5-point view"?



> Furthermore, the *main* motivation for 4-pointers seems to me to be upholding the sincere offer of the gospel. But I answered that above, showing how it can*easily* be maintained on the 5-pointer. If something loses it's main endorsement for the position, we should drop that something. Not only can the 5-pointer easily answer the problem, we saw that the same problem arises *even on Amyraldianism.* This undercuts the motivation for it.



You essentially formulated the "genuine offer of the gospel" in a hypothetical sense, i.e. if you believe, Christ has paid for your sins.

The question is not whether the person offering the gospel is genuine, but whether the offer itself is genuine. After all, it's called "genuine offer," not "genuine offerer."

Let's say I'm giving away a scholarship for black students. Assuming you're not black and I knew that, could I genuinely offer you that scholarship? I could tell you, "If you are black, you can receive this scholarship." Is that a genuine offer?


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Certainly there are many types of love. I point you to D. A. Carson's excellent book "Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God."



Got it. Good book.



> I'm not convinced "many" can never mean "all" -- it's in the context of *one* man giving his life for *many*, so I think the point of such passages is the relative difference in amount, not to constrain the number.



I said "in Scripture" 'all' can (and does) mean "not all" but "many" never means "all" universally.



> For example, if I went to a Baptist convention, and five people showed up, I'd say "There weren't many Baptists." If I went and, say, all the Baptists in the world showed up, I'd say "There were many Baptists attending." If I gave a speech, I'd say "I gave a speech to many Baptists." The word "many" has to do with the relative amount. It has nothing to do with whether all the Baptists were there.



I don't know why you'd say "there were many baptists attending" if "all the baptists in the world showed up." Seems ad hoc. Seems likke you'd say, "Wow! I went to a conference an EVERY SINGLE BAPTIST IN THE WORLD SHOWED UP!!!!" "Even Carson." "Yep! EVERY." "Even Wellum?" "Yes, I said 'ALL'!" 

But, you said that Christ didn't "die for all." So, this is all pointless. You've refuted Amyraldianism for us.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> You'll have to restate this point again. I don't understand.
> 
> I agree with you that the 4-point position is that the atonement makes people "savable." How has this been refuted? When did I say I hold "exactly to the 5-point view"?



You said 4-pointers don't say "Christ died for all men." You said, "You're exactly right. The 4-point Calvinist doesn't assume the atonement was "made for them" because for them, the atonement is potential, not "actual." But, if Christ died "for all" then, logically, he died "for them" (i.e., the non-elect). I was showing that your misrepresented the 4-point system. They *do say* that the "atonement was made *for them.*"



> You essentially formulated the "genuine offer of the gospel" in a hypothetical sense, i.e. if you believe, Christ has paid for your sins.



No, the Gospel offer is: If you repent and believe, you will be saved." It's the "good news" of "salvation." And, that's *exactly* how it comes to us in the Bible. Since you like to quote from the NKJV: Rom. 10:9 "that *if* you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Since the *truth value* of the condition is *true,* because it would be impossible for the antecedant to be true and the consequent false, then when you tell *anyone* that, you've told them the *truth.* I take it as an undeniable fact that, _if you tell someone the truth, you've been genuine or sincere with them_. Hence the "sincere" offer of the gospel is fully consistent (despite your previous complaint) with 5-point Calvinism.



> The question is not whether the person offering the gospel is genuine, but whether the offer itself is genuine. After all, it's called "genuine offer," not "genuine offerer."



The offer itself *is* genuine. Since the condition *itself* has a true truth-value.



> Let's say I'm giving away a scholarship for black students. Assuming you're not black and I knew that, could I genuinely offer you that scholarship? I could tell you, "If you are black, you can receive this scholarship." Is that a genuine offer?



The conditional statement is *true* and it is genuine in that sense. That I am not Black has *nothing* to do with the truth or genuineness of the statement.

But, you have the same problem on *your* reading. That is, when you tell someone "if you believe, you will be saved," and *you knew* that they were non-elect (say, they didn't have the red E tattoo on their forehead), would you be sincere? If so, how? They *can't* believe since God must regenerate them, and God has only chosen to regenerate some.

Therefore, again, I point out that the main motivator for amyraldianism has been rendered moot.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> I'm not convinced "many" can never mean "all" -- it's in the context of *one* man giving his life for *many*, so I think the point of such passages is the relative difference in amount, not to constrain the number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said "in Scripture" 'all' can (and does) mean "not all" but "many" never means "all" universally.
Click to expand...


Do you have anything to back up that assertion?

Even if true, it does not prove LA. Saying Christ died for the elect does not mean that Christ did not also die for the non-elect in some manner also. If you had a verse saying, "Christ died for the elect and not the non-elect," you'd have something.



> But, you said that Christ didn't "die for all." So, this is all pointless. You've refuted Amyraldianism for us.



I don't believe I ever said this. Perhaps you misunderstood me?

If you were referring to this exchange:



elnwood said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments work if you assume that the atonement was made *for them* (i.e., the non-elect). You've neither answered, nor grasped, the weight of the problem; or so it appears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're exactly right. The 4-point Calvinist doesn't assume the atonement was "made for them" because for them, the atonement is potential, not "actual." Thus, the superfluous and double jeopardy arguments don't work because they assume an "actual" atonement.
Click to expand...


I was using your phrase, "made for them," to say that the atonement was not "made for them" in the sense that a 5-pointer (in this case, you) was arguing -- an actual, not potential, atonement. As you said, the 4-pointer believes in a potential atonement that is conditional upon faith. I thought that was clear in the above post.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> I was using your phrase, "made for them," to say that the atonement was not "made for them" in the sense that a 5-pointer (in this case, you) was arguing -- an actual, not potential, atonement. As you said, the 4-pointer believes in a potential atonement that is conditional upon faith. I thought that was clear in the above post.




And I was using it in *any* sense, not in a 5-pointer sense.

So, perhaps you can now go back and answer the arguments.

As far as backing up the assertion, James White makes it, for one. And, I'm not going to list every verse in the bible, so you need to find a counteraxmple.

Anyway, the Bible says that the ones Jesus lays his life down for are *his sheep* and that *his sheep* - the ones he died for - *know* him. Do non-elect know him?

And, how do you answer the high priest argument? On his way to offer *atonement,* Jesus says:



> John 17
> Jesus Prays for Himself
> 1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should[a] give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
> Jesus Prays for His Disciples
> 
> 6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
> 9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me,* that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world,[c] I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept;[d] and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
> Jesus Prays for All Believers
> 
> 20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[e] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
> 24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”*


*

And,




Hebrews 9
The Earthly Sanctuary
1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
Limitations of the Earthly Service

6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; 8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
The Heavenly Sanctuary

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
The Mediator’s Death Necessary

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
Greatness of Christ’s Sacrifice

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> As far as backing up the assertion, James White makes it, for one. And, I'm not going to list every verse in the bible, so you need to find a counteraxmple.



Not going to bother. I don't think it's clear either way, which is why I don't take a position. 



Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, the Bible says that the ones Jesus lays his life down for are *his sheep* and that *his sheep* - the ones he died for - *know* him. Do non-elect know him?



No, the non-elect do not know them. I already answered this point above. Does Jesus laying his life down for the elect mean that he did not also lay down his life for the non-elect? It doesn't logically follow.



> And, how do you answer the high priest argument? On his way to offer *atonement,* Jesus says:



What's the argument? I need to know how you are interpreting the Scripture you quoted.


----------



## Jim Johnston

If Christ died for someone, he died *as priest.* If Christ is your high priest, he makes intercession for you. If Christ died for you, he makes intercession for you. He does not interceed for everyone. Therefore, he did not die for everyone. QED.


----------



## MW

Don -- we believe and therefore speak. The Scriptures say Christ died for the sheep. How do we know He didn't also die for non-sheep in some way? We don't. Scripture is silent on that point, which means we should be silent too.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> What's the argument? I need to know how you are interpreting the Scripture you quoted.



It's obvious to me as you read Heb. 9.

And, 10 for that matter:



> Hebrews 10
> Christ's Sacrifice Once for All
> 1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
> 5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
> "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
> but a body you prepared for me;
> 6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
> you were not pleased.
> 7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
> I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
> 
> 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.



I guess I'd need to see why these don't refute the 4-point position.

I also think you're doing damage to one of the most popular and strongest of the RB arguments. The death of Christ as *something other than* high priest is foreign to Scripture. Either Christ died for the non-elect as a non-priest, or he didn't. He didn't. Therefore he died for the non-elect as a high priest. If Christ is your high priest then you're in the NC. Christ died for all men. All men are in the NC. No non-elect are in the NC (baptist premise). Therefore 4-pointerism contradicts reformed baptist polemics.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> Don -- we believe and therefore speak. The Scriptures say Christ died for the sheep. How do we know He didn't also die for non-sheep in some way? We don't. Scripture is silent on that point, which means we should be silent too.



Hi armourbearer,

Thank you for that. I follow your argument, and I agree that we don't know for sure that Christ did not also die for non-sheep in some way. My conclusion, though, is to not take a position and affirm with the original poster that this should be a non-essential.

I think there is enough ambiguity of interpretation in verses like Isaiah 53:6, 2 Cor 5:14-15, 1 Tim 2:6, 1 John 2:2, John 3:16-18, 2 Peter 2:1, Hebrews 2:9 and many others that some or all of these can legitimately be interpreted either particularly or universally. I'm not a trained exegete in the original languages, but I know there are good bible scholars on both sides.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Don,

Just to let you know, though I do think this is a vital issue, vitally important, with disasterous implications if L is rejected, I do not think it is something to divide over. Sometimes I feel like reformed people act as if Christ's death doesn't cover theological sins too (with obvious exceptions such as damnable heresy).


----------



## MW

elnwood said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don -- we believe and therefore speak. The Scriptures say Christ died for the sheep. How do we know He didn't also die for non-sheep in some way? We don't. Scripture is silent on that point, which means we should be silent too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that. I follow your argument, and I agree that we don't know for sure that Christ did not also die for non-sheep in some way. My conclusion, though, is to not take a position and affirm with the original poster that this should be a non-essential.
Click to expand...


But we do know for sure that Christ died for His sheep. Scripture is clear as day on this point. Therefore we should speak where Scripture speaks, and be silent where Scripture is silent, and let the scholars run themselves ragged over the electric impulses of their own brains.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> I guess I'd need to see why these don't refute the 4-point position.
> 
> I also think you're doing damage to one of the most popular and strongest of the RB arguments. The death of Christ as *something other than* high priest is foreign to Scripture. Either Christ died for the non-elect as a non-priest, or he didn't. He didn't. Therefore he died for the non-elect as a high priest. If Christ is your high priest then you're in the NC. Christ died for all men. All men are in the NC. No non-elect are in the NC (baptist premise). Therefore 4-pointerism contradicts reformed baptist polemics.



I would argue that Christ does not intercede until a person comes to faith. If Christ is interceding for you as a high priest, then you are in the New Covenant. The RB position is that everyone in the NC is regenerated. The elect who have not been regenerated yet are therefore not in the NC. This is consistent with RB teaching. What you are proposing is that the unregenerate elect are in the NC since they have Christ as their high priest, which is inconsistent with RB teaching.

In the Old Testament, what determined whether or not God was pleased with the sacrifices that the priests offered? God says he is not pleased with the burnt offerings because the people are disobedient.

A 4-pointer could argue that, in the same way, God will not be pleased with Christ's sacrifice on behalf of the non-elect if the non-elect is disobedient. So in that sense, it seems consistent with the priestly sacrifice motif in the Old Testament.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> Don,
> 
> Just to let you know, though I do think this is a vital issue, vitally important, with disasterous implications if L is rejected, I do not think it is something to divide over. Sometimes I feel like reformed people act as if Christ's death doesn't cover theological sins too (with obvious exceptions such as damnable heresy).



I understand and appreciate your convictions. Thank you for that.


----------



## cih1355

If Jesus was actually punished for everyone and God's justice was satisfied, but some people go to hell, then God's justice would be perverted. If the punishment for someone's sins has already been taken care of, but that person still goes to hell to be punished for his sins, then God's justice is perverted.


----------



## elnwood

armourbearer said:


> But we do know for sure that Christ died for His sheep. Scripture is clear as day on this point. Therefore we should speak where Scripture speaks, and be silent where Scripture is silent, and let the scholars run themselves ragged over the electric impulses of their own brains.





I can tell people all day that Christ laid down his life for his sheep, God has a particular love for his elect, and that God's purpose was to save the elect through the atonement. That much is clear. I always try to stick to that, and not get into theological arguments. Except on PB, and among friends, of course!


----------



## Israelite

cih1355 said:


> If Jesus was actually punished for everyone and God's justice was satisfied, but some people go to hell, then God's justice would be perverted. If the punishment for someone's sins has already been taken care of, but that person still goes to hell to be punished for his sins, then God's justice is perverted.



Curt, not everyone is logical like yourself, some men like to pervert God's justice. 

the 4 point calvinist doesn't see things the scriptural way that you do, they don't believe the difference between salvation and damnation is the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ ALONE but rather their own faith.

the 4 point calvinists believes that salvation is conditioned on his faith as Elnwood as pointed out in his previous posts on this thread.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

elnwood said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, the Bible says that the ones Jesus lays his life down for are *his sheep* and that *his sheep* - the ones he died for - *know* him. Do non-elect know him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the non-elect do not know them. I already answered this point above. Does Jesus laying his life down for the elect mean that he did not also lay down his life for the non-elect? It doesn't logically follow.
Click to expand...


Don,

John 10:26



> "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."



If a prerequisite(i guess you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said he lays His life down for the sheep, yet, he tells the jews here that they are not of his sheep.... wouldn't this conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about who he is laying his life down for.( I would like to note, this isn't from some "logical" conclusion about election)


----------



## Israelite

Andrew P.C. said:


> "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a prerequisite(i guess you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said he lays His life down for the sheep, yet, he tells the jews here that they are not of his sheep.... wouldn't this conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about who he is laying his life down for.( I would like to note, this isn't from some "logical" conclusion about election)
Click to expand...


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> I would argue that Christ does not intercede until a person comes to faith.



Well, what was he doing in John 17? Was he not interceeding for "all those that *will* believe?



> If Christ is interceding for you as a high priest, then you are in the New Covenant. The RB position is that everyone in the NC is regenerated. The elect who have not been regenerated yet are therefore not in the NC. This is consistent with RB teaching. What you are proposing is that the unregenerate elect are in the NC since they have Christ as their high priest, which is inconsistent with RB teaching.



Well, not to get into a side debate, but there is disagreement within the RB tradition on that. Some say that the *elect* are in the NC. For example, Jesus is the *priest* of the *invisible church* which includes "all the elect who have, are, and will live.



> Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, *23to the church of the firstborn*, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24*to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant*, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.



Anyway, that's the way *some* RBs have argued.




> In the Old Testament, what determined whether or not God was pleased with the sacrifices that the priests offered? God says he is not pleased with the burnt offerings because the people are disobedient.
> 
> A 4-pointer could argue that, in the same way, God will not be pleased with Christ's sacrifice on behalf of the non-elect if the non-elect is disobedient. So in that sense, it seems consistent with the priestly sacrifice motif in the Old Testament.



Right, but the problem is that Hebrews says that this is how the NC is better. If atonement is made, you get saved. That was not the case in the OC.



> Heb. 2:17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and *that he might make atonement for the sins of the people*.



and



> Heb. 10: 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. *12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God*. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, *14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy*.



and



> He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.



At any rate, how could you be outside of the New Covenant and yet have Jesus as your high priest. Even in the OT if you didn't come to God by faith, you were still a covenant member. The idea that one is outside of the covenant, with Jesus as his atoning high priest, is foreign to Scripture.


----------



## mbj0680

It's interesting to observe this much debating and disagreements between Calvinists themselves. I think we should listen to Lenski when he talks about election and things pertaining to eternal acts of God. 

Here is a great quote from Lenski:

"Any eternal act of God's pertaining to "us" in time is bound to offer difficulty to our minds and our thinking. Calvinism and synergism rationalize in order to remove the difficulty; it remains, we must let it remain."

-MJ


----------



## Iconoclast

*good verses*

Many good verses have been offered,with good biblically based explanations on this thread.
The verses from John17 and Hebrews,concerning the priestly work of our Great High priest are overwhelmingly conclusive if studied out.
I would like to add this section of Hebrews dealing with the eternal covenant of redemption explained as introducing our Lord and Saviour as having a unique and eternal Priesthood,on behalf of the seed of Abraham. It does not say he took on the seed of Adam

but He took on Him the seed of abraham. This viewed in context of the once for all time sacrifice, in chapter 10, and having accomplished redemption in chapter 9 , It is hard to see any other position as viable. Here is the Hebrews 2 section;
13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 

The list of verses that were offered,that seem to speak of ,all,or many,etc cannot hold up to the clearer passages like this one.
It is a vital doctrine,but definately not milk. If someone has not studied it out they might not be really equiped to present these truths evangelistically,or to defend the arguments of the natural men who resist and supress the truth.
John Murray in Redemption.Accomplished and Applied wades through all of the universalist verses offered and makes short work of them.
A. W. Pink on Hebrews 2 does a great job working through these verses


----------



## mbj0680

I would like to say again that I believe and understand LA. I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if Christ's death was sufficient for all, and effective only for the elect".

I would also like to add that since this thread has begun it has reinforced my view that the doctrine of LA is not that important of a doctrine, because not even Calvinists can agree on it. We are not encouraging each other in the love of Christ. We are building an exclusive club of we are theologically right and you are not. Somehow if you are not fully a 5 point Calvinists then you haven't quite arrived and are still only drinking the milk of the Word. 

Well gentleman this thread has driven me to conclude that I am not a Calvinist nor want to be if this is how Calvinism builds each other up.

In the precious name of Jesus Christ,
 
Blessisng, 

-MJ


----------



## AV1611

mbj0680 said:


> I would like to say again that I believe and understand LA. I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if Christ's death was sufficient for all, and effective only for the elect".



*Canons of Dordt, Head 2, Article 3* - "This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> But we do know for sure that Christ died for His sheep. Scripture is clear as day on this point. Therefore we should speak where Scripture speaks, and be silent where Scripture is silent, and let the scholars run themselves ragged over the electric impulses of their own brains.



Wisdom for the ages!


----------



## tartanarmy

Calvinists may argue till the cows come home, I care not a wit!
Besides, let's face it, many today who align themselves as "Calvinists" are not even remotely close to being such!

As far as the sentiment that the "L" is not that important a teaching, such tells me all I need to know.

Anyway, unless the Lord intervenes, these kinds of discussions shall soon become the test as to whether we even have an objective and meaningful gospel to talk about.
I fear that 5-10 years from now, the subjects being discussed among those who love truth, shall look more like post modernism on steroids rather than anything remotely connected with absolutism in any meaningful sense. If in fact, we are not already at that reality.

Knowing that Christ really redeems and actually and really conquers sin and death for some, is the glue that holds any objective assurance within our grasp as Christians, and without it, we enter a slippery slope that leads nowhere good that I am aware of.

Mark


----------



## tartanarmy

Oh and another thing..Even though may may just let the scholars run ragged with their electrical impulses and all of that, let us remember, that many of these Scholars are in positions of authority, and hence are exposing ordinary people to their drivel, and such shall have an impact in due time.

Mark


----------



## Jim Johnston

mbj0680 said:


> I would like to say again that I believe and understand LA. I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if Christ's death was sufficient for all, and effective only for the elect".
> 
> I would also like to add that since this thread has begun it has reinforced my view that the doctrine of LA is not that important of a doctrine, because not even Calvinists can agree on it. We are not encouraging each other in the love of Christ. We are building an exclusive club of we are theologically right and you are not. Somehow if you are not fully a 5 point Calvinists then you haven't quite arrived and are still only drinking the milk of the Word.
> 
> Well gentleman this thread has driven me to conclude that I am not a Calvinist nor want to be if this is how Calvinism builds each other up.
> 
> In the precious name of Jesus Christ,
> 
> Blessisng,
> 
> -MJ



**Sarcasm on**

I would like to say again that I believe and understand foreknowledge and freewill . I just think time is better spent working out our salvation and trying to figure out how to be one of the elect instead of deliberating about things like: "I wonder if God can foreknow the actions of libertarian free men and how this affects the doctrine of omniscience".

I would also like to add that since I have read the various works and treatments of this subjects by Arminians it has reinforced my view that the doctrine of omniscience, foreknowledge, and libertarian freedom is not that important of doctrines, because not even Arminians can agree on it. We are not encouraging each other in the love of Christ. We are building an exclusive club of we are theologically right and you are not. Somehow if you are not fully an Open Theist then you haven't quite arrived and are still only drinking the milk of the Word. 

Well gentleman this thread has driven me to conclude that I am not an Arminian nor want to be if this is how Arminianism builds each other up.

**Sarcasm off**

This doctrine does have implications worth fighting over. I, for one, think it is not a waste of my time to defend the atonement as not being wasted on men who will never come. Jesus' death was so important. The pinnacle of history. Yet some want to say his blood was _wasted_ on many. That he intended to save all, yet his blood could not do this. That he needed _your_ cooperation. That he lay down his life for his sheep _and_ the wolves. That he went forth as the great high priest, yet nothing changed. The blood of bulls and goats were unable to take away sin, and so was Jesus death! Why not just stick to the beggerly sacrifices of the Old Testament? What was the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice? What, it was of no more strength and value than the blood of farm animals? 

So, my friend, you bet we get fired up over this. Treating the saviors blood as weak gets under our skin, for some reason. And, let's not pretend that you don't believe in Limited Atonement. You don't limit the _subjects_ of the atonement maybe, but you _do_ limit its _power_. 

Next time you take communion, remember that you should say: Mark 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for [EVERYONE IN THE WORLD]," he said to them." 

In fact, why not serve communion to everyone in the world?? The body was broken for everyone, the blood was shed for everyone, right?


----------



## elnwood

Andrew P.C. said:


> John 10:26
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a prerequisite(i guess you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said he lays His life down for the sheep, yet, he tells the jews here that they are not of his sheep.... wouldn't this conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about who he is laying his life down for.( I would like to note, this isn't from some "logical" conclusion about election)
Click to expand...


Possibly, but not logically necessary unless Christ specifically says "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep."

Let's say I love eating cashews, and I love buying cashews. I tell the peanuts, "I love buying and eating cashews. You are not cashews." Does that mean I don't also buy peanuts? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I buy both, but I have a special particular love for cashews.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that Christ does not intercede until a person comes to faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what was he doing in John 17? Was he not interceeding for "all those that *will* believe?
Click to expand...


I don't think we can draw a direct correlation between the prayer of John 17 and the intercession that Christ does in a high priestly role.

For example, Christ prays for the disciples, which includes Judas, and clearly Judas is not elect. Christ says he prays them, and that he has not lost one of them except the son of perdition.



Tom Bombadil said:


> If Christ is interceding for you as a high priest, then you are in the New Covenant. The RB position is that everyone in the NC is regenerated. The elect who have not been regenerated yet are therefore not in the NC. This is consistent with RB teaching. What you are proposing is that the unregenerate elect are in the NC since they have Christ as their high priest, which is inconsistent with RB teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not to get into a side debate, but there is disagreement within the RB tradition on that. Some say that the *elect* are in the NC. For example, Jesus is the *priest* of the *invisible church* which includes "all the elect who have, are, and will live.
> 
> Anyway, that's the way *some* RBs have argued.
Click to expand...


Interesting. That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know how they get around the idea that everyone in the New Covenant is regenerated. If you don't mind, I'd be interested in know which RBs argue this.



> Right, but the problem is that Hebrews says that this is how the NC is better. If atonement is made, you get saved. That was not the case in the OC.



I'm not going to push that argument because forming doctrine from typologies is always tenuous, but I think the argument can be made. Obviously Christ's sacrifice is better than the OC sacrifices because it actually does (or can, to a 4-pointer) remove sin.



> At any rate, how could you be outside of the New Covenant and yet have Jesus as your high priest. Even in the OT if you didn't come to God by faith, you were still a covenant member. The idea that one is outside of the covenant, with Jesus as his atoning high priest, is foreign to Scripture.



I don't think that Jesus becomes a person's high priest until he intercedes for him, and he doesn't intercede for someone until they have faith.


----------



## AV1611

Why would God the Father subject his Son to the torments so great that he cried of being forsaken for those he knew could never believe because he had decreed never to save them?

Read this please.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that Christ does not intercede until a person comes to faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what was he doing in John 17? Was he not interceeding for "all those that *will* believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think we can draw a direct correlation between the prayer of John 17 and the intercession that Christ does in a high priestly role.
> 
> For example, Christ prays for the disciples, which includes Judas, and clearly Judas is not elect. Christ says he prays them, and that he has not lost one of them except the son of perdition.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know how they get around the idea that everyone in the New Covenant is regenerated. If you don't mind, I'd be interested in know which RBs argue this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but the problem is that Hebrews says that this is how the NC is better. If atonement is made, you get saved. That was not the case in the OC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to push that argument because forming doctrine from typologies is always tenuous, but I think the argument can be made. Obviously Christ's sacrifice is better than the OC sacrifices because it actually does (or can, to a 4-pointer) remove sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, how could you be outside of the New Covenant and yet have Jesus as your high priest. Even in the OT if you didn't come to God by faith, you were still a covenant member. The idea that one is outside of the covenant, with Jesus as his atoning high priest, is foreign to Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that Jesus becomes a person's high priest until he intercedes for him, and he doesn't intercede for someone until they have faith.
Click to expand...



Don,

It appears we're at an impass. It seems clear to me that Hebrews teaches that Christ dies *as a high priest* and it is *for his people.* Atoneoment in the OT wasn't made for non-Israelites. The universalist idea is foreign to Scripture. 

John 17 is known as "the high *priestly* prayer." And, I don't think Judas *was* prayed for. When you read what he prays, and then you read that this was for even unborn and unregenerate non-elect, I think you have a kink. You have to wonder why it comes right after the Lord's supper, where Jesus says the blood is poured out for *many.* Then he doesn't even pray his atonement prayer for *all* people. For me, the position you're defending stretches the limits of credulity. For more on this, and his intercession for *all those* he makes atonement - not just the regenerate - read Berkof (starts at p. 404). That this was seen as *priestly intercession* is also seen by the guys at Founders. And Pink too.

As it is, I don't think a lot of arguments given here have been addressed. And I don't see a way around Hebrews and John 17. But, I certianly am not going to get involved in what could be a lengthy debate; especially given that we're going in for a c-section on friday morning! So, if you're not satisfied at this point, then there's not much I can contribute right now. I do not belive that I can make everyone cry uncle, but I think the case presented in this thread (especially if studied out further) is *objectively* the better and stronger case...by far. That doesn't mean all 4-pointers will go away. 

The motivation for 4-point is (a) the "died for all" passages (we can easily answer that) and (b) the genuine offer of the gospel (we can easily answer that). Since we have no problems answering any dilemma, and Scripture does not teach Jesus died for wolves, and 4-pointers are left with problems they can't solve (as I've pointed out in this thread), I see no reason to accept the 4-point system.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> Don,
> 
> It appears we're at an impass. It seems clear to me that Hebrews teaches that Christ dies *as a high priest* and it is *for his people.* Atoneoment in the OT wasn't made for non-Israelites. The idea is foreign to Scripture.
> 
> John 17 is known as "the high *priestly* prayer." And, I don't think Judas *was* prayed for. When you read what he prays, and then you read that this was for even unborn and unregenerate non-elect, I think you have a kink. You have to wonder why it comes right after the Lord's supper, where Jesus says the blood is poured out for *many.* Then he doesn't even pray his atonement prayer for *all* people. For me, the position you're defending stretches the limits of credulity. For more on this, and his intercession for *all those* he makes atonement - not just the regenerate - read Berkof (starts at p. 404). That this was seen as *priestly intercession* is also seen by the guys at Founders. And Pink too.
> 
> As it is, I don't think a lot of arguments given here have been addressed. And I don't see a way around Hebrews and John 17. But, I certianly am not going to get involved in what could be a lengthy debate; especially given that we're going in for a c-section on friday morning! So, if you're not satisfied at this point, then there's not much I can contribute right now. I do not belive that I can make everyone cry uncle, but I think the case presented in this thread (especially if studied out further) is *objectively* the better and stronger case...by far. That doesn't mean all 4-pointers will go away.
> 
> The motivation for 4-point is (a) the "died for all" passages (we can easily answer that) and (b) the genuine offer of the gospel (we can easily answer that). Since we have no problems answering any dilemma, and Scripture does not teach Jesus died for wolves, and 4-pointers are left with problems they can't solve (as I've pointed out in this thread), I see no reason to accept the 4-point system.



I agree that we are at an impass. I don't think the John 17 prayer was prayed for the non-elect, but I don't think that the prayer is so necessarily connected to the intercessory work.

4-point Calvinism doesn't require reading "all" into every possible atonement passage, but 5-point Calvinism requires discounting universal applications in every atonement passage. 4-pointers agree that there is a particular love for the elect, and that the intention of the atonement was for the elect. So there is no problem with passages that talk about the particular nature of the atonement or even of an intercessory prayer. The question is whether the atonement is exclusively for the elect in every respect.

John 17:12 says "I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." The "them" is the same them that is used throughout the prayer, and from this verse, "them" includes Judas. If it did not, then Jesus would have said none were lost, PERIOD.

What you have defended was not a genuine offer of the gospel, but a genuine offerer of the gospel, as I argued. Surely you recognize that there is a tangible difference in the offer of a 4-point Calvinist and the offer of a 5-point Calvinist? The 4-pointer wants to say that Christ actually died for that person and offer that.

If I may add a third motivation, I think the 5-point Calvinist position, in saying that the atonement is what "secures" salvation, places less emphasis on the "faith" component of salvation. Why is it the atonement that "secures" salvation, and not election itself, or the drawing of the Holy Spirit? Is faith actually necessary if the atonement is what secures salvation?

The WCF runs into this issue regarding salvation of those who die in infancy. It argues, not that infants who have been given faith will be saved (which is what I would argue), but that elect infants will be saved (and seems to imply that non-elect infants will not).

I think it can be dangerous to say that by election and atonement people are saved, and that, perhaps, a dying infant who does not have faith but is elected and had Christ pay for their sins could be saved. Once you go down that road, you could say that God elected and died for people who never hear the gospel, or anyone, and remove salvation from faith.

All the best with the C-Section, Paul. It's been real.


----------



## A5pointer

I am with Tom all the way on this, he has been thourough and clear in the defense, not much to add except to bring up this repeated idea that because the scriptures are silent, ie "the bible does not say that Christ did not die for the non-elect therefore it is a likely possibility that he did" This idea seems to me to be an absurd approach. There are many things the Bible is silent on. Using this approach could lead one to conclude many rediculous notions. 

As a side, I am wondering why some of the most accomplished theologs on this site have not come in and put this thing to rest. Where are you guys?


----------



## VictorBravo

A5pointer said:


> As a side, I am wondering why some of the most accomplished theologs on this site have not come in and put this thing to rest. Where are you guys?



I think many considered Paul (aka Tom) and Pastor Winzer to be accomplished enough to handle the job.


----------



## toddpedlar

victorbravo said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a side, I am wondering why some of the most accomplished theologs on this site have not come in and put this thing to rest. Where are you guys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think many considered Paul (aka Tom) and Pastor Winzer to be accomplished enough to handle the job.
Click to expand...


Perhaps the reason is that four-point "calvinism" is out of bounds in all the confessional statements that supposedly are subscribed to on this board... and hence most folks who might otherwise be perfectly capable of setting aside any arguments in its favor are surprised that people are being allowed to post in its favor?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

elnwood said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 10:26
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a prerequisite(i guess you can say) for believing is being the sheep, and knowing that Christ said he lays His life down for the sheep, yet, he tells the jews here that they are not of his sheep.... wouldn't this conclude that Christ is saying, "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep" ? I don't see how any clearer Christ can be in John 10 about who he is laying his life down for.( I would like to note, this isn't from some "logical" conclusion about election)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly, but not logically necessary unless Christ specifically says "I am not going to lay my life down for you since you are not of my sheep."
> 
> Let's say I love eating cashews, and I love buying cashews. I tell the peanuts, "I love buying and eating cashews. You are not cashews." Does that mean I don't also buy peanuts? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe I buy both, but I have a special particular love for cashews.
Click to expand...


Don,

You said "unless Christ specifically says". Scripture doesn't say, "God is Trinitarian". So, if we follow your logic, the doctrine of the trinity isn't true. I would say, this argument made it worse. Since Christ did infact say he would die for the sheep, and God has this in mind when sending His son to the cross, yet, is silent about the goats, your argument is from silence. In other words, the scriptures don't say "Christ died for the goats too". Are you following your own logic here?

(I wanted to let you know, I'm not trying to attack you. I'm very passionate about Christ and the atoning sacrafice for my sins. I hope you don't take me as an attacker but as a brother who loves God and His son whom he sent to save lost sinners.)


----------



## Andrew P.C.

toddpedlar said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a side, I am wondering why some of the most accomplished theologs on this site have not come in and put this thing to rest. Where are you guys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think many considered Paul (aka Tom) and Pastor Winzer to be accomplished enough to handle the job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps the reason is that four-point "calvinism" is out of bounds in all the confessional statements that supposedly are subscribed to on this board... and hence most folks who might otherwise be perfectly capable of setting aside any arguments in its favor are surprised that people are being allowed to post in its favor?
Click to expand...


Interestingly the reason that the remonstrants had a horrible missunderstanding of election is because of their misunderstanding of the atonement. But then we would have to get into the subject of "modern" arminians vs. "classical" arminians. That's for a different thread though.


----------



## VictorBravo

toddpedlar said:


> Perhaps the reason is that four-point "calvinism" is out of bounds in all the confessional statements that supposedly are subscribed to on this board... and hence most folks who might otherwise be perfectly capable of setting aside any arguments in its favor are surprised that people are being allowed to post in its favor?



Todd, this is a good point and is of some concern. Hashing out why Amyraldianism is not right (and even discussing arguments used in support of it) is part of edification and a help to many of us.

Defending it is not.


----------



## elnwood

Andrew P.C. said:


> Don,
> 
> You said "unless Christ specifically says". Scripture doesn't say, "God is Trinitarian". So, if we follow your logic, the doctrine of the trinity isn't true. I would say, this argument made it worse. Since Christ did infact say he would die for the sheep, and God has this in mind when sending His son to the cross, yet, is silent about the goats, your argument is from silence. In other words, the scriptures don't say "Christ died for the goats too". Are you following your own logic here?
> 
> (I wanted to let you know, I'm not trying to attack you. I'm very passionate about Christ and the atoning sacrafice for my sins. I hope you don't take me as an attacker but as a brother who loves God and His son whom he sent to save lost sinners.)



Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your concern.

When I say "unless Christ specifically says," I'm not asking for a specific wording, I'm looking for a specific teaching. The argument against the "Trinity" is that the word itself isn't used.

I don't find a specific teaching excluding the non-elect, whereas there is explicit teaching affirming the divinity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the word "Trinity" is the word used to describe them. So I don't think the comparison is analogous.

The ambiguity for me comes in that I am not certain that 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 2:1 and others are not teaching universal atonement. I think they could be interpreted in both ways, such that I can't say for certain that the passages do not teach universal atonement.

For example, I've heard the LA argument, for 2 Peter 2:1, but I've never completely "bought" the argument that the Master who bought the false teachers is in fact referring to the Exodus. It seems anachronistic. But it could be correct. Or, it could be that God did indeed purchase those false teachers, but they rejected it. I don't want to read that verse with presuppositions in mind. I'd take the 5-point view if the 4-point interpretation was contradicted elsewhere in Scripture, but I'm not convinced there's a contradiction, so I will simply remain undecided.

For the record, Charles Spurgeon thought this verse included both the elect and the non-elect.
PyroManiac: Is there a universal aspect to the atonement?


----------



## elnwood

toddpedlar said:


> Perhaps the reason is that four-point "calvinism" is out of bounds in all the confessional statements that supposedly are subscribed to on this board... and hence most folks who might otherwise be perfectly capable of setting aside any arguments in its favor are surprised that people are being allowed to post in its favor?



Todd,

I don't believe 4-point Calvinism is out of bounds in the confessional statements. I read the LBC and and WCF and I believe a 4-point Calvinist can affirm them. If you think they are out of bounds, could you start a new thread on that topic and say why? Thanks.


----------



## wsw201

Stick a fork in it. This thread is done.


----------

