# Multiple Intentions View of the Atonement



## natewood3 (Sep 18, 2006)

Here is an outline of an argument for "The Multiple Intentions View of the Atonement." I would like to hear some of your responses to these arguments, as I am preparing to write a response to this myself. This is the position of a very well-known scholar from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is from an outline that was sent to students in his class, and my friend in the class sent me the outline for me to read. Your thoughts would be appreciated.

A.	Un/limited Atonement or Multiple Intentions View (Four Point Calvinist Position)

1.	Statement of the Position
God´s intentions in the death of Christ are complex not simple, multiple not single: 1) Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect. 2) Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people making it possible for all who believe to be saved. 3) Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere. 4) Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them. 5) Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father.

2.	Key Texts (sets of texts match the five purposes outlined in the statement of the position)
a.	John 6:37-40 ; 10:11, 15; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:31-39; 2 Cor. 5:15; Eph. 5:25; Titus 2:14 "“ i.e., the same passages as used above, in A. 2. a. through g. The difference here is that these texts are not seen as describing the only sense in which Christ died for sin (i.e., for the sin of the elect). Christ did die for the sin of the elect in a very specific and intentional manner, in order to secure their sure and certain salvation, which salvation would be theirs through, but not apart from, saving faith.
b.	1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:14; 1 Tim 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19 "“ i.e., the same passages and explanations as argued above, in B. 2. a. through e.
c.	Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-47; John 6:35, 40; Rom. 10:13 "“ texts which stress the necessity of the proclamation of the gospel of Christ´s death and resurrection on behalf of the world.
d.	John 3:18; 12:48 "“ texts which indicate that rejecting Christ is a further basis for judgment. They can only rightly be held accountable for rejecting what was offered them if a real offer had been made to them.
e.	Romans 8:20-23; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Eph. 1:9-10; Phil. 3:21; Col.1:19-20 "“ texts which indicate a far broader cosmic extent of the atoning work of Christ.

3.	Key Theological Arguments

a.	Best of both sides argument. 1) The four point Calvinist view rejects some of the Arminian argumentation for unlimited atonement. For example, four point Calvinism will deny that the universal love of God or God´s universal desire that all be saved demands unlimited atonement. Rather, as with five point Calvinism, this view will argue that there is a sense in which God does love all and want all saved, but Scripture also clearly affirms God´s special love only for the elect (e.g., Isa. 43:3-4; Eph. 3-5; Rom 9:10-13) manifest in his elective purpose to choose, call and save only some (e.g., Eph. 1:3-5; Rom 8:29-30), to the glory of his name (Eph 1:6, 12, 14; Rom 9:22-24). 2) However, the four point Calvinist view also holds that God´s elective purpose does not entail limited atonement, for such a limitation a) conflicts with the most natural and likely understandings of some of Scripture´s teaching, b) conflicts with the scope of divine purposes Scripture indicates are accomplished by the atonement (see below), and c) is not needed to establish the certainty of God´s saving of his elect (i.e., what limited atonement advocates care most about).

b.	Multiple intentions argument. Much of the debate over the issue of the extent of the atonement is owing to the fact that a single intention (rather than multiple intentions) was sought by both sides. As soon as one admits multiple intentions for the atonement, one then can account for the variety of biblical teaching. Any single intention view will have difficulty reconciling its position with one or more strain of biblical teaching. These five arguments express reasons for seeing several purposes in Christ´s atoning work and are reflective also of the five main categories of scriptural texts above.

1)	Limited scope purpose. Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his sheep, his church, his elect, which salvation they would surely receive as they are efficaciously called and irresistibly drawn to place their faith in him and his accomplished atonement on their behalf (e.g., John 10:11, 15; Eph. 5:25). Scripture clearly presents Christ as dying for his own, and this must be accounted for. Surely Christ knew that while his death would be in some sense for all, in a particular and intentional sense he died to save those given him by the Father. He knew his death would be efficacious in the elect.

2)	Limitless scope purpose. Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people making it possible for all who believe to be saved (e.g., 1 Tim 4:10; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14-15). Belief in Christ is necessary, however, to receive the benefits of Christ´s death and be saved, and only the elect are called efficaciously and so believe in Christ and so are saved. Scripture just as surely speaks of a breadth of Christ´s atoning work that extends to the whole world. The real issue here is what reading of these texts best accounts for what they say. The limited atonement position appears here to strain the natural and intended meaning of texts.

3)	Bone fide offer purpose. Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere. Since we are commanded to preach the gospel to all people (e.g., Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8), the unlimited atoning sacrifice of Christ renders this offer of salvation fully and uncompromisingly genuine (e.g., John 6:35, 40; Rom 10:13).

4)	Just condemnation purpose. Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them. Christ´s death for the sins of those who reject him and are condemned (e.g., 2 Pet 2:1) insures that their judgment for rejecting Christ (which is only part of the full basis for their judgment) is just, because they reject a real gift that is really, freely and graciously offered to them (John 3:18b).

5)	Cosmic triumph purpose. Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father. Were Christ to die for the sin of the elect only (or for any partial amount of the totality of sin), this would leave sin that stands outside of his atoning work and hence outside of his victorious triumph over sin. Since sin is not only a penalty that must be paid (which payment is only efficacious by faith) but also a power that rebels against God´s rightful authority and reign, sin´s penalty must be paid (for the elect to be saved) but its power must be defeated that all might be conquered and laid at the feet of the Father (Romans 8:20-23; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Col. 1:19-20). Colossians 1:20 is especially important because it shows two things clearly: 1) the universal scope of the reconciliation wrought by Christ ("œall things," "œthings in earth and things in heaven"), and 2) that this reconciliation is accomplished by the atoning death of Christ ("œthrough the blood of his cross"). That this does not entail universalism is clear because in the very context Paul warns that these believers will one day be holy and blameless only if they continue in the faith (1:23). So, the reconciliation of Col. 1:20 is one in which the rebellion is over, yet God´s conquered foes do not share in his glory. In this sense, all those in hell stand reconciled to God, i.e., they are no longer rebels and their sinful disregard for God has been crushed and is ended.
c.	Part-to-whole argument. Yes, some passages say Christ died for his own, his sheep, his church, but no passage says he died only for the elect. His death can be for all people while only those who believe are actually saved by his death. His death for his own, then, is part of the larger whole in which he died also for the world.

d.	Necessity of saving faith argument. If, as limited atonement proponents say, Christ died actually and certainly to save people (i.e., the elect) and not merely make their salvation possible, then it follows that nothing else is needed for the elect to be saved. They are saved because of the full, perfect and finished work of Christ which actually and certainly saved the elect. But is it not true that the elect are born into this world under the condemnation of God, dead in their sin, and facing the impending wrath of God (e.g., Eph. 2:1-3)? Is not saving faith required for the elect to be saved? If so, how can it be said of the death of Christ in itself that by his death alone he saved those for whom he died? As long as one believes that all people (including the elect) are born into this world with the sin of Adam so that until anyone savingly believes in Christ he or she remains unsaved and under God´s wrath, then we cannot speak correctly of Christ´s death as actually and certainly saving the elect. No, even here, the payment made by his death on behalf of the elect renders their salvation possible while that salvation becomes actual only upon their exercising saving faith. If Christ´s death, then, is a payment for sin that makes possible the salvation of people, which salvation actually occurs only when they savingly believe, then there is no problem saying Christ´s death paid the penalty of the sin of all the people in the whole world, because until any believes, he or she is not saved.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 18, 2006)

*Comments on Bruce Ware\'s outline*

I just recently finished writing a 20 page paper on the subject of paradigms and the extent of the atonement. I specifically dealt with Ware's, Eric Svendsen's and other 4.5 positions. 

The crux of the debate boils down to whether or not the 5-pointer can refute the anchor to the 4.5 system, namely, their delay of application argument (condemnation still rests on the elect before they believe). This fact leads them to assemble the Biblical data around a universal atonement while also upholding the particular intention and application of the atonement by God's effectual grace. If condemnation is justifiable at any point after atonement is made, for those it was done in behalf of, then condemnation would be justifiable if they do not believe... ever. 

In addition, the 5-pointer must demonstrate that the cross really purchased faith for all those for whom atonement was made. If this can be proven, then the 4.5 position is dealt a defeater. 

These two points are really the crux of the debate. I think congruity of divine will arguments, High Priest intercession and other such related 5-point arguments are adequately answered according the givens of the 4.5 paradigm.

After reflecting on the issue for some time, I must confess that I think the 4.5 position is at least a viable construction. I know that is hard for my 5-point brothers to accept, and they will surely object, but I don't think the passages brought forward to prove effectual, faith giving atonement for all those it is done in behalf of is of such a nature as to compel adherence (nor is a cummulative case, seeing how the 4.5 paradigm can explain these in terms of divine intention). Each paradigm will take a stand on certain passages in a certain fashion. The passages examined in isolation from the constraints of each paradigm will prove to be swinging door passages- they could go either way. Other issues will swing you one way or another. And at the end of the day, those other issues are intimately connected with how you take the swinging passages... thus, there is a kind of paradigm circularity. 

So again, it is extremely difficult to introduce a lethal defeater in this instance. I think the 4.5 system accomodates the face value interpretation to more passages than the 5-point position. But I am not dogmatic here. 

My two cents,
Austin


----------



## natewood3 (Sep 18, 2006)

Austin,

I think are you right as far as what must be done in order to refute this position. I think if faith is proven to be purchased by the atonement, then this position seems to be defeated. I think this position does have some strong points to it, but I don't think it adequately describes what happened on the cross. As a Calvinist, I am not sure from where Ware and others say faith comes. If it was not purchased, then is it a gift? If it is not a gift, does it arise from inside of man, making it less than a work of the Spirit? I just don't see this position adequately explaining how it is that God bestows faith and repentance on hell-deserving sinners without these things being purchased by Christ. However, if regenerating and converting grace was wrought on the cross, can the atonement still be universal in its intent? If it is, I do not see how it differs from an Arminian position.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 19, 2006)

*Exegesis must rule the day-*

I can't speak for Ware exactly, or others, but I would certainly say that faith is granted to the elect by God's gracious activity. An elect sinner is enabled to believe. Moreover, I would say that faith is absolutely a gift. The effectual call, with the regenerating work of the Spirit produces faith. This is grace and a gift. 

Now, as you have already alluded too, were these gifts purchased at the cross? According to Ephesians 1:3 every spiritual blessing is found in Christ. So naturally I would gladly assert things like faith and regeneration flow from what Christ accomplished for us. And while it certainly seems logical to assert that if faith and repentance were purchased at the cross, then all those for whom Christ died will infallibly come to faith precisely because such gifts were purchased for them. I grant that the logic isn't wild speculation. But do the Scriptures talk like this, or do they teach such a truth explicitly? I don't think they do (and please correct me anyone). What we have are parcels of information that might be construed to teach effectual atonement in the sense you are proposing. 

It might also be the case that Christ *intended* to atone for the sins of the whole world (meaning every individual), while also He died with the intention of saving His sheep infallibly. He provided a provision for all, but God also secured the salvation of His elect and will bring them to faith according to His good pleasure- a pleasure rooted in election and sovereign grace. 

Does such electing grace flow from the atonement? Well, according to Ephesians 1 it is hard to imagine how anything could be done without reference to Christ. But notice that the eternal intentions of God are rooted in the eternal intentions of God the Father. Could there be a distinction between the provision of the atonement and the sovereign purposes of God that apply that atonement to His sheep?

One might retort that such a provision for all, but intention to bring only the elect to faith, is confusion in the divine will. Without going into this, I would simply say, "Why must it be?" If the Father wanted a provision for all, but also an intention to infallibly save the elect, then why could not the Son likewise die for all, but especially die for the elect ('especially' is ambiguous- I know). 

Basically, what does Scripture force us to confess exegetically? Is the 5 point Calvinistic explanation of 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 2:1 and other such texts really the best explanation? Maybe. I tend to think that their explanations are secondary ones, that is to say, their interpretations arise from feeling constrained by other theological considerations- like effectual faith atonement. Granted, all theological systems have a hierarchy of constraint, but that is precisely the point here. The 4.5 Calvinist thinks he can bridge the tension between the universalistic passages and the particularistic passages by proposing a multiple intention atonement. But at the end of the day, the 4.5 Calvinist feels constrained exegetically to move this direction. And at the end of the day, both paradigms have some difficult things to explain. So we take our stand on certain points and arrange the information around those convictions. That´s the nature of theological paradigms- because theology is tough and God´s works are wonderfully complex. 

I think the 5 point Calvinist has a real hard time explaining sufficiently the gospel offer to a non-elect sinner. I think the 5-point Calvinist has a strained interpretation of certain problem passages. And I think that which would ultimately defeat the 4.5 paradigm, namely the faith procuring atonement for all it is done in behalf of, is very difficult to ground exegetically; it is decent logic for sure, but is it explicitly taught? You will have to decide that. For myself, I think the passages brought forward could fit with the 4.5 paradigm. 

Correct me if I am wrong here, but is the difference really that profound between the 4.5 and 5 point Calvinist? Both see God as infallibly saving His elect with the death of Christ. One just has a provision for all those who share in Christ´s nature, and the other will want to emphasize that Christ´s death is sufficient for all, but effective only for the elect. Our common parlance demonstrates a desire to somehow express both the universalistic and particularistic passages. 

Good question and happy studying brother,
Austin

[Edited on 9-19-2006 by austinbrown2]


----------



## natewood3 (Sep 19, 2006)

Austin,

You have pointed out the biggest difficulties in accepting Definite Atonement, namely, the free offer of the Gospel and the fact that some Calvinistic interpretations of the universalistic passages seem strained at times. That being said, the fact that the grace of regeneration, faith and repentance is not explicitly taught in a specific text does not mean that we must reject the implicit teaching of the Scriptures. I would say that there are other doctrines that are not explicitly taught that we wholeheartedly accept. If they are explicitly taught, they are very hard to forumlate. The two examples that come to mind is the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ. I cannot think of a passage specifically that directly states that the Holy Spirit is God (I know Acts 5:3-4, but it still does not explicitly state this). Is there really a text that directly states that Jesus is both God and man in union? Is there really a text that directly states that God is one substance in three persons? However, that is no reason for us to not accept these doctrines, because without them the rest of theology will not make sense. I think the same goes with the extent of the atonement. The difference is, there are texts that state Christ died for His people, His sheep, His Church. Why use restrictive language at all if the atonement is really intended for all?

I would also ask, What does it mean that the atonement was a "provision" or "sufficient" for all? What does it mean that Christ intended to "atone" for the sins of all people, while actually securing the salvation of the elect? How did Jesus simply make the salvation of all "possible"? I do not see where Christ made the salvation of all possible in Scriptures. Is is possible to show that exegetically? There are no Scriptures that say this explicitly either (correct me if I am wrong). It is somewhat disturbing to me to say that Christ's death was a provision for all, making the salvation of all possible, simply because all are NOT saved. This seems to make the death of Christ actually insufficient to save! You notice that Ware states,

_As long as one believes that all people (including the elect) are born into this world with the sin of Adam so that until anyone savingly believes in Christ he or she remains unsaved and under God´s wrath, then we cannot speak correctly of Christ´s death as actually and certainly saving the elect. No, even here, the payment made by his death on behalf of the elect renders their salvation possible while that salvation becomes actual only upon their exercising saving faith. _

In my opinion, I see Ware stating that faith must be added unless the atonement is actually effectual. The elect are in fact unsaved in one sense, but Romans 8 declares the elect are already glorified. Does this mean the elect that are not yet believing? Is the salvation of the elect also only "possible"? The word "possible" means that it is likely, but not certain. So I ask, according to Ware's position, what makes salvation certain and actual? Faith! Hence, it is obvious that without faith, Christ's death does not render anything at all certain. However, if faith is not a purchased gift of the death of Christ itself, then it must arise from man. Where else would it come from? So I believe that this position leads to say that the death of Christ in ineffectual in its purposes and intentions. To say it is "sufficient" is to say that it is "enough," but actually it is NOT enough because faith must be added to it in order to render salvation actual and certain. 

I appreciate your knowledge in this area, so I will be looking forward to hearing your responses.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 19, 2006)

*A bit of follow up:*

Austin,

You said:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have pointed out the biggest difficulties in accepting Definite Atonement, namely, the free offer of the Gospel and the fact that some Calvinistic interpretations of the universalistic passages seem strained at times. That being said, the fact that the grace of regeneration, faith and repentance is not explicitly taught in a specific text does not mean that we must reject the implicit teaching of the Scriptures. I would say that there are other doctrines that are not explicitly taught that we wholeheartedly accept. If they are explicitly taught, they are very hard to formulate. The two examples that come to mind is the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ. I cannot think of a passage specifically that directly states that the Holy Spirit is God (I know Acts 5:3-4, but it still does not explicitly state this). Is there really a text that directly states that Jesus is both God and man in union? Is there really a text that directly states that God is one substance in three persons? However, that is no reason for us to not accept these doctrines, because without them the rest of theology will not make sense.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Granted. Just keep in mind that this point is double edged. The 4.5 position would concur and argue that all of the Scripture leads them to the multiple intention view. The 5 pointer will say elect only propitiation best squares with the data. I think at least this much should be granted on this level of the discussion. 


>>>>>>>>>I think the same goes with the extent of the atonement. The difference is, there are texts that state Christ died for His people, His sheep, His Church. Why use restrictive language at all if the atonement is really intended for all?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The restrictive language could be used because that highlights an important aspect of God´s eternal purposes. The question of provision in the atonement, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn´t have anything to do with say John 6:39. If the Scriptures say that Christ died for His people, sheep, etc., that is true enough. The 4.5 position says amen. It is others factors that will lead one to understand these verses in a more pregnant sense. Fair enough? Remember, the 4.5 position states that God purposes to infallibly save His people, the Church. If that is an eternal design in God´s plan, wouldn´t the Scriptures speak in accordance with that reality? I think so. The question remains, however, whether or not Christ providing atonement for the non-elect is congruous with this divine will, justice and a host of other theological texts. I think you will agree with me here. 



>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I would also ask, What does it mean that the atonement was a "provision" or "sufficient" for all? What does it mean that Christ intended to "atone" for the sins of all people, while actually securing the salvation of the elect? How did Jesus simply make the salvation of all "possible"? I do not see where Christ made the salvation of all possible in Scriptures. Is is possible to show that exegetically? There are no Scriptures that say this explicitly either (correct me if I am wrong). It is somewhat disturbing to me to say that Christ's death was a provision for all, making the salvation of all possible, simply because all are NOT saved. This seems to make the death of Christ actually insufficient to save! You notice that Ware states,

As long as one believes that all people (including the elect) are born into this world with the sin of Adam so that until anyone savingly believes in Christ he or she remains unsaved and under God´s wrath, then we cannot speak correctly of Christ´s death as actually and certainly saving the elect. No, even here, the payment made by his death on behalf of the elect renders their salvation possible while that salvation becomes actual only upon their exercising saving faith.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Before I answer directly, allow me to share something that has really bothered me when wrestling with the 5-point position. I think the oft stated phrase by the 5 pointer, "œThe death of Christ is sufficient for the non-elect, but effective for the elect," is misleading at best. I discussed this issue at some length in this forum. Consider my thread below yours. 

For the 4.5 pointer, Christ made a provision for all people by dying for all sins. This is easily deduced from one kind of reading of 1 John 2:2, 1 Peter 2:1 and John 3:16.

What does it mean that Christ intended to atone for the sins of all people, while actually securing the salvation of the elect. Think of it this way. God wanted to save a part of humanity- the elect. But for reasons congruous with justice and Christ´s humanity, etc., God died for the sins of all people, but has His eyes set on a segment. Think of the parable that says a man sold all he had to buy a plot of land because there was a hidden treasure there. He bought the whole lot of land so that he could get what he really wanted, the treasure. Obviously, the crucial question now is this: Is there a good reason to believe that God would purchase all of humanity so that He could save those whom He has set His affection on? I think so. If for no other reason, there are universalistic passages which sure seem to say as much. 

How did Jesus make salvation possible? For the non-elect there exists a real foundation, a provision, whereby they could accept the free offer if they so inclined. However, they don´t want to believe (hence-(T)ulip). A provision is also made for the elect, obviously. But again, the eternal intention was to save them, so in a sense it isn´t meet to talk about salvation being merely possible for them (hence T(U)l(I)p). I certainly don´t want to say that the death of Christ is insufficient to save"¦ it isn´t when considered with all that God has purposed. Christ must intercede for us even now. That doesn´t make the atonement insufficient. Such actions are concomitant with God´s work for His people that begins in eternity past and continues on to infinity future. 



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In my opinion, I see Ware stating that faith must be added unless the atonement is actually effectual. The elect are in fact unsaved in one sense, but Romans 8 declares the elect are already glorified. Does this mean the elect that are not yet believing? Is the salvation of the elect also only "possible"? The word "possible" means that it is likely, but not certain. So I ask, according to Ware's position, what makes salvation certain and actual? Faith! Hence, it is obvious that without faith, Christ's death does not render anything at all certain. However, if faith is not a purchased gift of the death of Christ itself, then it must arise from man. Where else would it come from? So I believe that this position leads to say that the death of Christ in ineffectual in its purposes and intentions. To say it is "sufficient" is to say that it is "enough," but actually it is NOT enough because faith must be added to it in order to render salvation actual and certain.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Good question. And it is certainly a fair question. Look at this way, a 4.5 and 5 pointer both agree (unless you believe in eternal justification, which is wrong) that faith must be added if the atonement is to be applied. I´m not sure effectual is the right word. But I would say, as John Murray has written, "œRedemption Accomplished and Applied." Redemption must be applied. And it is applied by faith. That unites us to Christ, and we thus share in the benefits. 

Romans 8 is talking to people who believe. Of course the panorama of salvation can be spoken of in the past tense, precisely because God will affect it infallibly. But this affecting doesn´t take place outside of historical secondary causes. The elect are under the wrath of God before they believe. The atonement must be applied"¦ hence Romans 8 talks about the foreknowledge of God and the effectual calling of God. So I would not agree that the word possible necessarily means uncertain. I would say that the warnings in Scripture really apply to the elect, in other words, falling away is possible, it is a counter-factual reality that could happen, but God won´t permit it, He will keep His people through faith by grace. Does that make sense? 

Salvation is absolutely certain for His people. Christ purchased their salvation and God the Father, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, bestows all that is necessary, according to His good, gracious pleasure, to save His people. The enabling of faith would be one such thing. Here again I am sure that you could at least agree that this formulation is logically possible, but might be wrong in light of the Biblical data. Hence, exegesis rules the day here. There is nothing wrong with the logic of the 4.5 position, per say, but does it adequately deal with certain theological questions and square with texts? That is the matter before us. I think both positions face tough theological questions, so I fall back on what best squares with the text. I think the 4.5 position deals with some better than the 5 point position. You might disagree. I simply say, "œOk, brother. I recognize that this is a pretty complex issue and there is much to digest. I still have a lot to learn, so I may be misunderstanding or failing to see good and necessary implications. By God´s grace I hope to see my errors. Either way, we both have definite atonement. I say that the atonement will definitely save the elect. One of God´s intentions was to save His people, another is to provide a provision for the non-elect, well, for some of the reasons Ware outlines." 

Now in light of all that has been said consider your last two or three sentences in the paragraph I quoted above. I trust you can see that I think faith is a gracious gift given from God. But is this gift so connected with the atonement that all those for whom atonement was made will infallibly be brought to faith, because to do otherwise would be unjust for God? Here we come back to the crux of the debate. And it must be answered exegetically- or at least be so compelled by theological implication that no other can be conceived. I don´t think the former is the case, and the latter might be the case, if it weren´t for those problem passages that 5 pointers have a hard time dealing with. But there is a certain amount of judgment going on here, isn´t there? The exegesis of the problem texts compels me to say that the compelling theological implications aren´t strong enough to overturn the 4.5 paradigm. But maybe I am wrong? 

Let me say again, the death of Christ isn´t insufficient, there are many things that had and have to happen in addition, or maybe it is better to say, in accordance with the atonement, such as Christ´s present intercession, the sending of the Spirit, the Father´s faithfulness to keep His people, the need for sinners to believe, the preaching of the Word, etc. All of these things are part and parcel of a wonderful plan that God has ordered in eternity past. The smallest necessity is as certain as the greatest necessity. The plan is one, but plays out in history in accordance with secondary causes.

Hope this helps to some small degree. I simply counsel you to ponder this issue for years to come. 

Austin


----------



## MW (Sep 19, 2006)

Austin,

You have shaped the discussion somewhat by saying that faith must be purchased in the atonement. I think it can be shown from Scripture that this is in fact the case, especially when we consider the way inspiration speaks of believers as exercising the faith of Christ, and not merely faith in Christ. But it is not helpful to start here, because we are speaking more particularly of atonement, which includes the propitiation of God's wrath and the expiation of sin. We must start with the persons for whom Christ has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Now Christ died to expiate *all* sin, including unbelief. How can that include all men in any sense, when we know (1) that all men have not faith, and (2) that all men are not saved from wrath?

Blessings!


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 20, 2006)

*Hello Armourbearer*

>>>>>>>>You have shaped the discussion somewhat by saying that faith must be purchased in the atonement.<<<<<<<<<<<<

I have framed the debate this way because, well, so far as I can recall, every 5-pointer has expressed the issue in this manner. John Piper preaching on Hebrews 2 stresses the point this way, Turretin, volume II, page 468, says, "Christ died for those only for whom he merited salvation and with salvation all the means necessary to obtain it- especially faith, repentance and the Holy Spirit..." and so on and so forth. However, you introduce something interesting to me. Hence your next sentence...


>>>>>>>>>>I think it can be shown from Scripture that this is in fact the case, especially when we consider the way inspiration speaks of believers as exercising the faith of Christ, and not merely faith in Christ.<<<<<<<<<<

Interesting. Is there an article that explores this? 


>>>>>>>But it is not helpful to start here, because we are speaking more particularly of atonement, which includes the propitiation of God's wrath and the expiation of sin. We must start with the persons for whom Christ has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Now Christ died to expiate *all* sin, including unbelief. How can that include all men in any sense, when we know (1) that all men have not faith, and (2) that all men are not saved from wrath?<<<<<<<<<<<

I agree that one should start here, but a well reasoned 4.5 position, at least what I have come into contact with, recognizes this point but is ultimately compelled by the delay of application argument to construct a different explanation for how the universalistic-particularistic passages do in fact go together. 

I grant that the "Owenian" logic about dying for sin, and unbelief being sin, is strong. But there is a possible retort here. Why are the elect still under the wrath of God before they believe? If they were reconciled to God at the cross, if all their sins were propitiated at the cross and unbelief itself was fully paid for, then why are they still considered objects of wrath? They should be saved then. This goes back to the delay of application argument, which of course stands at the center of the 4.5 contention. Consider the following logic as a retort:

(1) It is legitimate to withhold the atonement and propitiation from someone until he believes. 

(2) We are fully and legitimately under and subject to the wrath of God until that time.

(3) If someone dies in his unbelief, and consequently never avails himself of that atonement, his status as being fully under and subject to the wrath of God does not thereby change. It is fully enforced, and he will suffer the wrath of God for eternity.

The logic is impeccable, at least when it is considered narrowly. The only way out, so far as I can tell for the 5-pointer, is to successfully demonstrate that it would be unjust (or improper) for God to withhold the application of the atonement for those it has been done in behalf of. Likewise, it would be nice if it could be shown that as unbelief has been paid for, then faith has been purchased, and this purchase of faith necessarily is effectual for all those atonement was made for. This would effectively demonstrate that all those for whom Christ died not only had salvation purchased for them, but that faith itself will infallibly hunt down the subjects of the atonement. 

For myself, I don´t see this explicitly taught. I can smell traces of the logic, and I would be quite prone to accept the theological implications if the Scriptures didn´t present such seemingly anti-5point texts. I feel like the debate comes down to one´s personal judgment regarding which aspect is of a more potent nature- the problem texts or the theological implication of the atonement. It is a very close race between the two, in my opinion.

Blessings,
Austin


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2006)

Austin, I still think the onus probandi for the position of limited atonement rests with the nature of the atonement per se, but for the sake of discussion I will interact with your concerns about the "delay of application."



> >>>>>>>But it is not helpful to start here, because we are speaking more particularly of atonement, which includes the propitiation of God's wrath and the expiation of sin. We must start with the persons for whom Christ has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Now Christ died to expiate *all* sin, including unbelief. How can that include all men in any sense, when we know (1) that all men have not faith, and (2) that all men are not saved from wrath?<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> I agree that one should start here, but a well reasoned 4.5 position, at least what I have come into contact with, recognizes this point but is ultimately compelled by the delay of application argument to construct a different explanation for how the universalistic-particularistic passages do in fact go together.
> 
> I grant that the "Owenian" logic about dying for sin, and unbelief being sin, is strong. But there is a possible retort here. Why are the elect still under the wrath of God before they believe? If they were reconciled to God at the cross, if all their sins were propitiated at the cross and unbelief itself was fully paid for, then why are they still considered objects of wrath? They should be saved then. This goes back to the delay of application argument, which of course stands at the center of the 4.5 contention.



This delay can be seen in the same way we look at the second coming of Christ and glorification in Him. Salvation is not the less sure because it is delayed. It is appointed of the Father. The elect are "virtually" glorified already, Rom. 8:30. Likewise, they are "virtually" called and justified by virtue of being predestinated.



> Consider the following logic as a retort:
> 
> (1) It is legitimate to withhold the atonement and propitiation from someone until he believes.



Any person who believes in fore-ordination must see, surely, that it is only a matter of time before the atonement is applied. Just as it was only a matter of time before Christ came into the world to lay down His life an offering for sin, not only for those who *would* believe in Him, but also for those who already *had* believed in Him. The time element does not affect either the nature or the extent of the atonement, because the purpose of God determines time, and is not determined by it.



> (2) We are fully and legitimately under and subject to the wrath of God until that time.
> 
> (3) If someone dies in his unbelief, and consequently never avails himself of that atonement, his status as being fully under and subject to the wrath of God does not thereby change. It is fully enforced, and he will suffer the wrath of God for eternity.



This was initially callied a 4.5 Calvinist position. As the reasoning is brought forward to justify it, it is clear that the election of God is being left out of the picture. And now we are told of a hypothetical case where a person "never avails himself of that atonement," as if there were no such thing as irresistible grace. That leaves us with 2 points, total depravity and perseverance of the saints; and it must be wondered to what extent they are maintained. If salvation is now made to rest on self-availing, is there some power of nature which avails in this case? And if so, could the failure to perseveringly avail oneself of the atonement lead to apostasy? As can be seen, once the purpose of God is lost sight of, we are effectively left with no point Calvinism.

God will not suffer it! Christ shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied. It was for the sake of those whom the Father gave Him that Chrst sanctified Himself; and He has sworn most solemnmy that none shall pluck them out of His hand. Those other sheep He must *bring* also. This includes bringing them to faith.

Blessings!


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 20, 2006)

*a couple remarks*

>>>>>Austin, I still think the onus probandi for the position of limited atonement rests with the nature of the atonement per se,<<<<<<<<,

Fair enough.

>>>>>>>>This delay can be seen in the same way we look at the second coming of Christ and glorification in Him. <<<<<<<<<<<<

I agree; it could be seen that in way. 


>>>>>>>Any person who believes in fore-ordination must see, surely, that it is only a matter of time before the atonement is applied. Just as it was only a matter of time before Christ came into the world to lay down His life an offering for sin, not only for those who *would* believe in Him, but also for those who already *had* believed in Him. >>>>>>>>>>>>.

I believe in foreordination, so yes, I do see that the appliaction will infalllibly come to pass. But your point assumes something that is not necessarily granted, namely, that all those for whom Christ died are elected unto eternal life. The 4.5 doesn't agree. So I would say that you are assuming the point in contention to prove your point. 


>>>>>>>>>>This was initially callied a 4.5 Calvinist position. As the reasoning is brought forward to justify it, it is clear that the election of God is being left out of the picture. And now we are told of a hypothetical case where a person "never avails himself of that atonement," as if there were no such thing as irresistible grace. That leaves us with 2 points, total depravity and perseverance of the saints<<<<<<<<<<<

The election of God is certainly not left out of the picture. I wholeheartedly believe in it... and irresistible grace. The syllogism was presented to illustrate an important point: Proptitiation, reconcilliation and the purchase of salvation doesn't mean one is saved without faith. There is a delay of appliaction until such a person is united to Christ. This three points I presented demonstrate that it isn't absurd to imagine condenmation as resting upon those for whom Christ died if they were to never believe. That's all. It is a valid response to your Owen logic. 

In the 4.5 paradigm election and atonement are not coordinate in every respect. Your paradigm says they are coordinate. This disagreement requires theological argumentation and exegesis to resolve the dispute. But make no mistake, I am no 2 point Calvinist, and the 4.5 Calvinist doesn't think it is incompatable to assert that election and the atonement are not coordinate in all respects... but of course that is at the heart of the debate. 

Cheers,
Austin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 20, 2006)

Just a side note: 4 pointers, 4.5 pointers, 4.295 pointers, 3 pointers, 2.78 pointers and the like, are just confused Arminians.


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> I believe in foreordination, so yes, I do see that the appliaction will infalllibly come to pass. But your point assumes something that is not necessarily granted, namely, that all those for whom Christ died are elected unto eternal life. The 4.5 doesn't agree. So I would say that you are assuming the point in contention to prove your point.



Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assumed the ".5" referred to the fact that you were willing to accept Christ died for the elect in some sense. The double reference theorist must show that there is another sense in which Christ may be said to have died for all men. If he cannot do this without denying that Christ died only for the elect in at least one sense, then the ".5" is pointless. It is a mere smokescreen to hide the real point in debate.



> The election of God is certainly not left out of the picture. I wholeheartedly believe in it... and irresistible grace. The syllogism was presented to illustrate an important point: Proptitiation, reconcilliation and the purchase of salvation doesn't mean one is saved without faith. There is a delay of appliaction until such a person is united to Christ. This three points I presented demonstrate that it isn't absurd to imagine condenmation as resting upon those for whom Christ died if they were to never believe. That's all. It is a valid response to your Owen logic.



Are we dealing with the realm of imagination or revelation? All that this imagination would prove is the possibility that none might be saved, irrespective of whether Christ died for them or not. In other words, the bare hypothesis only suggests that those for whom Christ died might not be saved, it does not tell us anything about the persons for whom Christ died.

Now, if you seriously believe in irresistible grace, you must confess that the work of the Spirit in applying the benefits of Christ removes the imagined possibility that any for whom Christ died might never believe and so fail of salvation. This imagination does not arise from anything which revelation teaches us.



> In the 4.5 paradigm election and atonement are not coordinate in every respect. Your paradigm says they are coordinate. This disagreement requires theological argumentation and exegesis to resolve the dispute. But make no mistake, I am no 2 point Calvinist, and the 4.5 Calvinist doesn't think it is incompatable to assert that election and the atonement are not coordinate in all respects... but of course that is at the heart of the debate.



To be candid, I cannot find anything in your presentation which shows that you are giving serious thought to the nature of election and irresistible grace as understood by Calvinists. Imagination opens up a world of possibilities. We are bound to revelation. Revelation tells me, whom He predestinated, He also called, justified and glorified.

Blessings!


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 21, 2006)

*A side note or side swipe?*

Mr. McMahon I very much respect you, not only for your work and the fact that you are a fellow Whitefield man, but I trust that upon just a little bit of reflection you will find that your comment is not only not helpful, but it is simply name calling, and I would say terribly unjust name calling. I am no Arminian, and I am no confused Arminian. I might be a confused Calvinist, but I am no Arminian. 

The fact that I named my first born Calvin, I dream of writing like Luther in the Bondage of the Will, stand in awe at Jonathan Edwards' The Freedom of the Will and my wife's favorite flower is a Tulip, I can assure that I am no Arminian. 

However, if you think after some reflection that I am still a confused Arminian, then I guess that is your right. But I would simply appeal to you, Natewood3, to dismiss such allegations as something merely typical of Presbyterian men, a tendency to engage in theological mudslinging. Let us not act like Hodge with Nevin, nor Clark with Van Til. 

Austin


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 21, 2006)

*To ArmourBearer*

>>>>>>>To be candid, I cannot find anything in your presentation which shows that you are giving serious thought to the nature of election and irresistible grace as understood by Calvinists. Imagination opens up a world of possibilities. We are bound to revelation. Revelation tells me, whom He predestinated, He also called, justified and glorified.<<<<<<<<<<<<

I guess I can only say with the utmost seriousness that my view of unconditional election and irresistible grace is, no doubt, right in line what you think, BUT, I'm not sure I agree that election and the extent of the atonement are exactly coordinate. I guess I am refering to something like the Amyraldian position. I want to say that God the Father elected the church before the foundation of the world. Christ came and layed down His life for the world, but with a special intention of saving His elect. This world is not all people's, but actually all people. God will infallibly bring those whom He elected to faith. The atonement isn't applied for the others, but they were bought and they will condemned (2 Peter 2:1, etc)- and condemned for no less than not believing the Gospel (1 Thess. 1:8-9, John 3:18, etc). 

You are basically advancing a confusion of divine will argument against me. But I think that can be successfully answered by the 4.5-pointer. It may not be satisfactory to a 5-pointer, but that is because we have different assumptions or givens concerning the atonement. 

I am going to close out my discussion unless we turn our attention back to what Natewood3 wants discussed. I'm not really looking to defend what I tentatively hold, but am certainly looking for points that could overturn the paradigm. I just don't think election or irrestable grace is significant to our discussion UNLESS it can be shown that these are entirely coordinate graces with the extent of the atonement. 

Austin

[Edited on 9-21-2006 by austinbrown2]


----------



## MW (Sep 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by austinbrown2_
> >>>>>>>To be candid, I cannot find anything in your presentation which shows that you are giving serious thought to the nature of election and irresistible grace as understood by Calvinists. Imagination opens up a world of possibilities. We are bound to revelation. Revelation tells me, whom He predestinated, He also called, justified and glorified.<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> I guess I can only say with the utmost seriousness that my view of unconditional election and irresistible grace is, no doubt, right in line what you think, BUT, I'm not sure I agree that election and the extent of the atonement are exactly coordinate. I guess I am refering to something like the Amyraldian position. I want to say that God the Father elected the church before the foundation of the world. Christ came and layed down His life for the world, but with a special intention of saving His elect. This world is not all people's, but actually all people. God will infallibly bring those whom He elected to faith. The atonement isn't applied for the others, but they were bought and they will condemned (2 Peter 2:1, etc)- and condemned for no less than not believing the Gospel (1 Thess. 1:8-9, John 3:18, etc).



Austin,

1. 2 Peter 2:1 says nothing about atonement. The men are "bought" in the same sense as they "escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," verse 21.

2. Supposing it did say something about atonement, it says nothing about all men. It still has a special reference to particular men.

3. You cannot divorce atonement from election, because atonement is made for the purpose of saving persons from sin. To say that Christ also died for all men in some sense, you have to alter your view of election to posit a general, conditional election of all men.

At the end of the day, you have no biblical reason for suggesting that the atonement was made for any one other than the elect, and hence no reason to posit a multiple reference theory of the atonement.


----------



## natewood3 (Sep 22, 2006)

Austin,

I would not say you are a "confused Arminian," but rather an inconsistent Calvinist. There are great men of God who deny this point; I just think they are inconsistent. 

To get back to the discussion, consider Ware's comments:

"Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people making it possible for all who believe to be saved (e.g., 1 Tim 4:10; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14-15). Belief in Christ is necessary, however, to receive the benefits of Christ´s death and be saved, and only the elect are called efficaciously and so believe in Christ and so are saved."

If Christ paid the "penalty" for the sin of all people, then why is it just possible that they will be saved? Obviously, faith in Christ is necessary, but to say that Christ died to save all those who will believe is the same as saying that Christ died for all those whom Christ elected and the Holy Spirit called; in other words, Christ died for the elect. However, Christ did not just die to make the salvation of the elect possible. So in what sense did Christ actually die for the non-elect and what does that actually mean?

I am having a hard time understanding what 4-pointers mean when they say these things. Was Christ an actual Substitution for these people? Did He die for all those who were in hell before He even went to the Cross? If so, in what sense did He make their salvation "possible"? How does Christ simply make the salvation of anyone at all "possible"? If it is possible, what makes it certain? Faith? If so, from where does this "faith" come? God or man? If God, what is the difference between this supposed view and the 5 point view?


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 22, 2006)

*For Natewood3*

Let me suggest a couple of things that I think would be highly beneficial for your studies. If you haven't read R.L. Dabney in his systematic regarding the extent of the atonement, I would urge that. He considers the 4 point position fairly.

Also, check out: http://www.ntrmin.org/

Eric Svendsen is a 4.5 pointer. He is very articulate and has discussed the issue with James White. If you go to that website and scroll down while watching the right hand side of the screen, you will notice a short series on the extent of the atonement. Read that. It is illuminating for any position. 

Now let me address briefly some of your comments.


>>>>>If Christ paid the "penalty" for the sin of all people, then why is it just possible that they will be saved? <<<<<<<

I venture to say that what is trying to be communicated is that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world (every individual sense). He wants to stress, or at least I would, that there is a real foundation laid for the non-elect. Since there is a provision then a real offer can be made towards them. 

As Eric Svendsen comments (In response to James White):

"Along these same lines, it is clear that the non-elect are going to be condemned for their rejection of Christ and his gospel. For instance, 2 Thess 1:8-9 says that Christ will "œdeal out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction." Jesus himself says: "œHe who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). In other words, those who reject, disobey and refuse to believe the gospel are judged for that rejection, disobedience and refusal to believe. But if the offer of the gospel does not properly extend to them in the first place, how can they rightly be judged for rejecting it? One cannot "œreject" something that isn´t offered to him.

Indeed, what else explains why the non-elect who reject the gospel only after strongly considering it are said to be under a greater condemnation? Peter puts it this way:

"œFor if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Pet 2:20-21).

With this, the writer of Hebrews concurs:

"œFor in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame" (Heb 6:4-16).

As well as . . .

"œAnyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Heb 10:28-29).

In each case, the person in question embraced Christianity if only for a short while. In each case, the person is non-elect and falls away afterwards. As a result, in each case the condemnation is said to be more severe ("œit would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness," "œHow much severer punishment do you think he will deserve . . . ?"). The question remains, Why is the punishment (and by extension the offense) more severe than that of the typical unbeliever? We are told why: The apostates in question have "œcome to a knowledge of the truth" and then "œturned from the holy commandment delivered to them." That "œholy commandment," of course, is the gospel itself; and that gospel was "œdelivered to them." What makes the offense so great here is that they initially embraced the gospel but then rejected it. But that necessarily implies that they were obligated to believe it and to continue in it. As it is, their rejection of the gospel is tantamount to "œagain crucifying to themselves the Son of God," "œputting Him to open shame," "œtrampling underfoot the Son of God," "œinsulting the spirit of Grace," and "œregarding as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified"; and, as a result, their "œlast state has become worse for them than the first."

But how can they be obligated to believe the gospel if the gospel isn´t extended to them and doesn´t apply to them? Why would they be guilty of a greater crime than others of the non-elect who merely reject the gospel out of hand with no consideration of it? All unbelievers (all non-elect) will be judged for refusing the gospel (2 Thess 1:8-9; John 3:18); but these particular men will undergo a more severe judgment because they actually embraced the truth before rejecting it. None of this makes sense (in the case of either category of the non-elect) if the command to believe the gospel does not apply to them. But if the command to believe the gospel does indeed apply to them, then there has to be a basis for that command in the atonement of Christ."

But this is only part of your question. You want to know why it is "just possible?" It isn't just possible for the elect. God's intention is to save them. God elected them, Christ died for them, the Spirit infallibly brings them, in accordance with the divine choice, to embrace Christ as their Lord and Savior. It is as certain as certain is certain. But if a real provision has been made for even the non-elect, then if they were to exercise faith, which they won't, because they are depraved and hate God, they would be saved- because faith unites a person to Christ.

So, just in case this doesn´t answer your question, let me quote you further and comment:

>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, faith in Christ is necessary, but to say that Christ died to save all those who will believe is the same as saying that Christ died for all those whom Christ elected and the Holy Spirit called; in other words, Christ died for the elect. However, Christ did not just die to make the salvation of the elect possible. So in what sense did Christ actually die for the non-elect and what does that actually mean?<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you phrase the issue as "œChrist died to save all those who will believe," well, then yes, logic will dictate, if we believe in election, that Christ died only for the elect. But if we believe that Christ died for all, but not all are elected, then those who are not elected will not believe and not be saved. Therefore, Christ died for all, but only the elect will be saved. 

This effectively answers your question, but it isn´t necessarily true- Scripture will have to vindicate that. 

But what about your last sentence? What does Christ actually dying for the non-elect mean?

The 4.5 pointer would say, as 1 John 2:2 says, "œHe is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

That is the 4.5 contention. Christ died for the sins of the world, which includes the non-elect. But I stress again that faith is something God grants and man exercises when he is regenerated. This comes from the effectual call of God. And this effectual call of God is only given to those who are His sheep (Hence, Romans 8). 

Allow me to continue to point you to the crux of the debate. The crux is this:

1.	Do you think it is incongruous for God to elect some and send His Son to die for all? If so, then the 4.5 position is wrong. Fair enough, but the crucial question is this: Why is it incongruous? Why Scripturally? 5 pointers often level this charge. See Robert L Reymond for a good discussion on the subject. But I really don´t think it has teeth. The will of God could certainly have such multi-faceted intentions, much like John Piper´s great article entitled, "œAre There Two Will´s in God?"

2.	Does the atonement purchase faith for all those it is done in behalf of? And this means that all those whom atonement is made will and must be brought to faith. The crucial question here is this: Is there Scriptural support for this contention? I really don´t think there is exegetical proof for this, rather, and please take special note of this, there is a kind of theological implication for the position IF you are convinced of the 5-point logic. But this 5-point logic appeals to this point to get its logic. Thus, I would urge, there is a kind of circularity going on. Circularity isn´t bad (See John Frame), indeed, all paradigms are circular to some degree, but is the circularity rooted in something? This point must be rooted in explicit texts or texts which by good and necessary consequence compel the point. I don´t think there is NECESSARY consequence or explicit texts that teach the point. It is possible, but I think the 4.5 contention is also possible. Hence, I am very open to suggestions here. And I am not dogmatic on the issue. Our paradigms color our interpretations and how we construct the data. 

I hope this helps you, even if you don't agree.

Austin


----------



## MW (Sep 22, 2006)

Consider, for a moment, the essence of this position. It teaches that God provided atonement for all men, but then chose to limit the saving results of that atonement to a particular number. How can this be called a covenant of grace? Hugh Martin has correctly observed that it is rather a limitation of grace. I quote his remarks from "The Atonement," pp. 17-20.



> Moreover, under pretence of enlarging the aspects of Grace, it achieves most effectually a precisely opposite result. For, to bring in a covenant of grace in order to limit the application and circumscribe the effectual results of an atonement, in its own nature and accomplished merit unlimited, is surely one of the most perverted and perverting schemes that could be adopted. To introduce a covenant of any kind as an instrument of limitation of a mercy, and of the actual blessings of a mercy, already in the field without limit, is surely too offensive to expect acceptance with thoughtful and generous minds; unless, indeed, very overwhelming evidence can be presented of its being verily the Divine method, clearly and unmistakably revealed to us. But to introduce a covenant of grace, as an instrument for the limitation of grace, is at once an insult to the human understanding and a travesty of the Divine wisdom. In any such view of its action and intent, it must assuredly cease to be called a covenant of grace. The grace is all in the prior arrangement or achievement, which it has been agreed on this scheme to call the Atonement; and the covenant is a covenant circumscribing the grace into limits narrower than its own. It is, therefore, a covenant, not of grace, but of alarming judgment.
> 
> Nay, more: it is a covenant of reasonless, arbitrary and capricious judgment. For it is utterly vain to call in, in arrest of this condemnatory criticism, any reference to the sovereignty of God. The Divine sovereignty is legitimately referred to at the earlier stage, as arranging a real Covenant of Grace "“ grace true and pure and simple "“ taking action from the first to provide and accept and apply a definite and complete atonement for the full and free and sure salvation of the lost and guilty. Sovereignty is in its true place there and then; and its action there and then may be defended against all cavils whatsoever by the answers which the Spirit of God has provided against them: "œMay I not do what I will with my own?" "œWho art thou, O man, that repliest against God?" For, from that point of view, and at that stage in the order of nature, sinners are contemplated as sinners simply, "“ in the eye of Divine justice guilty and righteously exposed to the wrath of God, helpless to relieve themselves from it, and with nothing as yet achieved by Heaven for their relief. And the question, Why is not atonement provided for all? is answered by the question, Why is atonement provided for any? To fall back on the Divine sovereignty here is perfectly legitimate, and indeed inevitable. But to fall back on the Divine sovereignty at a later stage, as Dr Wardlaw´s capricious scheme of doctrine does, is utterly useless and unwarrantable. For if the sovereignty of God is called in at the later stage, at which a universal and unlimited atonement is seen, so to speak, to have already taken the field, then sinners must be viewed, not as simply sinners now, but as sinners whose sin has been atoned for "“ whatever, on this scheme, that may mean. And a covenant coming into play at such a stage, to exclude, in point of fact, vast multitudes from all beneficial effects of an atonement, which, in its own nature, had as beneficial bearings on them as on any and all of those who are ultimately to be saved, "“ a covenant such as this, it is utter folly to call a covenant of grace. It is not a covenant of grace in any sense, but a covenant of judgment; and not a covenant of sovereignty, but of arbitrary and reasonless and terrible judgment. The objection, therefore, in deference to which a definite, effectual, and sure atonement is disparaged and set aside in favour of one that is indefinite and unlimited, "“ and from all the benefits of which, whatever these may be, an imaginary covenant interposes to exclude vast numbers of its beneficiaries, "“ reappears against the erroneous doctrine itself in a form the most aggravated and offensive, with relevancy which it is impossible to deny, and with a force which it is impossible to rebut.


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 22, 2006)

*I don\'t understand*

I'm not sure I understand the quote. It is a little difficult to follow, at least it is for me. Could you explain it in a more understandable fashion?

Austin


----------



## MW (Sep 22, 2006)

The Calvinist doctrine of election (supralapsarian or infralapsarian) regards the death of Christ as God's provision to save the elect from their sins. Hence election to salvation pertains to sinners as sinners, and atonement is contrived as the gracious remedy. The reprobate are passed by as having no interest in the saving work of Christ.

The Amyraldian or double reference theory supposes that God provided the death of Christ as a remedy for all men, but then He chose to make it effectual to a particular number only. Election, then, terminates on sinners who have been atoned for. The reprobate are denied the benefits of an atonement that has purportedly been made for them.

[Edited on 9-23-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## austinbrown2 (Sep 23, 2006)

*Thank you...*

that was much clearer. It would seem that this contention is what I have called the "congruity of divine will" argument (or point 1 above). There is obviously much that can and should be said in this regard. But, and here is where I am probably considered mostly inconsistent or confused, but the 4.5 contention sees no apparent contradiction in positing that God elected some and provided atonement for all. I can certainly hear Warfield's retort in my ears, however (From "The Plan of Salvation"). 

I trust you would urge Natewood3 to ponder this point deeply. 

Peace,
Austin


----------

