# Is Limited Atonement that hard?



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 21, 2008)

Is limited atonement really the biggest hick up with most non or partial Calvinists?

I ask because for me and my wife, limited atonement was the first aspect of Calvinism we believed. We saw it as this. If Christ paid the debt for everyone's sin then no one can be punished for those sins which means no one goes to Hell. Well this is not true so either......

A) God chose from the foundations of the world who would go to Heaven and Christ only paid for their sins

or 

B) God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would ultimately choose to follow Him and thus Christ paid for their sins. 


I really cannot see it any other way.




PS Thankfully God showed me that "A" was the correct answer.


----------



## Kim G (Nov 21, 2008)

It was the hardest one for me to understand because, although it is logical, I didn't think it was biblical. I could see in the Bible that man was depraved (T). I could see in the Bible that the Lord elected men to salvation (U). I could see in the Bible that God would "sweetly force us in"to His kingdom through grace(I). And I could see that what the Lord started in us He would bring to completion(P). But I would point to the verses that say "Christ died for all" or "Christ died for the world" and would say, "therefore, limited atonement cannot be right, even if it is logical."

Now I know different. But it was not easy to accept (L).


----------



## Glosi (Nov 21, 2008)

When I heard about the idea that God has chosen some people to salvation, I was shocked. I thought it's a ridiculous heresy. I started a thread at Polish forum with a question: "What Calvinism has in common with Christianity?" I was even more disturbed when I discovered that my pastor reads reformed books. But when he showed me the first chapter of the Book of Ephesians, I decided to study this subject. After a short period of time I was completely convinced that I sought for Him because He was the Author of my faith.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 21, 2008)

I think the word "limited" is uncomfortable for many people. They don't like thinking of Christ's atonement as limited in any way.

Of course, both theologies limit the atonement. As Calvinists, we limit those who are atoned. The other side limits the actual effectiveness of Christ's work on the cross as they don't believe that His death actually atoned but only opened a possibility for atonement.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 21, 2008)

When I first studied TULIP I found, surprisingly, that I fell right in step with what I was reading. I simply had never had it systemetized for me. There was a sense in which it was liberating because I gained a fuller understanding of God's sovereignty.
I think limited atonement is a struggle for four reasons. One, men want conrol. If we cannot have control then we try to find a way to get it. Limited atonement reminds us that control is illusory. People, especially in the west, are control freaks. Two, as has been stated, many verses appear to state that Jesus died for the world. There are many theological implications involved here that have been hashed and rehashed on the forum. Three, if the number of people is set, they why bother evangelizing - it negates the Great Commission. Four, there is a confusion between effective and sufficient.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2008)

It's really no harder than the others. I think that when people state they believe the other four they actually do not. I agree with others that state that Limited Atonement is the most obvious if you accept that we contribute nothing to our justification. Either Christ's Blood atones for all fully or some fully. What is not acceptable is that Christ's Blood atones for all partially and then _we_ perfect the sacrifice.


----------



## Kim G (Nov 21, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> It's really no harder than the others.


I don't think it's fair to say this when many people, myself included, say that it was harder than others. Maybe not for you, but for many it was.


> I think that when people state they believe the other four they actually do not.


 Again, I don't think it's fair to say that you can see what people "actually believe" when they tell you they believe the other four points. It may not make sense to the Calvinist system, but it makes sense to the one who believes (yes, really believes) the four points.



> Either Christ's Blood atones for all fully or some fully. What is not acceptable is that Christ's Blood atones for all partially and then _we_ perfect the sacrifice.


 But I wasn't concerned about logic. People could spout the "logic" of Limited Atonement all day and night, but until I could see it said IN SCRIPTURE, I wasn't going to believe it.


----------



## biggandyy (Nov 21, 2008)

I have always boiled it down thusly (it may or may not be a completely accurate summary), Christ's Atonement atones for every sin of every man everywhere. In fact, if the Lord were to apply the Atonement of Jesus to a slab of concrete that slab of concrete would be saved. BUT... it is God the Father who decides to whom He will apply the Atonement.

If Jesus, being an infinite sacrifice, has made atonement, then that atonement is infinitely strong and efficacious to save. But the Atonement must go hand in hand with the Will of the Father to apply the Atonement to whom He wishes.

In the "free gift" vein, I can purchase a gift for every person on the face of the earth. That does them zero good until that gift is delivered, until then they are all crammed here in my tiny little office . But in this analogy God is not having a gift taken from Him passively, He is actively delivering it right to your account. PAID IN FULL.


----------



## Kim G (Nov 21, 2008)

biggandyy said:


> I have always boiled it down thusly (it may or may not be a completely accurate summary), Christ's Atonement atones for every sin of every man everywhere.


This is not limited atonement. This is what I believed before I became reformed. If Christ actually atoned for every sin, then every man is going to heaven. God cannot lie, and he will not send to hell anyone whose sins have been atoned for.

Christ didn't die for the sins of those who had already died and gone to hell before His death. He didn't die for the sins of those who would go to hell after His death. Christ died for His people. He shed His blood for His people. He actually redeemed His people.


----------



## biggandyy (Nov 21, 2008)

That's why I said it may not be completely accurate. Thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 21, 2008)

The simple fact of the matter is, if Christ's atonement is unlimited then it's all encompassing and everyone is saved. Pretty simple, if one is confronted with the reality of it. Anyone who thinks that not everyone will be saved believes in limited atonement, to one degree or another. They have to in order to have any consistency whatsoever.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 21, 2008)

Kim G said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > It's really no harder than the others.
> ...



Kim,

Whether you believe it is "fair" or not, I am convinced that those that claim to hold to the other four points really don't fully apprehend the four points because the points overlap one another. For example, what part did you believe Christ's High Priestly work played in your perseverance?

It really is a simple matter of inducing the plain meaning of Scripture - especially the Book of Hebrews, which leaves no doubt as to the perfection of Christ's atonement.

This is not to say that where Scripture is plain that men do not earnestly misapprehend something. I never implied evil intentions to you or others but I simply do not believe the concept is very difficult to apprehend.

Does Christ's sacrifice fully propitiate the wrath of God for sin?

The answer to that question determines whether or not the person believes they contribute to justification or not. They might not articulate that but, if you peel back the onion enough then either (like you) they will eventually acknowledge that Christ's atonement really is limited to those for Whom He died or they will inject some work of man into the equation.

In other words, the issue is simple but the path to getting others to understand it often is not. I'm not certain why it is that any of us need to be concerned that their integrity is being questioned because we come in to spiritual light. I once did not understand the simplicity of the Gospel, though I would have sworn to you that I thought I understood it. I wouldn't question somebody's "fairness" in pointing out how simple the Gospel is to adduce simply because I was blind to its content for a couple of decades.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 21, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Whether you believe it is "fair" or not, I am convinced that those that claim to hold to the other four points really don't fully apprehend the four points because the points overlap one another. For example, what part did you believe Christ's High Priestly work played in your perseverance?



If full apprehension is the measure of true belief, then none of us is a true believer, since none of us has exhaustive apprehension of any doctrine. I think that those people, including many pastors and seminary professors I know, do believe the other four points. They understand them well enough to articulate them to others. They simply aren't logically consistent.


----------



## AThornquist (Nov 22, 2008)

biggandyy said:


> I have always boiled it down thusly (it may or may not be a completely accurate summary), Christ's Atonement atones for every sin of every man everywhere. In fact, if the Lord were to apply the Atonement of Jesus to a slab of concrete that slab of concrete would be saved. BUT... it is God the Father who decides to whom He will apply the Atonement.
> 
> If Jesus, being an infinite sacrifice, has made atonement, then that atonement is infinitely strong and efficacious to save. But the Atonement must go hand in hand with the Will of the Father to apply the Atonement to whom He wishes.
> 
> In the "free gift" vein, I can purchase a gift for every person on the face of the earth. That does them zero good until that gift is delivered, until then they are all crammed here in my tiny little office . But in this analogy God is not having a gift taken from Him passively, He is actively delivering it right to your account. PAID IN FULL.



Sounds like unlimited limited atonement. Mark Driscoll and Bruce Ware believe this, for example.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 22, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Is limited atonement really the biggest hick up with most non or partial Calvinists?
> 
> I ask because for me and my wife, limited atonement was the first aspect of Calvinism we believed. We saw it as this. If Christ paid the debt for everyone's sin then no one can be punished for those sins which means no one goes to Hell. Well this is not true so either......
> 
> ...





People grow up being taught particular views and understandings and it is hard to accept orthodox teaching, especially in America, because the majority of American Christianity is a sycretic blend of a multitude of different influences - especially philosophical and unitarian.

Limited Atonement was difficult for me, I found the key in orthodox Trinitarianism. I found that while I was nominally Trinitarian, I really didn't understand it and was practically a Modalist, based upon how the doctrine of the Trinity was taught to me.

Ultimately, I concluded that Arminianism is confusion and denial of orthodox Trinitarianism - although it may nominally affirm it. In essence, what Arminianism does is confuse the offices of Christ whereby Christ as King is limited and an unlimited Priesthood is posited. Ultimately, then, there is disagreement in the Godhead. In contrast, Calvinism affirms a limited atonement, or Priesthood, and an unlimited Lordship. It is the confusion over the scope of these two offices of Priest and King that causes the problem, the biggest expression of this confusion is in American politics over Church and State as well and their proper jurisdictions.

I think one of the big problems is that Calvinists generally have taken time to figure out what they believe and why and presume the average Arminian has as well - and that just isn't the case most of the time. As a result, I don't particularly care for the TULIP because it presumes that people know what they believe and why. I always start with teaching on orthodox Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology - if these are true and correct interpretations of Scripture, then, Limited Atonement is the only possible correct soteriological interpretation.

I think if more Calvinists took more time teaching on the revealed nature of God and Chalcedonian orthodoxy that Limited Atonement wouldn't be so hard to understand or accept for a great many Arminian believers.


----------



## asc (Nov 22, 2008)

Limited atonement was the last of TULIP to make real sense. 

From my experience, I think it had to do with the mish-mash of teaching that I learned at the church where I first became a Christian. I assume it's typical of many fundy / evangelical baptist churches where (at least in the past) sin is mentioned regularly (T), grace is mentioned regularly (but not fully understood), perservenance is agreed upon. Election is simply not mentioned but the word is clearly mentioned in the Bible, so people may come that doctrine more neutrally. Atonement, however, was always proclaimed to be universal and gospel invitations to unbelievers were often framed with: Jesus died on the cross for all your sins, so receive him into your heart...

So to me the initial idea of limited atonement was something of a shock and puzzle.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Whether you believe it is "fair" or not, I am convinced that those that claim to hold to the other four points really don't fully apprehend the four points because the points overlap one another. For example, what part did you believe Christ's High Priestly work played in your perseverance?
> ...



I never stated that full apprehension is required for saving faith. I believe you need to read more carefully.

I think your example of Professors and others who teach this is a poor one. Is the fact that false doctrine is taught a measure of spiritual understanding? Erasmus is probably the most brilliant scholar of the 16th Century but Luther and Calvin decried his teachings on the free will of man even while they benefited from his Greek and Hebrew expertise.

What I think some of you are missing is that this is not a function of IQ. Spiritual truth is not something that is apprehended by the force of the will. Spiritual blindness will cause a man to lack fruition in the things of God. Hence, as you note, there are plenty of Pastors and Theologians who claim to uphold the four points. In fact, you downplay their intelligence in a way that I do not. They use logic in their defense of their doctrine but they import un-Biblical premises into their formulas and arrive at a false conclusion. What is required is not more intelligence or human toil but it will be the work of the Spirit, through the Word, that will guide to Truth.

Let me remind all what I actually said in my first reply:


> It's really no harder than the others.


In other words, I didn't speak to the relative difficulty of the other points and whether or not each of them was easy to apprehend to begin with.

My point to this is that we need to throw off any pretense of pride here. The fact is that _all_ the five points are pretty straightforward but they are all impossible to rest in if you are spiritually blind to them. Praise goes not to man for understanding and having fruition in the Scriptures but to the Holy Spirit alone. Instead of being concerned that I'm dissing 4-pointers as being stupid, we all need to repent of intellectual pride that assumes that any spiritual truth is "easy" apart from the _illumination_ of God's Word.

Incidentally, below is the second main point of doctrine from the Canons of Dordt that condemn the Remonstrants. It's where we get the L in TULIP, which came a few centuries later as a way to conveniently remember the major points that the Reformed Church condemns.

What I want you to notice about it is:

1. The error that the Remonstrants were propagating is much like today.
2. The error is sophisticated: the Remonstrants were not drooling idiots, nor have I claimed those that hold to this are.
3. The truth that is set forward is not difficult to follow given a certain vocabulary level and reading comprehension. Likewise, the condemnation of errors is equally straightforward.

In other words, the issue is not difficult but will require the abandonment of one set of commitments and the embracing of another.



> *The Second Main Point of Doctrine*
> 
> *Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through Its*​
> *Article 1: The Punishment Which God's Justice Requires*
> ...


----------



## JDKetterman (Nov 22, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Is limited atonement really the biggest hick up with most non or partial Calvinists?
> 
> I ask because for me and my wife, limited atonement was the first aspect of Calvinism we believed. We saw it as this. If Christ paid the debt for everyone's sin then no one can be punished for those sins which means no one goes to Hell. Well this is not true so either......
> 
> ...



It took me awhile to believe in limited atonement. For awhile, I had the classical Lutheran view when it came to the atonement. One of the reasons why it was tough for me was because most of my Calvinist friends would try to argue this through mere logic. My view was that the atonement was available for all people, yet the reason why people do not come is because of unbelief. 

At the same time, I held to unconditional election and total depravity, yet I believed Grace was universal and resistable. I read Calvin's exegesis of John 6, and then I became convinced of the Reformed position. This is where I believe the strength of the Reformed position is.


----------



## BJClark (Nov 22, 2008)

Chaplainintraining;



> Is limited atonement really the biggest hick up with most non or partial Calvinists?
> 
> 
> A) God chose from the foundations of the world who would go to Heaven and Christ only paid for their sins
> ...



For me personally, I didn't have a difficult time accepting it, but then I didn't study TULIP like a lot of people do. I never looked at it as to whether it was limited or unlimited, it was merely Christ atoned for the sins of some people but not..I understood that through understanding some go to hell and others don't..

I believed it even before I knew what TULIP stood for, I had folks calling me a Calvinist, before I ever knew what that meant, and I'd say "NO, I'm a Christian, not a Calvinist! I follow Christ NOT Calvin".

It's in part how I came across this forum, There were various things I was talking about on other forums, from divorce, and remarriage, to Calvinism and soforth, I'd do a search on those topics and this forum would pop up in my search..so I started investigating it more..

And when I understood what Calvin taught, I was like "well, Praise God, John Calvin taught the same thing I believe."

But there are many who do struggle with their understanding about God..'Their God wouldn't cast some in to hell merely because they don't believe in Christ; Their God isn't that mean." But if we really look at those comments, what's being said is more "Their God isn't Holy; He isn't Just, He doesn't really hate sin." 

So it's not that they struggle with understanding limited atonement, they struggle believing God and who He IS and who God says He is; against their own imaginations of who they want and think God to be--

I've even heard people say God has changed from the times of the Old Testament to the times of the New Testament..He is no longer a God of wrath, like He was in the Old Testament, they do not grasp God has not changed..


----------



## natewood3 (Nov 22, 2008)

Shouldn't Arminians believe in limited atonement as well? If you are an Arminian, you could simply say that Christ died to actually effect the salvation of all those whom God foreseen would believe in him. After I actually affirmed limited atonement, I wondered why I struggled with it so much, but it was definitely the last point I came to accept. Some of the hardest texts to deal with, in my opinion, are those that seem to contradict a limited atonement view. I think the other points are fairly easy to show from Scripture. I also think limited atonement is somewhat easy to show from Scripture, but there seems to be more texts that you have to explain in order to hold to limited atonement. I suppose there are more exegetical arguments that one must deal with, whereas the other four points (with the possible except of Perseverance) normally have philosophical objections, but not many exegetical objections.

Just my observation...


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 22, 2008)

Interesting...I was called a 5 point Calvinist, before I had a clue what one was...when explained to me I could see plainly how if God UNCONDITIONALLY Elected before the foundation of the world, that said election can only mean He intended to save SOME. Limited Atonenment was easily determined from this alone.

I almost hate to say it...but, ALL the Points were impossible for me to grasp, until I was saved and truly understood the FIRST. Understanding the first led to a supernatural progression in my understanding of the others. And as I mentioned, I didn't know what the 5 points were at the time I understood Scripture.

If one is wrong about the "T", then they aren't going to understand U, L (especially), I (which should be as difficult as L), and P which I can't see how they understand if they if they don't have the understanding of "T".

For the NATURAL man, L is completely incoherent. The natural man CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit of God, NEITHER can he KNOW them, for they are spiritually discerned. If one is shown Scripturally, from the inspired Word of God, the Truth of God's work in salvation, and doesn't see it, doesn't like it, fights tooth and nail against it...there is something amiss. It is only simple and "easy" to the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2008)

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> I almost hate to say it...but, ALL the Points were impossible for me to grasp, until I was saved and truly understood the FIRST. Understanding the first led to a supernatural progression in my understanding of the others. And as I mentioned, I didn't know what the 5 points were at the time I understood Scripture.


Don't hate to say it. This is an important fact to remember.

I was musing over this thread today and realized that the Reformed faith has a reputation for being intellectual or rationalistic. Some of this inevitably stems from a head-heart dichotomy that has become prevalent in Evangelicalism since Schleiermacher and Revivalism. We need not abandon the Biblical use of the mind and our desire to labor at understanding the things of God and taking all thoughts captive to the Word of God.

Yet, and this is important, we need to realize that our apprehension compared to our neighbors who yet neglect some key spiritual truths has little to do with our comparative intelligence. In other words, I think what has emerged in this thread is the idea that the doctrines of grace are something we naturally have the capacity to apprehend. Thus, when I pointed out that this particular doctrine was no less difficult to apprehend than others I've been met by objections that I'm somehow denigrating others' ability to reason properly.

It's also been argued that what was really missing was the proper use of reason. I'm not saying this to pick on people in general but to try to drive home that these doctrines are not merely a matter of mental capacity but that our minds must be illumined by the grace of God. I'm glad this point was made. 

Apart from the Spirit there is not a single point ithat is "easy" for the unaided mind to understand.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 22, 2008)

And those that ARE regenerate will understand them, with but, no difficulty...It is as you say, not in the natural man to "grasp" them.

As for the Heart/Mind thing...they are the same thing. We don't think with our heart muscle...not that you don't know that


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Nov 22, 2008)

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> And those that ARE regenerate will understand them, with but, no difficulty...It is as you say, not in the natural man to "grasp" them.
> 
> As for the Heart/Mind thing...they are the same thing. We don't think with our heart muscle...not that you don't know that



I'm not sure I agree with this. While it is impossible for the natural man to understand the things of God, I do not think it follows (if I am correctly interpreting your implcations) that the regenerate man will necessarily understand _everything_ in complete accuracy without any difficulty grasping the truths of God. Paul prays diligently that believers "grow" in the knowledge of God's truth. I think we all grow in this truth, but I don't think this means that at the end of someone's life we can tell if that person was "truly" regenerate by whether or not they've understood everything the bible has to say. We still struggle with sin on this earth and this sin I think will always present itself in the forms of doctrinal errors until our glorification. Now notice I said doctrinal errors and not doctrinal heresy. Yes I do believe a regenerate person will not believe in a damnable heresy unto death (ie Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Oneness Pentacostalism, etc).


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 24, 2008)

Hi!....I wasn't refering to "everything the bible has to say", I am speaking of milk here, the essentials of TULIP. And if taught rightly, one that is born again, will see the kingdom of God. I have never said anything about understanding everything...but there is a full knowledge of the truth.

Complete, or infinite knowledge of the Truth is not necessary, but even the apostles taught to look out for those that did not hold or teach the doctrine delivered to them of the apostles.

Someone else mentioned something to me about people coming in and deliberately bringing in heresies with them...These people who are wolves in sheeps clothing don't all realize that they are bringing in false teaching...fine, straighten them out, but if they don't hold to the doctrine (gospel) the apostles delivered them, they were to have nothing to do with them.

I think what I am getting at here, is a lot of people want to just accept everyone as saved that names the Name of Christ, and yet, don't equally think of looking out for the devil who lurks about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. We have such emotional attachments to the flesh, that we seem to not consider that what has been declared as truth, must of necessity be truth, not partial truth...

You shall KNOW the truth, and truth will set you free. Now we can get into WHAT that "truth" is, and whether it is really all THAT important, or we can just go on believing that those who hate it, are saved...I will test the spirits, and when I am assured of the profession I am hearing I will be more relaxed with the person, and actually fellowship with them.

One more thing, what damnable heresies are the Mormons, JW's, Oneness, holding to that is any worse than denying LIMITED Atonenment? Why judge other's damned for their "misunderstandings" and not the others??


----------



## Kim G (Nov 24, 2008)

TheFleshProfitethNothing said:


> One more thing, what damnable heresies are the Mormons, JW's, Oneness, holding to that is any worse than denying LIMITED Atonenment? Why judge other's damned for their "misunderstandings" and not the others??



My guess would be because many who "deny" limited atonement contradict themselves and don't really mean what they say.

Universal atonement is a damnable heresy. But when I used to say that limited atonement was not biblical, I didn't mean that I believed in universal atonement. I thought that Jesus died to make all men able to be redeemed, but only those He called would have the atonement applied to them and actually redeem them. Yes, it's wrong. But it wasn't universal atonement. It was just confusion. Praise God for opening my eyes!


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 24, 2008)

Duane (et al) So are you saying that Luther and all Lutherans not only are not regenerate, but are also necessarily _damned_? That's a pretty bold statement.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 24, 2008)

Prufrock said:


> Duane (et al) So are you saying that Luther and all Lutherans not only are not regenerate, but are also necessarily _damned_? That's a pretty bold statement.



I don't know if I'm "al" here but I do believe the Lutherans are holding together an un-Biblical contradiction in their theology and that we both can't be right. One of us is resistant to the clear teaching of the Scripture. I don't believe they would say that it's unclear what the Scriptures teach on this point and neither would we (read Dordt above).

I don't agree that one is necessarily damned because they doubt or are in darkness with respect to something in the Word. If I understand it properly then I will give glory to God for my sight and not claim more intelligence or piety than the Lutheran. That said, I'm not going to take a post-modern stance and say we're both right so it doesn't really matter. I think this issue has profound theological consequences and leave it up to the Judge of the Living and the Dead whose elect are united to Him by faith.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 24, 2008)

> I don't know if I'm "al" here



Nope. Just meant to open up the question to anyone else who held a similar view to what was expressed.

Absolutely, we can't both be right. Obviously, we are. Joking of course (but really, I'm pretty sure we are...) We ought always to strive for correct teaching, and to root out incorrect teaching. We should never idly stand by and watch the danger of dirt and grime building up on the beautiful picture which is the gospel; for though certain men might still see the true gospel through the build-up, subsequent followers of their teaching, lacking the original clarity, will surely have a distorted picture.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 24, 2008)

> but I do believe the Lutherans are holding together an un-Biblical contradiction in their theology



 Also, no argument there. And I would hope that we should be able to demonstrate that to them. Nevertheless, we believe the same gospel. I categorize such a difference as this as an intellectual difference from attempting to explain how the gospel works which we both proclaim together. Granted, I think this is a big one, but I still place it in that category. I think we should certainly have fellowship with confessional Lutherans. After 500 year of arguing about the supper, about grace, the atonement, etc., I think we're all pretty much set in our ways on certain key points and that we might have to learn to live with those differences; but that's exactly what I think we have to do -- be willing to live with those, because I don't think the differences between us and the Lutherans are enough for us to break off brotherly fellowship with them.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 24, 2008)

Finally,



> I don't agree that one is necessarily damned because they doubt or are in darkness with respect to something in the Word. If I understand it properly then I will give glory to God for my sight and not claim more intelligence or piety than the Lutheran.


Amen.


> That said, I'm not going to take a post-modern stance and say we're both right so it doesn't really matter.


I hope not.


> I think this issue has profound theological consequences


I think so, too. Which is why I think we should, at least, continue to demonstrate and advocate our understanding to the Lutherans. I think this belief opens up the possibility to all kinds of horrible and scary stuff. Fortunately, I can praise God that the Lutherans have and still are able to walk that tightrope whereby they maintain their teaching on atonement, and yet still hold to orthodox, evangelical truth. They've walked the tightrope well. Of course, it would be better if they didn't have to walk that tightrope and just became reformed...


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 24, 2008)

It is not necessarily a question of whether I think one is saved is JUST my point. It is what doctrine do they hold to...I would be quite happy to see that the people I partake of the Lord's Supper with, believe as I, (which is confessional), and that being in the Canons of Dordrect. (Though I have put the WCF as my main confession on PB)

I would Sup with ANYONE professing to hold to this confession, regardless of mode of baptism, or other such disagreements. If one Agrees to the SAME gospel...I, by agreeing to partake of Communion with them, show my agreement with them, we worship the same Christ rightly...in Spirit and Truth.

Now, whether the others be saved now, or to be saved in the future, I leave to the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God...do I consider such ones not saved, as in Lutherans...I have to confess; that by default, I would say so...in the simple action (or rather no action) in participation of their Holy Eucharist.

Are they saved or not? Well, ask yourself which of those Romanist you would partake of the Supper with...would you partake with the Antichrist mentioned in the WCF?

I really think, that sooo many have their own "criteria" of who, or whom they have "fellowship" with...I speak for myself, and tell NO ONE; not one person, that they SHOULD NOT, fellowship with what I might term an unbeliever. Yet people have been thinking I have...Did I tell anyone NOT too? I believe I said (in another like-thread) you must pray about it and go with the Leading of the Spirit.

So, whether I believe someone dead in trespasses and sins is moot, in regard to what others might believe. I'm just simply expressing what I know, and letting the person who opened the thread, decide for their self.

If it's getting personal, as in, others feel I am attacking anyone in anyway...I will try to explain better, but, at this point I see no reason to apologize for any statements I have made, and hope it challenges others to think: that's pretty much it.

Yes. Keep ON growing in the Grace and Knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ! There is the Elementary teachings...then there is MORE!

God Bless His Elect


----------



## MW (Nov 24, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know if I'm "al" here but I do believe the Lutherans are holding together an un-Biblical contradiction in their theology and that we both can't be right. One of us is resistant to the clear teaching of the Scripture. I don't believe they would say that it's unclear what the Scriptures teach on this point and neither would we (read Dordt above).



Lutheranism would say the teaching of Scripture can be held paradoxically, and won't be too interested in sorting out logical inconsistencies.


----------



## KMK (Nov 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I'm "al" here but I do believe the Lutherans are holding together an un-Biblical contradiction in their theology and that we both can't be right. One of us is resistant to the clear teaching of the Scripture. I don't believe they would say that it's unclear what the Scriptures teach on this point and neither would we (read Dordt above).
> ...



Some would argue that the Reformed doctrine of predestination is paradoxical.



> WCF 3:I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.



How is the Lutheran view paradoxical whereas the Reformed view is not?


----------



## MW (Nov 24, 2008)

KMK said:


> How is the Lutheran view paradoxical whereas the Reformed view is not?



God ordains sin, but God is not the author of sin -- can be logically reconciled by showing that He did not ordain sin as sin, but as an action, and the sinfulness of the action proceeds from the creature.


----------



## KMK (Nov 25, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > How is the Lutheran view paradoxical whereas the Reformed view is not?
> ...



Is it this last logical step that Lutherans are unable/unwilling to take? 

After reading "Bondage of the Will", I don't think Luther himself would have any difficutly with what you have said.


----------



## KMK (Nov 25, 2008)

For what it is worth, my biggest hurdle was the 'Irresistability of the HS' peice. And this was/is true for many that I know. The fact that Christ atoned for the sins of those who only go to heaven is perfectly logical. But growing up in a liberal mainline denom, the thought that people did not have a choice in the matter was very difficult to accept.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 25, 2008)

I was the same way. I even developed the idea that God chose to enlighten only a select few from before the foundations of the world, but man still chose to accept or not once enlightened. I was trying to hold on to my upbringing.


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 25, 2008)

Duane,



> Are they saved or not? Well, ask yourself which of those Romanist you would partake of the Supper with...would you partake with the Antichrist mentioned in the WCF?


I don't get it. Why did you ask me which Roman Catholics I would eat the supper with? Lutherans aren't Roman Catholics... They profess the same gospel that we do. And they're not Roman Catholics...

Also, I'm not so sure that the decision of with whom we will "condescend" to eat the supper is really ours; _we_ don't administer the supper. The minister does. And if he is ready to distribute the supper to one, I think it would be wrong to withdraw ourselves from the ordinance on that account.

Seriously, though, I think your standards as to who is and is not a Christian are just a tad high... "A believer is one who accepts Dort; everyone else, well, I won't tell people not to have fellowship with them, but I'm pretty sure they're damned if they reject Dort." That's just some steep criteria that leave out countless souls who have labored in the name of Jesus and who have trusted in his righteousness alone.

This is not to say that those teachings of the Canons of Dort are not important; of course they are, and I am glad that you accept them fully and are zealous for their truth. I think you might be overextending their power, however; it is not confessional subscription which saves, but faith in Christ. And people who have such a faith can have false understandings of certain things. Not every error of creed excludes one from the benefits of Christ. I fear that such teaching turns us away from reliance upon Christ and causes doubt among simple believers: "Do I really believe everything correctly enough to go to heaven?" This is not right. We seek to understand because of our faith of life in Christ; we do not have faith because we understand all things rightly. One flows from the other, and I think you're reversing the order. Let us never exclude those from whom Christ died by making them they cannot be saved until they first understand more than Christ and the apostles themselves said was required for faith, and so drive people to trust in something other than Christ.

Grace and peace,


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (Nov 25, 2008)

Again, I didn't call Lutherans Romanists...though I might give it some thought, I was ACTUALLY refering to ROMANISTS...as an example of what one believes. If you believe a Romanist partakes of the Lord's Table as Transubstantiation, would you want other's around you to believe that you also accept it as transubstantiation?

And perhaps my "standards are a bit high"...but then, I am supposed to have higher standards... my quote from last post..."Now, whether the others be saved now, or to be saved in the future, I leave to the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God...do I consider such ones not saved, as in Lutherans...I have to confess; that by default, I would say so...in the simple action (or rather no action) in participation of *their Holy Eucharist*." I won't take of the bread and wine at a Lutheran Church...sorry if that offends someone here, but, I can't help being offensive I guess.

If I am in a reformed church and an Arminian attends and hears the doctrine of election preached that particular Lord's Day and questions it, I will answer him honestly, and to the point as possible making it as simple to understand as possible. Now, whether he/she returns the next Lord's Day is a matter of their heart. Now, same in another situation; you go to an Arminian Church, and you ask the preacher what was the substance of his message this morning? Or even, I would like to ask you a few questions concerning your view of Election as laid out in Scripture...you have a not too brief conversation, and he get steamed, even to the point he desires you NOT return to his Church...would it be proper for you to have had the elements that Lord's Day, with a person who desires you NOT associate with their congregation?

I mean, there is serious meaning in the bread and the wine, and all that they represent, and I just wonder what it is that makes it so? Is it about fellowship in the one Christ? or is it fellowship with some "other" Christ? I don't know...I'm getting worried about the whole state of the present church to begin with, and just see the NEED for a higher standard...you keep the standard and God will increase HIS church as He gives.

Someone said I would be a verly lonely man if I kept up this high standard thing...I don't mind...I would be in good company...if anyone can recall some very lonely people in Scripture...who held to a "pretty high standard". Lastly, I don't get all tough guy with people who don't get it...or whatever, it's not up to me, OR them whether they understand...it is up to me to preach/teach, to be ready to answer, etc...and I am generally kind, in my responses...I usually can tell who HATES the doctrine of Christ, and who just really, hasn't heard it yet.

Anywho...have some things to attend to before the day is over...


----------



## Gloria (Nov 25, 2008)

Kim G said:


> It was the hardest one for me to understand because, although it is logical, I didn't think it was biblical. I could see in the Bible that man was depraved (T). I could see in the Bible that the Lord elected men to salvation (U). I could see in the Bible that God would "sweetly force us in"to His kingdom through grace(I). And I could see that what the Lord started in us He would bring to completion(P). But I would point to the verses that say "Christ died for all" or "Christ died for the world" and would say, "therefore, limited atonement cannot be right, even if it is logical."
> 
> Now I know different. But it was not easy to accept (L).



Same here. I'd been taught that he died for "all" so it was hard to wrap my mind around the truth of limited atonement. Shortly after the L "dropped" as I call it, I became a belligerent little thing. Thank God for gracious people and a blog I read on "the cage stage." Settled me down, quite nicely.


----------



## Scott1 (Nov 25, 2008)

You may find helpful the classic book about this deep biblical truth by John Owen, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ."

The introduction to the book by JI Packer is a superb summary of the subject as well.

One of the beautiful things about the "five points" is that these doctrines of grace, when fully understood, necessarily relate to and are dependent on one another. God is indeed sovereign- and gracious.


----------



## MW (Nov 25, 2008)

KMK said:


> Is it this last logical step that Lutherans are unable/unwilling to take?
> 
> After reading "Bondage of the Will", I don't think Luther himself would have any difficutly with what you have said.



The paradox is maintained by Lutherans by not allowing sin to be fore-ordained. Luther was not Lutheran in various ways.


----------



## kamaujackson811 (Jan 7, 2009)

Does anyone know of a successful defense against John Owen's double payment/double jeopardy argument of John Owen.

Some speakers in the John 3:16 conference attempt to distinguish between a "legal" debt and a "moral" debt.

They claim that Christ paid the legal debt to the Father, but we still have to pay the moral debt through faith.

Hodge's attempted refutation: Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive Charles Hodge on the Double Payment / Double Jeopardy Fallacy

I believe the conclusion comes down to the perspective from which we view the problem. 

If God lives outside of time, would it be fallacious to assume that He has always seen us as His children in some sense before belief and our sins had already been placed upon Christ at the very moment of the atonement. All this, because we have been elected to salvation. And therefore, it is impossible for us to have never believed.

Are we justified from birth from our perspective? No.
Are we justified from birth by God's eternal perspective? Maybe.

In other words, the sins we committed in unbelief, before belief, had already been placed upon Christ. To suggest that it were possible for the elect, who momentarily by nature is a "child of wrath," to have never believed, would be to undermine the sovereignty of God in election. To even consider such a thing is foolishness, because it isn't plausible.

When Paul states in Ephesians 2, 

"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

Is it possible to assume that Paul's description is representative of what the elect where by nature, rather than the eternal personhood of the elect.

"I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness." (Jer 31:3)

That while we were yet "objects of wrath" from our perspective, our Father drew US in love because of His eternal decree.


Now, can the above position be found in scripture and defended against Hodge? I don't know....anyhow, I was simply making an argument for the sake of an argument.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 7, 2009)

The simple fact is whether it actually IS harder to believe or not, more people get hung up on the dreadful L than all the other points, so YES it must be harder for people to accept for some reason.

I think the reason is because modern sentiments think that all anger and hate is evil and perhaps most people are tired of the venom that comes out of religion and so they are confused when the NT speaks of Jesus' anger or God's hatred and they want a "kindler, gentler" theology.


----------



## cih1355 (Jan 8, 2009)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Is limited atonement really the biggest hick up with most non or partial Calvinists?
> 
> I ask because for me and my wife, limited atonement was the first aspect of Calvinism we believed. We saw it as this. If Christ paid the debt for everyone's sin then no one can be punished for those sins which means no one goes to Hell. Well this is not true so either......
> 
> ...



I have heard that the doctrine of the limited atonement is the doctrine that offends people the most. However, if you listen to some people, especially those who are antagonistic to Calvinistic soteriology, you would think that they are equally offended by all five points of Calvinism. 

I have a question about those who believe that Christ actually made a real atonement for everyone and at the same time believe that not everyone will be saved. Do they believe that the penalty for sin is paid for twice- once when Jesus died and again when some people go to hell?


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 8, 2009)

KMK said:


> For what it is worth, my biggest hurdle was the 'Irresistability of the HS' peice. And this was/is true for many that I know. The fact that Christ atoned for the sins of those who only go to heaven is perfectly logical. But growing up in a liberal mainline denom, the thought that people did not have a choice in the matter was very difficult to accept.



The issue isn't with people having choice. People *do make a choice* when they repent and trust Christ. The issue is the *cause* of the choice. Man does not repent or believe because he doesn't want to; he is a slave to his wicked wants (desires). One huge part of regeneration is that God gives man a new, greater desire for God and righteousness. Man always chooses according to his greatest desire so when grace is given he desires God and consequently chooses Him.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 8, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > For what it is worth, my biggest hurdle was the 'Irresistability of the HS' peice. And this was/is true for many that I know. The fact that Christ atoned for the sins of those who only go to heaven is perfectly logical. But growing up in a liberal mainline denom, the thought that people did not have a choice in the matter was very difficult to accept.
> ...



One of the things that I think stumbles people greatly is the fact that people who are not elect actually do NOT want to serve God and be subject to Him. They in fact willingly go to Hell because they will not bring themselves to fully submit to Him. People often just don't believe this is possible, and that ultimately I think because they don't really grasp the depth of the depravity of one who is dead in trespasses and sins.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 8, 2009)

I admit upfront that I have not read all the threads so sorry if I repeat something already said.

I heard it said like this:
Both views of the atonement are limited, the difference is in what you choose to limit.
Either only a few are chosen and God safes all of them, that means limited in the people chosen.
Or God chose everybody but the work Christ did is not actually able to do it alone, people have to help, in chosing God, and this sets a limit to Christ work.

I will rather have model a than b.


----------



## SpokenFor (Jan 8, 2009)

I came across a wonderful Hip Hop CD by Shai Linne called "Atonement" that everyone should listen to. I don't listen to hip hop as a general rule, but I often have this CD cranked up in my ipod because it is sound, biblical truth. Here are the lyrics of a song, _Mission Accomplished,_ that really made the concept of limited atonement clear for me.

Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide
For years it’s had Christians lining up on both sides
By God’s grace, I’ll address this without pride
The question concerns those for whom Christ died
Was He trying to save everybody worldwide?
Was He trying to make the entire world His Bride?
Does man’s unbelief keep the Savior’s hands tied?
Biblically, each of these must be denied
It’s true, Jesus gave up His life for His Bride
But His Bride is the elect, to whom His death is applied
If on judgment day, you see that you can’t hide
And because of your sin, God’s wrath on you abides
And hell is the place you eternally reside
That means your wrath from God hasn’t been satisfied
But we believe His mission was accomplished when He died

Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one
Working as a unit to get things done
Our salvation began in eternity past
God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass
A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever
When it comes to the church, peep how they work together
The Father foreknew first, the Son came to earth
To die- the Holy Spirit gives the new birth
The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them
The Spirit is the One who resurrects them
The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them
The Spirit renews them and produces fruit in them
Everybody’s not elect, the Father decides
And it’s only the elect in whom the Spirit resides
The Father and the Spirit- completely unified

_If we can agree that the election of the Father is not universal,
And the regeneration of the Holy Spirit is not universal,
Why would the atonement of the Son be universal?
That would put the persons of the trinity completely at odds with one another,
But the triune God is completely unified._

My third and final verse- here’s the situation
Just a couple more things for your consideration
If saving everybody was why Christ came in history
With so many in hell, we’d have to say He failed miserably
So many think He only came to make it possible
Let’s follow this solution to a conclusion that’s logical
What about those who were already in the grave?
The Old Testament wicked- condemned as depraved
Did He die for them? C’mon, behave
But worst of all, you’re saying the cross by itself doesn’t save
That we must do something to give the cross its power
That means, at the end of the day, the glory’s ours
That man-centered thinking is not recommended
The cross will save all for whom it was intended
Because for the elect, God’s wrath was satisfied


----------



## discipulo (Jan 8, 2009)

Thank you for that unexpected poem, I must say that I don’t like hip hop and I have great concerns for this younger generation. I may even get a bit cranky at times, thinking that there is not any more moral fibber left from former centuries.

But that song's poem reminded me that the Lord is God, from generation to generation.

_Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise (…)
as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee._

Joshua 1:1,2,5

Concerning the topic, even if not close to the depth John Owen reflected on this vital doctrine, I find the late Greg Bahnsen stated it in a very clear and practical way (a good reminder of what he really believed and stood for).


"A very unhealthy notion that plagues the fundamentalist church is the idea that Christ laid down his life for each and every individual; that he went to the cross to save all men without exception. Such a view is not consistent with Biblical Christianity. Sometimes a person will acknowledge the total depravity of man, unconditional election of God the Father, prevenient grace of the Spirit and yet deny the particular redemption of Christ; *such a position is known as "fourpoint Calvinism" and is as inconsistent as it is unorthodox*(…)

Particular redemption is the only triune, monotheistic, substitutionary, personal, effectual, and biblical (hence, orthodox) doctrine of Christ's atonement; all else (including fundamentalism's redemption for every individual) are doctrines pleasing to men but unsatisfactory in their Theology, anthropology, and soteriology. Sola Scriptura!"

Greg Bahnsen


----------



## Cranmer1959 (Jan 8, 2009)

Kim G said:


> It was the hardest one for me to understand because, although it is logical, I didn't think it was biblical. I could see in the Bible that man was depraved (T). I could see in the Bible that the Lord elected men to salvation (U). I could see in the Bible that God would "sweetly force us in"to His kingdom through grace(I). And I could see that what the Lord started in us He would bring to completion(P). But I would point to the verses that say "Christ died for all" or "Christ died for the world" and would say, "therefore, limited atonement cannot be right, even if it is logical."
> 
> Now I know different. But it was not easy to accept (L).



This is exactly the excuse that Amyraldians use. Jesus' death on the cross is sufficient for the sins of the whole world. On the face of it this seems like the correct view. However, the Bible never promises salvation to all men without exception. In fact, the Bible says that salvation is only for those who believe. Thus, the elect are called out of the mass of sinful men among every tribe and nation of the earth. Jesus only laid down his life for the sheep. And Jesus came to save His people from their sins. I used to think that this meant He only came for Jews. But that is not what Matthew 1:21 meant at all! In fact, Matthew 4:15-16 quotes Isaiah 9 to show that Jesus had in fact come for the Gentiles, too. And if there is any doubt, one cannot ignore Luke 2:29, which is recited in the Nunc Dimittus of the Evening Prayer Service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. "LORD, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace : according to thy word. For mine eyes have seen : thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared : before the face of all people; To be a light to lighten the Gentiles : and to be the glory of thy people Israel."

The Israel of God is the church, according to Paul in Galatians 6:15-16. So "His people" clearly shows that Jesus gave Himself for the church! Ephesians says the same thing. Jesus laid down His life for the church (Ephesians 5:25). So if the Bible limits the atonement to the church, we also should limit it to the church (Acts 20:28). And if the Bible limits the atonement to the sheep, we also should limit the atonement to the sheep: John 10:11. 1 John 2:2 must be interpreted in the light of these other Scripture references.

Peace!


----------



## kamaujackson811 (Jan 8, 2009)

SpokenFor said:


> I came across a wonderful Hip Hop CD by Shai Linne called "Atonement" that everyone should listen to. I don't listen to hip hop as a general rule, but I often have this CD cranked up in my ipod because it is sound, biblical truth. Here are the lyrics of a song, _Mission Accomplished,_ that really made the concept of limited atonement clear for me.
> 
> Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide
> For years it’s had Christians lining up on both sides
> ...



I have that CD and it's awesome; it's biblical, reformed, and God-centered.


----------



## kamaujackson811 (Jan 8, 2009)

Joshua said:


> kamaujackson811 said:
> 
> 
> > They claim that Christ paid the legal debt to the Father, but _*we* still have to pay the moral debt through faith_.
> ...



Most certainly, but that is why they hold the John 3:16 conference after all. If that is their attempted refutation of John Owen's double payment argument, then they suggest that we are the savior of our own souls.

Which, by the way, is not only Arminian but also Satanic.


BTW, the part you quoted is not my thought....that's a position held by participants in the John 3:16 conference. Sorry, I wasn't sure where you were coming from exactly....


----------

