# Questions for understanding Limited Atonement



## ijunn (Jun 26, 2014)

Since I am new to the reformed faith, and the church I go to subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity, I can't help but notice that the Three Forms of Unity do not mention limited atonement in the same fashion as todays calvinistic teachings do.

Example: The Canons of Dordt - The second head of doctrine of the death of Christ and the redemption of men thereby - articles 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Article 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, *abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.*

Article 4. This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations, because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.

Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6. And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, *this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.*


Now I know this does not explicitly states that sufficiency also means that He actually died for the sins of the world, but it leaves me with a couple of questions. The questions arose after some conversations with a Lutheran acquaintance of mine. I hope someone who has made a study of Limited Atonement for a longer time can answer my questions (which I will state below) and also give some brief explanations of your views:


*Question 1:* Do you believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and that the atonement is only limited in it's effect by God's unconditional election, or do you believe that Christ only died for the sins of the elect?

*Question 2:* Do you believe the forgiveness of sins by Christ' death should be offered to all men, without exception, through the Gospel?

*Question 3:* If so (and assuming that Christ only died for the sins of some), do you believe this general and universal call to believe, would be a sincere offer? Even when you think of the fact that you can't really offer the forgiveness of sins, since you cannot know wether Christ' has died for these sins on the cross.

*Question 4:* Do you believe that Gods wrath remains on the elect prior to faith, even though Christ has allready paid for it (also paid for unbelief) in full on the cross?

*Question 5:* Is it also your believe that the benefits of the atonement are received by faith (which is offcourse a gift of God, Lutherans affirm this also, but deny limited atonement), even though Christ also died for the unbelief of the elect?

*Question 6:* How would you define the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ for the whole world (as the canons of Dordt state), since offering the sufficiency to the world seems irrelivant, since not all sins were paid for?

*Question 7:* Do you believe that in evangelism whe should honestly say that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect?

*Question 8:* How can you possible know for sure if Christ died for your sins, if you can't know if you are elect. Do you believe this can bring along pastoral problems such as: a lack of assurance of faith (since it has to be subjective and has no assurance in the objective work of Christ, since it is not objective for all sinners)?


I hope I formed my questions clearly, hope to learn from you all soon!

Greetings.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2014)

1. Christ came to save the elect. The sheep; the church; His people. It is the explicit teaching of Scripture.

2. Christ with all His benefits is offered to the sinner in the Gospel, including forgiveness of sin. But the offer is conditional, not absolute -- it is only to those who believe in Him, i.e., receive and rest upon Him for salvation.

3. It is a sincere and serious offer but it is restricted to the revealed will of God. The design of the call is one thing and the design of the Caller is another. Many are called but few are chosen.

4. The wrath of God remains on those who believe not.

5. Christ provides a propitiation through faith in His blood. It is not a propitiation apart from a believing appropriation of it.

6. The sufficiency of the atonement relates to its "intrinsic value," not its "extrinsic virtue." Should God have purposed to save each and every man in the world Christ would not have undergone anything more to accomplish it. His redemptive work satisfies God's justice for sinful men. The beneficiaries of it are limited within the electing purpose of God and covenant of grace. Salvation is by grace through faith. God has no purpose to save those whom He has not elected. To introduce two contrary decrees is contrary to Scripture.

7. The gospel preaches that Christ came to save sinners indefinitely without touching on the specific persons for whom Christ died. The net is broad enough that it catches the whole number of the elect while also taking in some of the reprobate temporarily.

8. The gospel does not require a person to believe he is saved by Christ before he believes. It provides the warrant to believe in Christ, with the promise of salvation and full forgiveness to them who believe. Assurance follows as a reflex act of faith.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Jun 27, 2014)

Our reference point for Limited Atonement should ultimately be the Bible, not confessions. 

"Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever" (1 Samuel 3:14)

Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't atone for the sins of the house of Eli, so there goes unlimited atonement. But the most powerful passage for Limited Atonement is the following:

" And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, *by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands*. This he set aside, *nailing it to the cross*." (Colossians 2:13-14)

The Greek word translated "record of death" is χειρόγραφον (cheirographon), meaning a certificate of legal indebtedness. When does Scripture say that the sin debt was cancelled? On the cross, or when you believed? It was nailed to the cross according to this verse, so it was cancelled then. Who, then, was it cancelled for? Everybody who ever lived? If that was the case, then everybody would go to heaven, since their sin debt was cancelled by Christ. However, Scripture tells us that this is not the case. Therefore, Christ only cancelled out the sin debt of the elect, thus Limited Atonement. QED.


----------



## ijunn (Jun 27, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> The Greek word translated "record of death" is χειρόγραφον (cheirographon), meaning a certificate of legal indebtedness. When does Scripture say that the sin debt was cancelled? On the cross, or when you believed? It was nailed to the cross according to this verse, *so it was cancelled then.* Who, then, was it cancelled for? Everybody who ever lived? If that was the case, then everybody would go to heaven, since their sin debt was cancelled by Christ. However, Scripture tells us that this is not the case. Therefore, Christ only cancelled out the sin debt of the elect, thus Limited Atonement. QED.




Okay your explanation is clear to me, but if the debt was canceled at the cross, why then does God's wrath remain on the elect prior to faith? How can God remain wrathfull when there is no sin debt left to be wrathfull about. This is what my Lutheran friend adresses. He stated that the atonement is general and universal, but it needs to be received by faith, and that only the elect will receive it. Hope you can explain that a little more to me, thank you


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 27, 2014)

What is your Lutheran friend's answer to the same question? The same text Col.2:13-14 is part of the same Scripture they receive without reservation. Perhaps he simply eliminates the whole category of wrath altogether, since they teach that Jesus' sacrifice has expunged every sin of every man without exception. Of course, they don't eliminate it, since their Scripture and Confession affirm hell, that it is the experience of wrath, and that many persons enter there permanently.

With all due benevolence for the Lutheran brethren, they frankly assert that they don't care if their views all cohere, or if they seem to contradict. They insist on a universal atonement--as if that were Scripture's clear doctrine--but they manifestly teach that that Christ's death does not keep out of hell every person for whom it was supposedly made; because hell is entirely peopled with those whose sins were covered, against whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, Ps.32:1-2.

So does the blood of Christ avail, or doesn't it? The Lutheran says "it does," and "it doesn't," at different times, for different reasons. But at the end of the discussion, they say that only the obstinate Calvinist tries to "make sense" of the mystery, that he is falsely beholden to logic.

John wrote, of him who does not believe in the Son, and thus has no life, "the wrath of God _abides_ upon him," Jn.3:36. Wrath remains against ALL sin, always. We should distinguish between the divine heavenly prospect toward the elect, and his historical prospect concerning them. (The Lutheran has to deal with the same text that teaches election from all eternity, Eph.1:4). God is wrathful toward sinners "in Adam," and propitious toward them "in Christ." Are all men "in Adam?" Initially, yes, as their universal progenitor.

Are the same "all men" then in Christ, through virtue of the atonement? The Lutheran will say yes, according to Rom.5:18 (ignoring how that statement is embedded in a discourse on particular headship). In 1Cor.15:22, Paul similarly says, "As in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ ALL shall be made alive." Unless one declares that the resurrection unto LIFE is for all-without-exception, then clearly this verse also is teaching particular headship. "All" in both Rom.5:18 and in 1Cor.15:22 are with respect to ALL who are in the headship of either man.

God's grace is for everyone who is "in Christ." But for all who will be saved, there is necessarily a historic transition from death into life. In principle, that work was done once and for all on the cross, through the reconciling death of Christ, Eph.2:14-17. It remains, however, for that _*accomplishment*_ to be _*applied*_ in history, through the instrumentality of faith by which the justification of a sinner is made personally and existentially concrete to him.


In short, your Lutheran friend is bound by his Confession to adhere to the truths _as he reads it_ in Scripture. And he isn't overly concerned if his notions all work rationally together in a true systematic fashion. This is their historic criticism of Reformed Theology: they consider it too rationalistic. (Frankly, at significant points, the charge is abundantly reversible, but that is not so much engaged here). He believes he has fully discharged his duty to accept the Bible's teaching, when he claims simply to accept every word "at face value," conceding paradoxes (apparent contradictions) wherever they show.

The Reformed believe that if resolutions of the paradoxes are available (and whatever we are accused of, we DO believe in mystery, and we DO allow for unresolved "tension" in theology), then we must accept the resolutions, even if that means submitting our minds to receiving even "hard truths." It is a "hard truth" to believe in consistent sovereign grace in salvation. It is "hard," for example, to accept that some men were "prepared for destruction" and "raised up" to be vessels of divine wrath, Rom.9:22,17.

The Reformed man accepts that the Atonement is *limited* in intent/extent to the elect, but _*unlimited*_ in identical effectiveness for all elect ones. The INTENT determines the EFFECT.

The Lutheran (and others, for different reasons perhaps) believes that the Atonement is _*unlimited*_ in intent/extent (i.e. universal), but _*limited*_ or _*partial*_ in effectiveness, availing for some but not for others despite the intent claimed for it. The INTENT here does not correspond to the EFFECT.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jun 27, 2014)

Paul described himself as a debtor to provide the gospel to all. God's does as he pleases as far as election and the payment has been made and we are debtors to workign to fulfill the great commission here and abroad as the spirit leads.


----------



## KeithW (Jun 27, 2014)

Hello Ian,



ijunn said:


> Since I am new to the reformed faith, and the church I go to subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity, I can't help but notice that the Three Forms of Unity do not mention limited atonement in the same fashion as todays calvinistic teachings do.


Yes, that is a failure on our part. But since you quoted from The Canons Of Dordt, let me answer some of your questions by pointing you to certain articles within those canons, because they are very good at explaining things, including limited atonement. The answer to your questions will include ideas from different parts of the canons including the areas of total depravity, election, limited atonement, assurance, and perseverance of the saints.

Let me start by trying to describe the difference between universal atonement and limited atonement.

Universal atonement is the idea that all men are sinners and need salvation. Jesus died for all. Every man is born with the ability to accept or reject the Gospel. Then since man has the ability to choose he also has the ability later to unchoose.

Limited atonement is the idea that all men are born with a sinful nature and are already condemned. Jesus died to save sinners. Men have complete inability to choose to be saved. God, in His sovereign choice, chooses those whom He will save, and gives them repentance and faith.

This should prompt the question, then what is the Gospel message? This will be covered later.



ijunn said:


> *Question 1:* Do you believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and that the atonement is only limited in it's effect by God's unconditional election, or do you believe that Christ only died for the sins of the elect?


In the canons see The First Main Point, article 7 on election, which limits the scope of people who God gives salvation to. Then the Second Main Point, article 8 on effectiveness, those people on whom saving faith is effective -- the elect. So the question becomes more one of who is the death of Christ effective for? Anyone who chooses for themselves, or anyone whom God chooses to make it effective on?



ijunn said:


> *Question 2:* Do you believe the forgiveness of sins by Christ' death should be offered to all men, without exception, through the Gospel?


This one is difficult because it is really the question, what is the Gospel? The Gospel message to the unsaved is not a long treatise of all the doctrines of the reformed faith. It is a short list of truths. The Canons of Dordt do not explicitly contain the Gospel message itself. After we die there will be a day of judgment, Heb. 9:27. Those who believe on Christ are not condemned, but those who do not believe on Him are condemned already (remain under condemnation), John 3:18, and The First Main Point article 4 "A Twofold Response To The Gospel". Therefore, God commands all men every where to repent, Acts 17:30, and The Second Main Point article 5 "The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All".



ijunn said:


> *Question 3:* If so (and assuming that Christ only died for the sins of some), do you believe this general and universal call to believe, would be a sincere offer? Even when you think of the fact that you can't really offer the forgiveness of sins, since you cannot know wether Christ' has died for these sins on the cross.


"Sincerity" is something men argue about. Part of the answer to this must be what is the message presented in the Gospel. Are men sincerely "offered" something or does God command men to repent? It is the latter. See also The Third And Fourth Main Point article 8 "The Earnest Call Of The Gospel".



ijunn said:


> *Question 4:* Do you believe that Gods wrath remains on the elect prior to faith, even though Christ has allready paid for it (also paid for unbelief) in full on the cross?


Yes. See John 3:18, and The First Main Point article 4 "A Twofold Response To The Gospel". We are born into the kingdom of this world and under condemnation. Salvation is when God translates us from the kingdom of this world into the kingdom of God.



ijunn said:


> *Question 5:* Is it also your believe that the benefits of the atonement are received by faith (which is offcourse a gift of God, Lutherans affirm this also, but deny limited atonement), even though Christ also died for the unbelief of the elect?
> ...
> I hope I formed my questions clearly...


Sorry, I don't understand.



ijunn said:


> *Question 6:* How would you define the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ for the whole world (as the canons of Dordt state), since offering the sufficiency to the world seems irrelivant, since not all sins were paid for?


This is more a question of who is Christ's death effective for, which is only the elect. You could look at The First Main Point article 7 on election, and The Second Main point article 8 on the saving effectiveness of Christ's death.



ijunn said:


> *Question 7:* Do you believe that in evangelism whe should honestly say that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect?


No. The preaching of the Gospel to the unsaved is not about explaining complicated doctrine. See the answer above to question 2.



ijunn said:


> *Question 8:* How can you possible know for sure if Christ died for your sins, if you can't know if you are elect. Do you believe this can bring along pastoral problems such as: a lack of assurance of faith (since it has to be subjective and has no assurance in the objective work of Christ, since it is not objective for all sinners)?


We all struggle with this. The canons do talk about preservation and assurance in The Fifth Main Point, especially in article 3 "God's Preservation of the Converted", article 8 "The Certainty of this Preservation", and article 9 "The Assurance of this Preservation".

When I first started learning the reformed doctrines it was pretty hard for me. One helpful thing is to realize that the different doctrines mentioned in The Canons Of Dordt all relate to each other. I hope this helps to show that the canons do attempt to explain these things.


----------



## Elizabeth (Jun 27, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> they consider it too rationalistic. (Frankly, at significant points, the charge is abundantly reversible, but that is not so much engaged here).



This is very true.


----------



## ijunn (Jul 2, 2014)

I have given everything some thought and talked with my Lutheran friend some little more. Basically, he affirms election (he advised me to read Luthers work, the bondage of the will). He also affirms that those who are elect, will be saved and that they will be secure of salvation in eternity. This is a gift of God. Now he does not see why that would in any way force him into believing limited atonement. We discussed somewhat and I told him that he basically affirmed some limitation to the atonement, since election in itself makes at least the effect of the atonement limited to only those whom God has elected. But then again, he denies that the effect of the atonement is in any way limited to the elect. So as I understood it, he believes that God elects individuals to eternal life and that the elect will be eternal secure of this salvation, and he also believes that there are believers who are not elect, because they might fall away from the faith, something which does not happen to the elect. I think that all boils down to the sacramental system in Lutheranism.

Now he asked me a question, I could not answer and I do agree with him on this to a certain extend. He asked:

How would you council someone who asks if Jesus died for his/her sins?

I asked him to clarify, so he said that in order to stick true to the reformed theology, I cannot tell anyone that Jesus died for his/her sins. I can only tell them that Christ died for sinners and that the value of the atonement is infinite. I told him the Bible never tells that the apostles evangelized in such a way, they don't tell people that Jesus died for his/her sins. He responded and said that Luke 24:47 teaches that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations. Remission of sins can only be preached to everyone and as a reality to everyone who will receive it, if there is a atonement that actually atoned for everyone's sins. He said that there is no objective security in the sacrifice of Jesus according to calvinism, but that it is only subjective. It is only when someone believes that someone can say "He died for me". According to him, when someone then doubts or has a weak faith, there is no objective thing to cling on, cause if the possibility exists that they don't truly have saving faith, they don't know for sure if Christ died for them. This is making election a hindrance. One would be forced into looking in him/her self for signs etc. It made some sense though, so I asked him to form the way of salvation as he believed it in simple statements. This is what he gave me:

_All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Jesus came, died on the cross for the sins of the world, meaning all persons.

Christians preach the Gospel that Jesus died for their sins and that all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel.

Those who reject the Gospel, call God a liar for not believing that in Christ, God reconciled to world unto Himself and choose to atone for sins themselves, which they cannot do and will be damned, due to lack of faith. Just like the Israelites in the desert received the remedy, given for all living and bitten Israelites, the serpent on the stake. Who looked at the serpent lived, so the opposite is that if one would look not, they would die. The fault would be their own. Those who believe receive the forgiveness of sins and are justified (cause justification consists in the forgiveness of sins) on basis of what Christ has already done on the cross.

They who doubt, need not doubt if Christ died for them, cause He died for all. They can believe in the Gospel, because they are certain that it actually is Gospel for them. Faith only receives what is already there.

The argument that Christ can't have died for all sins for all people, because then there would be people in hell for whom He died for is an invalid argument, since reformed christians also affirm that God remains wrathful on the elect prior to faith, even though Jesus is said to have died only but in particular!! for them. The elect are also under damnation prior to faith. Salvation has to be received by faith. Faith is not a work but a gift from God. Lutherans are also monergistic.

Calvinists need to stop thinking that there is only Calvinism and Arminianism, cause that is just foolish.

Calvin probably did not believe in Limited Atonement and was far more nuanced than modern calvinists (this can be debated)._


Whole story once more, but thats basically what we discussed so far. Hope someone can reply with some useful comments .


----------



## KeithW (Jul 2, 2014)

Continue with your conversations. Talking through things is a good way of learning and sorting things out in our own heads.



ijunn said:


> (he advised me to read Luthers work, the bondage of the will)


This is a good book. The idea which reformed people call "total depravity" is also called "original sin". Easy to understand statements of this doctrine have appeared throughout church history in various canons and confessions. Those are a good starting place without jumping into a book length discussion of the topic. Luther explained original sin in "The Smalcald Articles" which is contained in the Lutheran _Book of Concord_.



ijunn said:


> He asked:
> 
> How would you council someone who asks if Jesus died for his/her sins?


Interesting question. I like your response. Here is the way I have come to think about the Gospel. The problem we face must be stated clearly first. Only then does presenting the solution make sense. And then it seems like us church-goers, who spend all of our time talking to each other, are trying to figure out "how" salvation works from a much higher perspective. I see some of the latter mixed in to the conversation you are having. We all try to figure it out. But us Christians discussing differing theological points is not the same thing as trying to sort out the Gospel message which is to be presented to the unsaved person.



ijunn said:


> _All men have sinned and fall short of the glory of God._


It is common for people to use this but skip over original sin as a presentation of the problem we are faced with. I noticed in his response there is also no mention of "eternal judgment".



ijunn said:


> _Jesus came, died on the cross for the sins of the world, meaning all persons._


This is a very common interpretation in modern Christianity of the word "world", and the word "all". To hold the viewpoint of limited atonement there must be an investigation of how the Bible uses the words "world" and "all" with respect to salvation. In the book _The Sovereignty Of God_, Arthur W. Pink has an appendix titled 'The Meaning Of "KOSMOS" In John 3:16'. My favorite pastor I listen to has a couple of very good sermons walking through how to understand the words "all" and "world", especially when the Bible uses it in different ways. When it is used in connection with atonement, it means some-of-all-types -- limited atonement.



ijunn said:


> _Christians preach the Gospel that Jesus died for their sins and that all men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel._


Yes. "... God... now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30 NKJV). "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:15 KJV). And not to be left out, "if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9 KJV)



ijunn said:


> _Calvinists need to stop thinking that there is only Calvinism and Arminianism, cause that is just foolish._


No good Calvinist, or reformed person, believes the specific doctrines which these two camps disagree on are variations, or that these are the only doctrines people disagree over.


----------



## MW (Jul 2, 2014)

ijunn said:


> How would you council someone who asks if Jesus died for his/her sins?



It would be necessary to break down the terms and explain what is meant by them. To die for sin means to die as the punishment for sin. To die for a person means to die in his place. When it is stated that Christ died as a punishment for sin in the place of a sinner it means that the sinner is freed from the liability to suffer punishment in his own person. Scripture testifies that this is true of those who are in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:1.

The gospel offers this salvation to the sinner. It never states that Jesus died for each and every person. It only invites the sinner to partake of the benefits of Christ's death (and life, resurrection, ascension, session, intercession, second coming, final judgment, and eternal glory) on condition of believing in the Saviour.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 2, 2014)

ijunn said:


> How would you council [sic., _counsel_] someone who asks if Jesus died for his/her sins?


"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you *will be* saved," Act.16:31. Subjective knowledge/awareness of Jesus' dying for "my" sins is an _effect_ of believing that Jesus is the only hope for sinners and therefore he's my only hope (a valid deduction, from the general to the particular). If I then say, "My hope is in Christ," but at the same time question his everlasting love for me and what his love accomplished on my behalf, I thereby disprove my claim to believe.

Calvin wisely observed that we are partly unbelievers all our lives; but "If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself," 2Tim.2:13. So we are bidden not to measure the strength of the hope we claim, but simply cling fast to the Word and let it strengthen us.

The question asked is, in a sense, improper. If the inquirer first means to insist on knowing whether he is (as it were) "saved already" and is on his way to heaven through the blood of Jesus _before_ he will consent to *believe and be saved*, then this inquirer is not yet utterly abased and aware that he is under judgment and condemned. Here, in fact, is the subtle demand to know the secret things of God as a prior condition for acknowledging the justice of the court and the trustworthiness of the Surety.

There is an atonement _available_ to sinners--to every sinner who believes, bar none. This is a great incentive to discover where propitiation should be found. "Flee to the cross!" is a proper gospel call, where none are turned away. There is no "greater" incentive under any other representation, and certainly not one in which the debt-annihilation that covered all the liabilities of all mankind guarantees nothing in particular to every one of the named beneficiaries.


----------



## ijunn (Jul 3, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> ijunn said:
> 
> 
> > How would you council [sic., _counsel_] someone who asks if Jesus died for his/her sins?
> ...


----------



## Cymro (Jul 3, 2014)

Ask your friend what he makes of John 17:9,"I pray for them:I pray NOT for the world,
but for them Thou hast given me; for they are thine." If The Lord did not pray for the 
world, much less would He die for the world. There are 10 different meanings to the
word ,world, depending on the context. It would be a fruitful discussion for you both 
to examine the use of of it in the relevant passages.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2014)

Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ is pure Augustinian thought, with a 16th century cast to it. It is the same anti-Pelagian doctrine the Reformed believe and confess.

The Lutherans sometimes are irritated that the Reformed profess affinity for BotW. And so they will say things like, "the Reformed misunderstand Luther when they think they agree with him." Over 50yrs ago, J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnson co-translated-and-edited BotW for a modern Anglo-American readership. Bondage of the Will, The: Martin Luther, J. I. Packer, O. R. Johnston: 9780801048937: Amazon.com: Books Some Lutherans claim that this book is surely a poor translation, misses Luther's nuances, and misleads readers via footnotes, because the Reformed believe they are in agreement with Luther, and so they must be wrong.

The Reformed still think they consent with Luther's whole expression in this book, which is the same as they said at the Colloquy of Montbéliard (1586), and for much of the previous half-century since Luther had put it into print. Luther himself believed unto his dying day that BotW was his most uncompromised and timeless treatise (that, along with his Small Catechism he felt should be preserved for posterity, and the rest burned up for all he cared; thankfully, his voluminous production survived his humble dismissal).

The Reformed think Luther and the Lutherans should have cared more about sweating consistency, rather than papering over the fault-lines of inconsistent expression. If BotW was Luther's most solid exposition (and he knew it was), then it could have served him and others as a touchstone of accuracy in theology. Ironically, that would have made Lutheranism the theological position with a "predestinarian cornerstone," the very description they regularly give calvinism. In fact, neither position builds upon a predestinarian foundation, despite what many Lutherans think about calvinism.

***************************************************

It is anachronistic to ascribe a 5-points description of calvinistic soteriology (which is really only a part of what calvinism is) to Calvin, because the Synod of Dort which formulated the Heads of Doctrine was called half-a-century after Calvin's death.

However, despite modern attempts to drive a wedge deeply between the High-orthodox Reformed of the 17th Century (Dutch, English/Scots, German, French, etc.) and the 16th Century Reformer, the _avant garde_ case presented in the mid-20th Century had taken substantive blows by the century's end. We can compare this attempt to a similar effort (going back to a much earlier period) that tries to separate Luther from his _genesio_ successors.

The question is always, "Which person or group is the true theological heir to the previous generation's theology?" In Luther's case, it really was one man who stood at the fountainhead of Reformation theology--even the Reformed acknowledged him. But though it is a shame the Lutherans generally disowned the Reformed's part in the project, it is true that the differences amounted in large part to the measure of fidelity to Luther's original vision on key points.

However, in the case of the Reformed churches, it is not so that even as towering a figure as Calvin occupied the same position (as Luther) in regard to doctrinal formulation. Because it was a more collegial project from the outset, Reformed thought is not "defined" in its basic expression even by as limited a corpus as Calvin's _Institutes_. The breadth of the Reformed approach may be measured by the recent four-volume set of Reformed Confessions Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: Volume 4, 1600 , covering the entire period of the Reformation and all of Europe for 150 yrs.

On the specific question of whether Calvin would have recognized "Particular Redemption" or "Limited Atonement" (these are simply names assigned to the "Second Head of Doctrine" from the Canons of Dort), first it is necessary to note this specific dispute postdates Calvin's era. It was not his fight to make clear. Second, it may be also noted that it is a dispute that arose from within self-described Reformed churches; and that (like amyraldianism) there were appeals to the teachings of previous doctors and schools.

But this is no different from, say, what took place prior to and at the Council of Nicaea. Or what took place between the Apostles and the doctors of Judaism. The argument is: who is the true heir? Of the OT: is it Christians or Pharisees? Of the Apostolic doctrine of the Son: is it Alexander and the orthodox faction, or Arius and his? Of the ancient church: is it the Reformers or Rome? Of the Atonement: is it the historic Reformed, or the Arminians (and others on this issue)?

Calvin's own statements are seldom direct. As far as the matter of the value and application of the atonement went, Calvin gives approval to the phrase (going back I believe to Lombard) "sufficient for the world, efficient for the elect." Calvin was never afraid to use biblical descriptions of the sheer breadth of divine mercy. But neither was he wont ever to divide divine intention from the means appointed to the end.

We might say of Calvin's view, that the means of redemption chosen by God produces such a copious flow of blood/mercy and that of infinite worth, that it is abundantly evidently sufficient to cover as much sin as God had ever meant to cleanse. However, we cannot separate the intent (to save the elect) from the action. The surfeit of mercy does not perform its own independent action upon everyone indiscriminately who encounters it. Despite the overwhelming nature of it's deposit, it is still a _*targeted*_ application.

Arminianism judges the intent of the Atonement universal and identical unto all, but at the cost of its efficacy. The actuating agent for determining the efficacy of the Atonement in a particular case is the freed-will of man (semi-Pelagianism). Clearly, the divine intention for salvation is made subordinate to individual human intentions. The final number of the saved is not known to God by divine predestination, but by the historic realization of millions of choices which God observed beforehand through prescience, and which he counted. Calvin could never have acknowledged such a human will, nor such indeterminacy on God's part.

In arminianism, the Atonement makes salvation possible for absolutely anyone, without atoning for any sins in particular. Insofar as arminianism affirms the elimination by the cross of every sin of mankind (except perhaps for the sin of unbelief, which is also sometimes denied to be a sin), in this respect it resembles the Lutheran doctrine of universal atonement. But obviously, apart from certain point(s) of similarity, the two theologies are not identical.

The Amyraldian position (teaching hypothetical universalism in atonement) basically taught that the overflow of mercy _itself_ had a separate intention _apart from_ the redemption of the elect. And this separate intention was for guaranteeing that all men _might be saved_ only provided their wills were made suitably compliant (according to election).

The Reformed rejected this view also, as needlessly dividing the purposes of God, and even pitting one element against another--in which it is said: both God desires the salvation of everyone without exception according to one intention, and he does not desire the salvation of everyone without exception according to another intention. It is the view of the orthodox Reformed that Calvin was never so confused.


----------

