# Substitutionary atonement limited in application only.



## Osage Bluestem (Aug 31, 2009)

Deleted due to error.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 31, 2009)

Wow! I will have to read this when I"m not so sleepy! Looks interesting!


----------



## KMK (Aug 31, 2009)

Do you agree with WLC Q #44?



> Q. 44. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
> 
> A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God, to be reconciliation for the sins *of his people*; and in making continual intercession for them.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 31, 2009)

David -

You have left out significant information in your attempt to understand the atonement. Christ, as the good shepherd laid down his life for his sheep ONLY. He did not lay down his life for the world. Hence you need to understand the passages where "all" is used in connection with God's will to save, and with Christ's death offered up, in a way that does not mean "each and every human". The word "all" is clearly not a universal word in several places in Scripture - the Greek "panta" very often (in fact usually, some argue) does not mean "each and every". 1 Timothy 6:13 argues that God quickens ALL things. Not a universal. 2 Timothy 1:15 says "all in Asia turned away". Each and every person? What about those Paul didn't come into contact with? 2 Timothy 2:7 says "Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things". Pinochle? Nuclear physics? No - all here, and in many, many instances, cannot - simply cannot - mean "each and every". One more pertinent example - if 1 John 2:2's "all" statement means that Jesus died for every person's sins, then Jesus paid the price for every persons's sins, and each and every human being ever conceived will be in Heaven. We know this cannot be true - so Christ cannot have died for each and every person who has ever been conceived. (unless we wish to denigrate Christ's death as ineffectual to save - which contradicts Scripture blatantly)

In short, if God intends that all men be saved by offering His Son's substitutionary atonement for them, and in fact all men are not saved, then God is incompetent to accomplish His will, and Christ imperfect to save them. Your understanding runs contrary to the confessional and Scriptural teaching of limited atonement. I'd suggest you check out "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by Owen, or "The Atonement" by Henry Martyn.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 31, 2009)

> The atonement is sufficient for all, yet is only applied to the elect by faith that we are taught comes through hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. It is not our doing it is a gift of God.



The value of Christ's blood and of Christ's righteousness are no more in question than is Christ's Person. But this is how the waters always get muddied. We are not truly seeking to assess the value of Christ, we are seeking to rightly assess the measure of His suffering.

J.L. Dagg, wrote in the early 19th century saying:

The advocates of the hypothesis urge, that the atonement is moral, and not commercial; and they object, that the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, degrades it into a mere commercial transaction. … The argument is not conclusive. It is not true, that the principle of distributive justice repels the notion of so much suffering for so much sin. Justice has its scales in government, as well as in commerce; and an essential part of its administration consists in the apportionment of penalties to crimes. It does not account the stealing of herbs from a neighbor’s garden, and the murder of a father, crimes of equal magnitude; and it does not weigh out to them equal penalties.
The justice of God has a heavier penalty for Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorrah. Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it. The objection that it is commercial, is not well founded.
Though justice in government, and justice in commerce, may be distinguished from each other, it does not follow, that whatever may be affirmed of the one, must necessarily be denied of the other. Distributive justice is not that which determines the equality of value, in commodities which are exchanged for each other: but it does not therefore exclude all regard to magnitudes and proportions.
In the language of Scripture, sins are debts, the blood of Christ is a price, and his people are bought. This language is doubtless figurative: but the figures would not be appropriate, if commercial justice, to which the terms debt, price, bought, appertain, did not bear an analogy to the distributive justice which required the sacrifice of Christ. …
The wisdom and justice of God have decided this single case, and have decided it right. Christ did endure just so much suffering, as would expiate the sins that were laid on him.
The "Sufficient for all, Efficient for the elect" model has been in my opinion a weakness in some Calvinistic writers for many years.

Some Calvinists, myself included, find more consistency in saying that it was only the sins of the elect that Christ bore. You shall call His name Jesus and He shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins

Several writers have articulated this view:

“To say that his death is sufficient for everyone, but not that everyone receives forgiveness, is to say that God accomplishes the greater but not the lesser. He sets in motion a cause__the most powerful and compelling spiritual and moral cause conceivable__that does not consummate in an effect.
As can be well seen, both streams of thought have a healthy and biblical concept of the relation of atonement to law. This understanding, that all legal obstacles to salvation have been removed, is right and cannot be surrendered. … To remove the necessary connection between atonement and satisfaction of the divine law denudes Christ’s death of all its moral sublimity and reduces it to an amazing piece of whimsical and romantic extravagance.” __Dr. Tom Nettles

"While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude, that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent, as a sponsor, when he died on the cross. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrtine of redemption by our adorable Jesus.__We may therefore, safely conclude that our Lord’s voluntary substitution, and redemption by his vicarious death, are both of them limited to those, for whom he was made SIN__for those whom he was made a CURSE__and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he actually paid the price of his OWN BLOOD. Consequently, that redemption is particular, and peculiar to the chosen of God."__Abraham Booth


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Aug 31, 2009)

Quote extracted from the OP:


> The atonement is sufficient for all, yet is only applied to the elect by faith that we are taught comes through hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. It is not our doing it is a gift of God.
> 
> Romans 10:17 ESV
> 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
> ...



It seems to me that the above quoted view essentially identifies the doctrine of effectual calling with atonement! It removes any efficacy from the atonement itself and makes Christ’s work on the cross merely tentative! If He has died for all sufficiently and the only particularity is in the _personal application by the Spirit_, then I cannot see how one distinguishes this from the universal atonement of the Arminians, who claim that Christ died for all men, with its benefits accruing only to those who believe. The difference between the two does not lie in the atonement, but in the Spirit’s effectual calling.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Aug 31, 2009)

Deleted due to error.


----------



## charliejunfan (Aug 31, 2009)

I would suggest you pick up and read The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen(my avatar). It greatly helped in my understanding of our Saviors Satisfaction, and he argues directly from scripture 

-----Added 8/31/2009 at 12:46:35 EST-----

As far as your claim that the bible says ALL PEOPLE, don't you think this could be referring to Every KIND of PEOPLE as opposed to every single person who ever lived?

Observe-

*Revelation 5:9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; *


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 31, 2009)

charliejunfan said:


> *I would suggest you pick up and read The Death of Death in the Death of Christ* *by John Owen*(my avatar). It greatly helped in my understanding of our Saviors Satisfaction, and he argues directly from scripture
> 
> -----Added 8/31/2009 at 12:46:35 EST-----
> 
> ...


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Aug 31, 2009)

If I read you right, David, you are saying that whatever Christ accomplished on the cross, he accomplished for all alike. If so, this is not the Reformed understanding, it is not 5-point Calvinism, it is not consistent with the WCF or LBCF, and it is not the accepted view on the PB.



Peace and grace, brother.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 31, 2009)

David -

Let's backtrack here.

What did Christ's death accomplish for the non-elect, since you assert (contrary to the confessional standards you pledged to uphold) that He died for each and every person ever conceived?

Your statement concerning "all people" is outright wrong. "all" does not mean "each and every" as has already been demonstrated, though you have ignored that fact. Also, rather than simply repeat the argument you made previously, would you care to actually deal with the questions raised about what you said? Thank you.


----------



## charliejunfan (Aug 31, 2009)

If I understand your position correctly here are some questions to think about in the time it takes you to find Death of Death by John Owen on monergism.com for free 

If Christ died in any way for every single person who ever lived then isn't God the father UNJUST because He does not give Christ every single person who He paid for? Those people were bought! Why doesn't Christ receive what He paid for?

If people go to heaven because of sin but Christ paid for the sin of all people who ever lived then will anybody ever go to hell?

If Christ died for ALL SIN including the SIN of UNBELIEF then isn't the SIN of unbelief made up for as well, and if so then why isn't every single person who ever lived considered a Son of God?

Hmm...I'll leave the rest to John Owen as he does better than I ever could, but seriously, do yourself a favor and read The Death of Death, 
God Bless you in your studies


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 31, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> Thanks for the replys guys.
> 
> 
> > I don't see how to get around the words used by the Holy Spirit in this passage this is not one of the all's that mean all of a group. This is an "all people". It is clear that God desires the salvation of all men even though we know it wasn't decreed because of his purpose.
> ...



David,
To interpret the highlighted text you must, as always, consider the context.

1 Timothy 2:1-6 1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made *for all men*, 2 *for kings and all who are in authority*, *that* *we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.* 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

Clearly the _all men_ is defined and limited in this passage to those whom hold in their power the temporal peace of the church.


----------



## charliejunfan (Aug 31, 2009)

I love it when Baptists and Presbyterians unite to defend truth


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Aug 31, 2009)

KMK said:


> Do you agree with WLC Q #44?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok. Spurgeon and I might be wrong here. I need to review.

I do indeed hold these confessions and the doctrine of limited atonement. My post was't about if the atonement is limited but why it is limited while the gospel call remains genuine.

Don't worry. I am a 5 point calvinist.

Is faith a necessary part of the atonement?


----------



## KMK (Aug 31, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Do you agree with WLC Q #44?
> ...



Faith is the necessary means by which the atonement is applied.


----------



## bug (Aug 31, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> Ok. Spurgeon and I might be wrong here. I need to review.



I think Spurgeon would say the atonement is limited by intent rather then application;

Taken from Morning By Morning, September 25



> Christ has paid the debt of his people to the last jot and tittle, and received the divine receipt; and unless God can be so unjust as to demand double payment for one debt, no soul for whom Jesus died as a substitute can ever be cast into hell. It seems to be one of the very principles of our enlightened nature to believe that God is just; we feel that it must be so, and this gives us our terror at first; but is it not marvellous that this very same belief that God is just, becomes afterwards the pillar of our confidence and peace! If God be just, I, a sinner, alone and without a substitute, must be punished; but Jesus stands in my stead and is punished for me; and now, if God be just, I, a sinner, standing in Christ, can never be punished. God must change his nature before one soul, for whom Jesus was a substitute, can ever by any possibility suffer the lash of the law. Therefore, Jesus having taken the place of the believer-having rendered a full equivalent to divine wrath for all that his people ought to have suffered as the result of sin, the believer can shout with glorious triumph, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?" Not God, for he hath justified; not Christ, for he hath died, "yea rather hath risen again." My hope lives not because I am not a sinner, but because I am a sinner for whom Christ died; my trust is not that I am holy, but that being unholy, he is my righteousness. My faith rests not upon what I am, or shall be, or feel, or know, but in what Christ is, in what he has done, and in what he is now doing for me.



As Cited by J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” in John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ Banner of Truth, p14.)



> We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, on the other hand, our opponents limit it; we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question–Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if” –and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say that Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.



Excerpt from A Defence of Calvinism (The spurgeon collection, Autobiography, Diary and letters Vol 1, p189)



> Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!



A puritan catechism 



> 19. Q. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the state of sin and misery?
> 
> A. God having, out of his good pleasure from all eternity, elected
> some to everlasting life, (2 Thessalonians 2:13) did enter into a
> ...


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2009)

Romans 3:25 teaches that propitiation (1.) is the intention of God, and (2.) requires faith. As "atonement" is God's provision and is made to God's justice, it is folly to separate its accomplishment from its application. Those who separate the two do not take into account the fact that atonement is a provision of God's grace as well as a payment to His justice, Larger Catechism, 71.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Sep 1, 2009)

Joshua said:


> The Scriptures teach the atonement is limited _only_ in its extent, where as Arminians limit the atonement in its efficacy. In extent, the Reformed faith teaches that its intent, thrust, scope and purpose is for the elect alone. In limiting its efficacy, Arminians (and In my humble opinion, Amyraldians) teach that the atonement merely makes men _savable_, but actually has no power in and of itself, unless a man believes. If that's not insulting, I don't know what is.
> 
> As for Spurgeon, yes, he was wrong about the passage in Timothy, as is anyone who thinks that _all_ in those passages means _all without exception_. To do so is to ignore what the rest of the Scriptures teach concerning the "special" nature of the elect, etc. The specific purpose and necessity of the atonement, etc. The immediate context of the Timothy passage, as well as the hermeneutical principle of the Analogy of Scripture demands that these passages _cannot_ mean each and every person without exception. If so, Christ has failed in His endeavor, and the Lord is frustrated in His "desires."
> 
> What the Lord _wants_, the Lord _gets_. What He has _decreed_ is what He _wants_. And _that's_ what He'll _get_.



Thanks for all of the input everyone. I came to that conclusion sometime after studying that Spurgeon sermon I linked above. I know Spurgeon isn't perfect but I have agreat deal of respect for his views, so they can impact my thinking.

I will look into the works recommended and simply take it at face that Christ died only for the elect.

Can someone explain how one can profane the blood of the covenant if that blood wasn't poured out for them, however:

Hebrews 10:26-31 ESV
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 1, 2009)

Its a question of "how do we explain apostasy?" John says they never really belonged to us, which evidence is that they went out form us, 1Jn.2:19.

A couple of points on the Heb.10 passage.
1) the "he" of the clause "blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" _could_ refer to "the Son of God," as some exegetes have preferred, making the latter portion further descriptive of the nature of that blood, rather than describing further the profane person.

2) If it is the profane person, it certainly does no violence to the tenor of the passage to accept that apostasy is real. But if so, then how do we understand it? Well, in covenant theology we speak of the external and the internal administrations of this covenant.

Externally, we are incorporated into the body, the church, for whom Christ is said to have died. But it's obvious that many things are said to be done for the church ideally, which cannot be predicated of each and every visible member. For many of them are false sons.

Shall we say that Paul, Eph.1:18, teaches that everyone in the church has "the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are *the riches of his glorious inheritance* in the saints." They are all going to heaven? Surely, this is too great a confidence.

Or that all the Thessalonians are elect? 1Thes.1:4, "Knowing, brethren beloved, *your election* of God." Can't be. So, simply to point out that some it may be said were participants in the blessings of the church, and have now abandoned them, cannot be construed as meaning to insist that the blood of the Son of God _must be_ for him in a full, atoning way; particularly if there are other ways to read the text which remove conflicts with other passages that seem clearly to forbid the other understanding for consistency's sake.

So, would it be possible then to say, however, of an Ephesian who left the church, that he had _*spurned*_ the inheritance that was his? Or that a Thessalonian had "*unselected*" himself? Why not, if we are simply reversing the general statements, and the judgment of charity Paul makes toward them?

So too, one of those Hebrews with one foot out the door--he is being urged not to despise or profane holy things, for which he had one protested the greatest attraction. He was incorporated outwardly into the church; was that all he had, the outward administration? The ancient people had that covenant identity, and yet many of them "trampled underfoot the blood of the _*old covenant*_ by which they had been sanctified in a purely outward manner, Heb.9:19. They perished because of unbelief, not having the inward, Spirit-administration. They thought they could steal the one with lip-service and ignore him otherwise, and they outraged him thereby.

Taking part outwardly in holy things is serious business. If it wasn't, then the whole thing would be inward, and those with the inward reality could just abandon the outward forms. So to trifle with the display of the cross, and the testimony of God's greatest sacrifice and price paid for the purchase of a people (in which the apostate claimed a portion)--this is profanity of the greatest moment.


----------



## bug (Sep 1, 2009)

In context 'profane' simply means to make common. The writer is talking about how one who has been taught all about the holiness of Christ's blood, and even at one time appeared to be washed in it, is treating that blood if they depart from their professed faith, they treat Christ's blood as if it is a common thing, no more special then any other blood.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Sep 1, 2009)

Thanks everyone for correcting my hiatus.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Sep 2, 2009)

I just learned that my error has a name. It is generally referred to as Fullerism. Whast I posted originally canbe called a form of fullerism anyway. Apparently it is easy for Calvinists to fall into and many big name Calvinists have advocated a form of it at one point or another.



Here is an article about it:

Calvinism+Arminianism=Fullerism - Old School Baptist A Primitive Baptist Website


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2009)

David, 

Is that Ella's artical? I think he does Fuller a great disservice, which is a shame because much of what he writes can be worth while. Fuller presented nothing but a return to balanced Calvinism. He saught to combat the extremes of John Gill's hyper calvinism. Something that influenced many within the british particular baptists at the time. 

More is made of his statements regarding the infinite worth of the blood of Christ, then should be, and that leads some to conclude that he was perhaps borderline Amyraldian, or at least Baxterian (is that a word?) in his soteriology. His comments taken in context align with Spurgeon, Owen, and Dort and are totally Calvinistic in my opinion.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Sep 2, 2009)

bug said:


> David,
> 
> Is that Ella's artical? I think he does Fuller a great disservice, which is a shame because much of what he writes can be worth while. Fuller presented nothing but a return to balanced Calvinism. He saught to combat the extremes of John Gill's hyper calvinism. Something that influenced many within the british particular baptists at the time.
> 
> More is made of his statements regarding the infinite worth of the blood of Christ, then should be, and that leads some to conclude that he was perhaps borderline Amyraldian, or at least Baxterian (is that a word?) in his soteriology. His comments taken in context align with Spurgeon, Owen, and Dort and are totally Calvinistic in my opinion.



I'm not sure. I was told it was fulleristic on another forum and then the article was presented with Fullers views and the quote of John Macarthur advocating in 1978 the same thing I advocated in the OP.

So, you don't believe fullerism is a bad word that means universal propitiation?


----------



## bug (Sep 2, 2009)

I don't know how many people use the term fullerism. Some people use lables well, other do not. I certainly wouldn't equate Fuller with universal propitiation though. In his confrontation with hyper calvinsim Fuller argued that it was good and proper to extend the gospel offer to all who would hear. He said this based on is understanding of the value of the atonement, just as the Canons of Dort do;



> Head 2 Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All
> 
> Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.


----------

