# Sufficiency for all, efficient for some?



## benbooth11 (Nov 15, 2017)

I have read many Calvinists such as Watson, Edwards, Hodge, Boyce etc., say that Jesus died sufficiently for all but only efficiently for the elect. Is this really biblical and consistent with limited atonement, or is it better to say that the death of Christ would have been sufficient for all men had God intended?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KGP (Nov 15, 2017)

benbooth11 said:


> I have read many Calvinists such as Watson, Edwards, Hodge, Boyce etc., say that Jesus died sufficiently for all but only efficiently for the elect. Is this really biblical and consistent with limited atonement, or is it better to say that the death of Christ would have been sufficient for all men had God intended?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The difference between the sufficient/efficient statement that you start with and the one you want to compare is that to simply say 'the death have Christ would have been sufficient...' speaks of the value or quantitative aspect of the atonement. 

The 'efficient' correlates to its power to affect a change; the scope of its 'effectiveness' and how/what it works necessarily; what it sets in motion.

I think that any view of atonement that deals only with it's sufficiency(more narrowly speaking: it's value or worth or currency if you will) is incomplete.

Different categories. I think that the 'sufficient/efficient' way of communicating is very satisfactory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 15, 2017)

Nothing about the atonement is hypothetical. Scripture always speaks in concrete, actual terms.

"Sufficiency" conjecture opens the door for bad theology to creep in.

I could say, hypothetically, Jesus died for aliens on planet Zeno. But that doesnt mean anything.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Nov 16, 2017)

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, *because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God*." (John 3:18)

"...and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, *because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.*" (2 Thes. 2:10)

"So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? *If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door*." (Gen. 4:6-7a)

"*He would have fed them* also with the finest of wheat;
And with honey from the rock I would have satisfied you." (Psalm 81:16)

If our system of theology cannot account for hypotheticals or account for men rejecting the atonement that is _actually _offered in the gospel, we have a problematic system not actually true to God's Word.

Yes, the Scriptures absolutely infer that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all and no, this is not a denial of particular redemption. This distinction simply accounts for all biblical data. 

Hodge hits the nail on the head.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2017)

Saved or lost, repent or perish are not the hypothetical classes I'm referring to. Thats a non sequitur.

Im referring to saying something about the Covenant of Redemption or Covenant of Grace God didnt say.

God never said, my Son's atonement is of such infinite worth that it "could have" saved a million billion worlds.

Scripture _never_ speaks that way. It says he either did something, plans something or accomplished something. It never says Jesus could have saved aliens on plant Zeno.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Nov 16, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Saved or lost, repent or perish are not the hypothetical classes I'm referring to. Thats a non sequitur.
> 
> Im referring to saying something about the Covenant of Redemption or Covenant of Grace God didnt say.
> 
> ...



I agree that unchecked hypotheticals can get out of hand and quickly become unhelpful. But there is a difference between using hypotheticals that have a natural possibility and those which are completely speculative or have no natural possibility. Scripture says that those who do not believe _could have been saved_ if they had believed (2 Thes. 2:10). The OT is full of these examples as well. We also have numerous examples of God giving people time to repent, even though in His divine wisdom He determined to withhold His Spirit from them rendering their rejection of Him certain due to the condition of fallen human nature. We also have example of Christ saying to the Jews that sought to kill Him that He "say these things that you may be saved" (John 6:34b).

I question Owen's usage of sufficient and efficient, since He promotes a completely hypothetical and useless formula. But used biblically (and historically), the sufficient for all formula demonstrates a) God's great kindness to all of humanity, and when rejected by unthakful man b) demonstrates man's own responsibility for bringing condemnation upon himself (see John 3 and 12). Truly, man is responsible for condemning himself when he rejects what Christ's offers in the gospel!

It is this kind of sufficiency that Dort clearly outlines. We need to be careful not to reinterpret Dort from a 21st century perspective. Historically, sufficiency in the sense described above is establishd in the confessions (Heidelberg 37, Dort 2nd head). As a subcriber to the Three Forms, I take this doctrine really seriously.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2017)

Natural possibility: if you repent, you will be saved.

Unnatural hypothetical: Jesus' atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.

Unnatural hypotheticals lead directly to Amyraldianism.

This language is the only sloppy wording in the Canons, "more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." It assumes something Scripture never admits, though Amyraldius was all over this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Nov 16, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Natural possibility: if you repent, you will be saved.
> 
> Unnatural hypothetical: Jesus' atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.



This is a distinction without a difference. What is actually offered and actually rejected in the gospel? If not sufficient for all, nothing is offered and nothing can be rejected.



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Unnatural hypotheticals lead directly to Amyraldianism.



This is simply not true. Shedd, Hodge, Dabney and many others who employ what you call "unnatural hypotheticals" vehemently oppose Amyraldianism. We could also say that the doctrine of reprobation leads to hyper-Calvinism. Well, yes, it does it we do not account for the whole counsel of God. 



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> This language is the only sloppy wording in the Canons, "more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." It assumes something Scripture never admits, though Amyraldius was all over this.



I'm sorry you feel this way...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2017)

So far you havent provided one Scripture that says Jesus' death is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.

Where exactly is that chapter and verse? Where exactly does God tell us this?

What this kind of talk does is place good men in compromising positions, not to mention it was the hallmark of Amyraldius' thought.

If we engage in this kind of thinking, we can hypothetically say anything we want, without crossing the line.

Lets try that.

God could have saved people through Christ's atonement only on cloudy days.

God could have saved people through Christ's atonement if they wore white clothes during their conversion.

God could have saved people through Christ's atonement only while they were riding pink unicorns if God had made pink unicorns.

God could have even saved aliens on planet Zeno if God created aliens on planet Zeno, had them fall, and provided Christs atonement for them too.

God could have saved people through Christ's atonement only if they....you choose the hypothetical.

All this kind of talk leads absolutely nowhere and is a complete waste of time and has no implicit or explicit inference. The explicit or implicit inference one finds this is the same place in the Bible Amyraldius found it.

If you want to deal with a natural hypothetical, make it at least according to what Scripture tells us.

If we want to enter into _conjecture_, I'm going to insist pink unicorns and aliens should be in the mix. They are equally valid in any conjecture.

Instead...

God infallibly secured salvation for the elect, through Christ's atonement which was of infinite value _because_ Adams original sin, and the limited number of the elect's sins were so heinous against an infinite God that it required a satisfaction which propitiates and expiates sin and wrath so effectively that God's righteous judgment would be satisfied through that infinite atonement. Its value is decreed and determined due to its actual work for which God intended. The atonement MUST be of infinite worth because my sins alone were infinite in their affect against an infinitely holy God. (Now we can find lots of Scriptures for all that.)

In my studies, I just haven't come across pink unicorns in Scripture.

In fact, the atonement CAN'T "could have saved everyone" _because it didn't.
_
*One simply has to ask: *_what did God intend in Christ's atonement, _to know what direction Scripture moves in.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 16, 2017)

John Murray (_Collected Writings_, 4:255-256):

It has been maintained that the Assembly formulated at least one section so as to allow for an Amyraldian doctrine of the atonement. The _Minutes of the Assembly_ give no support to this contention. There are three principles enunciated in the Confession that exclude the Amyraldian view. The first is that redemption has been purchased for the elect. '_The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself ... purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him_' (chapter 8, section 5). The second is that impetration and application are coextensive. '_To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same_' (chapter 8, section 8). This excludes any form of universal atonement. The redemption purchased includes, as the preceding quotation implies, the purchase of an everlasting inheritance, and this is therefore said to be communicated to all for whom redemption was purchased. If all were included then all would be the partakers of the everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, a position clearly denied in the Confession elsewhere. The third principle is the exclusiveness of redemption. '_Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only_' (chapter 3, section 6). In the preceding sentence the elect are said to have been '_redeemed by Christ_'; now it is said that they alone are redeemed. Other lines of argument could be elicited from the Confession to show that *it allowed for no form of universal atonement*, *not even the hypothetical universalism propounded on the floor of the Assembly*. But the foregoing principles are sufficient to show that the particularism in terms of which the whole doctrine of salvation is constructed is not sacrificed at the point of the atonement.​
Cunningham (2:332) on the use of the oft quoted "_sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"_.

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — _sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis_. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, — admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement — whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, — namely, that He died sufficiently for all, — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.​
Sebastian Rehnman, '_A Particular Defence of Particularism_,' Journal of Reformed Theology 6 (2012) 24-34:

...the mere presence of a plurality of views in session does not imply a plurality of views in confession. Clearly, the final formulation should interpret (the outcome of) the earlier discussion and not the earlier discussion the final formulation. Although WCF could be ambiguous or alternatively rendered on this subject (as on some other ones), it is actually precise and clear about the strictly particular divine intention.​

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 3


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Natural possibility: if you repent, you will be saved.
> 
> Unnatural hypothetical: Jesus' atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.
> 
> ...


Since it was God actual being put to death on the Cross, would not that sacrifice been enough to have saved all sinners though?


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2017)

timfost said:


> "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, *because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God*." (John 3:18)
> 
> "...and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, *because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.*" (2 Thes. 2:10)
> 
> ...


Your assessment on this seems to be pretty much biblical accurate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 16, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Nothing about the atonement is hypothetical. Scripture always speaks in concrete, actual terms.
> 
> "Sufficiency" conjecture opens the door for bad theology to creep in.
> 
> I could say, hypothetically, Jesus died for aliens on planet Zeno. But that doesnt mean anything.


The death of Jesus itself was of infinite worth, correct?


----------



## timfost (Nov 16, 2017)

Dear AMR and Rev. McMahon,

1. If I had $100 and offered it to someone who rejected, I have dealt in honesty and the rejection is on the one who rejected the offer. If I don't have $100 and offered it to someone who rejected it, I have not dealt honestly because I offered somehting I didn't have or intend to give. If Christ offers salvation based on His atonining blood to those who reject it and there is no sufficiency for them, God deals dishonestly.

Cunningham acknowledges this difficulty and does not try to resolve it, speaking concerning God's "revealed will" as "the only rule" which "ought to be held to be the sufficient warrant for all that we do..." He acknowledges that "we are bound to believe that they [the free offer and the strict particularist view of the atonement] are consistent with each other, though we may not be able to perceive and develope this consistency..." 

The sufficient/efficient view of the atonement simply takes away the problem that Cunningham admits in his own system. 

2. If you do a Strong's search for sufficient/efficient, yes, it does not come up. But neither does the word _Trinity. _You know as well as any Reformed person that we develope vocabulary to describe and summarize Christian doctrines. 

3. Concerning pink unicorns... The bible is full of hypotheticals. If your system cannot deal with them, your system is the problem. The Scriptures never speak about pink unicorns, but speak about men rejecting salvation. If not sufficient, there is nothing to reject. Period. 

4. I'm not an advocate of hypothetical universalism or Amyraldianism. But, in part, these were developed because of your speculative particularist view of the atonement. Both are a result of the pendulum swinging too far in either direction.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The death of Jesus itself was of infinite worth, correct?



It has to be because of 2 things Scriptures _teaches u_s 1) _God is infinite_, infinitely angry at sin and all my sins are infinitely heinous against him. 2) The Divine Son is infinite, and all his work in the Covenant of Redemption is infinite for the elect. His death is of incomprehensible worth.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Since it was God actual being put to death on the Cross, would not that sacrifice been enough to have saved all sinners though?



That's the very argument (the first part of it) that the Remonstrants had at Dordt.

Where did this efficient / sufficient language come from?

The article in their remonstrance against the Synod of Dordt is this: “The price of redemption which Christ offered up to his Father _was not only in itself and by itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race_." (Acta Synodi Nationals . . . Dordrechti [1619-20], 1:129) and see Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2), on Christ's mediation.
This was the first half of the _Arminian argument_. 



timfost said:


> 1. If I had $100 and offered it to someone who rejected, I have dealt in honesty and the rejection is on the one who rejected the offer. If I don't have $100 and offered it to someone who rejected it, I have not dealt honestly because I offered somehting I didn't have or intend to give. If Christ offers salvation based on His atonining blood to those who reject it and there is no sufficiency for them, God deals dishonestly.



I'd ask, first, to understand this, what is _your intention_ in this - to give everyone $100 or just a few people, or one person? If your intention relies on your magical ability to draw people to you to give them $100, then only those who you magically draw to you (in your illustration) get the $100. That does not make the offer invalid to everyone. It just means your _*intention *_in the offer is limited to the _*few whom you draw. (i.e. the myriad statements in John's Gospel alone that deal with drawing, and seeing, and electing, etc.)*_



timfost said:


> 2. If you do a Strong's search for sufficient/efficient, yes, it does not come up. But neither does the word _Trinity. _You know as well as any Reformed person that we develope vocabulary to describe and summarize Christian doctrines.



Not remotely the same thing. There is no wiggle room on the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity. We can prove this from Scripture quite easily, and we would both agree on that doctrine because its clear, direct and through the Bible. The other has nothing to prove *God's intention* that he had any inkling towards "all men" in that way. (i.e. we don't do Arminianism or Amyraldianism).



timfost said:


> 3. Concerning pink unicorns... The bible is full of hypotheticals. If your system cannot deal with them, your system is the problem. The Scriptures never speak about pink unicorns, but speak about men rejecting salvation. If not sufficient, there is nothing to reject. Period.



You've misconstrued, then, God's _intention, (now its includes hypothetical salvation) _and the doctrine of reprobation, as well as God's decree. Decrees won't be decrees in this way.
What is _God's intention _in the Covenant of Redemption? Is it not to save the elect, *Period*? 



timfost said:


> 4. I'm not an advocate of hypothetical universalism or Amyraldianism. But, in part, these were developed because of your speculative particularist view of the atonement. Both are a result of the pendulum swinging too far in either direction.



_I didn't say you were, nor would I imply it. _

I am saying that Scripture's view of God's Covenant (either way one takes the CoR or CoG) is _*never *_hypothetical. It's always specific with decreed intentions.

So when we use Arminian/Amyraldian language, pink unicorns and aliens from planet Zeno are equally _in_.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 16, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> So far you havent provided one Scripture that says Jesus' death is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.
> 
> Where exactly is that chapter and verse? Where exactly does God tell us this?
> 
> ...



This is wonderful and makes so much sense! You're right in that I've never seen a Scripture which states that Christ's atonement was sufficient for everyone. I guess people have believed this because they needed to express his infinite sufficiency of his atonement. But you have just expressed the accuracy of where that sufficiency lies and why it needed to be infinite sufficiency. Thank you for this! Do know if Calvin believed this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> This is wonderful and makes so much sense! You're right in that I've never seen a Scripture which states that Christ's atonement was sufficient for everyone. I guess people have believed this because they needed to express his infinite sufficiency of his atonement. But you have just expressed the accuracy of where that sufficiency lies and why it needed to be infinite sufficiency. Thank you for this! Do know if Calvin believed this?



It is quite wonderful, and yes, it remains in the sense of the _intention _of God in saving the elect the Scriptures.

On Calvin, keep in mind, everyone wants Calvin on their side. They really try to squeeze things out of him as much as they can.

Calvin said he "allowed the use of the phrase" (which was a little different that what has been quoted in this thread) by others but didn't himself expound on it at any length. Generally one finds him dealing with others who are saying it, and generally in his commentaries. One of the authorities on Calvin's view of the atonement is Dr. Roger Nicole (a mentor of mine in the 90s), who wrote extensively on this topic, and on Amyraldianism. He said, "Calvin makes it quite plain that he views repentance and faith and all other recreative benefits of salvation to have been merited for the elect by Christ. What Christ has accomplished on the cross is not so much to secure the salvability of all humans, as actually to _accomplish _the salvation of those whom he does redeem." See this article for a full and fair dealing by Dr. Nicole.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 16, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> It is quite wonderful, and yes, it remains in the sense of the _intention _of God in saving the elect the Scriptures.
> 
> On Calvin, keep in mind, everyone wants Calvin on their side. They really try to squeeze things out of him as much as they can.
> 
> Calvin said he "allowed the use of the phrase" (which was a little different that what has been quoted in this thread) by others but didn't himself expound on it at any length. Generally one finds him dealing with others who are saying it, and generally in his commentaries. One of the authorities on Calvin's view of the atonement is Dr. Roger Nicole (a mentor of mine in the 90s), who wrote extensively on this topic, and on Amyraldianism. He said, "Calvin makes it quite plain that he views repentance and faith and all other recreative benefits of salvation to have been merited for the elect by Christ. What Christ has accomplished on the cross is not so much to secure the salvability of all humans, as actually to _accomplish _the salvation of those whom he does redeem." See this article for a full and fair dealing by Dr. Nicole.



I only ask because when I read what you wrote to my mom, first she didn't clearly understand it and then quickly stated, "How can one man be right and all of our forefathers like Calvin be wrong?" I reminded her that man is fallible even Calvin, but I didn't know what Calvin taught about this to tell her.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 16, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> I only ask because when I read what you wrote to my mom, first she didn't clearly understand it and then quickly stated, "How can one man be right and all of our forefathers like Calvin be wrong?" I reminded her that man is fallible even Calvin, but I didn't know what Calvin taught about this to tell her.



Calvin does not use that phrase in the _Institutes_, which, in his own words, is his final authority on what he thought and wrote. See his section in the Institutes 2:16:1-19. He just speaks in concrete terms as to what Christ did in his atonement.

And he says concrete things like this throughout the _Institutes: _"There is great force in this word propitiation; for in a manner which cannot be expressed, God, at the very time when he loved us, was hostile to us until reconciled in Christ. To this effect are all the following passages: “He is the propitiation for our sins;” Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1845). Institutes of the Christian religion (Vol. 2, p. 76). Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society.

You just have to take, overall, how Calvin speaks about the indiscriminate call to repent (which is not hypothetical, just indiscriminate), and the intention of God to save only those for whom Christ died and election has chosen.

(BTW - this is a lot of what _The Two Wills of God_ was about that I wrote at length, and in an easy version.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 16, 2017)

timfost said:


> Dear AMR and Rev. McMahon,
> 
> 1. If I had $100 and offered it to someone who rejected, I have dealt in honesty and the rejection is on the one who rejected the offer. If I don't have $100 and offered it to someone who rejected it, I have not dealt honestly because I offered somehting I didn't have or intend to give. If Christ offers salvation based on His atonining blood to those who reject it and there is no sufficiency for them, God deals dishonestly.


As Matthew observes above, _intention _is what is operative here. The offer goes out to all sinners as sinners (sinners _qua _sinners). You are importing volition will of God into your statement, that there is some desire on God's part to save "all" men. Any "_universal desire_" theory makes God's offer to be less than genuine. By extending the desire of God to save to "all men" it makes makes that desire ineffectual and casts doubt on the promise of God to save those who believe.

God has not purposed salvation for all men. God has no unfulfilled desires, He will accomplish all that He wills to do (Job 23:13).

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## timfost (Nov 16, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> This is wonderful and makes so much sense! You're right in that I've never seen a Scripture which states that Christ's atonement was sufficient for everyone. I guess people have believed this because they needed to express his infinite sufficiency of his atonement. But you have just expressed the accuracy of where that sufficiency lies and why it needed to be infinite sufficiency. Thank you for this! Do know if Calvin believed this?



Sarah,

There are many scriptures which talk about Christ dying for all. Reformed folk often qualify all to mean "all of the elect." Problem is, the scriptures _never_ say that there is anyone for whom Christ did not die. 

Consider 1 John 2:2. Look up John's usage of "whole world," particularly in his later books and ask yourself, "is 1 John 2:2 the anomaly?"

Read Calvin's commentary on Romans 5:18.

Hope this helps...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 16, 2017)

timfost said:


> Sarah,
> 
> There are many scriptures which talk about Christ dying for all. Reformed folk often qualify all to mean "all of the elect." Problem is, the scriptures _never_ say that there is anyone for whom Christ did not die.
> 
> ...



So you believe that John is speaking of the whole human race in this Scripture? If this Scripture were the whole of the Bible, then I would agree with you. However, I believe less clear Scripture should be interpreted by clearer Scripture. I would use Romans 9 to start off with to interpret 1 John 2:2


----------



## timfost (Nov 16, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> So you believe that John is speaking of the whole human race in this Scripture? If this Scripture were the whole of the Bible, then I would agree with you. However, I believe less clear Scripture should be interpreted by clearer Scripture. I would use Romans 9 to start off with to interpret 1 John 2:2



Their is no disagreement between 1 John 2:2 and Romans 9. If you read Romans 9 in the context of Romans, there is not any issue with what John says...


----------



## jw (Nov 16, 2017)

timfost said:


> Their is no disagreement between 1 John 2:2 and Romans 9. If you read Romans 9 in the context of Romans, there is not any issue with what John says...


She didn't claim that there was disagreement between 1 John 2.2 and Romans 9. She agrees that those passages agree. She is asserting that there is disagreement with your _interpretation_ of 1 John 2.2. She is arguing for a proper hermeneutic guided by the Analogy of Scripture.

The interpretation (by some godly men, no doubt) that God has sincerely offered (in a one to one, even God-to-reprobate sense) salvation to those Whom He has decreed _not_ to save, instead of that general offer to penitent sinners who come to Him by faith in Christ alone, sets God against Himself and makes Him unsure in His doings. This is _illogic_ by its very definition. _Contradictory_. And interpreting Scripture in such a way that paints this picture of God is very poor hermeneutic.

1 John 2.2, for example, very clearly -in light of _all_ the passages that speak to the subject- can mean:

1. "Not for [Jew's sins] only,"
2. "Not for [the elect in this time period] only, but for all the elect from the begging to the end of time."

It is out of according with God's impassibility and eternal satisfaction with His own decree to understand such passages in a way that posits God of "desiring" one thing which is incommensurate with that which He has "decreed."

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## bookslover (Nov 17, 2017)

I'm still trying to figure out where planet Zeno is. . .

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Edward (Nov 17, 2017)

bookslover said:


> I'm still trying to figure out where planet Zeno is



It is a huge planet with a large, powerful spacegoing navy which is inhabited by humanoids. It is in the Milky Way. http://zenology.wikia.com/wiki/Zeno_(Planet)

I've never visited there.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## timfost (Nov 17, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> As Matthew observes above, _intention _is what is operative here. The offer goes out to all sinners as sinners (sinners _qua _sinners). You are importing volition will of God into your statement, that there is some desire on God's part to save "all" men. Any "_universal desire_" theory makes God's offer to be less than genuine. By extending the desire of God to save to "all men" it makes makes that desire ineffectual and casts doubt on the promise of God to save those who believe.
> 
> God has not purposed salvation for all men. God has no unfulfilled desires, He will accomplish all that He wills to do (Job 23:13).



Dear AMR,

I hope you know that I have deep respect for you. I love reading your posts and have learned a lot from you sharing your knowledge. But in this issue I respectfully disagree.

Of course, it is difficult to separate the WMO from the discussion. I will try to keep it separate. 

I believe that you have an underlying presupposition in your statement above that needs to be addressed. You've limited "intention" to the efficacious salvation of the elect. Dabney addresses this issue well when he notes that "we see, that, along with the actual redemption of the elect, [Christ's death] works out several other subordinate ends."

Dabney further repudiates the false dilemma that you set up:

"We have no occasion for such questionable, and even perilous exegesis, as even Calvin and Turrettin feel themselves constrained to apply to the last. *Afraid lest God’s principle of compassion (not purpose of rescue)*, towards sinners non-elect, should find any expression, and thus mar the symmetry of their logic, they say that it was not Messiah the God-man and Mediator, who wept over reprobate Jerusalem; but only the humanity of Jesus, our pattern. I ask: Is it competent to a mere humanity to say: “How often would I have gathered your children ?” And to pronounce a final doom, “Your house is left unto you desolate?” *The Calvinist should have paused, when he found himself wresting these Scriptures from the same point of view adopted by the ultra-Arminian*. But this is not the first time we have seen “extremes meet.” Thus argues the Arminian: “Since God is sovereign and omnipotent, if He has a propension, He indulges it, of course, in volition and action. Therefore, as He declares He had a propension of pity towards contumacious Israel, I conclude that He also had a volition to redeem them, and that He did whatever omnipotence could do, against the obstinate contingency of their wills. Here then, I find the bulwark of my doctrine, that even omnipotence cannot certainly determine a free will.” *And thus argues the ultra-Calvinist: ” Since God is sovereign and omnipotent, if He has any propension, He indulges it, of course, in volition and action. But if He had willed to convert reprobate Israel, He would infallibly have succeeded. Therefore He never had any propension of pity at all towards them.”* And so this reasoner sets himself to explain away, *by unscrupulous exegesis*, the most precious revelations of God’s nature! *Should not this fact, that two opposite conclusions are thus drawn from the same premises, have suggested error in the premises?* And the error of both extremists is just here. It is not true that if God has an active principle looking towards a given object, He will always express it in volition and action. This, as I have shown, is no more true of God, than of a righteous and wise man. And as the good man, who was touched with a case of destitution, and yet determined that it was his duty not to use the money he had in giving alms, might consistently express what he truly felt of pity, by a kind word; so God consistently reveals the principle of compassion as to those whom, for wise reasons, He is determined not to save. *We know that God’s omnipotence surely accomplishes every purpose of His grace.* Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ’s sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. *But we hold it perfectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin–expiation of infinite value and universal fitness–should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non-elect, as a manifestation of the benevolence of God’s nature.* God here exhibits a provision, which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to every sinner’s return to his love, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way."

In agreement with Dabney, you seem to make the same mistake in logic that the Arminian makes, albeit on the other side of the argument. Reducing God's plan in Christ's death to _only _the salvation of the elect is short-sighted. It certainly accomplishes that, but it also paves the way for the indiscriminate offer of salvation, and, I would argue along with Witsius, Turretin, Cunningham, Hodge and many others that Christ's death is that which preserves all of creation. 

Lastly, your arguments imply that any "unfulfilled desire" in God is anthropomorphic, yet exclude anthropomorphism from understanding His decretive will. In doing this, you seek to understand God's will through creaturely limitations and effectively pick and choose which manifestations about God's nature and will are actually descriptive of Himself.


----------



## timfost (Nov 17, 2017)

Joshua said:


> She didn't claim that there was disagreement between 1 John 2.2 and Romans 9. She agrees that those passages agree. She is asserting that there is disagreement with your _interpretation_ of 1 John 2.2. She is arguing for a proper hermeneutic guided by the Analogy of Scripture.



Correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah, but weren't you saying what seems to be the case in 1 John 2:2 is not when you read it in conjunction with Roman's 9. 

Concerning arguing "for a proper hermeneutic," this hermeneutic funnels Christ's death through God's decree concerning election. If our hermeneutic is not anthrocentric and we do not make Christ's death _only_ about the efficacious salvation of the elect but rather look at the bigger picture and _multiple purposes_ God ordains through Christ's death as revealed in His Word, there is no issue. 



Joshua said:


> The interpretation (by some godly men, no doubt) that God has sincerely offered (in a one to one, even God-to-reprobate sense) salvation to those Whom He has decreed _not_ to save, instead of that general offer to penitent sinners who come to Him by faith in Christ alone, sets God against Himself and makes Him unsure in His doings. This is _illogic_ by its very definition. _Contradictory_. And interpreting Scripture in such a way that paints this picture of God is very poor hermeneutic.
> 
> 1 John 2.2, for example, very clearly -in light of _all_ the passages that speak to the subject- can mean:
> 
> ...



Please see my previous post where I quoted Dabney.


----------



## timfost (Nov 17, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> So you believe that John is speaking of the whole human race in this Scripture? If this Scripture were the whole of the Bible, then I would agree with you. However, I believe less clear Scripture should be interpreted by clearer Scripture. I would use Romans 9 to start off with to interpret 1 John 2:2



God speaks of the "whole human race" in terms of the sufficiency and "suitableness" of the sacrifice. Heidelberg 37:



> What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
> 
> That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, *the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race*; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.



If there is any question what was meant in the statement, read Ursinus's commentary on the Heidelberg (I think he addresses the point in question under Q&A 40). I'd be happy to provide the text if you'd like.

The "double-jeapardy" argument often cited againt this does not account for the process of application of Christ's merits. In short, God in Christ makes the sacrifice of universal fitness for (in sufficiency) the "entire human race." It is applied (efficacious) to those who believe and belief is given by God to all of the elect. It's a very simple doctrine that doesn't have to funnel Scripture, and it is thoroughly Reformed.


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 17, 2017)

bookslover said:


> I'm still trying to figure out where planet Zeno is. . .


I think that is where L Ron Hubbard stated that humans really came from.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 17, 2017)

timfost said:


> God speaks of the "whole human race" in terms of the sufficiency and "suitableness" of the sacrifice. Heidelberg 37:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which is pretty much as the Op stated it was here.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 17, 2017)

I think there is room for middle ground here, and I will make the attempt to find it. I believe that Matthew is correct when it comes to God's intention about the atonement as applied to the elect. The intent to save is completely limited to the elect. Jesus laid down His life for His sheep.

The WMO does not need to imply that, somehow, it was God's intention to save the non-elect. God knows that the non-elect will never believe it. Therefore God's intention behind the WMO has to be something _other than salvific_. We do know that the Gospel is to be preached indiscriminately. We also know that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18 and other places). So why is the gospel to be preached to the non-elect? 

The dilemma of the WMO becomes clear when we observe that if God knows the non-elect will never believe, and that it was not God's intention to save them, then how can it be "well-meant?" The key here, I believe, is in defining what "well-meant" means. Can God offer something to someone knowing that the person will reject it, and still have it be well-meant? The answer is yes. The key here is that when the non-elect reject the gospel, they will be to the praise of God's glorious justice, just as when the elect believe, they will be to the praise of God's glorious grace. This is the intent behind the WMO of the gospel to the non-elect.

Is there a preservative function of the gospel that is also non-salvific? Perhaps. A case can be made. When Jesus commands His followers to be salt and light in the world, we know that the metaphor of salt as preservative is probably in the background there. God's people are surely to show the world what a difference the gospel makes. 

Two other distinctions have an impact on this discussion, I believe. The first one is the difference between God's revealed will and God's decretive will. Which one can be broken or disobeyed? Obviously, only God's revealed will. God commands many things in His revealed will that are disobeyed. Similarly, when God is said to desire the salvation of all men (like in 1 Timothy), this can be said to be God's revealed will (different classes of humans are also in view, rather than a view of the whole human race without exception). God's decretive will cannot possibly have as its intention the salvation of all men, or else all would in fact be saved. For no one can thwart God's decretive will. This distinction is implied in Deuteronomy 29.

Another distinction that is helpful (and somewhat related to the previous distinction) is that of the difference between how God thinks of the situation and how humans can think of it. It seems to me that how Matthew has been describing the situation is more like how God views the situation, whereas how Tim has been formulating things is more on the human level. I am not saying both are correct. I would say that there could be some degree of talking past each other due to this factor.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 17, 2017)

timfost said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, Sarah, but weren't you saying what seems to be the case in 1 John 2:2 is not when you read it in conjunction with Roman's 9.
> 
> Concerning arguing "for a proper hermeneutic," this hermeneutic funnels Christ's death through God's decree concerning election. If our hermeneutic is not anthrocentric and we do not make Christ's death _only_ about the efficacious salvation of the elect but rather look at the bigger picture and _multiple purposes_ God ordains through Christ's death as revealed in His Word, there is no issue.
> 
> ...



No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that I would interpret 1 John 2:2 ( the less clear Scripture) by using Romans 9 (the clearer Scripture).


----------



## timfost (Nov 17, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that I would interpret 1 John 2:2 ( the less clear Scripture) by using Romans 9 (the clearer Scripture).



Thanks for clarifying. I'm still having trouble understanding how Romans 9 helps you interpret 1 John 2:2, since Romans 9 deals with God's decree, not Christ's death particularly and the offer of the gospel. Consider Rom. 10:21 in light of this conversation.


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 17, 2017)

Roman 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 *Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory*— 24 *even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles*?

He is the *propitiation* for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

"Christ is "the propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured." This is the gospel of 1 John 2:2. Romans 9 clarifies who the "whole world" is. In the OT, God had a chosen people from a specific nation. Now in the NT, (John needed to clarify that it wasn't just the nation of Israel anymore) God has a chosen people from all nations. All nations is the whole world, but he has a specific group of people within all nations. This is what Romans 9 clarifies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Nov 18, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Roman 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 *Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory*— 24 *even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles*?
> 
> He is the *propitiation* for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
> 
> "Christ is "the propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured." This is the gospel of 1 John 2:2. Romans 9 clarifies who the "whole world" is. In the OT, God had a chosen people from a specific nation. Now in the NT, (John needed to clarify that it wasn't just the nation of Israel anymore) God has a chosen people from all nations. All nations is the whole world, but he has a specific group of people within all nations. This is what Romans 9 clarifies.



Ah, I see the connection you're making. You're saying that Rom. 9 explains that some were prepared for destruction, so _propitiation_ cannot be referring to them. Since it cannot refer to them, John's usage of the word cannot refer to everyone. Is this a fair summary of your point?

Some things to consider. 

1. It says that Christ is the propitiation (appeasing God's wrath), not that He has turned away His wrath from everyone. Christ is the propitiation that is offered for mankind in the gospel. God's wrath is not turned away from anyone (even the elect) until they believe. Again, sufficiency does not equal application. Therefore, it is no contradiction to say that He is the propitiation for all of mankind, yet many are still under the wrath of God.

2. But in another sense, to receive providential benefits from God is to not be under His wrath in the full sense of the word. For example, we know that the "living God" is "_the_ Savior of all men, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. 4:10b). Is He the savior of those in hell? I don't think so. Providential blessings are extended to unbelievers _only_ in this life. So even though they are in many ways under God's wrath even now, in another sense, they are being saved (preserved) by God in His present kindness. I've quoted Col. 1:15-20 below verbatim with some comments in brackets:

"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over *all creation*. 16 For by Him *all things* were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. *All things* were created through Him and for Him. [It's clear that the context defines all things as all created things, including the invisible.] 17 And He is before *all things*, and in Him *all things* consist [God upholds all of his creation as our confessions state]. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in *all things* He may have the preeminence. [The church is included so that there is no question in our minds concerning His authority.] 19 For it pleased _the Father that_ in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and *by Him to reconcile all things to Himself*, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, *having made peace through the blood of His cross*."

If "all things" are clearly all created things, what was reconciled to God through Christ's blood? All of creation (including man) is reconciled to God _*in a sense*. _This sense has to do _only _with temporal salvation-- the preservation we may call general providence.

If God is going to extend mercy, it cannot be at the expense of justice. We all maintain this doctrine in the eternal salvation of the elect, but often neglect it when we consider _all _mercy extended by God. 

So in the sense of the creation's reconciliation to God in Col. 1, to be reconciled is to have God's wrath appeased. Again, this is not to say that His wrath is appeased in the fullest sense of the word, or that God is propitiated and has no reason to be angry with man at all. I'm only trying to demonstrate a fuller picture of these doctrines in Scripture.

In my view, 1 John 2:2 is most likely referring primarily to the first point above-- that God is the propitiation offered in the gospel indiscriminately, which flows out of the sufficiency of the atonement. But I certainly would leave room for understanding how God's wrath is appeased concerning all of creation because of the peace brought about by the blood of Christ.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 18, 2017)

timfost said:


> If "all things" are clearly all created things, what was reconciled to God through Christ's blood? All of creation (including man) is reconciled to God _*in a sense*._



All things, then, in this way, would include the Devil and all the demonic fallen angels then, so that has to be explained and reconciled in that line of thought.

"In a sense" is vague and I don't know what that means.

Scripture is concrete. Either reconciled, or not.

(This is just an observation.)


----------



## timfost (Nov 18, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> All things, then, in this way, would include the Devil and all the demonic fallen angels then, so that has to be explained and reconciled in that line of thought.
> 
> "In a sense" is vague and I don't know what that means.
> 
> ...



Luke 8:31-32:

"And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss. Now a herd of many swine was feeding there on the mountain. So they begged Him that He would permit them to enter them. And He permitted them."

Did the demons experience the full wrath of God as they certainly deserved? Did Christ, the firstborn over all creation, deal with them in His justice? The Colossians text mentions principalities. This may be an inconvenience to your system, but again, our systems ought to bow to the Word of God.

The "sense" is simply this: God shows temporal mercy to all of creation through Christ's death. In this sense, He sets aside the full extent of His wrath.

See Simon Kistemaker's commentary. If I recall correctly, Berkhof speaks about this as well.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 18, 2017)

Just so I'm clear, God shows _mercy _to demons. "God shows *temporal mercy *to all of creation through Christ's death. In this sense, He sets aside the full extent of His wrath."

Is it worse or better for those demons in lieu of God's judgment to go into the swine or not?

How does one deal with that?


----------



## timfost (Nov 18, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Just so I'm clear, God shows _mercy _to demons. "God shows *temporal mercy *to all of creation through Christ's death. In this sense, He sets aside the full extent of His wrath."
> 
> Is it worse or better for those demons in lieu of God's judgment to go into the swine or not?
> 
> How does one deal with that?



I've been careful to speak of the sense of this mercy. In the sense that Christ permitted demons to enter swine rather than the abyss, yes, He was merciful to them. What do you prefer to call it?

The demons will enter God's judgment one day. Until then, justice is postponed.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 18, 2017)

brother, none of this is carefully thought out, or careful language. Which is really my contention.
Is _justice postponed_ better for them or worse for them? And why?
What is God's intention in the postponement?


----------



## timfost (Nov 18, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> What is God's intention in the postponement?



Your arguments are backwards. You are looking at the end result and interpreting what God does in time through the end result. God does all things for His glory. He is glorified in demonstrating His kindness to all of creation. He is glorified in preserving this creation for the sake of the elect.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 18, 2017)

timfost said:


> Your arguments are backwards. You are looking at the *end result *and interpreting what *God does in time through the end result*. God does all things for His glory. He is glorified in demonstrating His kindness to all of creation. He is glorified in preserving this creation for the sake of the elect.



Yeeeeaaaaahhbhhhh. Ok. That's what we Christians called "God's decrees."

And, it was not what I asked. I asked, Is _justice postponed_ better for them or worse for them? And why? What is God's intention in the postponement?

_I honestly can't believe you said that._ It's typical mind you, but I still can't believe you back yourself into that position. The hermentueitcal fallout on this is staggering for everything from Ephesians 1-2, to Romans 9 to 1 Peter 1, etc. from election to atonement and everything in between.

(I'm not going to interact any more with this since, honestly, you really aren't thinking at this point (no disrespect intended. I just don't have the time to untwist where you are at. If you want a faithful historical overview on this, get my larger Two Wills book).


----------



## timfost (Nov 18, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> If you want a faithful historical overview on this, get my larger Two Wills book).



Thanks but no thanks. It's been an interesting conversation. 

Blessings,


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 18, 2017)

The point that Matthew is making is salient. The wrath of God is poured out on all flesh because men suppress the knowledge of Him in unrighteousness.

Furthermore, we're comforted in Romans 8 with the knowledge that all things work together for the good for those who are called according to His purposes. The comfort is given in the context that the creation itself was subjected to futility by the curse of God. In other words, very bad things happen in this life - especially to Christians who are hated by the world. Revelation unfolds a drama of the world in riches and delight as the God's people are seen often trampled underfoot - meanwhile, back in heaven, the glory of God is seen as ultimately spelling doom for culture and power and all the delights of the human heart that set its mind against God.

The patience of God against sin is never characterized in Scripture as being of benefit to God's enemies. In fact, the Saints in heaven are seen as crying out against the wickedness of men and there is a "filling up of wrath" that is eventually poured out.

A wise Pastor friend of mine pointed out that, for the Christian, every good and bad thing is ultimately for our good while every good thing in this life is ultimately bad for God's enemies.

Thus, the issue is whether or not it is really a "mercy" of God extended by the atonement as a real benefit to God's enemies. Is justice delayed of value to the sinner who is storing up wrath for the day of wrath. Tis true that God's justice is delayed. I won't necessarily quibble with the notion that a case can be made that judgment is held back by God and that it is related to the Cross but Peter tells us that this is for the full gathering up of the elect. Any delay for all His enemies does them no ultimate good. It only continues to build up wrath to their unwillingness to acknowledge Him as their God. In fact, it is very clearly revealed to be a worse thing for those who are given more light.

I would point out as well that we need to divide God's decree (archetypal theology) from mankind's experience and knowlege of Providence and Revelation. Christ has dealt with the problem of man as a sinner. He has provided a way that all men, without excuse, may see in Christ an atonement for men as sinners. We cannot deal with men as reprobate or elect but simply with the power of the Cross and the offer is to all men. We leave election to God. To mix the free offer with God's decree is to assume that men have the mind of God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 18, 2017)

timfost said:


> Ah, I see the connection you're making. You're saying that Rom. 9 explains that some were prepared for destruction, so _propitiation_ cannot be referring to them. Since it cannot refer to them, John's usage of the word cannot refer to everyone. Is this a fair summary of your point?
> 
> Some things to consider.
> 
> ...



Tim,
smarter people than I am have answered you so I won't carry on trying to explain my position. Parts of reformed theology can be hard to come to grips some times. But I would encourage you to be a searcher for the truth and not be satisfied with what you know. I had to do that with the Sabbath. When I first became reformed I thought everyone was wrong about the Sabbath, and I spent months trying to prove them wrong. I had what I thought were good arguments, but in the end, God changed my view.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Nov 19, 2017)

I recently read a book by Bunyan that I thought was pretty good. It was on the intercession of Christ.

But, in light of this thread, I have a question regarding a quote from the book. Was Bunyan wrong to write what he wrote here, and did he have Amyraldian leanings?


"The duration of Christ's intercession, as it is grounded upon a covenant betwixt God and him, upon an oath also, and upon his life; so it is grounded upon the validity of his merits. This has been promiscuously touched before, but since it is an essential to the lastingness of his intercession, it will be to the purpose to lay it down by itself.

Intercession then, I mean Christ's intercession, is, that those for whom he died with full intention to save them, might be brought into that inheritance which he hath purchased for them. Now then, his intercession must, as to length and breadth, reach no further than his merits. For he may not pray for those for whom he died not. Indeed if we take in the utmost extent of his death, then we must beware. *For his death is sufficient to save the whole world*; but his intercessions are kept within a narrower compass. The altar of burnt-offerings was a great deal bigger than the altar of incense, which was a figure of Christ's intercession. But this, I say, his intercession is for those for whom he died, with full intention to save them: wherefore it must be grounded upon the validity of his sufferings. And indeed, his intercession is nothing else that I know of, but a presenting of what he did in the world for us unto God, and pressing the value of it for our salvation. The blood of sprinkling is that which speaketh meritoriously; it is by the value of that, that God measureth out, and giveth unto us grace and life eternal; wherefore Christ's intercessions also must be ordered and governed by merit. "By his own blood he entered into the holy place, having (before by it) obtained eternal redemption for us," for our souls.

...

And that you may see it yet the more for your comfort, God did at Christ's resurrection, to show what a price he set upon his blood, bid him ask of him the heathen, and he would give him the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. His blood then has value enough in it to ground intercession upon; *yea, there is more worth in it than Christ will plead or improve for men by way of intercession. I do not at all doubt but there is virtue enough in the blood of Christ, would God Almighty so apply it, to save the souls of the whole world.* But it is the blood of Christ, his own blood, and he may do what he will with his own. It is also the blood of God, and he also may restrain its merits, or apply it as he sees good. But the coming soul shall find and feel the virtue thereof, even the soul that comes to God by Christ; for he is the man concerned in its worth; and Christ ever liveth to make intercession for him.

​
Thanks. I appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## timfost (Nov 19, 2017)

Pilgrim72 said:


> I recently read a book by Bunyan that I thought was pretty good. It was on the intercession of Christ.
> 
> But, in light of this thread, I have a question regarding a quote from the book. Was Bunyan wrong to write what he wrote here, and did he have Amyraldian leanings?
> 
> ...



He gets into much more detail in his book _Reprobation Asserted_ than what you see in this quote:

"Whether God would indeed and in truth, that the gospel, with the grace thereof, should be tendered to those that yet he hath bound up under Eternal Reprobation? 

To this question I shall answer, First, In the language of our Lord, ‘Go preach the gospel unto every creature’(Mark 16: 15); and again, ‘Look unto me, and be ye saved; all ye ends of the earth’(Isaiah 45: 22). ‘And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely’ (Revelation 22: 17). And the reason is, because Christ died for all, ‘tasted death for every man’ (2 Corinthians 5: 15; Hebrews 2: 9); is ‘the Saviour of the world’(1 John 4: 14), and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world."

And:

"...for if those that perish in the days of the gospel, shall have, at least, their damnation heightened, because they have neglected and refused to receive the gospel, it must needs be that the gospel was with all faithfulness to be tendered unto them; the which it could not be, unless the death of Christ did extend itself unto them (John 3: 16; Hebrews 2: 3); for the offer of the gospel cannot, with God’s allowance, be offered any further than the death of Jesus Christ doth go; because if that be taken away, there is indeed no gospel, nor grace to be extended."

From my reading of him (which is not exhaustive), I think he is simply classic sufficient/efficient. Although all Amyraldians and English Hypothetical Universalists make this distinction, they go further with talking about a universal (non-salvific) redemption, conditional decrees, etc.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Nov 20, 2017)

Well since the WMO was mentioned, I offer anyone to read this article from Rev. Winzer: http://www.dr-bacon.net/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm


----------



## timfost (Nov 20, 2017)

OPC'n said:


> Tim,
> smarter people than I am have answered you so I won't carry on trying to explain my position. Parts of reformed theology can be hard to come to grips some times. But I would encourage you to be a searcher for the truth and not be satisfied with what you know. I had to do that with the Sabbath. When I first became reformed I thought everyone was wrong about the Sabbath, and I spent months trying to prove them wrong. I had what I thought were good arguments, but in the end, God changed my view.



And smarter people than I am have affirmed what I'm saying, too. I'm not going to conclude that my confessions have sloppy wording because Dr. McMahon said so. 

I've also had to make drastic changes of thought in the past. I would encourage you to read Col. 1 for yourself and ask if your system interprets the bible or the bible your system. Are you forcing the text?

Blessings, sister.


----------



## Herald (Nov 20, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> The dilemma of the WMO becomes clear when we observe that if God knows the non-elect will never believe, and that it was not God's intention to save them, then how can it be "well-meant?" The key here, I believe, is in defining what "well-meant" means. Can God offer something to someone knowing that the person will reject it, and still have it be well-meant? The answer is yes. The key here is that when the non-elect reject the gospel, they will be to the praise of God's glorious justice, just as when the elect believe, they will be to the praise of God's glorious grace. This is the intent behind the WMO of the gospel to the non-elect.



Lane, another aspect of the WMO is that we are not able to discern who is Elect and who is not. I agree that there is a justice factor to consider in the uninhibited preaching of the Gospel, but there is also an effectual call going out to those who will believe. Only the Elect will believe, but the non-Elect will hear the imperative to repent and believe. For them, it will be an aroma of death. For the Elect, it will be their moment in time when they pass from death to life.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 21, 2017)

timfost said:


> You've limited "intention" to the efficacious salvation of the elect.


Actually, I have not so limited "intention". When speaking of _intention_, we must speak of _volition_, the faculty of using one's will. _Will_ here being _the mind choosing_.

Hence, when we speak of the _will of God_, we should be speaking properly of His _volition_ or at least qualifying our use of the word "_will_", as in the sense of God's single will, in the _preceptive_ and _decretive_ senses. As I have maintained, and I hope we all agree, _God has no unfulfilled desires_. This includes soteriological matters as well as all other matters, hence my previous comments denouncing any idea or notion that would impute to God unfulfilled desires. Quite simply, *there are no unfulfilled desires in God*. What God volitionally wills, cannot _not_ come to happen. With that said, I hope I have disposed of any confusion that may have arisen from my earlier post.

Now, I will move to the specific matter of the well-meant offer.

As Rev. Keister has suggested, what God means as being "well meant" may be an _intention _other than the salvation for all men, given that God certainly knows that is not the case. Per Rev. Keister, it may be that God's intention is well-meant to Himself, His glory, that those who are not redeemed ultimately bring praise to His glorious justice, which will be made manifest at the eschaton. I actually find some merit in this approach...if it can be fleshed out a wee bit more in _theology proper_ terms.

Having duly noted the rationale, I have a quibble given that such an approach seems to be appealing to the secret will of God and importing "well-meant" therein. It is as if we are to accept "_I, God, make this offer to all men as a well-meant intention to Myself, not to each and every person_."

I simply am unable to tease out what is equivocal, univocal, or analogical, from such.



timfost said:


> In agreement with Dabney, you seem to make the same mistake in logic that the Arminian makes, albeit on the other side of the argument. Reducing God's plan in Christ's death to _only _the salvation of the elect is short-sighted. It certainly accomplishes that, but it also paves the way for the indiscriminate offer of salvation, and, I would argue along with Witsius, Turretin, Cunningham, Hodge and many others that Christ's death is that which preserves all of creation.
> 
> Lastly, your arguments imply that any "unfulfilled desire" in God is anthropomorphic, yet exclude anthropomorphism from understanding His decretive will. In doing this, you seek to understand God's will through creaturely limitations and effectively pick and choose which manifestations about God's nature and will are actually descriptive of Himself.


This is uncharitable on so many levels and I am not going to respond to this point by point. *Speaking now as Moderator*, I would ask that you dial down this type of rhetoric you have demonstrated in this thread. It may play well to the _hoi polloi_, but I have a real problem with persons constructing straw men of my views by claiming I operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about my beliefs what they believe about my beliefs. This approach leaves no hope for honest discussion.

If you can actually substantiate all your judgments above of my _seeming_ argument, one being for example, that I have appealed to selective anthropomorphisms, perhaps the discussion will proceed to the edification of all. Again, *speaking as a Moderator*, I ask that you take special care in your words so as to not mislead others to impute Hyper-Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other anti-Reformed canard, upon your interlocutors.


----------



## Cymro (Nov 21, 2017)

Taking up the point about Hyper Calvinism, I have always understood that it was used of those who hold that the gospel should only be preached to “sensible sinners.” Nowadays if a robust Calvinism is preached or held, and reprobation believed in, then they get labelled with this charge. Or if one denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for all, then again one falls prey to this accusation. To my mind, if God’s intention was to save all then it would be sufficient for all. Whereas the doctrine of equivalence, ie, particular redemption, seems to be strongly asserted by such scriptures as, “Christ loved the church and give Himself for it,” and, six times in John 17, “those whom thou hast given me.” And if Christ petitioned, “I pray not for the world, but for those thou hast given me,” then if he pray not then his intention of the sufficiency salvation, is not.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 21, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I think there is room for middle ground here, and I will make the attempt to find it. I believe that Matthew is correct when it comes to God's intention about the atonement as applied to the elect. The intent to save is completely limited to the elect. Jesus laid down His life for His sheep.
> 
> The WMO does not need to imply that, somehow, it was God's intention to save the non-elect. God knows that the non-elect will never believe it. Therefore God's intention behind the WMO has to be something _other than salvific_. We do know that the Gospel is to be preached indiscriminately. We also know that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18 and other places). So why is the gospel to be preached to the non-elect?
> 
> ...


There are general blessings from God towards the lost due to the Cross, as he is not right now judging all sinners, has not sent Jesus back in the Second Coming , and the death and resurrection of Jesus also bought sinners resurrected eternal bodies.


----------



## timfost (Nov 21, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> This is uncharitable on so many levels and I am not going to respond to this point by point. *Speaking now as Moderator*, I would ask that you dial down this type of rhetoric you have demonstrated in this thread.



I will try to ask more questions rather than put words in anyone's mouth. Please forgive me for this.

I would still like to respond to some things at later point, but wanted to let you know right away that I have heard your concern and do not want to be characterized by unfaithful representations if others' positions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 21, 2017)

Tim,

I think the whole WMO topic has been discussed at length previously on the site. I know it is difficult to speak of the sufficiency/efficiency related to the atonement without brushing up against WMO topics. But I have no desire to derail the thread into this specific topic. Feel free to respond if you are so provoked to do so, but I do not want to take up the topic once more in this thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Nov 22, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Tim,
> 
> I think the whole WMO topic has been discussed at length previously on the site. I know it is difficult to speak of the sufficiency/efficiency related to the atonement without brushing up against WMO topics. But I have no desire to derail the thread into this specific topic. Feel free to respond if you are so provoked to do so, but I do not want to take up the topic once more in this thread.



I agree. I would like to further what i believe God intends in a sufficient atonement. It'll get too complicated if both topics are combined, though the temptation is certainly there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Nov 22, 2017)

timfost said:


> I agree. I would like to further what i believe God intends in a sufficient atonement. It'll get too complicated if both topics are combined, though the temptation is certainly there.


To my limited understanding, the Death of Jesus was enough in and of itself to have God able to save all sinners, but he intends to save only those whom He called to be elect in Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 24, 2017)

Time has not permitted me to debate theologically for some time now - I think that's for the better. I am in two regular Bible Studies every week as well as my own personal Bible reading every day. I think that when we focus on the theological topics too much it can have a tendency to distract us from the text or the thrust of the argument that a writer of Scripture is making. Our system is certainly important for checking our exegetical conclusions but we can also insert too much into the flow of an Apostle as he is teaching on the excellencies of Christ and His work.

To that end, I think it is important to remind ourselves that every time the Apostles are teaching on the atonement of Christ they never teach toward the end of our speculation but, very specifically, as a comfort to us to be reminded that Christ has put away our guilt and put to death our slavery to sin. The title most used to addressed us in the NT is "_in Christ_".

Sinclair Ferguson has been teaching on Renewing Your Mind this past week on the Whole Christ and has helpfully pointed out that we can erroneously treat the chain of redemption in detached, logical ways and forget that it is only insofar as we are "_in Christ_" that all the aspects of redemption hold together. 

I'm listening to The Marrow of Modern Divinity and the way that Evangelist has to correct _nomista _(legalist) and _antinomista _(anti-nomian) who both view the Law in a legalistic fashion and miss the aspect of Christ in how the benefits of redemption are applied to the believer.

As I'm working through Romans with a young man on Thursdays, he'll pull me down into some aspect of election and reprobation and the unbeliever's objection and how we respond but I always want to re-surface and point him to the fact that Romans wasn't written primarily to help us win theological arguments but to be reminded by and comforted by the fact that we are _in Christ_.

Neophyte asks Evangelist about the elect and reprobate and Evangelist helpfully points out that we should never look at election and ask if we should or can believe the Gospel. He says, rather Scripturally, that Christ is offered to sinners and, if he believes, then he is elect. We can only ever grasp the eternal purpose of God to save in the Mediator. He is the sole Person by which we have any fruition with God and any attempt to help a man apprehend the purposes of God apart from being in Christ gives no fruitful way to apprehend the Godhead and its inscrutable ways.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Nov 24, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think that when we focus on the theological topics too much it can have a tendency to distract us from the text or the thrust of the argument that a writer of Scripture is making.



Rich,

Yes, I agree. Though I'm a strong advocate for the sufficient/efficient distinction, I'm not overly concerned when Reformed people disagree. 

Too often this distinction is labeled Amyraldianism. Our confessions either a) don't affirm or reject it (Westminster Standards) or b) positively affirm it (Heidelberg and Dort). 

I think if the Reformed more readily affirmed the distinction, Tulip's "L" might be more accessible to those who have reservations, since scripture uses universal language and does not contain explicit language that Christ did _not_ for some.

I understand this is not acceptable to many on this board, but regardless, it has a confessional precedent that should not be ignored.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 24, 2017)

*Moderator Note:*
Thread closed while staff discusses things.


----------

