# The Five Points of Calvinism



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 12, 2004)

link

so did Jonny mac recant universal atonement?

blade


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 12, 2004)

John MacArthur has held to the &quot;infamous L&quot; of TULIP for a little while now. God be praised. Next stop...Covenant Theology?


----------



## rembrandt (Jun 12, 2004)

[quote:cb445e7487][i:cb445e7487]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:cb445e7487]
John MacArthur has held to the &quot;infamous L&quot; of TULIP for a little while now. God be praised. Next stop...Covenant Theology? 

 [/quote:cb445e7487]

Wow, where does he say that? He seems to keep things hidden...


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 12, 2004)

Paul for one the link that was provided in the topic starting thread shows it. I first was introduced to MacArthur a couple years ago and just assumed that he was always a 5-pointer. My friends have been telling me its a very recent thing though.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 12, 2004)

Johns position has been that the atonement is efficient to save all men; effectual only to the elect. Hence making the atonement _not_ limited per se.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 13, 2004)

from what I knew or have known is that jonny was a 4 pointer that salvation was meant for all men but not taken etc....


blade


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2004)

That was a shocker.

I want to hear it in a sermon now......(that will take it another 10 years....)


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 13, 2004)

hey its progress amybe the end is near

but I love jonny mac anyway he does alot for the cause

blade


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

Josh,
This is true; although John would disagree. The reformed community in general, outside of MacArthurs loop, charge JM w/ not truly relating his understanding of the doctrine of total depravity w/ that of the historic reformed.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:0b04201924][i:0b04201924]Originally posted by rembrandt[/i:0b04201924]
[quote:0b04201924][i:0b04201924]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:0b04201924]
John MacArthur has held to the &quot;infamous L&quot; of TULIP for a little while now. God be praised. Next stop...Covenant Theology? 

 [/quote:0b04201924]

Wow, where does he say that? He seems to keep things hidden... [/quote:0b04201924]

You don't have to go any further than his study Bible notes on some LA verses and his study Bible has been out for some time now. MacArthur is a 5 pointer, Phil Johnson (at his church) is a 5 pointer and probably most or all of his pastoral staff and some of the folks at Master's Seminary.

They are strange bedfellows, but it is possible to be a dispensationalist and a 5-pointer, although MacArthur isn't your typical Dispensational, except in his eschatology.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:e698741678][i:e698741678]Originally posted by joshua[/i:e698741678]
[quote:e698741678][i:e698741678]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:e698741678]
Josh,
This is true; although John would disagree. The reformed community in general, outside of MacArthurs loop, charge JM w/ not truly relating his understanding of the doctrine of total depravity w/ that of the historic reformed. [/quote:e698741678]

Total Depravity? He speaks of depravity and man's inability to come to Christ apart from being drawn by the Father. [/quote:e698741678]

Oops. Sorry Josh; I meant &quot;relating his understanding of the doctrine of limited atonement w/ that of the historic reformed.&quot;


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 13, 2004)

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-11-6.htm

Now if read this wrong or this site lie's than this is taken form the question(fullquestion and answer on the link).

Question

My question is threefold, 

1. How can the Bible be read to teach &quot;Limited Atonement?&quot;

2. How can the Bible be read to teach &quot;Unlimited Atonement?&quot;

3. What do you believe that it teaches and why?


So, I would say, that I believe, and I think this is maybe one way to understand it--I believe that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the world, but is efficient for those that believe. I believe in, I guess what you could call a &quot;Limited and Unlimited Atonement.&quot; It is unlimited in the sense that it was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world--it is limited, in that it is applied only to those who believe. I don't like to get pushed beyond that, but I don't like to just take the title of believing in &quot;Limited Atonement&quot; or &quot;Particular Redemption,&quot; that Jesus died only for the elect, because I think that that has some exegetical problems. I think you would have problems explaining certain passages of Scripture, but I admit to you that it is a very difficult issue, because there are many passages that apply His redemptive work &quot;only to the elect,&quot; &quot;only to those who believe.&quot; But I believe, compared with other passages, His redemption encompasses, in its sufficiency--the world.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

[quote:c1c7e024c3][i:c1c7e024c3]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:c1c7e024c3]
http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-11-6.htm

Now if read this wrong or this site lie's than this is taken form the question(fullquestion and answer on the link).

Question

My question is threefold, 

1. How can the Bible be read to teach &quot;Limited Atonement?&quot;

2. How can the Bible be read to teach &quot;Unlimited Atonement?&quot;

3. What do you believe that it teaches and why?


So, I would say, that I believe, and I think this is maybe one way to understand it--I believe that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the world, but is efficient for those that believe. I believe in, I guess what you could call a &quot;Limited and Unlimited Atonement.&quot; It is unlimited in the sense that it was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world--it is limited, in that it is applied only to those who believe. I don't like to get pushed beyond that, but I don't like to just take the title of believing in &quot;Limited Atonement&quot; or &quot;Particular Redemption,&quot; that Jesus died only for the elect, because I think that that has some exegetical problems. I think you would have problems explaining certain passages of Scripture, but I admit to you that it is a very difficult issue, because there are many passages that apply His redemptive work &quot;only to the elect,&quot; &quot;only to those who believe.&quot; But I believe, compared with other passages, His redemption encompasses, in its sufficiency--the world. [/quote:c1c7e024c3]

Nathan,
Did Christ die for anyone else but the elect?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 13, 2004)

nope just the elect.

blade


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

So why speculate? The scriptures do not imply that the atonement [i:1f9d12efe0]was sufficient[/i:1f9d12efe0] for the whole of creation (although who would deny the power of God?). Jesus Himself said, &quot;all that the father has given me, *(they) will come to me and I will lose none&quot;. *my emphasis added

All that God has given Him...no more, no less!

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 13, 2004)

(deleted comment in respect to a private request)

Now Im specualting on my belief that God has predestined some to heaven the rest to hell????

I was not specualting just posting an article I thought others might want to read. And Joshua asked me why I knew or thought John was a 4 pointer denying limited atonement. Which now it seems he does not anymore.

blade

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Bladestunner316]

[Edited on 6-14-2004 by Bladestunner316]


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 13, 2004)

Perhaps this is obvious, but.....

How can his understanding of the other 4 points be solid and reformed, while rejecting LA? Such right understanding would leave him to make nonsensical statements looking something like this.....


&quot;Yes, before the foundation of the earth, God chose specifically and individually all those whom He would save. Though not based on their foreseen free-will faith, and in spite of their deadness in sin and hatred of Him, His election of specific individuals assures them coming to Him by His most glorious and effective grace. They are then justified by His sacrifice, the wrath of God on their sin satisfied, and His righteousness credited to their account to stand before a holy God......Yet, it was also Christ's intent to give Himself up for those the Father had no plan to save, whom He had already chosen to leave eternally in their sin.&quot;

Illogical positions like this are why I have real skepticism of any &quot;4-pointer&quot; holding to any Biblical and reformed understanding of Unconditional Election. How can it possibly be?? The contradictions are enormous, unbelievable almost.
Not knowing much of Johnny Mac., I would really question his stance on &quot;U.&quot; He may hold to total depravity, and perserverance, and maybe even a close version of irresistible grace.....but I cannot possibly fathom a good understanding of 'U' while rejecting 'L.' uzzled:

:wr50:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2004)

brother...relax.

Forgive me for lack of a better term. It was a generalization to all whom see the atonement in the way JM does (or did). I didn't mean to sound as if you were speculating.....

You good now???:yes:


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jun 13, 2004)

Yeah...:thumbup:


----------



## Bryan (Jun 13, 2004)

I guess I need to admit again that I am a MacArthur fan 

Have you guys read this? 

The Nature of the Atonement

It's Phil Johnson speaking, but he's doing it in offical capacity as a speaker at MacArthur's Shepards Confrence. The speaks direclty on the nature of the atonment. It's been a little while since I read it all, but I remember agreeing with it. 

In it Mr. Johnson says, &quot;The sacrifice of Christ was of infinitely sufficient value.&quot; To this he offers the following two points:

&quot;1. One, in the words of the Synod of Dordt, "because the person who submitted to the punishment on our behalf was not only really man and perfectly holy but also the only begotten Son of God, the same eternal, and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit." In other words, the person who died on the cross was infinite in His glory and His goodness and therefore it was an infinite sacrifice. That's the first reason.



2. Second, the price of each person's sin is infinite wrath. And if the price of atonement is infinite than the atonement itself in order to be accepted had to be of infinite value. In other words, if you had to suffer the price of your own sins you would spend eternity in hell and still you would not exhaust the infinite displeasure of God against sin. There's an infinite punishment for sin. And that infinite wrath is the very thing Christ bore on the cross. So if Christ's death was not sufficient to atone for all than it wasn't sufficient to atone for even one. Because atonement for sin even for one person demands an infinite price. Now again the overwhelming majority of Calvinists would agree with that. That is exactly what the cannons of the Synod of Dordt say. That is mainstream historic Calvinism. &quot;

I agree with him. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for every sin ever committed, yet it was designed (and therefore will/has) accomplished) for the salvation for the elect alone.

I believe that is what Mr. MacArthur teaches as well, although he doesn't always have as much time as Mr. Johnson to explain it.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 14, 2004)

So if Christs atonement was sufficient to save all, why isn't everyone saved? Because it is only effectual in the elect? Hogwash. This may be true, as I said who would deny the pravcticality of truth in it? However, the bible does not extrapolate in this way.


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 14, 2004)

I believe the point of those who say it is &quot;sufficient for all, but not efficient for all&quot; is this:

If God had elected every human being ever on the face of the earth....Christ's blood is sufficient to atone for all that sin. If God had decreed that He would regenerate and save every man, the sacrifice of Christ was plenty sufficient to atone. But, because not all are regenerated, it is only efficient for the elect.

I would think that both Arminians and Biblical theologians would agree that Christ is infinitely holy and glorious, and that God's infinite wrath on sin was poured out on Him....making His blood of infinite value and sufficiency, although the Bible does not ever speak in such terms. But this sacrifice is only effectual to those that believe. 

To those who have trouble saying it is sufficient for all....would you then say that, if God regenerated every man, that Christ's sacrifice is [i:27f41f3571]insufficient[/i:27f41f3571] to atone for their sin? Is something more needed? Or is it simply and irrelevant and unimportant question because it is so hypothetical? God's plan for eternity has been fixed from eternity, so I can see the argument that debating that hypothesis is rather useless.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 14, 2004)

Jeremy, your contrast is irresponsible at best. The scriptures DO NOT speak of such an idea. The atonement is [i:9cad0858e4]limited[/i:9cad0858e4] in that it is only efficacious to the elect alone. The speculatory idea is a givin', as everyone (at least the reformed) knows that God could save everyone if he chose to abrogate Hid judgment. But I guess even that idea is silly as we know God is Judge!


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 14, 2004)

I do not see what is irresponsible about saying:

1) Christ's blood can save anyone and everyone for whom it is offered. There is no &quot;max number&quot; it could justify. It is that valuable and precious. 

2)Christ's death, by the decree of God was intended and purposed only for the justification of the elect.

That is all I am saying when I hear that &quot;Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.&quot;

No, the scriptures do not directly address #1 regarding the 'max number' part. But, all I am saying is that if God had chosen to save more, additional sacrifice would not have been needed. Christ's death is sufficient to save any and all of those to whom it is applied, no matter the number - even though we know God had fixed that number from eternity. That is my entire point. 

What is irresponsible about this? To say that no matter how many God would have chosen, Christ's death is sufficient for their justification?


----------



## Bryan (Jun 15, 2004)

I agree with you Jeremy.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 15, 2004)

It's irresponsible to speculate...........

Brian,
The historical reformed [i:4ed1e9b7e2]disgree.[/i:4ed1e9b7e2] So you guys are [i:4ed1e9b7e2]four pointers?[/i:4ed1e9b7e2]

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 15, 2004)

I am certainly no 4-pointer....

From all eternity, Christ's sacrifice was intended to satisfy God's wrath on the elect only.....and that it what it does. It is not a 'conditional' sacrifice offered up for all men assuming they come to Him with their free-wills, but an efficient sacrifice offered for specific men.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 15, 2004)

[quote:8f0db00fa9][i:8f0db00fa9]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:8f0db00fa9]
I am certainly no 4-pointer....

From all eternity, Christ's sacrifice was intended to satisfy God's wrath on the elect only.....and that it what it does. It is not a 'conditional' sacrifice offered up for all men assuming they come to Him with their free-wills, but an efficient sacrifice offered for specific men. [/quote:8f0db00fa9]

Jeremy,
Here is what you said:
&quot;Christ's blood can save anyone and everyone for whom it is offered. There is no &quot;max number&quot; it could justify. It is that valuable and precious. &quot;

There is a max number; the elect! God does not add to the elect as time goes on. The elect were chosen prior to the foundation of the world.....

As far as the power of the blood goes, the blood was shed only for the sheep; no one else. It is that powerful and precious. Everyone that has been given to Christ by the Father WILL come to Jesus. No more, no less!

You say that you are not a 4 pointer.....OK. But you are redefining that which the refomed historically have embraced in regards to [i:8f0db00fa9]limited atonement[/i:8f0db00fa9]. That being, that the atonement is unlimited. 

You previously wrote:
&quot;That is all I am saying when I hear that &quot;Christ's death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.&quot; 

Unbiblical and speculatory!


The blood of Christ was only shed for the elect. Jesus Himself claimed to [i:8f0db00fa9]not[/i:8f0db00fa9] 'pray for the world' but for those the Father had given Him _out of the world_. The Lamb was never intended for the rest of humanity, so why speculate on the capacity; it's unbiblical and as I have said, in my opinion, handling the scriptures irresponsibly.

Enjoying our exchange............

SPB


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2004)

I didn't know exactly where to post this but is James White's silencing of Dave Hunt in [i:503fb94cb0]Debating Calvinism [/i:503fb94cb0] worth getting? I have read parts of it in bookstores but was hesitant to shell out the money, especially when I can hear him at AoM.

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by Finn McCool]


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2004)

Hello Scott,

You say:
[quote:a345fae088]Brian, 
The historical reformed disgree. So you guys are four pointers?[/quote:a345fae088]

Scott how can you say the historical Reformed disagree? Dort was quoted on the previous page in support of "sufficiency". Not only is the document historical but foundational. And it continues to stand, along with the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism, as one of the Three Forms of Unity accepted by any number of Reformed denominations.

THE CANONS OF DORT

SECOND HEAD OF DOCTRINE: THE DEATH OF Christ, AND THE REDEMPTION OF MEN THEREBY

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, [b:a345fae088]and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.[/b:a345fae088]

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 4. [b:a345fae088]This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit,[/b:a345fae088] which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.

The canons clearly affirm not only limited application but infinite sufficiency. Now one might argue that the authors of the canons were speculative but one cannot argue that it is not the historic Reformed view or that it continues to be by those who adopt the Three Forms as their confessional statement.
[quote:a345fae088]
The blood of Christ was only shed for the elect. Jesus Himself claimed to not 'pray for the world' but for those the Father had given Him _out of the world_. The Lamb was never intended for the rest of humanity, so why speculate on the capacity; it's unbiblical and as I have said, in my opinion, handling the scriptures irresponsibly.
[/quote:a345fae088]
(1) No one is arguing universalism. Both Jeremy and Brian clearly affirm a definite atonement.
(2) No one has speculated about 'capacity'. The word used was sufficiency and that is the same word used by Dort. Efficiency deals with application which is limited and definite. Sufficiency deals with value which is infinite. And how could it not be?
(3) The recognition of the infinite value and worth of the precious blood of God the Son is hardly a speculative and irresponsible mishandling of Scripture. Is any other conclusion possible? One would think that to be a warranted conclusion deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scriptures own testimony about the incarnate Word.

In Christ,

Mark


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 15, 2004)

Scott, you respond to me by saying:

[quote:a5eb02f2e2]There is a max number; the elect! God does not add to the elect as time goes on. The elect were chosen prior to the foundation of the world..... 

As far as the power of the blood goes, the blood was shed only for the sheep; no one else. It is that powerful and precious. Everyone that has been given to Christ by the Father WILL come to Jesus. No more, no less! [/quote:a5eb02f2e2]

I 1000% agree! The elect were certainly chosen before the foundation of the world, their number and identity does not change from God's foundational decree. And Christ's blood was surely offered to satisfy the wrath of God on the elect only....not intended to justify those God had chosen to leave in their sin. 

What I mean by the &quot;max number&quot; bit is this - Christ's work on the cross would be totally sufficient to atone for and redeem ANY number the Father had given Him before the foundation of the world. This the sum total of what I'm saying!

Of course, that number is fixed, and couldn't have been any other way, according to the mysteries and wisdom of His will.

By your response, I think you misunderstand what I am saying.

Here's another way of putting it:

Christ's blood is valuable enough to have purchased forgiveness for all the sinners in 10,000 worlds. In that sense, it is of infinite and unlimited value (sufficiency). But it was neither intended nor designed to do so. But its power is NOT the heart of &quot;Limited Atonement,&quot; for every Arminian I know would gladly assent to its unlimited value, and every calvinist I know as well (until this discussion) - rather, it is the intent and effectiveness of the sacrifice that matters and distinguishes Reformed Theology. LA contradicts Arminian doctrine in that it is only intended to be propitiatory for the elect, and that it is absolutely and always effective in doing so.

Good citations, Westmin.

The atonement is limited in its intent, design, purpose, and efficacy.....but unlimited in its value (sufficiency).

Hope I didn't muddy the waters more, I'm hoping that's clear.

enjoying it as well, Scott...


[Edited on 6-15-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 15, 2004)

I believe you are misunderstanding what is being actually stated by Dordt, i.e. misappropriating the sufficiency. Surely John MacArthur does not agree with Dordt on these grounds, after all this is why we have been discussing this topic. The previous posts are arguing for MacArthurs. What I am endeavoring for is to clearify that what MacArthur believes [and those I am debating with here] is Not the historic view...

Christ is surely sufficient! However, when Dordt makes this claim, it is not along the same lines as MacArthur's claim.

Also, when the word 'world' is referenced by Dordt, it is referenced in the same reformed light as how the refornmed view the term when it is used to describe the elect &lt;world&gt;, not all mankind.

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Bryan (Jun 15, 2004)

I believe myself to be a 5-pointer. I'm a 5-pointer as much as Spurgeon was one:

&quot;I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.&quot; - A Defense of Calvinism

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2004)

Scott,

[quote:9da4ec9417]
I believe you are misunderstanding what is being actually stated by Dordt, i.e. misappropriating the sufficiency.
[/quote:9da4ec9417]

Well if I am I stand in good company. If I was home I'd offer some quotes from various systematic theologies. But Bryan already offered Spurgeon in support of the position.
[quote:9da4ec9417]
Surely John MacArthur does not agree with Dordt on these grounds, after all this is why we have been discussing this topic.
[/quote:9da4ec9417] 
Maybe, I don't know. Opinions here seem to be divided on Johnny Mac. I don't think sufficient quotes have been offered to provide a definitive conclusion on what he believes. I do know that MacArthur often expresses himself in ways reminiscent of his decisional regeneration days and at other times is expressly Reformed in his soteriology. And that comes from occasionally hearing him on the radio. I haven't read MacArthur. But the article by Johnson does seem to support a 5 point conclusion and Gilliard says that his study Bible is explicitly 5 point. &lt;shrug&gt;
[quote:9da4ec9417]
Also, when the word 'world' is referenced by Dordt, it is referenced in the same reformed light as how the refornmed view the term when it is used to describe the elect &lt;world&gt;, not all mankind.
[/quote:9da4ec9417]
That, in my opinion, is a stretch. If it was being used as such it is a useless redundancy. The definite, limited scope of application is clearly expounded in the canons, particularly in articles 8 and 9 of the second head making any discussion of sufficiency unnecessary. If Christ's death is efficacious for the elect it is obviously sufficient to accomplish that purpose. But it is there for another reason. It is there to assure that the Gospel is preached to all men everywhere promiscuously and without distinction contra the hypers, and to counter the remonstrant charge that the Calvinistic view de-valued the infinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. So they took the time to make clear statements about both value and efficacy showing that the two are not antithetical.

Anyway I'm done.

Mark


----------



## raderag (Jun 15, 2004)

nt

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by raderag]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 15, 2004)

When Dordt says:

&quot;This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.&quot;

...they must mean the same thing as John and Paul:

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of [b:e5b5b6a7b2]the whole world.[/b:e5b5b6a7b2]

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth [b:e5b5b6a7b2]the whole world:[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Romans 5:18 the free gift came upon [b:e5b5b6a7b2]all men[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] unto justification of life.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have [b:e5b5b6a7b2]all men to be saved,[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, [b:e5b5b6a7b2]who is the Saviour of all men,[/b:e5b5b6a7b2] specially of those that believe.

As a matter of fact, when you look at commentaries on the Synod, they quote these very verses as proof texts for this head. 

What Scott is saying is NOT dubious. Dordt is saying the exact same thing John and Paul said. Now it is up to you to figure out what Paul and John mean. When you have, then you have nailed Dordt.

Let's ask a simple question:

Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's sacrifice was &quot;sufficient for all but efficienct for the elect?&quot; 

I CAN tell you where Amyraut says this, or even Arminius to a certain degree, but what about the Bible?

[Edited on 6-15-2004 by webmaster]

[Edited on 6-16-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 15, 2004)

Thank you Matt.


----------



## Bryan (Jun 15, 2004)

You guys are re-interperating Dort.

If God's elect was more would Christ have to stayed on the cross for longer?

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 15, 2004)

[quote:d214260812][i:d214260812]Originally posted by Bryan[/i:d214260812]
You guys are re-interperating Dort.

If God's elect was more would Christ have to stayed on the cross for longer?

Bryan
SDG [/quote:d214260812]

We quote the apostles and scripture in contrast to Dordt, you quote Dordt sans scripture. Thats quite bold of you Bryan........

Do us all a favor, answer the questions Matt posed. Why would Dordt contradict the apostles?



[Edited on 6-16-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 15, 2004)

to clarify the positions of scott and the webmaster:

Are you guys saying that Christ's blood is not sufficient for all, allowing for that possibility or only that, because you see scripture as silent on the issue, it is not for us to speculate on?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 15, 2004)

I did not say that Dordt does not mean what it says. What I said that dordt needs to mean what Paul and John say in the Bible.

History lesson that should help clarify.

During the framing of the 3rd chapter of the Westminster confession, E. Calamy got up and voiced his opinion on the concept &quot;sufficient for all, efficient for some.&quot; 

Warfield, in his treatment of the minutes of the confession says, &quot;it was the enunciation of what is known as the &quot;Hypothetical Universalistic schema.&quot; Calamy then had to defend himself saying he was not an Arminian, and was not an Amyraldian. 

Pause: At this point it should suffice to say that this idea is a bad one, and that it causes theological problems.

Calamy said, &quot;In the point of election I am for special election; and for reprobation, I am for masssa corrupta...those to whom He...by virtue of Christ's death, there is ea administratio of grace to the reprobate, and that they willfully damn themselves.&quot;

Pause: Snowball is building. Calamy is in trouble here.

Calamy inferred a &quot;double intention&quot; on Christ's part in his work of redemption - that he died absolutely for the elect, and conditionally for the reprobate. Theologically, his position has as its closest affinity the section in Dordt that was quoted earlier, which is basically am attempt to improve the Amyraldian concept further. Warfield says, &quot;logically it was open, to all the objections which were fatal to it as well as to others arising from its own lack of consistency.&quot; True enough.

Calamy was opposed by men such as Rutherford, Gillespie, Palmer, Reynolds, Wilkinson, Burgess, Lightfoot, Price, Goodwin and Harris.

His thoughts were overruled by the Confession, and this Amyraldian pressure is not found in the Confession for good reason. In other words, the Westminster Assembly tossed it because of its inaccuracies.

Modern day:

So what do WE say? 

Here is my position: Christ's death was infinite, and it had to be for many obvious reasons, one of which was NOT to be sufficient for all. If Christ's death was intended to be for anyone other than the elect in any way, then we would have more people saved.

Christ's death had to be infinite because MY SIN against God is INFINITE because it is against and infinite God. It is biblically unattainable to say that it was sufficient for anyone other than the elect because of God's intent, and the outcome of that intent. 

The Bible NEVER speaks of Christ' death as &quot;possible&quot; for anything. It ALWAYS speaks about it as fact, and what it was intended for - the elect and them only (which is why the WCF states it that way).

To plan a hypothetical possibility upon the cross in ANY WAY is to travel into Amyraut's camp.

Rutherford and Gillespie tore Calamy up on this when they began exegeting the Scriptures dealing with &quot;world&quot;, &quot;all,&quot; , &quot;all men,&quot; etc. Which is exactly what I asked you fellow to do for me - where does the BIBLE say that is was &quot;sufficient for all?&quot; Answer - no place.

If you want to be an Amyraldian, or enjoy his companionship, by all means, use that lingo. Dordt did, and the Assembly bowled them over on it for adding ideas into the text, or the Cross, to &quot;appease&quot; the Arminians in certain concessions.

In any case, I see the cross as sufficient for the elect, and efficient for them, and for no one else.

To say it is sufficient for all is to say absolutely nothing either hypotehtically, or biblically in terms of God's intention and purpose for Christ and the cross.


----------



## Scot (Jun 16, 2004)

Here's an article I dug up that I read awhile ago. I think it's done rather well. It's called: Sufficient for all?

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/sufficient.html


----------



## Ianterrell (Jun 16, 2004)

Matt,

Excellent point! If Christ's death had been sufficient for all then all would be saved.


----------



## Bryan (Jun 16, 2004)

[quote:b85df7ec4b]
Christ's death was infinite, and it had to be for many obvious reasons, one of which was NOT to be sufficient for all. If Christ's death was intended to be for anyone other than the elect in any way, then we would have more people saved.
[/quote:b85df7ec4b]

Now that I understand your position much better Matt I agree with you 100%. Would you then say that it would be more percise for me to say, instead of &quot;Christ's death was sufficient for all but effective only on the elect&quot; to say &quot;Christ's death was infinite to atone for the sins of the elect becase their sins require an infinite atonment&quot;?

And yes, I do believe I was mistaken to say that Dort was being mis-repersented. It seems I was thinking the same thing as Matt but couldn't express myself as well as he can. 


Bryan
SDG


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 16, 2004)

[quote:b193a092f2][i:b193a092f2]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:b193a092f2]
to clarify the positions of scott and the webmaster:

Are you guys saying that Christ's blood is not sufficient for all, allowing for that possibility or only that, because you see scripture as silent on the issue, it is not for us to speculate on? [/quote:b193a092f2]

&quot;Are you guys saying that Christ's blood is not sufficient for all,....&quot;

No. It IS sufficient for ALL; all of the elect.&quot;

&quot;.....because you see scripture as silent on the issue&quot;

Scripture is not silent on the position that we take. It is, however, silent on the sacrifice being for anyone other than the elect. Hence, my charge of &quot;specuation&quot;.

&quot;it is not for us to speculate on?&quot;

Not a safe practice.............


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 16, 2004)

[quote:e1ff872c4b]Pause: Snowball is building. Calamy is in trouble here. 

Calamy inferred a &quot;double intention&quot; on Christ's part in his work of redemption - that he died absolutely for the elect, and conditionally for the reprobate [/quote:e1ff872c4b]

This is absurd and he deserved to be called out on it. I would have joined in hammering him on this. I will gladly affirm with you guys that Christ had precisely zero positive intention for the non-elect on the cross. Every intention of Christ was to glorify God and save His people. 

[quote:e1ff872c4b]If Christ's death was intended to be for anyone other than the elect in any way, then we would have more people saved. 

Christ's death had to be infinite because MY SIN against God is INFINITE because it is against and infinite God. [/quote:e1ff872c4b]

Absolutely agreed again. Christ's blood is infinitely valuable because He is infinitely holy, and God's infinite wrath on my infinite sin was all wholly poured out on Him. This is precisely why the heart of limited atonement is intent and effectiveness, not value. It is intended only for the elect, and it is always effective in justifying those for whom it is offered. Hopefully, I have fully dispelled any notion of me being amyraldian or arminian by now. 

Now, there are 2 possibilities.....either Christ's blood was sufficient to justify every man - if God had ordained every man come to Him.....or it wasn't. There is no 3rd option or in-between answer.

so here's the simple question, and one I believe you have yet to answer: [b:e1ff872c4b]If Christ's blood is infinitely valuable.....How could it NOT be valuable enough to save more sinners? [/b:e1ff872c4b] If it is infinite in value, how is it not worth enough? 

My answer: yes, it is worth enough, but it was never intended in such a way.

And as far as asking me to provide interpretations and exegesis of the passages using &quot;all&quot; and &quot;world&quot; with regards to the atonement......I don't see why this is necessary....I don't see a point where we disagree on any of those passages. Every passage on atonement in scripture that I know of, speaks only to the sacrifice offered for the elect, its effectiveness and power to save them. I will freely and openly say, [i:e1ff872c4b]as I already have [/i:e1ff872c4b], that scripture never directly speaks to the sufficiency of the cross for more than the elect.

[quote:e1ff872c4b]If you want to be an Amyraldian, or enjoy his companionship, by all means, use that lingo. Dordt did, and the Assembly bowled them over on it for adding ideas into the text, or the Cross, to &quot;appease&quot; the Arminians in certain concessions. [/quote:e1ff872c4b]

I deplore the Amyraldian view of the cross; it makes a mockery of God's work. I think it should be clear that I am fully reformed with regards to limited atonement. If this is applied towards me, go ahead and call Spurgeon an Amyraldian and an Arminian-pleaser as well, because he and I agree on this (as has already been shown by his quote). 

Could you let me in on what you see are the dangers of this idea? That seemed to be a central idea in your response, Webmaster, that this could cause a windfall of trouble in other theological areas......but because I totally reject Calamy's position....the dangers it had for him do not apply similarly to me.


[quote:e1ff872c4b]&quot;There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. [i:e1ff872c4b]The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work[/i:e1ff872c4b].&quot; [/quote:e1ff872c4b] (emphasis mine)

- the infamous Amyraldian, Charles Spurgeon


[Edited on 6-16-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 16, 2004)

[quote:14a65198fc]
&quot;Christ's death was infinite to atone for the sins of the elect becase their sins require an infinite atonment&quot;? 
[/quote:14a65198fc]

Exactly.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2004)

I was going to address things directly but Jeremy's post is excellent I'll merely comment on his.
[quote:918ec1fb45]
Hopefully, I have fully dispelled any notion of me being amyraldian or arminian by now.
[/quote:918ec1fb45]
It is unfortunate that you had to for at no time was there any reason to suspect either of those positions from your comments.
[quote:918ec1fb45]
so here's the simple question, and one I believe you have yet to answer: If Christ's blood is infinitely valuable.....How could it NOT be valuable enough to save more sinners? If it is infinite in value, how is it not worth enough? 
[/quote:918ec1fb45]
Once more you are right on the money. Does Scripture speak directly to the issue? No. But does it need to? The infinite worth of our Savior makes any other conclusion impossible. It is, as the WCF would affirm, that which is deducible "by good and necessary consequence".
[quote:918ec1fb45]
And as far as asking me to provide interpretations and exegesis of the passages using &quot;all&quot; and &quot;world&quot; with regards to the atonement......I don't see why this is necessary....
[/quote:918ec1fb45]
It isn't, nor should it even have been requested. It appears designed to draw attention away from the actual issue summarized succinctly in your question above. That this discussion is about value, not intent, should be obvious.
[quote:918ec1fb45]
[i:918ec1fb45]If you want to be an Amyraldian, or enjoy his companionship, by all means, use that lingo.[/i:918ec1fb45]

I deplore the Amyraldian view of the cross; it makes a mockery of God's work. I think it should be clear that I am fully reformed with regards to limited atonement. 
[/quote:918ec1fb45]
It is clear and has been clear the entire time. The shot, italicized in the quote above, is nothing more than veiled ad hominem and is reprehensible.
[quote:918ec1fb45]
If this is applied towards me, go ahead and call Spurgeon an Amyraldian and an Arminian-pleaser as well, because he and I agree on this (as has already been shown by his quote). 
[/quote:918ec1fb45]

But why stop at Spurgeon?

Loraine might be surprised to know that he is an Amyraldian

The sufficiency of the death of Christ should never be made a matter for dispute. [b:918ec1fb45]It is acknowledged that if God had decreed that all men in all of history were to be saved the work of Christ at Calvary is sufficient to save.[/b:918ec1fb45] It is the efficacy of the atonement that the Scriptures set forth as being limited in design. (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Faith)

James is a Baptist. Who can take him seriously?

James White affirms the same when he quotes Boettner in his "Was Anybody Saved at the Cross?". In that same article he also says this "Yet, if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain impure for all eternity. [b:918ec1fb45]Was Christ's death insufficient to cleanse them? Certainly not."[/b:918ec1fb45]

Schwertly. Who ever heard of him anyway?

The inconsistent universalist and particular redemptionist both limit Christ's death in some manner. The Arminian limits the power of Christ's death to save, while the Calvinist limits the design of it. The Calvinist teaches that Christ's death is of infinite value to God because Christ was the divine-human mediator. [b:918ec1fb45]Christ's death was sufficient to save every man, woman and child who ever lived. In fact, it was sufficient to save everyone on a thousand planets, if God so desired. [/b:918ec1fb45]What limits Christ's death is that by God's design and purpose Jesus died only for the elect, those chosen to be saved before the foundation of the world. His death is directed to and actually saves particular persons; not an indefinite mass of people or a hypothetical humanity. Christ offered a definite atonement. It is personal. He knows His own by name (Jn. 10:14). (Brian Schwertly-An Examination of the Five Points)

Hoeksema: uhm...Dutch Treat?

That is the basic idea also in that sometimes-debated expression in Article 3 of Canons II: &quot;...abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.&quot; That cannot mean, you know, that Christ intended to die for the whole world conceived of as all men. That would be the Arminian doctrine. That is just exactly what the fathers were fighting against in Canons II. It does not mean that at all. The article does not say either that Christ made satisfaction for the whole world. [b:918ec1fb45]The idea is that in itself that death of Christ is so precious that in itself it is sufficient for the whole world. If God had wanted to save the entire world, head for head and soul for soul, He would not have needed another sacrifice. As one of the theologians of Dordrecht put it in his written opinion for the Synod of Dordrecht, the death of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world and for a thousand more worlds like it! The death of the Son of God is of infinite value: there is no end to its intrinsic worth![/b:918ec1fb45] (Hoeksema-The Five Points) 

Dabney: Hillbilly Theology?

[b:918ec1fb45]But sacrifice, expiation, is one--the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam's race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all.[/b:918ec1fb45] We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers. Were the crowd of paupers greater, the bottom of the bag would be reached before every pauper got his alms, and more money would have to be provided. I repeat, this notion is utterly false as applied to Christ's expiation, because it is a divine act. It is indivisible, inexhaustible, sufficient in itself to cover the guilt of all the sins that will ever be committed on earth. (RL Dabney-The Five Points)

Murray the post redemptionist?

[b:918ec1fb45]The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer of salvation to all without distinction.[/b:918ec1fb45] The doctrine of limited atonement any more than the doctrine of sovereign election does not raise a fence around the offer of the gospel. The overture of the gospel offering peace and salvation through Jesus Christ is to all without distinction, though it is truly from the heart of sovereign election and limited atonement that this stream of grace universally proffered flows. If we may change the figure, it is upon the crest of the wave of divine sovereignty and of limited atonement that the full and free offer of the gospel breaks upon our shores. The offer of salvation to all is bona fide. All that is proclaimed is absolutely true. Every sinner believing will infallibly be saved, for the veracity and purpose of God cannot be violated. (John Murray-The Reformed Faith and Arminianism)

R Scott Clark: From the land of fruits and nuts?

[Peter] Lombard's teaching on the atonement is most famous for his use of the distinction between the sufficiency of Christ's death and its efficiency. Though they are not familiar to many of us today, from their publication in the late 12th century until the late 16th century, Peter's Sentences were the most important theological text in the Latin-speaking world. Theological students even earned Bachelor's and Master's degrees in the Sentences In Book 3, distinction 20 he taught that [b:918ec1fb45]Christ's death was &quot;sufficient&quot; to redeem all (quantum ad pretii) but it is &quot;efficient&quot; only &quot;for the elect&quot; (pro electis)[/b:918ec1fb45] (R Scott Clark-Limited Atonement)

And finally from that heretical purveyor of ante-applicationism Charles Hodge:

Accordingly, Lutherans and Reformed, although they agree entirely as to the nature of the atonement, differ as to its design. The former maintain that it had an equal reference to all mankind, the latter that it had special reference to the elect. In the second place, [b:918ec1fb45]the question does not concern the value of Christ's satisfaction. That Augustinians admit to be infinite. Its value depends on the dignity of the sacrifice; and as no limit can be placed to the dignity of the Eternal Son of God who offered Himself for our sins, so no limit can be assigned to the meritorious value of his work.[/b:918ec1fb45] It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been. [b:918ec1fb45]What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all.[/b:918ec1fb45] Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is sufficient for any one plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary for each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite number and variety of plants and animals which fill the earth. [b:918ec1fb45]All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood.[/b:918ec1fb45] In the third place, the question does not concern the suitableness of the atonement. What was suitable for one was suitable for all. The righteousness of Christ, the merit of his obedience and death, is needed for justification by each individual of our race, and therefore is needed by all. It is no more appropriate to one man than to another. Christ fulfilled the conditions of the covenant under which all men were placed. He rendered the obedience required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred; and therefore his work is equally suited to all. In the fourth place, the question does not concern the actual application of the redemption purchased by Christ. The parties to this controversy are agreed that some only, and not all of mankind are to be actually saved. [b:918ec1fb45]In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died &quot;suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi-&quot; sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect.[/b:918ec1fb45] (Charles Hodge-For Whom Did Christ Die?) 

Spurgeon, Boettner, White, Schwertly, Hoeksema, Dabney, Murray, and Hodge. A pox on the whole heretical bunch.

Note to those using Reymonds Systematic Theology; Please remove all references to sufficiency in the section on the atonement. (I wonder if Knox Theo knows about this?)

Later


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 16, 2004)

[quote:e841d79486]
Does Scripture speak directly to the issue? No. 
[/quote:e841d79486]

Correct. That's about all we need to know.

This is not such a whale of a point that it shoudl cause us all to get upset, or polemical. I think itis a fundamental misunderstanding, or aversion ot certain consequences of the decrees of God, and the will of God. (Which are VERY important ideas to die over).

I do appreciate the quotes. I am aware of them, and more (unfortunately MANY more!). In any case, I still stick with the WCF, and the framers there, and discard the Amyraldian idea outright, as they did (which is why the WCF does not smack of it at all). Other theologians, as you quoted above, do in fact embrace that point of the Amyraldian system, to their inconsistent demise in respectability. I think they would better employ their pens as to what they can prove from Scripture, rather hypothesizing on dubious theological grounds. As you said, &quot;Does Scripture speak directly to the issue?&quot; I will use your answer - No!! But what it DOES speak on, like God's intention in the cross, is to save the elect by a infinite sacrifice. That is where we should remain.


----------



## smhbbag (Jun 16, 2004)

You say this view of the sufficiency of Christ's blood is &quot;inconsistent.&quot; Could explain why you think this is so? (I presume you mean it is inconsistent for someone who accepts Limited Atonement, as obviously everyone in this thread does)

As far as the other stuff you posted, I think we've both made our cases pretty fully, I feel no burden to go on for 10 more pages rehashing the same arguments.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 16, 2004)

Jeremy,
What Matt said is that the view is inconsistant with the framers. The quotes presented show a bent towards the Amyraldian system. 

Three positions concerning the extent of the atonement
1) Arminian. Christ died for all people equally.
2) Calvinistic. Christ died for the elect.
3) Amyraldian. Christ died hypothetically for all people, but God elected only some.
Amyraldianism could be called "four-point Calvinism." (Moses Amyraut, 1596-1664,
French Protestant pastor)

More here:

http://www.wrs.edu/Materials for We...icular Atonement and the Order of Decrees.pdf


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2004)

[quote:141290bf85]
Other theologians, as you quoted above, do in fact embrace that point of the Amyraldian system, to their inconsistent demise in respectability.
[/quote:141290bf85]

Edited for content.........SPB

Disgusted



[Edited on 6-17-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 16, 2004)

Uh Mark,
Are the quotes Amyraldian or not?

Are the definitions I posted above consistant with the quotes in regards to the Amyraldian view?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 16, 2004)

Mark, it is not dishonest to say that men fumble in theology, nor does that make any of them men that were quoted Amyraldian, it simply means they blew it on one point.

I would not say, and did not say that they were Amyraldian, but I would say, and do say, that that fundamental article in which this thread is about is Amyraldian in tendency. See the WCF if you have questions on that, or the Bible. As was said already, &quot;Is this point in the Bible?&quot; The answer to that is &quot;no.&quot;

Sorry you are disgusted. I know it is hard holding a position you cannot prove from the Bible, even though other good men have said the same thing. All I hoped was to demonstrate that fact, which you acquiesced to.

If that upsets you, and theological debate is too difficult in that way, then this board is definitely not someplace you want to be. We are here looking for truth, that which sanctifies. If these men made a blunder, we should not follow after that blunder. That does not make those men bad guides. It does make them men, for even the best of men are still men.

I do not think I understand the insult about my ego. Could you explain this?

Jeremy,

Here is what I mean in the easiest way I can explain it:

If God purposes anything, then His will in that &quot;thing&quot; is accomplished. For God, there is no &quot;realm of possibility.&quot; God does not think that way. He decrees. If the Cross of Christ was meant to do anything other than its intended end, then we have in God a double will, and that is inconsistent with His character and His decrees.

Can we &quot;hypothetically&quot; say that Christ could have saved more than He did? NO NO NO. That would impinge on what we know is God's perfect plan. Christ could not have saved any more or any less than who he saved. His atonement was sufficient and efficient ONLY for the elect. I know everyone on this thread believes that. to go BEYOND that, is to leave the arena of &quot;the atonement&quot; and impinge upon inconsistent ideas surround Theology Proper. We should not do that. That is why the Westminster Assembly did not, in any way, add into the Confession anything that could &quot;smell&quot; remotely Amyraldian. Amyraut taught that the Cross was sufficient to save all, but that road leads down a path that befuddles the Attributes and Character of God, and His decrees.

Mark was upset that good men believed this, and that the bible does not teach it, though it sounds logically plausible. But it is not logically plausible, nor really plausible, nor hypothetically plausible because of what we know of God's decrees.

We mine as well ask if God can make a rock too big for him to lift! 

[Edited on 6-17-2004 by webmaster]


----------

