5 Points of Calvinism Question

[0isez]

Those Calvinists who adhere to the 3 forms of Unity are less likely to modify the 5 points than those of the Westminster Persuasion...True or False?
I don't know if I am on to something but I am hyper sensitive to messing with the 5 points of Calvinism. I have bought books recommended to me from good sources covering reformed doctrine and straight away when listing or mentioning the 5 points some authors start modifying the words or adding or subtracting from the points. Now to name names I will name 2 for starters; The late great R.C. Sproul in his book Chosen By God I find R.C. explaining the five points but things get hazy with the "L" in Limited Atonement to the point I cannot find much to get my mind around. He goes on to call Irresistible Grace Effectual Grace and shades the meaning slightly differently than originally intended. Same with Michael Horton in his book "For Calvinism" . Straight away on page 15 we are treated to his interpretation of the five points which he modified to fit into his narrative. Now, I'm no scholar, nor am I trying to diminish the stature of these men but both adhere to the Westminster Creeds. So, I repeat my question; Are those Calvinists who adhere to the 3 forms of Unity less likely to modify the 5 points than those of the Westminster Persuasion ?

 

[Polanus1561]

People of both 3forms and WCF do not disagree with what LA entails but some disagree with simply calling it Limited. Canons 2.3 - "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

From the above: Would you understand why 3forms people would prefer to talk about it being Effectual than to speak of it being limited?

Moving on:

2.8 -
For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.
---

So what 2.3/8 speak of is Christ's death being of infinite value with the end of an effectual atonement for being the elect. The Limiting principle is there. The Effectual is there. I prefer if we would not be pressed to choose one adjective "Choose limited or effectual!" Both are needed to faithfully describe the atonement.

When people prefer to call it Effectual, it is not fitting a narrative, rest assured.

 

[iainduguid]

As John has said, the issue with the "L" is terminology rather than substance. Some prefer to call if "definite atonement" or "effectual atonement" because - unless you are a universalist - everyone's vew of the atonement is limited. The Reformed view is that it is limited in its extent to the elect (but actually accomplishes their salvation), while the Arminian's atonement is universal in its scope but limited in what it achieves (it only makes people "savable" rather than actually saving them). If your atonement is unlimited in both extent (equally applicable to all people) and in what it accomplishes (actually saves those to whom it applies), you end up in universalism.

 

[Jake]

Michael Horton is a minister in the URC and holds to the 3 Forms of Unity.

 

[MyCrows]

I prefer the term "particular redemption" over "limited atonement", but i don't believe that it describes something different than what is meant by the more classical term.

Christ came and died, and successfully secured the salvation of his people by doing so. He died for them in particular, and the thing that limits the scope of the atonement in that area is the design of God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Since the 3-Forms contain the "5 Heads of Doctrine," one might go there to find if preferred terminology exists within the document. In their various Confessional forms they are first of all identified as First, Second, etc. The subhead of the Second Head (corresponding to the L) reads: Of the Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby.

Shorthand terms like "Limited Atonement" or "Particular Redemption" are created by teachers or students, and if useful are perpetuated. What usefulness exists comes from bringing to mind the actual, full content of the chapter. A few years ago, someone was seeking to learn the textual origin of "TULIP," a cute mnemonic device that also reminds the student of the location of Dordtrecht in the Netherlands. The crafters of the synodical statment did not come up with it; I think the earliest printed item may have been from the mid-19th century.

So, I'm not sure it's accurate to allege there are people illegitimately modifying an "authoritative" descriptor like Limited Atonement. This description is now common, fairly accurate according to intention, and historically justified; but it is no way binding. There are other useful terms of like kind, and there could theoretically be another that improves it somehow. How many people who assent to the "L" as truth have read the full Head of Doctrine in all its articles, and the Rejection of Errors that run just as long?

 

[0isez]

Thanks to all for all your replies. You have given me a new perspective on the origination of TULIP and one that I can understand and accept. Somewhere in the dim and distant past when I was just getting familiar with reformed theology I read an interpretation that was either anti-reformed or flat out Arminian in that they corrupted the "L" to mean that the whole world was saved and limited meant it was in our power to refuse (which in my mind violates the "I" also in this wonderful acrostic).
Nevertheless, thanks to you, my big brothers in the faith, I think I have learned that not all explanations are corruptions made to water down the sureness of our salvation. After what I've been through, I think I was a bit paranoid of someone stealing that fact away again.

Much Appreciated...Ken

 

[MyCrows]

I could be wrong... but maybe what you were reading falls into the camp of what is known as amyraldianism? Sounds familiar.

 

[0isez]

Amyraldism is the belief that God decreed Christ's atonement, prior to his decree of election, for all alike if they believe, but he then elected those whom he will bring to faith in Christ, seeing that none would believe on their own, and thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election...Wikapedia.
Could have very well been just that. This concept may have been introduced to me early and I had to shake the cobwebs of this theory out and re-aquatint myself with the simplest form of Calvinism which to me, starts with TULIP. From TULIP stems all my assurances and understanding. If anyone tampers with the purity of those simple forms and spins them into complicated theory, its adios for me. Fight or Flight. I am learning through Christ not to take on every fight, not all fights are my fight. Of late, I am learning how not to run from a seemingly discombobulated theory or doctrine because I view them as a personal threat to my spiritual well being. Now, If it doesn't fit into my peaceful rest with Christ, I try to ignore it and let it rest too. This is hard for me to do but necessary. This does not mean, that the Bible's hard to take "medicine" for the fallen man is something I run from, but there are good men who complicate scripture to where the meaning is lost on me. That's the stuff of confusion for me. It an unfortunate thing to view myself as an intellectual when I am just an average guy who's interested in deep theology. Seems every time I venture out get up to bat with some of the more sophisticated doctrines I seem to strike out. A man's go to know his limitations (Clint Eastwood) and I am learning mine.