Skeuos Eleos
Puritan Board Freshman
Your comments are unfortunate and I am bemused as to what you think merits them but I can assure that any limitation on my part is not so much down to lack of acquaintance but rather lack of intellect!From the Five Points of Calvinism, opening paragraph on Particular Redemption:
"Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual."
If you are going to quote theologians it would pay you well to become acquainted with their writings as a whole in order to gain some insight into the way they thought. This piecemeal method of presenting their ideas in order to conclude things they never would have permitted is false representation.
Anyway, I think we must be talking at cross-purposes because I can see nothing in this quotation that comes anywhere near rendering the quotation I supplied earlier 'null and void'. In any event, what you seem to miss is that even if Dabney had held to the most strict particularist view it does not diminish the force of his argument against those who think that the 'double-jeopardy argument carries any weight.
Your reference to piecemeal quoting would seem to indicate that you are reading something into what I have written that goes beyond what I intended. My reason for posting Dabney was nothing more than to show that the double-payment argument is not robust enough to defend a strict limited atonement view irrespective of whatever position one takes on the matter. (And I would further argue that one should not need to use such logical arguments anyway but rather should be able to rely upon scripture alone).
Martin