Limited Atonement Question

[Scott Shahan]

I posed this question to a LCMS frieind,

It is ok if you want to say that Jesus died for the "goats"(Universal Atonement), I have no problem with that, but it is true that Jesus only saves His sheep (Limited Atonement).

His reply,

The problem with what you are formulating there is that A) if you say Jesus died for the goats (which he did) AND B) Jesus only saves the sheep (which is untrue, he has saved the world the entire world has been saved some refuse the gift by unbelief, but that Jesus took away the sin of the world) IF you have A and B in this, then what does Christ's death mean to that formulation? - You have taken away the benefit of the death. Why then would Christ have died for the goats? Christ's death was efficacious for the taking away the sin of the entire world. And when sin is taken away, there is no longer a separation between God and man. Faith receives this benefit, so unbelief rejects it.

2 Peter 2:1 doesn't help the Limited Atonement camp.


2 Peter:2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Just curious as to how the "reformed" responed to this verse.

Also 1 Timothy 4:10

10 For to this end we toil and strive, [1] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

 

[wsw201]

Scott,

Have you had a chance to read John Owen's book "Death of Death in the Death of Christ"? This is probably one of the most thorough books I have ever seen on the subject of Limited Atonement. Owen covers virtually every argument that you can think of and some that you never even considered. I highly recommend getting a copy and maybe one for your friend.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Scott,

Have you had a chance to read John Owen's book "Death of Death in the Death of Christ"? This is probably one of the most thorough books I have ever seen on the subject of Limited Atonement. Owen covers virtually every argument that you can think of and some that you never even considered. I highly recommend getting a copy and maybe one for your friend.

Do you know which volume that is in?

 

[BertMulder]

Also 1 Timothy 4:10

10 For to this end we toil and strive, [1] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Calvin, in his commentary:

Who is the Savior. 4 This is the second consolation, though it depends on the former; for the deliverance of which he speaks may be viewed as the fruit of hope. To make this more clear, it ought to be understood that this is an argument drawn from the less to the greater; for the word swth<r 5 is here a general term, and denotes one Who defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God extends to all men. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him, and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by the godly, who hope in him? Will he not take peculiar care in them? Will he not more freely pour out his bounty on them? In a word, will he not, in every respect, keep them safe to the end?

 

[CDM]

Do you know which volume that is in?

Download it for free here.

Formats: Read Online
Adobe Acrobat PDF - 4.1 MB
Microsoft Word htm w/markup - 2.3 MB
Palm eBook (pdb) - 568 KB
Plain text (UTF-8) - 2.2 MB
Theological Markup Language (XML) - 2.3 MB​

This will take you a while.

 

[BertMulder]

2 Peter 2:1 doesn't help the Limited Atonement camp.


2 Peter:2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Just curious as to how the "reformed" responed to this verse.

Not sure what you are trying to prove with this text, especially as it does not speak of any eternal damnation of the false preachers. If you want to extend this argument, would you say Luther is in hell, just because you taught consubstantiation?

Again, Calvin:

Who privily shall bring in. By these words he points out the craftiness of Satan, and of all the ungodly who militate under his banner, that they would creep in by oblique turnings, as through burrows under ground. 1 The more watchful, then, ought the godly to be, so that they may escape their hidden frauds: for however they may insinuate themselves, they cannot circumvent those who are carefully vigilant.

He calls them opinions of perdition, or destructive opinions, that every one, solicitous for his salvation, might dread such opinions as the most noxious pests. As to the word opinions or heresies, it has not, without reason, been always deemed infamous and hateful by the children of God; for the bond of holy unity is the simple truth. As soon as we depart from that, nothing remains but dreadful discord.

Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness ,and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them. 2

1 "Peter intimated that the heresies of which he speaks were to be introduced under the color of true doctrine, in the dark. as it were, and by little and little; so that the people would not discern their real nature." -- Macknight.

2 The word here for "Lord" is despo>thv, which is more expressive of power and authority than Ku>riov, commonly rendered "Lord." This seems to intimate the character of the men alluded to: they denied Christ as their sovereign, as they rendered no obedience to him, though they may have professed to believe in him as a Savior.--Ed.

3 Few copies have "perdition," or perditions, for the word is in the plural number; and very many have "lasciviousness," and also the Vulg. and Syr. versions. Having before mentioned their destructive opinions or heresies, which involved the denial of the Lord who bought them, he now refers to the immorality which accompanied their false doctrines; and that immorality is here referred to is evident from this, that the way of truth would be evil spoken of or calumniated. -- Ed.

4 Either "feigned" or "invented" may be meant by plastoi~v: if "feigned," then they were words used not conveying their real sentiments, but adopted for the purpose of alluring others, as is the case with those who pretend great zeal for truth and great love for souls, when their object is to gain adherents for filthy lucre's sake. But if "invented" be adopted, then lo>goi must mean narratives or fables, -- "invented (or fictitious) fables," or tales. And this is the rendering of Macknight. And he says, that the Apostle had probably in view the fables concerning the visions of angels and the miracles performed at the sepulchres of departed saints, which the false teachers in the early ages, and the monks in latter times, fabricated, to draw money from the people. Similar are the devices of superstitious men, greedy of gain, in every age. -- Ed.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Not sure what you are trying to prove with this text, especially as it does not speak of any eternal damnation of the false preachers. If you want to extend this argument, would you say Luther is in hell, just because you taught consubstantiation?

Again, Calvin:

He is using 2 Peter 2:1 to say that limited Atonement denies the "Master who bought them", Where Universal Atonement doesn't deny the Master who bought them.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I posed this question to a LCMS frieind,

It is ok if you want to say that Jesus died for the "goats"(Universal Atonement), I have no problem with that, but it is true that Jesus only saves His sheep (Limited Atonement).

His reply,

The problem with what you are formulating there is that A) if you say Jesus died for the goats (which he did) AND B) Jesus only saves the sheep (which is untrue, he has saved the world the entire world has been saved some refuse the gift by unbelief, but that Jesus took away the sin of the world) IF you have A and B in this, then what does Christ's death mean to that formulation? - You have taken away the benefit of the death. Why then would Christ have died for the goats? Christ's death was efficacious for the taking away the sin of the entire world. And when sin is taken away, there is no longer a separation between God and man. Faith receives this benefit, so unbelief rejects it.

2 Peter 2:1 doesn't help the Limited Atonement camp.


2 Peter:2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Just curious as to how the "reformed" responed to this verse.

Also 1 Timothy 4:10

10 For to this end we toil and strive, [1] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

Scott,
Your friend believes in Limited Atonement--Limited in POWER, because it only makes salvation POSSIBLE, not EFFECTUAL, toward humans. In the world of synergistic atonement, what makes the Cross effectual is MAN'S WILL to choose.

The Reformed church proclaims a Cross that does actually save EVERY person for whom the sacrifice was made, limiting only the SCOPE of redemption. GOD'S WILL to save is effectual to the breaking down of every barrier in man's heart to his grace.

In the Reformed world of monergistic salvation, Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption, is the objective work that makes the whole subjective experience of salvation a reality. Your friend's big problem seems first of all to lie with the nature of the will. How does one ever come to the place where he can exercise faith? And if a person has been brought to the place where faith is possible, then he certainly will exercise it as naturally as seeing with his eyes.

I would recommend that he read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. Wrestle with that text, and if he can believe in the theology of Martin Luther, then he will have far less trouble with Limited Atonement.


Other points:
1) So, is unbelief a sin? If it is, then Jesus must have died for that too, and then we are in Universalism--'Jesus died for ALL the sins of ALL people'.

2) Or if Jesus didn't die for unbelief, then all sin wasn't atoned for, and we are still in our sins--'Jesus died for SOME of the sins of ALL people'. Because no doubt about it unbelief is the sin of sins. Doubt that, and one might as well admit he's practicing an alternate religion.

So, which is it?
Or did Jesus pay for ALL the sins of SOME people? I'll gladly 'take on' problem texts, but those on the other side never seem willing to answer Jesus who said: "I lay down my life for the sheep... YOU are not my sheep!"
(John 10:15, 25)


2 Pet. 2:1
ONLY place in NT where God (or Christ) is called "despotes". Must be some reason Peter chose that word, not kurios, or didaskalos.

The subject of the verse (the ones who are described as "bought") are false-teachers. Therefore, they are claiming to be Christians, and claiming that God not only bought them out of sin, but made them leaders in his church. And they are leading men astray. So, Peter is describing these men according to their own claims, and mocking their claims, pointing out the massive incongruity between their profession and reality.

1 Tim. 4:10
The phrase "all men" should be interpreted as in 2:1 & 4, where it refers to "all kinds of men," as in "pray for all kinds of men," (if meaning is specific, this command cannot be kept; however it can be kept in a general way), which is followed by specific examples of kinds of men--"don't forget the kings, authorities."

The concept of v.6 ("ransom for all") has to be received in the same context--"all men" as previously defined, and Jesus is the only Mediator available for the whole race; the ransom price he paid is available to the utmost degree--not merely for the Jewish people, v.7, "for this reason I was appointed ...an apostle of the Gentiles." So, there are recognizable sub-classes of people, or kinds of people, but Jesus is not an exclusive Messiah.

Back to 4:10--"Savior of all men" should be interpreted in context of Paul's own standard of speech. Jesus is the ONLY Savior for Jews or Gentiles. Obviously he doesn't save EVERY person, unless we are proclaiming Universalism.

"Specially of believers"--special how? Special, in that he's exclusively and ONLY Savior of believers, when it gets down to particulars and out of generalities and broader, vaguer language. Simple fact: Jesus doesn't save those who don't believe in him. It's ridiculous to call him a Savior of them who don't get saved!

This is why is silly to tell an unbeliever that Jesus has saved them from their sins, when if they die, their sins do in fact kill them eternally. Jesus has made salvation available, period, whereas without him there in no salvation, period. You can say to the lost "Jesus is THE Savior," or "Jesus is YOUR Savior" (meaning in either case he's the ONLY ONE available), so tack on "if you'll have him." Wow. That sounded just like 1 Tim. 4:10.


For us Reformed folk, we have no problem admitting that salvation from man's standpoint involves faith; its absolutely vital. But the Bible tells us more than that; it tells us about how that's even possible. And the explanation for HOW can never be found extrapolated from human capabilities. Particularly when those variable capabilities are themselves endowed from God--either in creation, and fallen and broken; or renewed in regeneration.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[BertMulder]

Scott,
The Reformed church proclaims a Cross that does actually save EVERY person for whom the sacrifice was made, limiting only the SCOPE of redemption. GOD'S WILL to save is effectual to the breaking down of every barrier in man's heart to his grace.

In the Reformed world of monergistic salvation, Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption, is the objective work that makes the whole subjective experience of salvation a reality. Your friend's big problem seems first of all to lie with the nature of the will. How does one ever come to the place where he can exercise faith? And if a person has been brought to the place where faith is possible, then he certainly will exercise it as naturally as seeing with his eyes.

......................

For us Reformed folk, we have no problem admitting that salvation from man's standpoint involves faith; its absolutely vital. But the Bible tells us more than that; it tells us about how that's even possible. And the explanation for HOW can never be found extrapolated from human capabilities. Particularly when those variable capabilities are themselves endowed from God--either in creation, and fallen and broken; or renewed in regeneration.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[cih1355]

Scott,

If your friend believes that Jesus actually paid the penalty for all the sins of all people, then you could ask him, "If Jesus died for a particular person and that person goes to hell, why is the penalty of sin being paid for again if it was already paid for when Jesus died on the cross?" and "If the penalty of sin is paid for twice, then wouldn't that pervert God's justice?".

 

[Scott Shahan]

Scott,
Your friend believes in Limited Atonement--Limited in POWER, because it only makes salvation POSSIBLE, not EFFECTUAL, toward humans. In the world of synergistic atonement, what makes the Cross effectual is MAN'S WILL to choose.

The Reformed church proclaims a Cross that does actually save EVERY person for whom the sacrifice was made, limiting only the SCOPE of redemption. GOD'S WILL to save is effectual to the breaking down of every barrier in man's heart to his grace.

In the Reformed world of monergistic salvation, Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption, is the objective work that makes the whole subjective experience of salvation a reality. Your friend's big problem seems first of all to lie with the nature of the will. How does one ever come to the place where he can exercise faith? And if a person has been brought to the place where faith is possible, then he certainly will exercise it as naturally as seeing with his eyes.

I would recommend that he read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. Wrestle with that text, and if he can believe in the theology of Martin Luther, then he will have far less trouble with Limited Atonement.


Other points:
1) So, is unbelief a sin? If it is, then Jesus must have died for that too, and then we are in Universalism--'Jesus died for ALL the sins of ALL people'.

2) Or if Jesus didn't die for unbelief, then all sin wasn't atoned for, and we are still in our sins--'Jesus died for SOME of the sins of ALL people'. Because no doubt about it unbelief is the sin of sins. Doubt that, and one might as well admit he's practicing an alternate religion.

So, which is it?
Or did Jesus pay for ALL the sins of SOME people? I'll gladly 'take on' problem texts, but those on the other side never seem willing to answer Jesus who said: "I lay down my life for the sheep... YOU are not my sheep!"
(John 10:15, 25)


2 Pet. 2:1
ONLY place in NT where God (or Christ) is called "despotes". Must be some reason Peter chose that word, not kurios, or didaskalos.

The subject of the verse (the ones who are described as "bought") are false-teachers. Therefore, they are claiming to be Christians, and claiming that God not only bought them out of sin, but made them leaders in his church. And they are leading men astray. So, Peter is describing these men according to their own claims, and mocking their claims, pointing out the massive incongruity between their profession and reality.

1 Tim. 4:10
The phrase "all men" should be interpreted as in 2:1 & 4, where it refers to "all kinds of men," as in "pray for all kinds of men," (if meaning is specific, this command cannot be kept; however it can be kept in a general way), which is followed by specific examples of kinds of men--"don't forget the kings, authorities."

The concept of v.6 ("ransom for all") has to be received in the same context--"all men" as previously defined, and Jesus is the only Mediator available for the whole race; the ransom price he paid is available to the utmost degree--not merely for the Jewish people, v.7, "for this reason I was appointed ...an apostle of the Gentiles." So, there are recognizable sub-classes of people, or kinds of people, but Jesus is not an exclusive Messiah.

Back to 4:10--"Savior of all men" should be interpreted in context of Paul's own standard of speech. Jesus is the ONLY Savior for Jews or Gentiles. Obviously he doesn't save EVERY person, unless we are proclaiming Universalism.

"Specially of believers"--special how? Special, in that he's exclusively and ONLY Savior of believers, when it gets down to particulars and out of generalities and broader, vaguer language. Simple fact: Jesus doesn't save those who don't believe in him. It's ridiculous to call him a Savior of them who don't get saved!

This is why is silly to tell an unbeliever that Jesus has saved them from their sins, when if they die, their sins do in fact kill them eternally. Jesus has made salvation available, period, whereas without him there in no salvation, period. You can say to the lost "Jesus is THE Savior," or "Jesus is YOUR Savior" (meaning in either case he's the ONLY ONE available), so tack on "if you'll have him." Wow. That sounded just like 1 Tim. 4:10.


For us Reformed folk, we have no problem admitting that salvation from man's standpoint involves faith; its absolutely vital. But the Bible tells us more than that; it tells us about how that's even possible. And the explanation for HOW can never be found extrapolated from human capabilities. Particularly when those variable capabilities are themselves endowed from God--either in creation, and fallen and broken; or renewed in regeneration.

Hope this is helpful.

Thank you Bruce!! It was so well said and well written that I just emailed all of this post to him. And here is his response to this post. We have been discussing Limited Atonement for the last few days now . And I think that we keep talking in circles. Here is his response to some of your points;

You do believe in Limited Atonement--Limited in POWER, because it only makes salvation POSSIBLE, not EFFECTUAL, toward humans. In the world of synergistic atonement, what makes the Cross effectual is MAN'S WILL to choose.

NOTES: No, Christ has died for all. Unlimited or Universal Atonement. This means that every human being's sins have been covered or forgiven. This is the promise that is made by God. A promise must be received though. Faith is the tool or instrument which receives the benefit of Christ's Universal Atonement. This is not attributing anything to man, especially since faith is given by God, created by the Holy Spirit, and preserved by the same. (As I have said forty-seven hundred times already, man can reject God's offer of grace, and resist the Holy Spirit [not because of anything in man that makes him stronger, but because God has designed it in this way].
The Reformed church proclaims a Cross that does actually save EVERY person for whom the sacrifice was made, limiting only the SCOPE of redemption. GOD'S WILL to save is effectual to the breaking down of every barrier in man's heart to his grace.

NOTES: the Reformed church leaves people to question whether they are or are not "a person for whom the sacrifice was made". This leaves no room for faith, because where doubt is, there faith cannot remain for long. The only thing that you then can point to for evidence of your election is a subjective experience of the grace of God, or some subjective experience of a good work (which there is truly no such thing on its own, without faith, and even then it still has the taint of sin on it). So there is no surety even in your experience to whether you are elect or not. This is a horrible thing, which leaves people in the same amount of doubt, or carnal security (Pharisee-like security) as the teachings of the Roman Catholics, with their system of doubt creation...
In the Reformed world of monergistic salvation, Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption, is the objective work that makes the whole subjective experience of salvation a reality. Your big problem seems first of all to lie with the nature of the will. How does one ever come to the place where he can exercise faith? And if a person has been brought to the place where faith is possible, then he certainly will exercise it as naturally as seeing with his eyes.

NOTES: I have read Bondage of the Will, and more importantly I have read other works that the Lutheran church holds to, see the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration. The nature of the will is this: In matters of faith, the unregenerate is dead and opposed to God. In matters of the world (family life, government) man has a degree of free will to do what is right in civic matters. These right actions in the civic realm have no value in Justification. In matters of faith, the regenerate/converted have a weak degree of free will, which allows them to drift from God's promise (entertain doubts, lose faith, choose not to receive his benefits [sacraments])... Faith in the regenerate causes them to seek out where the grace of God is proclaimed and offered, which keeps them connected to the church, where these things (means of grace) are distributed according to the institution and command of Christ. Conversion/Regeneration happens as the Holy Spirit works through the means of grace (Word and Sacraments [which are efficacious because of the Word]). This is how one comes to the place where they can exercise faith. The Holy Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies his church on earth. God does it. As far as the New Man is concerned, yes, faith motivates the new man to exercise it in all good works. You are forgetting about the "OLD MAN", that Old Adam that clings to us as weight around our necks. This is the struggle that Paul defines in Romans 7. The Old Man would rather us disobey God and sin, and the Old Man gets in the way of many good works. Since in this life we still carry that "flesh" with us, even our good works done in faith are tainted with sin, which is all that much more reason to rely on the forgiveness that Christ gives.


I would recommend that you go back and reread Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. Wrestle with that text, and if you can believe in the theology of Martin Luther, then you will have far less trouble with Limited Atonement.

NOTES: Martin Luther would condemn your Limited Atonement as unscriptural and completely damaging to true faith. The Reformed church knows nothing about true Lutheranism, as they tried for years to hide under the Augsburg Confession, until the Formula of Concord successfully made it impossible for them to share our confession of faith. As the example: your search for the adultery in Babylonian Captivity shows that you fail to take in the whole picture of Luther (since he condemns adultery in his main work, the Small Catechism, it is clear what his actual teaching was). Do not fret however, reformed theologians have been ripping off portions of Luther since the beginning.
Other points:
1) So, is unbelief a sin? If it is, then Jesus must have died for that too, and then we are in Universalism--'Jesus died for ALL the sins of ALL people'.


2) Or if Jesus didn't die for unbelief, then all sin wasn't atoned for, and we are still in our sins--'Jesus died for SOME of the sins of ALL people'. Because no doubt about it unbelief is the sin of sins. Doubt that, and one might as well admit he's practicing an alternate religion.

NOTES: Jesus makes note that the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
So, which is it?
Or did Jesus pay for ALL the sins of SOME people? I'll gladly 'take on' problem texts, but those on the other side never seem willing to answer Jesus who said: "I lay down my life for the sheep... YOU are not my sheep!"
(John 10:15, 25)

NOTES: The ones that were not his sheep had continually rejected Him time and time again. They did not want to see Him as Messiah, but instead sought to accuse them. Here Jesus is rightly applying the Law to unrepentant sinners. Learn how to distinguish the right use of Law and Gospel and you will not run into this problem.
2 Pet. 2:1
ONLY place in NT where God (or Christ) is called "despotes". Must be some reason Peter chose that word, not kurios, or didaskalos.

The subject of the verse (the ones who are described as "bought") are false-teachers. Therefore, they are claiming to be Christians, and claiming that God not only bought them out of sin, but made them leaders in his church. And they are leading men astray. So, Peter is describing these men according to their own claims, and mocking their claims, pointing out the massive incongruity between their profession and reality.

NOTES: Notice how Christ did buy them though. The participle is modifying the noun despotes, which is a not a part of the claim that they are making, but a true statement of Peter in regards to the fact that Christ bought even the false teachers...



1 Tim. 4:10
The phrase "all men" should be interpreted as in 2:1 & 4, where it refers to "all kinds of men," as in "pray for all kinds of men," (if meaning is specific, this command cannot be kept; however it can be kept in a general way), which is followed by specific examples of kinds of men--"don't forget the kings, authorities."

NOTES:πάντων ἀνθρώπων reads directly "all men". Your logic and reason force you to ADD to Scripture... kinds. Paul does continue to explain that even the governing authorities be prayed for (a demand that is awfully hard in times of persecution). The benefit of praying for Kings and all in authority is that it benefits all the subjects as well (quite and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence). Verse 4 and verse 6 continue to describe all men. The concept of v.6 ("ransom for all") has to be received in the same context--"all men" as previously defined, and Jesus is the only Mediator available for the whole race; the ransom price he paid is available to the utmost degree--not merely for the Jewish people, v.7, "for this reason I was appointed ...an apostle of the Gentiles." So, there are recognizable sub-classes of people, or kinds of people, but Jesus is not an exclusive Messiah.

NOTES: v.6 helps continue to inform the meaning of "all". Gentiles is descriptive of Paul's specific command by Christ, just as a Pastor is called to serve a congregation of people.Back to 4:10--"Savior of all men" should be interpreted in context of Paul's own standard of speech. Jesus is the ONLY Savior for Jews or Gentiles. Obviously he doesn't save EVERY person, unless we are proclaiming Universalism.

NOTES: But Jesus does save everyone, but some reject God and Christ's sacrifice. This is why Paul adds the comment "especially to those who believe" Don't you see it? Christ saves, but some reject it, and refuse or destroy the gift of faith, but Paul makes sure that faith is related to the saving here.
"Specially of believers"--special how? Special, in that he's exclusively and ONLY Savior of believers, when it gets down to particulars and out of generalities and broader, vaguer language. Simple fact: Jesus doesn't save those who don't believe in him. It's ridiculous to call him a Savior of them who don't get saved!

This is why is silly to tell an unbeliever that Jesus has saved them from their sins, when if they die, their sins do in fact kill them eternally.

NOTES: Weren't you an unbeliever when you were first told the Gospel of the forgiveness of your sins? The very word of telling them can create faith, because the Holy Spirit uses the word to create faith.
Jesus has made salvation available, period, whereas without him there in no salvation, period. You can say to the lost "Jesus is THE Savior," or "Jesus is YOUR Savior" (meaning in either case he's the ONLY ONE available), so tack on "if you'll have him." Wow. That sounded just like 1 Tim. 4:10.


For us Reformed believers, we have no problem admitting that salvation from man's standpoint involves faith; its absolutely vital. But the Bible tells us more than that; it tells us about how that's even possible. And the explanation for HOW can never be found extrapolated from human capabilities. Particularly when those variable capabilities are themselves endowed from God--either in creation, and fallen and broken; or renewed in regeneration.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Scott,

Have you had a chance to read John Owen's book "Death of Death in the Death of Christ"? This is probably one of the most thorough books I have ever seen on the subject of Limited Atonement. Owen covers virtually every argument that you can think of and some that you never even considered. I highly recommend getting a copy and maybe one for your friend.

Good News!! I have volume 10 on my book shelf, but just haven't gotten around to reading that one yet! I have been reading Volume 6 with some guys from Church.

 

[caddy]

I ALWAYS learn something good when Bruce communicates !

Thanks Bruce

 

[R. Scott Clark]

An essay on limited atonement.

rsc

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Scott,
I sincerely appreciate your making my comments "your own," and NOT simply pasting the whole as mediated conversation. From this point, I don't think I will engage your friend further as though WE were the ones in dialog. For one thing, he is not "speaking to me" as it were, but to you. And the other thing is, we need to be careful about publicizing his comments which he may never have meant for broader readership.

He would benefit more from a link to Dr. RSC (above) than my commentary anyway.

One comment: One big difference between Reformed and Lutherans--we don't seem to mind if they borrow our theologians. And no, since Luther was an Augustinian and so are we, and they aren't and are happy not to be, we DO understand him at that point and they don't. I very much doubt that many Lutherans (including this one) has read Bondage with any appreciation at all. Most are just discontent that at that point Luther was more Protestant/Augustinian-Revival than he was Menlancthonian. Facts is facts, and Luther knew his Augustin.

Beside the Small Catechism, Luther thought Bondage the most important work he wrote. He said all the rest could be forgotten, and he'd be content of those two remained (see J. I. Packer's introduction for citations). However, this work of Augustinian theology is OBVIOUSLY far, far from a centerpiece of post-mid-16th century Lutheran dogmatics.


But Dr. Clark already told us that many Lutherans are extremely snobbish regarding other Protestants, often regarding us as sub-Christian. As your friend pointed out, they defined the Reformed outside their conception of the true church at Concord. And so, we see their elitism in evidence.

P.S. The alternate view presented above "takes God off the hook" for condemning sinners to hell for their richly deserved reward. In the alternate view (as clearly in evidence above) sinners send themselves to hell by unbelief (which apparently is a sin NOT covered by the atonement). In other words,, God is no Judge even of the ungodly.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Scott,
I sincerely appreciate your making my comments "your own," and NOT simply pasting the whole as mediated conversation. From this point, I don't think I will engage your friend further as though WE were the ones in dialog. For one thing, he is not "speaking to me" as it were, but to you. And the other thing is, we need to be careful about publicizing his comments which he may never have meant for broader readership.

He would benefit more from a link to Dr. RSC (above) than my commentary anyway.

One comment: One big difference between Reformed and Lutherans--we don't seem to mind if they borrow our theologians. And no, since Luther was an Augustinian and so are we, and they aren't and are happy not to be, we DO understand him at that point and they don't. I very much doubt that many Lutherans (including this one) has read Bondage with any appreciation at all. Most are just discontent that at that point Luther was more Protestant/Augustinian-Revival than he was Menlancthonian.


But Dr. Clark already told us that many Lutherans are extremely snobbish regarding other Protestants, often regarding us as sub-Christian. As your friend pointed out, they defined the Reformed outside their conception of the true church at Concord. And so, we see their elitism in evidence.

This is what I am my head up against and it is senselessness. They do come across as being elitists. I will send Dr. RSC link to him. And then he can argue with Dr. RSC for awhile.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This is what I am my head up against and it is senselessness. They do come across as being elitists. I will send Dr. RSC link to him. And then he can argue with Dr. RSC for awhile.

Well,
I'm convinced that the reason fewer people are convinced to Reformed theology today as in years past is not merely because of all the "competition" out there for hearts and minds, nor primarily due to the smaller number of Reformed "competitors."

Rather, it's because of the neglect of the spiritual aspect, and the exaltation of the intellectual. Paul reminds us, "what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it" (1 Cor. 4:7). Understanding the mind of God in the way he intended, and overcoming the perversion of our thinking, is purely the work of God's Spirit in sanctification. That's why any of us are Calvinists today.

If we want more Calvinists in the world (and we should), we need to budget out time accordingly--by spending SOME of our time (not NONE, by any means) in public persuasion, and the REST of our time in prayer. I think my own time-management is imbalanced. I should be spending more time praying about these posts. I don't recall praying at all for Scott's friend, or that my suggestions would do anyone spiritual good.

(I'm happy for a couple of positive respondents above from our own community--but I've no reason to suppose in my faithlessness that I did much more than appeal to men's carnal intellect, rather than ministering to their spirits. I'm not getting down on our gentlemen either; just saying that I myself have no right to expect spiritual good where I failed to pray for it! If any were helped, it was in spite of me.)

Am I unhappy with what I consider shallow, superficial rebuttals and dodges? Yes. But it wasn't my conversation. And my contributions were not accompanied with prayer. So, my carnal urge to strike back (for instance by sarcastically pointing out logical or exegetical inconsistencies) is bound to be emanating NOT from pure motives and zeal for God, but from wounded pride (how DARE a childish seminarian take a swipe at me! Oh, the gall!). There isn't anything about what I would say that could be described as "righteous" indignation, or "holy" dudgeon.

First, let me repent of my prayerlessness, then of my pride. Then let me pray that this young man would be "owned" by the text of Scripture, as Luther was. May he be captivated by Luther's own convictions, by revisiting the Bondage, and studying Luther's argument and method. May he see God in all his perfections, not one sacrificed to another, and man abased in helpless hoplessness apart from God's saving grace, as opposed to a common, save-yourself sort of grace.

 

[Scott Shahan]

Well,
I'm convinced that the reason fewer people are convinced to Reformed theology today as in years past is not merely because of all the "competition" out there for hearts and minds, nor primarily due to the smaller number of Reformed "competitors."

Rather, it's because of the neglect of the spiritual aspect, and the exaltation of the intellectual. Paul reminds us, "what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it" (1 Cor. 4:7). Understanding the mind of God in the way he intended, and overcoming the perversion of our thinking, is purely the work of God's Spirit in sanctification. That's why any of us are Calvinists today.

If we want more Calvinists in the world (and we should), we need to budget out time accordingly--by spending SOME of our time (not NONE, by any means) in public persuasion, and the REST of our time in prayer. I think my own time-management is imbalanced. I should be spending more time praying about these posts. I don't recall praying at all for Scott's friend, or that my suggestions would do anyone spiritual good.

(I'm happy for a couple of positive respondents above from our own community--but I've no reason to suppose in my faithlessness that I did much more than appeal to men's carnal intellect, rather than ministering to their spirits. I'm not getting down on our gentlemen either; just saying that I myself have no right to expect spiritual good where I failed to pray for it! If any were helped, it was in spite of me.)

Am I unhappy with what I consider shallow, superficial rebuttals and dodges? Yes. But it wasn't my conversation. And my contributions were not accompanied with prayer. So, my carnal urge to strike back (for instance by sarcastically pointing out logical or exegetical inconsistencies) is bound to be emanating NOT from pure motives and zeal for God, but from wounded pride (how DARE a childish seminarian take a swipe at me! Oh, the gall!). There isn't anything about what I would say that could be described as "righteous" indignation, or "holy" dudgeon.

First, let me repent of my prayerlessness, then of my pride. Then let me pray that this young man would be "owned" by the text of Scripture, as Luther was. May he be captivated by Luther's own convictions, by revisiting the Bondage, and studying Luther's argument and method. May he see God in all his perfections, not one sacrificed to another, and man abased in helpless hoplessness apart from God's saving grace, as opposed to a common, save-yourself sort of grace.

 

[BertMulder]

Going to the Lord in prayer would do a lot of good. First of all, we would be asking the Lord to speak through us. And secondly, by asking the Lord to incline the heart of the person we are addressing, in love.

And we always have to keep in mind the love of the brother.