Since I am new to the reformed faith, and the church I go to subscribes to the Three Forms of Unity, I can't help but notice that the Three Forms of Unity do not mention limited atonement in the same fashion as todays calvinistic teachings do.
Example: The Canons of Dordt - The second head of doctrine of the death of Christ and the redemption of men thereby - articles 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Article 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.
Article 4. This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations, because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.
Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.
Article 6. And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Now I know this does not explicitly states that sufficiency also means that He actually died for the sins of the world, but it leaves me with a couple of questions. The questions arose after some conversations with a Lutheran acquaintance of mine. I hope someone who has made a study of Limited Atonement for a longer time can answer my questions (which I will state below) and also give some brief explanations of your views:
Question 1: Do you believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and that the atonement is only limited in it's effect by God's unconditional election, or do you believe that Christ only died for the sins of the elect?
Question 2: Do you believe the forgiveness of sins by Christ' death should be offered to all men, without exception, through the Gospel?
Question 3: If so (and assuming that Christ only died for the sins of some), do you believe this general and universal call to believe, would be a sincere offer? Even when you think of the fact that you can't really offer the forgiveness of sins, since you cannot know wether Christ' has died for these sins on the cross.
Question 4: Do you believe that Gods wrath remains on the elect prior to faith, even though Christ has allready paid for it (also paid for unbelief) in full on the cross?
Question 5: Is it also your believe that the benefits of the atonement are received by faith (which is offcourse a gift of God, Lutherans affirm this also, but deny limited atonement), even though Christ also died for the unbelief of the elect?
Question 6: How would you define the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ for the whole world (as the canons of Dordt state), since offering the sufficiency to the world seems irrelivant, since not all sins were paid for?
Question 7: Do you believe that in evangelism whe should honestly say that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect?
Question 8: How can you possible know for sure if Christ died for your sins, if you can't know if you are elect. Do you believe this can bring along pastoral problems such as: a lack of assurance of faith (since it has to be subjective and has no assurance in the objective work of Christ, since it is not objective for all sinners)?
I hope I formed my questions clearly, hope to learn from you all soon!
Greetings.
Example: The Canons of Dordt - The second head of doctrine of the death of Christ and the redemption of men thereby - articles 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Article 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.
Article 4. This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations, because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.
Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.
Article 6. And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Now I know this does not explicitly states that sufficiency also means that He actually died for the sins of the world, but it leaves me with a couple of questions. The questions arose after some conversations with a Lutheran acquaintance of mine. I hope someone who has made a study of Limited Atonement for a longer time can answer my questions (which I will state below) and also give some brief explanations of your views:
Question 1: Do you believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world and that the atonement is only limited in it's effect by God's unconditional election, or do you believe that Christ only died for the sins of the elect?
Question 2: Do you believe the forgiveness of sins by Christ' death should be offered to all men, without exception, through the Gospel?
Question 3: If so (and assuming that Christ only died for the sins of some), do you believe this general and universal call to believe, would be a sincere offer? Even when you think of the fact that you can't really offer the forgiveness of sins, since you cannot know wether Christ' has died for these sins on the cross.
Question 4: Do you believe that Gods wrath remains on the elect prior to faith, even though Christ has allready paid for it (also paid for unbelief) in full on the cross?
Question 5: Is it also your believe that the benefits of the atonement are received by faith (which is offcourse a gift of God, Lutherans affirm this also, but deny limited atonement), even though Christ also died for the unbelief of the elect?
Question 6: How would you define the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ for the whole world (as the canons of Dordt state), since offering the sufficiency to the world seems irrelivant, since not all sins were paid for?
Question 7: Do you believe that in evangelism whe should honestly say that Jesus died only for the sins of the elect?
Question 8: How can you possible know for sure if Christ died for your sins, if you can't know if you are elect. Do you believe this can bring along pastoral problems such as: a lack of assurance of faith (since it has to be subjective and has no assurance in the objective work of Christ, since it is not objective for all sinners)?
I hope I formed my questions clearly, hope to learn from you all soon!
Greetings.