Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Oct 31, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    "As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief." - John Calvin

    "What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all...He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." -C. Hodge

    [Christ's atonement has indeed] "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men." - A. Hodge

    "God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few." - John Calvin

    Do you agree that all legal impediments have been satisfied by Christ's atoning work for every individual, as these Calvinists apparently do?

    Or are you one of those who believe that the atoning work only satisfies the legal requirements for the elect? If so, how do you defend the nature of the universal Gospel appeal to all mankind?
     
  2. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    You misunderstand them. They have a different definition of the word "all" than you do, thus the statements you've given are taken out of context. They also believe (many Calvinists) the Bible itself doesn't mean "all" when it says "all."

    What is the definition, of the Biblical Greek word, for "predestine?"
     
  3. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Friend, the universal aspect of the Gospel is evidenced in the free offer of the Gospel. The Gospel is freely proclaimed to all. Even as a believer in limited atonement (or as I prefer to call it, "definite atonement") I preach it to all who will listen. And why not? The offer of salvation is still free. Yes. Only the elect will have a positive response to the Gospel, but do I know who the elect are? God forbid! That knowledge is reserved for the mind of God. Freely preach it. Implore all men to believe. Rejoice with those who do.
     
  4. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen! Accurate answer. :thumbsup:
     
  5. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm glad you said "many" because "many" doesn't mean "all." :) Just having a bit of fun, my friend.

    Truth be told, all always means all; it's just that all doesn't always apply the same way. All can mean everyone, or all of a group. Context determines this.
     
  6. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct.

    It is contextual.

    I'd have to disagree to some extent, only in the fashion that non-cals tend to see "all" as meaning every single living soul that has ever lived, or everyone. This is simply untrue.

    All means all within context.
     
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand that these quotes are from the context in which Calvinists are defending the universal aspect of the Gospel's call within the Calvinistic system, but notice they do so based upon the FACT that the legal requirements HAVE been satisfied for every person. I'm asking if you agree with that argument or not.

    Has the legal requirements been satisfied for every individual or not? Is their "unwillingness" truly the only impediment for their being saved?
     
    #7 Skandelon, Oct 31, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2011
  8. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remember what the Cannons of Dordt state.

    "While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."
    ~http://www.the-highway.com/dordt.html

    Look at Calvin's quote.

    "As no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open to all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief." - John Calvin

    There was a thread a little bit ago talking about this. Election doesn't keep people from entering in. What keeps people from entering is is their "own unbelief."

    The death of Christ is sufficient for all. No one can say "the atonement wasn't for me so I couldn't believe." Instead, the atonement wasn't for you because you didn't believe. It was sufficient, but not effective.

    "What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all...He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." -C. Hodge

    If God was only going to save one person, Christ would still have to die. If God saved every person, Christ would still have to die. Christ's death is sufficient payment for all man.

    The other 2 quotes are about the same.
     
  9. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    So are you one of the elect? If so, how do you know?
     
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right. Yet, there are SOME who attempt to deny that sufficiency by suggesting that Christ did not satisfy the legal obstructions to salvation for all people on the cross. You don't appear to be one of those Calvinists, as evidenced by your next statement...

    This is what I've been arguing for all along...

    We may disagree as to WHY they are unbelieving (compatibilism vs libertarianism), but we should be in agreement regarding the view that there remains NO legal impediment for anyone to come to salvation. They perish for their unbelief alone.

    You got it! :thumbsup: Thanks
     
  11. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my view, no.

    Again, no.

    I make no pretense; I approach these questions from a Reformed perspective.

    2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

    If the legal requirement for breaking God's Law has been paid for by Christ; and if the only impediment for being saved is the sinner's unwillingness, then God's desire that all come to repentance should result in the salvation of all. IMHO that is the result of universal atonement; universal salvation. In 2 Peter 3:9 we see a God who is either A) impotent and anxiously waiting to see how many will come to repentance ~or~ B) expecting all those who have been appointed unto eternal life (Acts 11:18; 13:48) to repent.
     
  12. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Friend,

    The follows texts give me confidence that I am a child of God; one of God's elect:

    1 John 5:12 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

    John 20:31 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

    1 John 5:13 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

    Romans 10:8-13 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART "-- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

    Romans 8:14-16 14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

    Whether you subscribe to the DoG or not, these texts should provide you with the same assurance and hope that I possess.
     
  13. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is not the question also related to what the "LEGAL" requirements are?

    Is belief/repentance/acceptance/faith/receiving (whatever you want to call it) NOT of the legal requirements?
     
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet, men like C. Hodge argue that your view is not the Reformed position when he writes, ""This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches. nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."

    Do you simply disagree with Hodge and Calvin on this issue?
     
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    If faith was all that was needed for one to be saved then Christ wouldn't have needed to die, but clearly the law had to be fulfilled and the wrath appeased. Now, either that legal impediment was fulfilled by Christ for all leaving only the need for faith IN Christ and his atoning work, or that legal impediment was only removed for the elect. Some Calvinists support the former while others support the latter.

    Calvin himself seems to support the former.
     
  16. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. I disagree with Hodge and Calvin on baptism and ecclesiology, so disagreement in this area is not without precedent.
     
  17. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    The cross is perfectly sufficient for the sins of those who will be saved by it.

    It obviously does not save those who are not saved.

    The problem with Arminianism is that it denies substitutionary atonement.

    Either Christ is atoning for the every sin of every man or not.

    If he is then every man will escape hell. There is NO CAUSE for a man to go to hell who has no sins- whose sins have been dealt with on the cross.

    So if he atoned for all the sins of every person in the world then NO ONE WILL BE IN HELL.

    There is no logical way that Christ can be substituting himself for a sinner and that sinner still have sin to go to hell for.
     
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, since this view was their defense for the argument against Calvinism regarding the genuineness of the gospel's appeal and you reject it, what is your defense against it?

    How is something genuinely offered to those to whom it's not made available? Historically Calvinists have taken Calvin/Hodge's approach (which your reject). The Hyper-Cal approach is to deny that the gospel is sent to all. What is your approach?
     
  19. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,249
    Likes Received:
    619
    Yes, those are the same verses that I trust in to assure me that I am a child of God.

    Yet, you stated,

    do I know who the elect are? God forbid! That knowledge is reserved for the mind of God.

    So, I'm kind of confused...on the one hand you say no one can know who the elect are, and on the other hand you are certain that you are one of the elect.
     
  20. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought it obvious that I was referring to knowing whether others are elect. Obviously, in this forum, you need to make your statements water tight.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...