Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

I am also more in line with your thinking. It seems that the “limited” view of atonement, when applied to the argument is very reactionary. (It was, when initially composed in a systematic fashion, a reaction to Arminianism). The problem for me is that it takes on the method of Arminianism in its argument, but does not actually hold that perspective.
This is what I mean: The argument is about atonement prior to application (which would indicate potential, but much of Calvinism argues only for effectual). Calvinism affirms that the atonement has some effect or benefit upon the non-elect – just not for atoning for their sins. In Romans, Paul states that without faith there is no salvation. Apart from the resurrection, our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins. So Christ as the atoning sacrifice does not have either the elect alone or all men as its subject. The subject is the sins of the world. The purpose is for the redemption of those who believe. Thinking quantity or individual atonement at this point, in my opinion, is an error.
My objection to strict limited atonement in Calvinism is the damage done to Scripture in defense of its position and the dishonesty in representing the opposing view – not their actual conclusions.
Christ’s atoning sacrifice was for the sins of the world (whether it is one man or millions of men is not the issue). The question, “for whom did Christ die,” when applied to the work on the cross apart from faith and apart from the resurrection is an invalid question.
It is like saying that nothing is impossible with God and then getting into a debate on whether or not God can create a square circle.

 

I agree.

It is, of course, good to keep in mind that the limited/universal atonement debate is post-Calvin. The debate prior to Beza was concerned with theories of the atonement, not its extent. (ie. Christus Victor vs. Penal Substitution vs. Governmental, etc.).

I think that the errors in exegesis that are used to support limited atonement are reactionary - they would not have occured except in defence of the position.

 

No. Actually, if you have to view it in that manner, that would say that Christ died for everyone (everyone who has sin, that is). But this is neither my point nor what I am saying.

If you look at the Old Covenant sacrificial system, the sacrifices covered the sins of Israel – but not every Israelite. If I apply this to the atonement, then the atonement included a universal provision as well as an individual application, with both aspects finding their origin in the death of Christ.

Now, if you’re talking about atonement as redemption, that has man as its subject and you would be correct – but then, of course, you are not dealing with the aspect of atonement that is in debate. (Unless you are trying to imply that the death of Christ actually atoned for the sins of the elect apart from faith and apart from the Resurrection).

I think that we probably disagree because you seem to put the Law where I would put the Old Covenant. Put it this way – Israel will be saved. All Jews will not.

In other words, I’m refraining from associating atonement with election when it comes to the Christ as the Lamb of God provided for the sins of the world. Instead and in this context I view Christ as the Second Adam.

When it comes to the purpose of Christ’s death for the redemption of the elect alone, then we agree.

 

Aaron,
I gather from your posts that you are not much an admirer of Calvin, but I am. This quote sums up my view of atonement:

“[God] used a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse form unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term ‘world’ which he has used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God’s favor, he nevertheless shows he is favorable to the whole world when he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.”

Or as Luther says: “God Incarnate was sent for this purpose, to will, say, do, suffer, and offer to all men all that is necessary for salvation; albeit He offends may who, being abandoned or hardened by God’s secret will of Majesty do not receive Him thus willing, speaking, doing, and offering.”

This isn’t to be taken as everyone has been redeemed in that their sins are atoned for– because the atonement does not atone for individual sins apart from faith. Paul made this abundantly clear – apart from the resurrection our faith is worthless and we are still in our sins (even though Christ has died). It doesn’t even mean that Christ did not die to provide salvation for the elect alone. It does mean, however, a greater condemnation for the unbeliever.

 

What it means is that Christ is the second Adam, a sacrifice for the sins of the world for the redemption of the elect. It amounts to blind arrogance to present your conclusion as valid when one considers the men who held the view.

You have the right to disagree, to debate and to argue. But, even though you may do so , you do not have the right to place these views in your context to disprove them. It is dishonest, unethical and a sin. In case you are doing so out of ignorance - you cannot simply substitute one theological aspect for another - one issue is not independent of another. (Seems like a Calvinist would get that much).

While I agree with reformed theology, I cannot help but abhor the dishonesty that seems to be used in support the position ( actually on both sides).