Featured What do you guys think of Author Pinks handling of "Duty Faith"?

I'm going to guess that he was just guessing, without a text at all.

 

I say,

"Christ died for sinners just like you and me."

 

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:

and whom he called, them he also justified:

and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:30

Being Glorified is one thing " in the Mind of God", but none of us have had it happen, practically, yet.

Same with Justification.

Jesus was, "as a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world", for the benefit of Old Testament saints to be saved, by Jesus, and for God to Apply His blood to them, for their son debt, the same way we are.

However, they nor we are reckoned or credited/ counted to have the Righteousness of Christ Imputed to us, until the blood is Applied, in time under the preaching of the Gospel.

We were "the children of wrath, even as others."

 

A secondary source reference from Alan:

SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

B. This theory (the Theory of General Atonement) is futile, in that it is not necessary as a basis for any scriptural fact, duty, or result, or as proof of any revealed truth.

(a) It cannot be argued that God was under obligation to provide redemption for all men without exception, for such an argument would exclude grace from the atonement.

Grace means not only unmerited favor, but also favor that is not owed.

Grace and obligation are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, if God was obligated to provide redemption for every son of Adam, He would be obligated likewise to give to each one the ability to receive that redemption by faith.

This God has not done, as we have shown in the previous chapter on election.*


"Redemption, as well as creation, must also be a purely sovereign determination of the divine will.

This is required by the necessities of the case, as well as plainly declared in Scripture.

No doctrine of redemption that in any way casts the slightest shadow over the high mountain of Divine Sovereignty can be tolerated for a moment.

All theologies that in any manner teach or imply there was any obligation upon God to do this or that for fallen, rebellious subjects of law, are unscriptural, unreasonable, if not blasphemous" (Armour, Atonement and Law, p. 20).


(b) Furthermore it was not necessary for God to provide a general atonement to make men responsible for rejecting Christ.

Men reject Christ not because of a lack of atonement for them, but because they love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), because they will not have Him to reign over them (Luke 19:14).


(c) Nor was it necessary that Christ die for the whole Adamic race in order to make God's general call sincere.

It is the notion of some that God's general call requires men to believe that Christ died for them.

This is not true.

The twenty-eight chapters of Acts, "though replete with information about apostolic dealing with souls, record no precedent whatever for that now popular address to the unconverted- Christ died for you" (Sanger, The Redeemed).

"All men are called on in Scripture to believe the gospel, but there is no instance in Scripture in which men are called upon to believe that Christ died for them" (Carson, The Doctrine of the Atonement and Other Treatises, P. 146).


*Throughout this chapter we assume the truth of unconditional election as set forth in the preceding chapter.

We would not waste time trying to prove the truth as to a limited atonement to an Arminian.

 

I think this is still on topic and I am not hijacking my own OP, with this secondary reference, again:

SIMMONS- THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

2. THE THEORY OF A GENERAL ATONEMENT


(1) The Theory Stated.


The theory of a general atonement is that Christ died for every son of Adam-for one as much as for another,* removing the legal impediments out of the way of the salvation of all men and mankind, it objectively possible for every hearer of the gospel to be saved.

"Strong says: "The Scriptures represent the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all.

"Not the atonement therefore is limited but the application of the atonement."

(There that is, again)


"Again: "The atonement of Christ has made objective provision for the salvation of all, by renewing from the divine mind every obstacle to the pardon and restoration of sinners, except their wilful opposition to God and refusal to turn to Him." Andrew Fuller.


"And when the advocates of a general atonement try to escape the implications of their position, they only contradict themselves.

"For instance, the great J. R. Graves says that Christ "did not pay the debt each sinner owes to divine law, else each one will be saved;

for the law cannot, in justice, demand payment again of the sinner;"

and yet he (Andrew Fuller) says that Christ, by His death, "removed all legal and governmental obstructions" from the way of the salvation of all."



*Some may object to this representation.

"But this statement is proved true of their theory when they state that the death of Christ made the salvation of all possible;

that it removed every legal obstacle from the way of salvation of all men.

"If He did this for all, what more did He do for any?

"If He removed every legal obstacle from the way of salvation of all, then He satisfied the law of them.

"He did not do more than this for anybody."

 

Probably similar to Scottsdale is this from:

Arthur Pink - Wikipedia

"Whether because of his Calvinistic views, his nearly incredible studiousness, his weakened health, or his lack of sociability, Pink left Spartanburg in 1919 believing that God would "have me give myself to writing."[11]

[11] =
The Life of Arthur W. Pink