Atonement and early the Reformed

[JonC]

“At this day we are slandered of malicious men with a new crime that is fained against us, as though we should suddenly deny that Christ died for all men. An impudent reproach. For according to the Scriptures we also confess the same, but we deny that there upon it follows that all mankind without exception of anyone, are by the death of Christ indeed justified, saved, and restored unto the bosom of grace, having received the pardon of their sins."

“Therefore comparing matter with matter, and cause with cause, let us begin at the state of the controversy. The question is: ‘Whether Christ suffered for the redemption of all, or not?’ Here straight away those men cry out, that the Calvinists raging against the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, do openly deny that he died for the sins of the world. Again, that the Calvinists both dissemblingly and plainly deny, that Christ suffered and died for all men.

But in the very entrance they run on ground, fastening as a false opinion, against which afterwards they perpetually fight. For we willingly acknowledge these manner of speeches: ‘That Christ is made the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and has given himself the price of redemption for all men.’ For who can deny that, which the Scripture would have to be expressed in so many words? But the question is the meaning of the words. For as he shall not escape the note of impudency, who shall deny what the Scripture expresses: so we are to take heed, lest not understanding what is written, we should think there is some repugnance of the Scripture.”

“He tasted death not for the faithful only, but for the whole world. For albeit all are not saved in very deed, yet he wrought that which was his part to do it. See how it does not follow, that if Christ died for all, all are straightway saved, which is the divinity of Huberus."

(Jacob Kimedoncius, 1598)

 

[Yeshua1]

“At this day we are slandered of malicious men with a new crime that is fained against us, as though we should suddenly deny that Christ died for all men. An impudent reproach. For according to the Scriptures we also confess the same, but we deny that there upon it follows that all mankind without exception of anyone, are by the death of Christ indeed justified, saved, and restored unto the bosom of grace, having received the pardon of their sins."

“Therefore comparing matter with matter, and cause with cause, let us begin at the state of the controversy. The question is: ‘Whether Christ suffered for the redemption of all, or not?’ Here straight away those men cry out, that the Calvinists raging against the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, do openly deny that he died for the sins of the world. Again, that the Calvinists both dissemblingly and plainly deny, that Christ suffered and died for all men.

But in the very entrance they run on ground, fastening as a false opinion, against which afterwards they perpetually fight. For we willingly acknowledge these manner of speeches: ‘That Christ is made the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and has given himself the price of redemption for all men.’ For who can deny that, which the Scripture would have to be expressed in so many words? But the question is the meaning of the words. For as he shall not escape the note of impudency, who shall deny what the Scripture expresses: so we are to take heed, lest not understanding what is written, we should think there is some repugnance of the Scripture.”

“He tasted death not for the faithful only, but for the whole world. For albeit all are not saved in very deed, yet he wrought that which was his part to do it. See how it does not follow, that if Christ died for all, all are straightway saved, which is the divinity of Huberus."

(Jacob Kimedoncius, 1598)

Again, if His death was not intended to save all sinners, how would God have jesus death being for all men though?

 

[JonC]

Again, if His death was not intended to save all sinners, how would God have jesus death being for all men though?

I have no problem reconciling the two aspects, and it appears it was not an issue for some of our forefathers in the faith. Your problem here is that you limit your understanding to a twentieth century flower. Read the op, no one is saying Christ died to effect the salvation of the world.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no problem reconciling the two aspects, and it appears it was not an issue for some of our forefathers in the faith. Your problem here is that you limit your understanding to a twentieth century flower. Read the op, no one is saying Christ died to effect the salvation of the world.

The most biblcal way around that would seem to be holding to the 4 point calvinist view, tht God indeed had Jesus die for all men, but he also knew sinners cannot receive the effects of that death unles he granted them the grace first to repent and believe onto Him ...

That is if one rejects the view of limited atonement...

 

[JonC]

The most biblcal way around that would seem to be holding to the 4 point calvinist view, tht God indeed had Jesus die for all men, but he also knew sinners cannot receive the effects of that death unles he granted them the grace first to repent and believe onto Him ...

That is if one rejects the view of limited atonement...

There is no need to "get around it." It is not based on divine knowledge (that would lean towards Arminianism), and the "obstacle" is not one of scripture. Calvinists affirm that securing salvation as a certainty for the elect was an object of Christ's death (from eternity past). This is reflected, BTW, at Dort, but a denial that Christ died for the sins of the world is not. It arose out of response, turned inward, and has apparently grown to the point some believe it foundational to Calvinism. The "L" speaks, or should speak, to the purpose of Christ's death towards the elect, not a denial of that death for the sins of the world...certainly not a lens through which we interpret Scripture. IMHO some Calvinists today minimize the Atonement too much, which is evident through Scripture and earlier Calvinistic writings. Why should I worry about getting around a doctrine that is neither biblical nor organic to Calvinistic soteriology?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The most biblcal way around that would seem to be holding to the 4 point calvinist view, tht God indeed had Jesus die for all men, but he also knew sinners cannot receive the effects of that death unles he granted them the grace first to repent and believe onto Him ...

That is if one rejects the view of limited atonement...

There is no 4 point view. All 5 points knit together. I have told you this before.:BangHead:

 

[JonC]

The most biblcal way around that would seem to be holding to the 4 point calvinist view, tht God indeed had Jesus die for all men, but he also knew sinners cannot receive the effects of that death unles he granted them the grace first to repent and believe onto Him ...

That is if one rejects the view of limited atonement...

Y1,

Perhaps I can explain more of my reasoning in this thread (now that I am not responding on the fly with an iPhone). It seems that many think if you believe Christ died for the sins of the world that you are somehow compromising or getting around a point of Calvinism. This simply is not true. Consider the following in addition to the initial post:

“And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.” (Calvin - John 3:16)

The Apostles taught that the son of God out of pure generosity did not so much pardon the sins of all as give himself up as an expiatory offering for all.” (Ulrich Zwingli)

“He bore all the wickedness and all the iniquities of the world.” (Calvin - Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy)

“there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, which gave himself a redemption and full satisfaction for all men.” (William Tyndale)

Calvin views the “many” of Matthew 26:28: “Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race.”
Muller noted concerning the Synod of Dort: the “views of Cameron and his Salmurian successors were not heresy and, like it or not, were consciously framed to stand within the confessionalism of Dort. (Richard Muller on Amyraut).”

“you know there are two sorts of such as oppose Arminianism. One that is the high sort, and the other the moderate sort …We that are of this sort, do hold Election to be of particular persons…But Redemption we hold to be universal.” (John Humfrey, 1692)

“By his incarnation he is of one nature with the human race, and so is the Head of them: and by his dying for them all the human race are made salvable, which angels are not; and those who repent and believe on him are actually sanctified and united to him, as his elect and chosen body.” (Obadiah Hughes)

“The Lord died for all: but all are not made partakers of this redemption” (Heinrich Bullinger)

“Is he a universal Redeemer? Yes: he gave himself a ransom for all. Did he die to purchase a general offer? Yes: the Son of man was lifted up, that whosoever believes in him should not perish. Is Christ in a special manner the Redeemer of the elect? Yes: I lay down my life for the sheep.” (Matthew Henry)

“…whereby Christ rose, was a great power; he lay under all the sins of mankind.” Richard Vines

Additionally, explore the Heidlegerg Catechism (1563).

My point here is not so much that Calvinism is in error for holding that “Christ did not die for the sins of the world” as much as it is that this insistence was initially as foreign to Calvinism as it is to Scripture. But you are right to point out that it is here (in this view of “Limited Atonement”) that I depart from “TULIP” as is often defined.

 

[JonC]

There is no 4 point view. All 5 points knit together. I have told you this before.:BangHead:

Exactly. As far as the "points" go, the understanding that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect and make their salvation a certainty is important. It falls in line, especially when we consider the sovereignty of God in election. Christ came to gather His own, those given Him. They, not the others, hear His voice. Otherwise I think you are left with some type of "election" after the Cross. Denying, however, that Christ also died for the sins world is another matter altogether. It is not only a corruption of Scripture, but when it is insisted upon it is a corruption of Calvinistic soteriology (it is not what classic Calvinism taught...they were a bit more into Scripture I guess, no TV and all :smilewinkgrin. But we do need to recognize the particular element of the Atonement to the elect. I just don't think we need to minimize the Cross to the extent we ignore other aspects taught in the Bible.

 

[Rippon]

the understanding that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect and make their salvation a certainty is important. It falls in line, especially when we consider the sovereignty of God in election. Christ came to gather His own, those given Him. They, not the others, hear His voice.

So far --so good. But you go south in the next section.

Denying, however, that Christ also died for the sins world is another matter altogether. It is not only a corruption of Scripture...

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth there Jon. Or mabe we could say --a forked-tongue. You are saying yea, yea and nah, nay at the same time. yOu are trying to walk a tighrope but end up in simple contradiction.

But we do need to recognize the particular element of the Atonement to the elect. I just don't think we need to minimize the Cross to the extent we ignore other aspects taught in the Bible.

And that last section of your post is puzzling. What aspects, pray tell, are being minimized? You speak in riddles -- are you buddies with EW&F, by any chance? ;-)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So far --so good. But you go south in the next section.

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth there Jon. Or mabe we could say --a forked-tongue. You are saying yea, yea and nah, nay at the same time. yOu are trying to walk a tighrope but end up in simple contradiction.

And that last section of your post is puzzling. What aspects, pray tell, are being minimized? You speak in riddles -- are you buddies with EW&F, by any chance? ;-)

Well Jon has served his nation.....I will give him that. How bout you?

 

[Rippon]

Well Jon has served his nation.....I will give him that. How bout you?

Hi Sat/Nep.

What in the world does your remark have to do with anything in the post you quoted? Hmmm...?

Focus, focus....

 

[JonC]

So far --so good. But you go south in the next section.

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth there Jon. Or mabe we could say --a forked-tongue. You are saying yea, yea and nah, nay at the same time. yOu are trying to walk a tighrope but end up in simple contradiction.

And that last section of your post is puzzling. What aspects, pray tell, are being minimized? You speak in riddles -- are you buddies with EW&F, by any chance? ;-)

Other than colorfully saying that you believe I am wrong…which was your obvious sentiment before this post…you don’t really seem to offer anything in reply.

But no, I am not saying yea, yea and nah, nah at the same time. I'm saying yea to both the idea that Christ died for the sins of the human race and that His death secured/made certain the salvation of the elect. I offered Scripture in support of my belief that the Cross is a basis of condemnation for the world. I also offer all of those passages which speaks of Christ dying for the world (which you, I am confident, accept…but with a differing definition of “whole world,” “all,” “world,” etc.). So no need to really copy all of that here. All you offer is…well, quite frankly and to paraphrase your comments: ”I don’t understand what you are saying so you are wrong.” That is not even an attempt at rebuttal…just an opinionated and childish outburst.

The point of the OP, however, was not the correctness of your "limited atonement" view, but that your view is not what was historically defined as the Calvinistic view of the Atonement. And you tell EW&F to "focus."

 

[JonC]

Well Jon has served his nation.....I will give him that. How bout you?

Side note...I just realized that today is my last day of officially being on active duty. Tomorrow I'm a retiree.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Side note...I just realized that today is my last day of officially being on active duty. Tomorrow I'm a retiree.

Got a job lined up?

 

[JonC]

Got a job lined up?

Yes. I started my first day on leave. No rest for the weary ;-).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes. I started my first day on leave. No rest for the weary ;-).

Oh....you must be married.:laugh:

 

[JonC]

Oh....you must be married.:laugh:

:thumbs::thumbs: You got it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Other than colorfully saying that you believe I am wrong…which was your obvious sentiment before this post…you don’t really seem to offer anything in reply.

But no, I am not saying yea, yea and nah, nah at the same time. I'm saying yea to both the idea that Christ died for the sins of the human race and that His death secured/made certain the salvation of the elect. I offered Scripture in support of my belief that the Cross is a basis of condemnation for the world. I also offer all of those passages which speaks of Christ dying for the world (which you, I am confident, accept…but with a differing definition of “whole world,” “all,” “world,” etc.). So no need to really copy all of that here. All you offer is…well, quite frankly and to paraphrase your comments: ”I don’t understand what you are saying so you are wrong.” That is not even an attempt at rebuttal…just an opinionated and childish outburst.

The point of the OP, however, was not the correctness of your "limited atonement" view, but that your view is not what was historically defined as the Calvinistic view of the Atonement. And you tell EW&F to "focus."

Wasn't the limited atonement view though accepted as being de facto what the Bible teaches regarding the intent of the death of Christ to atone for sinners though?

 

[JonC]

Wasn't the limited atonement view though accepted as being de facto what the Bible teaches regarding the intent of the death of Christ to atone for sinners though?

No, it was not. And that’s my point. I know this is a bit down the line from the Reformers, but look at the Canons of Dort. The “Five Main Points” are not really as simplistic as the summary many would uphold represent them to be.

“The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called.”

What was presented at the Synod of Dort based the state of the elect and reprobate on God’s eternal decree. But it goes further and speaks of the difference being the work of God drawing (God “softens the hearts, however hard, of the elect and inclines them to believe, but by a just judgment God leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen”).

“Limited Atonement” that denies Christ’s death for the sins of all humanity is absent from earlier Reformed thought. Not only do the Canons of Dort imply that Christ died for the sins of the human race, but the Heidelberg Catechism explicitly states it. Add to it the doctrine of Calvin and Zwingli that Christ's death for the human race is a source of condemnation for the reprobate.

Think of what our forefathers believed: "Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice he might deliver us [the elect] body and soul from eternal condemnation." How far is your understanding of TULIP from what it claims to represent?

http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort
(BTW, the Heidelberg Catechism is also on that site).

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it was not. And that’s my point. I know this is a bit down the line from the Reformers, but look at the Canons of Dort. The “Five Main Points” are not really as simplistic as the summary many would uphold represent them to be.

“The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called.”

What was presented at the Synod of Dort based the state of the elect and reprobate on God’s eternal decree. But it goes further and speaks of the difference being the work of God drawing (God “softens the hearts, however hard, of the elect and inclines them to believe, but by a just judgment God leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen”).

“Limited Atonement” that denies Christ’s death for the sins of all humanity is absent from earlier Reformed thought. How does your "summary" (TULIP as presented by many) stack up to what it was supposedly summarizing? Not only do the Canons of Dort imply that Christ died for the sins of the human race, but the Heidelberg Catechism explicitly states it.

http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort

So when was limited atonement view codified as being the standard view to be held then?