Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

Sorry. It's a test for us aging fellows. (I'm on an iPhone - all looks the same to me)

 

That Christ is an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, sent by the Father to redeem those who are His chosen people…this says that Christ died for no one?

That the elect alone are redeemed by the work of Christ, and that those who are cut off have no excuse because of this work means that Christ died for no one?

You are going to have to explain this, I’m not sure of your logic. Unless it is simply stating that for Christ to have been an atoning sacrifice for the sin of man (corporately and leaving off the atonement for the sins of those who would believe) is atonement in its entirety. Then I’d agree - atonement would have been for no one (but that isn't the argument).

But that would be like me arguing that you are all incorrect because you are stating that men are saved without faith, and that the Resurrection is actually not relevant to redemption simply because you spoke of the Christ’s death alone (which I am not actually claiming because it is a false assumption).

Calvin and Luther, who are not simply and bluntly amiss in regard to logic (although they, like me, may be in error), offered the same explanation of 1 John 2:2. You may be correct, but if so, the conclusion is not simply and bluntly amiss – it is in need of correction.

The more I think about it, you’re right in a way. Christ’s death, apart from the resurrection, would still be the same death and He would still be God – but the faith that we have would be worthless and we would still be in our sins (actually, Paul said as much). So, in that sense, it would be for no actual person per se, only an added condemnation to all who couldn’t fulfill the requirements of God (all of us). But – again, that’s not the argument.

 

I actually agree with those who claim that definite or limited redemption is a better term (and I agree with that usage). It clarifies "limited atonement" to mean what you are stating.

 

Aaron,

Have you noticed that you tend not to answer any of the questions that are presented to you, but rather continue only to evaluate other aspects of the post?

Spurgeon stated the flaw correctly when he identified those who puff up one biblical truth to the point that it covers everything while ignoring others.

 

Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:22).
The gospel is that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15)
He was delivered over to death for our sins (Romans 4:25)
Yes, Aaron. We disagree. I do firmly believe that Christ died for our sins. He is the propitiation for our sins – in that, He died to save sinners – specifically, He died to save those would by grace believe.

To be accurate, you are misrepresenting the comment. This statement was made by John the Baptist, at the start of Christ’s ministry, identifying Him as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Yes, that is precisely what atonement means. It does not mean that all sinners will be saved – it is foolish of you to imply that it does or that that is the context in which I presented it. It is descriptive and precisely illustrates the nature of Christ as an atoning sacrifice.

I am confident that Christ died for my sin (1 Jn 2:22; 1 Cor 15:1-4; Rom 4:25).

The difference is that I believe the work of Christ has for its ultimate purpose the glorification of God – not merely the salvation of people. Your interpretation of Scripture is very much grounded in God’s choice to elect a particular people. Perhaps the problem is that you derive your understanding of Scripture from your theology rather than deriving your theology from Scripture. I see election as God accomplishing His purpose – His choosing a people for His glory.

 

I don’t know about intelligent or articulate, but I did consider myself a reasonable fellow until I came to this board.

It has become very apparent that many here argue what they do not know. They may be well versed in their own understanding, but they cannot (or will not) acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposing view. The problem is that not only are they unable to actually engage another’s position, but they also cannot validate their own theology in light of this opposition.

For example, the reason I reject libertarian free will has absolutely nothing to do with my view of election or predestination, but my understanding of Scripture. I would not, however, ascribe libertarian free will to the Arminian or Wesleyan view of free will. I may respectfully disagree with their view of free will, but this is because I have taken the time to understand their position which is both logical and based upon Scripture. Too many people hold beliefs which may be true but are to them in reality superstitions because they have no understanding of what they believe.

Although differing in conclusions, Calvin, Luther, and Arminius held Scripture in high regard. They were careful not to allow their theological perspectives dictate their understanding of Scripture but instead to derive their beliefs from the biblical text. This can be seen in Luther’s treatment of atonement and election – he accepts much, but leaves the reasoning to “mystery.” While it is impossible to completely remove all presuppositions from our exegesis, it is important to realize their existence and that there is always a potential for error.

 

Aaron,
I am not calling you foolish, but you have made a foolish statement.

This is an unfounded assumption. I would not argue that Christ died not for the people of all nations, but for the sins of the Jews only. That is ridiculous. We were not speaking of for whom Christ died, but whether or not it could be said that Christ died for sins rather than for people. You stated that Christ did not die for sin but for people. I said that He died for our sins.

You forgot to put in this statement “line up with my pattern and view of the law as applied to the gospel message and apart from covenant theory.”


But you are right about the crown molding part – I just buy those square blocks for the corners (kinda like your use of Calvinistic theology – hides quite a few imperfections).


I firmly believe that for one to hold a view one must understand the view which he holds. You do seem to understand what you believe, and I don’t want to be misunderstood to be indicating otherwise. But to debate another view you need have the ability to defend that opposing view in that you can understand that position within its foundational context. This is something that you cannot do and it is not correct for me to ask you to evaluate your view in contrast to another (you indicated that you will not examine the atonement in context of positions outside of your held theological perspective, which disqualifies your opinion outside of that context). That said, I do want to understand your position – and apart from a couple of issues I believe I do.

You have contributed to my understanding of this issue in two ways. First, you have corrected my statement that would have implied that the non-elect do not perish “in their sin.” My statement was poorly worded and indicated that I believed that the sins of the non-elect are actually atoned for (which I do not). Secondly, you have directed my references back to the Old Covenant (although we disagree on limiting its implications strictly to the Law).

Here are my questions.

You said:

I asked:

I thought that Calvinism taught that God is sovereign in all things and has chosen, from eternity, a particular people as His own particular possession. This is divine election. Whom God elected, He foreknew. This is more than a pre-knowledge, but an actual relationship – God knows and loves His chosen. Those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. (I know this is not what you believe Calvinism to hold - just stating my understanding before continuing).

Here’s my confusion. If Calvinism is based on predestination rather than God’s sovereign election, it gets all mixed up (here’s where I need your help to understand your point). Since Arminians believe that exactly the same as Calvinists regarding predestination (they disagree on the nature of election and perhaps foreknowledge, but as you say, predestination is the key) then Arminianism, like Amyraldianism, is just another form of Calvinism?

I still don’t understand your claim regarding Calvinism and predestination. It seems predestination predates Calvinism and there are many who believe predestination but are not considered Calvinists. (Martin Luther, James Arminius – for example. For a modern example Robert Picirilli comes to mind ). If you don’t mind, please explain your conclusion – I didn’t realize that Calvinism incorporated so many theories.

My current questions are:

1. If Christ was not an Atoning Sacrifice for sin, then how did He atone for sinners?

2. If it is not correct to state that Christ died for sin, how do you explain Scripture stating that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, that He died for our sins, that he was delivered over to death for our sins?

3. How do you reconcile biblical teachings regarding Gentile vs. Jewish condemnation? By this, I mean, how to you deal with those between Adam (who transgressed the command of God) and Moses (who received the Law)?


4. Why will the world be convicted because they don’t believe in Christ if Christ’s death was isolated specifically to the elect with no purposeful benefit to the non-elect (Jn 16:8-11)?