1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Feb 8, 2012.

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

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It's hard to imagine that you can misconstrue something as badly as you do here, yet you can read road signs well enough that some state somewhere has granted you a driver's license (but that's govmint for ya). Better than I have shown that you're all wet in your reading of Hodge. I could sooner teach my dog to read.

    But even so, who cares about Hodge? I appeal to the true Schoolmaster. The law. And you will not find Egypt represented on the Day of Atonement. No aspect of the offering is effectual for them, whether it's the satisfaction of the law, nor the forgiveness of their sins.
     
  2. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist

    “pompous windbag” sounds British enough – so I guess it counts. :laugh:
     
    #62 JonC, Feb 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2012
  3. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :love2::love2:
     
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Aaron,

    In all seriousness, while we do probably agree regarding doctrine, I don’t know that you have presented your claims in a favorable light.

    Here are the points you make that I have problems with:

    1. You state that the Calvinistic belief is derived from a belief in predestination which, if true, makes no logical sense as your belief places predestination in place of the divine decree of election and bases election and atonement on predestination.

    2. You present Calvinism as the only method that accepts the Law as a foreshadow of Christ’s work on the cross and that others who claim to do so are either misstating their position or they are Calvinists. (This is a gratuitous claim - it’s meaningless and speaks more of you than of Calvinism or alternate positions).

    3. Your picture of Calvinism holds that the Law is the true Schoolmaster regarding the actual doctrines of salvation. This takes liberties with Paul’s comments regarding the Law as a schoolmaster, or tutor, to lead us to Christ so that we may be justified by faith.

    4. Your defense of Calvinism ascribes to other positions a Calvinistic view of atonement to show their treatment of atonement does not fit with biblical doctrine (this ascribes a level of dishonesty in Calvinism). - It is actually the reason I started the thread – I had difficulty with understanding the Calvinistic view of atonement and wanted to make sure that I wasn't ascribing to Calvinistic atonement a definition that was foregin to Calvinism.
     
  5. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, I said we're called Calvinists because we believe in Predestination. One could reject 99% of Calvin's doctrines, yet if he held to Predestination, he would be called a Calvinist. On this side of the Big Pond, anyway. Not sure about the custom on the other side.

    More accurately, I said if one recognized what Christ accomplished on the Cross within the contruct of the Law, he would be a Calvinist. One may entertain the notion that an offering was made for sin, but that is a far cry from recognizing it's nature, scope and effect within the construct of the law.

    The Atonement foreshadowed in the law is indeed limited in every aspect to the elect.

    That's not exactly what I said, but that is a true statement in so much that the Law is a witness to the verity of the doctrines delivered by the Apostles. I would cite the account of the Bereans, and Paul's statement in Hebrews that the Gospel was preached to the congregation in the wilderness as well as to us.

    I think you unduly limit Paul's comments, and the scope of the law. The law's weakness was not in it's subject matter, but in its power.

    You and I have differing definitions of Calvinism. That's the source of your confusion. For my part, I am not interested in any view of the Atonement that isn't biblical. I am called a Calvinist because I believe in Predestination, but you will find me citing Paul, Christ and the Law, more than I cite anyone else.
     
  6. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1. But Arminians also believe in predestination. Their disagreement is in the basis of that predestination. Are Arminians Calvinists too? I didn’t even mention Calvin – maybe you should change the name to Predestinism.

    2. Still a gratuitous statement.

    3. I see what you are saying regarding the Law as a schoolmaster – I just think that it stretches the meaning to incorporate more than is said.

    4. You are correct that I view Calvinism that finds its soteriological basis in predestination confusing.

    This is my confusion on #4. 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?
     
  7. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When we speak of the extent of the atonement, are we saying that Christ is the atonement in that He provided an atonement for our sins, or that He is the atonement as He is the atoning sacrifice (the Lamb)?

    I believe both statements are true, but in terms of limited vs universal atonement – which aspect are we dealing with (the atoning sacrifice, or the atonement of the Sacrifice)?
     
  8. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would it help if you understood that arminianism is a branch-off from calvinism?
     
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Looking past your ad hominem attacks, lets consider the FACTS:

    You said, "He did not satisfy the law for them. The law, which is against them, still pronounces them guilty and imposes a curse upon them."

    In contrast Hodge says,
    And other Princeton Scholars of the same ilk as Hodge say even more clearly...

    And he even addresses your eroneous point regarding the "guilt."

    And AA Hodge sticks it right back to you as clear as it can be stated:

    Now, can you affirm with these Calvinistic Princeton theologians that the legal impediments of the law have been removed, or not? Are you going to stick with your claims that the law hasn't been satisfied for them? Just admit this has been a point of debate among those in your camp historically, and you are either unaware of it, or unwilling to admit you might be at odds with one of your own. And instead of objectively recognizing that distinction, acknowledging it and showing why you disagree with Hodge and these others, you choose to attack the messenger with quips and demeaning comments revealing more about your character and your lack of education on this subject.
     
    #69 Skandelon, Feb 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2012
  10. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Don,

    No, it wouldn’t. I know that Arminius sought to reform Calvinism. If I remember correctly, it was an inability to defend against the problem of evil that spurred his concern (I may be wrong, but it seems like that was the spark).

    I understand predestination in relation to Calvinism and Arminianism. I didn’t quite get this comment:


    I’m really only trying to understand atonement within the limited position. (I keep getting side tracked)

    My question was:

    When we speak of the extent of the atonement, are we saying that Christ is the atonement in that He provided an atonement for our sins, or that He is the atonement as He is the atoning sacrifice (the Lamb)?

    I believe both statements are true, but in terms of limited vs universal atonement – which aspect are we dealing with (the atoning sacrifice, or the atonement of the Sacrifice)?
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, I also thought it would be a good reminder for those following along with us that Aaron already admitted to not being in agreement with Hodge and the other Princeton Theologians. You can see that HERE>>>>>

    Remember that Aaron?

    So, just curious, do you have a driver's license? :laugh:
     
  12. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think what you're asking can't be answered with a straightforward answer. Limited atoned says that both statements are true; but adds to the two statements by adding the condition that only those who believe are covered by the atonement for sins/atoning sacrifice.

    Universal, however, has to be further defined. Universalists, as I understand them, say that both statements are true, and that everyone is covered by both statements. Unless someone wants to further define universalism in a different way.
     
  13. Forest

    Forest New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    4
    Eph 2:8, The "faith" is not our faith but the faith of Jesus, Gal 2:16. Acts 16:16, The "saved" in this verse is not eternally saved but a timely salvation (deliverance). When we are baptised we are delivered from a guilty conscience. 1 Pet 3:21, Even baptism doth also now save us by the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is a like figure of Moses being delivered from the flood and not eternally delivered from this present evil world.
     
  14. Forest

    Forest New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    4
    The natural man has no desire to accept the truth or any other thing that is of a spiritual nature, 1 Cor 2:16.
     
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Forest, please try to stay on topic. You comments seem completely unrelated to the context of the thread or the quotes to which you are responding. Thank you.
     
  16. Forest

    Forest New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't know why there is so much confusion about who Christ died for. It seems very clear in John 6:37-41 that he died only for those that his Father gave him and that he will not lose one of them but raise them all up at the last day. Those that he gave to his Son were those that he choose before the foundation of the world, Eph 1.
     
  17. Forest

    Forest New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    4
    The non-elect which are the natural man will never choose to serve a spiritual God, 1 Cor 2:14.
     
  18. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    Forest, I think you've been on topic and have answered well. I appreciate your stand. :thumbsup:
     
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Even Calvinistic scholars are known to say that Christ died for all, but not equally. Some are discussing the manner in which Christ did die for the non-elect. There are many various views on the atonement even within the two soteriological camps, so it may not be quite as simple as you seem to think. :)
     
  20. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree with the Scriptures. When one brought a sin offering, he also brought a guilt offering. His evil state of existence is remedied in the sin offering, and the consequences of his particular act of sin, which is known by the law, are remedied in the guilt offering.

    The Edomite could bring neither, and the Israelite was compelled to bring both.

    You have a history of wrenching not only the Scriptures, but the words of men out of their contexts. I've seen you taken to task by better men than I am on that. So I will ask for a citation to the entire works of these Princeton Theologians before I say whether or not I agree with them. But will definitely say that I disagree with what you are making them appear to say. To assert that one aspect of Christ's atonement is universally applied to the elect and non-elect alike, but that other aspects are special is to betray a fundamental ignorance of the Atonement as laid out for our view in the law.

    But more than that, it is a dry and barren understanding of the relation between Christ and His church, the Groom and His bride. Just as a man and wife have all things in common, so we have all things in common with Christ. His righteousness is ours, and our sins are His. His rewards are ours and our punishments are His. His satisfaction of the law is ours, but no one else's.

    To state the legal satisfaction of the law on one's behalf is something that exists apart from one's union with Christ is like saying your wife is also legally mine, and that the only thing that stands in my way of asserting my nuptial rights is my own notions of it . . . [​IMG] and a very Scandal-ous thing to state it is.
     
    #80 Aaron, Feb 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...