Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

Sufficiency has nothing to do with availability.

Permit me, please, to try another illustration.

Here is a hole in the ground. It is two cubic feet.

I have also a wheel barrel with three cubic feet of dirt.

Question: Is what I have in the wheel barrel SUFFICIENT to fill the hole?

Certainly.

Whether I EVER decide to put the dirt in the wheel barrel in the hole or not, it is more than sufficient to fill the whole.

It is not only POTENTIALLY sufficient; it is ACTUALLY sufficient.

It does not have to DO anything. It is by it's NATURE sufficient if it never comes within a mile of that hole.

Whether it meets the "need" of that whole or not has nothing to do with its sufficiency.

The hole's "need" has nothing to do with the dirt's sufficiency.

 

Luke?????????

 

I love sermonaudio. And I agree about worth as opposed to quantity.

 

It is the choice of God to not regenerate the unbeliever.

Of course by "choice" I do not mean that he had to consider between two option and then make an actual "choice." ;)

 

You tell me, but that doesn't answer my question...it just dodges it. :)

 

No brother, it doesn't dodge it. It just doesn't aquiesce to the options you provided.

 

Since Christ has died, do you believe that what impedes a non-elect man from being saved is:

1. His totally depraved nature, which God chose not to regenerate.

2. His need to have his sins atoned, which God chose not to atone.

3. All of the above

Better?

 

Answer: We don't know. We can't know.

Why did God choose the particular 12 to be His disciples and not some other group of 12? Don't know.

Why did God choose Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and not someone else? Don't know.

Why did God choose Abraham as the father of the Jews and not someone else? Don't know.

There is no way to answer your question because God hasn't told us why.

 

Correct...we are not always directly told.That is why we look to God as Aaron and others said .... He is all wise,and omniscient....so His Holy reasons and plan are the best of all possible choices.

Christ as our surety guarantees the terms of the covenant on behalf of the elect of God. He actually pays for our many sins against God's Holy law...even unbelief.
This guarantee Jesus our surety.....is actual...not potential.

 

I think he is asking it based on the pre-faith regeneration belief. Based on that understanding one of the answers must apply.

 

i would line up with a more "moderate" position, some say that was held by calvin himself...

Death of Jesus on the Cross is sufficient/worth enough to be able to have provoded that ALL sins could have been atoned for by His death, but that ONLY those whom God has chosen to effectually apply it towards receive its merit/benefits though!

the Elect!

 

Right there exposes differences between a cal and an arm on this...

Arms would say that its unbelief/rejection of Christ causing one to not have atonement by God...

cals would say that we are already in state of seperation before God, sin nature has damned us already before rejecting jesus, and that is just why God MUST save any who will get saved directly!

 

. . . it is unscriptural to say that Christ acted for those who were not in Him.

Christ did act as a representative; and what He did secured with certainty the benefits of his work for those for whom He acted. This being conceded, it of course follows that He acted as the representative and substitute of those only who are ultimately to be saved.

He himself, however, says expressly, “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heareth always, and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not actually receive the benefits of his redemption.

​

Provide the quote.

Wrong again. Your anticalvinist blinders are tripping you up. You think of the law as one might think of a beast, indiscriminately enraged and combative when hungry but indiscriminately passive and docile when well-fed.

It is a weight and standard, and each one confronted thereby must measure up. One who measures up does not satisfy it for another, unless there is a union with him--unless he is in him, and it's this union that is offered to all freely, but only entered into through faith.

That is what Hodge meant when he said no man perishes for want of an atonement.

A thirdgrader could see this, but, alas, it dodges every one of your attempts of apprehension.

 

That is about intent ('for those'), not the nature of the atonement. You still aren't getting his argument.

Again, he is arguing for the design or intent, not the nature of the atonement. He was speaking of the nature of the atonement when he wrote, "What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all...He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." -C. Hodge

So what does that say about you? :laugh:​

 

Aaron, I think I remember you quoted Muller a few times, so maybe you can understand him and respect him enough to actually understand this point:

“There has been some scholarly disagreement on this issue–and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between ‘Calvin’ and the ‘Calvinists,’ ...
The terms ‘universal’ and ‘limited atonement’ do not represent the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed view–or, for that matter, the view of its opponents. The issue was not over ‘atonement,’ broadly understood, but over ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate was never over whether or not Christ’s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective or efficient only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those who were saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ’s work for the faithful alone–and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only. In other words, the inference of a limitation of the efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect alone is found both in Bullinger and in Calvin, despite differences between their formulations of the doctrine of predestination. (Richard Muller, After Calvin, 14).​

 

All Hodge is saying is that even though the law was satisfied only on the behalf of Christ's elect, the nonelect are justly invited to partake, because what was required to save one subset of humanity is all that is required to save them all. Hodge in no way stated, and neither can it be inferred, that the demands of the law are satisfied on the behalf of the unfaithful. They have no substitute, though one is being offered them.

You're making it sound like Hodge was saying that Christ was the substitute for all men, and that the law was satisfied on the behalf of all men. He isn't saying that, and it wasn't. You are of the thinking that Hodge refuted at length. You're thinking of one's duty to the law as a debt, and once that debt is paid then the law is no longer making a demand of anyone.

That is not how Hodge presents it, and he took great pains to deliver it from that assumption.

The law is not a creditor, it is a standard of measurement. It isn't like it met Christ and said, "Oh, there you are. Finally I'm warmed, fed and satisfied. I can go home now. I'm not going to stand in anyone's way." It met Christ, and said, "You are worthy. All blessings are yours." And because Christ is bearing the names of the Children of Israel, the elect, on his breast, the law is meeting Reuben in Christ, and it says, "Reuben is worthy, Simeon is worthy, Judah is worthy, etc."

But when it meets Eliphaz or Reuel, it says, "You are not worthy. A curse upon you." Why? Because Christ did not bear the names of the sons of Esau on his breast. And so the law still pronounces its judgment upon all who are not in Christ.

However, just as Jacob and Esau were brothers, and just as Esau did receive a blessing from Isaac, though not on par with that of Jacob, so the nonelect receive a blessing and benefit of the work of Christ, and that blessing is that they to are invited to unite themselves with Christ. They will, however, consider that birthright an unholy thing, and reject it, and they will do so on their own volition, and having rejected that union, they will meet the law, and it will say, "You are not worthy. A curse upon you."

Your presentation is altogether different, and it takes us back to my initial appraisal of your view of the work of Christ. He saved no one. He simply levelled the playing field so that the one thing that is required is one's own faith, and this he does on his own. Your presentation is Christ plus, and, try as you might to find some ground of orthodoxy for your view in Calvinism, you search Hodge and others in vain.

 

I'll leave you with Muller's quote:

The issue was not over ‘atonement,’ broadly understood, but over ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate was never over whether or not Christ’s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective or efficient only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those who were saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all...

According to Muller, this was written to address "some scholarly disagreement on this issue–and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between ‘Calvin’ and the ‘Calvinists.'"

In your own words, Aaron, can you explain that difference, that wedge, that he is referring to? Can you explain the root of the controversy with the "Princeton Theologians" in you own words? Because you seem to want you cake and eat it too by acting as if all Calvinists everywhere take the exact same approach as you do. You don't even notice it but you have already started shifting you language about the atonement after studying up on Hodge. You aren't treating it as if its a payment of certain individual debt, as if Christ's blood was split just so much for so many, as you once did. I don't hear your argument that Christ blood would be wasted if it satisfied divine justice for all mankind anymore. I think you are starting to see the distinction, but so badly want to win a debate that your aren't quite ready to admit you see it.

 

Aaron,

Also notice his statement: "the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice." This has been my point all along.

What do Calvinist believe LIMITS the number of those saved? What is the GROUND of the LIMITATION? Classical Calvinists placed the limitations on man's nature (his unwillingness to believe) NOT the lack of satisfaction for divine justice. People go to hell BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO LOVE THE TRUTH AND SO BE SAVED, not because Christ didn't satisfy the legal impediments. If what you BELIEVE is true then there are two limiting factors: man's unwillingness (his totally depraved nature) AND God's unwillingness to satisfy the legal demand. Hodge and others argument is that there is no basis on which to make a genuine appeal for reconciliation if the satisfaction is not available to all.

I say 'satisfaction' because the word 'atonement' is too often associated with salvation itself and many can't draw the distinction.

 

1. All I have ever read of Hodge I read for my interaction in this thread. I have no vested interest in him or in appearing to agree with him. I simply have a high degree of reading comprehension, and I found he was saying something altogether different than your presentation of him.

2. The Muller I've read and quoted is George Muller, and I am not acquainted any other. However, from what I've read of Calvin, I can say that your Muller is all wet. (Either that or your comprehension of him.)

3. My theological views were not shaped by reading Calvin. The most influential men were Luther, Spurgeon and Henry. However, it was the systematic and devout study of the Scriptures that formed my view.

4. If one wants to quibble about the meaning of the word Atonement, then then one need only follow your example of theological promiscuity.

According to the Scriptures, Atonement is whole, complete and purifying reconciliation with God. And that's all that matters.