The 4-point Calvinist's position - Nearer truth than full Calvinism or Arminianism?

[Marvin Knox]

Some of us who believe in many of the concepts expressed in Calvinism reject the "limited atonement" view as usually expressed in the expounding of the meaning of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym.

We would point out that the acronym itself can only be traced to the early 1900's and no further back than that. The "limited atonement" concept as usually presented by full 5 point Calvinists is not the position held by the Cannons of Dort in article 8 ( The Canons of Dordt, Second Head of Doctrine ) or the Westminster Confession of Faith in paragraph 4 of chapter 11 ( Westminster Confession of Faith ).

Nor is it the position held by many staunch "Calvinists" such as Charles Spurgeon or indeed John Calvin himself. http://www.christianforums.com/t7824527-2/ see post #19 and also post #23 on the next page of the thread.

I have my own ways of approaching this (IMO) mistaken doctrine. But, rather than writing a whole page on it, I will submit this brief paper as fairly representative of the 4 point position.

Any comments on the following, perhaps less than perfect, article (after looking at the above references first)?

http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Ware.-Extent-of-the-Atonement.pdf

Let's not lapse into side arguments here please.

Some would probably be of the opinion that this would be better off over in the "reformed" section of the forum. But I put it here because I want to perhaps create a sort of bridge between the often warring factions here in this forum.

It is my personal view that, once the erroneous hard line position concerning "limited atonement") is corrected, a more civil discussion can be had on the other points of Calvinism. (We'll see how that goes. )

My view is that hard line limited atonement proponents do much harm by the way they present the concept of the atonement.

 

[nobdysfool]

I am of the opinion that the Atonement is unlimited in principle (meaning that it is more than sufficient to save 100% of humanity), but limited in its actuality, that is, the end result. It is available to all without limitation, but it is only effective for those whom God has called inwardly. None others will come. It is not limited in its efficacy, it is limited in its outcome. God does not prevent anyone from availing themselves of His provision of Grace in the Atonement, but unless He first draws them to Himself, they will not come.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I am of the opinion that the Atonement is unlimited in principle (meaning that it is more than sufficient to save 100% of humanity), but limited in its actuality, that is, the end result. It is available to all without limitation, but it is only effective for those whom God has called inwardly. None others will come. It is not limited in its efficacy, it is limited in its outcome. God does not prevent anyone from availing themselves of His provision of Grace in the Atonement, but unless He first draws them to Himself, they will not come.

That is my position as well.

If only that was all being said by 5-pointers you and I would have no disagreement with them. But, unfortunately that isn't what they mean by limited atonement.

What they mean by limited atonement is not only offensive to Arminians, who would disagree with some of our positions as well as 5-pointer positions no doubt. It is offensive as well to many (like myself) who agree with them on the sovereignty of God in salvation.

 

[James Is Back]

Isn't limited atonement and double predestination synonymous with each other?

 

[sdowney717]

Here is a good read on 4 vs 5 point Calvinism.
What is Amyraldism / Four-Point Calvinism?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Isn't limited atonement and double predestination synonymous with each other?

I don't think it correct to use the word synonymous. But the end effects are the same for people. That's for sure.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Here is a good read on 4 vs 5 point Calvinism.
What is Amyraldism / Four-Point Calvinism?

That is a good read and one I have read before.

It is obviously written from the 5-point position. It makes some of the mistakes in logic that most 5-pointer do. Those unwarranted jumps in logic are the same ones that are responsible for the framing of limited atonement as understood by most 5-pointers.

To wit - they fail not just to account for their being in the same unsaved boat as the devil himself before justification by faith (even having had their sins atoned for in A.D. 30 something). They also fail to account that all things in this age will find their final destination in Christ in eternity whether those things be sinful or righteous.

The question might well be whether things are at one with God on the throne with the resurrected reigning Christ or in Hell with the crucified Christ who bears the sins of the entire world and the corresponding wrath of God.

Regarding the fact that even the elect are the enemies of God for a period of time before being justified and after having their sins atoned for - 5-pointers make the unwarranted assumption that a man can find himself in that position for 90 some years of his life up until his deathbed conversion and not one moment longer - certainly not for eternity.

I disagree.

We don't know how these things work. I don't claim to know how any of these things will look in eternity. But then I don't have to know for sure. If I can come up with just one possible scenario where men can suffer with Christ as He suffers for their sins - the entire assumption based formulation for strict limited atonement becomes mere conjecture.

If Christ could truly weep in sorrow and love over a sinful and unbelieving Jerusalem while He was on earth - He can do the same over them for eternity as He bears their sins even as they join Him in Hell.

Again - I don't claim to know how things will look in eternity. I don't have any inside track on the eternal relationship of the Son with the Father. I just don't like people thinking that they do and making tortured interpretations of scriptures based on that assumption - which may well be wrong.

Better to leave it at what the Scriptures say and no more.

IMO, the Scriptures say that Christ died for the sins of all men and if they will but believe it they will be saved. Limited atonement denies what 4-pointers like myself and all Arminians and free willers of all stripes hold as sacred truth.

 

[EmSw]

Some of us who believe in many of the concepts expressed in Calvinism reject the "limited atonement" view as usually expressed in the expounding of the meaning of the T.U.L.I.P. acronym.

I have my own ways of approaching this (IMO) mistaken doctrine. But, rather than writing a whole page on it, I will submit this brief paper as fairly representative of the 4 point position.

So, you agree, some Calvinists, or the elect, have mistaken doctrines. Did God give them these mistaken doctrines? Did they conjure them up themselves?

Did God deceive some to believe to believe mistaken doctrines? I find John Calvin had no problem calling God a deceiver.

"God is the author of that action which is sinful by His irresistible will! God produces adultery, cursing, lying. He supplies wicked men with opportunities of sinning and inclines their hearts thereto. He blinds, deceives and seduces them. He, by His working on their hearts, bends and stirs them up to do evil. And thus thieves, murderers and other malefactors are God's instruments which He uses to execute what He hath decreed in Himself."
(John Calvin, Calvin Institutes, b. 1, c. 17, s. 5.)

Marvin, you don't need to respond. I find it strange God would give lies to any of His elect. Once you abandon free-will, you can't get around putting God in a 'bind'. But once a foundation isn't laid with the truth of Jesus' words, the builders have to manipulate the building to where they can present it as habitable.

Personally, I think Calvin had a false foundation, thus having to pervert his view of God so others might think God's building is habitable, as anyone can read above.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So, you agree, some Calvinists, or the elect, have mistaken doctrines. Did God give them these mistaken doctrines? Did they conjure them up themselves?

Did God deceive some to believe to believe mistaken doctrines? I find John Calvin had no problem calling God a deceiver.

"God is the author of that action which is sinful by His irresistible will! God produces adultery, cursing, lying. He supplies wicked men with opportunities of sinning and inclines their hearts thereto. He blinds, deceives and seduces them. He, by His working on their hearts, bends and stirs them up to do evil. And thus thieves, murderers and other malefactors are God's instruments which He uses to execute what He hath decreed in Himself."
(John Calvin, Calvin Institutes, b. 1, c. 17, s. 5.)

Marvin, you don't need to respond. I find it strange God would give lies to any of His elect. Once you abandon free-will, you can't get around putting God in a 'bind'. But once a foundation isn't laid with the truth of Jesus' words, the builders have to manipulate the building to where they can present it as habitable.

Personally, I think Calvin had a false foundation, thus having to pervert his view of God so others might think God's building is habitable, as anyone can read above.

I know you don't need a response from me. But here is a quick one that challenges you to put these ideas out in a thread of your own.

I have a lot I could say about the things you say as well as the quote by Calvin. I'd love to do so.

But these things have nothing to do with the thrust of this thread.

This one has to do with a particular doctrine that has been distorted.

Are you stalking me?


Start a bash Calvinism thread of your own and I'll gladly join you there.

 

[nobdysfool]

Here's an idea: Instead of bashing Calvinism, why don't we have a mature and reasoned discussion, and leave all the baiting and name-calling out of it?

I know that there are some anti-Calvinists who feel it is their duty to destroy Calvinism (and Calvinists) by any means necessary, because in their estimation, they are not even sure Calvinists are saved, due to the beliefs they hold. They would rather show their prowess with a sword, than to risk their own doctrines being found wanting. Such an attitude is juvenile, it is hateful and unworthy of anyone who names the Name of Christ.

The whole debate is over an honest difference of opinion, ultimately. I used to play those sword games, but since then, I have grown up. I know what I believe, and why I believe it, and no one except for the Holy spirit can change my mind, and so far, I have not seen Him show up in these threads.

One thing I can say with certainty is that the anti-Calvinists are NOT the Holy Spirit, and should not even try to pretend that they are. Each one of us will give account for our own actions, our own words, and our own beliefs before the Father. No one will answer for another. Like the old saying goes, "Lord help me make my words sweet, in case I have to eat them..."

 

[James Is Back]

I wish Calvinists and Arminians would get along. This whole debate has been raging on before we were even born. Maybe both sides need to stop bashing each other and work out our differences in a civil and loving manner instead of Calvins aren't save or Arminians aren't saved yadda yadda.

Let's be civil and have a nice discussion shall we

 

[Marvin Knox]

I wish Calvinists and Arminians would get along. This whole debate has been raging on before we were even born. Maybe both sides need to stop bashing each other and work out our differences in a civil and loving manner instead of Calvins aren't save or Arminians aren't saved yadda yadda.

Let's be civil and have a nice discussion shall we

Count me in.

 

[nobdysfool]

Isn't it odd how silence descends when someone points out that we should discuss these issues rationally and with maturity, not taking potshots and making false accusations? Suddenly they have nothing to say. It makes one wonder what the source of their opposition really is...

 

[Inkfingers]

I wish Calvinists and Arminians would get along. This whole debate has been raging on before we were even born. Maybe both sides need to stop bashing each other and work out our differences in a civil and loving manner instead of Calvins aren't save or Arminians aren't saved yadda yadda.

Let's be civil and have a nice discussion shall we

Indeed.

When we get worked up in a discussion its a sign that we think the salvation of the universe is down to us, not God.

Keep calm, and have faith in God.

 

[sdowney717]

I prefer to think of limited atonement as a definite redemption where Christ offering up an atoning sacrifice actually accomplishes something wonderful, our being saved versus it just being an uncertain possibility.


Definite redemption, sometimes called "particular redemption," "effective atonement," and "limited atonement," is an historic Reformed doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without doubting the infinite worth of Christ's sacrifice or the genuineness of God's "whoever will" invitation to all who hear the gospel (Rev. 22:17), the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God's elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved.
The only possible alternatives are (a) actual universalism, holding that Christ's death guaranteed salvation for every member of the human race, past, present, and future, or (b) hypothetical universalism, holding that Christ's death made salvation possible for everyone but actual only for those who add to it a response of faith and repentance that was not secured by it. The choices are, therefore, an atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent (Reformed particularism), one of unlimited extent but limited efficacy (hypothetical universalism), or one of unlimited efficacy and unlimited extent (actual universalism). Scripture must be the guide in choosing between these possibilities.
Scripture speaks of God as having chosen for salvation a great number of our fallen race and having sent Christ into the world to save them (JOHN 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups or persons, with the clear implication that his death secured their salvation (JOHN 10:15-18,27-29; Rom. 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal. 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6, 5:9-10). Facing his passion, he prayed only for those the Father had given him, not for the "world" (i.e., the rest of mankind, JOHN 17:9,20). Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only one of the three views that harmonizes with this data.
There is no inconsistency or incoherence in the teaching of the New Testament about, on the one hand, the offer of Christ in the gospel, which Christians are told to make known everywhere, and, on the other hand, the fact that Christ achieved a totally efficacious redemption for God's elect on the cross. It is a certain truth that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy (JOHN 6:35,47-51,54-57; Rom. 1:16, 10:8-13). The elect hear Christ's offer, and through hearing it are effectually called by the Holy Spirit. Both the invitation and the effectual calling flow from Christ's sin-bearing death. Those who reject the offer of Christ do so of their own free will (i.e., because they choose to, Matt. 22:1-7; JOHN 3:18), so that their final perishing is their own fault. Those who receive Christ learn to thank him for the cross as the centerpiece of God's plan of sovereign saving grace.



http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/definiteredemption.html

 

[Marvin Knox]

I prefer to think of limited atonement as a definite redemption where Christ offering up an atoning sacrifice actually accomplishes something wonderful, our being saved versus it just being an uncertain possibility.

A brief word about your personal statement above before commenting on the material you quoted.

You hint that rejecting classic full on limited atonement makes the ultimate glorification of the elect "an uncertain possibility". That is not true. Unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints make it a certain possibility without limiting the atonement.

As a voracious consumer of Reformed theology – “Monergism” is one of my favorite websites. I have a great quantity of material I got from there over the years. Much of it is the form of MP3 downloaded teachings. They come both in teaching series from various professors and individual sermons delivered at Reformed churches of various stripes.


Most of the systematic theology producers from down through the centuries who’s opinions I respect and repeat in teaching are of the Reformed type.


The material you provided this time is much like what you gave before. It is written from basically the same position and provides the same scripture references that one is bound to find given by Calvinists of the 5-point type.


Not that you asked me in particular to comment – But since I am commenting my response is about the same as I gave you in post #7.


I understand the limited atonement logic very well. Indeed, I taught much the same logic in the past. But it is just that – logic. The scriptures given do not require adopting limited atonement in the classic 5-point sense to be understood. The logic is flawed in that respect. Several misstatements are made in the presentation.


They are usually made in light of another assumption. That being that the theological opponent rejects the other 4 points of Calvinism. That isn’t always true.


Assumptions are made that supposedly prove the need to adopt full on limited atonement. I’m pretty sure you know the old bromide about what happens when someone (Reformed theology professor or otherwise) makes an assumption.


Since classic limited atonement isn’t required to understand those scriptures – it is better to go with the Arminian or Free Will view – at least as touching on the extent of the atonement.


Most of the bases that “limited atonement” covers are nicely covered with the other 4-points. No need to go beyond those points and offend the other side.


In my opinion, it’s difficult enough to make the case for T., U., I. and P. without stirring tortured interpretations driven by human logic into the mix.

 

[sdowney717]

Well it does say Jesus bore the sins of many, it does not say He bore the sins of all.
Heb 9
27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

If it said Christ bore the sins of all, then that would point to an unlimited atonement, but it only says many which leaves out some. The verse implies those HE died for are the ones who are waiting for Him to appear again and none others.

The uncertainty I mentioned has to do with why would God rely on a man's evil heart to come to the living God when scripture says he shrinks back from the light of the world?

Seeing the absolutely proven nature of man's evil heart which God testifies about being desperately wicked beyond comprehension, they just will not come to Christ on their own, their evil deeds and a Holy God just dont mix at all.

 

[sdowney717]

Charles Spurgeon on Calvinism ? Definite Atonement by Nathan W. Bingham | Ligonier Ministries Blog
Charles Spurgeon supported the limited atonement.

I wont repost all that here, but it is good reading.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Well it does say Jesus bore the sins of many, it does not say He bore the sins of all.
Heb 9
27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

If it said Christ bore the sins of all, then that would point to an unlimited atonement, but it only says many which leaves out some. The verse implies those HE died for are the ones who are waiting for Him to appear again and none others.

"The verse implies" is the operative phrase in the first part of your post. That's exactly what I mean when I refer to "assumptions".

One could as easily take a verse such as 1 Tim. 4:10 and point to it's implications from the other side (as many do of course). "............we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."

Such a verse could easily be used to explain 4 point Calvinism to a T.

The uncertainty I mentioned has to do with why would God rely on a man's evil heart to come to the living God when scripture says he shrinks back from the light of the world?

Seeing the absolutely proven nature of man's evil heart which God testifies about being desperately wicked beyond comprehension, they just will not come to Christ on their own, their evil deeds and a Holy God just don't mix at all.

This portion of your post addresses the depravity of man and the necessity and effective nature of the grace pointed to in the other 4 points. These concepts point to nothing concerning limited atonement.

5-pointers usually add things that are not in the scriptures regarding all that Christ purchased at His death and other such. They will tell us that Christ also purchased the regenerative power that allows the elect to be brought to belief. Without unwarranted additions like that, 4 point Calvinism is all that is needed. So the additional assumptions abound to make sure limited atonement is kept in the equation.

You and I should probably agree to disagree temporarily so that others can chime in a little bit without us dominating things totally. We will undoubtedly air these things more as we go along.

 

[Job8]

IMO, the Scriptures say that Christ died for the sins of all men and if they will but believe it they will be saved

Which bring us to the question "Why is it necessary to fit the Gospel into any kind of man-made framework?" What is stated above is true, as is the truth that [GOD] WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED AND TO COME UNTO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH (1 Tim 2:4).

"If they will but believe it" also means that God will neither compel nor prevent sinners from believing the Gospel. Since it is the power of God unto salvation, it follows that the preaching of the Gospel (which generates faith) coupled with the convincing and convicting of the Holy Spirit (which produces repentance) is how God deals with souls. Ultimately sinners must choose to believe or disbelieve (Mk 16:15,16; Jn 3:36).