Skala
I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
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.
I vehemently disagree that the Canons and other people like Spurgeon denied Limited Atonement.
You must understand that Limited Atonement is not so much about quantity as it is intent.
The question is not "How many people did Christ die for?"
Instead, it is:
"What did Christ's death accomplish?"
If you ask this second question, you get much nearer to the point of the Limited Atonement doctrine than if you ask the first.
According to both the Canons and Spurgeon, Christ's death accomplished perfectly the salvation of the elect. This is why a better, more accurate name for the doctrine is "Effectual Atonement".
Please read the Second Head, Article 8 of the Canons of Dordt, entitled "THE DEATH OF CHRIST, AND THE REDEMPTION OF MEN THEREBY"
Canons of Dort
According to the Canons, Spurgeon, Calvinists, Calvinism, and even Jesus Christ himself (in the Bible!), His death had a certain goal, and it was to secure the salvation of those that the Father had entrusted to Christ.
His goal was never described in the Bible as merely to "make salvation a possibility or potentiality for all men"
Here is what the Canons of Dordt say:
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 8. For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 9. This purpose, proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforeward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell; so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a Church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of christ; which may stedfastly love and faithfully serve Him as its Savior (who, as a bridegroom for his bride, laid down His life for them upon the cross); and which may celebrate His praises here and through all eternity.
And again, the Canons reject the following as ERRORS:
REJECTION OF ERRORS
The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
SECOND HEAD: PARAGRAPH 1. Who teach: That God the Father has ordained His Son to the death of the cross without a certain and definite decree to save any, so that the necessity, profitableness, and worth of what christ merited by His death might have existed, and might remain in all its parts complete, perfect, and intact, even if the merited redemption had never in fact been applied to any person.
For this doctrine tends to the despising of the wisdom of the Father and of the merits of Jesus Christ, and is contrary to Scripture. For thus says our Savior: "I lay down my life for the sheep ... and I know them. (John 10:15, 27)." And the prophet Isaiah says concerning the Savior: "Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand (Isa 53:10)." Finally, this contradicts the article of faith according to which we believe the catholic Christian Church.
SECOND HEAD: PARAGRAPH 6. Who use the difference between meriting and appropriating, to the end that they may instil into the minds of the imprudent and inexperienced this teaching that God, as far as He is concerned, has been minded to apply to all equally the benefits gained by the death of Christ; but that, while some obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life, and others do not, this difference depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is offered without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special gift of mercy, which powerfully works in them, that they rather than others should appropriate unto themselves this grace.
For these, while they feign that they present this distinction in a sound sense, seek to instil into the people the destructive poison of the Pelagian errors.
Upvote
0