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

Skala

I'm a Saint. Not because of me, but because of Him
Mar 15, 2011
8,964
478
✟27,869.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
:confused: Can you please explain what is wrongo?

What is wrong is ignoring 1 Tim 2:4, which I provided. God wants all men to be saved. Which is why Christ died for all. Not just for some.

A) Can you show me if any of my premises are incorrect?
The entire tulip is incorrect, as there are no verses that say what is claimed.

B) Can you show me how my logic in reaching the conclusion is wrong?
It's Calvinistic logic.

Once again, Christ died for all so that whosoever believes will be saved.

Christ died for all so that anyone who believes will be saved.

Christ died for all so that everyone who believes will be saved.

Please try to refute each of these 3 statements, if you disagree with any of them.

Or, you may agree with me regarding them. :)
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It's not hard.

That's the same end result as saying "all the believers"
The end result is that anyone who believes will be saved.

The end result is that whosoever believes will be saved.

The end result is that everyone who believes will be saved.

And we know that God wants all men to be saved. 1 Tim 2:4

And we know that Christ died for all. 2 Cor 5:14,15 Heb 2:9
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
You must understand that Limited Atonement is not so much about quantity as it is intent.
Then why do Calvinists claim that Christ died only for the elect? Quantity is definitely in the picture. As in "Christ didn't die for anyone else".

The question is not "How many people did Christ die for?"
Everyone, all.

Instead, it is:
"What did Christ's death accomplish?"
His death accomplished the full payment for sin for everyone, which purchased the free (to mankind) gift of eternal life for everyone. And the gift is received when one believes in Christ. Jn 1:12 - But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name

1 Tim 1:16 - But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.

If you ask this second question, you get much nearer to the point of the Limited Atonement doctrine than if you ask the first.
The intent is of course to save only those who believe. So Christ died for everyone so that anyone can be saved. The free gift is for everyone. No one has any excuse for not receiving the free gift.

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".
What verse actually says that Christ's death saves anyone?

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.
Securing salvation doesn't prove or mean that those He has secured salvation for are actually saved.

Remember, the Bible defines salvation, eternal life and justification as gifts. They must be received and we know from Scripture that these are received on the basis of believing in Christ. iow, believe, and receive.

His goal was never described in the Bible as merely to "make salvation a possibility or potentiality for all men"
His goal was to purchase the gift of eternal life for everyone. Which He accomplished. That's why He died for all, not just for some.
 
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:

Full Definition of WHOEVER

: whatever person : no matter who —used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive

Correct

I believe that "no matter who" is equivalent to "anyone who".
Correct.

iow, there is no restriction on who will believe. Anyone can believe.
Wrong.

We're going to draw a Venn diagram to help you understand. Draw one circle and label it "whoever believes." Draw another circle that exactly overlaps the last circle, and draw in it "is saved." Everything which is in your first circle. All of it, no matter what, without exception or restriction, is in your second circle.

Syntax is not a game of scrabble where you may rearrange the elements and arrive at any verse you like. There is a sense of "every one without exception or exclusion of any kind" in this verse, but it links "Believers" with "will not perish." You mayn't pluck it out of its actual syntactic place and create a different verse by using it to link "the world" and "believe."

"God loved us all so much that everyone in the world may believe" would make a wonderful Arminian verse, but it's unfortunately not in the Bible. I again commend to you those 500 hours with Dan Wallace's syntax.
 
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Securing salvation doesn't prove or mean that those He has secured salvation for are actually saved.

This week my boss secured a promotion for me. It meant I was promoted.

Words frequently seem not to mean themselves within your soteriological framework.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Syntax is not a game of scrabble where you may rearrange the elements and arrive at any verse you like.

Natural language is not symbolic logic. Statements imply things beyond their literal meanings. I would agree that John 3:16 implies that salvation depends upon our belief.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that our belief may result from God's action, and I think other statements in John actually do say that.

I can't help thinking that a fair amount of the discussion here is pushing things beyond what the Biblical authors would have said. Sure, John 3:16 says that God actually intended to save people. But that would be true even if he simply foresaw that people would come to faith on their own. I think the activity of his grace went beyond just that kind of foreknowledge. But some of the arguments made supporting limited atonement don't make much sense.

I also think this whole question is an argument over words. Everyone agrees that Jesus' death was sufficient for everyone, and that not everyone is actually saved. Whether you say Jesus died for everyone or just those who are saved is more a question of how you use the phrase "died for" than a question of substance. However I try to stick as close to Biblical wording as possible. There are enough statements that he died for the world or for all that I prefer to use that wording. Without thereby denying that we are saved only because of God's call (election).
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Correct
Correct.

I said this:
"iow, there is no restriction on who will believe. Anyone can believe."
Wrong.[/QUOTE]
Since you've agreed that "no matter who" and "anyone who" is correct, that MEANS there is no restriction on who can believe. Your great learning has not helped in this matter.

We're going to draw a Venn diagram to help you understand. Draw one circle and label it "whoever believes." Draw another circle that exactly overlaps the last circle, and draw in it "is saved." Everything which is in your first circle. All of it, no matter what, without exception or restriction, is in your second circle.
OK. The FACT remains that the phrase "no matter who" and "anyone who" still means there is NO limitation on who can believe.

"God loved us all so much that everyone in the world may believe" would make a wonderful Arminian verse, but it's unfortunately not in the Bible. I again commend to you those 500 hours with Dan Wallace's syntax.
Since you've already agreed with the meaning of "whosoever" is also "no matter who" and "anyone who", the FACT is that anyone can believe.

Why anyone tries to argue against that is really amazing.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This week my boss secured a promotion for me. It meant I was promoted.

Words frequently seem not to mean themselves within your soteriological framework.
Seems someone here isn't aware that not everyone accepts a promotion that has been "secured" for them. For a wide variety of reasons.

But, nice try anyway.

Your almost clever example assumes that everyone would want a promotion. But I can give any number of examples where people have turned down promotions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I also think this whole question is an argument over words. Everyone agrees that Jesus' death was sufficient for everyone, and that not everyone is actually saved. Whether you say Jesus died for everyone or just those who are saved is more a question of how you use the phrase "died for" than a question of substance.
2 Cor 5:14 and 15 both say that "He died for all", without any context to twist that into ONLY a subgroup of all of mankind. And Heb 23:9 says that Jesus tasted death for all.

3 verses plainly and specifically note the scope of Christ's death.

However I try to stick as close to Biblical wording as possible. There are enough statements that he died for the world or for all that I prefer to use that wording. Without thereby denying that we are saved only because of God's call (election).
Amen.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Your almost clever example assumes that everyone would want a promotion. But I can give any number of examples where people have turned down promotions.

Well, that's the problem with analogies. Still, there is no serious argument that can be made when it comes to God giving salvation to mortals of his choosing, whether or not they understand exactly what his methods are.
 
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Seems someone here isn't aware that not everyone accepts a promotion that has been "secured" for them. For a wide variety of reasons.

But, nice try anyway.

Your almost clever example assumes that everyone would want a promotion. But I can give any number of examples where people have turned down promotions.

Acceptance didn't figure into the event. I received an e-mail telling me I had been reassigned. Thirty seconds later facilities sent me another telling me that my cubicle had been moved. The reassignment was a fait accompli. If I had rejected it, I wouldn't have been not reassigned prior to rejecting it.

Here's the root of your difficulty with atonement. Somewhere down the centuries, certain Christians got the idea that atonement is this quantity of abstract stuff that can be doled out from heaven upon people once they believe. Unfortunately, positional reassignments, like the reassignment of a man from enmity with God into friendship with God, are not well suited for that analogy. They take effect when they are effected - that's just tautological. Perhaps we may need to consider what happens when a person whose place Christ efficaciously took doesn't want Christ to have efficaciously taken his place, but that would be an instance where someone who has already been moved from death to life wishes he had never been moved and wants to be moved back into death. It would not be a case where the man's sins continued to damn him until he chooses at a later date to be saved.

Also, it's becoming concerning the amount of salvation-related things that you believe can occur outside of the actual interposition of Christ's blood for the sinner. When a man has faith and is justified, it may phenomenally be the case that his salvation is showing up in him only at that point, but no salvation can ever be effected except that salvation which was actually effected that one day on Calvary. That's kinda a huge part of the Christian gospel and it's terrifying how much that's been downplayed by the church.
 
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Since you've agreed that "no matter who" and "anyone who" is correct, that MEANS there is no restriction on who can believe. Your great learning has not helped in this matter.
Again, incorrect. That is not in view of John 3:16. As I said, and as you ignored, the "no matter what"ness of the all+relative pronoun construction relates the subject with the predicate. "Everyone, no matter who, without exception," links "those who believe" with "will not perish." As in: every human who believes, without exception or limitation of any kind, will be saved. What is in view of John 3:16 is the relationship between faith and salvation (anyone who believes will be saved), not the relationship between humanity and faith (anyone in the world may believe). While there might be the right words in John 3:16 to make it mean what you seem to think it means, they're in the wrong order. You're playing syntax scrabble again.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
2 Cor 5:14 and 15 both say that "He died for all", without any context to twist that into ONLY a subgroup of all of mankind. And Heb 23:9 says that Jesus tasted death for all.

3 verses plainly and specifically note the scope of Christ's death.


Amen.

Someday after we are done with this syntax argument I will turn your attention to the terrifying large list of things "for" can mean. There are no reformed that I know who would deny that Christ "died for" everyone within some scope of the word "for." At issue is whether that particular statement, "Christ died for everyone," should govern our understanding of what atonement is and how Christ effected it. Those issues are correctly governed by our OT understanding of atonement as established in Leviticus, and our understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. And if, upon exploring those things, we conclude that Christ only efficaciously wrought salvation for those who will be saved, Christ still "died for" everyone within some scope of "for."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Well, that's the problem with analogies. Still, there is no serious argument that can be made when it comes to God giving salvation to mortals of his choosing, whether or not they understand exactly what his methods are.
It is obviously true that God gives salvation to those He chooses to. And we know exactly who He gives this gift (Eph 2:8) to; believers (1 Cor 1:21).

And we can understand exactly what His methods are as well. 1 Cor 1:21 and Rom 1:16.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Here's the root of your difficulty with atonement.
But I don't have any difficulty with the atonement.

Somewhere down the centuries, certain Christians got the idea that atonement is this quantity of abstract stuff that can be doled out from heaven upon people once they believe.
That's not my view. Not even close.

Perhaps we may need to consider what happens when a person whose place Christ efficaciously took doesn't want Christ to have efficaciously taken his place, but that would be an instance where someone who has already been moved from death to life wishes he had never been moved and wants to be moved back into death. It would not be a case where the man's sins continued to damn him until he chooses at a later date to be saved.
I have considered that view and reject it. Let's consider what Scripture says.

God reconciled the world to Himself in Christ. 2 Cor 5:19 says so. And the immediate context is v.14 and 15, which says in each verse that Christ died for all. It's obvious to me that Christ died for everyone. His death efficaciously purchased the gift of eternal life for everyone.

But, since Scripture does not teach universalism, how is it possible that His death, which purchased eternal life for everyone doesn't result in everyone having eternal life (salvation)? Because the free gift is received when one believes in Christ. Both John 1:12 and Gal 3:24 says so.

How is this explanation not biblical?

Also, it's becoming concerning the amount of salvation-related things that you believe can occur outside of the actual interposition of Christ's blood for the sinner. When a man has faith and is justified, it may phenomenally be the case that his salvation is showing up in him only at that point, but no salvation can ever be effected except that salvation which was actually effected that one day on Calvary. That's kinda a huge part of the Christian gospel and it's terrifying how much that's been downplayed by the church.
I'm not sure what all this means. It seems your view is that Christ's death actually saved some people when He was on the cross. Where in Scripture is that ever said?

I do know that Scripture teaches that one is saved WHEN one believes on Christ. Therefore, they are not saved UNTIL they believe.

So, how can one be effectually saved when Christ died on the cross WHEN the Bible says that one is saved WHEN one believes in Him??????
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Again, incorrect. That is not in view of John 3:16. As I said, and as you ignored, the "no matter what"ness of the all+relative pronoun construction relates the subject with the predicate. "Everyone, no matter who, without exception," links "those who believe" with "will not perish." As in: every human who believes, without exception or limitation of any kind, will be saved. What is in view of John 3:16 is the relationship between faith and salvation (anyone who believes will be saved), not the relationship between humanity and faith (anyone in the world may believe). While there might be the right words in John 3:16 to make it mean what you seem to think it means, they're in the wrong order. You're playing syntax scrabble again.
No, I'm accepting what the translation scholars did.
 
Upvote 0

FreeGrace2

Senior Veteran
Nov 15, 2012
20,401
1,703
USA
✟184,557.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Someday after we are done with this syntax argument I will turn your attention to the terrifying large list of things "for" can mean. There are no reformed that I know who would deny that Christ "died for" everyone within some scope of the word "for." At issue is whether that particular statement, "Christ died for everyone," should govern our understanding of what atonement is and how Christ effected it. Those issues are correctly governed by our OT understanding of atonement as established in Leviticus, and our understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. And if, upon exploring those things, we conclude that Christ only efficaciously wrought salvation for those who will be saved, Christ still "died for" everyone within some scope of "for."
He died for all. He died for the world. That means everyone. See #197 for full explanation, again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Epiphoskei

Senior Veteran
Jul 7, 2007
6,854
689
✟25,557.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, I'm accepting what the translation scholars did.

Quote so much as a single translation that says "everyone can believe." "Whosoever" and every synonym any translator has ever used for it all imply that all believers are saved, and does not have in view why one is or is not a believer. That's syntax scrabble.
 
Upvote 0