Marvin Knox
Senior Veteran
Before I forget, this is a ink to the thinking of 4 point Calvinist Bruce Ware.You have brought up a legitimate challenge here. No other points in the doctrine of grace lacks direct Scriptural backing than Limited Atonement. I think that we could show that there are a great many that could be used to infer that this point is in line with Scripture, but the effort may prove noneffective.
The link is to an Arminian website and as such contains the obligatory comments about Calvinism in general. But one can ignore tht fact and still glean some understanding of the position of at least some 4 pointers such as Ware, John Calvin, and me.
Bruce A. Ware, “Extent of the Atonement”
Both according to the scriptures as I see it.I think we should start with the question: Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, or did His death have special reference to God's chosen elect?
Without the caveat "but rather" I would agee with this. IMO it was both.Our stance is that Christ did not merely intend to make salvation possible for all men, but rather for those who had been given to Him by the Father.
Again - withou the caveat "Christ died for the elect only" - I agree.We further state that while Christ died for the elect only, His death has incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace.
Absolutely.The need: We believe that the requirement for salvation as originally intended is perfect obedience. We know that Adam failed in his test, and brought upon fall of all mankind. God still demands perfect obedience in order that we might have eternal life. But there are many obstacles that prevent us from achieving this on our own.
The key here is the term "application of the atonement".Atonement: Most would agree that the atonement is the forgiveness of sins. But there is a little more depth to that, and more to what the atonement does. In ancient Israel, atonement was achieved by the constant sacrifice of animals. There was nothing permanent in their work, and even after adhering to the sacrificial laws they didn't achieve what was necessary. Christ's perfect obedience in life afforded a ransom for the debt of every sin of the individual the atonement is applied to through His one death. Additionally the application of the atonement affords a permanent change to the heart of the individual, allowing them the faith necessary to believe in the saving works just applied to them. Even more still also His righteousness is imputed to the individual so that the sinful nature would be hidden upon entering Heaven, and we would be seen without blemish in eternity.
Which goes to my point. The shed blood of Jesus Christ in and of itself doesn't "apply" the atonement to the life of any individual until they believe unto salvtion.
A person can have had the atoning blood shed for him and still remain a "child of wrath". In fact that IMO the lot in life of every individual who we preach to - elect or not.
That is of course the Arminian position. It is also my position and the position of the scriptures as I read them.
Arminians are wrong about a great many things (as are the Pelagians - in spades) but this isn't one of them.
He did plan that from eternity.Election: If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race, it would seem to be a contradiction to say that the work of Christ has equal reference to all men, or to say that Christ died for those whom He passed over. If God has elected some, then the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem those elect.
It was one of the purposes of God (maybe even the most important). But it was not necessarily the only purpose.
Again - the key there is "the application of the atonement". That application does not take place until saving faith is exercised in the life of the elect.Purpose: We would agree that the value of the atonement is sufficient to save all of mankind, it is however also efficient to save the elect. Because of the sinner's own inability either to understand or desire the things of God, the application of the atonement is paramount in those that are to believe. If we say that this atonement is applied to all, and some are not made believers then either man's will is greater than God's or the atonement has no power to save anyone. On the same token, why God would save some and not all, we cannot say. This is the difficulty of this particular doctrine.
Until that time they are "children of wrath even as the rest" of mankind.
No faith - no application.
No election and irresistible grace - no faith
That happens to be the Arminian position (and let's not forget FreeGrace). But I can't help that.
Just because they aren't Reformed does not mean they can't be right about anything.
In like manner, just because we are Reformed does not mean that we can't be wrong about something.
Incidentally - it's nice to discuss these things with someone who doesn't feel that they have to treat me like an enemy just to somehow maintain their Calvinist cridentials before other Calvinists.
As a Reformed (or Calvinist) believer we have undoubtedly both suffered the vitriol tossed our way from those who disagree with us - be they Arminians of various stripes or out and out Pelagians.
It's interesting that they justify their nasty attitude toward Calvinists because (they say) Calvinists are so smug and nasty toward them. They see something in Calvinists which most Calvinists themselves are blind to - namely their superior attitude and nasty dismissal of other's views.
I suppose you could say that I have been blessed to be able to see exactly why they feel that way about Calvinists - having undergone myself for many years (and here in this current thread) the uncalled for judgments and nasty slings and arrows of Calvinsts.
If I must bear their judgmental attitude for daring to discuss the fact that one letter of TULIP might be uncalled for ---- I can only imagine how Arminians feel about discussing their great many differences with Calvinists.
How can some Calvinists expect to have a meaningful discussion with the majority of Christendom about the doctrines of grace when they can't even carry on a civil conversation with a fellow Reformed believer over one point without making things personal?
God bless you brother!
Last edited:
Upvote
0