4 point.

[Jon_]

Please note, Jon, that I said both are valid but only one is correct. Scripture is what determines which is correct. Logically they are both feasible and reasonable.

I understand what you meant, Fru. I was simply trying to show you that, logically, they are not both feasible and reasonable, especially not at the same time and in the same sense. That violates the law of noncontradiction.

Jon, I don't think you fully understood what it was I was saying. My understanding of Amyraldianism (assuming it is correct) does not have Christ atoning for the sins of the reprobate. When Christ dies on the cross, it is the sins of the elect (and them only) that are atoned for. The "unlimited" aspect of the atonement is purely in the generic sense prior to the election of men to be individual and particular recipients of that atonement. This is determined in eternity past before the Incarnation and crucifixion take place, so that when they do actually happen in time it is in th context of election and therefore only the sins of the elect are atoned for.

The problem with this application of "unlimited atonement" is that it could literally be applied to almost anything. When we speak of things generically, they are meant to be as inclusive as possible. The issue is the exact opposite: exclusivity; viz., the exclusivity of atonement. Redefining the point to make it as inclusive as possible is just one of the many errors of the Amyraldian argument in favor of it. No one can deny that God preordained atonement. He preordained everything. But this is argument denies the antecedent. Limited atonement asserts that atonement is intended only for the elect because only the elect will be effected by it. In truth, the laws of causality uphold this. An in effective atonement is not an atonement at all.

The doctrine isn't "limited plan for atonement."

Again, mind you, I do not agree that this is the case in light of Scripture, but I do see it as valid. If I am incorrect and the Amyraldian view is that Christ atoned for all sins on the cross and that the benefits are only applied to the elect, then I do not agree with it. I'm hoping that other Amyraldians can clarify.

If you view it as wrong in light of Scripture, then why do you maintain it as valid?

My intent is not to be contentious, but to be corrective.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[drstevej]

[/indent]This is a nice parable, but it contradicts every other point of the acrostic. This view of atonement makes election synergistic. The seven people who rejected the ticket rejected it of their own free will. This disputes irresistable grace, which compels men to repent and receive atonement. It also rejects perseverance of the saints, which maintains that God preserves his elect faithfully, according to his will. And most of all, it rejects total depravity because it asserts the three people who accepted did so of their own choice.

Rejecting any one part of the TULIP doctrine amounts to a categorical rejection of each and every one of them. This is why "moderate Calvinism" is incompatible with "five-point" Calvinism. In many cases, it is accurate to call it "Calvinistic," but the interrelation of the five-points is indisputable. You either accept TULIP, or you do not. It is not a buffet from which we may pick and choose.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

(NOTE: To lazy to log on as NEHI....)

Well, let me share my other parable with ya...

The "Liver & Onions Parable"

The Reformed Doctrine of Free Will

Suppose you detest L&O. The sight and smell makes you sick.


Just once, to appease the insistence of a friend that L&O really is good tasting, touched your tongue's tip to the L&O and the taste repulsed you.

You are invited to a buffet where a friend suggests you try some L&O. You refuse. He insists that the L&O is wonderful. He takes a bite and smiles saying "Just try it." You say, "No way!"

You freely reject the L&O because of your senses (sight, taste and smell). You do so on this occasion and every occasion it is offered to you. Your action regarding L&O is predictable and certain.

► SUCH is the unregenerate person's free rejection of God because his heart and nature is only evil continuously.

===

Now suppose this L&O loather is supernaturally changed into a L&O lover.

God changes his taste buds as well as olfactory and mental responses. Now, at the buffet he asks his friend, "What smells so good?" He is surprised to find that the great smell comes from a plate of L&O! He is further surprised that it really doesn't look that bad now, in fact it looks good. He is salivating.

He grabs a fork and timidly takes a small bite to his tongue for a test. The test becomes a taste -- then he eats a huge serving. L&O has suddenly become his favorite food. From that day on he looks for L&O whenever he can find it and he specifically requests it. He is a L&O lover now.

He freely and predictably chooses L&O after this craving has been placed upon him by God.

► SUCH is the response of one who is regenerated by receiving a new heart and nature.

====

BTW, in Heaven... Everyone loves L&O. Nothing else is eaten or even desired. All freely savor the smell and taste of L&O forever and ever. Hallelujah!​

​

BTW, these are simply illustrations. Whether you consider me a Calvinist or not is your call.


Blessings to you.

 

[frumanchu]

I understand what you meant, Fru. I was simply trying to show you that, logically, they are not both feasible and reasonable, especially not at the same time and in the same sense. That violates the law of noncontradiction.

Actually, logically the two explanations I gave are both feasible and reasonable, SCRIPTURALLY they are not. Both are logically consistent in their order and reasonable from a cause and effect or order of precedence standpoint. It's Scripture that determines which one is actually the case.

The problem with this application of "unlimited atonement" is that it could literally be applied to almost anything. When we speak of things generically, they are meant to be as inclusive as possible. The issue is the exact opposite: exclusivity; viz., the exclusivity of atonement. Redefining the point to make it as inclusive as possible is just one of the many errors of the Amyraldian argument in favor of it. No one can deny that God preordained atonement. He preordained everything. But this is argument denies the antecedent. Limited atonement asserts that atonement is intended only for the elect because only the elect will be effected by it. In truth, the laws of causality uphold this. An in effective atonement is not an atonement at all.
The doctrine isn't "limited plan for atonement."

Looking at drstevej's examples I don't believe I was representing the position accurately. In the examples I gave, the difference was simply one of whether the choosing of the saved or the ordaining of the means through which they would be saved came first. If I'm understanding drstevej's parables correctly, he views all sins as actually being atoned for on the cross, but the intent remaining that of saving only the elect. I don't agree with that understanding.

If you view it as wrong in light of Scripture, then why do you maintain it as valid? My intent is not to be contentious, but to be corrective.

For the reasons I explained above. Again however I don't believe in light of drstevej's parables that I was accurately representing the Amyraldian position, so the validity of my explanation doesn't necessarily translate to the validity of the Amyraldian position.

That being said, I would call drstevej in particular a four point Calvinist before I would ever call him a one point Arminian.

 

[Jon_]

(NOTE: To lazy to log on as NEHI....)

Well, let me share my other parable with ya...

The "Liver & Onions Parable"

The Reformed Doctrine of Free Will

Suppose you detest L&O. The sight and smell makes you sick.


Just once, to appease the insistence of a friend that L&O really is good tasting, touched your tongue's tip to the L&O and the taste repulsed you.

You are invited to a buffet where a friend suggests you try some L&O. You refuse. He insists that the L&O is wonderful. He takes a bite and smiles saying "Just try it." You say, "No way!"

You freely reject the L&O because of your senses (sight, taste and smell). You do so on this occasion and every occasion it is offered to you. Your action regarding L&O is predictable and certain.

► SUCH is the unregenerate person's free rejection of God because his heart and nature is only evil continuously.

===

Now suppose this L&O loather is supernaturally changed into a L&O lover.

God changes his taste buds as well as olfactory and mental responses. Now, at the buffet he asks his friend, "What smells so good?" He is surprised to find that the great smell comes from a plate of L&O! He is further surprised that it really doesn't look that bad now, in fact it looks good. He is salivating.

He grabs a fork and timidly takes a small bite to his tongue for a test. The test becomes a taste -- then he eats a huge serving. L&O has suddenly become his favorite food. From that day on he looks for L&O whenever he can find it and he specifically requests it. He is a L&O lover now.

He freely and predictably chooses L&O after this craving has been placed upon him by God.

► SUCH is the response of one who is regenerated by receiving a new heart and nature.

====

BTW, in Heaven... Everyone loves L&O. Nothing else is eaten or even desired. All freely savor the smell and taste of L&O forever and ever. Hallelujah!
​

Hi drstevej.

The problem with this parable is that the friend does not have an efficacious will, so the friend's "offer" of L&O to the one who will not accept it is a flawed representation of how God calls his elect. We both agree that if God wills something and I will against it, I lose. God is completely free. If he wills that I receive his promise, then I will. Otherwise, if he passes over me, I will not. Since atonement is an effect of God's active will, it canot be argued that God simply created a "plan" or "idea" of atonement, and then applied it to saved persons. That position denies the effectiveness of God's will. Moreover, we could take that concept and apply it to almost anything because of its generic nature. The most critical flaw of this argument is that it has no Scriptural basis and is unprovable logically or philosophically. It has no cause-and-effect relationship with the unregenerate, so we cannot rightly conclude that the atonement was intended for them. Finally, this view of atonement does not differ dynamically from the limited atonement view. It actually devolves into a semantical argument.

We can look at it from another point of view. Suppose if we could know if a person would eat L&O or not. If we foresaw that someone would like it, we could conclude that God ordained their atonement; however, if we foresaw that they would never like it, we could conclude that God had not ordained their atonement.

My difficulty lies in distinguishing the Amyraldian view of unlimited atonement from the Arminian view of partial depravity and conditional election. It seems like a reversion of doctrine to me. On the one hand, four-pointers say that we are incapable of choosing God and we have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit because our nature is too depraved to choose him on our own. But on the other hand, they assert that there is some magically universal nature to atonement, but that it is only effected by the will of the one who chooses it. There is no difference between saying that God ordained the atonement of all, but only the elect will receive it, and saying that God ordained the salvation of all, but only the elect will receive it.

BTW, these are simply illustrations. Whether you consider me a Calvinist or not is your call.

Blessings to you.

I understand.

Actually, I don't even like the moniker "Calvinist," anyway. It's much too generic and nondescriptive. People understand it to mean one thing: predestination. There's much more to it than that. Five-point Calvinism is arguably not even the system that John Calvin taught. Using the "Reformed" tag doesn't help, either, because there are at least a couple of points where I disagree with the Reformers (the Westminster Confession in particular).

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[drstevej]

Hi drstevej.
......

There's much more to it than that. Five-point Calvinism is arguably not even the system that John Calvin taught.
Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I don't think Calvin directly addressed the issue of the extent of the atonement. It was an issue of the next generation. I believe he would have sided with those holding definite atonement, but that is a bit speculative.

I consider myself a Calvinist and most Arminians I know definitely do. But I'll accept the terms "inconsistent Calvinist" or even "hypo-Calvinist" and not bat an eye.

I use the term Amyraldian reluctantly since my reasoning for holding to a unlimited atonement are not those artiuculated by Moise Amyraut.

It's not a point that I care to debate tooth and tong. Been there done that and the T-shirt don't fit no more.

Steve

 

[larssc]

This past week having read on "Outside the Camp" that Calvin was
unregenerant because of his views on atonement, I began a web search to
verify this and to clarify Amyraldianism.

To sum it up... sufficient for all, efficacious for the elect.
Some may say God does not have two wills. Calvin did not seem to have a problem with it.

A quote from Calvin :

Yet I approve of the common reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because the guilt of the whole world was laid upon Him. It is evident from other passages...that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'...That, then, is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many. But in fact, this word 'many' is often as good as equivalent to 'all'. And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: 'God so loved the world, that He spared not His only Son.' But yet we must notice what the Evangelist adds in this passage: 'That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.' Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable. For how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith? And let us realize that if we come flocking to our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall not hinder one another and prevent Him being sufficient for each of us...Let us not fear to come to Him in great numbers, and each one of us bring his neighbours, seeing that He is sufficient to save us all. Sermons on Isaiah 53, pp. 136, 141-4

and


It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn. 3:15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God's children who will be a partaker of Christ.
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp. 148-9

Amyraldianism should not be dismissed as confused Arminianism.
A new covenant required universalism. Grace and faith to salvation is still
only for the elect under Amyraldianism.

Larry

 

[woogiewoogie]

This past week having read on "Outside the Camp" that Calvin was
unregenerant because of his views on atonement, I began a web search to
verify this and to clarify Amyraldianism.

To sum it up... sufficient for all, efficacious for the elect.
Some may say God does not have two wills. Calvin did not seem to have a problem with it.

A quote from Calvin :

Yet I approve of the common reading, that He alone bore the punishment of many, because the guilt of the whole world was laid upon Him. It is evident from other passages...that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'...That, then, is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many. But in fact, this word 'many' is often as good as equivalent to 'all'. And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: 'God so loved the world, that He spared not His only Son.' But yet we must notice what the Evangelist adds in this passage: 'That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.' Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable. For how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith? And let us realize that if we come flocking to our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall not hinder one another and prevent Him being sufficient for each of us...Let us not fear to come to Him in great numbers, and each one of us bring his neighbours, seeing that He is sufficient to save us all. Sermons on Isaiah 53, pp. 136, 141-4

and


It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn. 3:15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God's children who will be a partaker of Christ.
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp. 148-9

Amyraldianism should not be dismissed as confused Arminianism.
A new covenant required universalism. Grace and faith to salvation is still
only for the elect under Amyraldianism.

Larry

Wow, learning that John Calvin was a 4 pointer comes at a shock, especially considering I'm a 5 pointer.

 

[Jon_]

The confusion over limited/unlimited atonement lies in a basic lack of understanding of the laws of cause and effect. There is no such thing as a cause without effect; therefore, there is no plan of atonement for the unatoned. The promise of atonement is a universal promise, yes, but only in the sense that God is not discriminate of the race, gender, or creed of those he calls. When 1 Jn. 2:2 talks about Christ being the expiation for the "whole world," it means that the promise is not only for Jew, but for Gentile, not only for the known western world, but for the whole world. It must be understood that the context of the Greek "world" often was conformed only to the known world and did not extend to that which was unknown. The context here is unmistakably applicable to all peoples from all walks of life all over the globe.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Calvin was actually more of a "moderate" Calvinist, as we know it today. In fact, there is substantial proof that he was a 4-pointer, the missing point being, of course, Limited Atonement. Check out Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free if you want to understand the moderate Calvinist position. Just be ready for doctrinal errors, starting on page 22.

Geisler's book was one of the first I read on the topic. I believed pretty much everything he said right down the line. He refuted RC Sproul's Chosen By God quite a bit, and out of curiosity I wanted to see for myself what Sproul had to say. I came to realize that Geisler didn't have a clue what Sproul was talking about about, and Sproul was right, and Geisler was wrong. I couldn't believe how many times I compared a Geisler reference to Sproul's book and was left scratching my head and wondering "Where did Geisler come up with that?! Certainly not Sproul!"

I've since researched the Reformed postion much more, and have come to the conclusion that it's the way it is. I've come to the conclusion that if you don't buy what's commonly referred to as 'Limited Atonement', you don't really understand the other points.

 

[Imblessed]

Geisler's book was one of the first I read on the topic. I believed pretty much everything he said right down the line. He refuted RC Sproul's Chosen By God quite a bit, and out of curiosity I wanted to see for myself what Sproul had to say. I came to realize that Geisler didn't have a clue what Sproul was talking about about, and Sproul was right, and Geisler was wrong. I couldn't believe how many times I compared a Geisler reference to Sproul's book and was left scratching my head and wondering "Where did Geisler come up with that?! Certainly not Sproul!"

I've since researched the Reformed postion much more, and have come to the conclusion that it's the way it is. I've come to the conclusion that if you don't buy what's commonly referred to as 'Limited Atonement', you don't really understand the other points.

I'm glad you went out and got Chosen By God yourself to make sure of what he believed. Most would have(too many do) read the one book and decided it was right and never bothered to find out if it's accurate. The fact that you took time to look at both sides of the issue AND that you accepted that your first impression was wrong? wow! That's maturity!

 

[Jon_]

Geisler's book was one of the first I read on the topic. I believed pretty much everything he said right down the line. He refuted RC Sproul's Chosen By God quite a bit, and out of curiosity I wanted to see for myself what Sproul had to say. I came to realize that Geisler didn't have a clue what Sproul was talking about about, and Sproul was right, and Geisler was wrong. I couldn't believe how many times I compared a Geisler reference to Sproul's book and was left scratching my head and wondering "Where did Geisler come up with that?! Certainly not Sproul!"

I've since researched the Reformed postion much more, and have come to the conclusion that it's the way it is. I've come to the conclusion that if you don't buy what's commonly referred to as 'Limited Atonement', you don't really understand the other points.

Absolutely. Not to mention that Geisler makes a number of critical and erroneous assumptions in concluding his arguments. He tries to sneak them in there too, without offering much in the way of support. His biggest error is in asserting that man is inherently good, which is as wrong as it gets. Man is evil, unrighteous, worthless, filthy, degenerate, corrupt, depraved. There is nothing good about man. He is a worm. I thank God for Jesus Christ who spares us the heel of the wrath of our Father, for that is surely all we deserve.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[JM]

Is R. L. Dabney a four or five pointer?

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/5points.htm#l

You'll notice that Dabney and Amyraut taught a "sufficient for all efficient for the elect" view of the atonement.

~JM~