Are Reformed theology and Universalism compatable?

[crimsonleaf]

I know of Calvinists who believe that the atonement was efficient for all, hence they're univeralists. Again we're back to the place of the creeds and how we are to subscribe to them.

I'd agree with AW in that those who believe in universal atonement believe that it means Christ died for all, but that each individual has to "activate" that redemption by accepting Christ in faith, leaving some in heaven and some in hell.

There's another thread lumbering away somewhere, where a number of us are trying to convince the others that people whose sins are forgiven don't burn in hell and that Christ's atonement was actual, not potential.

 

[DocNH]

Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently ONLY for the elect (SFA) is not the same as universalism, which could be stated as sufficient and efficient for all (i.e. even reprobates like Judas are saved, et. al.).

SFA is error, but better than universalism. While they still affirm limited atonement, they believe that some of Christ's sacrifice was wasted. In addition, it removes any efficacy from the atonement itself. It makes Christ’s work merely tentative.

Scripture says, by Christ's abundant mercy he hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by his resurrection" (1 Pet. 1:3). Romans 5:10-11 says, "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”

"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:11-12). Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28; Isa. 53:11; John 10:11, 15 ).

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13-14). Christ redeemed us from the guilt of our sin. All his elect are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24). Christ redeemed us from the power of sin and therefore Peter writes, “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things ... but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

There was triumph at Calvary (Col. 3:15). The elect's sin were dealt with at the Cross (Col. 2:13-14). Christ died for his elect (Rom. 5:8) and gave himself for them (Gal. 2:20). As Isaiah says, “he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities . . . the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him” (Isa. 53:5-6). "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

Substitution is the means by which we were reconciled (1 Pet. 3:18). He is our expiation: “He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21) and “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24). Christ took the penalty of the elect's sin upon himself (Heb. 2:17; 1 John 4:10).

Christ came in the fulness of time (Gal. 4:4) with a specific mission; For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15). He accomplished redemption for his elect at Calvary, not when it is applied to them later in the ordo salutis. In other words, saying that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all moves (against Scripture) redemption to when it becomes efficient .... a time removed from the Cross. In other words, SFA confuses when redemption was "accomplished" and "applied."

Sorry, for the hurriedness of the reply; possible lack of clarity.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently ONLY for the elect (SFA) is not the same as universalism, which could be stated as sufficient and efficient for all (i.e. even reprobates like Judas are saved, et. al.).

SFA is error, but better than universalism. While they still affirm limited atonement, they believe that some of Christ's sacrifice was wasted. In addition, it removes any efficacy from the atonement itself. It makes Christ’s work merely tentative.

Scripture says, by Christ's abundant mercy he hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by his resurrection" (1 Pet. 1:3). Romans 5:10-11 says, "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”

"When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:11-12). Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28; Isa. 53:11; John 10:11, 15 ).

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13-14). Christ redeemed us from the guilt of our sin. All his elect are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24). Christ redeemed us from the power of sin and therefore Peter writes, “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things ... but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

There was triumph at Calvary (Col. 3:15). The elect's sin were dealt with at the Cross (Col. 2:13-14). Christ died for his elect (Rom. 5:8) and gave himself for them (Gal. 2:20). As Isaiah says, “he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities . . . the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him” (Isa. 53:5-6). "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

Substitution is the means by which we were reconciled (1 Pet. 3:18). He is our expiation: “He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21) and “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24). Christ took the penalty of the elect's sin upon himself (Heb. 2:17; 1 John 4:10).

Christ came in the fulness of time (Gal. 4:4) with a specific mission; For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10; 1 Tim. 1:15). He accomplished redemption for his elect at Calvary, not when it is applied to them later in the ordo salutis. In other words, saying that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all moves (against Scripture) redemption to when it becomes efficient .... a time removed from the Cross. In other words, SFA confuses when redemption was "accomplished" and "applied."

Sorry, for the hurriedness of the reply; possible lack of clarity.

Outstanding response brother!

 

[JM]

No. Reformed theology is fundamentally scriptural. God came to save his sheep.

Historically, reformed theologians have been defenders of limited atonement.

Question asked and answered nicely.

 

[Iosias]

Question asked and answered nicely.

The PCUSA are Reformed and do not teach limited atonement

 

[lesliedellow]

You don't have to be a Calvinist to think Universalism can't be made to stick. You only have to read the New Testament.

It is very difficult to avoid the impression that the Bible is being made to say what our culture would like it to say, rather than what it actually does say. Can you imagine what would happen if a science was conducted on the basis of what the scientist would like to be true, rather than upon the basis of what the data suggests?

For the theologian, biblical revelation is his data.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The PCUSA are Reformed and do not teach limited atonement

Sorry but that is not quite true. If you read the Book of Confessions, you will find PR taught if not directly, indirectly in statements on election. Whether or not PR is taught in local congregations, I imagine, varies from one congregation to another. It may be that most Churches within PCUSA do not teach from the Book of Confessions, but we cannot speak for all, since the official positions are contained in the BoC. I have a feeling it has been taught in my local PCUSA congregation, because they are a more conservative congregation, which should not be surprising, considering the area it is located.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The PCUSA are Reformed and do not teach limited atonement

The PCUSA is not a reformed denomination. Their tradition came from the reformed branch but they have long abandoned reformed theology.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

From the Thirty Nine Articles:

"X. Of Free-Will.
"The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will."

Ahh, "Total inability" is stated in the 39 articles...what else?

XI. Of the Justification of Man.
"We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification."

"Justification by faith alone" is also in the articles...what else?

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
"Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God."

Predestination and election "those whom HE hath chosen in Christ out of mankind".

Iosias, universalism is not even compatible with the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.

 

[lesliedellow]

Iosias, universalism is not even compatible with the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.

Nowadays, Anglicans might all agree on the Nicene Creed, but that's about it. They can't easily bring themselves to kick somebody out, even for denying the existence of God.