Correct View of Limited Atonement?

[CalledOutOne]

"Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect."
~John Calvin

I've always taken this to mean that Christ did not die for the sake of the reprobate, but if the reprobate would repent (we know he won't), then Christ's blood would save him.

Is this the correct view?

Certainly Christ's death is valuable enough for every individual who ever lived, but it is not efficient for every individual who ever lived.

 

[twin1954]

"Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect."
~John Calvin

I've always taken this to mean that Christ did not die for the sake of the reprobate, but if the reprobate would repent (we know he won't), then Christ's blood would save him.

Is this the correct view?

Certainly Christ's death is valuable enough for every individual who ever lived, but it is not efficient for every individual who ever lived.

What difference does it make? It is only a hypothetical theological speculation at best. Could Christ have redeemed the whole of humanity is a pointless exercise in intellectual gratification (not to mention a compromise in order to appease the Arminian) and useless as to real meaning. Christ's sacrifice was exactly sufficient to do what it was intended to do. The Gospel isn't about could have's it is about what is done.

 

[JM]

I agree with twin. It is a position of compromise and not scriptural.

CalledOutOne, I made some long posts in the debate a calvinist forum where I do touch on this subject a little but I'll repost a source here for you: "what wise man undertakes a building, without first determining what it shall be, of what materials it shall be made, in what form and manner, as well as for what end? And can we imagine that the all-wise God, who builds all things, should go about them without preconcerted measures, and settled determinations concerning them; “Who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working?” (Isa. 28:29). http://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/?s=pink+gill

 

[CalledOutOne]

I agree with twin. It is a position of compromise and not scriptural.

CalledOutOne, I made some long posts in the debate a calvinist forum where I do touch on this subject a little but I'll repost a source here for you: "what wise man undertakes a building, without first determining what it shall be, of what materials it shall be made, in what form and manner, as well as for what end? And can we imagine that the all-wise God, who builds all things, should go about them without preconcerted measures, and settled determinations concerning them; “Who is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working?” (Isa. 28:29). Search Results pink gill « Feileadh Mor

I'm not understanding the quote probably because I don't know the context. Could you please tell me how this relates to limited atonement? I'm not making the connection here.

 

[JM]

I'm not understanding the quote probably because I don't know the context. Could you please tell me how this relates to limited atonement? I'm not making the connection here.

Does it make sense for God to know who the atonement is for and make it for everyone?

Consider the references of Christ's purpose in atoning for sin. His blood was shed for many, not all.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Many have been atonement for. Not all. The scoop is not every single person whoever lived but effectual for those that believe as our Arminian friends argue. It was "shed for man for the remission of sins."

The result of this one time sacrifice always, in every case, results in the sanctification of the people for whom it was offered.

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

If Christ died for all then all will be sanctified.

Calvin was a good man, a great Pastor and teacher but he is not the standard for many of us who are called "Calvinist." His seminal work is extremely important to all Bible believing Christians but we cannot ignore the work of those good and godly Pastors and teaches that have come after him, improving Calvin's work, as Calvin improved on others that came before him.

I hope that helps.

jm

 

[CalledOutOne]

Does it make sense for God to know who the atonement is for and make it for everyone?

Consider the references of Christ's purpose in atoning for sin. His blood was shed for many, not all.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Many have been atonement for. Not all. The scoop is not every single person whoever lived but effectual for those that believe as our Arminian friends argue. It was "shed for man for the remission of sins."

The result of this one time sacrifice always, in every case, results in the sanctification of the people for whom it was offered.

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

If Christ died for all then all will be sanctified.

Calvin was a good man, a great Pastor and teacher but he is not the standard for many of us who are called "Calvinist." His seminal work is extremely important to all Bible believing Christians but we cannot ignore the work of those good and godly Pastors and teaches that have come after him, improving Calvin's work, as Calvin improved on others that came before him.

I hope that helps.

jm

I think I understand it now.

Gathered from your reply and other sources: Christ's blood is valuable to cover everyone, but Christ bore God's wrath for only the elect, so He purchased, by His blood, only the elect.

So it is for the sake of the elect, not for the reprobate whatsoever.

Am I understanding it correctly?

 

[JM]

Don Fortner put it like this:

The Most Hideous Doctrine - Don Fortner - YouTube

"If God loved everybody then He'd save everybody!"

 

[Anoetos]

God's covenant love has always been particular.

There is, and has always been, only one Israel...

 

[JM]

True.

 

[CalledOutOne]

Don Fortner put it like this:

The Most Hideous Doctrine - Don Fortner - YouTube

"If God loved everybody then He'd save everybody!"

I'm going to have to bookmark this.

I just left a cult that taught strange things about the atonement that have Calvinist roots.... I've been confused on some of the issues since then. I appreciate your help.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Pastor Don Fortner is right. The Jesus that is preached in most churches today is an Arminian deity that needs your help. That if you don't "make a decision for", he will go away crying. *Puke

 

[CalledOutOne]

Pastor Don Fortner is right. The Jesus that is preached in most churches today is an Arminian deity that needs your help. That if you don't "make a decision for", he will go away crying. *Puke

Hmmm... I'm not sure what kind of so-called Christian would believe such a thing.

That God is in heaven biting His finger nails thinking, "I hope he chooses to follow me."

I know that it is wrong to believe that 2 Pet. 3:9 is about anyone but the elect and that Ezekiel 33:11 is often out of context to support such a claim.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Hmmm... I'm not sure what kind of so-called Christian would believe such a thing.

Your typical modern contemporary Christian church. You have to go up on stage and "accept Jesus".

 

[CalledOutOne]

Your typical modern contemporary Christian church. You have to go up on stage and "accept Jesus".

To say "I accepted Jesus into my heart" is to say "I give permission for Jesus to be Lord of my life".

Jesus is a lion. He doesn't need permission to devour His prey. He just does it.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Exactly!! He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords!! Its sacrilegous to say or even imply that He needs anything.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

"Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect."
~John Calvin

I've always taken this to mean that Christ did not die for the sake of the reprobate, but if the reprobate would repent (we know he won't), then Christ's blood would save him.

Is this the correct view?

Certainly Christ's death is valuable enough for every individual who ever lived, but it is not efficient for every individual who ever lived.

I agree with Calvin's view, it seemeth to be a more complete view taking into account Scriptures which seemeth to conflict with particular grace or particular redemption.

I went through this subject extensively in the following thread: Calvin on the Atonement

 

[Anoetos]

I think it goes without saying that Jesus' sacrifice was enough to save everyone regardless, and that the benefits of that sacrifice were, nonetheless applied only to the elect, but I don't like the expression "sufficient for all, but efficient only for some" as most people use it.

In the mouths of many Calvinists, it tends to be a sort of softening or apology for particular grace/limited atonement. I doubt that this is what Calvin had in mind though.

 

[JM]

I don't believe Calvin made limited atonement a pillar of his theology which tends to be more pastoral. Sure, his Institutes has a good polemic for limited atonement, but Calvin with this doctrine as one of many truths from God's word. When you think of the term Calvinist you have to remember that Calvin was one in the Reformed tradition and not the Reformed tradition in total.

 

[Anoetos]

I realize that. The question here is not whether Calvin is the Reformed Tradition, but, is Calvin consistent with the Reformd Tradition on this point. I believe he is. He doesn't depart from it.

 

[JM]

Then we need to distinguish the Reformed tradition in its stages of theological development with Calvin being in the first generation or wave.

I would also like to point out that is is doubtful Calvin would not have chosen Beza as his successor if they disagreed. Beza was clearly a high predestinatarian.