Correct View of Limited Atonement?

[JustAsIam77]

"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.

Not to confuse you because of other comments to the contrary but I believe your understanding of this subject is absolutely correct as did Calvin.

 

[JM]

I had a enough of this...lol, CALVINISM CHART!

Search Results calvinism chart « Feileadh Mor

 

[JustAsIam77]

What is so difficult to understand about this subject? Calvin understood it exactly right!

 

[JM]

Justasyouare, you agree with him so you believe he got it right. Understood.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I guess I would hold to high Calvinism. Ultra-high Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism in my book.
I don't think that John Gill always believed that way.

But what does it mean when it says, "the elect are in some sense eternally justified"?
If it means what I think it does then I'm stuck between ultra-high and high which means I just called myself a hyper-Calvinist

 

[JM]

CalledOut, I posted a video here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7694205/ It deals with justificaiton from eternity.

 

[Anoetos]

Justasyouare, you agree with him so you believe he got it right. Understood.

And you don't, so you believe you are right.

Just so.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What is so difficult to understand about this subject? Calvin understood it exactly right!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I guess I would hold to high Calvinism. Ultra-high Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism in my book.
I don't think that John Gill always believed that way.

But what does it mean when it says, "the elect are in some sense eternally justified"?
If it means what I think it does then I'm stuck between ultra-high and high which means I just called myself a hyper-Calvinist

According to the labels, I'm a lowly moderate Calvinist, but I have high tendencies.

I believe there would be fewer ultra's etc. if we sat down and laid everything out on the table, took time to define our terms, etc. I appreciate the diversity though, it works like a checks and balances system, as we're all prone to get carried away in one way or another. As they say "iron sharpens iron". Another appreciation for the diversity is that it demonstrates that there is room for disagreement within Reformed Churches and yet at the end of the day, we're all "Calvinists".

Cheers

 

[Eddie L]

I don't like the chart myself. It's too left-brained for my taste. People are more complex than what can fit on a chart like this. That's just my opinion, though.

 

[JM]

When I post this poll or talk with Calvinists I find more Reformed folks tend to be "high" or higher on the chart. It seems the Reformed church in general, in my experience that is, has moved on from Calvin's preliminary work. The results from the Puritan Board poll show that more Reformed folks that post there would be consider high Calvinists. Also note, the Puritan Board has a very high ratio of seminary grads and serving Elders and Deacons:

• Hyper-Calvinism = 3
  
  
  
• Ultra High Calvinism = 8
  
  
  
• High Calvinism = 81
  
  
  
• Moderate Calvinism = 49
  
  
  
• Low Calvinism = 2
  
  
  
• Lutheranism = 2
  
  
  
• Free-will Baptist = 2
  
  
• Arminianism
  

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The results from the Puritan Board poll show that more Reformed folks that post there would be consider high Calvinists.

Which probably explains why I do not post there often.

 

[JM]

I haven't posted there in a while either but I think the poll is a fair representation of Reformed Christians.

 

[CalledOutOne]

What is this puritan board everyone keeps talking about?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I haven't posted there in a while either but I think the poll is a fair representation of Reformed Christians.

I couldn't say either way whether it's a fair representation of modern Reformed Christians of today or not, the sample is much too small. There are more Presbyterians or at least folks attending my local Presbyterian Church, than participated in poll, and my local Presby Church is a drop in the bucket in contrast to the whole. Certainly a poll doesn't establish truth, for example, the PCUSA is the largest Presby denom and the majority in PCUSA are liberal, but does that prove their theological liberalism correct? Not for a minute. For goodness sakes, Protestantism is the result of a minority, Luther and those brave souls who sided with him, and many paid the ultimate price for their protest. Anyway, PB mainly consists of a group of "elitists" among us, and I"d say it's a fair representation of PB, I wouldn't argue from that small sample to the whole. My two cents...

 

[JM]

AW, either way...I'm not beholden to Calvin's view or the Reformed tradition, at least not in the same way, as the Presby church is and I think that's the difference worth stating. The Particular Baptists who signed the 1689 were high Calvinists (posted short quote here) and I am well within that stream of thought. If someone asks me "what is the correct view of the atonement" I'm not going to look to Calvin, I may consult his writings, but he isn't the standard by which I draw my doctrine.

 

[bsd058]

Misunderstood the poll....nevermind.

 

[Willie T]

"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.

How do you spell "whosoever"?

 

[bsd058]

How do you spell "whosoever"?

Just put a dash between each letter you wrote above between the second w and the r. That's how you should spell the word.

 

[JM]

How do you spell "whosoever"?