• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Five Point or Four Point

erin74

Ministry is about people not structures.
Feb 8, 2005
8,703
318
rural australia
✟41,267.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Problem is with man trying to use his own reason, rather than trusting God and His holy word for all truth!

See this is the whole problem I have with L - it keeps looking like reason to me.

That's why I asked for scripture to explain it.

I also did some thinking as I dozed off last night (ie forgive it if it's stupid as I was half asleep).

I wonder if the issue I am having is around God's desire vs God's plan (probably not the best choice of words, but they were what were in my head).

Like does God desire that men should perish? I am not sure about that.

Is it in God's plan that some will perish - I think it is.

For comparison
Did Christ desire to go to the cross? "Take this cup away"
Was he willing to go because it was God's plan? Of course.

So I think my difficulty is that I can't see the bible saying that God only came for the elect. I can only see reason putting the passages together to make that point...
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
See this is the whole problem I have with L - it keeps looking like reason to me.

That's why I asked for scripture to explain it.

I also did some thinking as I dozed off last night (ie forgive it if it's stupid as I was half asleep).

I wonder if the issue I am having is around God's desire vs God's plan (probably not the best choice of words, but they were what were in my head).

Like does God desire that men should perish? I am not sure about that.

Is it in God's plan that some will perish - I think it is.

For comparison
Did Christ desire to go to the cross? "Take this cup away"
Was he willing to go because it was God's plan? Of course.

So I think my difficulty is that I can't see the bible saying that God only came for the elect. I can only see reason putting the passages together to make that point...

Hi sister , God Bless you for being a thinker about this deep and important Biblical Doctrine.

I accept a desire in God that men in general come to Him for salvation , I also accept that He has not planned all will be saved . I accept God does not willingly afflict the son's of men , and that God delights in returning sinners .

Yet , because I accept God calls , invites , beseeches all men to Repent have faith and be saved , does it follow that their must be an atonement for all men , or just the believer ?

I think the whole issue can best be expressed this way ; is the atonement of Christ definte , or indefinite ?

Does the work of Christ really save sinners or does it only make salvation a possibility ?

I came to the conclusion after much study that the atonement is definite , that Christ truly , not potentially or hyperthetically blotted out sin , that God is actually not potentially or even temporally propitiated by Jesus precious blood.

Does that mean that I cannot tell men that Christ died for them ?

I have gone through scripture and nowhere do the Apostles say "Christ died for you so believe on Him" , which is what you would expect if a universal hyperthetical atonement was true.

But does that mean that all men cannot place their faith and trust in Christ and His work ?

The Gospel is sent out to all (elect and reprobate) Christ laid down His life for every sheep , for His heavenly Bride and for every believer , the invitation of the Gospel is that whosever believes , meaning it is specifically a promise of salvation (the atonement is to be received by faith) to those and those only who believe , whoever they are.

The Gospel proclamation and invitation does not need a universal indefinite atonement to make it valid , in fact such an atonement by defintion does not save , and does not atone , it is true that all sinners need to do is to trust in Christ and His redeeming work for sinners , and they will be saved .

btw , a good thing to read is James Packers introduction to John Owen's book , "The death of death" , it is available online , and has been published on it's own.

God Bless :hug:


J Packer

"
This is the triumphant conviction which underlay the old gospel, as it does the whole New Testament. And this is what Owen will teach us unequivocally to believe.​

Then, second, Owen could set us free, if we would hear him, to preach the biblical gospel. This assertion may sound paradoxical, for it is often imagined that those who will not preach that Christ died to save every man are left with no gospel at all. On the contrary, however, what they are left with is just the gospel of the New Testament. What does it mean to preach 'the gospel of the grace of God'? Owen only touches on this briefly and incidentally,13 but his comments are full of light. Preaching the gospel, he tells us, is not a matter of telling the congregation that God has set his love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them, for these assertions, biblically understood, would imply that they will all infallibly be saved, and this cannot be known to be true. The knowledge of being the object of God's eternal love and Christ's redeeming death belongs to the individual's assurance,14 which in the nature of the case cannot precede faith's saving exercise; it is to be inferred from the fact that one has believed, not proposed as a reason why one should believe. According to Scripture, preaching the gospel is entirely a matter of proclaiming to men, as truth from God which all are bound to believe and act on, the following four facts:
  1. that all men are sinners, and cannot do anything to save themselves;
  2. that Jesus Christ, God's Son, is a perfect Savior for sinners, even the worst;
  3. that the Father and the Son have promised that all who know themselves to he sinners and put faith in Christ as Savior shall be received into favor, and none cast out - which promise is 'a certain infallible truth, grounded upon the superabundant sufficiency of the oblation of Christ in itself, for whomsoever (fewer or more) it be intended';15
  4. that God has made repentance and faith a duty, requiring of every man who hears the gospel 'a serious full recumbency and rolling of the soul upon Christ in the promise of the gospel, as an all-suffcient Savior, able to deliver and save to the utmost them that come to God by him; ready, able and willing, through the preciousness of his blood and sufficiency of his ransom, to save every soul that shall freely give up themselves unto him for that end.'16
The preacher's task, in other words, is to display Christ, to explain man's need of him, his sufficiency to save, and his offer of himself in the promises as Savior to all who truly turn to him; and to show as fully as he can how these truths apply to the congregation before for him. It is not for him to say, nor for his hearers to ask, for whom Christ died in particular. 'There is none called on by the gospel once to enquire after the purpose and intention of God concerning the particular object of the death of Christ, every one being fully assured that his death shall be profitable to them that believe in him and obey him.' After saving faith has been exercised, 'it lies on a believer to assure his soul, according as he find the fruit of the death of Christ in him and towards him, of the goodwill and eternal love of God to him in sending his Son to die for him in particular';17 but not before. The task to which the gospel calls him is simply to exercise faith, which he is both warranted and obliged to do by God's command and promise.
Some comments on this conception of what preaching the gospel means are in order.
First, we should observe that the old gospel of Owen contains no less full and free an offer of salvation than its modern counterpart. It presents ample grounds for faith (the sufficiency of Christ, and the promise of God), and cogent motives to faith (the sinner's need, and the Creator's command, which is also the Redeemer's invitation). The new gospel gains nothing here by asserting universal redemption. The old gospel, certainly, has no room for the cheap sentimentalizing which turns God's free mercy to sinners into a constitutional softheartedness on his part which we can take for granted; nor will it countenance the degrading presentation of Christ as the baffled Savior, balked in what he hoped to do by human unbelief; nor will it indulge in maudlin appeals to the unconverted to let Christ save them out of pity for his disappointment. The pitiable Savior and the pathetic God of modern pulpits are unknown to the old gospel. The old gospel tells men that they need God, but not that God needs them (a modern falsehood); it does not exhort them to pity Christ, but announces that Christ has pitied them, though pity was the last thing they deserved. It never loses sight of the divine majesty and sovereign power of the Christ whom it proclaims, but rejects flatly all representations of him which would obscure his free omnipotence.
Does this mean, however, that the preacher of the old gospel is inhibited or confined in offering Christ to men and inviting them to receive him? Not at all. In actual fact, just because he recognizes that divine mercy is sovereign and free, he is in a position to make far more of the offer of Christ in his preaching than is the expositor of the new gospel; for this offer is itself a far more wonderful thing on his principles than it can ever be in the eyes of those who regard love to all sinners as a necessity of God's nature, and therefore a matter of course. To think that the holy Creator, who never needed man for his happiness and might justly have banished our fallen race forever without mercy, should actually have chosen to redeem some of them! And that his own Son was willing to undergo death and descend into hell to save them! And that now from his throne he should speak to ungodly men as he does in the words of the gospel, urging upon them the command to repent and believe in the form of a compassionate invitation to pity themselves and choose life! These thoughts are the focal points round which the preaching of the old gospel revolves. It is all wonderful, just because none of it can be taken for granted.
But perhaps that most wonderful thing of all - the holiest spot in all the holy ground of gospel truth - is the free invitation which 'the Lord Christ' (as Owen loves to call him) issues repeatedly to guilty sinners to come to him and find rest for their souls. It is the glory of these invitations that it is an omnipotent King who gives them, just as it is a chief part of the glory of the enthroned Christ that he condescends still to utter them. And it is the glory of the gospel ministry that the preacher goes to men as Christ's ambassador, charged to deliver the King's invitation personally to every sinner present and to summon them all to turn and live. Owen himself enlarges on this in a passage addressed to the unconverted.
Consider the infinite condescension and love of Christ, in his invitations and calls of you to come unto him for life, deliverance, mercy, grace, peace and eternal salvation. Multitudes of these invitations and calls are recorded in the Scripture, and they are all of them filled up with those blessed encouragements which divine wisdom knows to be suited unto lost, convinced sinners. . . . In the declaration and preaching of them, Jesus Christ yet stands before sinners, calling, inviting, encouraging them to come unto him.
This is somewhat of the word which he now speaks unto you: Why will ye die? Why will ye perish? Why will ye not have compassion on your own souls? Can your hearts endure, or can your hands he strong, in the day of wrath that is approaching. . . . Look unto me, and be saved; come unto me, and I will ease you of all sins, sorrows, fears, burdens, and give rest unto your souls. Come, I entreat you; lay aside all procrastinations, all delays, put me off no more; eternity lies at the door . . . do not so hate me as that you will rather perish than accept of deliverance by me.
These and the like things doth the Lord Christ continually declare, proclaim, plead and urge upon the souls of sinners. . . . He doth it in the preaching of the word, as if he were present with you, stood amongst you, and spake personally to every one of you. . . . He hath appointed the ministers of the gospel to appear before you, and to deal with you in his stead, avowing as his own the invitations which are given you in his name (2 Cor 1:19, 20).18
These invitations are universal; Christ addresses them to sinners, as such, and every man, as he believes God to be true, is bound to treat them as God's words to him personally and to accept the universal assurance which accompanies them, that all who come to Christ will be received. Again, these invitations are real; Christ genuinely offers himself to all who hear the gospel, and is in truth a perfect Savior to all who trust him. The question of the extent of the atonement does not arise in evangelistic preaching; the message to be delivered is simply this - that Christ Jesus, the sovereign Lord, who died for sinners, now invites sinners freely to himself. God commands all to repent and believe; Christ promises life and peace to all who do so. Furthermore, these invitations are marvelously gracious; men despise and reject them, and are never in any case worthy of them, and yet Christ still issues them. He need not, but he does. 'Come unto me . . . and I will give you rest' remains his word to the world, never canceled, always to be preached. He whose death has ensured the salvation of all his people is to be proclaimed everywhere as a perfect Savior, and all men invited and urged to believe on him, whoever they are, whatever they have been. Upon these three insights the evangelism of the old gospel is based.
It is a very ill-informed supposition that evangelistic preaching which proceeds on these principles must be anaemic and halfhearted by comparison with what Arminians can do. Those who study the printed sermons of worthy expositors of the old gospel, such as Bunyan (whose preaching Owen himself much admired), or Whitefieid, or Spurgeon, will find that in fact they hold forth the Savior and summon sinners to him with a fullness, warmth, intensity and moving force unmatched in Protestant pulpit literature. And it will be found on analysis that the very thing which gave their preaching its unique power to overwhelm their audiences with brokenhearted joy at the riches of God's grace - and still gives it that power, let it be said, even with hard-boiled modern readers - was their insistence on the fact that grace is free. They knew that the dimensions of divine love are not half understood till one realizes that God need not have chosen to save nor given his Son to die; nor need Christ have taken upon him vicarious damnation to redeem men, nor need he invite sinners indiscriminately to himself as he does; but that all God's gracious dealings spring entirely from his own free purpose. Knowing this, they stressed it, and it is this stress that sets their evangelistic preaching in a class by itself. "

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_intro.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: edie19
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
That's why I asked for scripture to explain it.

I. Matthew 1:21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins

II. Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

III. Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it
 
Upvote 0

erin74

Ministry is about people not structures.
Feb 8, 2005
8,703
318
rural australia
✟41,267.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think I'll have to come back and read some of this - my head is tired.

Can I ask you to explain this comment further

that God is actually not potentially or even temporally propitiated by Jesus precious blood

I know what propitiated means, but I just don't get what you are trying to say. I think I must be a bit slow tonight.

Thank you for your answer though - I appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
I think I'll have to come back and read some of this - my head is tired.

Can I ask you to explain this comment further



I know what propitiated means, but I just don't get what you are trying to say. I think I must be a bit slow tonight.

Thank you for your answer though - I appreciate it.

Could I suggest that you reread the OP :)
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟36,128.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Jesus actually addressed this issue himself. If John 10 doesn't teach Limited Atonement I don't know what does. Take a look at verses 25-27 in particular:

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

It's interesting to note that being a "sheep" isn't conditional upon belief - but vice versa. Limited Atonement was most addressed by Jesus himself and you can learn most about it in the Bible from Jesus himself. John 10 is one example of quite a few.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xapis
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,116
76
Lousianna
✟1,016,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi Steve - I'd love to hear more on this from you. I just don't know what to think, and would like to hear from someone else who holds strongly to the other 4 points. I just don't fully get L.

Any chance that you could give an explanation of your difficulties with these passages. And perhaps what you think the bible is saying on atonement.

And could someone else give a potted summary on the L view of the same passages, and of the pertinent passages that actually do make the L point - rather than just the explanation of why the above verses are not a barrier.

Hi erin. I do not want to get into extended debate in this thread but I will answer your question.

2 Peter 2:1 - Says that Christ bought (agorazo) ones described as false (pseudo) prophets and false (pseudo) teachers who teach heresy. Ones who are reserved unto the day of judgment (1 Peter 2:4,5,9).

Peter uses the word agorazo (bought in the market of sin) here rather than other words for redeem: ex azorazo (bought and removed from the market of sin) or lutrao (bought and released). The price is paid yet they are not redeemed and eternally perish.

My parable of the Amyraldian was written to illustrate this:

A wealthy man buys ten tickets to Hawaii and has his Son pay cash for them. He sends a letter to ten people with a ticket purchased for them and invites them to join him in Hawaii.

He also sends a Special Courier to deliver three of the tickets to a select group of the ten and has the Courier earnestly persuade them to go {His persuasion is irresistible!} The Courier then escorts them onto the plane insuring they get to Hawaii.

The other seven get the letter and the ticket that has been purchased for them, but because they hate the wealthy man [he makes them feel guilty] they refuse to use the ticket. They each think. If I ever go to Hawaii, I'm going MY way. No one is paying my way, especially not That Guy!

The wealthy man, his son and the courier rejoice with the three in Hawaii. The other seven never make it and their tickets, while paid in full, are never used. While the three are in the beauty of Hawaii with the wealthy man a plague strikes the home towns of the seven and they perish.

NOTE: This is an artificially constructed parable to show how the price can be paid in full for those who refuse to receive the gift. The Father's election and the Spirit's persuasion are limited to the elect, yet a ticket purchased by the Son is legitimately extended to all.
The parable is simply illustrative. 2 Peter 2 says they were bought yet are eternally judged.

1 Timothy 4:10 -
says God is the savior (sotyr) of all men (pas anthropos), especially (malista - in a heightened sense) of believers (pistos).

This indicates that Christ's death, while for all (lit. every human) in one sense, is for the elect (those who are brought to faith) in a higher sense and with much greater implications.

I believe Christ bought (agorazo) all; but only the elect are removed from the market place of sin (exagorazo) and released (lutrao). Christ's blood stands as a witness to the non-elect sinners that it is sufficient for all (even though it will be efficient only for those who are regenerated and sealed by the Holy Spirit).

===

As I said, I know the logical arguments and the Reformed answer to this; but I am not persuaded that theirs is the proper exegesis of Peter and Paul's statements.

And, as I said, if I were to embrace the "L" in my theology... it would not effect my ministry or gospel preaching at all.

The reason I do not debate this issue (here I am answering your request for my view) is that when one firmly holds the other four the issue becomes like the infra/supralapsarian debate... it divides monergists when the key issue is addressing synergism which insists that salvation is of man in some degree.

drstevej
  • Thanks be to the Father who Chose me in eternity
  • Thanks be to the Son who Redeemed me at Calvary
  • Thanks be to the Spirit who Regenerated me in 1965
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can you explain further how these verses teach limited atonement - I don't quite understand.

will check in tomorrow - bit tired.
I think I can help. The importance of the Definite or Limited Atonement is to point out that the Atonement actually saves people; it doesn't simply offer salvation to people, but saves a specific group of people.

So with "he shall save his people from their sins", the resonance is clear. God actually saves people, and it's a specific group of people -- "his people".

So the Atonement is definite -- limited -- in scope, and it actually saves people.

This would contrast with an offer to save, but not actual salvation. Then the phrasing would not be "he saves his people" but "he offers salvation [to all]." The Atonement is actual salvation, not the offer to save.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Iosias
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
61
✟34,311.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
So I think my difficulty is that I can't see the bible saying that God only came for the elect. I can only see reason putting the passages together to make that point...

I dunno if this will help, but...

...she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sin.

Matthew 1:21

Notice...it does not say "he will make salvation potential for everyone", but that he "will save".

Grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.

Galatians 1:3,4

Again, it says that Jesus' specific purpose was to give Himself for our sins and deliver us...not to potentially deliver everybody. 'Our' and 'us' in this case refers to the elect.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word...

Ephesians 5:25,26

Who does it say Jesus gave Himself up for? The church!! Not for everyone.

I think James Montgomery Boice explained this as well as anybody else I have ever heard, and better than most, in his book The Doctrines of Grace. Boice examines the way four terms are used in scripture to arrive at a conclusion of what he prefers to call Particular Redemption...and I agree with him that the term Limited Atonement has been the source of all sorts of problems with the doctrine. Those terms, and you may want to research them yourself, are redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, and atonement.

See if you can get a fix on those four terms, and then we can discuss it some more.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I think I'll have to come back and read some of this - my head is tired.

Can I ask you to explain this comment further



I know what propitiated means, but I just don't get what you are trying to say. I think I must be a bit slow tonight.

Thank you for your answer though - I appreciate it.

Hi sister , what I mean is that God through Christ's death has been propitiated , God is now reconciled to sinners , and on that basis , God is at peace .

Yet this cannot be universal , otherwise one of two things would follow.

1. God must now save everybody because their is no longer any wrath in God. (false)

2. God must change His mind and attitude from being propitiated for many who He later poors out His wrath , but God cannot change , and neither can the nature or the power of the atonement .

I believe a universal atonement is powerless to save.


icon3.gif
1 Timothy, chapter 2, verses 1-4 ... ''all men'' ?









First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thankgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verses 1-4






Here we have the classic text that is used to show God wills the salvation of everyone!

but let us look again at this text.

who are we to pray for ?

"all men"

so the relationship of prayer to salvation is as extensive as God's will that all men are saved ........ ie , we should pray for "all men" for God desires "all men" to be saved.

supposing for a moment that "all men" means every single person who ever lived or who will ever live :


Now , upon what evidence is there that God wills the salvation of all men ?

And upon what evidence is there that we should pray for all men ?


If there is no evidence to show that we should pray for every single sinner then , there is no evidence that God will's the salvation of every single sinner.......

you may say , ''ah yes , but we cannot PROVE it means every single sinner , but we have no reason to ASSUME it doesn't mean every single sinner'' .......

really!

Is there not in the sacred scriptures a forbidding of prayer for Apostates ?




Jer.14:11-12. "Then said the Lord unto me, Pray not for this people for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and an oblation, I will not accept them: but I will consume them by the sword, and by the famine and by the pestilence."


1Jn.5:16. "If a man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."


Conclusion: then if we are forbidden to pray for Apostates then "all men" cannot mean every single human who ever lived!

All this shows that God does not will the salvation of every sinner ........ He may delight in salvation , He may desire that sinners are saved , He may take no delight in the death of the wicked , and still not plan to save everyone!
 
Upvote 0

erin74

Ministry is about people not structures.
Feb 8, 2005
8,703
318
rural australia
✟41,267.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Hmmm - much to think on.

Steve - thank you for that. It is interesting. Without wanting to encourage too much debate, I would be interested in hearing the alternate view on these verses. But still, it is interesting. I think I see what you mean by your preaching wouldn't change if you believed differently on this. I think that is one of my problems with L - I don't see the point of it - I don't see what hangs off this doctrine and why it is considered crucial...

AV1611 - I believe that question was directed at the post immediately above it. Also I am not sure of Australian copyright laws, which differ to the US ones, and have heard recently that it may preclude reading material that is ok for other countries. I just am going to be careful about ebooks until I research it. I wouldn't have the time to read all that anytime soon at any rate.

I don't mean to debate each and every thing that has been mentioned. But I am keen to post my initial thoughts, if for no other reason, so that I can clarify my thinking. Feel free to ignore it all - I know you have all probably thought through all this already. So forgive me for thinking out loud here as I ponder it all.

HeyMikey and Grinning Dwarf:

Matt 1:21. I agree that Christ will save his people from their sin, and not anyone else. It is prophesy - that he will come and die and will save those who are his. But this doesn't make the point of L as I understand L. As in it doesn't say that it means his death isn't sufficient for all.

Galations 1:3,4. I assume this is Paul referring to himself and the Galatians. In including himself and the recipients of the letter, I don't think it counts others out. Otherwise you could use this verse equally to say that Christ came only for the Galatians and Paul, which is obviously not true. I think that Paul's language is inclusive, but not exclusive.

Again in Ephesians - gave himself up for her. This is true, but it does not make the other necessarily untrue - ie it is inclusive, not exclusive language.

redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, and atonement. I am very familiar with all of these terms - I've done a lot on Romans in the last few years. And Hebrews for that matter. I managed to do the same bible study series 3 times in 5 years on Hebrews. It's a good study though! Not that these are particularly Hebrews kind of words, but hey - you've gotta love Hebrews.

cygnusx1 - I see your point, but I think I find the reasoning a bit tenuous. To use a specific instruction at the time of Jeremiah to negate a less specific instruction in Timothy seems to be a bit of a misuse of the Jeremiah passage in order to make a point. Plus I don't know that those passages are discussing God's will in the same way Timothy is.

Sorry if I seem like I am taking pot shots. I am not intending to. I have been taught to be a critical thinker, and so am trying to work through it all.
I guess I just find the other 4 points so obvious and struggle with how this one just doesn't seem so obviously scriptural, and seems so very unfamiliar to me. Maybe it's the familiarity with the passages and the understanding I already have of them. I am not sure.

I have asked my dh to look into it all too - I am hoping he can help me understand it in light of the teaching we are so familiar with - that is he knows how I am used to thinking on things, and he might be able to explain it to me from within my current framework of thinking.
 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,116
76
Lousianna
✟1,016,631.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Erin, my view does differ from 5 point Calvinists who do not believe in the "free offer of the gospel.".

(Pardon another link but the article by John Murray and Ned Stonehouse is a classsic statement of the view.)

Their fourth and fifth concluding points:

4. We found that God reveals himself as not taking pleasure in or desiring the death of those who die but rather as taking pleasure in or desiring the repentance and life of the wicked. This will of God to repentance and salvation is universalized and reveals to us, therefore, that there is in God a benevolent lovingkindness towards the repentance and salvation of even those whom he has not decreed to save. This pleasure, will, desire is expressed in the universal call to repentance.

5. We must conclude, therefore, that our provisional inference on the basis of Matt. 5 :44-48 is borne out by the other passages. The full and free offer of the gospel is a grace bestowed upon all. Such grace is necessarily a manifestation of love or lovingkindness in the heart of God. And this lovingkindness is revealed to be of a character or kind that is correspondent with the grace bestowed. The grace offered is nothing less than salvation in its richness and fulness. The love or lovingkindness that lies back of that offer is not anything less; it is the will to that salvation. In other words, it is Christ in all the glory of his person and in all the perfection of his finished work whom God offers in the gospel. The loving and benevolent will that is the source of that offer and that grounds its veracity and reality is the will to the possession of Christ and the enjoyment of the salvation that resides in him.
FYI:
This essay was written by John Murray (1898-1975), professor of Systematic Theology in Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and Ned B. Stonehouse (1902-62), the distinguished professor of New Testament in Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia as a committee report to the Fifteenth General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (Minutes, 1948, Appendix, pp. 01-63).
To be sure, Stonehouse and Murray affirmed Limited Atonement, but this discussion of the Free Offer of the gospel I think fits my view.

Their position was not adopted as their official view of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but it was sent in 1948 by the Assembly to their assemblies for serious study.
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
61
✟34,311.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, and atonement. I am very familiar with all of these terms - I've done a lot on Romans in the last few years. And Hebrews for that matter. I managed to do the same bible study series 3 times in 5 years on Hebrews. It's a good study though! Not that these are particularly Hebrews kind of words, but hey - you've gotta love Hebrews...

Sorry if I seem like I am taking pot shots. I am not intending to. I have been taught to be a critical thinker, and so am trying to work through it all.
I guess I just find the other 4 points so obvious and struggle with how this one just doesn't seem so obviously scriptural, and seems so very unfamiliar to me. Maybe it's the familiarity with the passages and the understanding I already have of them. I am not sure.

Well, I don't think you're taking pot shots. You've got an estblished reputation around here and we all know you better than to think that.

I also had a pretty good idea that you were familiar with those four terms. I'll post more as a follow-up when I get the time to properly address it.
 
Upvote 0

GrinningDwarf

Just a humble servant
Mar 30, 2005
2,732
276
61
✟34,311.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
(Pardon another link but the article by John Murray and Ned Stonehouse is a classsic statement of the view.)


Thanks for the link! I was suprised to see John Gerstner listed with the 'Reformed right ' with Herman Hoeksema regarding the Free Offer of the Gospel. I'm not as familiar with Gerstner as I'd like to be, but Gerstner was Sproul's 'mentor' and Sproul speaks very highly of him, and Sproul believes in both Limited Atonement and the free offer of the Gospel. So do I.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
cygnusx1 - I see your point, but I think I find the reasoning a bit tenuous. To use a specific instruction at the time of Jeremiah to negate a less specific instruction in Timothy seems to be a bit of a misuse of the Jeremiah passage in order to make a point. Plus I don't know that those passages are discussing God's will in the same way Timothy is.


Hi Erin :) , may I just say that I did not merely leave it as a comparison between Jeremiah and Timothy , for then some could argue , Old Covenant verses New Covenant .
Instead I quoted Jeremiah Timothy and John

1Jn.5:16. "If a man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

So if we are forbidden to pray for Apostates , and there have been cases where Apostates , they describe themselves on CF as "deconverts , and take delight in their so called freedom and some boast how many they help Apostasise !

So if we are commanded not to pray for apostates then praying for every single person to be saved is out of the question .

Calvinists have said that 1 Timothy is addressing "all" types of men , even Kings etc ...... I find this interpretation fits all the available data and leaves us well equiped for direction in intercession and clarity in accepting some men can "never " come to a knowledge of the truth , much less be saved. see 2 Timothy 3:7.


There are also a few scriptures that state intercession is less than universal in scope.

John 17 (King James Version)

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.


Jeremiah
Chapter 15

1 The LORD said to me: Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me, my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them away from me.

I know this is dealing with INTERCESSION not the Atonement , but a study of the Priesthood , especially the High Priest shows that they are inseperable .


as a matter of interest ;

To seperate the Intercession of Christ from the Atonement was the mistake of R T Kendal (Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 )
His book was refuted and corrected by Paul Helm , in his excellent book , Calvin and The Calvinists . BOT.

Greetings
Cygnus :wave:
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And it's fine to be a critical thinker, erin.

What the sentences in Scripture logically say is not all that the sentences in Scriptural context actually mean. Much of Scriptural meaning is found by spiralling out of the specific sentence or phrase's meaning (a "proof-text" phrase) to see in what context it's stated; to understand why the particular context is important; and then to ask, "Why would he say such a thing in this context?"
Matt 1:21. I agree that Christ will save his people from their sin, and not anyone else. It is prophesy - that he will come and die and will save those who are his. But this doesn't make the point of L as I understand L. As in it doesn't say that it means his death isn't sufficient for all.
As I pointed out at posting 16, Calvin didn't have a problem with the actual concept of "sufficient for all", he was just annoyed at its use to cover for real theological issues that required more insight.

In point of fact, the Synod of Dordt defines Limited Atonement. It actually does assert Christ's Atonement is more than sufficient for all. Dordt defined the Five Points of Calvinism. So ... Limited Atonement doesn't assert Christ's Atonement is insufficient for all:
Point 2, Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

So you see, Reformed theology defines Limited Atonement with infinite sufficiency.
Galations 1:3,4. I assume this is Paul referring to himself and the Galatians. In including himself and the recipients of the letter, I don't think it counts others out. Otherwise you could use this verse equally to say that Christ came only for the Galatians and Paul, which is obviously not true. I think that Paul's language is inclusive, but not exclusive.
Yes, objectively prima facie Paul is just talking to the Galatians. But consider: Paul is talking to the Galatians about what they have received through Christ, in distinction from what others have not received. In that sense Paul is telling us what Christ gives us, and not those who don't believe. He gives us deliverance, not a chance for deliverance.

In contrast Paul's concept of those outside can certainly include some availability. But his concept of those in Galatia is that Christ has given Himself for our sins; not for some availability of forgiveness.

Were it not true, Paul would really have no reason to write those words. If they were universal he would have no reason to limit them to the church at Galatia, whom he is addressing.

And if we projected Paul's meaning to the entire church of Christ and not specifically those in Galatia, we could expect Paul to be talking about those in the church as a whole, in distinction from those outside the church. Paul rarely if ever speaks of special privileges one localized church has over another.
Again in Ephesians - gave himself up for her. This is true, but it does not make the other necessarily untrue - ie it is inclusive, not exclusive language.
Right, it doesn't make the other logically impossible. But the context excludes that meaning. Why would Paul call attention to what Christ did for the church if it were really what Christ did for all people? Why would he make an artificial distinction?

There's really no reason for Paul to make an artificial distinction here. If Christ gave himself for everyone, why not say that? The only reason: because it's not true. Christ is thus not the groom to everyone; so Christ didn't intend to give himself up for everyone.

Admittedly the 5 Points overemphasize specific distinctives at the expense of some others. The Gospel proclamation and the outward call, they are to all people -- because Christ is the Lord of all, whether people accept Him or rebel.
I guess I just find the other 4 points so obvious and struggle with how this one just doesn't seem so obviously scriptural, and seems so very unfamiliar to me. Maybe it's the familiarity with the passages and the understanding I already have of them. I am not sure.
Yes, take a close look at Scriptures that point this out and you'll discover they're intensely direct. I went through the same gyrations as you're going through. It was only when I went to the semantics of Paul's and Jesus' words that I realized, "He's really saying this. Yes, he's really saying this."

The most convincing verses I've read about this are in John 6, 10, & Rom 5, 8, 9.
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" Jn 6:44-45

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. Jn 10:14-15

you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. Jn 10:26-28

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Rom 5:6-11

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:29-39


 
  • Like
Reactions: erin74
Upvote 0