question on Martin Luther

[Edward65]

The Calvinist who believes in limited atonement doesn’t believe in justification through faith. He sees the individual’s faith as only the evidence that he’s had his sins atoned for by Christ and not in itself the reason why he’s justified in God's sight. However the Bible says of Abraham that he believed God and that this was reckoned to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3) which means that a person’s affirmative response to the Gospel is the reason why that individual person is justified and regarded as righteous in God’s sight. So It’s not simply that Christ has atoned for a person’s sins which justifies him but also the fact that he has the faith to believe this which justifies him.

So justification is twofold - an objective element in that Christ died for a person’s sins, and a subjective element in that a person believes this and responds in faith. So the fact that Christ atoned for the sins of everyone in the world doesn’t imply universalism (that everyone will be saved) because this ignores the subjective element that a person must also have faith in order to be justified - “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved” (Rom 10:10, ESV)

 

[hedrick]

The Calvinist who believes in limited atonement doesn’t believe in justification through faith. He sees the individual’s faith as only the evidence that he’s had his sins atoned for by Christ and not in itself the reason why he’s justified in God's sight.

Not really. Most Calvinists believe that God operates through means. That is, when he chooses to save someone, and Christ dies for them, he grafts them into Christ through faith, as Paul describes. The individual's faith is the way that they participate in Christ, and are saved. It's more than just evidence.

 

[Edward65]

Not really. Most Calvinists believe that God operates through means. That is, when he chooses to save someone, and Christ dies for them, he grafts them into Christ through faith, as Paul describes. The individual's faith is the way that they participate in Christ, and are saved. It's more than just evidence.

Yes I’m not disagreeing with you, however I was trying to say something slightly different . I mean Calvinists who believe in limited atonement don’t see justification as comprising two separate and distinct elements i.e. Christ’s atonement and our faith. They object to the idea that any for whom Christ died remain unsaved and therefore don’t appreciate that Christ’s atonement is separate and independent from faith. They combine the two and wrongly assume that Christ’s atonement brings with it the faith to believe it and therefore in a sense don’t believe in justification through faith.

In the Scriptures because Christ died for everyone and not everyone is saved, faith is seen as a separate and independent factor from atonement, and therefore Christ’s atonement doesn’t bring with it the faith to believe this. For instance John 3:16-18 says that Christ came to save and not to condemn anyone and that if anyone is condemned it’s due to the fact that they don’t believe in Him not because He hasn’t atoned for them, so atonement is seen as separate from the faith which apprehends Him.

The limited atonement viewpoint is inimical to the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news that the sins of everyone are no longer counted against them by God and that because of Christ’s atonement forgiveness is open to everyone who wishes to have it, but someone who believes in limited atonement can’t proclaim this. They can’t in reality say much more than if people feel drawn to believe in Christ then the probability is that they’ve had their sins atoned for and will be saved, but what sort of gospel is that? It certainly not good news to hear something like that.

Someone who believes in limited atonement can’t categorically say to anyone that their sins are atoned for and God is favourably inclined towards them because of Christ. They don’t know who the elect definitely are so they can never reassure anyone who is suffering from anxiety over their sins that they are forgiven and regarded as righteous in God’s sight because of Christ. So the gospel of those who believe in limited atonement is no gospel at all. It amounts to bad news not good news to hear that only the elect have had their sins atoned for. That doesn’t reassure anyone but is a recipe for despair to those who are suffering from anxiety over their sins.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

I have to say that I have struggled with Limited Atonement. I can see valid points that Edward65 makes. I also see where at times it seems the bible teaches that Christ died for all. I wish to study this further. Are there some good websites that teach both sides? I wish to read on both sides of this issue. I myself wish to believe that Christ died for everyone and that his atonement is then for the elect, those who believe. But it requires further study for me. I may not hold to all 5 points, maybe only 4. Not sure on limited atonement at this time.

I did get the answer to my original question. Luther held to calvinism in his early days but not as much in his later days.

 

[hedrick]

It's a matter of what viewpoint you're looking for. The recent scholarship that I pay attention to would say that this is a non-issue, that the passages people cite on both sides really aren't talking are predestination in the individual sense at all, and that the NT really doesn't deal with that whole set of questions. The commentaries I've read take a similar position.

This will give you a feeling of what's going on: N.T. Wright on Election in PFG

 

[Edward65]

It's a matter of what viewpoint you're looking for. The recent scholarship that I pay attention to would say that this is a non-issue, that the passages people cite on both sides really aren't talking are predestination in the individual sense at all, and that the NT really doesn't deal with that whole set of questions. The commentaries I've read take a similar position.

This will give you a feeling of what's going on: N.T. Wright on Election in PFG

I've just read the article you linked to and it's as clear as mud to me what exactly he's trying to say. Can you explain in clearly understandable terms what it is you believe (or think could be true), and why you think that limited v unlimited atonement is a non-issue. I of course don't agree because I believe it's central to the Gospel message to believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

 

[hedrick]

I've just read the article you linked to and it's as clear as mud to me what exactly he's trying to say. Can you explain in clearly understandable terms what it is you believe (or think could be true), and why you think that limited v unlimited atonement is a non-issue. I of course don't agree because I believe it's central to the Gospel message to believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

it's not so much that universal atonement is a non-issue. I agree that Christ's redemption of the whole world is a key element of NT teaching. But as taught in the NT it doesn't seem to have the implications that most arguments here assume it has. That is, universal atonement doesn't mean that every individual is going to be saved. Rather, it's a way of stating God's intention to restore the cosmos. This is a long-term plan, which won't be complete until the end.

The debates over predestination tend to be arguments over how to interpret texts that generally aren't individual predestination at all.Wright is saying that talk of election is typically election of Israel, or (though he doesn't say this) election of specific individuals who are called for a particular mission. And the election of Israel wasn't an end in itself. It wasn't God choosing a particular set of people to be the only ones he saves. Rather, Israel was elected to be the light to the Gentiles, eventually bringing the entire world to God.

The business about being "cast away" is a reference to the discussion of Israel's failure in Rom 9. They have failed. But they failed because God intended to use their failure to redeem the Gentiles. Thus the discussion of Jacob and Esau and the potter and the clay is not about God deciding which people to save. Rather, it is justification for God's choice to allow his people to fall away (temporarily) in order to include the Gentiles.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Thanks for the link Hendrick. I read it but it was not that clear to me either. What is the stance of the PCUSA at this time? I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, that conservative Presbyterians like the ARP, PCA, OPC, would all hold to a more strict view of the 5 points of Calvinism and would therefor hold to limited atonement. I think perhaps it will never be fully know until we are on the other side. I think that maybe too much is made of LA. I don't think that it needs to be a key doctrine in any church. I have to admit that it seems like the NT teaches that Christ died for all. When I read about it from RC Sproul or John Piper it looks logical that he only died for the elect but I still have issues with fully believing in it. Perhaps its a paradox that will should not be dealt with now. For one day all things will be clear to us but now we see with blinders on our eyes. Thats my own paraphrase.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for the link Hendrick. I read it but it was not that clear to me either. What is the stance of the PCUSA at this time? I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, that conservative Presbyterians like the ARP, PCA, OPC, would all hold to a more strict view of the 5 points of Calvinism and would therefor hold to limited atonement. I think perhaps it will never be fully know until we are on the other side. I think that maybe too much is made of LA. I don't think that it needs to be a key doctrine in any church. I have to admit that it seems like the NT teaches that Christ died for all. When I read about it from RC Sproul or John Piper it looks logical that he only died for the elect but I still have issues with fully believing in it. Perhaps its a paradox that will should not be dealt with now. For one day all things will be clear to us but now we see with blinders on our eyes. Thats my own paraphrase.

In 1903 the predecessor to the PCUSA added some authoritative interpretations to the Westminster Confession. They effectively rejected limited atonement. In fact I think it goes further than that. I believe it rejects the concept that God intends to damn anyone. The Confession of 1967 uses universal language for the atonement.

The most detailed recent doctrinal document, A Declaration of Faith - Introduction, speaks of election, both of Israel and of us. In principle these statements can all be understood as monergism. But I doubt that most PCUSA leaders would actually understand them quite that way. I believe most of us would say that God operates through the election of both groups and individuals, and that we would never become his on our own, without his calling us. But I think a majority would also reject both limited atonement and reprobation. This combination of views could probably be considered Arminian, though I don't think we would accept the most common ways in which Arminianism is presented.

The closest you will get to an official answer is two articles in the PCUSA web site: What do Presbyterians believe about predestination? — Presbyterians Today Magazine — Mission and Ministry — Presbyterian Mission Agency and What do Presbyterians believe about predestination (II)? — Presbyterians Today Magazine — Mission and Ministry — Presbyterian Mission Agency

The conservative Presbyterian churches normally use the original Westminster Confession, and accept limited atonement.

I agree that you can make a logical case for limited atonement. I just think there are too many Scriptural passages that teach universal atonement, and those that are normally quoted for limited atonement have other exegeses.

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Hendrick, Thanks for all the info and links. I will check those out.

 

[Edward65]

I just want to add a quick correction to one of my earlier posts in which I said Luther was the equivalent of a 4 point Calvinist. I said that because Luther didn’t hold limited atonement. However he not only didn’t hold limited atonement but he also didn’t believe in the Calvinist notion of the perseverance of the saints. I hadn’t understood that “once saved always saved” is the Calvinist definition of this. Luther didn’t hold this, but held as I do, that the Scriptures teach that a person can be regenerate and have faith but either lose this temporarily through sin like king David or permanently like king Saul.

Luther held of course that all the elect will be saved and can’t permanently fall from faith and lose their justification but this isn’t the same as osas, so in that case Luther wasn't the equivalent of a 4 point Calvinist.