Sufficient for all ?

cygnusx1 · Jan 19, 2013

Any idea how Calvinists who opposed Amyraldismism held to the all sufficiency standard ?

It is one thing to view things in the abstract quite another when preaching to the unconverted

JM · Jan 19, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
Any idea how Calvinists who opposed Amyraldismism held to the all sufficiency standard?

cyg, I don't know. I've tried reading Dabney who demolishes hypothetical universalism then, latter, affirms it. The Amyraldians online claim every statement, 'sufficient for all, efficient for the elect' is Amyraldism even when it comes from Calvin, Owen or Edwards. They claim these Reformed folks are bing double minded and really want to affirm hypothetical universalism. I can't help but feel they have a point.

cygnusx1 · Jan 19, 2013

Lets try understanding this from a different view , the scriptures are sufficient for all men to know the will of God , we don't need prophets or more scriptures today we have sacred canon . This sufficiency is for all men : it is for anyone : it is for everyone , it is enough . Yet we do not believe or imply God has willed all men shall understand or even believe the sacred Word .

twin1954 · Jan 19, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
Lets try understanding this from a different view , the scriptures are sufficient for all men to know the will of God , we don't need prophets or more scriptures today we have sacred canon . This sufficiency is for all men : it is for anyone : it is for everyone , it is enough . Yet we do not believe or imply God has willed all men shall have understand or even believe the sacred Word .

Apples and oranges. The Scriptures have a different purpose.

cygnusx1 · Jan 19, 2013

twin1954 said:
Apples and oranges. The Scriptures have a different purpose.

Not so fast brother
"Able to make you wise unto salvation" I think we do not emphasise the place of scripture in salvation enough .

When I think of Gods all sufficiency His overflowing love and kindness I always think of those 10 who were healed by Jesus and only one gave thanks to God , the rest were as dead as a stone towards God ....... But he still blessed them , Gods provision was manifestly sufficient .

JM · Jan 19, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
"Able to make you wise unto salvation"

'you' not 'all'

cygnusx1 · Jan 19, 2013

JM said:
'you' not 'all'

'You' the reader , not everyone has seen a Bible but the instrument is used to save.

1Tim.2

[1] I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
[2] For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
[4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

3:14-17 Those who would learn the things of God, and be assured of them, must know the Holy Scriptures, for they are the Divine revelation. The age of children is the age to learn; and those who would get true learning, must get it out of the Scriptures. They must not lie by us neglected, seldom or never looked into. The Bible is a sure guide to eternal life. The prophets and apostles did not speak from themselves, but delivered what they received of God, 2Pe 1:21. It is profitable for all purposes of the Christian life. It is of use to all, for all need to be taught, corrected, and reproved. There is something in the Scriptures suitable for every case. Oh that we may love our Bibles more, and keep closer to them! then shall we find benefit, and at last gain the happiness therein promised by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the main subject of both Testaments. We best oppose error by promoting a solid knowledge of the word of truth; and the greatest kindness we can do to children, is to make them early to know the Bible.

JM · Jan 19, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
'You' the reader , not everyone has seen a Bible but the instrument is used to save. 1Tim.2

Arminian use and understanding of 1 Tim. 2 noted.

You have created a problem, the God that 'willed' to save all mankind created hell, if He truly willed to save all mankind He would save them for it is in His power to do so. This is really basic Calvinism cgy.

A quote sent to me a few years ago that drives to the heart of the matter:

I often hear it argued that God is not willing that any should perish. Often this is argued from 1 Timothy 2:4.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires (thelo) all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The reformed exegesis of this passage has been gone over plenty of times, so I have no desire to do it here. My real question is how the non Calvinist view reconciles that with John 5:21.

John 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes (thelo).

If God truly desires the salvation of every single individual, then why does the Son not give them life? He says He gives it to whomever He desires. Do the Father and Son have conflicting desires regarding to whom they do and do not wish to give life?

Even further, if the Son giving life to whom He desires is contingent upon the choice of man, then doesn't it follow from Jesus' comparison (just as/even so) that the Father's resurrection of the dead must also be contingent on the choice of the individual whom He desires to resurrect? [end quote]

JM · Jan 19, 2013

Do you see the problem you have created in the Godhead? The Father desires to save all but the Son doesn't give them life and God the Holy Spirit doesn't regenerate them. This is just Arminianism and it destroys the doctrine of the Trinity.

cygnusx1 · Jan 20, 2013

Did I interpret that passage inTimothy ? Did I even say God wills everyone saved ? Yet I all too quickly get tarred as using the passage in an Arminian way ! We should be patient and slow to judge

If you go back over my last 50 posts you will see clearly what I think of 1 Timothy , I don't even agree with Spurgeon on it !

cygnusx1 · Jan 20, 2013

JM said:
Do you see the problem you have created in the Godhead? The Father desires to save all but the Son doesn't give them life and God the Holy Spirit doesn't regenerate them. This is just Arminianism and it destroys the doctrine of the Trinity.

No I don't see a problem except misunderstanding

cygnusx1 · Jan 20, 2013

How do 5 point Calvinists such as myself hold to a limited atonement as well as a full free sufficient atonement ! That is the question I have been asking , I don't agree with Arminians or 4 point Calvinists ... Amyraldism and Arminianism are as false to me as Hyper Calvinism , should that fact stop me from using certain "Arminian texts" or "Amyraldian texts" or "hyper Calvinist texts " God forbid ! All scripture is profitable .

JM · Jan 20, 2013

cyg, you are asking how is it possible for Jesus to have died for people on planet Zeno but save only the elect. The question is hypothetical and the answer is speculation. How does it affect your thinking, your theology, your view of God? Does God seem better or kinder if He provides enough in the atonement to save everyone but doesn't apply it to them?

cygnusx1 · Jan 20, 2013

JM said:
cyg, you are asking how is it possible for Jesus to have died for people on planet Zeno but save only the elect. The question is hypothetical and the answer is speculation. How does it affect your thinking, your theology, your view of God? Does God seem better or kinder if He provides enough in the atonement to save everyone but doesn't apply it to them?

You have TOTALLY misunderstood not only my search but the Reformed stance too , it has Nothing to do with other planets or mere hypothetical abstract pointless debates , I have absolutely no idea why you keep responding in .this way .

Btw I already posted , twice now what I am asking , it bears no resemblance at all to what you decide I am asking .

JM · Jan 20, 2013

cyg, I don't know why you are getting so emotional about this question you are trying to resolve. Hyperbole is a useful and effective tool, I try to use it on forums to show the poster the logical conclusion of their beliefs, but you seem so upset that you are missing it in my posts.

Do I think you are an Arminian? Of course not. I do think you are being inconsistent with some passages, when twin tries to help you out by giving a good interpretation of the passage you simply switch to a different passage and say, 'yeah what about this?'

I understand what most of the Reformers teach on this subject, you have appealed to their authority a few times to shut us up, you are well within that tradition so why all the bother? If you appeal to authority why not seek their answers since they are the ones you agree with?

A recap of some of what was posted that I think needs more consideration.

twin said:
The concept of sufficient for all but efficient for the elect is a hypothetical suger coat intended to appease those who can't swallow truth. It is misleading and borders on dishonesty.

twin said:
No one can deny that there is infinte value in the person and work of Christ. What we deny is that the value is derived by the amount of people He died for.

twin said:
The thing is that the whole concept of sufficient and efficient is hypothetical and pointless. The work of Christ is efficient to do exactly what it was intended to do. To speculate about whether He could have saved all men without exception is moot because He doesn't. Its just a smokescreen to hide behind when you don't want to deal with simple truth. It is a sugar coat of the simple fact that Christ died with an intended purpose to save a particular people. What would be the point of a work that was sufficient to do more than it is intended to do? Christ is of infinte value to all who believe and He is of infinite value to the Godhead but to the unbelieving rebel lost and damned He is worthless.

atonement-sufficient-for-all-but-efficient-for-the-elect
But here is the rub; the Scriptures never speak hypothetically in this way ever. Instead, they always speak of what Christ did do and what Christ accomplished. For example, But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. This is what Christ did. A pondering god on what might have been or what might be is not at all-sovereign, and all knowledge God. God speak in terms of reality, not possibility. He operates in the realm of the actual, not the realm of what if?

Jesus diedforaliensonplanetzenoby Dr C M atthew Mcmahon
To place, then, the atonement of the Lord of glory into the realm of possibility is a theological mistake. To speculate about the nature of the atonement, or what the atonement could have done, is a mistake. To say that the atonement of Jesus is sufficient for all, efficient for the elect is to say the same thing as the crazy statement the atonement of Jesus Christ is sufficient to save aliens on planet Zeno, efficient for the elect, or any other wild construction you would like to place in the beginning of the statement. It remains completely and utterly hypothetical, which is, in fact, meaningless. Meaningless propositions are those that have no weight or no reality to them, and do not press orthodox theology forward to become more defined and helpful. Instead, they confuse people, and confuse good theology. If one wants to say I mean that the atonement is infinite, then that is simply a reiteration of the infinite worth that the Synod of Dordt previously stated. With that phrase I am very much in agreement.

(according to cyg) The clueless one (who posted an article that deals with Dort and this very issue

),

jm

JM · Jan 20, 2013

To anyone else still reading...

If Christ's death was sufficient for all does it really change our theology or how we view God, keeping in mind it is still only applied to the elect? It just seems like theological naval gazing to me.

cygnusx1 · Jan 20, 2013

All I can do is wish you well jm , for a guy who said I bated him and he had nothing more to add a few pages back you sure change your mind . I will seek discussion in more profitable places . You have succeeded .

JM · Jan 20, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
All I can do is wish you well jm , for a guy who said I bated him and he had nothing more to add a few pages back you sure change your mind . I will seek discussion in more profitable places . You have succeeded .

If you have a look, try to leave emotion out of it, I've added nothing new. I restated and reposted that you are asking a hypothetical question. The very fact you have ignored.

You may do as you wish cyg but if you mean you will seek those who already agree with you it may not be as profitable as you think.

jm

drstevej · Jan 21, 2013

I consider myself a 4 point Calvinist, rather than the term used in this thread "4 point Arminian. If you have read my posts I think you'll see why since I strongly affirm TU IP.

I am a Christmas Calvinist (no-L) not because I can not see the logic of limited atonement nor because I am following Amyraldus (although I have read a good bit about him), but because one or two texts I find hard to reconcile with limited atonement.

I have decided to live with the label inconsistent Calvinist and if I were to embrace limited atonement it would not change how I present the gospel and do evangelism.

I have a PhD from Westminster Seminary in Philly (1988) and my dissertation dealt with the soteriology of the General Baptists in England, so I know the historical background.

I do believe the atonement is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. I hold to Limited Attainment.

Having debated these issue online for a decade or more I find that the term "hyper" is useless because it varies in meaning and usually is used to discredit ny labeling the opponent as extreme.

my 2 cents

bsd058 · Jan 22, 2013

drstevej said:
I consider myself a 4 point Calvinist, rather than the term used in this thread "4 point Arminian. If you have read my posts I think you'll see why since I strongly affirm TU IP.

I am a Christmas Calvinist (no-L) not because I can not see the logic of limited atonement nor because I am following Amyraldus (although I have read a good bit about him), but because one or two texts I find hard to reconcile with limited atonement.

Can you explain why you do not agree with L?

I guess I would just like to understand where the logic (in your opinion) breaks down.

Thank you.

Sufficient for all ?

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

Jacob the twister.....

Baptist by the Bible

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Sola and Tota Scripturist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency