The Gospel and Particular Redemption

[Pteriax]

If that is the case then why is the sticking point with those who claim to be 4 point Calvinists almost always particular redemption?

Simply this: They do not really understand the points in the first place.

 

[twin1954]

I think people misunderstand the term. To me it makes sense even for Arminians.

Suppose someone was about to die to save a number of people, but couldn't get to everyone in danger. He would quite reasonably say "i'm dying for A, B and C", not meaning any ill will towards X, Y and X who he couldn't reach, but just as a matter of fact.

Paul's explanation of the atonement in Rom 6 says that Christ's takes on our sin and abolishes it through his death. But he takes it on because we are united with him in faith. I don't see how that could happen with someone who doesn't have faith. I don't see anything particularly Reformed in that.

Maybe the context in which the original argument came up, which was arguments over TULIP, effectively poisoned the idea for many.

You might be able to make a case that Christ's *death* was unlimited, but it is only atoning if you have faith. After all, the doctrine is definite atonement, not definite death. I'm not terribly interested in putting it that way though.

I am responding to the statement I bolded.

I wouldn't make such a case at all!

Though I doubt that anyone can make such a case Scripturally. The atonement is always spoken of in the Scriptures as an accomplished fact for a particular people.

 

[twin1954]

Simply this: They do not really understand the points in the first place.

They understand them they just will not bow to them.

 

[Pteriax]

They understand them they just will not bow to them.

That's worse if it's true.

 

[twin1954]

That's worse if it's true.

YEP.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

This is a good question JM. One I have thought about quite a bit. Not to nitpick, but there is a difference between can and should. The Gospel can be preached without mention of LA/PR but I do not think it should for the simple reason that the difference is an impersonal Gospel and a personal Gospel. Now the reason I say it can, is because in evangelizing and preaching we do not know whom God has elected and whom He has not. However, those preaching an impersonal generalized atonement, are also keeping it simple, which I believe, in the context of preaching in a Church for years, where God's people meet, is a shame, if not a robbery of the riches of the Word of God on the glorious doctrine of salvation. One of the most beautiful things I came to realize about PR is because it's substitutional nature, I can confidently joyfully humbly say; "Christ died for me!" It doesn't get any better than that.

I agree with this assessment.

 

[JM]

My grandfather was diagnosed with cancer on Tuesday and has to go for surgery next week. They said the sooner the better but this is Canada and everyone in the hospital is regulated by the government and on holidays...but I digress.

My grandfather, I'm certain, has heard the Gospel at least in portions. I've spoken with him about Christ and prayer, sin, etc. and he does not believe. I believe God may still regenerate him based on the Gospel he has heard. It may come just before he passes from this world, salvation may come sooner or latter. It is up to God. I trust God.

The Bible teaches particular redemption and therefore I should preach it.

Can the Gospel be preached in fragments, can God save a sinner with the weakest of means, absolutely. Should we aim for this minimum? No. I've been praying that God opens a way for me to preach the full Gospel to my grandfather before his surgery trusting God's will be done knowing that God's will is always good but I also know the Holy Spirit can regenerate a sinner using the weakest of means.

jm

 

[JustAsIam77]

My grandfather was diagnosed with cancer on Tuesday and has to go for surgery next week. They said the sooner the better but this is Canada and everyone in the hospital is regulated by the government and on holidays...but I digress.

My grandfather, I'm certain, has heard the Gospel at least in portions. I've spoken with him about Christ and prayer, sin, etc. and he does not believe. I believe God may still regenerate him based on the Gospel he has heard. It may come just before he passes from this world, salvation may come sooner or latter. It is up to God. I trust God.

The Bible teaches particular redemption and therefore I should preach it.

Can the Gospel be preached in fragments, can God save a sinner with the weakest of means, absolutely. Should we aim for this minimum? No. I've been praying that God opens a way for me to preach the full Gospel to my grandfather before his surgery trusting God's will be done knowing that God's will is always good but I also know the Holy Spirit can regenerate a sinner using the weakest of means.

jm

I'm sorry to hear of your grandfathers cancer. Regarding his spiritual state of mind, there are death bed conversions which are real, I know of one, a dear friend witnessed to her father literally hours before his death and he accepted Christ as his Saviour moments before his passing.

 

[JM]

I am hopeful.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I am hopeful.

I'll pray for him.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

My grandfather was diagnosed with cancer on Tuesday and has to go for surgery next week. They said the sooner the better but this is Canada and everyone in the hospital is regulated by the government and on holidays...but I digress.

My grandfather, I'm certain, has heard the Gospel at least in portions. I've spoken with him about Christ and prayer, sin, etc. and he does not believe. I believe God may still regenerate him based on the Gospel he has heard. It may come just before he passes from this world, salvation may come sooner or latter. It is up to God. I trust God.

The Bible teaches particular redemption and therefore I should preach it.

Can the Gospel be preached in fragments, can God save a sinner with the weakest of means, absolutely. Should we aim for this minimum? No. I've been praying that God opens a way for me to preach the full Gospel to my grandfather before his surgery trusting God's will be done knowing that God's will is always good but I also know the Holy Spirit can regenerate a sinner using the weakest of means.

jm

sorry to hear, praying

 

[twin1954]

My grandfather was diagnosed with cancer on Tuesday and has to go for surgery next week. They said the sooner the better but this is Canada and everyone in the hospital is regulated by the government and on holidays...but I digress.

My grandfather, I'm certain, has heard the Gospel at least in portions. I've spoken with him about Christ and prayer, sin, etc. and he does not believe. I believe God may still regenerate him based on the Gospel he has heard. It may come just before he passes from this world, salvation may come sooner or latter. It is up to God. I trust God.

The Bible teaches particular redemption and therefore I should preach it.

Can the Gospel be preached in fragments, can God save a sinner with the weakest of means, absolutely. Should we aim for this minimum? No. I've been praying that God opens a way for me to preach the full Gospel to my grandfather before his surgery trusting God's will be done knowing that God's will is always good but I also know the Holy Spirit can regenerate a sinner using the weakest of means.

jm

God gives grace when grace is needed. He will pour out His grace on you to trust His providence concerning your grandfather and perhaps will give grace to believe to your grandfather through you speaking to him of Christ. Praying that the Lord will make himself known in you and in your grandfather.

 

[JM]

I made another post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7764260/

If you do away with limited, penal substitution you must do away with the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I can understand why the RC's and EO's deny the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, they do have their system of sacraments to assist them in 'getting grace,' but I don't see how folks who read their Bible alone for doctrine can deny it.

jm

 

[hedrick]

If that is the case then why is the sticking point with those who claim to be 4 point Calvinists almost always particular redemption?

After further reading, I have two answers.

First, some 4 point Calvinists apparently believe that Christ's death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. It's not so clear to me that this is significantly different from Dordt.

Second, there are a number of Scriptural statements about Christ dying for all. That's why I said that it's hard to see how Christ could atone for someone without faith, so limited atonement seems reasonably clear, but there's room for discussion about Christ's death. It seems like there's Scriptural precedent for saying that Christ died for all, as long as one explains what it means.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

After further reading, I have two answers.

First, some 4 point Calvinists apparently believe that Christ's death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. It's not so clear to me that this is significantly different from Dordt.

Second, there are a number of Scriptural statements about Christ dying for all. That's why I said that it's hard to see how Christ could atone for someone without faith, so limited atonement seems reasonably clear, but there's room for discussion about Christ's death. It seems like there's Scriptural precedent for saying that Christ died for all, as long as one explains what it means.

What it means is that Christ died for all of the elect and not one person more. He doesn't try and fail to save anyone. He saves everyone he tries to save. So all he died for are saved because he died for them and God will not let the blood of his Son be shed in vain.

 

[twin1954]

After further reading, I have two answers.

First, some 4 point Calvinists apparently believe that Christ's death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. It's not so clear to me that this is significantly different from Dordt.

That, of course is a compromise intended to appease the Arminian. It is a hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality.

Second, there are a number of Scriptural statements about Christ dying for all. That's why I said that it's hard to see how Christ could atone for someone without faith, so limited atonement seems reasonably clear, but there's room for discussion about Christ's death. It seems like there's Scriptural precedent for saying that Christ died for all, as long as one explains what it means.

I have no problem with the language of Scripture but as you say it is important that if you use such language that you be clear what you intend by it. To leave it to the reader/hearer to understand what you mean by their own ideas is to trifle with the souls of men.

I disagree that there is room for discussion concerning the death of Christ. It must be what is taught clearly by the Scriptures, an accomplished and particular redemption for a specific people, for the atonement of Christ is the hub of the Gospel. If you are wrong on the atonement you are wrong on everything.

 

[JustAsIam77]

That, of course is a compromise intended to appease the Arminian. It is a hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality.

Dear brother, there are more than a few highly regarded scholars of theology in history who agree with Hendrick and not of the Arminian persuasion.

I'll agree that it's hypothetical but some very knowledgeable minds have put forth that conclusion.

 

[twin1954]

Dear brother, there are more than a few highly regarded scholars of theology in history who agree with Hendrick and not of the Arminian persuasion.

I'll agree that it's hypothetical but some very knowledgeable minds have put forth that conclusion.

To what purpose?

 

[JustAsIam77]

[/B]To what purpose?

The purpose is to demonstrate and bring to the fore the enormity and hypothetical potential of the atonement by God's only Son, if He wished to do so, He did not.