The gospel of deciet..

[JM]

Faulty reasoning leads people down many a rabbit hole,. as is amply demonstrated here. The underlying raison d'etre is opposition to Reformed Theology. Notice how this poster weaves his opposition to Reformed Theology into every post he makes. He cannot post without taking a shot at it.

And has he convinced even one person that Reformed Theology is defective? No, in fact more RT folk have joined in the discussions and Van finds himself under more scrutiny, and facing more correction and patient reasoning than ever. His efforts to quell RT have served only to increase its presence, and its voice. He simple does not realize that he is on a fool's mission, in trying to defame that which he opposes.

 

[beloved57]

The Destructive Teaching of Hypothetical Universalism







by Bob Higby
Many professed Calvinists see no harm in the doctrine that Christ potentially saved all humankind through his atoning work. The number of popular theologians and pastors holding to an Amyraldian position is as high or higher than it has ever been. The salaried Calvinist teachers of the land reverence these celebrities with extremely unholy laud, while never preaching Bible predestination to the lost and rarely preaching it to their own congregations. Of course, no high-grace Calvinist will ever be quoted publicly by these men. Yet week after week, they laud popular evan-jelly-fish teachers from the pulpit and put their books on table display in the lobby. This is happening almost universally in churches that profess to be 100% Reformed in doctrine!

I, for one, am never convinced that an interest in hypothetical universalism is the fruit of Spirit-filled Bible study. The paradox hermeneutic used to support it is the same as that used to bolster free-will Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, Lutheran sacramentalism, Wesleyan Arminianism, and gospel (Barthian) universalism. The exceptional and idomatic verses in scripture are quoted and dissected in such a way as to cast doubt upon aspects of the core gospel of the New Testament. Since I am convinced that all desire to cast disrepute on the apostolic kerygma is wicked, I believe that promoters of these teachings are searching the scriptures (like the Pharisees of old) to prove that the presuppositions they want to believe are true.

The motive behind Calvinistic hypothetical universalism has always been ecumenical. Roger Nicole admitted this in a Ph.D. dissertation on Amyraut written at Harvard in 1966. If the perceived ‘harshness’ of Calvinism could be tempered with a sense of God’s universal love and grace, Amyraut reasoned, then a basis for ecumenical worship and mutual acceptance would exist between Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Catholics.

Some who don’t want to go ‘all the way’ with 4-point Calvinism have often asked, "What is wrong with at least proposing that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all humankind?" Well, where does the Bible ever argue in this terminology? If God purposed to save a specific people through Christ’s atoning sacrifice, why are we posing ‘what if’ questions to try and potentially extend the atonement to others: "What if God purposed to save everyone—the atonement is sufficient to achieve this, right?" Ironically, in the Western theology of Anselm, the fact that God is bound to honor his own justice is what prevents him from saving all persons! Some must be passed over to honor the law. The bottom line is, if Christ’s atonement is sufficient to save every person, then God in the end sends billions of redeemable people to hell. Such a paradox does not bid well for perceiving Christ as the wisdom of God in his eternal and glorious purposes.

If the doctrine of God’s exclusive purpose of atonement toward his elect is in any way compromised, the stage is set to compromise more and more:

1. The blessed assurance of salvation to the individual elect soul will suffer, since God is proposed to exercise a measure of redemptive love and grace to the non-elect also. How does a Christian know that his sense of God’s acceptance is not ‘common assurance’ proceeding from ‘common grace’ purchased by a ‘common atonement’? He doesn’t, if the position is followed through to its logical end. Unless God’s immutable and exclusive grace toward an elect people in Christ is grasped in faith, assurance is watered-down and cannot survive forever.
2. The confidence of the immutability of God’s character and purposes in the plan of salvation will suffer. In the pernicious doctrine of common grace, God cherishes and loves emotionally the reprobate for a time, earnestly desiring their salvation. But because the law will not allow him to save them, his emotions change at some point when great sin is committed. God’s anger then burns hot, he condemns and kills them, and the justice of the law is carried out in their everlasting torture in hell. Of course, the same scenario is true in reverse with the damnable doctrine of common wrath—God emotionally hates his people for a time because of original sin and only later turns his emotions to love them and extend his grace for eternity.

In the end, according to the Schaff-Herzog encylopedia, it appears that Amyraut came to see the folly and irrationality of his entire position and renounced it. But those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it--OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Why not learn from the example of Amyraut himself and avoid going down that road ever again? I believe that if we learn from the Holy Spirit and study the Bible with a hermeneutic based purely on the gospel of grace, we will.

[SIZE=+2]Create [/SIZE]​

 

[cygnusx1]

The sufficient for ALL arguement is misunderstood by many , it doesn't mean Christ died for Everyone (Arminian Universal Hyperthetical theory) It means that Christ would not have to die again , IF more elect were added to the Covenant of salvation.

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).


In our discussion of this passage from Holy Scripture, I was showing how the battle between the defenders of universal atonement and particular redemption is a battle that has gone on over the centuries. It was a battle that was fought at the Synod of Dordt as well as at the Westminster Assembly. Both bodies incorporated the doctrine of particular redemption in the creeds which they wrote.
Some, however, have appealed to the Canons of Dordt in support of the doctrine that the death of Christ, while efficient for the elect, was nevertheless, sufficient for all men. They quote Article 3 of the 2nd head of doctrine. It reads: "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
No one may, however, find in this article comfort in his support of a universal atonement. The fathers of Dordt in no way compromised their views here.
It must be remembered that the Arminians charged the Reformed with demeaning the atonement of the Son of God by limiting it to the elect only. The Arminians claimed that this doctrine of limited atonement (or particular redemption) diminished the significance of the fact that the eternal Son of God made atonement for sin.
The fathers are responding to this. Their response is this. If one looks at the atonement from the viewpoint of the One who performed it, that is, from the viewpoint that the eternal Son of God died on the crosss, then indeed "the death of the Son of God…is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." In other words, if God had one or two more elect for whom Christ died, He would not have had to suffer more. The eternal Son of God, who is infinite in power, made a sacrifice of infinite worth.
The fact of the matter is, however, according to these same fathers of Dordt, that Christ's sacrifice is only for the elect. Listen to them. "For this was the sovereign counsel, and must gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alonethe gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to him by the Father…."
This is a strong and emphatic statement concerning the extent of the atonement. It is stronger than the Westminster Confession in a way. The WC read: "The Lord Jesus by his perfect sacrifice of himself…hath…purchased…an everlasting inheritance…for all those whom the Father hath given unto him" (VIII,5). "Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect… (VIII,6).
The Canons are somewhat stronger on this point than the Westminster Confession because of the exclusionary clause found in the Canons, which is not found in the WC: "…He should effectually redeem…all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation." The words, "and those only" are not found in the WC.
It may have been this omission that enabled some Amyrauldians, such as Richard Baxter, to sign the WC.
In any case, Dordt insists that the death of Christ was for the elect, and for them only. That allows for no possibility that Christ's death on the cross was for all men.
It is sometimes argued (and several books have been written on the subject) that Calvin never taught a limited atonement.
This is a remarkable slander of the great Reformer of Geneva. I quote from Calvin's commentary on the very passage we are discussing.
"Here the question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly revealed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, be designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."
This is Calvin. To teach that Christ's atonement is for all is "monstrous' and the "dotages of the fanatics."
We agree with Calvin. John, in his first epistle, 2:2, refers to the fact that the church for which Christ died is a church gathered from the whole world. It is a catholic church to show forth the riches of the manifold grace of God, a church purchased and saved through the blood of the cross.
This truth is a glorious truth. Prof. Herman Hanko

http://www.prca.org/current/Doctrine/Volume 8/news-10.htm

 

[beloved57]

The sufficient for ALL arguement is misunderstood by many , it doesn't mean Christ died for Everyone (Arminian Universal Hyperthetical theory) It means that Christ would not have to die again , IF more elect were added to the Covenant of salvation.

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).


In our discussion of this passage from Holy Scripture, I was showing how the battle between the defenders of universal atonement and particular redemption is a battle that has gone on over the centuries. It was a battle that was fought at the Synod of Dordt as well as at the Westminster Assembly. Both bodies incorporated the doctrine of particular redemption in the creeds which they wrote.
Some, however, have appealed to the Canons of Dordt in support of the doctrine that the death of Christ, while efficient for the elect, was nevertheless, sufficient for all men. They quote Article 3 of the 2nd head of doctrine. It reads: "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
No one may, however, find in this article comfort in his support of a universal atonement. The fathers of Dordt in no way compromised their views here.
It must be remembered that the Arminians charged the Reformed with demeaning the atonement of the Son of God by limiting it to the elect only. The Arminians claimed that this doctrine of limited atonement (or particular redemption) diminished the significance of the fact that the eternal Son of God made atonement for sin.
The fathers are responding to this. Their response is this. If one looks at the atonement from the viewpoint of the One who performed it, that is, from the viewpoint that the eternal Son of God died on the crosss, then indeed "the death of the Son of God…is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." In other words, if God had one or two more elect for whom Christ died, He would not have had to suffer more. The eternal Son of God, who is infinite in power, made a sacrifice of infinite worth.
The fact of the matter is, however, according to these same fathers of Dordt, that Christ's sacrifice is only for the elect. Listen to them. "For this was the sovereign counsel, and must gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alonethe gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to him by the Father…."
This is a strong and emphatic statement concerning the extent of the atonement. It is stronger than the Westminster Confession in a way. The WC read: "The Lord Jesus by his perfect sacrifice of himself…hath…purchased…an everlasting inheritance…for all those whom the Father hath given unto him" (VIII,5). "Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect… (VIII,6).
The Canons are somewhat stronger on this point than the Westminster Confession because of the exclusionary clause found in the Canons, which is not found in the WC: "…He should effectually redeem…all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation." The words, "and those only" are not found in the WC.
It may have been this omission that enabled some Amyrauldians, such as Richard Baxter, to sign the WC.
In any case, Dordt insists that the death of Christ was for the elect, and for them only. That allows for no possibility that Christ's death on the cross was for all men.
It is sometimes argued (and several books have been written on the subject) that Calvin never taught a limited atonement.
This is a remarkable slander of the great Reformer of Geneva. I quote from Calvin's commentary on the very passage we are discussing.
"Here the question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly revealed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, be designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."
This is Calvin. To teach that Christ's atonement is for all is "monstrous' and the "dotages of the fanatics."
We agree with Calvin. John, in his first epistle, 2:2, refers to the fact that the church for which Christ died is a church gathered from the whole world. It is a catholic church to show forth the riches of the manifold grace of God, a church purchased and saved through the blood of the cross.
This truth is a glorious truth. Prof. Herman Hanko

http://www.prca.org/current/Doctrine/Volume 8/news-10.htm

I don`t see your point, I agree with the premise of the article. The point is that the scripture never teaches a sufficient propitiation, only a effectual one for the elect, who are scattered throughout the world, be that geographically or chronlogically..

 

[cygnusx1]

I don`t see your point, I agree with the premise of the article. The point is that the scripture never teaches a sufficient propitiation, only a effectual one for the elect, who are scattered throughout the world, be that geographically or chronlogically..

The sufficiency arguement is used by Amaraldyians and Particular Redemptionists (5 pointers) in a different sense .... Amaraldyians think the Atonement is sufficient for everyone and P R believe It means that Christ would not have to die again , IF more elect were added to the Covenant of salvation.

The bottom line is there is no redemption atonement reconciliation for he who will not believe , the atonement is for the believer alone , from wherever , and whosoever that believer on Christ may be.

The Gospel is as wide as "whosoever " and as limited in scope as whosoever WILL