Help on Limited Atonement

[Xmansmommy]

What are you talking about? Christ's atonement was effectual for the elect and only the elect, whoever told you that was in error.

Although I've heard it quoted that way I've also heard many Calvinists say that it was sufficient for all but not applicable to all. How is that much different than what the Arminian says regarding the atonement and it's effectiveness/application?

[Thomas2003]

If Christ took upon Him the sins of every individual, then those sins are paid for. Seeing that they cannot be paid for twice, no individual could rightfully be punished by God.

Arminians illegally modify this to say that in order for your sins to be paid for, you have to believe they are paid for, thus in effect retrospectively altering the amount of sin on the cross. There is no corresponding legal philosophy for such a concoction.

So the fact remains, once sin is paid for it is irrreversibly paid for.

That does not follow. Unbelief is the one sin that separates one for the very work of Christ. Look at it this way - you think yourself one of the elect - correct? Christ paid for your sins 2000 years ago. Yet while you were in unbelief Christ's death did not benefit you at all - you were under God's wrath. So your assumptions fail...

The original explanation above is correct. The atonement is forensic, a non-forensic atonement is an alien and extra-biblical concept. You see, we believe that Jesus Christ is God of very God and man of very man, two natures but one person. Hence, we have no division in His natures when we understand the atonement through His one person. We do not doctrinally de-incarnate Christ to understand the atonement.

If the atonement is non-forensic, then something other than Christ is the mediator, which you are claiming is faith. This requires a doctrinal de-incarnation and posits an alternating conscienceness in Christ where he atones for all, on one hand, and then takes it back on another because of their "unbelief." That Christ the man does one thing, and Christ the God does another thing.

The gentlemen above explained it very well, it is an "illegal modification" that strikes at the very heart of the doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Which is the whole problem.

It is not correct to say "unbelief is the one sin that separates one from the very work of Christ." Faith is irrelevant to the atonement, again you are simply expressing a non-forensic concept. One is separated from the work of Christ by God, not "unbelief." It was God who judged Adam, not Adam that judged Adam. And it was God that judged Jesus Christ, not you that judges Jesus Christ. All men are in Adam by the judgment upon Adam, some are in Christ by the judgment upon Christ by the Trinity.

Calvinists don't "think of themselves as the elect," however. The concept of election is juridical. Scripture uses it in a juridical sense, "make your calling and election sure" 1 Peter 2, I think and other similar Scriptures.

Calvinism really isn't this difficult to understand. It is merely a biblical expression of Trinitarian soteriology. When one rejects it one rejects Christian Trinitarianism, which was the foundation of the condemnation of Arminius. We believe there isn't any disagreement in the Godhead. However, Arminianism demands a disagreement, which is best expressed by Grotius and his "moral government theory."

While modern Arminianism, following after Grotius, is nominally Trinitarian it is doctrinally Unitarian, which is the foundation of the whole problem. If you wish to understand Calvinism you must understand it in terms of the Trinity, otherwise it is incomprehensible. There is no way to explain a trinitarian doctrine in unitarian terms, or challenge it in unitarian terms, and have any agreement in meaning, we are talking about two completely and entirely different concepts of the Godhead and His saving work.

John Calvin held that the definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ into human flesh was correctly defined in the Chalcedon Creed, he cannot be understood outside of his fidelity to that definition. If you want to challenge Calvinism, that is fine, but at least do it honestly and not as some guerilla fighter for humanism arguing over vagaries of a couple nouns and pronouns &c.

To disprove Calvinism you are going to have to show how and why the biblical definition of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the Chalcedon Creed is incorrect. You are going to have to show why and how there is disagreement in the Trinity.

This is much much bigger than anyones opinions on the words "all", "ours" and "world." Calvinists define those terms the way we do because it is necessary to express a consistent Trinitarian doctrine of soteriology. Our Christology rests absolutely upon this foundation and is consistent with the Christian definition of the Trinity.

If you want to support a different Christology at least do it honestly and contrast it to our Christology and show us where we are incorrect.

Calvinism is a slam dunk on the playing field of Chalcedon, you can't come on this playing field arguing it's a "free throw," because that denies the playing field without supporting the free throw argument. You're a guerilla fighter and we have rules to the game, you foul to get the ball and then get offended when the referree gives the free throw to the Calvinist!

I used to preach against Calvinism, railed it against it - I spent nearly ten years studing this and finally had to repent. Calvinism is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If it's not then you have to explain why Jesus Christ is not God manifest in the flesh. Everything else is just blabbering.

[seer]

Dear Sir,

The proper understanding of the grammer of the text is "ours" (my little children), not "believers" in a generic context - but those who he has written to as they are the subject of the text. The whole world is geographic, not personal language.

That is what you must assume. Again, not what is in the text. They still are believers. Or is John saying that Christ only died for this little sup group of Christians. And of course John uses the same phrase later in his letter 5:19: "We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." I wonder if this is the same "whole world" that Christ died for...

But I will ask you Thomas: If God wanted to say that Christ died for all men, how do you think He would word it?

[seer]

If the atonement is non-forensic, then something other than Christ is the mediator, which you are claiming is faith. This requires a doctrinal de-incarnation and posits an alternating conscienceness in Christ where he atones for all, on one hand, and then takes it back on another because of their "unbelief." That Christ the man does one thing, and Christ the God does another thing.

I have no idea what you are getting at Tom. Did Christ die for you 2000 years ago? And were you under God's wrath until you believed? How can that be?

[Thomas2003]

Although I've heard it quoted that way I've also heard many Calvinists say that it was sufficient for all but not applicable to all. How is that much different than what the Arminian says regarding the atonement and it's effectiveness/application?

Because it is a completely different concept.

I think a Calvinist that might say that in trying to explain something in terms that you would have a frame of reference with and be able to understand.

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian." Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement? Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

[seer]

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian." Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement? Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

The fact is Thomas, your view of Atonement (which I generally agree with) was not known for the first 1100 years of the church. The forensic view was really first put forth by Anselm. Not even Augustine held that view...

[Thomas2003]

If the atonement is non-forensic, then something other than Christ is the mediator, which you are claiming is faith. This requires a doctrinal de-incarnation and posits an alternating conscienceness in Christ where he atones for all, on one hand, and then takes it back on another because of their "unbelief." That Christ the man does one thing, and Christ the God does another thing.

I have no idea what you are getting at Tom.

I understand that. At least investigate the issue from its foundation.

http://reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html

John Calvin cannot be understood outside of this.

Did Christ die for you 2000 years ago? And were you under God's wrath until you believed? How can that be?

I came to a profession of faith in 1972. Thus, I would try to explain that when Christ died is irrelevant to the atonement. I was regenerated by the Holy Spirit in 1972. Grappling with time as a created thing is not the way to approach the doctrine, we approach this problem in terms of the Creator of time.

May I ask you a question? When you look at this, consistent with your question, do you kind of see a verticle division of time between the Old Testament and the New Testament? As in that law is an Old Testament, in the past, and grace is a New Testament concept?

If so, Calvinism looks at this differently. Coming out of Chalcedon we see an "eternal Son of God", incarnate in time, but not subjugated to time. "Jesus Christ the same today, yesterday and forever." Thus, in our view, grace is timeless, because Christ is timeless.

Thus, I see and understand history in terms of Christ in a horizontal division between law and grace, in terms of God's judgment upon sin and election in Christ's atonement. This means, conceptually, that when I was born I was "under law" if you were to maybe envision a horizontal line with grace on top and law on bottom. Being in Adam I was bottom. When regenerated and "born again" one ethically comes on top of that law - up through that line of separation, which I would call God's judgment upon sin.

I don't know if that is a good way to explain it or not, I'm trying to give a frame of reference that may answer it in terms of your question. But grace and law are both ethical and both operative with grace being timeless and law being bound to time.

I've got to get to work.

[Thomas2003]

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian." Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement? Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

The fact is Thomas, your view of Atonement (which I generally agree with) was not known for the first 1100 years of the church. The forensic view was really first put forth by Anselm. Not even Augustine held that view...

I think there may be a misunderstanding, I don't agree with Grotius.

[seer]

I understand that. At least investigate the issue from its foundation.

http://reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html

John Calvin cannot be understood outside of this.





I came to a profession of faith in 1972. Thus, I would try to explain that when Christ died is irrelevant to the atonement. I was regenerated by the Holy Spirit in 1972. Grappling with time as a created thing is not the way to approach the doctrine, we approach this problem in terms of the Creator of time.

May I ask you a question? When you look at this, consistent with your question, do you kind of see a verticle division of time between the Old Testament and the New Testament? As in that law is an Old Testament, in the past, and grace is a New Testament concept?

If so, Calvinism looks at this differently. Coming out of Chalcedon we see an "eternal Son of God", incarnate in time, but not subjugated to time. "Jesus Christ the same today, yesterday and forever." Thus, in our view, grace is timeless, because Christ is timeless.

Thus, I see and understand history in terms of Christ in a horizontal division between law and grace, in terms of God's judgment upon sin and election in Christ's atonement. This means, conceptually, that when I was born I was "under law" if you were to maybe envision a horizontal line with grace on top and law on bottom. Being in Adam I was bottom. When regenerated and "born again" one ethically comes on top of that law - up through that line of separation, which I would call God's judgment upon sin.

I don't know if that is a good way to explain it or not, I'm trying to give a frame of reference that may answer it in terms of your question. But grace and law are both ethical and both operative with grace being timeless and law being bound to time.

I've got to get to work.

Tom, I understand the Chalcedon creed. But I'am am not getting your point. I certainly believe that all men (Old and New Testament) are saved by grace, through faith (or maybe faith and works like Augustine taught, but never by works alone). But that does not change my point. You were under God's wrath until you believed. Even though Christ atoned for you long ago, it was not applied to you until you believed.

[seer]

I think there may be a misunderstanding, I don't agree with Grotius.

I did not think you did. I'am saying that the forensic view of atonement was not known in the church for the first 1100 years. I generally agree with the forensic view though...

[Xmansmommy]

Because it is a completely different concept.

I've listened to both sides. And although I know that Calvinists say that it was only the elect God intended to save, thus it was effective only for them, I also know that Arminians know that it is the elect that God will save, but that wasn't His only intent. The point I was trying to make is that when a Calvinist says that God's grace was sufficient for but not intended to, and the Arminian says it was intended to but not applicable toward, I see them much the same.

I think a Calvinist that might say that in trying to explain something in terms that you would have a frame of reference with and be able to understand.

Perhaps, nevertheless, it is the language used. And I've spent alot of time asking and listening to Calvinist arguments.

I see where you claim to be a "radical arminian."

Yes indeed.

Have you studied Grotius and then define yourself after his moral government view of the atonement?

No I have not. I'm not familiar with him nor his view.

Or are you more of an "arminian" because that is what the Scripture says to you from a personal sense and you find agreement with others there?

I call myself a Radical Arminian because of a joke...but there is some relevance to it. I am an Open Theist who came to the view I hold by studying the scriptures. I find it to be the most reconcilable view to scripture. I have considered the other views and have spent the last several years discussing with Calvinists. I'm no theologian but I am trying to understand God just as much as the next girl.

[seer]

I call myself a Radical Arminian because of a joke...but there is some relevance to it. I am an Open Theist who came to the view I hold by studying the scriptures. I find it to be the most reconcilable view to scripture. I have considered the other views and have spent the last several years discussing with Calvinists. I'm no theologian but I am trying to understand God just as much as the next girl.

Linda, you went over to the dark side of open theism? : {

[Xmansmommy]

Linda, you went over to the dark side of open theism? : {

I'm not sure whether or not to take that as a joke, Jim. But yes, I have been an OVT for quite some time.

[seer]

I'm not sure whether or not to take that as a joke, Jim. But yes, I have been an OVT for quite some time.

I don't agree with OT but I'am sure you came by that belief honestly... : )

[Xmansmommy]

I don't agree with OT but I'am sure you came by that belief honestly... : )

I'd like to believe so. Thanks Jim.