With all due respect, calling this doctrine a heresy makes us no better than the other guys. I understand you have issues with this doctrine and you probably make some compelling arguments but once I got to the word, “heresy” I stopped reading. This post would have been better served (with that term in there) being put up on your blog

Limited perspective! I’ll be laughing about that one the rest of the night. Here’s what I’m trying to say. They believe in Limited Atonement so they say all that don’t are heretics. You don’t believe in it so you say that all that do are heretics. Explain to me the difference?
~Still Laughing

The problem may be with the connotation of “heresy”. Its not so much that Rick is objectively wrong to use that term, but its so loaded and heavy that it communicates derision and judgment concerning one’s standing with Christ along with the actual definition.

Fair enough, Rick. This I shall ponder.

I want to commend all of you for demonstrating a level of accountability with each other that goes far beyond anything I’ve ever seen any place else. For us to disagree openly with each other on word choice and then for Rick to defer and actually change the wording, well, that speaks VOLUMES about who we are and what we stand for. And it speaks far louder about our common belief than any analysis of the relative merits of TULIP could ever generate

Thank you for your witness in the blogosphere.

I really enjoy reading this site daily, but I do happen to believe in limited atonement. I posted this reply on that blog which clarifies how I understand limited atonement, and why those verses aren’t necessarily an argument against it:

I’m not sure why you think those verses are an argument against limited atonement. Here is an example from Calvin of what limited atonement is: Calvin says of one of the two theives on the cross next to him, “Our Lord made effective for him his death and passion which he suffered and endured for all mankind.” That’s what is meant by limited atonement. Calvin says Christ suffered and endured for all mankind (similarly to many of the verses you expressed) and this payment is sufficient to pay for the sins of all, and this payment pays for the sins of all who believe, like one of the theives. Sufficient for all mankind, and efficient for all who believe. That’s limited atonement.
The Synod of Dort, a traditional Reformed standard, says, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” The 19th century Presbyterian W. G. T. Shedd said it this way: “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.” Perhaps you are a universalist and believe all will be saved, but if not, then it seems to me you would believe in some form of limited atonement.

ianmcn

The error in Warnock’s view is that there is no distinction in scripture between the sufficiency and efficiency, and actually shows why Calvinism stands or falls as a whole system of thought.

Limited Atonement only makes sense if grace is irresistible and election is unconditional. If grace can be resisted (and I believe scripture is clear in this), then the atonement does not need to be limited to be both effective and sufficient. Also, if grace can be resisted, and the salvific effects of the atonement are offered to all, then election is viewed differently.

The error in Warnock’s view is that there is no distinction in scripture between the sufficiency and efficiency

To me, the sufficiency is shown through verses such as those outlined in Rick’s blog (…so loved the world, takes away the sin of the world etc…) and the efficiency is shown through just as many verses that imply a select group (For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14), …the church of God which He purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28), …just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25) to name a few). I think sufficiency but not efficiency is a very biblical way to look at it. For every verse that implies all, there is another that implies some.

Besides, as I questioned in my first comment, what is the implications of Unlimited Atonement? To my untrained mind, it’s universalism.

ianmcn

Not all agree with me, yet I see a clear distinction between the atonement on the Cross… and receiving the Life of Christ because of the Resurrection.

We die to sin at the Cross, we are raised to Life by the Resurrection…

IOW, atonement does not equal salvation.

Romans 5: 10.

For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

Now this is where many will say I am wrong though this verse seems clear to me… All men are reconciled but not all are saved until they receive the Life of Christ. We are saved by His Life not His death.

Romans 6:4-5 goes on to say…

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

Though I agree with you that the conclusion is Universalism… and that is precisely why Calvin came up with limited atonement as he also saw this, I do not agree with limited atonement at all. For if Jesus did not die for all men, we then cannot freely love Jesus…

“Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy,” (1 Peter 1:8)

The angels saw Him face to face and did not love Him… It is that we do love freely that we Judge the Angels and in this way there is not excuse for the fallen angels for their sin.

Be blessed,
iggy

ianmcm,
I would say that in a sense some sort of universalism is kind of an implication of unlimited atonement. But I don’t think it means universalism in the sense that everyone goes to heaven. To me it just mean everyone has the opportunity for salvation.

I would say two things about the verses which talk about Christ perfecting and purchasing the Church. First, saying Christ purchased the Church in no way rules out He didn’t purchase, or pay for the sins of those outside the Church.

Secondly, I think there is plenty of evidence scripturally to think of the “Elect” as a collective noun. Individuals may enter in or out of the “Elect”, but collectively, the Church’s destination is set. I would say, it would be similar to someone saying something like, “the president sent the army to Iraq”. The army’s destination as a collective unit is set, but individual soldiers may or may not be going to Iraq.

Before you fall all over yourselves in your “accountability” ;
if you ever bother to check the personal blogs of the ODM contributors you will not find complete agreement there, and we do comment on one another’s blogs. However no one here cares abot that since the main onjective here is to counter any and all posts that are put up at the odm sites. So now you are forced into actually digging into the Word?
Talk about “limited perspective”

Having said that, it is with great consternation that I must agree with iggy’s assessment of this issue. (I will have to go on a 40 day fast)
All creation is judged in Christ at the cross. Only those who believe on Him enter resurrection/new life. This is why Paul stresses the resurrection so much. That is the reward of all who enter the reconciliation; eternal life and incorruptible bodies.
I do not see that the non-inclusion of limited atonement affects God’s sovereignty.
God foreknows all who will come so if He does nothing to alter their “decision” then has He not “predestined” them since He also foreknows all of His actions.? God is not reactionary.
The issue for me is God’s complete omniscience which includes complete prescience.
I also do not see that calvinism stands or falls on any one point. I have had that argument brought up to me before. If that is true, then any and all theologies stand or fall on one point.

“Individuals may enter in or out of the “Elect”, but collectively, the Church’s destination is set.”

Individuals do not go out from the elect unless they were never one to begin with.
1 John 2:
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.

Even if the term elect is collective, only the elect are part of the elect.

Chris P.,
The thing is when you use the term Calvinism, most people who have any understanding of theology automatically equate it with TULIP. It seems to me that if one of those points is not there, it really ceases to be Calvinism. I would agree that rejecting some of Calvinism isn’t saying all of it is wrong, but if someone doesn’t accept all the assertions of Calvinism, it seems rather odd that they wold want to be called a Calvinist.

In reality, all the points of TULIP are interelated in such a way, that taking away one really causes the others to fall down. Personally, I don’t see what it matters if Calvinism, Arminianism, or any of the other -isms end up falling down. If they are making Scripture conform to their system of though rather than vice versa, than it seems right that they should fall.

I’ve wondered how a Calvinist would react if one night he had a vision from God, telling him that he, the Calvinist man, was one of the people whom God Himself had predestined to an eternity it Hell. He, the man, had no hope of Heaven, his eternal destiny was beyond his control, and nothing he could say or do would change it.

It’s always been one thing I’ve noticed when reading Calvinists try to explain predestination–they are already sure of their own acceptance or chosenness by God and their own assurance to eternal life, so when they tell us that those who are predestination to damnation cannot do anything about it, it comes off as a speculation about someone else–clinical, distant, without much in the way of humanness to it.

Can I just say I hate it when I get quoted but my name isn’t mentioned! And no link love either. I was called “an Emerging Church writer on multiple websites.” That’s AWESOME! Um, what does it mean, exactly?

KC,

Do you believe anyone will ultimately lose their life because of their sins?

The short answer is no.

the longer answer is this…

the issue is not whether sin is forgiven… it never was… a Jew had the sacrificial system for that… the issue was can a man, who dies in his sin… live?

The answer is no.

We are forgiven at the Cross… yet if Jesus had not risen from the dead, we would only be forgiven dead men.

Now, what of those who do not believe and receive?

Again, the sin issue is dealt with at the Cross… but they are still dead… as one needs to believe and receive to have Eternal Life.

So the saddest thing in the world is that there are forgiven dead men that refuse to come to Jesus for Life. They are as Isaiah states:

Isaiah 28:15

You boast, “We have entered into a covenant with death, with the grave we have made an agreement. When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by, it cannot touch us, for we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place.”

Though God annuls the covenant… (Isaiah 28:18) man still chooses to stay under it.

John states that we can tells how we can tell those who have passed from death to life….
1 John 3:14

14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death.

Be blessed,
iggy

KC,

I am not sure why you are asking as I have stated here and elsewhere that we are to “believe and receive.”

These verses can be taken as a “present” statement or as a “after the matter” statement… I view them the latter.

All our sins were forgiven at the Cross… so when you were born… all your sins were in the future…. right?

Yet, the action of Jesus at the Cross, was in the past. So all your sins being in the future were forgiven in the past…”once and for all” >

Now i will not give all the scriptures… but take some time and do a little study about that phrase, “once for all”.

“Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38).

First off you did not finish the verse. The full verse is this.

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Now as I stated, Jesus died once for all. It happened in a fixed time in history… and when we believe and receive Jesus, we accept that His sacrifice was able to forgive our sins.

In the other verse you quoted, “Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43). Simply means that it is through the Name of Jesus that we receive forgiveness of sins.

So, I ask you. When were your sins forgiven… at the Cross… or when you believed and received Jesus?

It was at the Cross all sins were forgiven… they did not just get forgiven when I came to faith in Christ…. They were already forgiven… I needed to turn from my sins, no longer live under the covenant of death, and receive Life.

What people miss is that Jesus’ blood just does not work when we believe it does… it works regardless to what we believe.

Be blessed,
iggy

Besides, as I questioned in my first comment, what is the implications of Unlimited Atonement? To my untrained mind, it’s universalism.

This is misunderstanding what is meant by Limited Atonement. In Calvinism the atonement is only for those elected to be saved. Therefore, the opposite of limited atonement is unlimited atonement, not in that it creates universalism, but that it is not limited in who can benefit from it. This is why it is ultimately linked to election – if only the elect are saved then the atonement is limited to them. If all could be saved then it is for all.

Rick, I read your article that you mentioned above and in it you say, “Now the atonement was available for every person in Israel, but it was only *applied* by faith… so in that sense the atonement was limited, but not as far as availability, but as far as by faith that blood was applied… And so was his shed blood enough to cover whosoever will, but when the last person is born again by faith His blood will be limited to the redeemed alone… But the limited atonement will be because of unbelief, not because of any lack of availability, and surely not because of any limited offer from the loving heart of God Himself. No one can accuse the Savior of the world that He offered an insufficient atonement for anyone or for everyone, His blood was *sufficient* for all.”

Sounds like the reformed saying “sufficient for all, efficient for some.”

Note how what you are arguing sounds almost exactly like what the Synod of Dort says (which is where the “5 points of Calvinism” were summarized from):

Article 3: THE INFINITE VALUE OF CHRIST’S DEATH
This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world…”

Article 5: THE MANDATE TO PROCLAIM THE GOSPEL TO ALL
Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: UNBELIEF MAN’S RESPONSIBILITY
However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

So it seems to me you actually believe in Limited Atonement in a traditional (almost even Calvinistic) sense, could it be that what you are trying to express is that you don’t believe in the Calvinistic way of defining Election (instead of limited atonement) as not being because of forseen faith? Perhaps you believe #1 below and are arguing against #2?

1) God forsees belief and elects, the effects of the atonement is limited to those who believe.
2) God elects people to believe, the effects of the atonement is limited to those who believe.

If this is the case, perhaps you might want to change the wording of your other artice, “Limited Atonement A Great Heresy” since it is in a sense calling both of our beliefs heresy, and I don’t think either of us is a heritic.

–Jazz,
Your comment made me smile. A true calvinist, after being confronted by God and receiving the message of his predestined, elected, eternal damnation, would turn to God with his hands in the air and say praise your name.–

Glad I could be of some amusement to you, as you have been to me, Rick’s son.

And, yes, you have been amusing. Sorry, I’m not buying that a Calvinist would react so to receiving the news of his eternal damnation. Oh, they may put on that face in public, at least for a while, but get them alone and let them ponder the horror of their coming damnation and their powerlessness to effect it in any way, and I think soon enough they’ll need a nice padded room and a constricting coat.

And if, as I suspect, a Calvinist would not like for himself or herself to be eternally predestined to damnation, why should they then put that burden on others?

If the Bible were to give us a consistent emphasis that we are merely pawns to divine fiat, that we are in essence meat puppets responding to invisible strings, that all of our choices have in essence already been made and the story already been written, then I would be forced to agree with you and with predestinationists.

But it doesn’t. Whether you like it or not, and no matter how you try to explain it away, the Bible tells us that we have some ability to choose. We are even told that God has given choices, “I have set before you today life and death, good and evil. Choose life”.

Jazz,
Hopefully you didn’t take my comment as minimizing your point. I was trying to agree with you on a light hearted level.

I believe the Lord has given us a choice to either believe in him or deny him. After reading this post, I thought about the passage in John where it says, “He who loves his life will lose it; he who hates his life on earth will gain it.” Isn’t that a choice? Jesus himself proposed many choices to man.

I would like to ask a question. If we are elected into the Kingdom without any choice of our own, does that mean everything we do is the elected act God has willed us to perform? Please do not give me the explaination that God wills us to do right and our flesh pushes us to sin. If we have no choice in the matter than are we to suppose God prompts us to committ what he died to save us from? If God hates sin, why would he ever allow his elect, his chosen, to do what he is so strongly against?

Calvinists traditionally do believe people freely make choices. For instance, standard Reformed confessions like the Westminster, Savoy, and the 1689 Baptist confession all have a chapter entitled, “Of Free Will” which says, “God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil…” There are obviously many places in scripture that ask people to make a choice between options. However, the confessions do interpret the fall as resulting in humans who don’t want God. They aren’t forced to not want God, they freely will not to want him. So those of a Reformed persuasion believe that the Spirit must bring the desire for God back to life within them. God doesn’t force them against their will to want him, but when the Spirit bring these desires back to life they freely give in to their desires and want God in a way that is pleasing to God.

The hard part of this doctrine, and Calvinists don’t necessarily like it either (but they believe the scriptures teach it) is that God’s Spirit does not open up these insatiable desires in everyone. Who, in our limited human understanding, wants to belive this? In my limited understanding I don’t want to. But in regard to the fact that it seems to me to be what scripture teaches as being true, I do belive it. Any theology (not just Calvinism) that belives God knows the future seems to have this problem. In our own experience we can see that some people’s lives are changed and they are blessed after hearing the gospel message, but others reject it and don’t experience these blessings. Any who believe God knows all things of all time belive that he chose to create this particular world even knowing who would freely reject or trust him. Why didn’t he create one of millions of other alternate versions of earth where different people belived or rejected him? For some reason he freely willed to create this one. He chose to create this world even knowing the choices people would freely make. So even from a non-Calvinistic theology in which God knows all time, there still seems to be the problem of God choosing an end result in which certain people believe and certain people reject him. It is a hard doctrine, and frustrating even to someone who believes that it is true.

On the topic of what Nate just said: the things you describe certainly are what many term “Hyper-Calvinism” and I’ve known people that have belived those things to be true. But again, the Calvinism is not defined this way in the Reformed confessions, instead it is belived that God predetermined the means by which things happen in time. For instance prayer is the means by which God does things certain things in time, just like food is one of the means by which God preserves our lives in time. Those who belive in such “Hyper-Calvinism” as you described should be consistant and not eat either. Another example is preaching the gospel: this is the means by which God’s Spirit draws people to himself. If no one preached the gospel, to use the words of Paul, “how would anyone hear?”