Limited Atonement - What do the Scriptures Teach?
The doctrine that is called “limited atonement” is a wrong teaching that is only eclipsed by salvation through works and the denying of Christ’s divinity. It teaches that the Lamb of God, Jesus the Christ, only died for a very few upon the cross. God chose a “few” that would “find” the narrow path and Christ came only to die for them and no others. So you can never have the assurance that when you witness to someone that Jesus actually died for that person. Jesus may not have died for your children, your husband or wife, you mother or father, only God knows who Jesus died for and by His own admission the total pool of sinners that Jesus suffered for is very small.
One of the great mysteries in the theological metamorphosis is how can anyone really believe that since the Scriptures are very clear about who Jesus came to provide a ransom for. So read these verses and without attempting to make them fit into any preconceived doctrine what do they openly teach? Would a saved man stranded on an island, new in his faith, and with only a Bible and a dictionary, ever come to believe this teaching? Read more.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
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
September 20th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
With all due respect, is there any doctrine that comes under the Biblical term “heresy”. I take issue with your assertation that a Scriptural, doctrinal, and organized treatise on a doctrine I believe is heresy “makes us no better than the other guys”. That is all it takes to make us like the other guys, one Biblical word?
And if you stopped reading that makes your perspective “Limited Perspective”.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
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
September 20th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I make a distinction between a heretical teaching and a heretic. My view is that heresy is a distortion of an imporatnt doctrine. A heretic is someone who teaches salvidic error, or the wrong way to be saved. He is the one the Scriptures adominish us to reject.
But we all probably believe and teach some error, but as it applies to the blood of Christ I deem it heresy without calling Spurgeon (whoever he is) a heretic. I see a distinction.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Fixed. You guys are such sissies!
September 20th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Fair enough, Rick. This I shall ponder.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Just to be clear, I’m a non-heretic teaching heresy (since I am a Calvinist)?
Doest that make me orthodox or not or is that an altogether different problem I have?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
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.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
BTW, my dad always loved a pun or at least 2/3’s of one. He always loved opining that he could mostly go along with Calvin but he had to knock the “L” out of TULIP.
Oh well, what can I say. . .
September 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am
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.â€Â 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.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:43 am
[...] You might be surprised to find out that some of the Emerging commenters on the site that Pastor Frueh is a contributor on, have actually objected to his Calvinism/heresy claim, after Pastor Frueh put a repost of it on that site. The reason that should surprise you is that so many of the Emerging Church participants there maintain an almost perpetual commentary against Calvinism on that site. Take for example this post by the site’s owner - Chris Lyons, entitled "Why Systematic Theology Leads to Divisive Failure". The comments on that post demonstrated the clash between Calvinism and the postmodern mindset, and there are other similar posts there as well. [...]
September 21st, 2007 at 6:38 am
Rick Frueh - an honest question regarding your statement (I’m genuinely undecided on this issue): If we take what I presume is your view of unlimited atonement, doesn’t that effectively lead to universalism? If everyone it the world has been purchased by the blood of Christ, then won’t everyone in the world be saved? I found Adrian Warnock’s article defending limited atonement quite convincing - particularly the line “it was sufficient for all, but not efficient for all”. What are your thoughts on this?
September 21st, 2007 at 7:05 am
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.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:09 am
–“it was sufficient for all, but not efficient for all‖
But what does that mean? That Christ’s death could have saved everyone, but God only parcels out salvation to whomever He wants to? We may understand how people with limited resources have to choose wisely how to give some of those resources, but is God so limited?
I’ve debated Calvinists at times, and have some respect for their thinking, but it’s also a bit suspect in my mind, too. The idea that goes something like this, “God calls everyone, but gives only the elect the faith or grace to respond to that call” seems to make the whole thing a kind of cruel game.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:50 am
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.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:23 am
I’m sure you’ve heard it before, but the fact is that ONLY those who believe (e.g. John 3:16) are saved. The “whosoevers” ARE limited since everyone doesn’t believe. How they may or may not be limited is another topic.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:35 am
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.
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…
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…
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
September 21st, 2007 at 8:38 am
Is it just me or have the ODMs been quieter then usual this week? And as a result, we are now debating something Christians have been arguing about for a very long time.
September 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
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.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
I see the atonement as universal in these ways.
1. All men have the potential to be saved.
Romans 5: 12.
2. God reconciled the whole world to Himself in Jesus.
2 Cor 5: 18-19.
3. All creation will be liberated by the works of Christ Jesus.
Romans 8: 19-21
So it is “universal” that Jesus paid for and reconciled all of creation by His blood. To say it is limited to just the “elect” then negates that Jesus’ blood ushered in a New Creation… that even this creation was reconciled to God through Him. That the “world” was… and that “all men” are.
I think that it being pretty simple logic that “all men” where created by God, and that they are still a part of Creation even if fallen… so if all creation has been reconciled at the Cross… so all men have been also.
Again to be reconciled one must believe and receive. One who does not though reconciled… is still living under the covenant of Death by their own choice and not Gods.
Also since it is offered to all men, yet many who are called will not believe and receive… they will not be chosen.
Again all this is by faith which is a gift of God… God gives us this gift… it is the very Calling of God to give up our own works of the flesh and believe on Jesus and receive His Life and His finished works.
Man only responds to the Calling. He does nothing to save himself as God is always the Initiator of salvation.
Be Blessed,
iggy
September 21st, 2007 at 9:39 am
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 “Electâ€, 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.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:51 am
A heretic is someone who has an answer for every possible theological question.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:21 am
As I noted in the article, in Jn.3:18 God says that we are condemned because we have not believed on the Son of God and therefore God’s gracious offer goes ineffectual. So faith is what pleases God and makes the atonement personal. What about the blood that was shed for those who wind up in hell? I also have a “theory” about the notion that any of Christ’s blood was wasted. The article is below.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/09/atonement-rom.html
September 21st, 2007 at 10:37 am
Great comment Chris P. and if I read you right you are somewhat of a mongrel Calvinist? Thank you for ackowledging a Word study here. I do not avoid debate on these subjects, and I will reiterate that Calvin may be correct, but I strongly do not think so. I do realize the the personal blogs of CRN writers deal with a wide range of subjects and I have been edified by some when I sneak in!
I have notified your pastor as to your agreeing with Iggy, he will be in contact with you!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am
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.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hey Rick
Limited is a poor word. “Effectual,” “Definite,” these give a better understanding of the doctrine. Also, please don’t tell me that the doctrine teaches that Christ died for only a “few,” he died for the “many” (Mk 10.45) out of every tribe, tongue, person and nation (Rev 5.9). I’d encourage you to check out John Piper’s Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved. It’s an appendix in his book The Pleasures of God, but it’s available online. It’s hot, and the reason I think so is because it really opened my eyes. Peace Bru.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:52 am
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.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Chris P.
I have commented on Mike’s blog and he always gets mad… he claims I am not on point and then threatens to ban me because of my questions… so I do not bother to do so anymore… most the time I see is that there is only “amen corners†at the contributors blogs… and if there is a disagreement, and they are friends, they will be agreeable… which is part of the issue. Why will Mike take my comments that are contrary to his assertions as antagonistic when they where not? (I have even agreed with him a few times!) yet he will agree to disagree on little things.
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)
My response to this is “AAAAAAHHHHH A CALVINIST AGREED WITH ME! WHAT AM I TEACHING THAT IS WRONG?!?!?!â€
Just kidding!!!!
I think there are many things that we will agree on… I many agree with some of the conclusions… though I will come at it from a very different path. I agree in eternal security, but still hold that man has a free will… created with free will, free will place in bondage after the fall, and when one believes and receives… they exchange their will for God’s will.
Yet, as far as the atonement being limited, I see that it is saying Jesus’ blood as not sufficient to reconcile all unto God. In addition, that seems very much out of the Bibles teaching.
The issue though is not whether Calvinism will stand or fall over “universal atonement versus limited atonement†but that whether the teaching lines up with the bible.
That is the bottom line… it matters not what Calvin, Spurgeon, Arminius, iggy, Rick (both of them) Chris (all of them) or anyone “thinks†is right… but what the Word of God teaches.
My issue is that one seems to close their mind and blindly follow Calvin and begin to read the bible only through that “filterâ€â€¦ it is as dangerous as if a charismatic reads the bible and only sees “tongues†when he reads “in the Spiritâ€. If the filter we choose blinds us to seeing what the bible is truly saying… then we are not hearing from God, but man and man cannot save anyone.
Be blessed,
iggy
September 21st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
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?
September 21st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Iggy, your response above made me think of this quick question: Do you believe anyone will ultimately lose their life because of their sins?
Limited Atonement answers this question by understanding certain scriptures as teaching that some ultimately do perish for their sins, but all those who share in the *effects* of Christ’s death will be raised:
“If we *have been united with him* in a death like his, we shall *certainly be united with him* in a resurrection like his.” (Rom 6:5)
Christ’s death is understood as being sufficiently universal, but effectively limited to believers. And since the cross is effective and not ineffective, God really saves the world. The world will not perish. Think of the snake-on-a-stick and John 3:16. The nation was being destroyed for its sins but:
“God so loved the nation that he send Moses with the snake-on-a-stick, that whosoever looks to the snake will not perish but have life.”
And the nation was reconciled to God and saved–the nation continued on. The nation did not perish even though there were some in the nation who did perish for their sins.
The snake on the pole was an effective atonement for the nation (the nation didn’t perish) and it was sufficient for every individual in that nation (any who looked to it) but it was effectual for only those who looked at it. It was limited in its effects on individuals.
Likewise Jesus’ death is an effective atonement for the world (the world will not perish) and it is sufficient for every individual in the world (any who looked to him) but it is effectual for only those who looked to him. It is limited in its effects on individuals. That is what is meant by limited atonement. It means “limited in its effects.”
September 21st, 2007 at 1:14 pm
KC,
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
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
Be blessed,
iggy
September 21st, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Iggy,
Thanks for your in-depth reply.
If your answer to my question is “no,” then what is your reading of verses like the following?
“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).
“Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43).
September 21st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
KC,
I am not sure why you are asking as I have stated here and elsewhere that we are to “believe and receive.â€
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
September 21st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
KC - If you are saying that the atonement will only be effective for those who believe I agree. But if you are saying, as Calvin taught, that since God chose those who would be saved Jesus came to seek and save the elect, not everyone. And with that premise Calvin’s limited atonement meant something different than what I have proposed.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/09/atonement-rom.html
September 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
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.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
This is my oldest son, Jonathan, using my computer.
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.
I am a student at Trinity Bible College and I am amazed that the main topic is calvinist vs arminianism. The main focus is not the blood, cross, Jesus, resurrection, etc. but it is that of what we personally espouse.
It has come very simple to me because I realized, after 4-5 years of being a arminian, then a 1 pointer, 2 pointer, 4 pointer, 3 pointer, a total “calvinist”, then back to an arminianist, God is a God of missions. Do you know what that means in all realms whether Cal. or Arm.? If you are an arminian than Go and preach the gospel so every man will have a chance; if you’re a calvinist then go and preach so the sovereign God, Jesus Christ, may have all the Glory. After all, doesn’t the Lord deserve all rewards of his sufferings whether you are a “arminian” or a “calvinist.” If we go to tell the world because the Lord has commanded us he receives glory from that no matter what side of the theoligical fence you personally stand on.
As for a comment on this post….Except for God not being able to sin, I will never use the word limited concerning the sovereign God who bought my liberty on the cross!
September 21st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
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.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:45 pm
KC - Good comment. I have called no one a heretic except Chris Lyons, and I have witnesses for him. I believe you have defined it correctly, however, there arises a distinct difference when Calvin explains it intertwined in God’s election process as defined by him.
In his view Jesus only died for the elect, in my view he died for the non elect as well but as I taught in my post no blood went to waste in the end. I guess you could say the the fly in the ointment is still unconditional election, it colors everything.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
–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”.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Let me say again that one of the things I admire about many Calvinists is that they treat the Scriptures as sacred. I may disagree with them on other things, but I am in lockstep with them on that!
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
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?
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Jonathan,
I don’t think Calvinists deny choice. However they do, in attempt to make scripture fit their theology, change the order of things. We can choose God, but only after he elects us and gives us the ability to choose, resulting in “irresistible grace” leading us to “choose” the correct way.
It’s more fiddling with definitions and semantics. Any occurrence of the word “choose” is interpreted, in reality, as no choice at all. In essence, the Irresistible Grace tenant gives us no choice in the matter whatsoever.
So choices, again, do not exist.
Of course, this makes no theological or logical sense at all. Why ask people to “choose you this day” if the reality is there is no choice?
At the end of this yellow brick road … the logical conclusion of determinant theology is hyper-Calvinism. Asking humans to do things that either 1) will have no effect whatsoever on others, or 2) will have no effect on themselves (ie - I ask you to choose me, but you really can’t — I ask you to persuade men, but you really can’t — I ask you to pray, but it won’t change anything) makes absolutely no sense at all.
I actually have a lot of respect for Calvinists who don’t let their theology make them lazy. The truth is, I can’t believe how anyone resists the slide to hyper once they’ve accepted determinism.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 am
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?”