Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? (Limited Atonement)

Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | James White

[A.J.Armitage]

We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon

There was a time when I called myself a "four-point Calvinist." There are a lot of people who use that term, and, almost all the time, the one point of the five that they reject is the terrible, horrible, "L". Limited atonement. There is just something about the term that doesn't sound right. How can Christ's atonement be limited? And that is exactly what I said until I began to seriously think about the whole issue. It is my experience that most of those who reject the specific, or limited atonement of Christ, do not *really* believe in the complete sovereignty of God, or the total depravity of man, or the unconditional election of God. Most objections that are lodged against the doctrine are actually objections to one of the preceding points, not against limited atonement itself. The "break" in my thinking came from reading Edwin Palmer's book, The Five Points of Calvinism. [Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980) pp. 41-55.] In doing a radio program on the truth of God's electing grace, I was challenged by a caller in regards to the death of Christ. "Why would Christ die for the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone?" I looked at my co-host, and he looked at me, and I made a mental note to do more study into that particular question. I grabbed Palmer's book as soon as I returned home, and began to read the chapter on the atoning work of Christ.

I became a full "five-pointer" upon reading the following section:

The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

I was faced with a decision. If I maintained a "universal" atonement, that is, if I said that Christ died substitutionarily in the place of every single man and woman in all the world, then I was forced to either say that 1) everyone will be saved, or 2) the death of Christ is insufficient to save without additional works. I knew that I was not willing to believe that Christ's death could not save outside of human actions. So I had to understand that Christ's death was made in behalf of God's elect, and that it does accomplish its intention, it does save those for whom it is made. At this point I realized that I had "limited" the atonement all along. In fact, if you do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of "limited atonement," you believe in a limited atonement anyway! How so? Unless you are a universalist (that is, unless you believe that everyone will be saved), then you believe that the atonement of Christ, if it is made for all men, is limited in its effect. You believe that Christ can die in someone's place and yet that person may still be lost for eternity. You limit the power and effect of the atonement. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and effect is unlimited! One writer expressed it well when he said,

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons...while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. (Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)

Therefore, we are not talking about presenting some terrible limitation on the work of Christ when we speak of "limited atonement." In fact, we are actually presenting a far greater view of the work of Christ on Calvary when we say that Christ's death actually accomplishes something in reality rather than only in theory. The atonement, we believe, was a real, actual, substitutionary one, not a possible, theoretical one that is dependent for its efficacy upon the actions of man. And, as one who often shares the gospel with people involved in false religious systems, I will say that the biblical doctrine of the atonement of Christ is a powerful truth that is the only message that has real impact in dealing with the many heretical teachings about Christ that are present in our world today. Jesus Christ died in behalf of those that the Father had, from eternity, decreed to save. There is absolute unity between the Father and the Son in saving God's people. The Father decrees their salvation, the Son dies in their place, and the Spirit sanctifies them and conforms them to the image of Christ. This is the consistent testimony of Scripture.

The Intention of the Atonement

Why did Christ come to die? Did He come simply to make salvation possible, or did He come to actually obtain eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12)? Let's consider some passages from Scripture in answer to this question.

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).

Here the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of the reason for His coming. He came to seek and to save the lost. Few have a problem with His seeking; many have a problem with the idea that He actually accomplished all of His mission. Jesus, however, made it clear that He came to actually save the lost. He did this by His death.

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners---of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15).

Paul asserts that the purpose of Christ's coming into the world was to actually save sinners. Nothing in Paul's words leads us to the conclusion that is so popular today---that Christ's death simply makes salvation a possibility rather than a reality. Christ came to save. So, did He? And how did He? Was it not by His death? Most certainly. The atoning death of Christ provides forgiveness of sins for all those for whom it is made. That is why Christ came.

Christ's Intercessory Work

But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them (Hebrews 7:24-26).

The New Testament closely connects the work of Christ as our High Priest and intercessor with His death upon the cross. In this passage from Hebrews, we are told that the Lord Jesus, since He lives forever, has an unchangeable or permanent priesthood. He is not like the old priests who passed away, but is a perfect priest, because He remains forever. Because of this He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him. Why? Because He always lives to make intercession for them.

Now, before considering the relationship of the death of Christ to His intercession, I wish to emphasize the fact that the Bible says that Christ is able to save men completely. He is not limited simply to a secondary role as the great Assistor who makes it possible for man to save himself. Those who draw near to God through Christ will find full and complete salvation in Him. Furthermore, we must remember that Christ intercedes for those who draw near to God. I feel that it is obvious that Christ is not interceding for those who are not approaching God through Him. Christ's intercession is in behalf of the people of God. We shall see how important this is in a moment.

Upon what ground does Christ intercede before the Father? Does He stand before the Father and ask Him to forget His holiness, forget His justice, and simply pass over the sins of men? Of course not. The Son intercedes before the Father on the basis of His death. Christ's intercession is based upon the fact that He has died as the substitute for God's people, and, since He has borne their sins in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), He can present His offering before the Father in their place, and intercede for them on this basis. The Son does not ask the Father to compromise His holiness, or to simply pass over sin. Christ took care of sin at Calvary. As we read in Hebrews 9:11-12:

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

When Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, He did so "by his own blood." When He did this, we are told that He had "obtained eternal redemption." This again is not a theoretical statement, but a statement of fact. Christ did not enter into the Holy of Holies to attempt to gain redemption for His people! He entered in having already accomplished that. So what is He doing? Is His work of intercession another work alongside His sacrificial death? Is His death ineffective without this "other" work? Christ's intercession is not a second work outside of His death. Rather, Christ is presenting before the Father His perfect and complete sacrifice. He is our High Priest, and the sacrifice He offers in our place is the sacrifice of Himself. He is our Advocate, as John said:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense---Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2. [This passage is often used to deny the specific atonement of Christ; yet, when the parallel passage in John 11:51-52 is consulted, it is clear that John means the "world" to be taken in the same sense that is explained for us in Revelation 5:9-11, where Christ's death purchases for God men "from every tribe and language and people and nation," that is, from all the world.]

Christ's atoning death is clearly connected with His advocacy before the Father. Therefore, we can see the following truths:

1) It is impossible that the Son would not intercede for everyone for whom He died. If Christ dies as their Substitute, how could He not present His sacrifice in their stead before the Father? Can we really believe that Christ would die for someone that He did not intend to save?

2) It is impossible that anyone for whom the Son did not die could receive Christ's intercession. If Christ did not die in behalf of a certain individual, how could Christ intercede for that individual, since He would have no grounds upon which to seek the Father's mercy?

3) It is impossible that anyone for whom the Son intercedes could be lost. Can we imagine the Son pleading before the Father, presenting His perfect atonement in behalf of an individual that He wishes to save, and the Father rejecting the Son's intercession? The Father always hears the Son (John 11:42). Would He not hear the Son's pleas in behalf of all that the Son desires to save? Furthermore, if we believe that Christ can intercede for someone that the Father will not save, then we must believe either 1) that there is dissension in the Godhead, the Father desiring one thing, the Son another, or 2) that the Father is incapable of doing what the Son desires Him to do. Both positions are utterly impossible.

That Christ does not act as High Priest for all men is clearly seen in His "High Priestly Prayer" in John 17. The Lord clearly distinguishes between the "world" and those who are His throughout the prayer, and verse 9 makes our point very strongly:

I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

When Christ prays to the Father, He does not pray for the "world" but for those that have been given to Him by the Father (John 6:37).

For Whom Did Christ Die?

There are a number of Scriptures that teach us that the scope of Christ's death was limited to the elect. Here are a few of them:

Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

The "many" for whom Christ died are the elect of God, just as Isaiah had said long before,

By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

The Lord Jesus made it clear that His death was for His people when He spoke of the Shepherd and the sheep:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father---and I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15).

The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not, for most men do not know Christ, and Christ says that His sheep know Him (John 10:14). Further, Jesus specifically told the Jews who did not believe in Him, "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26). Note that in contrast with the idea that we believe and therefore make ourselves Christ's sheep, Jesus says that they do not believe because they are not His sheep! Whether one is of Christ's sheep is the Father's decision (John 6:37, 8:47), not the sheep's!

...just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God....husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:2, 25-27).

Christ gave Himself in behalf of His Church, His Body, and that for the purpose of cleansing her and making her holy. If this was His intention for the Church, why would He give Himself for those who are not of the Church? Would He not wish to make these "others" holy as well? Yet, if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain impure for all eternity. Was Christ's death insufficient to cleanse them? Certainly not. Did He have a different goal in mind in dying for them? [I am not here denying that the death of Christ had effects for all men, indeed, for all of creation. I believe that His death is indeed part of the "summing up of all things" in Christ. But, we are speaking here solely with the salvific effect of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. One might say that Christ's death has an effect upon those for whom it was not intended as an atoning sacrifice.] No, His sacrificial death in behalf of His Church results in her purification, and this is what He intended for all for whom He died.

He who did not spare His own Son, but gave him up for us all---how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring a charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died---more than that, who was raised to life---is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us (Romans 8:32-34).

The Father gave the Son in our place. Who is the "our" of this passage? The text says that it is "those whom God has chosen," that is, the elect of God. Again, the intercessory work of Christ at the right hand of the Father is presented in perfect harmony with the death of Christ---those for whom Christ died are those for whom He intercedes. And, as this passage shows, if Christ intercedes for someone, who can possibly bring a charge against that person and hope to see them condemned? So we see what we have seen before: Christ dies in someone's place, He intercedes for them, and they are infallibly saved. Christ's work is complete and perfect. He is the powerful Savior, and He never fails to accomplish His purpose.

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).

Are all the friends of Christ? Do all own His name? Do all bow before Him and accept Him as Lord? Do all do His commandments (John 15:14)? Then not all are His friends.

While we wait for the blessed hope---the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good (Titus 2:13-14).

Both the substitutionary element of the cross (gave himself for us) and the purpose thereof (to redeem us...to purify) are forcefully presented to Titus. If it was the purpose of Christ to redeem and purify those for whom He died, can this possibly not take place?

She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

Christ will save His people from their sins. I ask what Edwin Palmer asked me before: Well, did He? Did He save His people, or did He not?

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

This is the common confession of every true believer in Christ. We died with Him, our Substitute, the one who loved us and gave Himself in our behalf.

We have seen, then, that the Word teaches that Christ died for many, for His sheep, for the Church, for the elect of God, for His friends, for a people zealous for good works, for His people, for each and every Christian.

Perfected and Sanctified

One could quite obviously fill entire volumes with a study of the atonement of Christ. [The reader is strongly encouraged to make the effort to read completely a work that stands as a classic in the field: John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ from Banner of Truth, for a full discussion of the issues surrounding the atonement of Christ.] It is not our purpose to do so here. Instead, we shall close our brief survey of Scripture with these words from Hebrews 10:10-14:

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifice, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

While we have seen many logical reasons for believing in limited atonement, and we have seen many references to Christ's death in behalf of His people, this one passage, above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must. Listen closely to what we are told. First, what is the effect of the one time sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ? What does verse 10 tell us? "We have been made holy," or, another translation would be, "We have been sanctified." The Greek language uses the perfect tense here, indicating a past, and completed, action. The death of Christ actually makes us holy. Do we believe this? Did the death of Christ actually sanctify those for whom it was made? Or did it simply make it possible for them to become holy? Again, these are questions that cannot be easily dismissed. The writer goes on to describe how this priest, Jesus, sat down at the right hand of God, unlike the old priests who had to keep performing sacrifices over and over and over again. His work, on the contrary, is perfect and complete. He can rest, for by His one sacrifice He has made perfect those who are experiencing the sanctifying work of the Spirit in their lives. He made them perfect, complete. The term refers to a completion, a finishing. Again, do we believe that Christ's death does this? And, if we see the plain teaching of Scripture, are we willing to alter our beliefs, and our methods of proclaiming the gospel, to fit the truth?

What of Faith?

One common belief needs to be addressed in passing. Many who believe in a "universal" or non-specific atonement, assert that while Christ died for all, His atonement is only effective for those who believe. We shall discuss the fact that faith itself is the gift of God, given only to the elect of God, in the next chapter. But for now, we defer to the great Puritan writer, John Owen, in answering this question:

To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:---God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" Ps. cxxx. 3....If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp. 61-62.)

Conclusion

Some object to the doctrine of limited atonement on very pragmatic grounds. "The doctrine destroys evangelism, because you cannot tell people that Christ died for them, because you don't know!" Yet, we ask, is there an advantage in presenting to men an atonement that is theoretical, a Savior whose work is incomplete, and a gospel that is but a possibility? What kind of proclamation will God honor with His Spirit: one that is tailored to seek "success," or one that is bound to the truth of the Word of God? When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not say, "Christ died for all men everywhere, and it is up to you to make His work effective." They taught that Christ died for sinners, and that it was the duty of every man to repent and believe. They knew that only God's grace could bring about repentance and faith in the human heart. And far from that being a *hindrance* to their evangelistic work, it was the power behind it! They proclaimed a *powerful* Savior, whose work is all sufficient, and who saves men totally and completely! They knew that God was about bringing men to Himself, and, since He is the sovereign of the universe, there is no power on earth that will stay His hand! Now there is a solid basis for evangelism! And what could be more of a comfort to the heart that is racked with guilt than to know that Christ has died for sinners, and that His work is not just theoretical, but is real?

The Church needs to challenge the world again with the daring proclamation of a gospel that is offensive---offensive because it speaks of God saving those whom He will, offensive because it proclaims a sovereign Savior who redeems His people.

[fortheDeclaration]

ftD to drstevej: Vance, however, takes the opposite view and agrees with your view that Calvin was not for Unlimited Atonement! I would think you'd been around long enough to know that FR's Calvinists have said exactly the same thing many times. I suppose you're suprised that we Calvinist Baptists don't believe in infant baptism even though Calvin supported it (while admitting the scriptural foundation was quite weak).

We are not discussing other church practices. If that were the case, myself and the Methodists would be in disgreement. We are discussing TULIP which is the Calvinistic system.

I think Calvins views on it are germane to the discussion.

I think you imagine Calvin to be something we do not.

I think you are imagining something that I do not.

BTW, most Arminians are far more Arminian than Arminius was. Since you claim Arminianism, do you consider yourself utterly restricted to Arminius' various doctrinal beliefs? No. And Calvinists are not the prisoners of Jean Chauvin of Geneva (the real one). As I understand it, there were no "Calvinists" until after there were "Arminians". There was merely the broad doctrine of the Reformation churches across Europe, united in a general resistance to Rome (of which Calvin was generally the exemplar outside of Germany), then Arminius' five objections to Reformation doctrine (a retreat to Rome's theology), the Dordt condemnation of "Arminianism", and finally, the name "Calvinists" was attached to those who affirm the TULIP in the broad tradition of the Reformation.

First, the church that calls itself 'Arminian' has moved away from Arminianism, not closer to it.

Second, Arminius views were not a 'retreat' to Romes' position since they do not represent a works system.

What they were were a return to the Bible and a rejection of philosophical speculation.

Calvin would have had no idea what a Calvinist or an Arminian was.

Agreed! Hence his tolarance of Melanchthon's work which was proto-Arminian, bringing back in the human will as a factor in salvation.

Neither would Arminius since he was already dead before his work was latched onto by his anti-Reformation colleagues. Arminius can hardly be claimed as a Reformer in any way since he actually undermined the Reformation.

Oh, give me a break! Arminius was as anti-Catholic as they come!

Arminius is in the full tradition of the Reformation

This is from the Works of Arminius.

For my part when I reflect on the disputes which have produced such a lamentable division in Holland, I can hardly comprhend how men of genius could persuade themselves, that the dogmas of St. Augustine on Predestination and Grace are essential to the Reformation of Christianity;

For there were many holy men, in the purest ages of the Church,who thought directly the reverse of the Father.

Cannot we renounce the monstrous and ridiculous doctrine of Purgatory, the Indulgances, the false Traditions of the Church of Rome, and the Tyranny of the Pope, without believing in Absolute Predestination, and Irresistable Grace?

What was thought of the hypothesis of the Bishop of Hippo, by all those respectable individuals who, struck with the absurdity and falsehood of the doctrines I have just enumerated, embraced the Reformation of the last century?

Did they give themselves the trouble of examining whether it was true or false? Those difficult and abstract questions occupied the sole attention of the divines, who took it into their heads to form a completed system of Divinity; and among them who chose that employment, there were many who have more carefully examined the Holy Scripture, and Ecclesiastical Antiquity,preferred the moderate sentiments of the Greek Fathers.

Even Calvin himself was not persuaded that his own notions respecting Predestination and Grace were essential to Religion; For he took the trouble of translating into French the Common Places of Melenchthon-who thought very differently from him on those controverted subjects, -and in the preface which he prefixed in that work, he bestows on the author all imaginable praise.

Could he conscientiously have acted thus, if he had been persuaded that the sentiments of Melanchthon sapped the foundations of the Reformation?

Many eminent Reformed Divines have openly maintained, that the doctrines of Universal Grace, of the Power to resist its operation and of Conditional Predestination, are in the number of those Articles which every one may believe without renouncing the principles of Religion.

Some learned Hollanders had boldy defended this doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a Professor at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him.

Their writings are still extent; although it is true, that certain ministers who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their productions into dispute; But the States of Holland uniformly checked this impetous zeal.

The Professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melanchthon; and when Arminius was called to that University, his opinions were generally known; For he had declared them in the Church of Amsterdam, from which he had received very honourable testimonals.

Gomarius, and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging, immediately that the difference between the sentiments which existed between them, did not at all concern the foundations of the Reformation.

True it is, that Gomarus did not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken umbrage at the reputation of his new collegue, or the enemies of Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man, some time before, he looked upon as orthodox.

(Le Vassor's History of the Reign of Louis XIII, cited in the Works of Arminius,(3Vol) Testimonies,p.liv)

[fortheDeclaration]

Now, it must be stated at this point that the man, prior to the offer of "Prevenient Grace" has absolutely nothing but his own natural fallen VIRTUE to use in his decision on whether or not to receive this "Prevenient Grace". Man without the aid of anything from God must decide whether or not to receive the grace that he will then use to create his own salvation from the mere "possible salvation" that Christ wrought on the Cross. Actually, I like this argument very much. The Arminians will reply that their mythical Prevenient Grace is adequate to enable any to repent. But they never answer why they were good enough or smart enough to take advantage of this Prevenient Grace? Were all of them given the same amount? Their enthroning of the god of Human Free Will seems to be a throne of thorns when one considers that they still affirm God's action in their salvation. But in their egalitarian philosophy of salvation, is God any less "cruel" because He didn't give enough Prevenient Grace to save others or send His Holy Spirit strongly enough to convict their hearts? The real root of Arminianism is a judgment of God. They try to explain away His justice because they do actually believe God to be cruel. This is why they make free will the central object of their religion. Their posited free will is a failed attempt to justify God's justice. Their theological artifices like Prevenient Grace are merely the rotten timber used to support their Free Will tower of Babel. Getting back to the article's thrust, it's quite obvious that their Prevenient Grace is only a "possible grace", just as their salvation is a "possible salvation". It's rather striking when you think about it. I keep thinking that we once had a terrific Spurgeon sermon where he dealt with some of these same topics but I can't recall it exactly.

Arminian: Because I'm good enough and I'm smart enough...

No, it was simple obedience to obey the Gospel Then said they unto him, what shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (Jn.6:29) And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ,(1Jn.3:24)

Calvinist: Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me

And let everyone else go to hell even though He could have saved them! On top of this, God Decrees Adam to sin so we would be all under sin in the first place.

As for your other nonsense,here is something regarding Wesley,

I must, however, confess, that he does not, as some real Protestants, continually harp upon the words FREE grace, and FREE will; but he gives reasons of considerable weight for this. (1.) Christ and his apostles never did so. (2.) He knows the word grace necessarily implies the freeness of a favor; and the word will, the freedom of our choice: and he has too much sense to delight in perpetual tautology. (3.) He finds, by blessed experience, that when the will is touched by Divine grace, and yields to the touch, it is as free to good, as it was before to evil. He dares not, therefore, make the maintaining free will, any more than free breath, the criterion of an unconverted man. On the contrary, he believes none are converted but those who have a free will to follow Jesus; and, far from being ashamed to be called a "free-willer," he affirms it as essential to all men to be "free-willing creatures," as to be "rational animals;" and he supposes he can as soon find a diamond or a flint without gravity, as a good or bad man without free will.

Nor will I conceal that I never heard him use that favorite expression of some good men, Why me? Why me? though he is not at all against their using it, if they can do it to edification. But as he does not see that any of the saints, either of the Old or New Testament ever used it, he is afraid to be humble and "wise above what is written," lest "voluntary humility" should introduce refined pride before he is aware. Doubting, therefore, whether he could say, Why me? Why me? without the self-pleasing idea of his being preferred to thousands, or without a touch of the secret self applause that tickles the Pharisee's heart, when he "thanks God he is not as other men," he leaves the fashionable exclamation to others, with all the refinements of modern divinity; and chooses to keep to St. Paul's expression, "He loved me," which implies no exclusion of his poor fellow sinners; or to that of the royal psalmist, "Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him."

5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching. The first is, that ALL OUR SALVATION IS OF GOD IN CHRIST, and therefore OF GRACE; -- all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace; -- grace most absolutely free: and so far, I hope, that all who are called Gospel ministers agree with him. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts with equal confidence, that according to the Gospel dispensation, ALL OUR DAMNATION IS OF OURSELVES, by our obstinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulness; as we may "neglect so great salvation," desire to "be excused" from coming to the feast of the Lamb, "make light of" God's gracious offers, refuse to "occupy," bury our talent, and act the part of the "slothful servant;" or, in other words, "resist, grieve, do despite to," and "quench the Spirit of grace," by our moral agency.

The first of these evangelical axioms he builds upon such scriptures as these: -- "In me is thy help. Look unto me and be saved. No man cometh unto me except the Father draw him. What hast thou that thou hast not received? We are not sufficient to think aright of ourselves, all our sufficiency is of God. Christ is exalted to give repentance. Faith is the gift of God. Without me ye can do nothing," &c, &c. And the second he founds upon such passages as these: "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light. Ye always resist the Holy Ghost. They rejected the counsel of God toward themselves. Grieve not the Spirit. Quench not the Spirit. My Spirit shall not always strive with man. Turn, why will ye die? Kiss the Son, lest ye perish. I gave Jezebel time to repent, and she repented not. The goodness of God leads [not drags,] thee to repentance, who after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath unto thyself. Their eyes have they closed, lest they should see, and be converted, and I should heal them. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh from heaven. I set before you life and death, choose life! Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. I would have gathered you, and ye would not," &c, &c. http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Fletcher/1stCk.htm

[fortheDeclaration]

I can not find Curt Daniel, History and Theology of Calvinism on amazon.com can you give a publisher, date for this publication

Yes, the name of the bookstore is Good Books . Its address is 2456 Devonshire Rd, Springfield, IL. 62703, USA.

They specalize in out of print and second-hand books.

I do not see a phone number on the catalogue, but if you write they will send you one.

I found the Daniel book under the 'new book' section of the Scholarly Reprints catalogue. They have two, 'Good Books' and 'Scholarly Reprints'

[fortheDeclaration]

I am sorry, I forgot to mention the publisher and date. It is Scholarly Reprints, Dallas, 1993.

[CCWoody]

Second, Arminius views were not a 'retreat' to Romes' position since they do not represent a works system.

Not what you really belive: "God made man savable; man makes man saved."

Did I get you quoted right!

BTW, Jean ftd is still telling lies about Melanchthon it seems!

[George W. Bush]

The Arminians never found an answer and ftd actually declared in response to it that man makes salvation complete.

Well, that seems to sum up their position. They rely upon a possible grace to bring them to a possible salvation and which they can then lose by more exercise of their free will. Everywhere you turn with these Arminian folk, it's "Me, ME, ME! Well, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, given their pro-choice theology.

One can only hope that they have at least assigned God some minor and inconsequential role in their salvation.

Given that some Arminians claim to believe in Eternal Security, one must conclude that, with their possible-grace leading to their possible-salvation, all they can logically expect is Eternal Insecurity.

Actually, I'm not particularly unhappy to have received a Hebrews 10 challenge here. It made me go back and re-read the article several times very closely. I have to say that I'm quite surprised that this author has expounded at such length on Christ as our Intercessor and High Priest and delved into what can be scripturally known of the relationship between the Son and the Father. This is actually a very wonderful teaching. I'm a bit surprised because I've rarely read anyone else who draws these matters using Hebrews 10 as their primary source. And yet, I know of no other place in scripture that paints such a lovely and detailed picture of the relationship between Father and Son and the believer's role in the Father's plan. I like this article very very much. It seems the author expounds nearly everything which can be known from the scripture and not a bit more. How rare to find an expositor so careful in finding both original intent and its universal application. He reminds me a bit of Calvin or Spurgeon at their best.

Of course, you probably suspected I felt that way. I've written at great length on these same matters previously, particularly with reference to Hebrews 10:1-18, the triumphal summary of Hebrews 1-9 and the most authoritative and complete dismissal of the Old Covenant, not to mention the death blow delivered to the Roman and other sacerdotal rituals and sacraments.

[zadok]

Well, did the the "one offering" actually sanctify those for whom it was made or did it simply make it possible for them to be holy?

The finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary made them holy.

Is the action "past and completed" and nothing more required or does something else have to be done?

It is complete.

Like Jesus said "It is finished."

Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?

Yes. How can they that have been sanctified and perfected by the Eternal Holy God be lost?

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

[RnMomof7]

Try Here for out of print or unusual books


http://www.alibris.com/

[George W. Bush]

Did you read the entire argument which I have posted twice now elsewhere?

Sorry. I failed to respond to this question. Yes, I saw it at least once before. As I recall, I complimented you on it. When I first read it, I thought it was OPie's work, mostly because it presented a muscular line of reasoning and concluded with an inescapable dichotomy. Very reminiscent of OPie's best writing. I'm sure you know how highly I regard his presentation and logic skills, something I've always envied.

So we can hardly be surprised that the Arminians refused to answer you.

[drstevej]

Who is Curt Daniel and what are his academic credentials?

[zadok]

"Zd, it's quite obvious from calvinist doctrine that the folks who are to be saved are preselected before time. These preselected ones, then, CANNOT be lost, they cannot perish.

Correct. They cannot perish. Their God is Judge, Jury and Executioner. If God be for them, who can be against them?

By calvinist doctrine you are saying that the verse actually reads: God is not willing that any of the ones who he has already decided cannot fail to exist and cannot ever perish, actually perish.

Correct. They cannot perish. God is the only one who can cause someone to perish. God loves them. He sanctified them and made them holy in His Son Jesus Christ.

What is this: "The theology of the God prone to anxiety attacks?"

The God of the Bible knew all those whom He would Save and all those whom He would DAMN before He even began Creation.

No, He's not anxious. He is the Sovereign Judge and His sheep know His voice.

[Wrigley]

Check out this link for Curt Daniel. I'll still navigating myself, but it does have some info.

http://members.aol.com/blesshope/

[Wrigley]

I don't know if this is the same person.

http://members.aol.com/rbiblech/

[zadok]

"Your concept of God hoping we will vote yes having been given us a neutral zone better fits the expression "anxiety ridden God."

Amen.

[George W. Bush]

I think Calvin's views on it are germane to the discussion.

Well, I suppose. Many people have embraced the sovereignty of God in salvation without reading Calvin. Most "Calvinists" I know did. Among Baptists, you don't all that often hear Baptist clergy calling themselves Calvinists. They quite often describe themselves as "grace men". Jerry_M certainly does, among many others. Those like RnMom and I certainly did not read any Calvin prior to becoming Calvinists and I dont think CCWoody did either, judging by his remarks. I recall that he discovered that he was what is called a Calvinist long after embracing the scriptural doctrines of grace (another term for the TULIP).

Sorry, but we don't fit into that nice little box of yours.

Second, Arminius views were not a 'retreat' to Romes' position since they do not represent a works system.

Yes, they do. They require upon works of men to obtain salvation. We've explained this many times.

Agreed! Hence his [Calvin's] tolerance of Melanchthon's work which was proto-Arminian, bringing back in the human will as a factor in salvation.

As Jean Chauvin has repeatedly pointed out, your claim upon Melanchthon is tenuous at best. I'm not sure Arminians or Calvinists can lay a full claim on him. Or would wish to. It's the same thing with Calvinists with regard to Augustine's body of work.

Even Calvin himself was not persuaded that his own notions respecting Predestination and Grace were essential to Religion; For he took the trouble of translating into French the Common Places of Melenchthon-who thought very differently from him on those controverted subjects, -and in the preface which he prefixed in that work, he bestows on the author all imaginable praise.

This should be no surprise. We Calvinists have denied from the very earliest threads that the Calvinist understanding of scripture is essential to salvation. We have always maintained that it is necessary to a systematic theology that comprehends all of scripture.

And Calvin's blurb of praise for Melanchthon is more complex than you presume. It does not prove your point any more than Arminius' own praise for Calvin's Commentaries which he recommended to all Christians over every work of Christendom except the Bible itself, specifically stating the Commentaries were more valuable than anything written by the ancient church fathers (which is a statement of praise so high I'm not sure that I can quite agree, however greatly I admire the Commentaries as the work of a superb Bible student).

Overall, one can find many praises and rebukes among all the major leaders of the Reformation era. Certainly, we've posted many examples of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others previously to establish the point. I think it requires a very careful understanding of the full history of the Reformation and its minutiae to really grasp these relationships.

I would suggest you find a more reliable source for historical information on early Arminianism and Calvinism than Le Vassor, given the mischief that occured around his History of Louis XIII. It remains an obscure work in our time.

[zadok]

God is not willing that ANY of His elect will be lost. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is sufficient to pay for all of their sins, it is impossible for them to be lost.

If that is case, why does the verse describe God as 'longsuffering'?

If God has already decided who is going to be saved and who not, where does the need for 'longsuffering' come in?

Romans 9 answers your question.

22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

[George W. Bush]

Arminian: Because I'm good enough and I'm smart enough...

ftd: No, it was simple obedience to obey the Gospel...

But the Word teaches that we, as fallen and corrupt creatures (spirtual corpses dead in our trespasses and sin), hate and reject the Truth without exception (except for Christ Himself, the Son of Man). How can you obey prior to receiving grace, being regenerated, believing in Christ and repenting your sins?

Given the general and non-directive sprinkling of (prevenient) grace which you posit and your implicit assumption that each and every human being gets an equal dollop of prevenient grace from God sufficient to repentance unto salvation, then, given the equality of grace which you assume all human beings to receive, you can have no other possible explanation as to why some accept Christ and others refuse than to accept that Arminian believers are either "good enough" or "smart enough" to take advantage of your mythical prevenient grace. Your entire philosophy of God's "fairness" rests upon this contradiction.

Of course, since "grace" has always been generally understood as the "unmerited favor of God in spiritual revelation" then in fact your "prevenient" grace is no grace at all. It's your right as a human being to receive it. Your grace is nothing special. And every person who is ultimately saved or damned has received the same exact dollop of grace from God. Sufficient only to save some, but not all for whom it was intended. There is actually nothing special about your "prevenient" grace. It's no more special than God giving you a kidney or a lung. It's standard equipment for all human beings by your theology.

Don't you even blush when you sing "Amazing Grace"? After all, you have no more grace in you than did Judas or the most depraved of damned souls in history. You all got the same amount prior to salvation. And that is why you must believe that you are good enough or smart enough to repent given the universal equality of God-given grace which you propose.

Tell me, was Paul's dollop of prevenient grace the same as yours? Did Paul have an advantage in grace over you or I as a result of his meeting the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus? Wasn't that exhibition of grace a little more than prevenient? Merely one of many examples...

Some grace! A possible-grace that may or may not lead to a possible-salvation which you may or may not lose. The author of our article was remarkably mild in his remarks.

[George W. Bush]

zadok to ftd: Romans 9 answers your question.

Well, now I know you're a bona fide Calvinist. No Calvinism thread can be considered complete without Romans 9. I remember how RnMom used to point that out rather humorously for us...

[zadok]

:)

[CCWoody]

Those like RnMom and I certainly did not read any Calvin prior to becoming Calvinists and I dont think CCWoody did either, judging by his remarks. I recall that he discovered that he was what is called a Calvinist long after embracing the scriptural doctrines of grace (another term for the TULIP).

Actually, when I am with my pastor, I refer to myself as Reformed, especially in response to his questions to me. It tends not to upset the few Rabid Arminians that we do have in the congregation. If you will notice that my grace argument, which I distributed to my pastor, used the expression "Reformed theologian" and Arminian.