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.

[George W. Bush]

"Reformed theologian"

A good phrase. But I always smile when I hear it. As long as we're careful with capitalization (i.e. "Reformed theologian" instead of "reformed theologian").

I do believe that when you first came on these threads you weren't even sure what a Calvinist was and then, as soon as you understood what the TULIP was, promptly wrote that you had held the doctrines of sovereignty in salvation long before hearing anything of Calvinism and had acquired those views from your own Bible study.

I was trying to recall the names of a few other "Calvinists" at FR who had that same experience of rather suddenly discovering that they were what are commonly called "Calvinist". I recall a Canadian writer (was his name Arthur Constance?) who wrote many books subsequently but who came to his faith after being snowbound in a cabin for a winter. He also became a Calvinist without knowing what one was. Strangely enough, he was also an inventor and an engineer. What is it with engineering and scientific professions that lead so many toward Calvinist doctrine? I've often noticed this. Is it that the engineering instinct reads the scriptures like a schematic of salvation, knowing full well that nothing in the structure of man is capable of saving himself but only the sovereign power of God? That's my current theory.

I thought these examples tend to deflect the tired accusation that we have acquired a worldly and manmade philosophy of Calvinism. The repeated independent discovery of the doctrines of grace from scripture alone testifies strongly against the accusation ftD has hurled so many times.

Dakota gal in Seattle to A.J.Armitage in #34: For all of my life I thought I was a Presbyterian. After reading your post, I must be a Calvinist.

What a comment this is on some of the modern Presbyterian churches, who once so firmly and universally upheld Calvinist doctrine so intrepidly. I was glad for Dakota_gal but I had to smile a little here. I thought Orthodox Presbyterian should see this one and forgot to flag him earlier.

[George W. Bush]

1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

First, a typical Arminian quote of a partial verse, let alone a passage in context. Let's correct that:

1 Timothy 4:10 KJV
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

I think that I prefer to let Dr. Gill, Spurgeon's predecessor, answer your post:

For therefore we both labour…
Not in the word and doctrine, though they did; nor in the exercise of internal godliness, though there is a work in faith, and a labour in love; nor with their own hands, at their trades and business, to support themselves, and others; but by enduring hardships and afflictions, as stripes, imprisonment, weariness, pain, watchings, fastings, hunger, thirst, cold, and nakedness; see Corinthians 11:23-27).
And suffer reproach;
with patience and cheerfulness. The Alexandrian copy, and another manuscript, read, "we strive"; or contend even to an agony, combating with sin, Satan, and the world, with profane men, and with false teachers; and to all this they were animated by the promises made to godliness; and therefore they showed it by their practices, or rather by their sufferings, that they believed it to be a true and faithful saying; and which is further conferred by what follows:
because we trust in the living God;
for the accomplishment of the said promises, who has power, and therefore can, and is faithful, and therefore will, make good what he has promised; and since it is life he has promised, faith is the more encouraged to trust in him, since he is the living God, in opposition to, and distinction from, lifeless idols; he has life in himself, essentially, originally, and independently, and is the author and giver of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal, unto others. Wherefore there is good reason to trust in him for the fulfilling of the promises of the present and future life, made unto godliness.
Who is the Saviour of all men;
in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life; for that he is the Saviour of all men, with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, is not true in fact.
Specially of those that believe;
whom though he saves with an eternal salvation; yet not of this, but of a temporal salvation, are the words to be understood: or as there is a general providence, which attends all mankind, there is a special one which relates to the elect of God; these are regarded in Providence, and are particularly saved and preserved before conversion, in order to be called; and after conversion, after they are brought to believe in Christ, they are preserved from many enemies, and are delivered out of many afflictions and temptations; and are the peculiar care and darlings of providence, being to God as the apple of his eye: and there is a great deal of reason to believe this, for if he is the Saviour of all men, then much more of them who are of more worth, value, and esteem with him, than all the world beside; and if they are saved by him with the greater salvation, then much more with the less; and if he the common Saviour of all men, and especially of saints, whom he saves both ways, then there is great reason to trust in him for the fulfilment of the promises of life, temporal and eternal, made to godliness, and godly persons. This epithet of God seems to be taken out of Psalms 17:7 where he is called (Myowx eyvwm) , "the Saviour of them that trust", or believe.

Your use of 1 Timothy 4:10, if read as literally as you apparently intend to force upon us all, requires a belief in Universalism. Read literally, it plainly contradicts dozens of other scripture passages. Since you deny being any sort of Universalist, then what other explanation can you offer to this verse other than that exposited by Gill, and a very similar reading by Calvin.

This verse cannot be read literally except by a Universalist. Therefore, your "answer" to my post was no answer at all but only a bit of scriptural legerdemain to deflect attention from the points I raised.

[zadok]

I thought these examples tend to deflect the tired accusation that we have acquired a worldly and manmade philosophy of Calvinism.

If anything is a manmade and worldly philosophy it is Arminianism.

Worldly men do not trust in God for their salvation, they trust themselves.

[CCWoody]

Is it that the engineering instinct reads the scriptures like a schematic of salvation, knowing full well that nothing in the structure of man is capable of saving himself but only the sovereign power of God? That's my current theory.

Actually, the vast majority of engineers that I know who do believe are Arminian. Interestingly, every believing engineer who is a Calvinist that I know is also a pastor.

[drstevej]

In viewing the website it is the same person.

The book is a transcript of his 75 taped messages and available as a syllabus from a local book store for $30.00. This is why I was unable to find it on amazon. It is privately printed.

The credentials of Dr. Daniel are:
- Central Bible College (B.A.)
- Fuller Theological Seminary (M.Div.)
- University of Edinburgh (Ph.D.)

He is pastor of:
Reformed Bible Church
Springfield, IL

-------

While these credentials are solid, Dr. Nicole far exceeds Dr. Daniel in his academic credentials and especially as a student of Calvin:

Dr. Roger Nicole

Dr. Nicole is Professor of Theology at RTS/Orlando. A native Swiss Reformed theologian, he has long been regarded as one of the preeminent theologians in America. As a bibliophile and distinguished librarian, his personal collection includes Calvin's Commentaries on the Gospels and Acts published during Calvin's lifetime and many other rare volumes from the 1500s and 1600s. Dr. Nicole is an associate editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and a corresponding editor for Christianity Today. He assisted in preparation of the NIV Bible, is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and was a founding member of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. He has written approximately 100 articles and contributed to 50 books and reference works.

Degrees:
- Sorbonne, M.A.
- Gordon Divinity School, Th.D.
- Harvard, Ph.D.

-------
I would give more credence to his assessment of Calvin and the issue of limited atonement rather than Dr. Daniel's. Furthermore the Westminster Theological Journal is a recognized scholarly journal of Calvinistic theology whose editors are careful in screening the articles they publish. (I have had two published by them and am familiar with the process.) To my knowledge no rebutal has been made od Dr. Nicole's article in a journal or major publication.

-----

Therefore I stand by my statement:
***Dr. Roger Nicole's article in Westminster Journal makes a convincing case that Calvin made no definitive statement on the issue.***

-----
BTW, in a PhD course on Calvin's theology at WTS a student wrote his paper on Calvin's view of the atonement. He was unable to make a clear case for either view. The professor, Dr. George Hutchinson responded "men Calvin never addresses the issue directly so you will find statements that may be used to infer either position."

-----
Selah

[George W. Bush]

If anything is a manmade and worldly philosophy it is Arminianism.

Precisely. Calvinism describes an entirely supernatural salvation. Arminianism is far more worldly, far more acceptable to worldly men.

It is, more than any other thing, the doctrines of grace which makes the world so hate the full Word of God. And scripture tells us to expect this very thing. The Arminian concepts offend no one; they are rather pleasing to hear in fact.

I think history is replete with examples of how the world hates and persecutes those who preach the full Word of God and particularly His sovereignty in the salvation of men. Regardless of the theological anemia of their doctrine, our Arminian friends have succeeded in greatly minimizing the "offensiveness" of the Bible to the world. But they've done so by diminishing the full truth of the Word. Little wonder that they're forced to make begging altar calls and other modern innovations. By contrast, Calvinists, ever assertively preaching and witnessing, routinely witness repentance and faith in converts without doing any begging from a pulpit (although we do make the free offer as well). Calvinists rely upon God and His sovereign grace to convict hearts, not merely upon some persuasive and emotive phrases. What a comfort to know that God is in control and our own human failings can never damn another person, that our God shall prevail in collecting every lamb in Christ's flock. How desperate the plight of the Arminians by comparison.

[RnMomof7]

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...

Then I read it:>))

[RnMomof7]

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.

I have started to tell family and friends that I now take a "reformed" position.

The title "Calvinist" makes people nervous..

[RnMomof7]

What is it with engineering and scientific professions that lead so many toward Calvinist doctrine?

Pray mine comes that way huh?

[George W. Bush]

Then I read it:>))

And I remember when Romans made me feel so accused and so angry that I couldn't even read it. Literally, like it was written in a foreign language. Of course, for me it was so foreign because it is written in the language of God's utter sovereignty, an idea I didn't like at the time. To put it mildly.

[xzins]

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.

We both know your argument on this verse is weak. Now try 1 Ti 4:10 - The Savior of the WHOLE world, and especially of those who believe.

The argument in favor of unlimited atonement just builds and builds. That's why there are a good number of 4 pt calvinists.

[xzins]

GW, there is no universalism required, as you well know.

Your handling of the verse is simply weak and not very compelling at all. Essentially, you're trying to say that he's not the Savior of the whole world and especially of those who believe.

In other words, your argument is this: "What you see isn't actually what you see." And you have no compelling evidence to make me disbelieve my own eyes and my own ability to read.

And then there's this verse: 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

It's relentless, GW, the case of obvious scripture continues to build. Should I deny my own eyes on this verse as well?

The atonement is unlimited.

[zadok]

We both know your argument on this verse is weak

Then why have you not offered a counter?

2 Peter was written to the ELECT. Are you still having a hard time following the context?

"Now try 1 Ti 4:10 - The Savior of the WHOLE world, and especially of those who believe."

George W. already did an excellent job in illustrating that verse in it's proper context in his post #122 .

"The argument in favor of unlimited atonement just builds and builds."

In your own deluded mind Xzins.

Have you even stopped to consider that you might be WRONG?

It doesn't seem as though you have. You assume you are correct and in the process you reject the clear teachings of scripture.

[RochesterFan]

fortheDeclaration wrote:

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?

God is longsuffering because he puts up with (suffers) the sin of the whole world until the last sinner is saved.

[xzins]

In your own deluded mind Xzins.

Have I called you a name that that is necessary?

GW's response to 1 Ti 4:10 is simply that I shouldn't believe what the verse appears to literally say. He offers no compelling reason for doing so.

Zad, I gave him then another verse that supports a literal rendering of 1 Ti 4:10. It is 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

There are so many more, Zad. It is impossible for you to prove a limited atonement to one who reads the bible literally.

[zadok]

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

This verse simply shows that salvation is open to the Gentiles as well as Israel. .

[CCWoody]

• 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

• 1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

2434 hilasmos {hil-as-mos'} found 2 times in the whole Bible!

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

akin to hileos ("merciful, propitious"), signifies "an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted." It is used in the NT of Christ Himself as "the propitiation," in 1Jo 2:2; 4:10, signifying that He Himself, through the expiatory sacrifice of His Death, is the Personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner who believes on Christ as the One thus provided.

What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by Divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God's mercy; the efficacy of the "propitiation," however, is made actual for those who believe.

And in the same identical manner when Paul says that "He [Jesus] is the Savior of all men" we do not see any verb which indicates that Jesus has actually been made the Savior by actually bearing the sins of all men in His body. Rather, just like 1 John 2:2, this verse is teaching that Jesus is the means of Salvation for all men and He is the actual Salvation for all those who believe.

Now, I know that you will not like this good reading of these verses because they destroy your "Plan B" salvation garbage. Besides, something else that Paul says to Timothy actually shreds the idea that this verse teaches a Universal Atonement.

[RnMomof7]

Gill on 1John 2:2

Verse 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins,.... For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews: and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause: but also for [the sins] of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles amle, "the world"; and Mlweh lk, "the whole world"; and Mlweh twmwa, "the nations of the world" {l};

See Gill on "John 12:19"; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see John 3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that hrpk Nhl Nya, "there is no propitiation for them" {m}: and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say {n}, "it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, amle ylwk, "the whole world" went after him;" which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere {o} it is said, "amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";" which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place {p}, "amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;" where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said {q}, when "R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), amle ylwk, "the whole world" stood up before him;" that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added {r}, "when a great man makes a mourning, amle ylwk,

"the whole world" come to honour him;" i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, ygylp al amle ylwk, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent {s}; yrbo amle ylwk, "the whole world" are of opinion {t}, are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" {u}, only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world," or "the whole world,"

in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luke 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1 John 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins," the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs:

so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind;

add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1 John 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for John 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them.</Block quote>

Gills point is well taked xzins. Do you believe in the Universal atonement? Does all really mean ALL ? Is every man that every lived and everyman that will ever lived saved ?

[RnMomof7]

Oppps

Bedtime

Gills point is well taken xzins. Do you believe in the Universal atonement? Does all really mean ALL ? Is every man that every lived and every man that will ever live saved ?

[zadok]

Thank you for the excellent post.