A QUESTION...... SHOULD NOT THE PHRASE "LIMITED ATONEMENT" BELONG TO NON-CALVINISTS?
It is an interesting quirk of history that we speak of the 5 points of Calvinism. Many can recite them. Yet, in history, they were actually 5 responses to the Remonstrants, and were not thought up in a vacuum. How many know the original 5 articles of the Remonstrants? Yet most of us can recite the 5 points of Calvin. Below is the 2nd article of the 5 on the universal extent and limited power of the atonement.
Five articles of Remonstrance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
I wish to contrast two views. Some call it Calvinism and Arminianism. The problem with the term "Arminism" is that most arminians call themselves "modified Calvinists" or "biblical Christians" and they refuse to allow the tag arminianism to be placed upon their view of the atonement.unlimited power. So maybe I will speak of you who take the lower view of the power of the atonement as "Remonstrants." To compare the two views I want to use Heb 9:15..... "And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. "
1--- First is the Calvinist position in which the power of the atonement to save is absolute. When Christ (under the New Covenant) shed his blood, and a group of people (past, present, and future) were saved. In the Calvinist view, Christ mediates the New Covenant only for those who were "called" and they "receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
So then, Christ shed his precious blood on the cross, enters the heavenly tabernacle, presents his blood on the heavenly altar, and those "called... recieve the promise of eternal inheritance."
2--- The second group is the people of the Remonstrants. This the group that claims that the atonement somehow relates to the whole world. They suggested that the scope of the shed blood is universal, but deny its power to save absolutely. They seemed to be aware that they viewed the blood of Christ as less powerful to save when they wrote the 2nd article. The specific phrase they wrote is... "yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer" (see article 2 above). So then Christ died, and no one enjoys salvation. Christ shed his blood, but your salvation is only partially dependent on the fact of that shed blood. This view sees the cross work of Christ as universal in scope in that he died for all men, but limited in power to save.
In this view, Christ sheds his blood, presents the blood on the heavenly altar of the New Covenant, and then becomes the intercessor for all mankind based upon that shed blood. The problem is that this intercessory ministry of Christ based upon his shed blood is only partially successful. Christs intercessor ministry is successful based upon the free will decision of men. In this view, it is different then in Calvinism where the efficacy of Christs shed blood is not dependent upon anything in man, but there is a direct and absolute propitiation. Salvation was completely accomplished.
So then, as I asked above in caps. Should not the term "limited atonement" go to the non-Calvinists? In their view the power of the crosswork of Christ to save is limited by the fact that that atonement does not "actually" bring about "forgiveness of sins." If it was "actual" then they would have a doctrine called universalism. So then, Christ shed his blood and no one "actually" got saved. When it comes to the power of the shed blood to save, I stand n the "unlimited atonement" view. There is nothing in man of value that would make God want to apply the atonement to man.
ONE MORE THING
Certainly God is pleased by faith.... Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
That faith which pleases God cannot come from the flesh.....
Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Faith is not generated by the evil nature of man, but by the regeneration ministry of the HS. The gospels speak of Christ as the one who has the right to send the HS. Christ was announced by John as the one who will baptize in the HS.... Mar 1:8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
The one who is born of the Spirit, will enter the kingdom.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
