So...... Christs blood washed only some sins? -
to its conclusion, God created and allowed the other sin to remain (sarcasm) - this one really steams my dumplings ;)- because whats happening is that on the base level, they are limiting the ability of Christ.
I hope you don't think I was arguing for limited atonement. I was pointing out that for Calvinism it is a necessary component even though it is obviously unbilical. I should have said "Limited Atonement -- No way Jose". My argument is that the Unconditional Election and irresistible grace elements are tied together with this unbiblical teaching. But as CTD pointed out, if Limited Atonement is not true, then all of the other petals fall off the tulip. In that sense it is the lynchpin that holds all the other tulip leaves on the stem.
With all due respect, Rev.
I don't know who you are talking about here.
There is no Calvinist or Arminian that I know of who believed that Christ washed "only some sins".
The Calvinist confessionally declares that Christ washed ~ALL~ the sins of those for whom he died without exception.
Article 21: The AtonementWe believe that Jesus Christ is a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek-- made such by an oath-- and that he presented himself in our name before his Father, to appease his wrath with full satisfaction by offering himself on the tree of the cross and pouring out his precious blood for the cleansing of our sins, as the prophets had predicted.
For it is written that "the chastisement of our peace" was placed on the Son of God and that "we are healed by his wounds." He was "led to death as a lamb"; he was "numbered among sinners"45 and condemned as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, though Pilate had declared that he was innocent.
So he paid back what he had not stolen,46 and he suffered-- the "just for the unjust,"47 in both his body and his soul-- in such a way that when he senses the horrible punishment required by our sins his sweat became like "big drops of blood falling on the ground."48 He cried, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"49
And he endured all this for the forgiveness of our sins.
Therefore we rightly say with Paul that we "know nothing but Jesus and him crucified";50 we consider all things as "dung for the excellence of the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."51 We find all comforts in his wounds and have no need to seek or invent any other means to reconcile ourselves with God than this one and only sacrifice, once made, which renders believers perfect forever.
This is also why the angel of God called him Jesus-- that is, "Savior"-- because he would save his people from their sins.52
45 Isa. 53:4-12 46 Ps. 69:4 47 1 Pet. 3:18 48 Luke 22:44 49 Matt. 27:46 50 1 Cor. 2:2 51 Phil. 3:8 52 Matt. 1:21
(Article 21 of the Belgic Confession)
The Arminian declares that Christ did not actually wash ~ANY~ of the sins of those for whom he died.
”A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition...They also feel that God the Father would not be forgiving us at all if his justice was satisfied by the real thing that justice needs: punishment. They understand that there can be only punishment or forgiveness, not both—realizing, e.g., that a child is either punished or forgiven, not forgiven after the punishment has been meted out.”
-Arminian theologian J.K. Grider, “Arminianism” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p. 80.“If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their account. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific accord with the whole system. And the truth of the system would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false”
-Arminian theologian John Miley, “The Atonement in Christ”, p. 22
When it comes down to it, both Calvinists and Arminians believe in a "limited" Atonement. While the Calvinist limits the "scope" (for whom Christ died), he does not limit the magnitude (Christ paid the price completely for ~ALL~ the sins of those for whom he died).
On the other hand, while the Arminian limits the magnitude (Christ did not actually pay the price completely for ALL the sins of ALL men without exception even though he died for ALL men without exception), he does not limit the scope (for whom Christ died) of the Atonement.
Puritan John Owen best sums the concept up in the following axiom:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
- All the sins of all men.
- All the sins of some men, or
- Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
- That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
- That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
- But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
The solid logic of Owen’s axiom makes it self evident as to why the Arminian denies that Christ was actually punished for the sins of any man -either deny that, or embrace universalism.
And by denying that Christ actually paid the price for our sins, the Biblical problems for Arminian theology continue to stack up.
Jean
Actually Arminian and Weslyan theology has Jesus Blood not saving anyone.
No one was saved at the cross, it was only a potential salvation not an actual one .
Calvinists believe Jesus really did save at the cross (contrary to arminian theology) .Jesus saved every one that He intended to (as His father willed, all those the Father drew)
Rev think of the typologies in the bible.
God applied the bloody skins to Adam and Eve to cover them . They has done as they willed and covered themselves with fig leaves.
The animal sacrifices were only effective for the elect nation of Israel .