Replies

"So...... Christs blood washed only some sins? - "

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 Atonement
We 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:

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?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."

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

Jean -

I once had a discussion on the issue of Christ's substitutionary death (atonement) for our sins with a Christian brother. I would be interested in your view on the discussion.

My friend looked at our sin and guilt before God analogous to case law. That because of Christ's death, it was "just as though we had not sinned". His view was that our sins were erased and stricken from our record. I was more of the opinion, using the same case law analogy, that we were declared guilty before God's judgement throne yet the penalty of our sin was paid by Christ.

There is a minor difference between these two schools of thought since they both have similar results but I do think the difference is significant enough to argue. What say you?

With all due respect, Rev.

LOL - yeah right

And by denying that Christ actually paid the price for our sins, the Biblical problems for Arminian theology continue to stack up.

Wow, for someone who grew up in Arminian theology this is so foreign to me! Never once did I hear that. I was paying attention too! :-) I am astounded at what I have been reading here concerning Arminian belief. Churches must not all go by every tenet of it or something, because honestly, I have never heard of several of these things.