Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? (Limited Atonement)

Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | James White

[RnMomof7]

Calvinist BTTT

[rdb3]

Wonderful find, A.J.

Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
--St. Matthew 11:26

[DittoJed2]

Very good article. Solid on logic and Scripture.

[Jerry_M]

Should be a wild ride, but I won't be able to participate until Monday at the earliest. Chaplain duty the next 24 hours, and all that "Sunday stuff", ya' know.

[Frumanchu]

Good article. I think limited atonement seems to be the point most argued about among us. The question is will anything new come of this round of debate, or will we all continue to bang our heads against the same old wall, slipping insults and prideful comments in when we can?:)

[CCWoody]

Good title. It fits perfectly with my latest stuff to show how the Arminians with their "Prevenient grace" nonsense completely render Christ inefficacious at the Cross in their attempts to mount up man as the efficacious cause of his own salvation.

What the Arminians don't realize is that by denying the saving grace they are essentially denying the Lord himself. For the Grace of God in Salvation has appeared. In other words Titus 2:11 is talking about the first coming of Christ. The appearance of the Saving Grace of God was the appearance of Christ Himself. To deny the efficatious saving grace is to deny Christ himself.

And the Arminian, who attempts to turn Titus 2:11 into "Prevenient Grace", is attempting to turn the first appearance of Christ into a sad inefficatious grace able to save no one.

[irishtenor]

Great reading. Did you send it to all the "others"?

[CCWoody]

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.

Now the author has gone and done it. Yet one more fellow who sees the Eternal Security of the saints in Hebrews 10:14.

[xzins]

"Why would Christ die for the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone?"

There is at least one scriptural assumption in this line to which Arminians vehemently object. Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

[rdb3]

Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

As a Calvinist, why would I even care? Still going from Rome, and back to Rome, I see.

Carry on.

[the_doc]

Your objection is designed to ignore the question.

[George W. Bush]

There is at least one scriptural assumption in this line to which Arminians vehemently object. Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

Well, you Arminians object to so much of what is plainly written in scripture that it is hard to narrow it down.

I suppose you would claim that God did intend to save everyone (if they, corrupt and fallen creatures, gave Him, their Creator, permission to do so) and that is why Christ died for the whole world.

That may not be exactly it but it always comes down to the ultimate Arminian sacred purpose for man in Creation: free will.

You pro-choicers are always on about it. Me, me, me, me, me. It's so predictable.

My personal preferred writing of this line would read: "Why would Christ die for the whole world if the Father did not intend to save everyone?".

You Arminians not only neglect the sovereignty of God generally but even more so the sovereignty of the Father in salvation.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Bump for the Calvinist "narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream."

I am forever drawn to the exquisite logic of TULIP.

Paging drstevej...

[drstevej]

As mentioned before, I do not have a problem with the logic of Limited Atonement. I do have exegetical problems with several of the passages, most notably 2 Peter 2.

-----

White: 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 agree that this is a strong point. My response would be that the blood must not only be shed, but also applied. Christ died (shed His blood) as a substitute for all, but the elect alone have it applied by the Holy Spirit.

[CCWoody]

There is at least one scriptural assumption in this line to which Arminians vehemently object. Can any of you calvinists guess what it is?

Sure can! Was anyone Saved at the Cross?

[George W. Bush]

My response would be that the blood must not only be shed, but also applied. Christ died (shed His blood) as a substitute for all, but the elect alone have it applied by the Holy Spirit.

This actually does sound good to me. But it leaves some questions unanswered, it seems to me.

If Christ did shed His blood for all, then the blood He shed for all those who will be condemned to hell was shed in vain. I prefer to think that every drop of Christ's blood was effective in our salvation. I do not like to think that Christ's blood was shed for those who will be ultimately damned because it would mean that Christ's sacrifice was only partially effective. It would then mean that He was not, contrary to what Hebrews tells us, a perfect sacrifice.

Inasmuch as we can understand these matters from plain scripture, your suggested modality of application of the blood seems absolutely at odds with the Old Covenant. I think the only way to understand Christ's crucifixion is as the final fulfillment of God's plan of salvation in which Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant by offering Himself as a perfect sacrifice and established the New Covenant. The Old Covenant Jews were required to sacrifice an animal at the altar to expiate their sin debt to God (as I understand it). How much animal blood was shed? All. Until death followed. And no less. A mere bloodletting which left the animal alive was not allowed. So, it required all of the blood (and the actual final quantity was unimportant). Just so, our savior's blood was completely required of Him as a perfect and one-time sacrifice on our behalf, the worthy Shepherd who gave His life for the Flock, the Bridegroom who loves His bride beyond death, the Son who does the Father's will in love and for the sake of the Father's love. And how much blood? Until He was dead. And no less. Under the Old and New Covenant, the only acceptable sacrifice was an unblemished one which shed blood until dead.

And so, I believe that no drop of His precious blood was shed in vain. And I certainly cannot accept that even one drop of His blood was shed for anyone whose eternal destination is hell. I simply cannot believe that the Father would permit it. His love for His Son was too great for any part of His sacrifice on a rude cross to have been in vain.

I just cannot reconcile these matters in the way you suggest.

You mention a belief that only the elect have the blood of Christ applied by the Holy Spirit to expiate their sin. I'm racking my brain to try to remember any scripture that says anything about Christ's blood being applied by the Holy Spirit to be effective in salvation. Can you supply at least one unambiguous scripture reference for this?

Even if you are correct about the application of His blood by the Holy Spirit, I don't see that it really answers the question of for whom did Christ die. In the end, He still either died for the Elect or for all mankind.

[RnMomof7]

When the High priest offered his sacrifice who was it offered for?

[RnMomof7]

Good to see you Irish where have ya been?

yep I sent it to all interested parties..

[RnMomof7]

. My response would be that the blood must not only be shed, but also applied. Christ died (shed His blood) as a substitute for all, but the elect alone have it applied by the Holy Spirit.

Steve could you point me to a scripture on that