Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? (Limited Atonement)

Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | James White

[George W. Bush]

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

Let's see what he actually writes:

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 [Hebrews 10:10-14], above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must.

This is not the author's secret code for eternal security.

No, Woody, he's finding Limited Atonement in Hebrews 10. I don't object to the way he's using it to support his argument. I doubt he'd have much problem with my argument for sanctification either. We both use very much the same reasoning and application. I did enjoy reading his line of reasoning here overall. But this author has written his entire article to support limited atonement, not eternal security. In the TULIP, while all petals may be mutally supportive, the 'L' and 'P' are not used interchangably.

Your reading is a little strained. Read what the author actually wrote and try not to put your words in his mouth.

[drstevej]

My reference was to the parallel between the Passover and Christ as our Passover (ex. 12:13).

Also Hebrews 9 addresses the sprinkling of the blood that has been shed for remission of sin.

[RnMomof7]

Let me ask you Steve ..isnt the High priest a type of Christ?

When the high Priest offered his yearly sacrifice was not that a limited atonement?

It was a shadow of things to come.

That sacrifice was offered only for the sins of a limited number that was limited by the election of God..

Yes?

[George W. Bush]

Also Hebrews 9 addresses the sprinkling of the blood that has been shed for remission of sin.

You're saying that Hebrews 9 tells us that the elect and only the elect are sprinkled with Christ's blood to expiate sin?

Hebrews 9 KJV
⁶   Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
⁷   But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
⁸   The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
⁹   Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
¹⁰   Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Is this your reference? It's the only reference to the Holy Spirit I can locate but it doesn't seem to apply. I keep looking but can find no reference to believers being sprinkled with Christ's blood by the Holy Spirit. Is there any particular denomination that teaches this doctrinally?

[drstevej]

Actually my original statement linked the application of Christ's blood with salvation (Ex. 12 parallel in mind). Since the Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration, my reference was to Him.

The Hebrews 9 passage focuses on both the shedding of blood and the sprinkling of blood for forgiveness of sin. The focus in this passage is the High Priest rather than the Holy Spirit. My citing of this was to point out that the blood shed (Lamb slain) must then be applied to accomplish redemption.

2 Peter 2 states that Christ bought false teachers who deny Him. In their case, the price was paid but they do not reap the benefit because they are left in their unbelief and sin.

[xzins]

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.

Close, but not quite. God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone.

Once you accept that God made it possible for everyone, then you make a radical statement about the nature of God that he would make it possible but would ALSO deny it as a matter of His choice. It seems a birfurcation of his own will.

[zadok]

God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone.

Scripture please.

[Jerry_M]

"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."

Ah yes, but realize that we Five-point Calvinists have been saying "sufficient for all, effective only for the elect" for centuries.

Is it truly an atonement unless it is applied?

[RnMomof7]

Xzins Is the High Priest a type of Christ? Was the Lamb a type of Christ? Was His sacrifical atonment universal , or was it specific?

[fortheDeclaration]

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. Close, but not quite. God's intent was that salvation be made possible for everyone. Once you accept that God made it possible for everyone, then you make a radical statement about the nature of God that he would make it possible but would ALSO deny it as a matter of His choice. It seems a birfurcation of his own will.

Amen. God respected the free will of His creation that He even self-limited Himself in allowing their decisions to go against His own desire for them (Matt.23:37, Rom.10:21)

What the Calvinists refuse to accept is that while God allows mankind to choose for or against Him, He does not allow man to choose what the consquences of those decisions will be.

Reality still remains reality and man cannot change that.

There are two choices, but only one reality, (Jn.3:36)

[jude24]

thanks for the bump.

This effectively summarizes the argument that led me to accept a 5-point position in my gradual evolution from Free-will to Calvinism.

I was led to see that there were two options: either an atonement in some way limited, or universal salvation -- even unbelievers would see their sins expiated in an unlimited atonement. Any exclusion of some group -- unbelievers, whatever - as regards the efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ -- would lead to a "limited atonement." From there, limiting that to the elect was easy to see.

[jude24]

What the Calvinists refuse to accept is that while God allows mankind to choose for or against Him, He does not allow man to choose what the consquences of those decisions will be.

Actually, what Arminians are either ignorant of or choose to ignore is that man will only choose further rebellion rather than salvation apart from the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Thats what 1 Corinthians 2:14 explains that, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (and you will observe that, in a concession to you, I am using the AV).

[CCWoody]

Your reading is a little strained. Read what the author actually wrote and try not to put your words in his mouth.

I'm not putting "words in his mouth;" I'm simply reading them:

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?

Well, did the the "one offering" actually sanctify those for whom it was made or did it simply make it possible for them to be holy? Is the action "past and completed" and nothing more required or does something else have to be done?

But, enough mere simple reading of the author's words, let us ask two (drsteve & Jean) who were not a part of the original "discussion":

1. Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?

2. Does the author see Eternal Security presented in Hebrews 10:14?

[Dakota gal in Seattle]

For all of my life I thought I was a Presbyterian.

After reading your post, I must me a Calvinist.

Thank you.

[RnMomof7]

Presbyterians used to be Calvinists:>)

[Dakota gal in Seattle]

I guess what I am trying to say is: YES!

[xzins]

scripture please

sure can: longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish...

The prelude indicates God is longsuffering; i.e., putting up with a lot, being patient. Why be patient EXCEPT in the case in which there are those who are refusing to listen?

"There are those who are refusing to listen at this time, so I'm being patient with them, because my PERFECT will is that ALL of them would enter the sheepfold."

If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.

[fortheDeclaration]

What the Calvinists refuse to accept is that while God allows mankind to choose for or against Him, He does not allow man to choose what the consquences of those decisions will be. Actually, what Arminians are either ignorant of or choose to ignore is that man will only choose further rebellion rather than salvation apart from the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

No, Arminians accept the fact that it is God that must send the light

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might be saved. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (Jn.1:7-9).

Thus, God has left himself to a witness to unregenerate man both in nature (Psa.19,Rom1) and in the Gospel itself (Jn.12:32)

Satan is very aware of this (even though Calvinists aren't) (2Cor.4:4) because man must reject the Light that God sends.

Thats what 1 Corinthians 2:14 explains that, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (and you will observe that, in a concession to you, I am using the AV).

Well at least you are using the right translation, even if you do not understand it!

1Cor.2 is not talking about salvation and the Gospel is not mentioned.

Paul is admonishing the Corinthians for not understanding spiritual things.

Paul is telling them that they have access to God's wisdom as children of God,(vs.16) yet are acting as unbelievers.(chapters 3-5)

Thus, they run to the unbelievers law courts (chapter 6).

CONTEXT,CONTEXT,CONTEXT

This is from a post I made earlier by John Fletcher regarding Wesley's believes on God's role in the revealing the Gospel. http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Fletcher/1stCk.htm

I must, however, confess, that he does not, as some real Protestants, continually harp upon the words FREE grace, and FREE will; but he gives reasons of considerable weight for this. (1.) Christ and his apostles never did so. (2.) He knows the word grace necessarily implies the freeness of a favor; and the word will, the freedom of our choice: and he has too much sense to delight in perpetual tautology. (3.) He finds, by blessed experience, that when the will is touched by Divine grace, and yields to the touch, it is as free to good, as it was before to evil. He dares not, therefore, make the maintaining free will, any more than free breath, the criterion of an unconverted man. On the contrary, he believes none are converted but those who have a free will to follow Jesus; and, far from being ashamed to be called a "free-willer," he affirms it as essential to all men to be "free-willing creatures," as to be "rational animals;" and he supposes he can as soon find a diamond or a flint without gravity, as a good or bad man without free will.

Nor will I conceal that I never heard him use that favorite expression of some good men, Why me? Why me? though he is not at all against their using it, if they can do it to edification. But as he does not see that any of the saints, either of the Old or New Testament ever used it, he is afraid to be humble and "wise above what is written," lest "voluntary humility" should introduce refined pride before he is aware. Doubting, therefore, whether he could say, Why me? Why me? without the self-pleasing idea of his being preferred to thousands, or without a touch of the secret self applause that tickles the Pharisee's heart, when he "thanks God he is not as other men," he leaves the fashionable exclamation to others, with all the refinements of modern divinity; and chooses to keep to St. Paul's expression, "He loved me," which implies no exclusion of his poor fellow sinners; or to that of the royal psalmist, "Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him."

5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching. The first is, that ALL OUR SALVATION IS OF GOD IN CHRIST, and therefore OF GRACE; -- all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace; -- grace most absolutely free: and so far, I hope, that all who are called Gospel ministers agree with him. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts with equal confidence, that according to the Gospel dispensation, ALL OUR DAMNATION IS OF OURSELVES, by our obstinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulness; as we may "neglect so great salvation," desire to "be excused" from coming to the feast of the Lamb, "make light of" God's gracious offers, refuse to "occupy," bury our talent, and act the part of the "slothful servant;" or, in other words, "resist, grieve, do despite to," and "quench the Spirit of grace," by our moral agency.

The first of these evangelical axioms he builds upon such scriptures as these: -- "In me is thy help. Look unto me and be saved. No man cometh unto me except the Father draw him. What hast thou that thou hast not received? We are not sufficient to think aright of ourselves, all our sufficiency is of God. Christ is exalted to give repentance. Faith is the gift of God. Without me ye can do nothing," &c, &c.

And the second he founds upon such passages as these: "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light. Ye always resist the Holy Ghost. They rejected the counsel of God toward themselves. Grieve not the Spirit. Quench not the Spirit. My Spirit shall not always strive with man. Turn, why will ye die? Kiss the Son, lest ye perish. I gave Jezebel time to repent, and she repented not. The goodness of God leads [not drags,] thee to repentance, who after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath unto thyself. Their eyes have they closed, lest they should see, and be converted, and I should heal them. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh from heaven. I set before you life and death, choose life! Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. I would have gathered you, and ye would not," &c, &c.

[drstevej]

The emphasis in the greek text of Hebrews 10:14 is on the ONE sacrifice of Jesus that has ENDURING impact and actually results in the REMOVAL OF SIN; in contrast to the REPETETIVE sacrifices of the Aaronic priests which can merely COVER sins for a SHORT TIME.

The placement of the word translated ONE at the beginning of the sentence emphasizes the contrast of one verses many sacrifices.

The sacrifice is the complete basis of our forgiveness and security. It is also the basis of our justification and sanctification (positional and progressive).

However, the blessings of his sacrifice become effective in the life of an elect individual at the point of regeneration. Saul, the persecutor of the church was elect prior to his conversion, he was not justified or sanctified at that time. However, once regenerated Paul was both positionally sanctified (teliow - perfect tense active voice verb) and was being sanctified practically (agiazw - present tense passive voice participle).

This passage does imply the eternal security of those for whom the work of Christ has been applied through regeneration. Christ is seated, the work of the cross is complete. The Holy Spirit is active applying those benefits to the elect at the time of His choosing.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, it would seem that Calvin himself was for unlimited atonment!

(Calvin, 2Pet.3:9) Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. 1 But as the verb cwrh~sai is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.