[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.

[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]

. 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

[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?

[editor-surveyor]

" 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."

You've blown it this time Drsteve:

The blood was applied... On the mercy seat before the Father in Heaven.