The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Unlimited/ Limited Atonement View?

Something I have been reading about lately among so called Reformed Christians is the claim that Christ's atonement is for all and particularly for the elect. Among other names I have heard this view is described as is the unlimited/limited atonement view.
They claim that the limited view denies the well meant offer of the Gospel and it is more a logical conclusion of the rest of TULIP itself, rather than a teaching of Scripture itself.

I can't for the life of me make sense of that view and thought perhaps someone here could explain it to me.

These people also claim that at Dorte, many held to this view and also there were and are many prominent Reformed believers today that hold to this view.

Is this claim true? Who might these prominent Reformed believers be?

Tom

Tom,

It might be becoming popular today with those who profess to be Reformed, but given the falling away of so many from the HISTORIC Reformed faith to varied unbiblical teachings and practices, it shouldn't be surprising to find this view surfacing.

There are a few really good articles which deal with this view which you can find here: The Atonement of Christ.

- Series by Gary Long
† 1Timothy 2:4
† 1Timothy 4:10
† Titus 2:11
† II Peter 2:1
† I John 2:2

† The Extent of the Atonement - Charles W. Bronson (short book)

† Sufficient for All - Jim Ellis

I seriously doubt there were many or even any, at least who would have been bold enough to say so, that held to this view. IF <--- I am understanding you correctly, this view is known theologically as "Amyraldianism" and in the vernacular, "4-Point Calvinism". I think the men at Dordtrect got it right!!

Thank you Pilgrim

That was very helpful.

I read a few of the articles that you suggested:’ Sufficient for All - Jim Ellis' and ‘Amyraldianism’.

What I found quite strange is while those who hold to the 'Sufficient for All' view such as Shedd and Hodge hold to Limited atonement, yet 4 point Amyraldianism does not.
I might be missing something, but it seems to me that the two views are basically the same.

Am I missing something?

Tom

I guess you probably think the two view are the same also?

Tom

The atonement is sufficient that all may be invited to respond to the command to repent. However as we know, only those chosen in Him and enabled by the Spirit will do so.

John Piper poses an interesting question to those who suggest that Christ died for every sin ever committed by asking for what are those in hell now being punished?

Hi Tom!

1. A good explanation and refutation of that view can be found here: Sufficient for All.

2. The view held by ALL of the delegates and signers of the Synod of Dordt was exactly as the Canons state... UNlimited/Definite Atonement. The claim that says otherwise is fallacious and not based upon historical fact. Just read the Second Head of Doctrine for yourself.

3. Today, there is an unfortunate migration away from historic Calvinism in many Reformed churches. In fact, the doctrines of grace as formulated by the great Reformed Protestant confessions and catechisms is often diminished, distorted or even denied, either explicitly or in practice. This doesn't change the truth of what the Reformed Faith is.

In His grace,

Ooooops, missed this one and just had to comment. As most who have been here awhile I'm no fan of John Piper! His question, however, is very apropos but it didn't originate with him. The question was made much earlier, about 350 years earlier, by another John who was far more orthodox in his theology.

You can read the original statement here which is far better: For Whom Did Christ Die?.

Oh dear- do enlighten me on why you consider John Piper to be unorthodox. Would you include Jonathan Edwards in the same category of unorthodoxy?

Since you have John Piper listed as one of your favorite authors, I can only assume that you are not going to be interested in hearing about Mr. Piper's deviations in doctrine. So, I am not going to waste time listing them all with a full-orbed critique of his writings. Others have already done so, much of which is accessible online and in some of the past discussions we have had here.

Secondly, I didn't say that John Piper was "unorthodox". Rather I wrote this: ",...by another John who was far more orthodox in his theology." As you can see the statement implies that John Piper is less than orthodox than John Owen, doubtless a truism.

Thirdly, I am going to assume but I am also open to correction, that you are trying to convey that you believe John Piper is in full agreement with and teaches a pure expression of Edwards' writings? This is highly debatable IF that is what you are saying. Piper claims that his heretical teaching called, "Christian Hedonism" is to be found in Edwards. Well, I do not claim to be a renown scholar on Jonathan Edwards, but I have read many of his writings and I cannot find anything even remotely related to Piper's "Christian Hedonism" in them.

Lastly, some of my grievances against Piper are:

• Questionable view(s) concerning justification: cf. Future Grace.
• Allowing women to occupy the office of Deacon: cf. his convoluted attempt to circumvent sound exegesis of those relevant passages concerning the office of Deacon by fabricating another "non-office" of Deaconesses.
• Disturbing and unbiblical teaching re: "Christian Hedonism", which even the phrase is contra-Scripture.
• Promoting a non-cessationist view of the ecstatic gifts of the Spirit.
• Involvement with the "Acts 29 Group".

That will do for now. Let me tell you right up front that I am NOT interested in participating in some groupie defense of John Piper, who I realize has a tremendous following. If he is one of your "heroes" of the faith, then so be it. But if you bring forth any of his spurious teachings here on the board, they will be challenged.

In His grace,

So who would your more modern "heroes" (not that I like the word in the context of christiam ministry)be?

I thought by listing JP as one of my favourite authors, it might establish my credentials a little in terms of reformed persuasion. I was aware he had invited Mark Driscoll onto a conference platform and it was one of his more controversial choices.

Actually, I don't have one. If there was any man that I admired on this earth it was the late Dr. John H. Gerstner. Of course, he wasn't infallible even in the loosest sense of the term. But he required far less discernment and scrutiny than many today. I believe every man's writings should be read carefully and scrutinized under the light of Scripture. And there are some men who shouldn't be given the time of day. There are far too many good, tried and true men of the past and some in the present that I love to read and need to read than to waste my time with the plethora of chaff that is currently being proliferated today.

In His grace,

Man it's like getting blood from a stone <lol>

So who in the modern era do you enjoy reading?

No stone bleeding here!

I simply answered your question re: "modern heroes". I have no particular favorites. I don't follow any particular author, preacher, teacher, etc... What I'm interested in is biblical truth and that applied rightly. Personally, I find most of the author's; both past and present, published by Banner of Truth to be quite good and worthwhile reading. But again, I have no "hero" who I doddle after.

What I have found, and my view is shared by many (most?) here is that the most popular voices/writers are those to be most wary of, especially if they are widely accepted. There is this unfortunate idea and desire to be "popular" among so many men and to accomplish that they are always coming up with "something NEW" that will elevate their recognition by others and inflame their egos. We are in dire need for spiritual discernment and wisdom in our present day as there are many false teachings, teachers and 'prophets' bidding our attention and acceptance. Add to that the cry for "tolerance", "assimilation" and "contemporary" and you have a deadly potion.

Okay... done!

What about John Hagee?