“We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists—and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired), we are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not.
The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men?
They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular?
They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation.
We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He?
You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody.
We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this.
General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody.
Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.”
– C. H. Spurgeon
“”(I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists—and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired),””
Not to try to pull punches, I have to disagree with this statement, considering how Calvin held high until his death the terrible doctrine of Christian persecution, and of course was guilty of practicing such filth with seemingly no conviction by the Holy Spirit. This is very troubling to say the least. Would it be safe to say a form of godliness 2 Tim: 3:5??
Calvin writes:
“Letter to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561. “Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others], who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard.”
Spurgeon continues::
“”We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He?
You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. “”
If I’m not mistaken even many Calvinist theologians hold to a corporate view of election in the OT. Many Arminians I know including myself hold to corporate election. Election was corporate in the OT, Israel the nation, and corporate in the NT, Christ’s Church in the NT, Ephesians 1. Pay attention to the phrases “in Him, In Christ, through Jesus Christ, etc.. So for me and many other Arminian’s I know, Spurgeon’s argument falls quickly to the wayside.
Or as Christopher Chapman put it:
“The Golden Chain in no way teaches that certain individuals have been predestined to believe in Jesus Christ. Instead it teaches what God had predetermined would be the inheritance of the Church he foreknew (chose) in Christ. It tells us what he predestined for his Church corporately, and the saints individually. God always planned to create a people that would become his glorified children so that Christ would be “the firstborn among many brothers” (8:29). This is what was predestined by God for his people.”
In closing can you show me specifically where limited atonement is taught in scripture?
Thanks,
Russ
Russ,
It would be impossible to try to answer the numerous issues you raise in just a comment here, so I will point you to articles and videos where these things are addressed in detail. I hope you will take the time to study them.
1) Regarding Calvin and persecution, here are the facts Russ: http://effectualgrace.com/2011/08/07/the-truth-about-calvin-and-servetus/ and http://effectualgrace.com/2011/08/13/the-truth-about-calvin-and-servetus-2/
2) Regarding your concept of corporate election, here is a video that would repudiate that idea biblically: http://effectualgrace.com/2012/05/18/corporate-election-is-it-biblical/
3) Regarding limited atonement and whether or not it is biblical, here’s an article I wrote some time back: http://www.reformationstudycenter.com/DivineIntention.html
Boettner writes
“Calvin has, however, often been criticized with undue severity as though the responsibility rested upon him alone, when as a matter of fact Servetus was given a court trial lasting over two months and was sentenced by the full session of the civil Council, and that in accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout Christendom. And, far from urging that the sentence be made more severe, Calvin urged that the sword be substituted for the fire, but was overruled. Calvin and the men of his time are not to be judged strictly and solely by the advanced standards of our twentieth century, but must to a certain extent be considered in the light of their own sixteenth century. “
I’m not denying the fact of the lack of separation between church and state that existed for a long time, including during Calvin’s reign, and how this led to all kinds of corruption, but how can we just shrug it off. Boettner also says something like they had to fight intolerance with intolerance. These statements are shameful and completely un-backed by scripture; Calvin acted like a Pontius Pilate in his time. I recently read a book called “Fair Sunshine”, it talks about the Scottish Covenanters and how they were hunted down like dogs and brutally slaughtered by the Catholics. We see them laying down theirs, while Calvin is busy doing the persecution. What about the Anabaptists?
Tell me how this is any different today in our time not rebuking the movement of homosexual pastors, and marriages, etc. Should we bow the knee and allow it and say, it’s just a sign of our times?
I see that you posted Whites response to corporate election, give me some time to go through that and the link you provided in regards to limited atonement and I will respond afterwards.
Thanks, Russ
Russ,
Nothing is “shrugged off” or excused but we also must at least try to understand the historical times rather than simply looking back at them through anachronistic glasses (through a 21st century lens). That is not always easy to do, but to understand the people and events of history, we must also seek to understand the thinking that governed hearts and minds at the time.
We don’t have heresy trials in our day for the simple reason that today’s society does not view doctrinal heresy as a problem at all. Cults and false religion can exist without any fear of persecution. While I for one very much appreciate the freedom of religion in our day, the down side is the thinking that often goes with that, namely that it does not matter what a person believes, as long as they are “sincere.” However, this concept was not in anyone’s thinking in the 16th century. All society actually believed in heaven and hell and that individuals actually go to one of those two places, and that heresy was a terrible blight on society.
People on both sides (Protestant and Roman Catholic) believed that heresy was a high crime against both God and the people, equivalent to treason. If we understand that, and also look at the facts rather than the hyped up inaccurate vitriol that is so often pervasive, while not in any way excusing the excesses, we can at least begin to have an understanding of the times in which these things occured and have some measure of sympathy. If we do not, then we will come to the false and sad conclusion that no one in the 16th century has anything worthwhile to teach us.
As I stated earlier, I’m not dismissing the times in which they lived and the great challenges they faced, but thief is a thief, an adulterer is an adulterer and a murderer is a murderer.
Romans 12:1-2
1Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
By the way were you able to find an audio of Whites message on corporate election?
Russ
Russ,
.. and thankfully the facts show that Calvin was not a murderer.
No, you would need to contact Dr. White’s ministry to find the particular audio version of the broadcast.
John you said:
“.. and thankfully the facts show that Calvin was not a murderer. ”
Boettner writes in the article you had me reference:
“Calvin made an ineffectual plea that the sword be substituted for the fire; hence the final responsibility for the burning rests with the Council.”
This no more clears him of murder as it does for Pontius Pilate.
Russ,
Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva knowing what would await him there (and we must remember that Rome wanted Servetus dead also). Calvin was not on the Council in Geneva and knowing that execution was inevitable there, where Calvin was not even a citizen at the time, how does a plea for a more merciful end to the man’s life make Calvin a murderer? Russ, if this is the view you take in spite of the historical facts, I cannot envision any fruit emerging in further discussion with you.