ICTHUS Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 One Reformed doctrine, (actually, its one of the points of 5 Point Calvinism) that seems to make sense to me is Limited Atonement. The doctrine is explained like this: Christ's death was never intended to atone for the sins of all men, but only for those of the Elect. (Me) Now, I believe this to be contrary to the Church's soteriological teachings. However, I believe there is an orthodox position somewhere along these lines that states that while Christ's death is sufficent to atone for the sins of all men, it will only be efficacious for the Elect - that is - Christ died for all men, but not all men will be saved - thusly, His Blood was a super-abundant propitiation for sin - not only did He die for the Elect, but He shed His Blood even for those whose names were not written in the Book of Life and who would be damned by their own sin. Thus, His atonement was sufficent for all, but will only be efficacious for the Elect. Does this sound orthodox to you guys?
frozencell Posted December 17, 2003 Posted December 17, 2003 Seems not only orthodox but only common sense to me. Of course there will be those who don't "make it". It ahs nothing to do with Christ, but only free will. Christ did die for everyone, but not everyone is going to accept this gift.
ICTHUS Posted December 18, 2003 Author Posted December 18, 2003 Seems not only orthodox but only common sense to me. Of course there will be those who don't "make it". It ahs nothing to do with Christ, but only free will. Christ did die for everyone, but not everyone is going to accept this gift. No, you're missing my point. Christ's atonement was sufficent for everyone, but ONLY FOR THE ELECT will it be efficacious...
frozencell Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 No, you're missing my point. Christ's atonement was sufficent for everyone, but ONLY FOR THE ELECT will it be efficacious... I guess I am. Please explain without such big words.... :D
ICTHUS Posted December 18, 2003 Author Posted December 18, 2003 I guess I am. Please explain without such big words.... :D The atonement was enough to bring everyone to salvation, but it will only be effective (efficacious, or having efficacy) in bringing about the salvation of the Elect.
frozencell Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 The atonement was enough to bring everyone to salvation, but it will only be effective (efficacious, or having efficacy) in bringing about the salvation of the Elect. So who's the "Elect"?
ICTHUS Posted December 18, 2003 Author Posted December 18, 2003 So who's the "Elect"? Those whom God has unconditionally chosen (or "elected") from the beginning of time, to be saved, by writing their names in the Book of Life.
Azriel Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Those whom God has unconditionally chosen (or "elected") from the beginning of time, to be saved, by writing their names in the Book of Life. If that is true, then it negates free will. And says that no matter what you do, you are predestined to Salvation.
frozencell Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 If that is true, then it negates free will. And says that no matter what you do, you are predestined to Salvation. Big ditto.
cmotherofpirl Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Those whom God has unconditionally chosen (or "elected") from the beginning of time, to be saved, by writing their names in the Book of Life. Because God is outside of time and all things are all present to Him at all time, he already knows if we are in heaven or hell for eternity. We have all been given free will inside of time to make our choices, and have a past, present, and future. God does not . God simply is. So yes God wrote our names in the list, and yes we made the choices that lead to that of or the other place. Both are correct. Like the chicken and the egg. Which came First? God knows and He si not telling.
foundsheep Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 Icthus, to help me understand where your coming from, when you say reformed document, do you mean from the times of reformation?
hyperdulia again Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 i think he's using "reformed" as reference to the teachings of john calvin. it is not an unorthodox catholic position to say that god has positively elected some to spend eternity with him.
p0lar_bear Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 In saying that the salvation merited by Christ's Passion only applies to the Elect, you are unavoidably including that God intended that it would not apply to those who are not "the Elect" and has thereby condemned people to Hell. You are also denying the free will that God chose to give to men. I just don't see anyway to avoid double-predestination or the denial of free will. Either God create men with the intended end of suffering for eternity in Hell, but chose a few to be with Him , or He created men with the intended end of eternity in union with Him, but some choose to reject Him. Either God wants a union of love with us, or He gives man no choice in whether His grace will be "efficacious." You can't have it both ways. Heaven will not be populated with potted plants, but with persons who chose to be there.
ICTHUS Posted December 18, 2003 Author Posted December 18, 2003 In saying that the salvation merited by Christ's Passion only applies to the Elect, you are unavoidably including that God intended that it would not apply to those who are not "the Elect" and has thereby condemned people to Hell. You are also denying the free will that God chose to give to men. I just don't see anyway to avoid double-predestination or the denial of free will. Either God create men with the intended end of suffering for eternity in Hell, but chose a few to be with Him , or He created men with the intended end of eternity in union with Him, but some choose to reject Him. Either God wants a union of love with us, or He gives man no choice in whether His grace will be "efficacious." You can't have it both ways. Heaven will not be populated with potted plants, but with persons who chose to be there. Well, sure, but the Elect are obviously the ones who used their free will (scripture leaves predestination and free will at ends, and does not attempt to reconcile them) to choose God...
p0lar_bear Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 If you mean by predestination that God chose certain people as the Elect, you necessarily negate free will. You simply cannot have them both; the two are mutually exclusive. I'm sorry ICTHUS, there is no way around that. If by predestination you mean that God, being outside of time, knows from all eternity who will and will not accept His offer of grace, then you are in line with Catholic thought.
ICTHUS Posted December 18, 2003 Author Posted December 18, 2003 But surely God is the origin of all things, and thus, the foreknowledge of the Elect must have originated from His own Divine Intellect formulating the Plan of Salvation. Besides, it is written: Romans 8:28-30 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[10] who[11] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. If you deny predestination, you might as well throw the whole Bible out the window.
ICTHUS Posted December 18, 2003 Author Posted December 18, 2003 (edited) If you mean by predestination that God chose certain people as the Elect, you necessarily negate free will. You simply cannot have them both; the two are mutually exclusive. I'm sorry ICTHUS, there is no way around that. If by predestination you mean that God, being outside of time, knows from all eternity who will and will not accept His offer of grace, then you are in line with Catholic thought. The other thing is, we are saved by grace ALONE: Thus, if Christ merely bought chances for us to be saved, and did not actually purchase salvation, then His blood is impotent! So, this is my position: Christ died for all men, so that all men might be without excuse on judgement day but His Passion will only be efficacious for the Elect (that is, though He died for all men, His Blood will only have its efficacy for the Elect). God not only provided sufficent grace in the atonement, for all the Elect, but He provided Grace for those He foreknew (and, sometime before that, predestined) would not accept it!! If the Catholic faith denies predestination altogether, I would like to see some evidence. If it denies the Calvinistic notion of Predestination, then that's fine. Thus, Jesus' blood is not efficent in securing our salvation, it is superabundantly generous!! Edited December 18, 2003 by ICTHUS
hyperdulia again Posted December 18, 2003 Posted December 18, 2003 I'm gonna show this to someone smarter than me.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now