seeing in a mirror dimly

I struggle with words: is the debate over sufficiency (who is able to be saved) or efficiency (who is actually saved)? My limited reading of the posts seems to be that they are changing the grounds of the debate, and thus arguing along different lines.

Care to put it in layman’s terms for me Mark?

Bro, you’re right – it is about those things. These are some of the key issues as I see them:

One key difference between Michael and Paul is that:
- in Michael’s position, Christ’s death simply made people saveable.
- in Paul’s position, Christ’s death actually saved people.

Or, to put it another way:
- in Michael’s position, Christ’s will was to save everyone but the Spirit’s will was to save the elect. On the one hand, Christ’s death intentionally atones for all, but the Spirit only saves the elect (thus, a core Trinitarian problem in a conflict of wills between the persons of the Trinity)
- in Paul’s position, the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit are not separated, but connected. Regeneration is not something arbitrarily determined by the Spirit irrespective of the atoning work of Christ. But the Father elects the church, Christ dies for the church (Eph 5:25) and the the Spirit regenerates the church.

Oh, and in case anyone thought Calvin wasn’t on the Calvinist’s side, here’s his commentary on 1 John 2:2

“And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel. Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.”

My final disclaimer is that I’m a learning theological student! I’m more than open to being corrected!

But the Father elects the church, Christ dies for the church (Eph 5:25) and the the Spirit regenerates the church.
I think that the use of Eph 5:25 is a contextual problem, especially in light of 1 Jn 2:2.

To say that Eph means that Jesus died for the church seems to be going beyond the point that Paul is making in the context. Paul is describing the love that Jesus has for the church, not who Jesus died for. In light of 1 Jn 2:2, I would argue that the church is a subset of who Jesus died for.

Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.

I am a theological student, and to disagree with Calvin is a peril, but this seems a strange interpretation of the word “whole”. Unless I am mistake, Calvin is saying that “whole” really means “part”, but this is not what the text says.

The point then is this: Why can’t Christ die for everyone, but only a remnant be saved? Why can’t Christ die for the world, and the Spirit work in the elect so that they may repent and be saved? Christ dies to atone for my sin. But I can choose to either reject that and suppress that (how else can I be condemned?), or in the power of the Holy Spirit, be regenerated and repent (whereby the work is God’s – sola gratia). Christ’s grace is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. The two texts that you have chosen seem to fit this picture best.

This does not necessarily imply a clash of wills, merely a difference in role. Christ dies to atone for the world, the Spirit works to make that effective in the heart of man. Those who reject that atonement are rejected by the Triune God.

DISCLAIMER: I know less than you… I’m in the deep end here…

next time, read michael’s argument, which makes mine more succinct:

If all are not finally saved, it shall not be for any deficiency in Christ’s sacrifice, but rather because of their unbelief (contra high Calvinsim). And if any are saved, it will be entirely on account of the work of the Son on the cross and the Holy Spirit effecting the regeneration of the believer (contra Arminianism).

It would seem strange to say that Christ’s death only makes possible salvation: it does actually save without contradicting anything in the “system”…

Mate, good thoughts. I’m enjoying the banter!

Re: the Ephesians passage. Check out Peter O’Brien’s commentary, pg 419. Jesus’ death is certainly in view here.

Re: the words “all”, “whole” etc. Does all mean all, all the time? Or, did the whole world really watch the Sydney Olympics? It’s funny how some portrayals of the Amyraldian position can find a way to impose a “system on the text”!

Re: Michael’s argument – follow his logic. Either:

a) Christ did not atone for unbelief. In that case, assuming we still believe in total depravity, no one should be saved. Or, the doctrine of total depravity does not apply to those who believe.

b) Christ did atone for all sin. In which case, there is a conflict between the will of Christ and the will of the Spirit, not to mention the issue of justice. If Christ willed to die for all sin, on what grounds can the Spirit be selective in applying redemption? Moreover, either the cross does not purchase regeneration (again, conflict in wills), or it only purchases regeneration for some (back to the Paul Helm’s position!).

I remember wondering why nobody had ever taught me this before, and I thought it very strange. Then I realised the rest of the Reformed world out there had held to this belief since the Reformation, and still does today! If you want to read a few more things bro, come down for a yarn…

Anyway, here’s something to leave you with: J.I. Packer in “Saved by His Precious Blood”:

“If we start by affirming that God has a saving love for all, and Christ died a saving death for all, then balk at becoming universalists … let us be clear on what we have done when we have put the matter in this fashion. We have not exalted grace and the cross; we have cheapened them. We have limited the atonement far more drastically than Calvinism does, for whereas Calvinism asserts that Christ’s death, as such, saves all whom it was meant to save, we have denied that Christ’s death, as such, is sufficient to save any of them.”

Ie (to use someone else’s illustration), Amyraldians (Michael’s description) see the atonement as a ship with all humanity on board, but drops its anchor a mile or two out to sea, leaving its passengers to swim ashore; Calvinism depicts it as a lifeboat that brings the whole company of God’s elect through the stormy waters and to the shores of God’s eternal kingdom.

Woah, sorry that’s so long. Hope it’s helpful!