Visitor: 4-point Calvinists like Bruce Ware affirm 'multiple intentions' for the atonement, all shared symmetrically within the Trinity. The Father employs election and preterition, the Son atones generally and redeems particularly, and the Spirit calls both effectually and non-effectually (or something to that effect). No disharmony in that economy.
Response: 5 point Calvinists have always acknowledged multiple intentions, if you include non-redemptive benefits. But the debate on this issue has always been about REDEMPTIVE benefits. That is why it is called PARTICULAR REDEMPTION. .I.e.. Christ died REDEMPTIVELY for the elect only. That has always historically been what is at issue in this debate ..
Here is an historical example showing Jonathan Edwards (a five point Calvinist) on particular redemption which shows that he affirms, together with traditional Calvinists through history. both redemptive and non redemptive benefits related to Christ's work:
"Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when [they] say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; ’tis past all contradiction."-Jonathan Edwards [1722], The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500) (WJE Online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout, page 1 74
So I am scratching my head because I still do not understand the purpose of stating that one is a 4-point Calvinist (with multiple intentions) when people who make this claim already believe that Jesus did not die with the intent to make the non-elect happy, i.e.. did not intend to redeem them. We all believe that Jesus commands all men everywhere to turn from their sin and believe in Him. But unless Jesus died for them REDEMPTIVELY, they won't. If you believe that, then whatever NON-REDEMPTIVE benefits Christ's atonement may procure are irrelevant to the discussion historically or otherwise.
If a professing 4-point Calvinist affirms effectual grace then they really already affirm particular redemption.. Effectual grace is one of the redemptive benefits purchased by Christ on the cross and it is given to his elect only. (John 17:1-26; 6:63,65) In other words, Christ died in a way, a redemptive way for the elect, that He did not for the non elect. What the Spirit is applying to the elect is the same as what Christ purchased for them. Election, redemption and effectual grace cannot be separated. The Father's election is the blueprint, Christ's redemption accomplishes it and the Spirit applies it. You cannot have a Christ-less effectual grace. So please explain how having multiple intentions makes one less than a 5 point Calvinist. To me it seems to make the distinction between us superfluous.