I came across this outline when trying to find an adequate explanation
of four-point Calvinist's view of the atonement. Before you dismiss the
argument, please note that it's not the traditional Arminian view of
what Christ did on the Cross that is largely accepted in today's
evangelical churches.
I came to realize that several solid theologians hold this view,
including a few notable ones on faculty at at Southern Seminary. I'm
not swayed by the their position, as I feel the historic Reformed view
of the atonement is already consistent with some of the points it
makes. But I can't be closed off to the possibility that I have wrongly
interpreted the Scripture or imposed the view of the Reformed tradition
upon it. I'll do my best not to be a flip-flopper, but I want to look
at the issue with integrity. As I said, I still heavily lean toward the
historic position of five-point Calvinism on the doctrine.
Still, I send the article so that you would be exposed to it and be
able to think through the doctrine for yourselves. I think the Multiple
Intentions View, as it's called, emphasizes some aspects of what Christ
did that we fail to point out much of the time. The link is to an
outline put together by Bruce Ware from Southern. He's a systematic
theology professor and a very brilliant one at that. The outline should
be in PDF format. Let me know what thoughts you might have.
Thanks to Elijah for bring the issue to my attention following
discussion had in his systematic theology class.
http://www.powerofchange.org/blog/docs/ware_atonement.pdf
Let me know if the link doesn't work. It's well worth your time and
attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Since Josh sends these very informative articles and since Brother Paul is preaching on the subject now and it has caused great consternation among some of the brethren, and since some of the confused brethren have asked my opinion I have had to study the issue and find out where I stand since this is what the verse 1 Pet 3:15 means that I use in my signature.
I usually approach things very simply, since I am not an educated pastor or theologian etc... And since God is not the 'author of confusion' and He has given us His inspired, inerrant Word to learn from. I always start with the answer Book of course. But God knows everything, and He knows Joe Smith that will be born next year, and that no matter who witnesses to him, he is destined to spend eternity in Hell. Well I know that is really simple and when I started studying the matter more it is really not that simple.
At this point I am not an Arminian nor would I consider myself a 100% 'TULIP' Calvinist. Just because I say I am not a Calvinist does not mean I reject God's Word. Can I say I am riding the fence. I know that is not a good place to be. But I really have to lean towards the Calvinist side. That is why I am continuing to study the issue, I like things black and white. i.e... God created everything in 6 days or He used evil-ution over long periods of time. God created man in His own image or you came from a fish. you cannot believe both.
That being said (typed), I do not want to offend anybody here so do not take this the wrong way. I am not trying to start anything but to learn. I am having some trouble reconciling many verses in the Bible that seem to totally contradict Limited Atonement.
Such as:
1 Tim 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;...
So if you are a sinner Christ came to save you.
1 Tim 2:3-6
3 ...God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all,…
Does all really mean all. I see this same type argument in Genesis when people deny that, well maybe Noah did not take 'ALL' the land animals or 'two of every kind'. does 'all' mean 'all', does 'every' really mean 'every'. Is 'Day' really a 24 hour period of time in Gen 1? You get the point.
Rom 5:6
…Christ died for the ungodly.
Being a Calvinist should this not read 'Christ died only for the ungodly elect'?
Heb 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Can we say 'Christ tasted death for everyone' or should we change it to say 'Christ tasted death for everyone who is Elect'?
2 Peter 2:1
…denying the Lord that bought them...
Who is Peter referring to here if Christ did not die for those lost as well as those saved.
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Should it read '…sins of the whole world of the elect'?
John 1:29
…Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John the Baptist is speaking. A Calvinist reading of this verse would be '…which taketh away the sin of the elect of the whole world.'
There are a few other verses which are used for the same argument such as 2 Cor 5:19; 1 John 4:14 etc… in which I must agree with Brother Paul here in that they contain the words 'us', 'we', 'our' and 'world', thus in context it seems those to be speaking of the saved. And even 1 John 2:2, but there are many verses that do and that don't.
So in my mind somehow I must reconcile all these verses in the proper context and not do damage to the Scriptures or turn God's Word in the way I think it should go.
The Calvinist 'evangelical' proclamation of the Gospel could be something like:
'The good news is that if you are in the world, Jesus came to be the savior of the world. The bad news is that you may not be one of those in the world He came to save.'
Luke 19:10
For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Calvinistically speaking it would be more precise to say 'For the Son of man has come to seek and to save the lost elect'.
In Spurgeon's sermon entitled 'GOOD NEWS For the Lost' he preached some un-calvanistic words:
"Dear friends, 'The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is lost.' Does not the description suit you? Are you not among the lost? Well then, you are among such as Jesus Christ came to save."
If Christ did not come to seek and save but some, then it is hard to imagine the 'Good News' to them he didn't die for. Maybe a better title would have been, 'GOOD NEWS For Some of the Lost'. If Christ did not come to seek and save you, then where is the good news for you.
"If Calvinism is right then the Gospel is only the Gospel when it is preached to the elect." George Bryson
Then we have these verses to deal with:
Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Joel 2:32
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered:…
In closing:
Prov 27:17
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.
…and boy do I need sharpening.
--Kent
I would also like to know the reconciliations for the verses that Kent pointed out. This is an extremely complex subject, as Kent said, and I am more apt to watch from the sidelines as I do not consider myself nor plan to become a great theologian. I do like to analyze arguments, and it seems in this case the analysis has lead to a very uncertain crossroad. Is it possible to completely and undeniably defend a specific view?...it does not seem to be, for if it is possible, you must not only be able to logically present the belief, you must also be able to defend the belief against all seemingly opposing scripture (of which there seems to be numerous examples from either side).
I expect that the argument will include viewing scripture as a whole, but the fundamental way a person views the scripture (reformed, dispensational, etc.) will always come in as a pre-supposition to this argument, and for another person to accept your argument, they must also accept your complete view of scripture.
Am I thinking of this incorrectly?
--David
Hey guys,
I'm still thinking through the Multiple Intentions view, "Unlimited
Limited Atonement" as some call it, of the atonement held by four-point
Calvinists. I see a lot of merit in it, but I am still in the process
of garnering feedback from fellow Calvinist theologians on the issue.
At the moment, I would still classify myself a five-point Calvinist,
perhaps a 4.5-point Calvinist while I'm in the air about it and just
for kicks.
Anyway, not that you're THAT concerned with my theological journey and
inquiries, but I came across another helpful article on the matter.
Another respected pastor, Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle,
holds a similar position to Bruce Ware. Here is a link to a PDF file
that explains his take on the atonement. There's a sermon to go along
with it as well under the title "Unlimited Limited Atonement." Mars
Hill is a Reformed emerging church (but not the heretical, postmodern
kind of emerging church).
http://www.marshillchurch.org/audio/Nov20_UnlimitedLimitedAtonement.pdf
If you browse the media section of the Mars Hill Web site, you should
be able to find the sermon under Driscoll's series on "The Cross of
Christ," if I'm not mistaken.
Again, I invite your thoughts. If for nothing else but the exercise of
organizing and presenting my thoughts, I plan to write to you guys
about the position I finally take.
If anyone needs the link to the Bruce Ware outline on the atonement,
which is the best resource I've found, let me know.
And I appreciate Kent's comments from last Thursday. I'm grateful for
anyone who speaks with candor when it comes to theology. Thanks for
your honesty, Big Dogg. You even did me the favor of gathering all the
verses Arminians routinely use to counter Calvinist arguments.
I may at some point respond to each of those texts you presented. Even
though I'm wrestling through my view of the atonement presently, those
verses don't give me any trouble in reconciling them with Limited
Atonement. I think context determines what "all" and "world" means. And
the "whoever calls upon the name of the LORD" verses have never been
problems for historic Calvinism. We have affirmed them since we believe
that to happen because only the elect will in fact call upon the name
of the LORD, and it's certain that the elect will and that they will be
saved since God has predestined it, as He has predestined all things to
work according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). If God did not
elect sinners then regenerate their hearts to respond in faith, no one
would call upon the name of the LORD.
Another word of advice would be to check the Old Testament reference to
Romans 10:13, which is Joel 2, I think. The context reveals those who
call upon the LORD as those who have survived and been called. Reading
the entire chapter is helpful.
Joel 2:32
"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the
LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be
those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall
be those whom the LORD calls."
As I've heard one preacher note, next to Jesus, context is king! I look
forward to hearing more from you guys.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Josh Hayes
It is a very interesting topic for sure. I only found it to be much deeper than I thought when I started studying more closely. As with all things we 'must make God and Jesus Christ His Son the starting point of all our thinking.'
I glanced through the sermon you referenced by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. what I read seemed right on track.
however I was very disappointed that they ignore clear Scripture teaching about the consumption of alcohol, and tattoos. that is usually the position I find when these new evangical churches pop up using the NIV etc... they are probably also 'soft' on homosexuality and evolution.
Now, don't get you dander up. I am not saying we cannot use anything Mark Driscoll has to teach or preach.
You guys have heard my testimony of where I came from, out of believing in evolution etc… and most of that came from believing my professors, teachers, pastors, and Bible footnotes. I am now suspect of anything that is outside of the Bible. we must prove all things and be diligent to search the Scriptures and see if these things be true.
The only preacher we can trust 100% is Jesus and His infallible, inspired and inerrant Word. All the rest of us are prone to mistakes. especially me!
What are the dues to join your 4.5 club? =;-)
In the Creators Service,
Kent
Actually, Driscoll's church is not soft at all on homosexuality or
evolution. Those are things the Bible speaks explicitly against.
Driscoll is very much in line with most contemporary Reformed
evangelical pastors, such as John Piper who has had Driscoll speak at
Desiring God conferences.
As for the 4.5-point club, I don't think I'm even a member, at least
not as close as I was before. I thought the issue through some more,
and I've still pretty set on five-point Calvinism.
I hope no one takes this e-mail in the wrong spirit. I had some brief
spare time at work, so I had to write it quite quickly, so I apologize
if it seems blunt. I think looking at our takes on other issues like
these may reveal biases and influences that affect our understanding of
what Scripture teaches about doctrines such as the atonement,
predestination, etc.
--Josh
Well, now that we’ve established that Josh Hayes is still a 5-point Calvinist, I believe that the earth will still continue to revolve.
Let me say a couple of things before I start and one being I agree with Haze on the tattoo issue as well. It appears that this prohibition was for the sake of not being associated with the pagans. Also, Haze I loved the quote “Next to Jesus, context is king!” I emphatically agree. Here’s the verse that most people go to when referencing tattoos. (Unless otherwise noted or quoted all Scripture references are from the NASB).
28 You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28
That does appear to be a slam-dunk argument but the context of these verses is God forbidding things that the Israel was not to do to associate themselves with the pagans. However let’s examine the verse before also.
27 You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.
Leviticus 19:27
So by what this verse is telling us you should not shave around your beard. You are to let just the beard grow….which would mean no goatees. I feel like everyone agrees that a goatee is ok. So Zai, you’re safe buddy. This verse doesn’t really apply to me at all because, I can’t really grow facial hair.
Now, on to Kent’s e-mail:
The intention of this e-mail is to answer Kent’s initial thoughts on the verses that appear to rebut Calvinism. I hope that no one mistakes anything I say as harsh or rude. I assure you I write with the purest of motives because I know that we brothers have the same desire to find the truth. That is the very reason we are discussing this.
The very first thing I want to do is make the point that “all” doesn’t always mean “all.” “Every” doesn’t always mean “every,” and that “world” doesn’t always mean “world.” Allow me to explain.
In John 14, Jesus is explaining to his disciples that he is going to be going back to heaven but that he will send a “helper”, the Holy Spirit. Here is what he tells them.
16 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him.
Now, if the word “world” here refers to all people on the globe, we are in quite a bit of trouble. Because here is what Romans 8:9 says:
“…if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”
Uh oh. So it is obvious that there is a difference in all of the people on the earth and whom Jesus is referring to here when he says “world.” That is obvious when we read the end of John 14:17 which says “but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.” So Christ makes the distinction of his disciples and the world. We also know that the word “world” is many times used to refer to those who are lost ( See Matt 18:7, Mark 4:19, John 3:17, John 7:7).
For any more curiosity on “world” look at the writings of John. The NT uses the word 185 times but john uses it 78 in his gospel, 24 in 1-3 John and 3 times in Revelation.
As for the word “all”:
Matthew 3:5
Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan;
This is speaking of John the Baptist when he was preaching. Do we REALLY believe that every single person in the whole country of Judea and every single person around the Jordan came to hear him preach? Not hardly. Matthew is purely using a figure of speech to emphasize the fact that a whole bunch of people came out to hear this man preach. Just like we might say “All of Knoxville turned out to see the UT game this weekend.”
Also,
Matthew 4:24
The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them.
So, these people brought Jesus EVERY person who was sick on the face of the earth? No, they brought him a lot of sick people, and he healed them (See also: Matt 9:35, Matt. 10:22, Mark 3:10, John 4:29).
In Mark 14:36 Jesus said: “Father! All things are possible for You…”
Are they really? Can God do all things? The answer is no. God cannot learn. He already knows everything. Titus 1:2 says “God, who cannot lie...” God cannot break a promise. There are many things He cannot do, but that in NO way diminishes how great of a God He is. On the contrary, it makes Him an even greater God!
I’m sure you guys get the idea as far as all of these verses goes. I also want to speak to context for a moment. What does a verse mean? It means whatever the writer meant for it to mean. Part of us believing in the inspiration of Scripture is that we believe God used the different personalities and writing styles of different men (no women authored any book of the Bible) and spoke through them so that we now have the completed Word known as the Bible. So that verse means whatever Moses wanted it to or whatever Paul wanted it to.
Does what that person meant to say ever change? No. Now it can be applied in different ways, such as, when the Bible tells us to take care of our body, the writer did not at that time have meth, cocaine, or marijuana on his mind. However, the principal is still there and his intent never changes. If someone were to write something and then 10 years later change his opinion on the issue, that has no influence on what he wrote 10 years ago because his intentions in what he wrote do not change even though his opinion can.
Let us say that Isaiah wrote a love letter to Brittany. He might tell her how pretty her hair is, how beautiful her smile is and how much he loved her. But what if I were to come by and pick up that letter at some later point? I would look at it and say “Aww, Isaiah thinks I have pretty hair. He thinks I have a beautiful smile and he loves me!” If I were to do that, not only would I be an idiot, but also I would be grossly taking what Isaiah meant out of context. This is what we do if we do not pay close attention to what the writer of these books are the Bible are intending to say. That is one reason why Scripture is the best commentary on Scripture.
Now to examine some of the hard to understand verses. Bigdog, please don’t think I’m picking on you here. You just provided the verses and the commentary so I am going to answer you to the best of my ability. You did say a few times in the verses that you quoted “shouldn’t it say for the elect?” I understand the question, however I feel that with what I said above, if the writers context of writing is already referring to the elect then there is no need for him to have to do this. The context does it. Here is what I found on this passages:
KENT:
1 Tim 1:15
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;...
So if you are a sinner Christ came to save you.
ME:
Paul’s main thrust in this passage is focusing on what Christ came to do: Save sinners. Does that mean every sinner? No, because not every sinner will be saved. We know this. Hell will have people in it so what Paul is here focusing on what Christ accomplished during his incarnation.
Luke 19:11
For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.
KENT:
1 Tim 2:3-6
3 ...God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all,…
ME:
Let us first note (as we already have) that God will not have all men to be saved. That simply will not happen. We all agree on this. God DOES genuinely desire that ALL men become saved. But, it is obvious that will not happen. We know people will die and go to hell, in fact a lot more than will go to heaven (narrow is the way and few there be who find it). There is a difference in God’s desires and his decrees. God did not desire to see His son be brutally murdered at the hands of men, but He decreed it so that salvation could take place. God does not desire for men to sin, but he endures “vessels of wrath” so that he can bring about an ultimate glory for Himself.
There is a sense in which God is the savior of all people
-He is a personal savior. Mary said: “my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” Luke 1:47 and this shows that the elect have Christ as their own personal savior.
-The other sense in which God is the Savior is because Savior is a title. Just as the Father is God whether people choose to accept him as God or not, Jesus IS the Savior even if people reject him.
On the other hand, there is a sense in which Christ is in no way the Savior of the world (and by world I mean every single individual). There are those who will be saved (the elect) and those who will not (the non elect). If Jesus did not die for those people he is not their savior because he is not saving them from anything. If they die and go to hell, how could he be called their Savior? Only if it were in the title form that we spoke about above.
KENT:
Rom 5:6
…Christ died for the ungodly.
Being a Calvinist should this not read 'Christ died only for the ungodly elect'?
ME:
I am going to back up a little bit and read this verse more in context. Notice the words in bold.
Romans 5:5-8
5and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. (v. 8 is the key verse) 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
That last phrase “Christ died for us” is what sets off these verses. This tells us whom Paul is referring to here. He actually isn’t referring to the elect but rather those who have already been regenerated (saved).
At this point I want to make the point that Calvinists and Arminians and all who are in between agree, that there are some who will not be saved. Calvinists say that God chose certain ones from before the foundation of the world to be saved. However, Arminians do not believe that. They believe that it is up to each and every individual to choose as they wish. Allow me to interject a thought we are led to if that line of thinking is carried out: Let us say that the Arminian view is correct and it is completely our responsibility to choose God. I think Calvinists and Arminians would both still agree that God knows who will and who wont choose. But if we believe in an omniscient God then that means he cannot be wrong about anything that He knows. Thus, that means that it is impossible for those to get saved who God has known would not get saved. That proves then, that the elect are the only ones who have any chance of getting saved, because if one single person gets saved that God did not know would get saved, then that means that God is wrong, and that simply cannot be.
Calvinists do not think that God simply looked through time to see who would get saved and then that is how predestination works. The Bible says that God “foreknew” his elect. That could seem to give weight to the Arminian view but let’s look closer. The GK word for “foreknew” is the Hebrew equivalent of the same root word used in Genesis 4 where it says Cain “knew” his wife and she bore a son. It is quite evident that Cain did not merely have mental knowledge of his wife and out popped a child. We know that there was an intimacy there that had to transpire before a child could be born.
This is the same way it worked in our salvation. God, before the world was created had an intimate relationship with his elect and later on that brought about a birth, a second birth to be exact, our regeneration.
KENT:
Heb 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
ME:
Let me show the verse in context:
Hebrews 2:8-11
8 YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET "
For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him. 9But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (KJV says “every man”). 10For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. 11For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12saying,"I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN, IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE." 13And again,"I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM "And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME." 14Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
The first thing to note here is that the word “man” is not in the original manuscripts. That definitely changes the perplexity of this verse does it not? So, if the word “man” does not belong there then we must re-examine this verse to see what the writer of Hebrews is talking about.
The writer of Hebrew had a few groups of Jews that he was writing to here: “1. Believers 2. Unbelievers who were intellectually convinced of the gospel and 3. Unbelievers who were attracted by the gospel and the person of Christ but who had reached no final conviction about Him.” (NASB MacArthur Study Bible pg. 1864). The main group that he is speaking to is the Jewish believers.
That makes verse 9 have a completely new meaning when we look at it this way. So since we know that and we also know that the word “man” or “everyone” does not fit we are left with this verse saying “He might taste death for every.” This does not seem to make much sense. What is he trying to say here? Every what? Well, a better rendering of this verse says: “He might taste death for “the whole”” The whole what? World? No. Look at what he is talking about.
v. 8 “we”
v. 9 “we”
v. 10 “bringing many sons to glory”
v. 11 “He is not ashamed to call them brethren”
v. 12 “I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN”
v. 12 “THE CONGREGATION” (or church)
v. 13 “THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME”
v. 16 “descendant of Abraham. “
Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants.
We see exactly who the writer of Hebrews was talking about, the church, the children of God, and the elect. He is telling us that Jesus Christ tasted death for all of God’s elect. I for one am certainly glad that He did. What a merciful God we serve.
KENT:
2 Peter 2:1
…denying the Lord that bought them...
Who is Peter referring to here if Christ did not die for those lost as well as those saved.
ME:
This is definitely a tough one. I’m going to show the whole verse so that you can see that if you read the whole verse it makes it even more difficult.
2 Peter 2:1
1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
Here are a few starting thoughts.
In the GK, the word used here for “master” is speaking of God the Father and not Jesus. So this verse cannot be talking about any debt that Jesus paid by his death and it is usually expressive as the power which God has over mankind. Whenever applied to a divine person this word is always used to speak of God the Father: Luke 2:20, Acts 4:24, 2 Timothy 2:21, Revelation 6:10 and especially Jude 4.
The word “bought” regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord.
There are a couple of things to chew on first, now instead of using my own words to describe what is a good answer to this verse, I’m just going to copy straight from The NASB MacArthur Study Bible:
“Who bought them”
The terms that Peter used her are more analogical than theological, speaking of a human master over a household. The master bought slaves, and the slaves owed the master allegiance as their sovereign. (For an OT parallel, see Dt 32:5-6, where God is said to have bought Israel, thought they rejected Him.) Doctrinally, this analogy can be viewed as responsibility for submission to God, which the false teachers had refused. Beyond this, they are probably claiming that they were Christians, so that the Lord had bought them actually and personally. With some sarcasm, Peter mocks such a claim by writing of their coming damnation. Thus, the passage is describing eh sinister character of the false teachers who claim Christ, but deny His lordship over their lives.
KENT:
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Should it read '…sins of the whole world of the elect'?
ME:
Let us read verses 1 and 2:
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
First, let us see to whom John is writing this epistle. John Gill said,
“The apostle may address the saints under this character, on account of their regeneration by the spirit and grace of God, in which they were as new-born babes; and on account of his being the instrument of their conversion, and so was their spiritual father, and therefore calls them his own children.”
So, John is writing to an unknown church but if you read this book it becomes fairly obvious throughout the book that he is writing to new believers. John said “for those of the whole world.” What he is referring to is the sphere of mankind. MacArthur said, “To be faithful to the truth revealed in Scripture, the whole world must be comprehended as a generic expression that refers to humanity throughout the earth, but not necessarily to every individual. World simply identifies the earthly realm of mankind to which God directed His reconciling love and provided propitiation.” (1-3 John commentary p. 49)
I would like to take that argument a little further. While we cannot be dogmatic about this, I believe he was likely writing this letter to Jews. So him saying “the whole world” then takes on an extra meaning. Who did the Jews think that the messiah was coming to save? What group of people? The Jews and only the Jews. So, I think John is trying to break a misconceived notion that these “little children” in the faith had believed their entire life and that is that Gentiles could not be saved. So when he said “the whole world” he meant mankind but also Jew and Gentiles alike. Praise God that salvation is not only for the Jews!!!
KENT:
John 1:29
…Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John the Baptist is speaking. A Calvinist reading of this verse would be '…which taketh away the sin of the elect of the whole world.'
ME:
Let us think through this. Why does God send people to hell? He sends them to hell because they are sinners and because they have sin in their lives. BUT if Christ takes away their sins, then the Father could not send that person to hell. He would be unjust in doing so and it would be against his very nature to defy justice in that manner. Therefore, this must be another instance in which the word “world” does not refer to every individual. It must refer again to mankind in general. John the Baptist was saying that salvation would be available to all people groups, all ethnicities and all the lands of the world.
Then we have these verses to deal with:
Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Joel 2:32
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered:…
ME:
Calvinism in no way denies these verses. We believe all Scripture to be inspired by God and thus we must hold to these verses. A common misconception that people have about Calvinism is that people all over the world are reaching up to God wanting to be saved and crying out “God save me!” But that God is up in heaven kicking at them saying “Get away! Get away!” But it is not like that at all! We believe that the only way someone can want to “call upon the name of the Lord” is if they have the faith to do so. How do they get the faith? Is it something they find within themselves? No, God gives it to them.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God
Faith is not something that is conjured up by a depraved, fallen sinner. God must give it to them because as the apostle Paul said:
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD
Romans 3:11
Why? Because as Jesus said:
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
John 6:44
And
No one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father
John 6:65
Whew! Kent, that was a lot man! It is great that we have questions and are not just taking anyone’s word for it. I do want to briefly (too late to be brief huh?) give some quotes that go along with the doctrine of limited atonement.
In speaking on the efficiency of Christ’s atonement:
“The blood of Christ was efficient enough to save as many worlds of sinners as there are sinners in the world, but we are speaking of application, not efficiency.”
-Matthew Henry-
“When the atonement is made universal its inherent value is destroyed. If it is applied to all men, and if some are lost, the conclusion is that it makes salvation objectively possible all but that it does not actually save anybody.”
-Lorraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination pg 152)-
“If the Arminian theory were true it would follow that millions of those for whom Christ died are finally lost, and that salvation is thus never applied to many of those for whom it was earned. What benefits, for instance, can we point to in the lives of the heathens and say that they have received them from the atonement? It would also follow that God’s plans many times have been thwarted and defeated by His creatures and that while he may do according to His will in the armies of heaven, He does not do so among the in habitants of the earth.”
-Boettner pg 154-
“If Christ has died for you, you can never be lost. God will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sins He will not punish you. Payment God’s justice cannot twice demand; first, at the bleeding Savior’s hand, and then again at mine. How can God be just if he punished Christ, the substitute, and then man himself afterwards?”
-Charles Haddon Spurgeon-
“Where would have been the consistency of God’s calling to Himself such as he knows will never come?”
-John Calvin-
May our God and Father guard our minds in the fight for the truth!
Your brother in Christ,
Jeremy
Jeremy, really excellent post.
Although, by your first remark regarding tattoos, It does not seem you read my post concerning that yet.
As for your second part on Limited Atonement-
I probably did not make my position clear. I am not an Armenian.
(Jeremy)
…A common misconception that people have about Calvinism is that people all over the world are reaching up to God wanting to be saved and crying out “God save me!” But that God is up in heaven kicking at them saying “Get away! Get away!” But it is not like that at all! We believe that the only way someone can want to “call upon the name of the Lord” is if they have the faith to do so. How do they get the faith? Is it something they find within themselves? No, God gives it to them.
Ephesians 2:8-9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God
Faith is not something that is conjured up by a depraved, fallen sinner. God must give it to them because as the apostle Paul said:
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD
Romans 3:11
Why? Because as Jesus said:
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;
John 6:44
And
No one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father
John 6:65
(Kent)
I do not hold to the “common misconception that people have about Calvinism is that people all over the world are reaching up to God wanting to be saved and crying out “God save me!”
I realize you may not have been referring that to me, but I just wanted to be clear.
I totally agree with the verses you quoted above concerning -
Rom 3:11
…there is none that seeketh after God.
I really believe closer to what you and Josh, (and all) believe. I just know that in order to believe that way I must be able to give an answer for the verses I cited. I knew by throwing those verses out there and stirring the pot you preacher boys, and others, would give good solid Biblical feed back.
(Jeremy)
Let us think through this. Why does God send people to hell? He sends them to hell because they are sinners and because they have sin in their lives.
(Kent)
This is splitting hairs but actually God sends people to hell because they do not believe in Him. John 3:36
Here is another good quote in support of Limited Atonement:
“All Calvinist agree that Christ’s obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race. It would have required no more obedience, nor any greater suffering for Christ to have secured salvation for every man, woman, and child who ever lived that it did for Him to secure salvation for the elect only. But He came into the world to represent and save only those given to Him by the Father. Thus Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.”
David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas- The Five Points of Calvinism, pg 39
They continue-
“That this doctrine necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that…He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as…He was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept the one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ’s work was to redeem the elect.”
David N. Steele & Curtis C. Thomas- The Five Points of Calvinism, pg. 17
In the Creator's Service,
Bigdog
Post a Comment