I have often struggled with the teaching of limited atonement. I understood it in concept, but thought it was a purposeless doctrine. That was true until I read an article that was against the Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. As I began to think about how Substitutionary Atonement works, I began to ponder.
Substitutionary Atonement states that Jesus died in my place. When He was on the cross, He bore my sins. By dying, He took the punishment for my sin. He died in my place. He was my substitute, because the punishment He suffered should have been mine.
If Substitutionary Atonement is true, that means my sins were atoned for when Jesus died on the cross. He bore then 2,000 years ago. That leads us to two places. The first is the viewpoint of unlimited atonement, which states that everyone has the potential for salvation, which means that Christ bore the sins of everyone at Calvary. While it sounds to good and pleasing to stay that Christ bore the sins of every person on the cross, it makes salvation a work. Let’s elaborate.
If Christ bore the sins of everyone, and died as a substitute for everyone, then everyone is atoned for, yet not everyone is saved. What is left in the salvation process? Acceptance. That means that we earn salvation though accepting it. That is a gnostic teaching. Either the work is acceptance, understanding, belief or surrender, all those things are dependent upon me. I am therefore responsible for my own salvation, and I am not saved by grace through faith, but rather I am saved by knowledge though faith. I am saved by receiving the atonement. Is that scriptural, or is that humanism?
The alternative is Limited Atonement. It’s the reality that God prepared some for salvation since before the foundation of the world, elected them, their sins were paid for on Calvary and they receive grace. We find this in Romans 9.19 “You will say to me, therefore, “Why then does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 20 But who are you—anyone who talks back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, “Why did you make me like this?” 21 Or has the potter no right over His clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor? 22 And what if God, desiring to display His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience objects of wrath ready for destruction? 23 And [what if] He did this to make known the riches of His glory on objects of mercy that He prepared beforehand for glory— 24 on us whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?”
Romans 9:19-24 (HCSB)
So I assume some of you reading this point don’t agree with me. After all, why would we be commanded to seek and knock, and what is the value of preaching? What about Romans 10:9 and 10:13? “But how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How welcome are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things! 16 But all did not obey the gospel. For Isaiah says, Lord, who has believed our message? 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the message about Christ.”
Romans 10:14-17 (HCSB)
Perhaps you are asking about those verses, about evangelism and what is the point if people are already redeemed. It’s a tricky subject I’ll admit. So let’s go deeper, let’s get woven.
In my theological offering of Woven Theology, I have stated that Gods unconditional call and election works in concert with God’s foreknowledge, our response and responsibility. That means we are elected and called by God without any work or merit of our own. We know that we are chosen, we are saved and redeemed by grace. It’s God who gives grace, we cannot and do no earn it, it’s for the glory of God. We also know that our belief has an impact that we believe and we trust God and we are saved. So, we can’t be saved without belief, we don’t believe without Grace, we don’t get grace unless we are chosen, we don’t get chosen unless we believe. How?
I think the key comes for a verse in Joel.
I will repay you for the years
that the swarming locust ate,
the young locust, the destroying locust,
and the devouring locust—
My great army that I sent against you.
Joel 2:25 (HCSB)
There is a spiritual reality that sometimes things flow backwards, work in recompense. In Joel, Israel was disobedient, and they were punished. They repented and God repayed the punishment, and it became like the punishment never happened. God can work backwards, can buy back, pay back and restore things to how they were before.
Woven theology stays that you believe because God gives you the ability and the grace to believe, and you have the ability and grace from God because you believe. The reality is that you were called and predestined to believe if you are a believer, and God gave His son for you, and your sins are atoned for because of Grace. We share and we pray for others, because prayer, obedience and response are the mechanisms in which God operates as He predestines those from the foundation of the world.
As complicated as this all seems to piece together, makes me believe, it must be a God thing!
I’ll probably regret responding to this, as this subject really gets my blood boiling, but I find it necessitated by the fallacious statement that anything outside the realm of belief in limited atonement “is a gnostic teaching.” I reject wholesale the concept of limited atonement, and indeed, Calvinism itself, and I promise you I am far from a “gnostic.”
I fully believe Christ did all the work, dying for the sins of all mankind, and ultimately offers me a choice to accept or reject this massive and overwhelming grace. The choice does not nullify or detract from the grace and might of Christ. It does not bring glory to me, exalt me above him or make me a partner in salvation. It merely gives me a choice to reject his free gift. I know my Calvinist brothers in the faith will find terrible error in my thinking.
I’ve studied the so called gnostic “gospels” and I am insulted, my brother in Christ, that you would lump those that do not see things from your view of theology into that heretical camp.
Your anger comes from your assumption that my saying it’s “gnostic” and your study of the Gnostics are the same. gnostic just means knowledge, and my point is, if we are saved because we know something, that’s gnostic. If I share faith with someone and they make an intellectual decision, then by virtue of the process, they are saved by making a decision, ergo Gnosticism.
On a general note, to ALL BLOGGERS, why are we all so offended by different view points? I am not attacking anyone, I have no shots to fire, no ax to grind. I am choosing not to be offended that those who mis-understand me, or get upset. It’s just a viewpoint and an idea.
Back to the specifics, I see no Biblical text to support the claim of choice to reject salvation, no interacting with my argument or my statements. If we can reject it, then we must also accept it, how then is acceptance not the process of Salvation? If we are saved by our acceptance, how is that not something we can boast about? Can I not boast my wise decision to accept Christ? Is that not something I did, is the focus not me? Please clarify your position.
Tonality is hard to convey in a blog, but I enter this dialogue with all due respect to you and your view and the fact that we are fellow soldiers in the army of Christ the King. So we are cool, even if we don’t see eye to eye.
I think perhaps it is a little naive on your part if you don’t think throwing out the term “gnostic” in conjunction with those who do not accept limited atonement will ruffle some feathers. At the least you have lumped me in with secular humanism quite specifically, and as someone who used to embrace that and atheism, trust me, you have set up a pretty good straw man fallacy here. Either you accept limited atonement or you embrace secular humanist ideals. That’s just not true. I’m not offended at your ideas or beliefs, but at your view of those who do not choose to see things your way.
I have nothing to boast in when it comes to my salvation. I trampled the name of Christ and Christianity underfoot for almost two decades of my life. You can believe in a need to accept or reject salvation and not be prideful or boastful about it. When I think of the free offer of salvation being extended in love, mercy and grace to an atheist, I am overwhelmed, humbled and far from focused on me whatsoever. I’m not sure why those that hold to Calvinistic beliefs just cannot understand that.
I believe you must reject clear scriptures (just read some of the responses below) to embrace limited atonement.
I’m not asking you to abandon your beliefs in limited atonement Dan, but I am asking you have an open mind and avoid insulting labels to those who do not see your point of view. We can have challenging, edifying, and indeed fun dialogue without resorting to such tactics.
I never said I believe in limited atonement, I am just making an argument for it. I want to discuss it. I want to interact with the theology and the items, not my theology. Let’s focus on the material and not the people. I am not trying to “lump” anyone with anyone. I said a teaching seems to me to be gnostic, I didn’t call anyone a gnostic. I appologise if it comes across that way, but I want to interact with ideas, not change your theology.
formerathiest,
Amen and amen! And, you are right…to infer that people are gnostics just because they dont believe in limited atonement is inflammatory and a shot in the ribs.
David
THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID OR MEANT! I NEVER CALLED ANYONE A GNOSTIC!
Dan,
Yes, your article is complicated.
It is so much easier to just accept that Jesus tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9). As well as verses like John 1:29; 3:16-17; 12:47; Romans 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:14-19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2.
Taking these verses at simple, face value, we can look any man in the eye and say, “Jesus loves you. Jesus sacrificially died for your sins and He wants to save you.” Otherwise, the best we can do is say, “Jesus may have died for you.”
See: http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/10/unlimited-atonement-jesus-died-for-all.html
David R. Brumbelow
I think the flaw when thinking about election is our idea that once things are done, there is no way to undo them. That is why I refer to time flowing backwards. Because God is timeless, by me praying and sharing faith, things can be changed that happened 2000 years ago. We are convinced the election and salvation happen in our timeline. I think that is a fatal flaw, I don’t think election, salvation, grace or forgiveness happen in our understanding of space and time. From God’s view, time is beginning and ending, so He is predestining and saving at the same time. We have to remember that our logic is tied to our limitations, we have to think outside of our own limits.
Dan,
Just a recommendation from someone who is a 5-point Calvinist, you may need to slow it down a little and discuss the details more.
To begin with, God’s relation to time is not a very cut-and-dry thing. It has become popular for Calvinist’s to say, “God is outside of time,” as some sort of trump card, but what does that even mean and how is it verified by Scripture/rational reflection. This is a crucial point that often gets sped over. Not saying you have done this in your own acceptance of the doctrine, but saying that it’s a statement that can’t be made and accepted as if nothing major is being claimed.
Second, when you say, “God is predestining and saving at the same time,” I think you may be biting off more than you want. What exactly is included in “saving” when you say that? Is it justification? If so then by making this statement you fall in one of two places that you probably don’t want: (1) God saved us from before the foundation of the earth and therefore we are already saved before we’re even born, thus removing any real need for repentance and belief, or (2) We are not predestined from before the foundation of the earth and therefore Scripture is incorrect in saying so.
Hopefully you see this as advice and not attacks. The Calvinism-Arminianism debate still exists because issues like these take much more than a simple statement to truly work out. If we are to hope to get anywhere we have to serve our due diligence in fleshing out the details.
Thanks for your input, but I think that no matter what is said, there will always be a way to twist it and make it seem like I am saying something I am not. God being outside of time is . . . well another blog. Salvation and predestination happening requires God to be outside of time, don’t read those as two statements. If God sees both at the same time (right now and before time) then from His vantage, they are both/and. You superimposed time upon that statement, which is what lead to your mis-application. Thanks for your comments.
Dan,
I would be interested to see why you believe that salvation and predestination requires God to be outside of time. That is not overtly obvious. As a matter of fact, I think it is fairly easy to envision some sense of Calvinistic soteriology in which God is working in a linear time frame. Necessitating that God be removed from time would appear to be more Molinistic seeing as how on the surface it requires less dependence on sovereign guidance and more on an understanding of the operations of created worlds (i.e. middle knowledge).
Well, let’s start with Genesis and logic. If God existed before “In the beginning” therefore He can’t be in it to create it. Time was created for humans, for the beginning and the end. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. If there is an end, and God is not outside of time, when time stops, so does God. That is not to say that God doesn’t interact with time or in time, but if 1,000 years is a day and a day is a 1000 years, seems to indicate that time has no impact on God. Lastly, if God is in all places, and he exists in eternity (which is a place without time) then He must exist in and out of time.
Dan,
Let’s look at this in-line:
“In the beginning” does not necessarily indicate “at the start of time.” It does in a sense, i.e. in the colloquial/idiomatic sense that it is the beginning of any time that we as finite, created beings would understand. This is the sense that you communicate with that last statement. However, this does not mean that some linear sense of time wasn’t already in place in which God existed before this.
This is a non-sequitur. Who is arguing that time ends? Again, you are thinking in the idiomatic sense of time as “the existence of this world.”
Not quite sure what you’re doing with these ideas. Again, this is an overly simplistic understanding of what the Bible says and fails to give any actual credence to the difficulty in hashing the true theological/philosophical meaning of this out.
Why would omnipresence contradict time-situatedness? This is again something that can’t just be claimed. And eternity is “a place without time”? That’s totally wrong. Here you are reading an idiom/metaphor as a statement of fact. The “in” is not a locative preposition. To say that God exists in eternity means that he exists without a beginning or an end.
Moreover, none of this argues or supports your claim that “salvation and predestination happening requires God to be outside of time.”
Amen and amen, David Brumbelow…just looking at the Scriptures…rather than man’s logic….it seems pretty plain and simple…the death of Jesus was for every man and woman, boy and girl…..and, if they’ll look to the death of Jesus, in humble, surrendering faith, just as the OT Hebrews looked to the snake on the pole for healing…then they all can be saved.
David
Umm, not to poke a bear, but “just looking at the Scriptures…rather than man’s logic….it seems pretty plain and simple…” that Jesus drank alcoholic wine and to imbibe without drunkenness today is not a sin either.
Just sayin’ …
Todd,
I’m not going there…except to say that I do think it’s taught in the Scriptures…in Proverbs….that it’s completely foolish to drink fermented wine. So, I do think it’s a Scriptural thing…not a cultural thing.
David
Oh, please, please, please. Let’s NOT go there again!
David,
Completely foolish, huh? To me “just looking at the Scriptures” says that it is the one who is “led astray by [strong drink and the-only-actual-type-of-wine]” that is foolish. It seems to require “man’s logic”–and possibly man’s linguistic/scientific/mythological gymnastics–to wind up at the position you and others herald here.
Poke, poke!
Hey, no hijacking my post! We are talking about Substitutinary and Limited Atonement. Talk about booze later!
Dan, respectfully I have to say that I think your argument is logically flawed on the one hand, and on the other, I think there are numerous clear passages of Scripture that do indeed teach that Christ died for the sins of the entire world–not just the elect. The logical fallacy I find in your argument is the statement that accepting the gift of salvation means somehow that we earn it or that acceptance by faith becomes a work, thus denying the truth of Eph. 2:8-9. Just stating that acceptance is a work doesn’t make it so. I suspect that you’ve received a fair amount of birthday gifts during your lifetime. I also strongly suspect that you’ve never worked or labored to “earn” them. They were given by family and friends out of love for you. An open hand extended to receive a gift in no way constitutes earning or working for that gift, any more than our accepting by faith the gift of God’s grace through Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross for us constitutes a work or earns that salvation. I think your logic is flawed. With regard to the biblical teaching that Christ died for all and desires the salvation of all men, the Scripture is again quite clear. I Tim. 2:4 says that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Pet. 3:9 echoes that, stating that God is not slow about His promises (responding to the opponents’ arguments about the delay in Christ’s Second Coming), but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. If God desires all men to be saved as both of these verses teach, how can He not have made that salvation available to them through Christ’s death? In the same context of Rom. 10 that you quote, verse 12 says, “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.” I’ve never yet heard a satisfying explanation from a proponent of limited atonement either for 2 Pet. 2:1 which speaks of false prophets who will secretly introduce destructive heresies (they surely don’t sound like believers), “even denying the Master who bought them.” You have to either conclude that Christ died for these unbelieving heretics, or that… Read more »
Let me interact with your statements in different stages. First I want to discuss the verses about God “desiring all to be saved”. I think we have unwisely made that a focal point of the passage when in essence it’s not. The main issue is because that idea is contrary to God’s nature. God cannot want, because want only comes from lack. The idea that God wants something that He can’t have means that God is unable to do something. Some say God can’t contradict His nature, but that would mean His nature is God and He is subject to it. If God is limited by man’s choice, then it means that God did create a mountain so big that He Himself cannot move it, and that mountain is human choice. I see the statement as “God wants” to be more metophorical to support the rest of Paul’s argument, either that we should pray in 1 Timothy, or the passage you brought up that speaks to why God hasn’t brought things to an end.
Have you ever considered that, as Dr. Paige Patterson said, “I just happen to believe that God is sovereign enough that He can make a man totally free if He wishes to do so.”
David R. Brumbelow
Yes David, I have. Please don’t read the post as my “set is stone theology”. It’s me thinking, interacting and wrestling. I just want to dialogue and wrestle with stuff. I am not saying this is my set theological identity, so let’s interact with the material, not the author.
Ok, let’s tackle 2 Peter 2. In the chapter before, Peter tells us to make our calling and election sure, stating that you will never “fall”. Peter seems to be saying that Salvation can be lost, but as Peter continues, I think He is creating a contrast between those who have and those who think they have.
In chapter 1, Peter tells us that we have to live out faith to know we have it. Being in the church doesn’t make you a believer. We know from 1 John 2 that many antiChrists will come, that were once “with us” but they were “not of us” because they left. Peter is using the same idea, that there are those in the camp of the believers, but they are false.
Here is the crux of the thing in my mind. We, as Americans, think WAY to individualistically. Peter is talking to the church, and the church is bought by the blood of Christ. These individuals seem to be part of the community of faith, which Christ bought and paid for, they have a cooperate identity. Even though they are part of the church, they are false. I believe that salvation happens in the context of the church, and so individuals come into the community which is purchased and they receive grace and faith. (yes, I said receive, because I do believe that man has responsibility, the blog is mostly to promote thinking, not to share my personal convictions). We receive faith and then Peter tells us to make our calling and election sure by exhibiting the fruit of the spirit.
Gary,
Amen…also in 1 Timothy 2…not all Kings and govt. leaders are saved, yet vv. 3-4 clearly state…about kings and all those in authority…that “God, our Savior, who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
That just cant be any clearer…to go along with the passage out of 2 Peter that you quoted…
David
Dan,
In Woven theology (I can’t seem to find that term anywhere else and I know you have been using it for a while – did you make up the term or use it from somewhere else?) what does Christ have to do with the non-elect?
BTW – you make an unwarranted leap in that if we have any acceptance of salvation, we are in some way earning it. Our participation in salvation is in no way the equivalent of earning it.
Jim G.
Jim G.
Yes Jim, Woven theology is my term, I have written several blogs on it. As I put in a previous reply, some of this blog doesn’t represent my theology, but it represents things I wrestle with.
Here is the main issue I have. If we are saved because we “accepts” then salvation is dependent upon us doing something. Even if you don’t want to call it a work, the term “accept” is an action, we are DOING something. If I go forward in a service and I accept and pray, and the preacher says “This is Dan, He chose Jesus today, let’s affirm his good decision”, who is getting the glory for that? Seems to me that I am taking credit for my good choice. Can you reconcile that for me?
Yes, I think I can.
God saves. God draws. God illumines. God gives you the choice to choose him. Without his enabling (regardless of how one defines enabling, but ALL Christians define it some way or another) you could not make the choice. God has placed the gift right in front of you, essentially saying, “Here, this is for you, Dan. Take it. I’ve searched you out. I’ve drawn you to me. I’ve done everything. Now, take this gift of my love.” To say that reaching out in faith and obedience and taking the gift that God has lavishly put in front of us is a work worthy of some sort of merit is really nonsense. I think we tend to emphasize “our decision” more strongly than we should, but if we step back and look at the big picture, we can surely realize God has done all the effort to place this gift in front of us. All we have to do is take it.
Let’s look at it another way. Do you love God (I know the answer – of course you do)? Would you call your love for God a work? I would hope not. It is the right and proper response to his love. You are commanded to love. Does loving God make you earn your continued salvation? Certainly not. Just as your love of God is the proper response to his pre-existing love (we love because he first loved us), the receiving of his gift of salvation is the proper response to his gift.
I hope that makes sense.
Jim G.
Well, loving God is an action, the question is not “if” I do, but “why” I do. Did I love God before He loved me? Know, we know that we love God because He loved us.
My term “work” and the idea expressed in merit I think are clashing. I am not talking about earned salvation, I am more struggling with the idea of “who provides Salvation”. Do I get it myself, or does God give it too me. It seems to me that because of my inability to do good apart from Christ, God is having me a gift of salvation, but I being apart from Christ have no hands in which to reach out and get it. God must enable me to get it.
You said “God has placed the gift right in front of you” which I agree with, but here is my struggle. If God has placed the gift in front of everyone, and all anyone has to do is reach out and take it, how is that not something I can boast it. No, it’s not merit, it’s not earning, but it’s an action in which I take part of the credit. God saved me, with a little help from me, accepting the gift. Do you see my struggle here?
I see your struggle, Dan. As I wrote above, God has not only provided you with the gift, he has provided you with the ability to receive the gift. If (and we agree) that God supplies the gift and God enables you to receive his gift (without his enabling you could never receive it) then I think it is clear that God saves. In theology, when we say something is a “work,” that means that it is an action of ours that merits something.
Let’s look at God’s point of view, as well as we can. Why does God want to save people? I think the proper answer for this is so he can share all that he is with his created beings. He wants to share himself with us. Now, in order to share, we need to cooperate. Have you ever wanted to share something with someone who wanted no part of the sharing? It doesn’t work out well. My point is this: we are participants in what God is doing. We are not passive. We are active participants. Why? Because he wants it that way. He wants to receive from us the fellowship he desires. Without meaningful participation from us, we are nothing more than puppets with God pulling strings. Now, God could have made puppets, but he didn’t. He made humans, who are capable of fellowshipping with both God and each other.
It is right and good for us to participate in the life which he has enabled for us. Some may say that subtracts from God’s glory. No – it adds to it. What is more glorious – a being powerful enough to make us do his will, or a being loving enough to make us want to do his will? And God loved us first.
Why do some not receive the gift? Ultimately, I don’t know. Not receiving the gift is as irrational as Adam and Eve eating the fruit or the Jews crucifying their God. In the end, though, I do not think (in light of the verses shown in other replies to you) that this rejection of the gift lies in God. It lies in us.
Jim G.
Jim I think you will find our theology is not very far apart. I originally wrote this article on my personal blog almost a year ago. I posted it because I really wanted people to think. I wonder if believers if we aren’t complacent with what others have told us, and we just accept it. There is much to wrestle with, and we don’t. So I posted this to interact with some theology. Most of the issue I cleared up as I began to write my theological ideas (Woven stuff) about how God’s sovereign plan intersects with man’s responsibility and ability. Doesn’t mean I don’t like to throw out the viewpoint on the otherside. I don’t really feel like I can hold a position unless I can argue both sides of it.
I would appreciate any and all insights from Calvinists and non-Calvinists on the importance of the Incarnation, as you discuss the Atonement . . . I don’t know what is taught concerning its importance in the Southern Baptist faith in relation to the Atonement, if at all. Thanks, if you can help.
that Jesus was God in the flesh is of the utmost importance. If Jesus were not God the Son, in the flesh, then His death meant nothing more than an Jewish insurgent dying on a cross. If Jesus were not the God-man…in the flesh….then His death was nothing more than a diluted, or perhaps crazy man dying because he claimed to be the Messiah.
So, Jesus being God in the flesh means everything to the atonement. If Jesus were not God in the flesh, then we are still lost in our sins and heading for a Devil’s Hell.
David
Christiane,
If Jesus did not have flesh and blood then he could not shed it on the cross and pay for our sins. Any view where Jesus is not in the flesh makes the Bible a liar when it says Jesus “entered once for all into the holy places . . . by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9.12), and as a result leaves us all still dead in our sins.
Believing in Jesus Christ as Savior is not a “work.”
But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. -Romans 4:5
David R. Brumbelow
David,
For Romans 4.5 to serve as a verse in defense of your claim you have to assume that Paul is using an Arminian understanding of belief here and not a Calvinistic one. But that’s what this whole debate is about, so your response still begs the question.
Although I am a Calvinist, I don’t think I agree that acceptance of a undeserved gift is a work.
One of the problems that keeps me in the Calvinist camp is the idea that the all powerful creator of the universe desires and works towards the salvation of all people, and by all accounts, fails most of the time.
So someone tell me, if me accepting something isn’t an action (work=me doing something to get something else), then what is it? What does it mean to be saved by Grace through Faith? Where do we get faith? Do we have faith because we choose to believe? Do we choose to believe from our own will and desire? Do we hear the word and make a mental decision? If so, how is it we can’t boast in the fact that we made the choice?
Dan,
I would prefer to use the term “Aha moment” in place of “accept”. In my case it is more appropriate and indicates I did no work that caused my salvation. Let’s use the 2 thieves on the cross for an example. It is obvious to me that they had not heard who Jesus was….but above Him was the mocking plaque “King of the Jews”. The Scriptures tell us that the soldiers were mocking him….saying if you are God come on down off the cross etc. One made a choice….to deny that Jesus was Emanuel, a term all Jews knew. The other prompted by the HS “surely you are the Son of God”. It was not, as I see it, a choice….it was an “Aha moment”. The HS had revealed to the thief just who this other criminal on the cross next to him really was. Let me ask you this, have you ever met someone that maybe you knew at sometime in the past and could not remember their name? You stand there visiting with them and all of a sudden bingo….you recollect who they are. That is not an action on your part, it is an “aha moment”. I see salvation as the same process, the preacher preached Jesus, the HS verified in my ear that the preacher preached the truth and I had an “aha moment”. Jesus said “His sheep would know his voice”. Would God not have equipped us to be able to recognize the voice when it came? No work done on my part, just an eternal gift, unwrapped by non-human hands and laid on me to relax and enjoy. To me it is so simple it is beyond comprehension.
Does this make sense to you?
Yes and thank you Jake. Thanks for you comments, and I do agree with you, that God brings enlightenment and shows the nature of depravity in the heart of sinful man, and at this point, we flee from our sin and accept grace like a “pearl of great price”.
Your response to my observations left me totally confused. You say that the statement about God desiring all men to be saved isn’t the focal point of the passage. I’ll concede that Paul is emphasizing the duty to pray for leaders, etc., but for one who supposedly adheres to the inspiration of Scripture to say that this phrase doesn’t matter because it isn’t the main focus seems to be quite a stretch. If the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write those words which I affirm that He did, we have to take them seriously.
To jump from that statement to say that God’s desiring all men to be saved somehow contradicts His nature because it implies He “wants” something or He is lacking something is a huge and unfounded logical leap. God created man in His own image and desires to have fellowship with us. That doesn’t mean He’s lacking in any way, but it does reveal that He earnestly desires for men (all men) to be restored to that relationship that was marred by sin in the garden. I don’t think your argument holds water at all.
I am saying the idea of God “wanting” is a literary device to support and earlier point. There are many metaphors that are used for God to support a statement. I never said it doesn’t matter, I said it’s used to support and earlier statement.
I want you to explain how the idea that want=lack is a huge and unfounded leap. Are you saying that God can’t save man without man’s approval? You saying “your argument doesn’t hold water” doesn’t mean a lot to me unless you show me why. You haven’t told me why, just said “it’s unfounded”. Why? What’s unfounded about it? If God wants man to be saved, can He not save man? Seems to me He wanted Paul saved, so He showed up and Paul got saved. Is God limited? Don’t just tell me I’m wrong, tell me why I’m wrong.
I have heard “your making leaps, you don’t hold water” Tell me why, I want to interact with the material. It’s not about ME, it’s about the ideas. Let’s interact with the ideas people.
My apologies if I came across as attacking you, Dan. That was not my purpose. I am trying to seriously engage your arguments from a biblical perspective. Both of the passages I referenced (1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Pet. 3:9) state that God desires all men to be saved. I understand that to mean that it is His will that none should eternally perish. Desire in that sense equals His longing for something to be accomplished. It doesn’t imply necessarily at all that He lacks something. That’s the unfounded leap that I suggested that you made in logic.
God desires to fellowship with His creation and thus He freely offers as a demonstration of His mercy and grace the free gift of salvation. That gift must be received and appropriated for it to be effective. I come back to my earlier illustration of the birthday presents. You don’t work for, earn, or even necessarily deserve a birthday present. You simply receive it because someone gives it to you out of love. That doesn’t make the reception of the gift anything meritorious on our part. We could indeed choose not to receive the gift, and the desire of the giver to bless us with it would be frustrated. I think the Scripture bears out that this is how God views those who reject His gift of salvation.
Okay, back to 2 Peter 2. I’ll concur with you that there is a great emphasis in the preceding chapter about growing in grace as a confirmation of one’s calling. No problem there. The unfounded leap that you make once again though is to say that Peter is talking to the church and not addressing individuals, thus the passage doesn’t apply somehow or say what it clearly in fact affirms. What it unequivocably states is that these false teachers (who obviously were involved in the life of the local church) are guilty of “denying the Master who bought them.” They aren’t Christians (and thus I would assume in your understanding not among the elect), and yet Peter states that the Master bought them. What alternative explanation do you offer for the meaning of that phrase other than to conclude that Jesus paid the price of their sinful rebellion as well, even though they were unwilling to follow and submit to Him?
I decided to look at some commentaries, and everything I see basically said these false prophets were not believers, so I do acknowledge your point, but it brings me back to the original point. Here is where I struggle.
If Christ paid for sin on the cross, then sin was forgiven when He said “it is finished”. If that is the case, then the sin of believers were forgiven 2000 years ago. If Substitutionary Atonement is true, and all sins were forgiven when He said “it is finished” and universalism is true, that means everyone sin’s are forgiven. If everyone’s sins were nailed to the cross and Jesus paid for them all, then what seperates the saved and unsaved? Faith, right? By grace you are saved though faith, but saved from what? If your sins are forgiven, what are we saved from? Do we still stand in judgement of sin that is forgiven? The answer would be, we are judged by rejecting Christ.
Now we are back to accepting or rejecting Christ, which means that Jesus died for all, and now salvation is totally dependent upon us. Either I accept or I don’t accept Jesus based on what? I assume it would be knowledge, so I either make a good decision or I don’t. Is that really all there is to Salvation? Me making a good choice? Can I really say I am saved by grace through faith and not by works if I was saved by the virtue of my own knowledge? Someone explain it too me that doesn’t leave me feeling like God is passive and I am active.
Dan,
That is cleared up by,
Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. -1 Timothy 4:10
Jesus paid for the sins of the world, but only those who believe are saved. A pardon is no good unless it is accepted.
David R. Brumbelow
Do we believe and are saved, or are we saved an believe? Acts 13:48 says that “and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” I don’t want to get into a predestination argument, but it seems that they were chosen and believed because they were chosen, not chosen because they believed. What is your take?
David B. –
“A pardon is no good unless it is accepted”
Not true. When one is pardoned, you are not giving the choice by the warden to stay in your cell. The Governor or the parole board decides, signs the document, records it, and then the prisoner is processed OUT of the prison.
The prisoner doesn’t get to accept or reject the pardon.
Greg,
Have you heard of the George Wilson Supreme Court Case?
Wilson refused a presidential pardon and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The decision said, “A pardon is a deed to the validity of which delivery is essential and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.” -United States v Wilson; 1833 (quoted in “Salvation and Sovereignty” by Kenneth Keathley, and by many evangelists down through the years).
Or, to put it another way, a gift is not yours unless and until you receive it, accept it.
David R. Brumbelow
Last time I checked, God Almighty is in no way governed by the US Supreme Court nor is He governed or limited by any logic or rule of man. Personally I don’t want to follow such a capricious deity. Sounds WAY too much like the Greek pantheon.
I also don’t think citing SC case law is good theology or exegesis. The SC does not write scripture.
Just for emphasis…
I don’t care if everyone from J Vernon McGee to Billy Graham to George W. Truitt to Rick Warren has cited this president… it still doesn’t make it a good commentary on scripture nor proof of your argument.
I think, Greg, you may have meant precedent, not president.
Dave – yep, i did… that’s what I get for trusting the spell checker 🙂
But citing either SCOTUS or POTUS or TOTUS (teleprompter of the US 🙂 does not a biblical argument make.
I had both SCOTUS and POTUS one summer when I spent a lot of time at the beach. Fortunately, the same ointment works for both. Never had TOTUS.
Greg,
You are the one who argued against my point by saying,
“When one is pardoned, you are not giving the choice by the warden to stay in your cell. The Governor or the parole board decides, signs the document, records it, and then the prisoner is processed OUT of the prison. The prisoner doesn’t get to accept or reject the pardon.”
I simply pointed out, by Supreme Court law, that your statement is incorrect.
And of course I stand by the numerous Scriptures I have quoted above.
David R. Brumbelow
Our salvation does not depend on us. It all depends on God. But, a person, who will not surrender thier heart to God in simple faith, will not be saved. That is the way God ordained it to be. So, yes, a person can, or cannot be saved…depending on the choice they make. BUT, if you and I are saved, it’s all by the grace of God.
God chose to save us. God planned to save us. God did what was needed for us to be saved in the atoning death of Jesus. God called out to us. God convicted us. God gave us the faith and repentance that we needed to be saved. God saved us. God changed us. God keeps us saved.
It’s all the working of God.
But, faith is not a work. It’s faith. And, man must choose to respond, or not to respond to the working of God. He is responsible for his choice.
David
It’s all the working of God, but man must choose. That seems to be a contradiction. I do understand what you are all saying, and it’s not even that I don’t agree with you, but I struggle.
First, I wonder if we believe this way because it’s easier for us. It gives us the control, we accept and reject, and therefore we have the ability to share with others and argue/plead with them, because all they must do is accept and reject. I am really working though how Salvation is all up to God, and I have nothing to boast in, yet I made the choice to be open and made the right choice, yet I cannot boast in my making the right choice even though it was all my choice.
Part of this is why I am doing lots of study and writing my ideas about interacting and interlacing realities between God and man inside and outside of time (Woven theology). I appreciate all your interactions with me, this is probably something that we will never completely hammer out.
I’m off to make pastoral visits in several area care centers the rest of the morning so I won’t be able to interact further with your responses, Dan. I do look forward to your replies.
Gary,
You are absolutely right. I agree with you.
also, I want to throw my 2 cents in about faith not being works. That is entirely a flawed arguement. Faith is faith. Works are works. Faith is not a work.
So, yes, God does want us to put our faith in what He did for us, in order for us to be saved. And, yes, God wont save someone, unless they put their faith in Jesus. And, putting our faith in Jesus is not a work…it is faith.
David
David, is putting our faith in Christ an action on our part in which we are totally dependent upon ourselves to make the right decision and choice, and is God completely removed from this exercise of human will?
Don’t read into this as a trick question, I honestly want to know what you think.
Dan,
putting our faith in Christ is an action on our part. It’s an action that God calls on us to do. But, faith is not a work. Faith is faith. I do not believe that this removes God from the equation, at all. It is simply man responding to God, and to what God is doing….and if we’re saved, then we’re saved only because God is working.
Dr. J. Vernon McGee says it well in an illustration that he gives on this..and please, no one have the heeby jeeby’s over me quoting Dr. McGee. He explains that God’s sovereignty and predestined plans and such are like a steam roller rolling out of eternity past….folling into the present and the future…and man can either jump on with the Lord. Or else, he can be rolled right over…but, we cant stop God….we cant make God do anything. And, it’s all according to the agenda of God.
So, either we can accept God’s salvation by faith…..or else, we can face the wrath of God for rejecting. And, yes, it’s a decision that man must make…a decision that we can make only because of what God is doing.
David
God moves, convicts, draws. God’s Word speaks and convicts. Man makes a decision to trust Christ, or refuse Him. I can’t minutely dissect every detail. But for a man to freely accept Christ is not a work (Romans 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-9); we are not saved by works. But why even worry about dissecting every detail?
I think some Calvinists go way too far in making man a being totally without any understanding or free will; if true, what is the difference between us and robots? Neither is one a heretical gnostic because he “knows” something; if so, every believer in the world is a gnostic.
Jesus sacrificially died for all. All are commanded to repent and believe in Jesus as Savior. Limited Atonement seems to be there just to back up other Calvinist contentions.
David R. Brumbelow
The rabid way that people jumped to attack Dan for simply putting forward a idea is proof that some people will never even consider an opposing view point. To some, it is not about trying to find the truth, but rather jumping on and attacking anything that upsets their preciously held belief systems. In stead of “I disagree Dan with how you view this…” it is “I am OFFENDED DAN that you DARE say this”. Phrases like “For someone who supposedly adheres to the inspiration of scripture…” Do not help. Volfans’s jumping around as a makeshift cheerleader not contributing anything real to the conversation, does not help.
I will not try to argue that “Calvinists” do not at times do the same thing. But even if this reaction accounts for a small percentage of SBC non-calvinist folk, it is no wonder why Calvinism is so hated. That reason is because said reaction is not based on argument, but rather raw gut feeling. It is based on true hate. Hate of anything Calvinism.
Smus,
No one is attacking Dan. Good grief. Is disagreeing with Dan, or agreeing with what some said…instead of stating the whole thing again in my own words….being “mean” to Dan. No. And, if we point out that something that was said was inflammatory, that it was a sharp, harsh thing to say….being mean??? C’mon, Dude.
Smus, just because we disagree with Dan, and you, apparently, does not mean that we are being mean.
David
Thanks Smuschany, I have sorta felt like the whipping boy a little. General question, does no one else wrestle with these overwhelming theological ideas? Does no one else struggle with the insurmountable paradox that “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4) and we have been saved by grace through faith “not of your own doing” (Eph 2:8) but even though it’s not of my doing, I accept it. I struggle with the idea that accepting is an action on my part, yet I am not doing anything. Am I alone on this?
You are not alone. We all struggle with it. But I think some of our (and I’m including me – not just you) presuppositions make that struggle harder than it needs to be.
I can see that I will have two threads in this discussion going on with you at the same time – if that gets too confusing, we can consolidate. And, for the record, I didn’t attack you in any way and I hope you see that. I’m sharing your struggle, but coming at it from a different point of view.
One of the presuppositions that cause us trouble is the view that God’s election is individual rather than corporate. If individual unconditional election is true, then coupling that with penal substitutionary atonement, we have a real dilemma. We are then forced to choose limiting the extent of atonement if hell is (and it is) a reality.
We can work on U here and works above if you like.
Jim G.
Jim, you have been very respectful, thank you. I think on this and other blogs, we immediately assume the worst in people and read into tone that isn’t there. It makes it more difficult to have a discussion.
Take a look at this passage in 1 Timothy 2…not all Kings and govt. leaders are saved, yet vv. 3-4 clearly state…about kings and all those in authority…that “God, our Savior, who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.”
This is just too clear and plain to me….
I do see your point David, but I believe that this verse calls us to pray for the Salvation of all, that prayer makes a difference, and I think that even election is effected by prayer “see my passage in Joel in the post”. I struggle with the idea that God wants all men to be saved, yet other passages tell me that He chose us. If God does the work of Salvation, if God draws, but wants all to be saved, then why not draw all men?
It seems to me that this statement “God wants all men” is a literary device, and also a very complicated statement. Let me explain with a passage from the Old Testament. In 1 Samuel vs 15 and vs 35 both said the God regretted making Saul king. In the middle of those passages, verse 29 it says that God does not lie or have regret.
So, how can God, who doesn’t lack anything want something, when we want things that we don’t have? I think it’s the same as this passage, God expresses Himself to us in human terms in which we relate, and He interacts with us in a human way and has relationships. In His eternal nature, God doesn’t regret, He doesn’t lack, He doesn’t want, he ordains and orders and predestines. I think this is probably the truth in Salvation, that the eternal nature of Salvation is totally dependent upon God, but He also interacts with us in a way that we must place our faith in Christ.
I mainly struggle with my inability to boast about a decision I made.
All I know is that God does desire all men to be saved. The context of the verse in Timothy and Peter…and the one in Ezekiel…is just too plain that God does desire something that does not happen….also the passage in John’s Gospel about the chicks and the hen gathering them under His wings….But they would not….all tell me very plainly that God desires that all men be saved…every person…that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked…but rather that they be saved….
But also, I have no problem believing what the Bible says about God choosing me…planning to save me….
I just believe what the Bible tells me…that the death of Jesus is sufficient for the sins of every man, woman, boy, and girl that has ever lived…and that God desires the salvation of every person on this planet….that He does not like sending people to Hell….
But, at the same time, I know that if I’m saved that it was all the working of God….all by His grace…..
And, like David Brumbelow said above…I might not be able to understand every nuance…every minute detail of what goes with these clearly taught things in the Bible….I just believe what the Bible does teach….
Man must choose. Man can choose. Man is reponsible for his choices. But, God chose, planned, calls, convicts, draws, and saves….. So, God is calling out to everyone…drawing everyone according to the light they have….and man must choose….how these all come together is a mystery that I do not understand, and you do not understand, and all the professors of all the seminaries do not understand….
David
Since this passage is talking about “kings and government leaders” as opposed to Paul’s targeted audience in that of Timothy and the people he is serving, who they themselves are likely poor, bottom-of-the-barrel people in the Roman empire; that Paul in saying “all men to be saved” is indicating “all types” of men rather than literally all men. This type of reading would seem to line up with what Paul says in Galatians 3, ie “Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male or female…”
Oh, I hadn’t considered that. Hmm….
SMus,
the context is clearly praying for kings and those in authority…that is the context…no matter what else you may think about who is included in that context….kings and govt. leaders are in this context…and they are all not saved.
CLEARLY you are wrong….There see how it feels? Why is YOUR interpretation of this text out weigh mine? What makes your interpretation correct and mine wrong? Because yours is “CLEARLY” the correct one? See what I mean about dogmatic hate for anything that you disagree with.
As to the verse itself, yes Paul is asking Timothy and those with him to pray for their leaders. Now could it not be, that Timothy and/or those with him, were of the opinion that the government leaders, IE the Romans, were so evil that they could not be saved? That they were so greedy and corrupt that God would not want them to be saved? That no government leader anywhere could ever possibly be saved? And that Paul, in reaction to this feeling is saying “No, you need to PRAY for your leaders, because God can and wants all types of people to be saved. Not just you, the poor and powerless, but also the rich and powerful as well!” In verse 5, Paul states “For there is ONE God, and ONE mediator also between God and men, and that man is Jesus Christ.” This would seem to indicate that Paul is trying to tell Timothy, and those with him, that there is only ONE God. There is not their God, and a seperate God for the rulers and governing authorities. There is only ONE God, who is the God of ALL mankind, of each race, of each person regardless of their position in society. From Rich Ruler, to Poorest of the poor. And that God who is God of ALL, is able and willing to save from all peoples, from poor of the poor to rich rulers.
That is eisegesis, not exegesis, Smusch. You are letting your theological conclusions drive your interpretation. You still have a weightier problem of 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 18:32, and Ezekiel 33:11. The Ezekiel texts seem to be an affirmation of at least God’s desire that all people – not just all kinds of people – be saved.
Jim G.
With all do respect Jim, how do you know how much I have studied and interpreted scripture? Maybe my conclusions for studing those scriptures are different than yours, but it was all reached through exegesis. I would ask why is it my interpretations are relegated to eisegesis, yet yours are exegesis? Could I not say the very same to you, that because of your interpretation of those passages, based on your theological positions, came to those interpretations due to eisegesis and not exegesis?
BTW, this is exactly what I said in my first post in this thread. Ramped hate for anything “calvinism”. I MUST be wrong, so you will throw labels like “eisegesis” as an attempt to silence my position and my views. And that is why no real discussion and debate can ever take place in the SBC. And yes, it does happen from both sides.
Let’s all try to discuss the ideas based on scripture and try to limit/remove personal attacks and shots. Let’s just try to discuss the theology at hand.
Hi Smusch,
Well, just looking at the text, it says “all men,” not “all kinds of men.” I am reading it straightforwardly. I would think that there needs to be some sort of textual justification for translating “all kinds” here, don’t you? I mean, if Paul really meant “all kinds,” he surely could have said it. My pointing to other texts reinforces the claim that “all kinds” may not be in view. I don’t hate you or your position. I just think translating this text as “all kinds” is forcing an interpretation onto the text. I’m certainly not being hateful. I don’t even know you, so why would I hate you?
Jim G.
Jim you are reading and interpreting from the English text, thus you may not be able to understand the nuances of the original Greek. For example, did you know one of the accepted uses of “pas” in Greek does indeed include “every kind of”. Thus the “pantas anthropous” from 1st Timothy 2:4, can be translated based on the Greek, “every kind of man” or “all types of men”. Which again points me back to Galatians, where Paul is clear to show that Jesus is savior of both Jew and Greek, both slave or free, both male and female…that is, all types of men(mankind).
Smusch,
Are you aware of any Bible translation that translates “pantas” as “all kinds of” in 1 Timothy 2:4? Is there anything in the immediate context of this verse (or Pauline usage overall) that lends itself to such a translation? As I’m sure you already know, just because a word can be translated as A or B does not mean that A and B are interchangeable in every context.
Even if there is such evidence, there is still the matter of the other texts I referenced above, which are differently worded yet convey the same meaning as the straightforward translation of 1 Tim 2:4. I know of the argument to translate “pantas” as “all kinds of.” It has never been very historically convincing.
Jim G.
Smuschany,
Can you give me the Bible version you are using which translates 1 Tim. 2 as all “kinds or types” of men?
Acts 22:15 “pantas anthropous” Is Paul really going to be witness to every single man in the world? Or is he simply going to be witness to all men, as in every nation, both poor and rich, both those with power and authority as well as those with out?
1st Cor 7:7 “pantas anthropous” Does Paul want all men to be like him, as in each and ever single human? Or is he speaking of just believers in this instance? Further more, just because Paul thinks it is best that “all men” are like him, he also knows that this will not be the case, and that some are called to a different purpose. Does this make Paul a deceiver for saying he wishes all to be like him when he knows not all can/will?
2 Cor 3:2 “pantwn anthropwn” Are each and every single human reading this? Or is Paul speaking generally?
1 Thess 2:15 “pasin anthropois” Do these jews hate each and every single human being in the world? Including themselves and eachother? Or do they hate all other “types” of men, ie all other nations and those not like them?
Now you are right…these are not the uses of every single case of “pas anthropos” in scripture. Some uses do indicate a “each and every single human being”. But I do hope that these do show that such terminology IS used to refer to the idea “all types of men” including used that way by Paul himself.
Don can you give me an example of a perfect English translation that is 100% faithful to the original manuscripts? If you can, that means that every other English translation (not to mention the many non-english translations used in the world today) would be wrong if they translates differently then the version you use.
Secondly, I have no problem seeing “all types of men” when reading “all men”. Maybe that is just the way my brain works.
Third, the ESV translates 1 Tim 2:4 as “all people”. In this phraseology, it is undeniably showing all “types” of people. We dont say “all people” if we are talking about individuals, but we do when we are talking about groups of individuals.
Third part B, I fully expect someone to reject my use of the ESV as to many it is the “Calvinist” translation thus what it says cannot possibly be right or even considered.
Smuschany,
You did not answer my question. I asked for a Bible version which supports your take on 1 Tim. 2. Instead of giving a translation you give other texts. I’m interested in knowing which translation agrees with you on 1 Tim. 2.
Don, you posted while I was writing a response to Jim. I DID answer you as soon as I saw your question. If you try being patient rather than jump to conclusions you might get somewhere. However seeing as you are just looking for reasons to attack me and my position, with out waiting just a few minutes to see if I do respond to you, I have nothing further to say to you and will not respond to any more of your comments until I receive an apology for your jumping to conclusions.
Hey Smusch,
I respect your view, but will kindly (not hatefully) disagree. I know “pas” can mean “all kinds of.” I granted that earlier.
I still think you are seeing what you want to see (and you probably think the same of me). Even as the ESV renders, “all people” need not be all kinds of people. If I said “all people have the right to a fair trial,” I would mean every individual, not just every type of ethnicity or gender. I don’t see anything in the text of 1 Tim 2:4 or the immediate surrounding context that makes “all kinds of” seem right, but hey, I’m not a Greek scholar and never claimed to be!
I’ll happily agree to disagree. But I won’t be hateful about it. Thanks.
Jim G.
Jim, I would only say that your example of “all people” is difficult to understand. With out an article, at least to me, it is hard to understand even though I recognize what you are trying to say. That is the problem with the english language. It is so messed up, it is a wonder we can even communicate at all. Suffice to say that this side of heaven (baring any type of time travel sci-fi thing) we in the 21st century can not possibly know how Greek speakers in the first century would understand 1st Timothy 2:4. All we can do is make educated guesses. While one (or both) of us will be wrong, this is not, as they say, a “major” issue risking our salvation.
The 2 Peter reference is talking about the elect that they would “all reach repentance”, which is why God is waiting to end time. There are some elect who have not come to repentance, and therefore God is patient. It’s not saying that God wants all men to be saved, it’s say that God wants all who will reach repentance to get to the point.
As far as the Timothy passage being an eisegesis, that works both ways. There is no way to prove either way who is correct, so both are making an interpretation based on their theology.
I’m not sure on what basis that you conclude that 2 Pet. 3:9 is a reference only to the elect. The text states, “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” “Any” and “all” sound pretty inclusive to me.
It is inclusive, to those who will reach repentance. It’s straight from the text. If God waits for everyone to reach repentance, the end will never come. It’s clear from the text and context it’s the elect.
If substitution atonement is true, then Jesus at one moment in time, died for ALL the sins of a particular group of people. Not all the sins up until they believe, not all the sins up to a particular point, but all the sins in their lives through out their entire lives. Now consider the position of universal atonement. That is, that Christ Jesus died and sacrificed Himself for ALL of humanity. Whoever accepts Christ Jesus as their savior is thus saved, and whoever does not is allowed to go to hell where we rightly deserve to be in the first place. So then, for those who reject and are going to hell, their sins are still forgiven are they not? Thus, those who never heard of Christ Jesus because we Christian missionaries did not do our jobs in sharing the gospel, die, not because they are sinners (Jesus died for their sins under the UA model remember) but rather because they did not know who to thank for their sinless state since no Christian reached them to share the gospel. That is unless we take Romans 1 in to account, that all those who reject Christ Jesus knew of God as God is able to be known through Creation, yet still reject him. I would now put forth that to reject God and Christ Jesus itself is sin. So did Christ Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross cover that sin as well? If it is sin that keeps us from union with God, sin that can only be overcome by Christ Jesus, if we all live in a state of sinlessness, which if Christ Jesus died for everyone that is what we truly are; if we are in this state, why are we not with God? UA argues that we must accept this gift. I argue, and I believe this is where Dan was originally going with his OP; is that if we are sinless, and that itself does not save us, then we are saved by something MORE than the sacrifice of Christ Jesus, whether it is a work or simple faith. Again I ask for people’s consideration, if Christ Jesus’ sacrifice made all of humanity sinless, how can anyone still reject God if we are then sinless? Especially if such a rejection itself is sinful, and then (in a circular fashion) that sin is already forgiven by the… Read more »
“That means that we earn salvation though accepting it. That is a gnostic teaching. Either the work is acceptance, understanding, belief or surrender, all those things are dependent upon me.” Dan, when you said that, do you not see that you were inferring that anyone who believes that man must accept salvation is believing gnostic teaching….thus, we’re gnostics?
Now, maybe you didnt just out and out say, “you gnostics!” But, you most certainly inferred it.
Anyway, let’s move on….okay?
Gnostics teach that you get salvation though an imparted knowledge, and if we get a knowledge and are saved by that knowledge, that teaching is gnostic. I didn’t call anyone a gnostic, I just pointed out that the idea of us having knowledge that is salvation is gnostic. How else do you want me to say it?
Respectfully Dan, let’s look at it in the framework of the argument you presented:
“If Christ bore the sins of everyone, and died as a substitute for everyone, then everyone is atoned for, yet not everyone is saved. What is left in the salvation process? Acceptance. That means that we earn salvation though accepting it. That is a gnostic teaching. Either the work is acceptance, understanding, belief or surrender, all those things are dependent upon me. I am therefore responsible for my own salvation, and I am not saved by grace through faith, but rather I am saved by knowledge though faith. I am saved by receiving the atonement. Is that scriptural, or is that humanism?
The alternative is Limited Atonement. ”
The fallacy in your idea is that of “I am therefore responsible for my own salvation.” No sir, I think we would both wholeheartedly agree on that one. Perhaps you do not intend it, but your whole proposal comes off disingenously as you offer only two possible outcomes. Either it’s limited atonement or works salvation. If I am reading that wrong, please clarify it for me.
You clearly state, “that is a gnostic teaching.” Therfore, is it not logical to assume if I follow a “gnostic teaching” that I am gnostic in my theology? If I am reading that wrong, please clarify it for me.
You ask, “Is that scriptural or is that humanism” with the inference that if one does not adhere to one particular interpretation of scripture then he is following a form of “humanism.” If I am reading that wrong, please clarify it for me.
Again, I am greatly frustrated by your phrasing of the discussion. I’m not mad at you, or hating on you or ready to duke it out with you. I do believe your presentation is couched in a fallacious argument and is ultimately disingenuous.
The best way to have a civil and fair discourse amongst brothers and sisters in Christ is to avoid tossing out labels that are negative for one side of the argument. You began by labeling teaching opposed to limited atonement “gnostic teaching” and “humanism” placing some of us on the defensive immediately. Again, if I’m reading it wrong please clarify it for me. I don’t believe we can proceed in hammering out the issue at hand without ridding ourselves of such things.
Can an idea be based on a false premise and yet have no reflection on the person. I could be put on the defensive because you are saying that I am a liar. You said my argument is a “fallacy” and therefore if I believe a lie, I am a liar. You said I am disingenuous, and I could take all of these things personally and become very upset and defensive.
The bottom line is that I want to discuss the theology. If you are offended by my post, I am sorry, but I don’t want to debate the strengths and weaknesses of my writing style and the proper diction. If I offend you, I’m sorry, perhaps you should refrain from reading my work.
If we must rid ourselves of such things, why is it ok for you to attack me character based on my post (you are talking to me specifically and called me disingenuous) and it’s not ok for me to say a doctrine is based on gnosticism and therefore possibly imply the holder of that doctrine is gnostic? I am trying not to become upset, but the double standard rubs me the wrong way.
I love a good debate and discussion. I’ll be more specific. I’m saying it’s a reductionist fallacy. You have reduced it to two simple choices. I have no problem clarifying my stance on that. It does not mean you are a liar. My question is this: is it possible that perhaps there is some third or fourth or even fifth option out there. Is it possible that maybe you are wrong, or I am wrong, or we both are wrong? So I’m not saying Dan Barnes is a liar or not a nice guy. I am saying the framework of your thesis could be read as such. If I refrained from reading the work of everybody that offended me I would be denying myself the possibility of expanding my uderstanding of things. Sometimes we are most mentally challenged and come to new ideas by reading things we at first don’t agree with.
Having cleared the air on all that hopefully, I’ll try to put together some time of take on the theology of your presentation specifically.
I didn’t present all the argument, I didn’t think of everything. My goal is just to throw some things out there that I was thinking, and I tackled issues and you took the quote and then immediately applied it. I could understand if I said “people who think this way” but I didn’t. I was careful never to address individuals, just the doctrines. I feel like this became a witch hunt all of the sudden, and I’ll admit I am frustrated but I’ll get over it. We can talk about my theology in depth another time (not sure Voices is the best forum).
Jesus sacrificially died for all. That does not mean all are now sinless. Our sins are not forgiven until we come to Christ in repentance and faith.
J. Vernon McGee explained it like a company paying for an amusement park for all their employees to attend. The price of admission has been paid. But out of 1000 employees, only 400 show up. The price was paid for all, but it is up to each employee whether or not they will accept the invitation. But accepting the invitation doesn’t mean they paid the price of admission.
John 1:29; 3:16-17; 12:47; Romans 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:14-19; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2 all seem to be easy to understand, except for 5-point Calvinists :-).
David R. Brumbelow
The issue with Christ dying for all and all being forgiven only works if you hold to the most literal teaching of Substitutionary Atonement. McGee’s metaphor is lacking because of the issue of punishment. What is the reason for hell? To punish sin. If Christ’s death paid for everyone’s sin and everyone is forgiven, then why are they judged. That is the issue that I was looking at. That is still a hard question to cover, if Jesus paid for sin of ALL, then aren’t all forgiven?
If our sins are not forgiven until we come to Christ in repentance and faith, despite Christ Jesus having already sacrificed himself for us; then would that not require us to say we are saved by something more than His sacrifice? That is we are not saved by His actions alone? Would this also not seem to indicate that Christ’s sacrifice is ineffectual by itself, if it requires our repentance and faith to functionally remove our sin?
Smuschany,
What Scriptures do you use to support your statement that Christ forgave our sins on the cross?
Forgive me, I did not know that such a position was in question. I was under the assumption that this is a foregone conclusion long established in Christian theology. As such, I am not prepared to answer such a question that, at least in my eyes, is on par with the virgin birth.
However I will leave you with one scripture passage. Romans 6:1-14 (cf 6) “…knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin…”
I would suggest the following:
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10)
To answer the question particularly, it does not say he forgave our sins, but that he was the propitiation, or atoning sacrifice – the payment for our sins.
formerathiest,
If that is what Don was indicating, then I agree with you (and him). Whether the terminology used is forgiven or payment, it occurred at the cross.
I’ll just toss an idea out there. Take a look at one verse:
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. (MarK 3:29)
Can we make an assumption for a moment that Christ then indeed died for the sins of the world. The sin debt has been repaid, with the exception of one thing – the sin of rejecting him. One might phrase the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit in this way. The Holy Spirit makes an appeal to a person and rejecting, denying, turning away from that appeal, responding negatively, stating that one does not beileve in or accept the Lord Jesus Christ becomes the sin that condemns one to “eternal damnation.”
Not a perfect argument by any means. One could say the verse is taken out of context. One might say the argument does not line up with other areas of scripture. One might even argue that it still bases salvation on the work of man by saying it is ultimately determined by his decision and not the atoning death of Jesus Christ.
For me, I have to believe in a gospel that allows me to say, “Christ died for your sins.” If I have to say, “Christ might have died for you” then I have a problem. I believe his death was sufficient to pay the price for the sins of all men throughout all time. That’s how powerful our Savior is. If for no other reason, he did that to bring glory to his name, to manifest his great love, taking that punishment while knowing some would choose to reject it. Which is a greater picture of grace, mercy and love?
(1) Christ died for the sins of the elect
(2) Christ died for the sins of all
Which one exalts his name higher? That’s where I’m coming from and that’s what I adhere to. It doesn’t keep me from dialoguing with those that differ, or keep me from being open minded. I’ve just not heard a compelling enough argument to make me embrace limited atonement.
Need an edit button…I meant “paid” not “repaid” on the sin debt.
Christianne,
You ask a good question. There are more learned people here than I am and they can likely give you a suitable response appropriate in size for a blog.
I’m a baby-Calvinist, meaning that I’ve been an Arminian for most of my life. I can recommend some good books that might be helpful to you. The first is ‘Knowing God’ by J.I. Packer and the second is ‘The Potter’s Freedom’ by James R. White. Yes, I’m aware that most Catholics have little respect for Dr. White, but that issue aside, I found the book enormously helpful. John Piper also has a truly wonderful website that provides answers to most questions on Calvinism. You can find it at desiringgod.org.
I got lost in where to post this in the various threads, but I want to just outright apologize to you Dan if I offended you man. I think you presented us a challenging discussion and I’m sorry that I have said some things that riled you and offended you. I’ll check my words closer before I hit “submit” next time. Dangers of the web. I bet if you and I were sitting down for coffee at Starbucks we’d have never gotten the wrong idea about where the other guy was coming from. Unconditionally I apologize and ask your forgiveness and thank you for being cool under fire.
It’s all good. I’m not upset. I just had lunch with Dave Miller, compared to that, everyone is pretty saintly.
I appreciate you Dave!
I’m full of wings, so you can’t rile me right now.
You and me both brother.
Don’t worry about offending Dan. It’s one of life’s great pleasures.
Smush and Dan: I agree with most of what you have written here. I might add that although the argument is being made(which I believe is a wrong argument) that your theology is guiding your interpretation, I was attempting to disprove Calvinism and instead ended up embracing it for over 15 years. I am a five point Calvinist who believes the documents from the Synod of Dort.
Thanks Debbie. It’s really the opposite for me, I was the traditional Southern Baptist most of my life. I believed in depravity, believed in eternal security, I knew predestination was in there, but I didn’t want to deal with it. (2 1/2 pointer). When I really began to spend more time in scripture is when I started to wrestle with these things and my theology began to change. I don’t have it all figured out, I still struggle (as I believe I should) but I am really trying to get to a point where my theology is scriptural and my scripture is interpreted by scripture and not my preferred theology.
I was a Biblicist after I got saved. I then tried to become a 5 pt. Calvinist, due to the influence of some friends and acquaintances of mine. But for the life of me, I couldnt. I just couldnt become a 5 pt. Calvinist. Many passages in the Bible kept me from it. So, I just stayed a Bibiicist.
David
David: Oh brother.
Jim G,
Well, just looking at the text, it says “all men,” not “all kinds of men.” I am reading it straightforwardly.
Hey brother, I think your statement is too simplistic here. One could turn around, from the other side, and say something like this from another Scripture:
“Well, just looking at the text, it says that Christ gave His life a ransom for ‘many’, not ‘________’. I am reading it straightforwardly.”
Also, the word “all” does not always refer to “all without exception” in the Bible. The end of Romans 11, where Paul talks about God having mercy on all, is not intended to be taken in the sense that God has actual saving mercy on every single Jew and Gentile, but on both Jews and Gentiles IMO.
Both sides have “problem passages” for their positions so I think your reference to presuppositions cuts both ways.
Personally, the reference to Jesus’ death purchasing folks from the nations (thus making a distinction between folks within the nations) in the book of Revelation is persuasive to me of particular redemption (which I think is nuanced in different ways).
Benji,
Rom. 5:15 …For if through the offence of one many be dead…
Are all dead or just the “elect”?
Hi Don,
What I was saying was that the way one was arguing (i.e. the text says…I am reading it straightforwardly) was not a very good way to argue IMO. So, I was not advocating for it.
However, to comment on your Scripture reference, that chapter goes on to say “…and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many…For if by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
One has to interpret words [all, many, etc.] in context (I’m sure you would agree).
In relation to the New Testament saying that Jesus gave His life a ransom for many, I think the language of “many” echoes Isaiah 53:11.
“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my servant justify many: for he shall bear their iniquities.”
In this passage I think the writer is saying that the many (described as “all” in verse 6) would necessarily be saved.
Benji,
Do only the “elect” go astray?
Hi Don,
If a pastor stood up in front of the congregation and said “we have all gone astray from what God wants us to do”, he would be limiting his language of “all” to that particular congregation.
The “all we” of verse 6 is further defined as the many who would actually [and not merely potentially] be justified by the Suffering Servant’s death.
Hi Benji,
If you take a peek above, I fully admit presuppositions cut both ways. I know I have blind spots. I’m better aware of them than anyone else. I’ve spent enough time with the topic. I know my weaknesses. :0)
But, as I have been conversing with Smuschany above, is there any compelling reason in 1 Timothy 2:4 to translate (interpret) that text in any manner other than what it seems to mean at face value? I’m open to other ideas, but I just don’t see any textual evidence to translate it differently. I asked Smusch if he is aware of any Bible translations that translate it differently. It wasn’t a smart-aleck question. Even if 1 Timothy 2:4 does mean “all kinds of” or something similar, there are other texts that seem to clearly reveal God’s desire that none perish eternally. It’s a tension a Calvinist must live with, just as I have tensions I must live with.
Good to talk to you again, by the way.
Jim G.
Even if 1 Timothy 2:4 does mean “all kinds of” or something similar, there are other texts that seem to clearly reveal God’s desire that none perish eternally.
I don’t think I disagree with you. If you are interested, I have commented on this further down in this comment stream.
“There is not a drop of love in God’s heart that is not yours; you may dive into the immense ocean of His love, and you may say of it all, ‘It is mine.'” -Charles Spurgeon
Just thought everyone might need to hear this. 🙂
Gary Snowden said on August 9, 2011 at 10:06 am:
“If God desires all men to be saved as both of these verses teach, how can He not have made that salvation available to them through Christ’s death?”
Lamentations 3.33: For He does not afflict [i]willingly[/i]
Or grieve the sons of men.
It would appear that either God is subject to something outside of Himself or that He has two wills. The latter being the only reasonable conclusion I can arrive at as God would cease to be God if He was indeed subject to anything outside of Himself. I think the question that begs to be asked (and I believe scripture answers) is, what are these two wills and why is one subservient to the other?
I think if we can wrap our heads around this, it will help bring some clarity to the seemingly opposing passages.
j razz
Phil Johnson asks a very good question in his article “Nature Of The Atonement”, which is the real issue of debate I think. He asks and answers the question “For whom did God ordain the atonement?” Phil says that it comes to the same issue as election. Did God purpose to save a particular people or was he trying to save as many people as possible? What was his intention? What was God’s design?
Another question Phil Johnson asks is “Will all of God’s purposes for sending Christ to die ultimately be accomplished?”
Another question I have is do you think God is wringing his hands over those who do not now believe? Christ’s death has a universal benefit in that it postpones the judgment of the world until all God will have come to him do come to him. None of this is by accident but by God’s perfect design.
Debbie,
No, God is not wringing His hands over those who do not believe, but He does weep over them Luke 19:41.
Yes he does Don.
weep for them I mean. So do we, it’s the sign that we have Grace in us.
Though I believe in particular redemption, I think my interpretation of the famous John 3:16 might be different than many others who share the same view as I do.
The end of John 3:17 (which, of course, flows from 3:16) ends with God’s intention of sending Christ, saying “that the world through Him might be saved.”
Now, we have that same kind of language from Jesus in John 5:34 (which I think sheds light on the meaning of John 3:16-17):
John 3:17 …that the world…might be saved.
John 5:34 …these things I say, that ye might be saved.
In context, Jesus is talking to hard-hearted Jews. And I don’t think we could say that all of them were elect since the “intro” to John sets forth the theme of the Jewish people receiving not their own Messiah…and, accordingly, that theme is being elaborated on in John 5.
Therefore, I do think there is a sense in which the Father & the Son have a “yearning love” for all without exception to be saved.
And I think to deny this by using this kind of logic…
1. God has a yearning love for all without exception.
2. But God does not save all without exception.
3. Therefore, God failed.
…is to press a biblical truth to a place in which it was not intended to go (like one is represented as doing in Romans 3:8).
I also think God’s yearning love for folks (in this case–Israelite folks) can be seen in Romans 10:21.
However, I also think there is exegetical evidence that the cross would necessarily save a particular people.
Therefore, I think the old “Sufficient for all, efficient for only the elect” view looks pretty biblical to me at this point.
Hi Benji
Thanks for directing me down here. I wholeheartedly agree that the triune God possesses this “yearning love” for all people. I am right with you there.
I just think that particular redemption takes back with the right hand what is given (yearning love) with the left, thereby making that love seem far less than genuine. That is the intuitive reason non-Calvinists disagree with Calvinists. And that is where we will disagree. I think Barth and Torrance help us greatly here. I’ll keep up the conversation if you want, but it will have to wait. Gotta mow the grass first. I’ll be back tonight.
Jim G.
Jim G,
Here’s a thought. I think the same people (Israelites) that God has a yearning love for in Romans 10:21 are the same people that God divinely hardens in 11:7-8.
I also think the same Israel that Jesus yearned to be saved in John 5:34 is the same Israel that God hardens in John 12:40.
Assuming that this is true, I can’t explain how God can have a yearning love for those He hardens, but I still accept it as true.
I think there are “supra”rational things in Scripture and that this might be one of them.
Hi Benji,
I can see the yearning and hardening as being compatible. Especially in the context of Romans 11, where Paul says in verses 11 and following, where he proclaims a twofold event in the hardening of the Jews – provoking them to jealousy and the entrance of Gentiles into the people of God. This hardening has a purpose in God’s greater work. It is not a “final hardening,” if you will, where they are forever cut off. Their hardening serves a two-fold purpose. It is judgment against their initial unbelief and it provokes jealousy over the entrance of the Gentiles into their promises.
I think N.T. Wright is so valuable here. He continually calls us back to the reality that Paul’s theology is always set in the larger drama of God’s promises to Abraham being fulfilled. I think that is something to easily lose sight of in the Gentile, Protestant-Reformed west.
Jim G.
Julian of Norwich felt that all of God’s actions, even the ones that human perceive as ‘negative’, ultimately will be shown to reflect His infinite love and compassion for humankind.
The story of Joseph and his brothers reminds us of this. It was written, this:
“You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” (Gen. 50:20)
and, this:
Genesis 45:5
“And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you.”
and Genesis 45:7
“But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”
We cannot know the depths and heights and width and breadth of God’s Love,
but we have the Cross to measure His Love by;
and from that we know that God’s Love extends on forever into infinity and will have no ending.
Jim G,
While I understand there are various viewpoints on Romans 11 concerning Israel, I do think there is a sense in which the hardening of Israel does ultimately lead to the salvation of some Israelites.
And that this is a process which will continually take place on up until both the full number of elect Gentiles (11:25) and the full number of elect Jews (11:12) comes in.
However, I do not think the hardening is God’s judgment against their initial unbelief (as you have said).
The contrast in 11:7, IMO, is between elect Israelites finding salvation and the rest being hardened, not between elect Israelites finding salvation and the rest not believing and as a result being hardened in judgment.
I think 11:7 is showing the Divine angle in salvation [the human angle is shown in 10:9-13, 21] and that it communicates that God’s sovereign will is ultimate in salvation.
Anyway, I have a hunch you disagree with me on that, but I appreciate the tone of your comments in my interaction with you.
God Bless,
Benji
Smuschaney,
Don Johnson was not jumping on you. I dont see that at all, Brother. He was simply engaging what you said. He was no more jumping on you, than you were jumping on him…when you said what you did to him. Why would you think that Don was jumping on you? that he was being mean to you?
Dude, if people dont agree with you, are they jumping on you?
David
No, what I dont like is that he “INSISTS” I answer his question as if he was the only one I was talking to. I posted a response to Jim, one which took me a while to compose. As soon as I finished I saw that Don asked me a question, and I began writing another post inresponce to him. However, clearly that was not fast enough for him. Seeing as I did not even SEE his post before I was responding to Jim, thus did not address it to Jim as he was the only one I was talking to, I dont know what I did to deserve his “I INSIST YOU ANSWER ME” post.
As for disagreeing, I seem to think that Jim and I are having a nice conversation. We are disagreeing, and that is fine. What I wont tolerate is having someone demand that I answer their posts as if their posts are all that matters.
I didnt see this, at all. I just saw Don Johnson trying to engage you in a discussion.
David
You don’t see a lot of things David.
Smuschany,
Where did I write “I INSIST YOU ANSWER ME”? If I did I apologize.
I thought you were giving me an answer, so I asked the follow up question. I’m sorry for offending you.
Now it is my turn for an apology. I misread your post and inserted “I insist” where you had written “I’m interested”. For this mistake, and my reaction, I do apologize.
And seeing as I may not be able to continue in this thread with out blowing up like that, i am going to take some time away from it.
Smuschany,
Thanks
I didn’t read the whole stream here, so I don’t know if this has already been addressed. However, 1 John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)” seems pretty clear to me. It is hard to se how you can take that any other way that unlimited atonement. John appears to be saying that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for “our” sins – those who have been redeemed but then clearly stating that the atonement was also for the sins of the “whole world.” It would be pretty creative to read that as the “sins of the whole world of the redeemed” vice the since of the redeemed in Ephesus.
John,
I think one also has to take into consideration that in that very same book the language of “whole world” appears again:
1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Accordingly, I don’t think folks would want to say that every, single person on this earth is lost.
Some of you are going to love this. Right now, my own comments are going into moderation.
As a former atheist, I find your discussion of limited atonement interesting and helpful. It took me some years to come to a belief in redemptive substitution and satisfaction according to purpose. It took even more years to come to the conclusion that particular redemption is an evangelistic doctrine, one intensely invitational. You will note that Jesus used this very teaching in Matt.15:21-28, when He said to the woman of Canaan, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Her response was worship. Since she wasn’t Jew, we ought to ask, “How could she do that?” The answer is that she recognized it as an invitation to trust Him, regardless of how He seemed to not have her in His purpose. What He did, the nearest analogy that I have found in human experience and knowledge, is make an offer in the form of a therapeutic paradox. In 1972-73 I came across the work, The Marrow of Divinity by William Ames. A Dr. Eusden had made a new translation of the first Latin Textbook in Theology that had been used at Harvard University in the 1600s. In his Introduction, Dr. Eusden stated: “Predestination is an invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage….” As I reflected on that view,, I began to see, if I could find instances where the doctrines of grace were used as invitations. Eventually, I would stumble across Matt. 15:21-28 where particular redemption is set forth along with the idea of election, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel,” is paricular, purposeful redemption, and it is being doen with reference to election. I dare say the woman of Canaan knew how the Jews regarded themselves as the chosen people of God, the Elect. When the Lord Himself presents that truth to her, she responds with worship. Then He proceeds to introduce total depravity and even reprobation””It is not meet tot take the chidlren’s bread and to cast it to dogs.” I dare say the woman knew that the Jews looked upon Gentiles as dogs (and they still do and they will sometimes let you know that the Christian faith is an inferior religion as one let me know). The dog serves to introduce the idea of depravity, inability, and reprobation. That we have here another therapeutic paradox, I do believe. The woman’s response: “Truth, Lord.”… Read more »
Hi again Dan,
I want to discuss the question that is the title of your post: “Does substitutionary atonement need limited atonement? That is a question with a lot of nuance necessary so I will try to tackle it in a “limited” context.
Let’s assume for the moment that by “substitutionary atonement” we mean the traditional view of penal substitution as described by John Calvin and carried down through the broad Reformed tradition. If penal substitution is combined with a doctrine of unconditional individual election, then I cannot see any way around limiting the intent of the atonement to the elect (regardless of whether or not we say the atonement has sufficient merit to cover the sins of the reprobate as well).
There are some pretty deep theological problems with limiting the intent of the atonement, though. I think limited atonement may imply a variety of Nestorianism. I could sketch that out if anyone wants to see it. But I think it is best to go one step prior and challenge the view of unconditional individual election. This too has some serious theological baggage attached to it. I’d be happy to discuss those, but I don’t want to get into a blogosphere shouting match. If anyone wants to yell or call names, I’m not interested.
I hope I am wrong on the Nestorian problem in L or the triune problem attached to the traditional view of U. That is why I would like to have an intelligent, reasonable, irenic discussion on it.
Jim G.