Featured vessels of wrath

I agree . Not really. These differences are worth discussing, not merely dismissing on a few quick comments. We are speaking of a topic worth discussion.

I will sum up my point because I think you have misrepresented it:

You say that it is obvious that since God desires all men to be saved, Christ died as a ransom for all men. You misrepresented my words to be that we disagree in terms of this being logical. On the contrary, Van, I believe it very logical. God purchased what He desired - that makes sense. And I even agree with what you affirm (I disagree with what you deny).

But it is just as logical to say that since God desires all men to be saved, God saves all men. In fact, it is probably even more logical than your reasoning.

Another logical reasoning is that God desires all men to be saved but this desire is secondary to God's desire for His own righteousness. Therefore God purchases humanity, but atonement is applied only to those He elected and re-created.

And my question to you, Van:

You say that it is both obvious and logical that since God desires all men to be saved that Christ died as a ransom for all men. How is it less logical that since God desires all men to be saved He saves all men?

 

There are issues with "double predestination" that I cannot reconcile under the auspice of supralapsarianism, but that fade when examined in light of God electing out of a fallen race.

Martin Luther’s comment of Plato, that “he remains within the limits of metaphysical thought, like a cow staring at a new gate” comes to mind. The reason being is that we remain within the limits of human thought and dependent on God's own revelation.

I do find merit in examining Cockrell’s article. When we examine men being formed as vessels of wrath and others as vessels of mercy, and this in exclusion of the man but entirely based upon the will of God, then it strikes firmly in the realm of decrees of election and reprobation (and I believe “double predestination”). So there is a sense by which I believe God elected man before the Fall.

But I also say “double predestination” because not only was Christ the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8), foreknown before the creation of the world (1 Peter 1:20), but also the Fall and the Cross were decreed before the foundation of the world. Here “double predestination” does not make God author evil as I believe that election is best viewed (in this context) as God electing out of fallen man (leaving some in their rejection, saving others).

The “logical order” is logical for our understanding (it reflects man, not God) – I don’t believe that God thinks through things as men do, through process, as this would call into debate other attributes).

 

I think that the problem with using “atonement” with the definition of “being one with God” is that quite simply this is not what the word always means in Scripture. We are using the English word, but we are also using English translations (or dealing with people who do). I think, for example, that using saying OT sacrifices were sacrifices that made people “one with God” is a bit confusing.

And we can actually get around the issue as I have also clarified that when I speak of the “doctrine of the Atonement” I am speaking of more than “being one with God” as I have included unrealized opportunity, soteriological implications, and even “logical orders”. Speaking with you, however, I can easily adapt to your definition. One problem is that you seem to also object on points where we agree. In fact, I've agreed with ninety percent of what you have said (probably more of what you've affirmed).

Your view is logical. It is simple, and I’ll even grant that what I understand you to affirm is biblical. It’s what you deny that seems to stray a bit from Scripture.

 

Examining your comments, it may help to look at where I have agreed with you.

I agreed that:

1. God desires that none should perish. God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.

2. That everyone believing will be saved.

3. That Christ died for all people, but all people are not placed in Christ.

4. That everyone God places “in Christ” is “appointed” to salvation.

5. That everyone not placed “in Christ” are already condemned.

6. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is separate from reconciliation in Christ. You and I were not reconciled to God two thousand years ago…that’s just silly. Humanity was redeemed to God, but you and I were reconciled when through faith we were…as you say…”placed in Christ”.

Where I believe we disagree:

1. That the “doctrine of the Atonement” is broader than the “at-one-men” that you suppose as it incorporates doctrines and theories beyond effectively making one “at one with” God (like about every other doctrine within Christianity, the doctrine is broader than the definition of the word).

2. I believe that God did elect those who would be “placed in Christ” before the foundations of the earth.

3. I believe in “double predestination” as God electing and not electing a people from fallen and condemned men.

4. I believe that God draws men to Himself, and that men once drawn cannot but believe (e.g., God hardened Pharaoh’s heart because otherwise seeing he would believe).

5. I believe the topic is worth discussing even though entering into such a discourse will most likely change neither of our minds. I think that discussion between brothers is nonetheless edifying and helpful.

I am able to discuss the issue even with those differences, but I understand if you are not. As neither of us will change our minds, it is not worth it to me if the only thing produced by such a conversation would be hard feelings.

 

We cannot refrain from discussing topics out of fear that some cannot separate their feelings from their thoughts. There should be no “hard feelings” ahead because we should be discussing the topic. The problem arises several ways (e.g., emotionally charged words to defend or advance a position; ad hominem; assumptions of other’s). Sometimes things are worded poorly and it is taken wrong (or needs clarification). An example of this is my use of “atonement”. I knew from another conversation that you did not agree with my use of the word to incorporate the doctrine of the Cross, but it slipped my mind and I neglected to consider that when I replied to you.

1. Either way, brother. You set the stage and we can discuss it. Just please keep in mind that I may slip into using “atonement” simply because it is such a prevalent word to use in Christian theology. A kind reminder may get me back on track.

2. We do disagree on points here. If we did not disagree then there would be no room for discussion. I believe that God elected corporately the Church, but I also believe that this extends to individual election (not at the moment of reconciliation, but before the foundation of the earth). Yes, we disagree.

3. I disagree that it is unbiblical. Your interpretation of those verses are just as tied up in your theology as is mine. Neither are “unbiblical”, but both cannot be right. I think that it would be better to slowly work through entire passages rather than toss individual verses out to “prove”
a point. I am not sure that this forum, however, will end up allowing such an exploration.

4. You have made an assumption that I believe “draw” means “compel” rather than attract. I do not use the word to mean “compel” and I do not believe it means “attract” either. If you would like to start there, I suggest we integrate the account of Moses lifting the serpent, the provision, the reason, and the result. And then discuss what it means in John 12:32.

5. I agree. Discussion is not edifying when people talk past each other. This is why we need to slow down, define terms, and identify when we are using them differently. Instead of trying to make the other person think as we do, or accept our position, why not just try first to make sure the other is on the same page and then deal with the topic?

 

I've been thinking that his use of "placed" in Christ means that we are simply "in Christ" by God's doing.

I believe that we got there by the supernatural work of God in recreating us (giving us a new spirit, a new heart, putting His Spirit in us).

This is another point that Van may want to explain a bit more before going on.

 

I think that Numbers 21:9 would be a good place to begin when we examine John 12:32. How do you see this parallel between the fairly obscure (as a whole) passage in Numbers that Jesus applies to Himself in John 12? Do you think that drawing here really means to “attract”, or as all who looked upon the serpent were healed, and all who did not (although it was there for all) would die, do you think that perhaps it means something else?