Limited Atonement... Unanswerable question.

Ken Hamilton,

I agree that II Peter 2:1 is referring to the redemption of Israel from the land of Egypt. This event was a shadow of the redemption of the children of God through Jesus Christ. Right before the Jews were delivered out of Egypt, for whom was the lamb sacrificed? Israel? Egypt? Both? According to my knowledge, the lamb was only slain for the children of Israel, the children of God. It is also interesting to note that the word translated "Lord" in II Peter 2:1 is the Greek word "despotes," which is never used to refer to Jesus Christ. The word "Lord" occurs fifteen times in II Peter. Fourteen times the word is in reference to Jesus Christ and is translated "kurios." Why would Peter depart from the continually used "kurios" to "despotes?" In Jude 1:4, the Greek word "despotes" is used in distinction to "kurios."

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:4)

The observant reader of the scriptures will frequently find verses in the New Testament to have a familiar echo from verses in the Old Testament, even though the Old Testament verses may not be cited. This happens to be the case with the chapter in question. The chapter bears strong similarity with Deuteronomy 32. In particular: Peter describes these false teachers as utterly perishing in their own corruption (vs. 12); similarly, Deuteronomy 32:5 describes persons who have corrupted themselves. Moreover, Peter describes these false teachers as being spots (vs. 13); similarly, Deuteronomy 32:5 refers to its subjects as spots. Most importantly, Peter describes these false teachers as being bought of the Lord (vs. 1); similarly, Deuteronomy 32:6 refers to its subjects as being bought of the Lord. However, the persons of Deuteronomy 32 were not bought of the Lord through the blood of Christ, but through the Lord's purchase of national Israel under the Old Testament covenant. (David A. Pyles & Wilford A. Pyles, A Defense of the Doctrine of Special Atonement.)

The connection between the second chapter of II Peter and Deuteronomy 32 is further strengthened by a linkage through the book of Jude. The reader will find a striking similarity between Jude and the second chapter of II Peter, particularly with regard to their descriptions of false teachers. Indeed, the parallelisms between their statements regarding false teachers are so numerous that one is lead to conclude that Spirit has here inspired essentially the same message through two different witnesses; however, the two messages are sufficiently distinct to make them complementary rather than redundant. Among the similarities, Jude also refers to these false teachers as corrupting themselves (vs. 10), and as being spots (vs 12). It is interesting to note that Deuteronomy 32:5, II Peter 2:13, and Jude 12 are the only verses in the Bible in which the wicked are referred to as spots, thus further indicating that the accounts of both Peter and Jude were written with Deuteronomy 32 in view. (Ibid.)

Moses also said something worth noting: "For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the works of your hands." (Deut. 31:29) Moses made particular reference to these false prophets in the "latter days."

"Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow." (2 Sam. 23:5)

This covenant was "ordered in all things, and sure." This describes all but the Arminian theory of the atonement that is powerless to save anyone without their "free will."

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant," (Heb. 13:20)

The covenant is an "everlasting covenant," and it was sealed by the blood of the "Great Shepherd of the sheep" (Jn. 10:11, 15, 26).

 

Thanks for that post, Primitive Baptist.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

In the book of Galatians, Paul writes that we are the "children of promise," even as Isaac. The Bible says " in Isaac shall thy seed be called." What is the word of promise??? In other words, how are the children of promise chosen (Rom. 9)? My Bible says it is before they are born that the purpose of God according to election might stand!

 

God's election in Romans chapter nine has nothing, nothing to do with salvation unto eternal life. The Lord's purpose in election [vs. 11] was the selection of Jacob over Esau so that the elder son Esau would serve the younger, Jacob. Esau could not father the Promised Son--Jesus because of his union with pagan women. Jacob's union was pure and of Hebrew stock and God knew that Jacob would honor the purity of God's chosen people.

Pharoah's election by God was to 'raise him up' so that the Lord could show His mighty, sovereign power in making him release the people of God so they could go to the Promised Land and make a nation that would only follow the Lord. Pharaoh had every opportunity to believe in Jehovah, but because of national pride and power he chose to remain in his sins.

No where in Romans chapter nine or in the totality of Romans does the articulate Apostle Paul attempt to say that this is an example of how God chooses His elect for Heaven and the remainder of humanity for the endless pain and torment of Hell.

It is an unconscionable proposition to blame Almighty God for autocratically placing human beings in the lofty heights of Heaven and the majority to the absolute misery of Hell with Satan as the master of ceremonies.

 

Ray,

1) Romans 9:11 says the election took place before Esau and Jacob were born, not after Esau married pagan woman.

2) God places no one autocratically in hell. God places no one autocratically in hell. God places no one autocratically in hell. Got it? Man ends up in hell because of sin.

Question: How can you not understand Romans 9:15 to be referring to salvation?

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

Ken Hamilton,

I was saying that because God always sees everthing He knew that Esau would choose pagan brides and, therefore, Esau was ineligible to be of the geneology through which our Lord was born in Bethlehem. This is why Almighty God chose Jacob to be the one by whom the Son of Promise would come into our world.

Romans 9:15 indicates that the Lord rules in human history as He desires. He chose Jacob over Esau. Is not this His right to do this? Nothing is said about saving and damning human beings. This is the contrived teaching of the Reformer from Geneva.

God is just trying to show us how He deals in history and chooses who He desires to do His work in every generation until He comes.

Since Romans 9 is supposed to be a forceful chapter teaching Divine Election of the elect, where is all of this weighty spiritual truth? It must be about time to jump to another verse of the elect.

 

Could Esau have changed his mind or was God forcing him to do that??

 

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory," (Rom. 9:22, 23)

There is certainly more under consideration than the choice of the Messiah to come from the geneology of Jacob. The subject matter is salvation by grace, "not of works, but of him that calleth." (v. 11) That obviously was not the only thing under consideration.

"Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright." (Heb. 12:16)

In my study Bible, there are reference notes. I do not make it a habit to pay much attention to them because the notes are of the Arminian school of thought, but it is interesting to note what is written in regards to Esau in the comments on Genesis 25:23: "Esau is later used in Scripture as an illustration of the non-elect of God (Rom. 9:13)." Remember, this is an Arminian commentary!

 

Could Esau have changed his mind or was God forcing him to do that??</font>[/QUOTE]Touche' , Pastor Larry !

 

Could Esau have changed his mind or was God forcing him to do that??</font>[/QUOTE]Neither. Ray isn't advocating an open theist position. Esau could have changed his mind as much as he wanted - since God knew the conclusion, He still would have known it,

 

But think of the quandary you just put yourself in. If God infallibly knows Esau's choice and his subsequent change of mind, then he cannot really diverge from what God knows. Therefore, he is stuck. He has to make those bad choices. Your only escape is to impugn the knowledge of God, something you are not willing to do since you deny believing open theism. This is not so simple as you make it out to be. Blaming God's knowledge does not remove the impossibility of doing something contrary to God's knowledge. As I have often said, you have the same outcome we do; your God just isn't in control of it.

[ September 11, 2002, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The whole purpose of Romans 9 is to explain the sovereignty of God to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor and still be righteous. Even if you believe it has nothing whatever to do with salvation, the sovereignty issue is still there. No, Esau could not have changed his mind because God made Jacob for one purpose and Esau for another. Like I said, whether you believe salvation is the issue at hand, you still must recognize the sovereignty of God in that situation without taking the unbiblical approach that Esau could have changed his mind. That is whole point! He could not have changed mind, and God is still on the throne whether you like it or not!!!

 

But it's not "sovereignty" or "God...on the throne" that is at the heart of the issue (even though some may argue stuff like "limited sovereignty"), but the issue of whether people are denied salvation.
So are you suggesting that God did "force him to do it". Some of you have been insisting that God doesn't "force" anybody to do anything, but it's their own "free choice" (which suggests they could change their mind if it was truly "free"). (I've stayed out of this whole "Esau" argument. A good point here is not to forget that God hardens people for many reasons, and this doesn't automatically mean they never had a chance of repentance. They just crossed a line, God declared no more chances, and then this was used for His purpose. So in this respect, it doesn't matter whether he could have changed his mind at that point.)

[ September 11, 2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Not a quandry. One just has to think outside the box.

Not if God can be concurrently within time and outside of time. This is a problem of thinking in only four dimensions.

Only in your paradigm. We differ in our theological epistemology.

Wrong again. You assume that God cannot know the future yet man be able to make an absolutely free choice. My assumption (and one I believe is biblically based) is that God both knows the future and works within the framework of the present - allowing man to make a completely free choice - oe that God can know completely without forcing man to make.

Can one do something opposite of God's knowledge? I don't think so - that's the realm of the open theists. In my system, though, God is able to know man's choice and not be responsible for it. I am still unaware how you evade that question.

 

I don't think you have adequately dealt with the problem. Contrary to your assertion, I believe God can know the future and man can make an absolutely free choice. I have no problem with that. However, I do not think your "in time/not in time" distinction is helpful. You never see that kind of reasoning used by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

But the problem remains that Esau lived in time and that is where his choices were made. If God's infallible knowledge knows what choice that is from eternity past, then how could Esau choose contrary to that? If you say, "He wouldn't" then you are right where we are because that is what we say. We believe that man makes completely free choices, not under coercion by anything but his own nature.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the only real alternative (consistent alternative) to our view is open theism. I do not believe your position solves the problem.

 

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory," (Rom. 9:22, 23)</font>[/QUOTE]What if, what if i were Bill Gates. What if red was blue? What if up was down, or up north was down south.

"What if" usually denotes something that could be or could have been done, but isn't/wasn't.. Men are vessels of wrath because they choose to disobey God, not because God created them as such.

 

Amen.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

The "what if" question is not whether God has created vessels of wrath fitted to destruction or vessels of mercy, but "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering..." That is the "what if" question.

 

Yet the question remains; "What if"? What if he did, who are we to question God. Yet the truth remains, "What if"?

 

A crushing blow to my argument. You haven't dealt with the idea of differing epistomologies.

Let's note that for later.

Sure you do. We know that God that exists outside the boundaries of time. He is the great I AM and exhaustively knows the future. We also see a God interact with people like Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, and so on. This provides the basis for my reasoning.

See above. You stated that you had no problem with it.

He could have. But such a change would be contingent in the Almighty's plan, and he would know it.

And yet you believe that God "coerces" man by giving Him a new nature. If God automatically gives man such a nature, He is overriding man's will.

Thankfully, my assumptions upon which God transcends the time/choice issue allow me to solve the problem. You just don't understand it well enough.