Titus 2.11

I have seven children (hypothetically speaking). I go to the grocery store to buy food for all of them. A person asks me, "What do you do when you run out of food for Charlie?" I answer, "I go to the grocery store for Charlie." In this answer I have not ruled out that I buy food for the other children, but specifically, and in answer to the question, I go to the store for Charlie.

Had I said, "I go to the store only for Charlie," we would have a contradiction.

Because the Bible is about as clear as possible that Christ died for all, we must understand the passages mentioned about Christ dying for the church, the elect, and the sheep, as a sub-group among the group of everyone. After all, there is not a single passage that says that CHrist died ONLY for certain people.

But you have to take certain leaps to make the word all fit into your system. You constrict "all," when such constraints are not supported by the context and surrounding text.

 

Looking at these verses, why would it not be intimated? </font>[/QUOTE]See the above post. Saying that a person does something does not rule out that he has done other things.

 

Ray B. We seem to disagree quite strongly in our views of God, His sovereignty etc. As for now I will call it a no-win situation, and won't begin to debate you.

As for the choice of word I opt for "will" as a word which gives the honour due the great God. "Wish" is not lexically wrong a rendering of the Greek verb in question, but contextually it is improper when God is in view. He does not wish, kind of like "O how I wish that the sun would rise today".

"Who willeth all men to be saved and to come unto full knowledge of [the] truth," (own literal tr.)

compare to these Formal Equivalent versions:

(YLT) who doth will all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth;

(LITV) who desires all men to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of truth.

LITV is more literal than YLT but I do not concur with its choice of "desire" in this context, for the same reasons I disagree with "wish".


Harald

 

I wanted to chime in on this discussion with a little illustration that might help the Calvinist's understand our position:

My pastor sent out a brochure last Sunday inviting them all to be a student in his up coming Christian History class. About 40% of the church members signed up to become students in his class. On the first day of class our pastor said, "I sent all of you students a brochure inviting you to be apart of this class..."

Would you interpret his statement to mean that he only invited us who ended up being his students? Of course not. He invited everyone, but he is only addressing his students and he does so by pointing out that he has invited us to be there. This in no way negates that others were not provided an invitation as well.

So too, when God says, "I laid down my life for the church." It in no way negates that Christ could have laid down his life for those who didn't become apart of the church as well.

In fact 2 Peter 2:1 says: 1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.

Even those who were destroyed were bought by Christ.

 

Bill. Christ did not redeem the ones mentioned in 2Peter 2:1. The Greek word is not the one used for "redeem". You must interpret this verse in the light of a parallell passage, Jude 4-5. See also 2Pet. 2:20. If Christ has redeemed a person from out of the curse of the law, then how can that person come to suffer the curse of the law in its ultimate sense - perdition in the lake of fire? Yet, such a Christ is proclaimed and cherished by many professors of Christianity. The Christ of the Bible is an efficacious Saviour of the people which He foreknew in eternity. None of those who His Father gave Him will ever perish in the fiery lake. If even one perishes who was given to Christ then Christ is a liar and a miserable failure.


Harald

 

Whether the words "bourgt" is the common word in the Greek for "redeen" is not an issue. The fact remains that "agorazo" is clearly used to denote Christ paying the price for salvation by His own blood, as can be found by the use of the same Greek word in 1 Corinthians 6:60, 7:23, Rev.5:9. Regardless of what your "theology" may or may not allow, the truth cannot be denied by anyone who is open to the Holy Spirit. How else would you render the passage in 2 Peter 2:1? I have seen it explained by some Calvinists, how do nothing more than "twist" the plain meaning of the Greek sense, espacially when the passages in 1 Corinthians and Revelation clearly show us what the meaning of "agorazo" in 2 Peter is.

You say:

What, then of John 3:16? "For God so loved the world, that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever believes on Him should not perish, but have eternal life"

Two points here. The word "believes" in the Greek is in the "continuous" tense, ie, "continues to believe". And then it says " should not perish" Here the Greek uses the "subjunctive mood", a mood which is used to express "supposition, possibility" It is NOT as in the NIV translation, "shall not perish", which would have required the "indicative mood" in the Greek, denoting "a fact"

Also, why would Scripture say over and over again "if you continue in the faith...", "he that overcomes...", "keep a grip on eternal life...", etc???

How do you render it?

 

I don't have a lot of time to engage in this. I have other things to do. I certainly wouldn't drown in anything you have put forth here. I haven't read your posts on this thread in depth so I really don't know your arguments. I assume they are like most of your arguments which don't hold enough water to get wet in, much less drown in.

MY comments here were directed at your representation of Enns, whose name I got in skimming over your words.

As for DTS's policies, I don't know. I doubt they are that strict, since there are a number of their grads who do hold to limited atonement. I am sure you have to agree with their doctrinal statement, in which I can find no mention of this either way ( Dallas doctrinal statement ). MOst In addition, if you do a search for Dallas Theological Seminary and LImited Atonement, you will find some graduates who do support a limited atonement. You must also realize that people often change views over time, if they come to a new understanding. So I think once again you are uninformed about this issue, as shown by the facts.

However, my point was that your misrepresented him as agreeing with something when he does not say that. He gives an equally clear support of limited atonement. Faulty representation of a person's view is grounds for a failing grade in academic writing. You should know better. You would have better said, "Enns gives the arguments for both sides. This is what he says about unlimited atonement." If you have evidence that Enns believes as you asserted, then post that evidence, but do not be tricky or dishonest with it. I don't care what Enns believes. I do care that we properly represent people so that if they were to show up, they would agree that you have said what they believe.

I don't know what doctrine you are talking being weak. LA is certainly not. Your objection is based on your misunderstanding. There are many, solid exegetes, who understand the issues, who hold to limited atonement. To my knowledge, there is no calvinist who argues that it was not sufficient for the sins of the whole world. The question is, What was it intended to do? YOU limit the atonement by limiting it to believers. You say it was intended to make salvation possible. Others say that it provided propitiation and therefore made salvation actual.

The point is that you are making straw men (and even then you don't knock them down very well).

For what it's worth, depending on how the question is asked, I believe in unlimited atonement.

YOur calling this doctrine weak is but another illustration of your flawed understanding of theology. You just beat the drum without looking at the music. That's not good.

 

Bill and Scott,

You both make good points which I agree with. That is why I say the point is still "intent." What was the intent of Christ's death? Was it the same for all?? I would say no. If he did intending to save all, then he certainly failed and I don't think we want to go there. If he died only to provide a payment which man must then do something to make useful, then I think we have compromised the sufficiency of the atonement. That is why I think this issue must be handled carefully. There are so many things that should be discussed about it that I just don't have time to discuss. As I just said, I can be unlimited or limited in my view of the atonement depending on what you are asking.

 

aa. I stand corrected with respect to agorazo. I should have checked it up before I wrote. Nevertheless I maintain that "bought" in this context does not refer to redeeming from out of the curse of the law so as to secure eternal blessedness of a person. If it meant this then how come Peter says such false teachers will go to perdition. I still maintain the explanation to 2Pet. 2:1 is found in parallell passages, such as those I gave.

As for John 3:16 this is how I render it...

"For in this manner *God loved the world, so that the Son of His, the only begotten, He gave, in order that every one believing in Him not should bring perdition to himself, but to the contrary should keep on possessing life eternal;" (asterisk indicates untranslated definite article)

These words the Lord Jesus spoke to His own as words of comfort. It was not to unbelievers, as "an offer of salvation" as some would have the verse to be. Unless God the Father (ho Theos) had given up Christ to die on the cross of Golgotha, as a sacrifice and a payment for the sin debt of His people, then there would have been the possibility of a (pre-Calvary) believer going to perdition. Because subjective continuous believing in Christ could not satisfy law and justice. This is why the Lord Christ used the subjunctive, as I see it. These words He spoke prior to Calvary. This verse actually proves that subjective faith in Christ is not the determining factor in a person's salvation, because without the giving up of the Son of God there would have been the possibility of perdition even for "one believing in Him". The rendering "SHALL perish" is wrong as you stated. The Greek has subjunctive mood. The word of God elsewhere states that "one believing" is a person who already possesses life eternal, thus the rendering "should keep on possessing life eternal". The word rendered "should keep on possessing" is, as you know, echê, present active subjunctive of echô, which means "to possess, to hold" etc.

While the subjunctive is most often rendered in English with "should" or "might" one must not think that a subjunctive mood verb always indicates uncertainty or something potential. Often when such a verb is used in connection with God and Christ in salvation contexts the construction is employed to distinguish the verbal action from a present indicative, which speaks of a thing occuring NOW. Subjunctive mood tells me that the verbal action will or will not, depending on context, take place at some future time as viewed from the point in time when the author makes the statement. Future indicative tells me that the verbal action is viewed as certain to come to pass from the speaker's viewpoint.

As for the believing spoken of in John 3:16 it is not a mere mental assent to objective truths. It is a believing which is of the operation of God, not a "simple faith", not a "child-like faith". The (continuous) believing spoken of is everything the word of God tells it to be, nothing more and nothing less. It is a believing which holds up to testing by the whole counsel of God's word. It is a believing which, among other things, credits all of salvation to the triune God, and none to man and/or his alleged "free will". Nor does it give credit to subjective faith of the heart as that which decides the case between eternal bliss or eternal perdition. It is a believing in Christ the object of true faith which gives the glory to God, it is a faith which justifies Wisdom - the Lord Christ Jesus. It is a faith which excludes all boasting in the sinner when it comes to the ground of salvation and the procurement of salvation. Such believing is an impossibility with man, and therefore God must grant it to a man as a gift, just as He gave up Christ as a gift for His chosen people, and just as He gives His Holy Spirit to that people as a gift out of pure grace for Christ's sake alone.


Harald

 

Actually, I do want to go there because I don't think your statement is true. You have created a logical fallacy here by assuming Christ's intention was to save everyone. We don't believe that. Arminianism believes it was God's sovereign will (or intent) to give man a geniune free will choice, not to save every soul (that would be universalism). Christ's intention was not to save all, but to provide salvation for all through the means of faith, in which case he was perfectly successful.

Not if that was what God intented. Once again you assume that your premise is correct. What if your assumed premise is wrong? If God chose for man to have a choice then the atonement accomplished exactly what God intented for it to accomplish and is perfectly sufficient to do that which God wanted it to do. You deem it to be insufficient because you assume that you know God's intent in the atonement. I believe you are wrong and the scripture shows us why.

 

Harald,

It sure gives us a nice feeling that we have a brother in Christ in far away Finland.

I agree with you that contextually 'wishes' is without doubt the poorest word to use in this case. Our only intent is for Calvinists to come to the understanding that God's intent or desire was and remains all inclusive as to saving all lost souls. The fact that he desired that everyone should have been saved, clearly points to the free agency of human beings. In other words, He could have made a plan that would have insured everyones' salvation; but He didn't. What point would there be to our worshiping Him, if He manipulated every living soul into His plan for everlasting life above? We do, however, realize that God says and the Bible indicates that the bottom line is that not everyone will make it to Heaven.

Ray

 

It sure would save a bunch of people from a whole lot of misery in hell.

 

Where did someone come up with the idea that God is either successful or not based on various criterion. He came to die for all souls, [Hebrews 2:9] but even if only I arrive in heaven at last, and everyone else did'nt make it, the Lord will have been successful.

Are we going out on the limb so far as to say, because God can only save, the relative 'few' [Matthew 7:14] that He was unsuccessful? Apparently the relative 'many' who will end up in Hell are there because of rebellion in their own heart and not because of some predilection toward retribution of certain sinners. Amighty God has limited Himself due to the fact that He has given human sinners the freedom of choice; without their activated responsibility in trusting Jesus, there is no final salvation planned for the rebellious. [John 3:18]

 

Hi Harald

You said on John 3:16, "These words the Lord Jesus spoke to His own as words of comfort. It was not to unbelievers, as "an offer of salvation" as some would have the verse to be"

Let us look at the verse in its context.

"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

If Jesus were here only addressing the "elect" (believers), then we must conclude that the use of "kosmos" (world) refers to the "elect" only. This does raise some problems though.

In the first place, we have the use of "kosmos" twice in verse 17, where in the first instance (For God sent not his Son into the world)it must by the physical earth, when Jesus was born. He then goes on to say, "to condemn the world", where "kosmos" must refer to its use in verse 16. In which case, according to your reckoning, refers to the "elect". Herein is a problem. If one holds that the "elect" cannot be lost, then why would Jesus say "to condemn the world"? seeing that the "elect" could never be condemed? It simply does not make sense, does it? Secondly, in the next verse (18), the the "he" mentioned in both cases must refer to those who are part of the "kosmos", where the believing part is said to be saved, and the unbelieving condemed! Unless you take both uses of "he" to refer to the believer only? But this raises further problems with the security of the believer!

Coming back to the use of "agorazo" in 2 Peter 2:1, you say that you still maintain that it does not refer to the saving work of Jesus in this context. Is your conclusion here based on your theological position, or on what this passage actually teaches? It is evident from the Greek word, and its use in the New Testament (1 Corinthians and Revelation in particular), that it does refer to the death of Christ. If not, then what does it refer to?

 

Brother Bill,

You have offered a perfect illustration and a simple one we all can understand.

All sinners are guilty before God. [Romans 3:23] It would be unfair/unjust to damn the majority and welcome the few. [Matt. 7:14] Does God only become unjust on the days Calvinists are pushing their "Unconditional Election"? I believe He is changeless and will remain the God of justice in all of time and to eternity.

 

And your scheme has God limiting Himself and in the process sending billions of people to be tortured forever and ever and ever, and all for the sake of your idea of "free will", and most of whom never ever had the chance to exercise your idea of "free will" as they never heard about the true God or Christ Jesus or the need to repent and believe.

Unfortunately, the free willers' motto is evidently, Better to have my free will and burn in Hell than to be a "puppet" and live in Heaven.

You can wrap yourself up in your precious, little free will scheme, but I will have none of it. No sir, I will have none of it.

(Edited to correct word from "us" to "it".)

[ May 01, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Ken the Spurgeonite ]

 

It sure would save a bunch of people from a whole lot of misery in hell. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it would have, but it wasn't God plan to force created things to worship him, if he wanted to do that He could have just done what John said He could have done and made the stones cry out. He could have turned stones into God worshipers if he wanted to make his creation worship Him. He didn't want that. He wanted his creation to choose Him and to love Him out of their own volitional will. He created and planned a world that would be bound over to disobedience so that he might show mercy to them ALL. This would provide his creation the opportunity to repent and believe or rebell against his genuine offer of grace. Some would rather live in the moment and after counting the cost and reasoning it out decide that they would rather stay on their path. They understand the gospel and the attibutes of God as those in Romans 1 did, but they refuse to follow him.

 

And you people have the gall to yell from the mountain tops that Calvinists make God out to be a monster? You are saying that God arranged all of this so that out of a "free will" that was lost in The Fall in the Garden of Eden, man is supposed to somehow rise up and overcome his sin nature and repent and believe. And you are saying that even though a relative "few" would ever do such a thing(which is impossible anyway), God bound billions and billions of people over to disobedience to see if out of their fallen "free will" they would repent and believe, knowing that the relative "many" would be tortured by Him forever and ever and ever.

There's your scheme. And it's sick, really sick, and I will have none of it. No sir, I will have none of it.

 

And your scheme has God limiting Himself and in the process sending billions of people to be tortured forever and ever and ever, and all for the sake of your idea of "free will", and most of whom never ever had the chance to exercise your idea of "free will" as they never heard about the true God or Christ Jesus or the need to repent and believe.

Unfortunately, the free willers' motto is evidently, Better to have my free will and burn in Hell than to be a "puppet" and live in Heaven.

You can wrap yourself up in your precious, little free will scheme, but I will have none of us. No sir, I will have none of it. </font>[/QUOTE]And the appeal to emotion fails completely.

Place it this way, we either have a God who allows man to choose his or her own destiny, or a God who takes that choice away, damning him or her to Hell without a chance of choosing Him.

You can wrap yourself up in your precious little, tyrant of a God scheme, but I will have none of us [sic]. I will have none of it. :wave"