The Limitations of Holding Limited Atonement View

[lilrabbi]

"In the OT, when the priest sacrificed the animal, was the animal an atoning sacrifice? Yes.

But when were the sins of the people actually forgiven? When the priest entered the Holy of Holies." - Paul33

But the application of the atoning sacrifice comes when Christ intercedes. Unless Christ intercedes all of us are hopelessly lost. The blood must be applied and that happens at the Father's right hand." - Paul33

So much to respond to! I'll begin here. Heb. 10:12,13, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."

It seems that the application of the sacrifice has already been made, because Christ has taken his seat at the right hand of the Father. And that intercession/application was apparently done before He took His seat.

Also - was the sacrifice every severed from forgiveness (intercession)? Sacrifice and intercession work hand in hand. I'd like to see one reference where the atonement is separated from the intercession and forgiveness.

Arminians have borrowed Calvinistic terminology by using the term "substitutionary atonement." Christ was a substitute, taking on the punishment that was due us. In being that substitute, Christ satisfied God's wrath and purchased our redemption. For Christ's death to not ensure anything whatsoever, only rendering man "savable", then Christ's substitution was to no avail and wasn't a substitute everyone He intended to take the place of.

It was said by someone else: Arminians limit the effectiveness and usefulness of the atonement, while Calvinists limit those to whom it is applied. I'm glad God didn't simply give me salvation potential, but that He actually secured something for me.

Hank -

1 John 5:19; "the whole world" most obviously is not every person in the world, because there is an exclusion in the text itself: "we" who "are of God".

1 John 2:2; the word "propitiation" precludes "the whole world" from literally meaning 'every person on the face of the earth.' You have to seriously dilute its meaning. Does not the satisfaction of God's wrath include a person not being punished for their sins...isn't that what it means??? Something's amiss if God's wrath towards a sinner is satisfied and God STILL sends them to hell. (and you think calvinists are mean people

) lol

The argument from absence doesn't hold much water at all: "John knew the word 'gentile'". Its a stretch to say the least.

There are several issues woven throughout this thread. They basically come down to Paul33 and the Pastor/Theologian trying to separate Christ's work of salvation into a mere potentiality (first part), with the second part being conditional on the act of belief by the individual. Arminians ultimately leave the decisive act - the "executive decision" in the hands of the unregenerate sinner. Grasshopper, Daniel, and myself would disagree. We would say that salvation is "potential" only in that it is offered to all. But the actual work of salvation is done by God Himself and is as certain as He is certain.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Originally posted by lilrabbi:
Also - was the sacrifice every severed from forgiveness (intercession)? Sacrifice and intercession work hand in hand. I'd like to see one reference where the atonement is separated from the intercession and forgiveness.

Arminians have borrowed Calvinistic terminology by using the term "substitutionary atonement." Christ was a substitute, taking on the punishment that was due us. In being that substitute, Christ satisfied God's wrath and purchased our redemption. For Christ's death to not ensure anything whatsoever, only rendering man "savable", then Christ's substitution was to no avail and wasn't a substitute everyone He intended to take the place of.

It was said by someone else: Arminians limit the effectiveness and usefulness of the atonement, while Calvinists limit those to whom it is applied. I'm glad God didn't simply give me salvation potential, but that He actually secured something for me.

Hank -

1 John 5:19; "the whole world" most obviously is not every person in the world, because there is an exclusion in the text itself: "we" who "are of God".

1 John 2:2; the word "propitiation" precludes "the whole world" from literally meaning 'every person on the face of the earth.' You have to seriously dilute its meaning. Does not the satisfaction of God's wrath include a person not being punished for their sins...isn't that what it means??? Something's amiss if God's wrath towards a sinner is satisfied and God STILL sends them to hell. (and you think calvinists are mean people

) lol

The argument from absence doesn't hold much water at all: "John knew the word 'gentile'". Its a stretch to say the least.

There are several issues woven throughout this thread. They basically come down to Paul33 and the Pastor/Theologian trying to separate Christ's work of salvation into a mere potentiality (first part), with the second part being conditional on the act of belief by the individual. Arminians ultimately leave the decisive act - the "executive decision" in the hands of the unregenerate sinner. Grasshopper, Daniel, and myself would disagree. We would say that salvation is "potential" only in that it is offered to all. But the actual work of salvation is done by God Himself and is as certain as He is certain.

lilrabbi,

I would like to respond to the above with a few questions, which it would be great to hear your answers, and secondly with some comments of my own.

First, I see how the "Calvinists" in this thread have only dealt seriously with the 1 John 2:2 passage and have not given a full response to 2 Peter 2:1 which is even more damaging to the position of limited atonement. I am quite familiar with the limited arguments for 1 John 2:2, but I am also aware that 2 Peter 2:1 must be dealt with as well. Let me quote it for you with my comments bracketed: "The false prophets [by no means the elect wouldn't you say?] also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, [heresies/heretics = non-elect] even denying the Master who bought them, [the Master bought them meaning they have been bought with the blood] bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Second, you seem to want to lump anyone who does not hold to limited atonement into a group called "Arminians." The old joke is that anyone to the left of you is a liberal. I guess this applies to Calvinism as well. But I would suggest that you may be unfairly labeling someone an Arminian when in fact they could be a four point Calvinist and not hold to limited atonement. A true Arminian is a 1 or 2 pointer at best, ie T and maybe P.

Third, I would ask you a question about your interpretation of 1 John 2:2. If God did not mean what he said, why did God not say what he meant? When the Bible says the whole world in 1 John how can that mean anything other than what comos typically means. In terms of the semantic domain of comos, it can be rendered universe, earth, world system, people, adorning, adornment, or tremendous amount. Now in the context of 1 John 2:2 we all seem to be in agreement that the reference is toward a people group. We are just at odds over who it is that comprises that group. I will quote 1 John 2:2 for you with brackets: "He is the propitiation for our sins, [1) no one here is questioning the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice nor the appeasement of God's wrath, which are both apart of propitiation; 2) the context is "ours," meaning those who are apart of the church, as this is a general Epistle and written to those referred to as "my little children."] and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. [the whole world is the same group being referenced in John 3:16, which comos is never used in reference to the church and is typically made in reference to a fallen world.]"

Third, you seem to have a system, ie Calvinism, that demands certain a position, ie limited atonement. Therefore in order to hold your position you are forced to impose an unnatural reading of the text, ie 1 John 2:2. The reason you do this is clearly stated in your reply, and in your defense it is a worry for me as well, for I am the one you make reference to that originally brought your concern into question:

Does not the satisfaction of God's wrath include a person not being punished for their sins...isn't that what it means??? Something's amiss if God's wrath towards a sinner is satisfied and God STILL sends them to hell.

Yet, our concern should not be to question the justice of God. Because no one will go to hell without good cause. I try to remind my brothers who do not hold to election, because they cannot believe that God would elect some and not others because it would be unjust, that no one goes to hell without good cause. Which is ironic that you who would believe you are a 5 point Calvinist share a concern for the justice of God with an Arminian, but for a different reason, however, the answer is the same. God does not send people to hell unjustly. If someone goes to hell it is because of the sin they committed against God. Keep in mind that God elected those who would be redeemed out of the total number of unregenerate, fallen, sinful humanity. We all have sinned and none of us deserve nor have we earned election, ie U.

In my opinion I am more able to see the fallacies of your argument because I want to remain true to the text, even if that puts me in an uncomfortable position. I would rather be unable to fully reconcile my position and remain true to a simple reading of the text, than to have a system which fits nicely, as does Calvinism, yet is forced to ignore or reinterpret certain passages to fit within its system. The system fits together, yet all too much like a house of cards. Remove the one point, ie limited atonement, and the house comes down for most. However, it does not have to be that way. The real separation here is between the availability and the application of the atonement. Which ironically enough you seemed to recognize:

Grasshopper, Daniel, and myself would disagree. We would say that salvation is "potential" only in that it is offered to all. But the actual work of salvation is done by God Himself and is as certain as He is certain.

So on that we can agree. But my last question for you is this: How can salvation be offered to all if it is not available? If it is a genuine offer then it must be available through the atonement. If you are honest there is no way you can make a statement that salvation is potential for all and hold to limited atonement.

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian:
OldRegular,Your overall attitude smacks of anti-intellectualism. It is not enough to just cut and paste Scripture. You must exchange ideas if you want to get your point across... something which by now is sorely lacking...

I should not be but I am always amazed why it is that on a supposed Christian forum those who express their opinion are so frequently verbally abused. If you disagree with a dispensationalist you may be called anything from being stupid, an unbeliever, or a heretic, even in the extreme to being an instrument of Satan. If you support the Sovereign Purpose of God in the Salvation of His Elect you may be called all the above plus a heartless person who worships an evil God. Now because I choose to respond to you primarily on the basis of Scripture you accuse me of being anti-intellectual. And you purport to be a pastor? Do you comfort your flock or confront your flock?

Excerpt from original post by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian:
OldRegular,

It is hard to imagine that Paul just walked in to the most respected philosophical venue in the world unannounced and just preached the gospel. More than likely Paul as a tent maker was in dialog with these men and gained an audience through the process of exchanging ideas. If you read Acts 17 you can see in verses 22-34 this exchange reaching is fruition. By the fact that Paul referred to them as religious he is giving them credit for their effort to find truth. If truth is what they seek Paul basically informs them of the truth of the Gospel. He even goes as far as to quote one of their poets in verse 28. This is not an outright rejection of philosophy but a presentation of the truth. Keep in mind it was Paul who said I have been all things to all people that by he might reach some for Christ. Your overall attitude smacks of anti-intellectualism. It is not enough to just cut and paste Scripture. You must exchange ideas if you want to get your point across... something which by now is sorely lacking...

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

Now as for the remainder of your remarks. [You apparently use your pastoral privileges to insert figments of your imagination into what took place on Mars' Hill.!] However, I would call your attention to to the Scripture and being anti-intellectual I will use the KJV, 1769 version.

Acts 17:16-34
16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20 For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
33 So Paul departed from among them.
34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Please note how this discussion starts. Verses 16 and 17 tell us that the Apostle Paul was preaching to certain Jews and Gentiles in a synagogue. Now I assume on the basis of the remarks that follow that he was preaching the Gospel since we read in verse 18:

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

We notice immediately in this passage that the Apostle Paul is accused of preaching to them Jesus, and the resurrection. I believe that could be called the Gospel.

Now lets see how the philosophical part of the discussion between the Apostle Paul and the Greek philosophers started. Looking again at verse 18: Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? It is important here to understand what the Greeks meant when they called Paul a babbler. It has nothing to do with Paul’s speech, in fact it is even, more insulting than would appear since the Greek for babbler means: seed picker, an idler who makes a living picking up scraps; in modern jargon, a BUM.

Now what did these esteemed Greek philosophers do: they spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing. Is that philosophy? some would call it gossip!

If we read the remaining Scripture we see that philosopher Paul chided these esteemed philosophers for ignorantly worshiping a false God. The Apostle Paul then begins to preach the Gospel. Call it philosophy if you choose but it was the Gospel, pure, and to those of us who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

OldRegular,

For the sake of Christian love I will do my best one last time to clue you in. For one, your citation does nothing to refute my theory of which Paul encountered the Philosophers in the marketplace. Verse 18 you quote from the beloved KJV states,

18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

It does not say how he encountered them. More than likely he would have done so in the workplace. While they were giving him their particular take on life, ie philosophy, Paul was replying by preaching the Gospel. Intrigued by his style and message, whether to display him for refutation or in order to give him a bigger audience he was invited to the Areopagus, which he took the opportunity to preach the Gospel. I never said Paul did not preach the Gospel, my only point was that Paul was not violently opposed to philosophy as you seem to be. He lovingly befriended the Philosophers of his day, so much so that they gave him an opportunity to put Christianity on full display for the elite Philosophers of his day. It would be the moral equalence of impressing the Havard elite, and receiving an invitation to speak to the School of Philosophy.

So what is the big difference between what you are saying and what I am saying? The only reason we are talking about philosophy is because I quoted the law of non-contradiction, which you seem to be morally opposed.

One other thing, you stated,

Now because I choose to respond to you primarily on the basis of Scripture you accuse me of being anti-intellectual.

Please! I did not refer to you as anti-intellectual because you quote Scripture. I refer to you as anti-intellectual because you rail against any use of extra biblical reasoning that could inform the context of a passage, because you are so opposed to philosophy of any kind, when the Bible is clearly opposed to vain philosophy, and because you do not seem to grasp the depth of the issue at hand. I do not think you are stupid, I just think you are overall close-minded/indoctrinated. There is nothing wrong with quoting Scripture, be it KJV or otherwise, but to simply quote Scripture with no explanation does not make a point, it simply opens for discussion the framework by which we have a discussion. Something which you sorely lack the ability to have amecabily....

My advice to you, 1) get over yourself, 2) quit hammering points in threads that are not related to the original post, 3) do not attack so vehemently those who profess to you be your brother in Christ, it lacks the charity to which we are called as fellow bond-servants of Christ. For the record, I never attacked your character as you so grossly did mine...

OldRegular, is this type of remark necessary?

And you purport to be a pastor? Do you comfort your flock or confront your flock?... [You apparently use your pastoral privileges to insert figments of your imagination into what took place on Mars' Hill.!]

What is the point of your participation? Better yet what is your point in all that you have said? So far you seem to be against the law of non-contradiction, in favor of election, and have not said one thing to further your claim to limited atonement. So far as I can tell you are here to cause trouble. Pity.

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

[ February 22, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Baptist_Pastor/Theologian ]

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian:
OldRegular,

For the sake of Christian love I will do my best one last time to clue you in. For one, your citation does nothing to refute my theory of which Paul encountered the Philosophers in the marketplace. Verse 18 you quote from the beloved KJV states,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

It does not say how he encountered them. More than likely he would have done so in the workplace. While they were giving him their particular take on life, ie philosophy, Paul was replying by preaching the Gospel. Intrigued by his style and message, whether to display him for refutation or in order to give him a bigger audience he was invited to the Areopagus, which he took the opportunity to preach the Gospel. I never said Paul did not preach the Gospel, my only point was that Paul was not violently opposed to philosophy as you seem to be. He lovingly befriended the Philosophers of his day, so much so that they gave him an opportunity to put Christianity on full display for the elite Philosophers of his day. It would be the moral equalence of impressing the Havard elite, and receiving an invitation to speak to the School of Philosophy.

So what is the big difference between what you are saying and what I am saying? The only reason we are talking about philosophy is because I quoted the law of non-contradiction, which you seem to be morally opposed.

One other thing, you stated,

Now because I choose to respond to you primarily on the basis of Scripture you accuse me of being anti-intellectual.

Please! I did not refer to you as anti-intellectual because you quote Scripture. I refer to you as anti-intellectual because you rail against any use of extra biblical reasoning that could inform the context of a passage, because you are so opposed to philosophy of any kind, when the Bible is clearly opposed to vain philosophy, and because you do not seem to grasp the depth of the issue at hand. I do not think you are stupid, I just think you are overall close-minded/indoctrinated. There is nothing wrong with quoting Scripture, be it KJV or otherwise, but to simply quote Scripture with no explanation does not make a point, it simply opens for discussion the framework by which we have a discussion. Something which you sorely lack the ability to have amecabily....

My advice to you, 1) get over yourself, 2) quit hammering points in threads that are not related to the original post, 3) do not attack so vehemently those who profess to you be your brother in Christ, it lacks the charity to which we are called as fellow bond-servants of Christ. For the record, I never attacked your character as you so grossly did mine...

OldRegular, is this type of remark necessary?

And you purport to be a pastor? Do you comfort your flock or confront your flock?... [You apparently use your pastoral privileges to insert figments of your imagination into what took place on Mars' Hill.!]

What is the point of your participation? Better yet what is your point in all that you have said? So far you seem to be against the law of non-contradiction, in favor of election, and have not said one thing to further your claim to limited atonement. So far as I can tell you are here to cause trouble. Pity.

Shalom,

Pastor Bill </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Bill, you still are behaving like an attack dog, what more can be said?

I remind you of the Scripture from an earlier post:

1 Corinthians 1:23-27
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I suspect that if Paul added anything to the record of the events on Mars Hill it was similar to the above. He only knew of one Gospel and it was not that of philosophy.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian:
OldRegular,

The only reason we are talking about philosophy is because I quoted the law of non-contradiction, which you seem to be morally opposed.

Just because I stated: Isn't applying the human logic of the law of noncontridiction to the Sovereign Grace of God in His Purpose to bring His Elect to Salvation a little foolish in light of Scripture. does not mean that I am morally opposed to the law of noncontradiction.

Originally posted by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian:
OldRegular, I refer to you as anti-intellectual because you rail against any use of extra biblical reasoning.

Could you please quote where I "railed" against any use of extra biblical reasoning.

You have made accusations about me that are incorrect. I have given two examples. It is for this reason that I asked if you comforted your flock or confronted your flock.

 

[whatever]

Originally posted by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian:
First, I see how the "Calvinists" in this thread have only dealt seriously with the 1 John 2:2 passage and have not given a full response to 2 Peter 2:1 which is even more damaging to the position of limited atonement. I am quite familiar with the limited arguments for 1 John 2:2, but I am also aware that 2 Peter 2:1 must be dealt with as well. Let me quote it for you with my comments bracketed: "The false prophets [by no means the elect wouldn't you say?] also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, [heresies/heretics = non-elect] even denying the Master who bought them, [the Master bought them meaning they have been bought with the blood] bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

OK, let's talk about 2 Peter 2:1. What does it mean to be bought by the blood of Christ? What good does that do?

If it is a genuine offer then it must be available through the atonement.

Can you prove that?

 

[OldRegular]

To whom it may concern,

A little advice from the Apostle Paul concerning philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 [KJV, 1769] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Perhaps you have not come across this verse in your study Baptist_Pastor/Theologian, but there it is from the Inerrant Word of God.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

OldRegular,

Pastor Bill, you still are behaving like an attack dog, what more can be said?

Do you not sense the vitriolic tone of your comments?

I cannot believe that you would actually ask me to sight your ranting about extra biblical reasoning! The gist of all your posts are in that genre... Do you recall the whole law of non-contradiction thing??? Hello... can you say tone deaf?

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Baptist_Pastor/Theologian:
OldRegular,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Pastor Bill, you still are behaving like an attack dog, what more can be said?

Do you not sense the vitriolic tone of your comments?

I cannot believe that you would actually ask me to sight your ranting about extra biblical reasoning! The gist of all your posts are in that genre... Do you recall the whole law of non-contradiction thing??? Hello... can you say tone deaf?

Shalom,

Pastor Bill </font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Bill,
I was mistaken, I thought you had said all that could be said. By the way, you don't have to cite all my rantings about extra biblical reasoning, one will be sufficient so everyone on this thread can see it! In fact I would really like to know what it was.

Vitriolic, lets see, that means severely caustic, scathing! I am , is that saying something like "Hello... can you say tone deaf"?, or “Your overall attitude smacks of anti-intellectualism. , or “You act as if the Christian faith is not logical.”.

You need to take a deep breath and relax. And, just to keep things in perspective, be sure to read Colossians 2:8.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

OldRegular,

You are scaring me know...

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

 

[lilrabbi]

First of all, I'm curious how old people are on this board? I'm not quite 21. It just gives me a better sense of who I'm speaking if I know they are in 6th grade or are in their 60's!

I'd like to get a couple of things out of the way to begin with. I know there are uncountable shades of positions to this issue. Universalists are further off than arminians. Pelagians are further off than arminians (or semi-pelagians). And there are positions in between arminianism and calvinism. And calvinism rests in between Arminianism and lazy, sinful calvinism (no need to evangelize!). Labels truly do fail much of the time. 4.5 point calvinists aren't Calvinists. They are half a point shy of it. lol. I said in another thread that I've been discussing these things with a seminary professor, and he seems to be a 4.9999 point calvinist. I don't really like the labels, and I would prefer to deal in terms of doctrines and Scripture passages. But for sake of ease in communication, we need to simply use the terms "calvinism" or "arminianism" or "pelagianism" or "universalism" - as those are the benchmarks in the spectrum.

When building a theology, you begin with passages and truths that are most evident, and from there go into things which seem a bit more clouded. So it is with "calvinism" - the doctrines of grace. The places one starts has to be in the doctrines of man's radical corruption, God's predestination, and the work of Christ's Atonement. If one properly understands the basics, then they cannot help but believe in Limited atonement. Because of this, to call yourself a "4 point calvinist", you must be misunderstanding one of the points, because they all fit together, and without one, they are all undermined. If inconsistency is okay in your book, so be it. I'd rather stuff made sense! That brings us to this point...

You say, "If God did not mean what he said, why did God not say what he meant?" This is rather simplistic and misleading. I think you know that. We are to compare Scripture with Scripture, going from obvious to obscure. If you try and interpret the obscure by itself, you run into problems and inconsistencies.

For example: Hebrews 6. This passage says essentially the same thing that 2Peter 2:1 says, only it goes a step further in not only making ME uncomfortable, but it makes YOU uncomfortable too. It not only says that those for whom Christ died can turn away, but that those who have actually been regenerated can turn away from the faith!!!

vv. 4-6, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame."

You probably know the issues that go into this passage, so I'll be brief. How do we make sense of this passage?? It clearly goes against the testimony of so much plain Scripture elsewhere. Well, we have to have a proper understanding of it. The true Arminian would say "no! its fine just as it stands! Quit distorting the passage!" That is similar to what you would say to the other passage...but here we go...

The best interpretation I've found is that these are truly saved individuals that the author is speaking of. The author is simply saying IF that were true then such and such would happen, so we know that it could never happen. What is it called? Reductio ad absurdum? Something like that. So for you to give a calvinist guff about "working over" the passage, or straining it, is the same charge a real arminian would bring against you. You can heartily defend yourself because there are so many passages that teach eternal security. In the same way, we (calvinists) seek to understand scriptures that seem to contradict obvious doctrines, in a way that squares with truth.

The reason limited atonement is so deplorable to you is that it would seem that the offer of salvation is a sham. The reason you think that, is that you believe in the man's free will - his ability to choose to accept Christ without some "coercian" by God. Hence, abhorrence of limited atonement is because of a denial of the "T" and the "I". Indeed, you deny the true meaning of atonement - which is a purchase - includes propitiation and expiation. You have to deny Substitutional Atonement as it is properly understood. That Christ ACTUALLY paid for something. You reduce Christ's death to something LESS than an actual atonement, because atonement involves the sacrifice and the intercession and God's acceptance thereof.

You didn't answer the question I posed - in the OT, is atonement ever only the death of an animal? NO. It always includes the offering of that sacrifice in the holy of holies, and God's acceptance of it.

Here is the point about propitiation and substitutionary atonement: If Christ is the substitute for someone on the cross, then He paid their sins, and they no longer owe God the debt the previously owed. You deny substitutionary atonement and the very meaning of the word "propitiation" in order to say that Christ died for all men (cosmos is often used to refer to specific people groups btw). Our concern IS the justice of God, because you are saying that Christ's death was NOT enough. That man can still be bad enough, even though their sins were paid for, that they still have to go to hell. What is it that those who go to hell did to deserve damnation more than the elect? They chose not to believe. Its in their hands (as the elects' salvation is in theirs).

Christ death was enough for all the sins in the world, except for the sin of unbelief.

The justice of God is at stake here. Either you say that God requires DOUBLE payment for a debt (unjust). OR your other option is that Christ's death doesn't pay for every sin (the sin of unbelief). Both are wicked ideas. You don't believe in Substitutionary Atonement if you believe Christ paid the debt of all mankind, but some men still aren't saved. Either you become a Universalist, or you say God is unjust, or that Christ's death wasn't good enough to cover all sins.

You bring up the law of non-contradiction a lot. It is upon that law which all of these things I say stand. Either God was satisfied (propitiated) with Christ's sacrifice, or He wasn't. God can't be both satisfied and unsatisfied at the same time. Satisfied = salvation and glorification and all the rest. Unsatisfied = damnation and all the rest.

I will admit that I don't have a great reply for 2 Peter 2:1. I know of some who have explained it, and I want to get their books so I can see if its plausible. But let me say this again, I would rather be uneasy about one passage of scripture than to reject all the passages that are abundantly clear. Understand the unclear by the clear, not the other way around.

It has nothing to do with taking a position or system, and then warping texts to fit it. It has everything to do with understanding CLEAR texts which are many and then understanding unclear texts which are few in light of the others.

One last point - you say: "But my last question for you is this: How can salvation be offered to all if it is not available? If it is a genuine offer then it must be available through the atonement."

You assume with Finney that "ought implies can." Nothing could be further from the truth. God commanded the Mosaic Law, did He not? Did anyone (excluding Deity) have the ability to obey that law perfectly? Absolutely not. Only Wesleyans and Methodists would say, "yes." In fact, the exact opposite is true. The law was given to show how imperfect we really are - it was a tutor to bring us to the point where we realize we need Christ. Ought most certainly does not imply can. An invitation to obey (command) does not imply the ability to respond to that invitation. You think ought implies can because you don't really believe man is radically corrupt and in bondage to sin, not having the ability in his spiritual death to respond positively and in faith to the outward gospel call.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Originally posted by lilrabbi:
First of all, I'm curious how old people are on this board? I'm not quite 21. It just gives me a better sense of who I'm speaking if I know they are in 6th grade or are in their 60's!

I'd like to get a couple of things out of the way to begin with. I know there are uncountable shades of positions to this issue. Universalists are further off than arminians. Pelagians are further off than arminians (or semi-pelagians). And there are positions in between arminianism and calvinism. And calvinism rests in between Arminianism and lazy, sinful calvinism (no need to evangelize!). Labels truly do fail much of the time. 4.5 point calvinists aren't Calvinists. They are half a point shy of it. lol. I said in another thread that I've been discussing these things with a seminary professor, and he seems to be a 4.9999 point calvinist. I don't really like the labels, and I would prefer to deal in terms of doctrines and Scripture passages. But for sake of ease in communication, we need to simply use the terms "calvinism" or "arminianism" or "pelagianism" or "universalism" - as those are the benchmarks in the spectrum.

When building a theology, you begin with passages and truths that are most evident, and from there go into things which seem a bit more clouded. So it is with "calvinism" - the doctrines of grace. The places one starts has to be in the doctrines of man's radical corruption, God's predestination, and the work of Christ's Atonement. If one properly understands the basics, then they cannot help but believe in Limited atonement. Because of this, to call yourself a "4 point calvinist", you must be misunderstanding one of the points, because they all fit together, and without one, they are all undermined. If inconsistency is okay in your book, so be it. I'd rather stuff made sense! That brings us to this point...

You say, "If God did not mean what he said, why did God not say what he meant?" This is rather simplistic and misleading. I think you know that. We are to compare Scripture with Scripture, going from obvious to obscure. If you try and interpret the obscure by itself, you run into problems and inconsistencies.

For example: Hebrews 6. This passage says essentially the same thing that 2Peter 2:1 says, only it goes a step further in not only making ME uncomfortable, but it makes YOU uncomfortable too. It not only says that those for whom Christ died can turn away, but that those who have actually been regenerated can turn away from the faith!!!

vv. 4-6, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame."

You probably know the issues that go into this passage, so I'll be brief. How do we make sense of this passage?? It clearly goes against the testimony of so much plain Scripture elsewhere. Well, we have to have a proper understanding of it. The true Arminian would say "no! its fine just as it stands! Quit distorting the passage!" That is similar to what you would say to the other passage...but here we go...

The best interpretation I've found is that these are truly saved individuals that the author is speaking of. The author is simply saying IF that were true then such and such would happen, so we know that it could never happen. What is it called? Reductio ad absurdum? Something like that. So for you to give a calvinist guff about "working over" the passage, or straining it, is the same charge a real arminian would bring against you. You can heartily defend yourself because there are so many passages that teach eternal security. In the same way, we (calvinists) seek to understand scriptures that seem to contradict obvious doctrines, in a way that squares with truth.

The reason limited atonement is so deplorable to you is that it would seem that the offer of salvation is a sham. The reason you think that, is that you believe in the man's free will - his ability to choose to accept Christ without some "coercian" by God. Hence, abhorrence of limited atonement is because of a denial of the "T" and the "I". Indeed, you deny the true meaning of atonement - which is a purchase - includes propitiation and expiation. You have to deny Substitutional Atonement as it is properly understood. That Christ ACTUALLY paid for something. You reduce Christ's death to something LESS than an actual atonement, because atonement involves the sacrifice and the intercession and God's acceptance thereof.

You didn't answer the question I posed - in the OT, is atonement ever only the death of an animal? NO. It always includes the offering of that sacrifice in the holy of holies, and God's acceptance of it.

Here is the point about propitiation and substitutionary atonement: If Christ is the substitute for someone on the cross, then He paid their sins, and they no longer owe God the debt the previously owed. You deny substitutionary atonement and the very meaning of the word "propitiation" in order to say that Christ died for all men (cosmos is often used to refer to specific people groups btw). Our concern IS the justice of God, because you are saying that Christ's death was NOT enough. That man can still be bad enough, even though their sins were paid for, that they still have to go to hell. What is it that those who go to hell did to deserve damnation more than the elect? They chose not to believe. Its in their hands (as the elects' salvation is in theirs).

Christ death was enough for all the sins in the world, except for the sin of unbelief.

The justice of God is at stake here. Either you say that God requires DOUBLE payment for a debt (unjust). OR your other option is that Christ's death doesn't pay for every sin (the sin of unbelief). Both are wicked ideas. You don't believe in Substitutionary Atonement if you believe Christ paid the debt of all mankind, but some men still aren't saved. Either you become a Universalist, or you say God is unjust, or that Christ's death wasn't good enough to cover all sins.

You bring up the law of non-contradiction a lot. It is upon that law which all of these things I say stand. Either God was satisfied (propitiated) with Christ's sacrifice, or He wasn't. God can't be both satisfied and unsatisfied at the same time. Satisfied = salvation and glorification and all the rest. Unsatisfied = damnation and all the rest.

I will admit that I don't have a great reply for 2 Peter 2:1. I know of some who have explained it, and I want to get their books so I can see if its plausible. But let me say this again, I would rather be uneasy about one passage of scripture than to reject all the passages that are abundantly clear. Understand the unclear by the clear, not the other way around.

It has nothing to do with taking a position or system, and then warping texts to fit it. It has everything to do with understanding CLEAR texts which are many and then understanding unclear texts which are few in light of the others.

One last point - you say: "But my last question for you is this: How can salvation be offered to all if it is not available? If it is a genuine offer then it must be available through the atonement."

You assume with Finney that "ought implies can." Nothing could be further from the truth. God commanded the Mosaic Law, did He not? Did anyone (excluding Deity) have the ability to obey that law perfectly? Absolutely not. Only Wesleyans and Methodists would say, "yes." In fact, the exact opposite is true. The law was given to show how imperfect we really are - it was a tutor to bring us to the point where we realize we need Christ. Ought most certainly does not imply can. An invitation to obey (command) does not imply the ability to respond to that invitation. You think ought implies can because you don't really believe man is radically corrupt and in bondage to sin, not having the ability in his spiritual death to respond positively and in faith to the outward gospel call.

lilrabbi,

First of all let me answer your question regarding age. I am 33 and have earned a MDiv w/biblical languages and a ThM in Historical Theology. I wrote on Balthasar Hubmaier, an Anabaptist figure from the 16th century. I am currently a pastor of a SBC church.

I appreciate the exchange of ideas that you offer. I feel somewhat at an advantage because you are holding true to a typical Calvinist position, and this is not my first go round concerning limited atonement. Allow me to give you a better understanding of four point Calvinism, so that you will not make blanket comparisons with my view to that of Wesley, Arminius, or Pelagius. My particular brand of Calvinism is known as Amyraldism.

"Amyraldism maintains that the extent of Christ's atonement is both universal and limited. Its provision or design is universal or infinite because it is sufficient for all the sins of the world (Isa 53:6; John 1:29; 6:51; 2 Cor 5:14, 19; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 2:9; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:14). Its application is limited or finite because though it is available to all men (John 3:16; 7:37; Tit 2:11; Rev 22:17), it is only effectual for the elect (Rom 8:32-34; 2 Cor 5:14; 1 Tim 4:10; cf. John 6:37-39; 10:11, 15; 17:9, 20; Acts 20:28; Rom 5:8-10; Eph 5:25). God does not desire the death of the wicked; rather He desires the salvation of all men (Eze 18:23, 32; 33:11; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9). Though Amyraut held to Infralapsarianism, the Sublapsarian view of God's decrees is most consistent with Amyraldism. Amyraldians acknowledge that their system is a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism, but they maintain it because they are convinced that the Bible teaches a universalistic design behind Christ's cross work." -Andrew David Naselli

In terms of the level of which I am able to understand your position, I made this statement prior to your expressing nearly the same sentiments.

The system fits together, yet all too much like a house of cards. Remove the one point, ie limited atonement, and the house comes down for most. However, it does not have to be that way.

You expressed nearly the same sentiment when you suggested:

If one properly understands the basics, then they cannot help but believe in Limited atonement. Because of this, to call yourself a "4 point calvinist", you must be misunderstanding one of the points, because they all fit together, and without one, they are all undermined.

I just point this out to you so that you will not feel that my lack of commitment to your view is due to an apparent misunderstanding of the nature of the atonement. I must tell you that I find it refreshing to dialog with a true Calvinist who will actually admit some of things to which you subscribe. Most are not so forthcoming about the need to be so utterly logical and have a system that fits together. Most try very hard to keep logical coherency out of the equation altogether, as if it were not patently obvious that the system is based on a very definite set of logical presumptions that must work in succession or not at all. For your openness I thank you. It is for this reason that I will now attempt to address your previous comments and try to answer as best I can the response that you have put forth.

Let me start by affirming your hermeneutical approach, it is appropriate to let clearer readings inform more difficult readings, and of course it is advisable to let Scripture interpret Scripture. So I understand your need to fit the two passages that I have offered for discussion within your system’s, ie Calvinism, framework. When confronted with a passage that does not at first conform you must take other passages that clearly imply the opposite and exegete the passage accordingly. Therefore when confronted with problem passages like the following you must respond accordingly:

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. Titus 2:11-14

How do you respond to this passage? “Bring salvation for all people...”

You see lilrabbi, I am not guilty of taking an isolated passage of Scripture and building an entire doctrine of atonement based on that one text as you have suggested. Here are just some of the passages that suggest that Christ died for all men, as cited by the ESV:

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
1 Timothy 2:5-6

14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
1 John 4:14

9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. Hebrews 2:9

14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 2 Corinthians 5:14-15

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29

2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

Hence, I really do mean to say, If God did not mean what He said, then why did he not say what he meant?

Now in fairness your position you may then claim to list a few passages of your own that point to particular atonement. I will allow your rebuttal, but allow me to anticipate a few of your passages:

12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12

28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Matthew 20:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26:28

19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:19

21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:21

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people Luke 1:68

20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Luke 22:20

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Acts 20:28

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Ephesians 5:25

14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:14-15

I can comfortably say that I am not bothered by any of the aforementioned passages because, I am not a Universalist, because I separate the availability with the application of the atonement, and also because if Christ died for all then he certainly died for many, and specifically he died for the few. That does not rule out the universal nature of the atonement. You believe that Christ died for the elect, but that does not rule out the fact the Christ died for just you.

Next, I think you really need to read up on Amyraldism, because based on the following statement, you have seriously misunderstood my position.

The reason limited atonement is so deplorable to you is that it would seem that the offer of salvation is a sham. The reason you think that, is that you believe in the man's free will - his ability to choose to accept Christ without some "coercian" by God. Hence, abhorrence of limited atonement is because of a denial of the "T" and the "I". Indeed, you deny the true meaning of atonement - which is a purchase - includes propitiation and expiation. You have to deny Substitutional Atonement as it is properly understood. That Christ ACTUALLY paid for something. You reduce Christ's death to something LESS than an actual atonement, because atonement involves the sacrifice and the intercession and God's acceptance thereof.

Lastly, I would like to address the very essence of what I feel is at stake here, when we nuance the two positions that each of us hold. You present the real dilemma by suggesting:

Here is the point about propitiation and substitutionary atonement: If Christ is the substitute for someone on the cross, then He paid their sins, and they no longer owe God the debt the previously owed. You deny substitutionary atonement and the very meaning of the word "propitiation" in order to say that Christ died for all men

I have a simple solution for your dilemma, it is called faith. Faith is the key to the application of the atonement. Eph. 2:8-9, “For it is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing, it is a gift from God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Romans 10:9-10, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” FAITH can be used to explain the process by which the atonement is applied. This eliminates the problem of Universalism or salvation for all people, because not all people have faith in Jesus Christ nor have all people confessed Jesus as Lord.

That is all I have time to respond to for now, but you seem to be a good student and I want to encourage you to continue with your studies, for Jesus said “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!”

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

 

[Paul33]

Pastor Bill,

Great thougts.

I was wondering if you have read R.T. Kendall's book "Calvinism and English Calvinism to 1649"?

An interesting discussion would be his claim that Calvin understood the atonement like I think you and I do; that is, atoning sacrifice on the cross to pay the penalty for all sin, intercession only for the elect at the Father's right hand.

Later Calvinists deny this two-fold nature of the atonement and claim that Calvin did too.

I am 42 and have a M.Div degree from TEDS, M.A from Liberty, and D.Min. candidate from Gordon-Conwell. I'm also a pastor.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Pastor Bill,

Great thougts.

I was wondering if you have read R.T. Kendall's book "Calvinism and English Calvinism to 1649"?

An interesting discussion would be his claim that Calvin understood the atonement like I think you and I do; that is, atoning sacrifice on the cross to pay the penalty for all sin, intercession only for the elect at the Father's right hand.

Later Calvinists deny this two-fold nature of the atonement and claim that Calvin did too.

I am 42 and have a M.Div degree from TEDS, M.A from Liberty, and D.Min. candidate from Gordon-Conwell. I'm also a pastor.

Paul,

Great to make your acquaintance, I am somewhat familiar with "Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649." It is interesting that you should bring that up. I found this citation regarding this work very interesting.

After Calvin’s death his followers believed they represented the true teachings of Calvin with regards to the extent of the atonement. Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), one such theologian, taught an unlimited atonement (that Christ did not die for the elect in Christ only). However, the question of whether Amyraut, in his teaching of the universal design of the atonement, preserved or altered Calvin’s doctrine is complicated by the fact that there seems to be little agreement as to whether Calvin himself held such a position.3

3 As the debate between R.T. Kendall (Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 [Oxford, 1979] and Paul Helm (Calvin and the Calvinists [Banner of Truth, 1982]) illustrates, texts from Calvin can be cited on both sides of the issue. Since the relationship between Calvin and Amyraut is unclear on this point, however, so is the relationship between Calvin and Amyraut’s orthodox opponents.

Would that MDiv be from Trinity in Chicago, I am guessing Trinity Evangelical Divinity School? If so I would love to hear of how that went for you. I have both of my degrees from SEBTS aka Southeastern, in Wake Forest, NC. Several of our faculty were Trinity grads and some had taught there as well. I here the faculty do not get along that well with one another but other than that it is the Harvard of Evangelicalism. SEBTS is the Harvard of SBC life... lol.

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

[ February 23, 2005, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Baptist_Pastor/Theologian ]

 

[lilrabbi]

Pastor/Theologian -

I am quite familiar with Amyraldism. That is what most of the people in my church and association are. Much of what I read contains the same statement of "Sufficient for all men, efficient for the elect." The notes in my Believer's Study Bible (now the Baptist SB), my Defender's study bible, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Thiessen's Lectures, Ryrie's Basic Theology and Chafer's Systematic all agree with you. And it is readily accepted by the layity in our circles because its quick and easy to remember, and it seems to find be anti-limited atonement while not being universalist. I was even taught this statement when I was about 11 years old by my father when I asked him about Calvinism. He left the CRC and some lazy Calvinism and joined a conservative Baptist church.

I have to tell you two things. One, I am not as hardline on Limited Atonement as Covenant/Amillenial theologians would be. The reason being, I disagree with how they insert their misunderstanding of OT prophecy concerning the New Covenant, and even their insertion of the "Covenant Family" ideas. The other thing I must say is that I was only able to attend Bible College for 3 semesters, and then I went deaf. I was unable to take any Greek. So my exegetical tools are absolutely not where I want them to be and where they will be. None of my calvinism came from my 3 semesters at college, as they were Amyraldians!! lol

I still think that Limited Atonement is, just like the maxim, "regeneration precedes faith," are simply the conlusions of obvious and plain doctrines taught in the Bible. Some of those would be: Total inability/depravity, Predestination/Election, Substitutionary Atonement, Irresistible Grace. With my understanding of those (which I, obviously, believe to be the proper understanding), I am precluded from believing several things; Freewillism, Regeneration resulting from our exercise of faith, and the Amyraldian view of the "atonement". I put that in quotes, because I think your understanding of the atonement (separating it from its intercessory and propitiating conclusion) is no real atonement - by definition of the word.

This is why, when I come across passages that seem, at first glance, to teach that Christ bought all men, I have to reconcile them with the clear doctrines and passages. There seems to be a lot of 'universal' passages. But in my studying, there are only a few that aren't rather easy to explain. One of those is 2 Peter 2:1. If you take it in the same sense as other passages that sound similar (regenerate falling away, etc.) then it makes sense. The problem though, is that there's nothing in the text to signal a special sense like in the other passages. But I would still take it in the "all kinds of men" sense, and here is why:

As for the Titus 2 passage (and the majority of "all men" passages)...

There are many other times where the term "all" is used, but is clearly NOT meant to be "every individual man", but simply "from every class of men" or "without distinction of class or status."

Titus 3:2, "to mailign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men."

It is impossible for anyone to do these things to "every individual man." Clearly, this is "all kinds of men" and "regardless of class."

Acts 22:15, "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard."

This is Paul's commission. If we take "all men" as you insist it should be taken every time, then Paul was a miserale failure! While Paul talked to a lot of people, I'm pretty confident he didn't talk to "every single individual" living during his time. Clearly, it was his commission to go to the gentiles, as stated elsewhere.

A major theme in the New Testament is that God was broadening His direct dealings with men beyond just the Jews. This was a major issue for the jewish Christians, so it is no surprise at all that the apostles would emphasize that Christ didn't die JUST for the Jews, but also for members of the Gentiles.

Colossians 3:11, "A renewal in which there is no distrinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."

So, would you really believe that Christ dwells, "is in", all men - even the unregenerate, unsaved unbelievers? If you are consistent you have to say that. OR you could allow for a more generic meaning of "all men."

It is clear that Paul uses the term "all" to mean "all kinds of men" ---and NOT "every single individual." When you see this, it makes perfect sense when it is said that Christ died for "all men." At face value, it goes against revealed doctrine (substitutionary atonement). But we seek to reconcile cloudy Scripture with clear, and we do just that by understanding "all men" to mean "all kinds of men" as opposed to "every individual man."

You would have problems with Christ being "in all", if that meant "every individual." You seek to reconcile the perceived meaning with clear doctrine. You are just as guilty as I am of this---and I don't think that's a bad thing!

You see, what it comes down to is that you do not understand the "clear doctrines" in the same way that I do, so you find no disagreement between your established doctrine and the perceived gist of these "all men" passages dealing with the atonement.

Real Arminians are consistent in their view of the atonement. They reject a substitutionary atonement because they see the relationship between a substitution and forgiveness. If you are substituted for, you do not have to do what was done for you. Its pretty basic. Amyraldism is inconsistent because it claims to hold to substitutionary atonement, but it has to redefine the terms. By the very definition of the term "sustitution", "propitiation", and "expiation", everyone for whom Christ died in the place of took upon Himself their guilt and punishment so that God's justice would be satisfied, and so that our sins would be removed from us. But you have to change the definitions. For you, Christ was not really a substitution for each individual (i.e., a substitution for no one), God's justice is NOT really satisfied by Christ's sacrifice for "all men" because God still executes judgement on some of those men for whome He died. And, obviously, you can't believe that a man suffering for his sin in Hell had his sins expiated at any time. Because you don't hold a real view of Substitutionary Atonement, you have no problem saying that Christ died for "every single individual."

"Most [calvinists] try very hard to keep logical coherency out of the equation altogether, as if it were not patently obvious that the system is based on a very definite set of logical presumptions that must work in succession or not at all."

You are right in pointing out that most try to avoid it, because they think it is a problem. I do not. The reason I don't think its a problem is because the second part of your statement is simply untrue. You say: "logical presumptions". That is wrong. Limited atonement, regeneration preceding faith, my understanding of freewill are ALL logical CONCLUSIONS of very clear doctrines. Presumption is beforehand and the word is used to connote extra biblical basis. But that implication is simply not true. You believe in dispensationalism, why? Because the doctrine is clearly stated in Scripture? Hardly. Because a proper reading of Scripture logically and necessarily leads to this view. In the same way, a proper reading of Scripture (and proper understanding of the aforementioned doctrines) logically and necessarily leads to a particular redemption and so forth. You are as guilty of this "logical presumptions" as I am, because they are not logical presumptions, but are logical conclusions based evident Scriptural truth. The same could be said of smoking being an evil, steroid use, etc. They aren't explicit, but implicit. I think you get my point.

I can't accept your "simple solution" either. The only reason you have to find a solution is because you don't believe in a real substitutionary atonement. There is no problem, Scripturally with particular redemption (atonement=redemption). Those passages that are alleged problem passages are easily understood. If I were to come to understand the atonement as something that doesn't really do anything for any individual person like you believe, then I would seek for solutions in an interesting understanding of Faith.

Your turn.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Originally posted by lilrabbi:
Pastor/Theologian -

I am quite familiar with Amyraldism. That is what most of the people in my church and association are. Much of what I read contains the same statement of "Sufficient for all men, efficient for the elect." The notes in my Believer's Study Bible (now the Baptist SB), my Defender's study bible, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Thiessen's Lectures, Ryrie's Basic Theology and Chafer's Systematic all agree with you. And it is readily accepted by the layity in our circles because its quick and easy to remember, and it seems to find be anti-limited atonement while not being universalist. I was even taught this statement when I was about 11 years old by my father when I asked him about Calvinism. He left the CRC and some lazy Calvinism and joined a conservative Baptist church.

I have to tell you two things. One, I am not as hardline on Limited Atonement as Covenant/Amillenial theologians would be. The reason being, I disagree with how they insert their misunderstanding of OT prophecy concerning the New Covenant, and even their insertion of the "Covenant Family" ideas. The other thing I must say is that I was only able to attend Bible College for 3 semesters, and then I went deaf. I was unable to take any Greek. So my exegetical tools are absolutely not where I want them to be and where they will be. None of my calvinism came from my 3 semesters at college, as they were Amyraldians!! lol

I still think that Limited Atonement is, just like the maxim, "regeneration precedes faith," are simply the conlusions of obvious and plain doctrines taught in the Bible. Some of those would be: Total inability/depravity, Predestination/Election, Substitutionary Atonement, Irresistible Grace. With my understanding of those (which I, obviously, believe to be the proper understanding), I am precluded from believing several things; Freewillism, Regeneration resulting from our exercise of faith, and the Amyraldian view of the "atonement". I put that in quotes, because I think your understanding of the atonement (separating it from its intercessory and propitiating conclusion) is no real atonement - by definition of the word.

This is why, when I come across passages that seem, at first glance, to teach that Christ bought all men, I have to reconcile them with the clear doctrines and passages. There seems to be a lot of 'universal' passages. But in my studying, there are only a few that aren't rather easy to explain. One of those is 2 Peter 2:1. If you take it in the same sense as other passages that sound similar (regenerate falling away, etc.) then it makes sense. The problem though, is that there's nothing in the text to signal a special sense like in the other passages. But I would still take it in the "all kinds of men" sense, and here is why:

As for the Titus 2 passage (and the majority of "all men" passages)...

There are many other times where the term "all" is used, but is clearly NOT meant to be "every individual man", but simply "from every class of men" or "without distinction of class or status."

Titus 3:2, "to mailign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men."

It is impossible for anyone to do these things to "every individual man." Clearly, this is "all kinds of men" and "regardless of class."

Acts 22:15, "For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard."

This is Paul's commission. If we take "all men" as you insist it should be taken every time, then Paul was a miserale failure! While Paul talked to a lot of people, I'm pretty confident he didn't talk to "every single individual" living during his time. Clearly, it was his commission to go to the gentiles, as stated elsewhere.

A major theme in the New Testament is that God was broadening His direct dealings with men beyond just the Jews. This was a major issue for the jewish Christians, so it is no surprise at all that the apostles would emphasize that Christ didn't die JUST for the Jews, but also for members of the Gentiles.

Colossians 3:11, "A renewal in which there is no distrinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."

So, would you really believe that Christ dwells, "is in", all men - even the unregenerate, unsaved unbelievers? If you are consistent you have to say that. OR you could allow for a more generic meaning of "all men."

It is clear that Paul uses the term "all" to mean "all kinds of men" ---and NOT "every single individual." When you see this, it makes perfect sense when it is said that Christ died for "all men." At face value, it goes against revealed doctrine (substitutionary atonement). But we seek to reconcile cloudy Scripture with clear, and we do just that by understanding "all men" to mean "all kinds of men" as opposed to "every individual man."

You would have problems with Christ being "in all", if that meant "every individual." You seek to reconcile the perceived meaning with clear doctrine. You are just as guilty as I am of this---and I don't think that's a bad thing!

You see, what it comes down to is that you do not understand the "clear doctrines" in the same way that I do, so you find no disagreement between your established doctrine and the perceived gist of these "all men" passages dealing with the atonement.

Real Arminians are consistent in their view of the atonement. They reject a substitutionary atonement because they see the relationship between a substitution and forgiveness. If you are substituted for, you do not have to do what was done for you. Its pretty basic. Amyraldism is inconsistent because it claims to hold to substitutionary atonement, but it has to redefine the terms. By the very definition of the term "sustitution", "propitiation", and "expiation", everyone for whom Christ died in the place of took upon Himself their guilt and punishment so that God's justice would be satisfied, and so that our sins would be removed from us. But you have to change the definitions. For you, Christ was not really a substitution for each individual (i.e., a substitution for no one), God's justice is NOT really satisfied by Christ's sacrifice for "all men" because God still executes judgement on some of those men for whome He died. And, obviously, you can't believe that a man suffering for his sin in Hell had his sins expiated at any time. Because you don't hold a real view of Substitutionary Atonement, you have no problem saying that Christ died for "every single individual."

"Most [calvinists] try very hard to keep logical coherency out of the equation altogether, as if it were not patently obvious that the system is based on a very definite set of logical presumptions that must work in succession or not at all."

You are right in pointing out that most try to avoid it, because they think it is a problem. I do not. The reason I don't think its a problem is because the second part of your statement is simply untrue. You say: "logical presumptions". That is wrong. Limited atonement, regeneration preceding faith, my understanding of freewill are ALL logical CONCLUSIONS of very clear doctrines. Presumption is beforehand and the word is used to connote extra biblical basis. But that implication is simply not true. You believe in dispensationalism, why? Because the doctrine is clearly stated in Scripture? Hardly. Because a proper reading of Scripture logically and necessarily leads to this view. In the same way, a proper reading of Scripture (and proper understanding of the aforementioned doctrines) logically and necessarily leads to a particular redemption and so forth. You are as guilty of this "logical presumptions" as I am, because they are not logical presumptions, but are logical conclusions based evident Scriptural truth. The same could be said of smoking being an evil, steroid use, etc. They aren't explicit, but implicit. I think you get my point.

I can't accept your "simple solution" either. The only reason you have to find a solution is because you don't believe in a real substitutionary atonement. There is no problem, Scripturally with particular redemption (atonement=redemption). Those passages that are alleged problem passages are easily understood. If I were to come to understand the atonement as something that doesn't really do anything for any individual person like you believe, then I would seek for solutions in an interesting understanding of Faith.

Your turn.

lilrabbi,

I am sorry for your loss of the world of sound. It must have been a great adjustment for you. I commend your bravery. I also understand your theological dilemma, and now know that you have adopted your view based on a thorough going examination of Scripture. You even seem to have a thorough grasp of the issues. So my task will be difficult but I will not give up on you just yet and we can always agree to disagree.

Let's take the matter of faith for instance. In your view faith is preceded by regeneration. Not that I think you are ignorant of the meaning of terms but for our purposes I must have clarification in order to proceed. Do you equate spiritual rebirth with regeneration? Next, is rebirth accompanied by baptism with the Holy Spirit?

I understand that you are guarding against a works based salvation which you are correct in doing. In Eph. 2:8 you obviously have placed the emphasis on faith being a gift when I would place the emphasis on salvation being the gift. We are saved by grace through faith. Salvation is the gift, it is by grace [ie unmerited favor] and it is through faith [ie belief]. The order by which the process of salvation occurs is however important to understand, otherwise you have a malformation of the process, which can lead to serious problems. In order to have a conversion there must be repentance. Does faith precede repentance according to your view? For that matter does regeneration precede repentance? If so, I am afraid you have rendered the Sola Fide of the Reformation null and void. I would love to hear your take on Hebrews 11. Your understanding of faith is the real key to unlocking the power of the Gospel. I am not questioning your commitment to this point, but simply suggesting that a malformed view of faith will produce a malformed response to God.

That is all I have time for at the present, but I would ask that you please reframe from continually stating that I do not believe in a true propitiation, it is beginning to be like that of a broken record. My understanding of atonement in truth is no different than yours in principle because I believe that only the elect are truly redeemed. The real difference in our views is not atonement but predestination. I do not believe in double predestination. I believe that all were cast aside into one group, and out of that one group God elected some to salvation and others to damnation. But in order to have a true unconditional election there must be nothing merited in election. If you are a part of an elite group who never was in danger of hell, then you are not truly redeemed now are you? According to your view you never were truly destined for hell, anymore than that lost ever were potentially candidates for salvation. I however believe that all have sinned and no one is worthy, and that I was saved from damnation. There is a ton to go through not sure we will get it all in before glory, but here is to the race!

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

 

[lilrabbi]

Pastor Bill,

Thanks for your response. The reason I bring up Substitutionary Atonement is that your view is different from mine, and not just in how predestination is done.

As to predestination, I don't believe in double predestination as you have described. I believe in predestination though, and you do too. If you're familiar with James White, John Piper, or RC Sproul, they will say the same thing. To acknowledge that God predestines some to be saved necessarily means He is predestining other to NOT be saved. If I choose to put just one shoe on, it involved a decision to not put on the other one. You can't have it any other way. So, I think you and I both believe in double predestination. I do believe that all men are lost, and out of that pool God chose some. I'm not a supralapsarian (I think that's the correct term). And neither are you. We agree on that point.

It is my understanding of total depravity, the working of God, and the definition of the word "believe" that cause me to think that regeneration precedes faith.

Man's unable to do anything righteous. What is more righteous than believing and embraces the gospel and the Savior? Exactly. To say, "Faith is not a work" is just silly. Believing, by definition is an action, a work. What kind of work? A good one. No man is able to do a good work apart from being made alive.

From my understanding, and those I respect (are you familiar with Dr. Myron Houghton of Faith Baptist Seminary in Ankeny, IA?) who don't believe that regeneration precedes faith tell me, that in Eph. 2:8 the whole first phrase is called the gift of God. Why do you separate "Grace" and "salvation" from the word "faith" in that verse? I don't see any reason to make that division.

Like I've said before, my understanding of some more basic and foundational doctrines make me conclude what I do about regeneration and limited atonement. That said, if Scripture somewhere is clearly against it, then I will rethink things. I haven't found any Scripture against Limited Atonement. But there are some passages that would seem to say that regeneration/rebirth comes after faith, but that faith is still a gift from God. From what I can tell, that is the view of Dr. Myron and many at Faith. That would work with obvious truth about total depravity....I'm still thinking that one through.

As to your question specifically, regeneration and rebirth are identical. Being re-made (regeneration) and being re-born (born again) seem to be synonymous. I don't think regeneration and Spirit Baptism are identical. In this dispensation, they happen in the same instant, but in spirit baptism is somethin peculiar to this dispensation. I really need to look into more. Understand that, as I've said, I'm yet young and haven't been able to go into all facets of theology at this point. I also know that no doctrine is an isolated matter, and they all influence eachother.

I think you misunderstand Sole Fide. My understanding is that, as Luther and Calvin both taught it, there were several parts to saving faith and that it was indeed a gift of God. I should clarify, faith isn't exactly the gift, the gift is the ability to have faith. Without being made new, we are incapable of having faith. So, the regeneration is the gift, and faith/belief/repentance and the fruits of the Spirit that grow throughout one's life after conversion are ALL the results of that new life God gave us.

I don't emphasize the faith being a gift in that verse...You de-emphasize it so I have to emphasize it...Just like when pelagius denied the sin nature, Augustine had to emphasize it

lol...since you sign your posts with "shalom" I was going to sign this one "selah" but I figured you or some other posters might not see the humor and think I was rather full of myself. lol so I won't!

I was curious where you are from? I'm from southeastern/central Iowa. I'm a member of a GARBC church (the conservative variety).

Selah - err....In Christ,

Jesse

Ah, MAN! I forgot to get a knife.....(chicken breast for dinner) *sigh*

 

[lilrabbi]

I forgot to mention...

My deafness was caused by an autoimmune disorder (just like what Rush Limbaugh had). I had both ears implanted with the Cochlear Implant device, and now I hear wonderfully! Music is still a work in progress...check out the music forum on this site for more info on that...

You said: "I also understand your theological dilemma, and now know that you have adopted your view based on a thorough going examination of Scripture. You even seem to have a thorough grasp of the issues. So my task will be difficult but I will not give up on you just yet and we can always agree to disagree."

Lol...I just wanted to say that yes, it is more difficult to work someone over when they know what's coming and even have a Scriptural base to stand on

ONLY kidding, of course. Just had to through that in...

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Originally posted by lilrabbi:
I forgot to mention...

My deafness was caused by an autoimmune disorder (just like what Rush Limbaugh had). I had both ears implanted with the Cochlear Implant device, and now I hear wonderfully! Music is still a work in progress...check out the music forum on this site for more info on that...

You said: "I also understand your theological dilemma, and now know that you have adopted your view based on a thorough going examination of Scripture. You even seem to have a thorough grasp of the issues. So my task will be difficult but I will not give up on you just yet and we can always agree to disagree."

Lol...I just wanted to say that yes, it is more difficult to work someone over when they know what's coming and even have a Scriptural base to stand on

ONLY kidding, of course. Just had to through that in...

Jesse,

I am from Mississippi originally. I went to the New Orleans Seminary and finished at Southeastern in Wake Forest. I currently pastor in GA.

Allow me to lay down a thorough explanation of regeneration. If you can find agreement with my position on regeneration then perhaps there is room for further agreement elsewhere. As far as regeneration goes, I will argue that in response to the effectual call of the Spirit sinners consciously convert by 1) believing the Gospel, 2) repenting of their sin, and 3) trusting Jesus Christ alone. Only then are they 4) regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

Not to get off the subject, but it is necessary to establish what one must believe in order to begin the Christian experience. Which specific revealed doctrines must one believe to begin the Christian experience? In order to have a redemptive relationship with God, one must believe that God is the one moral, personal God distinct from creation, nevertheless active within it (Heb. 11:6; James 2:19; 1 Pt. 1:21). In full acknowledgement of sin, one must believe in the deity and unique sonship of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14; 16:30; 17:21; 20:31; 1 John 5:1, 5). One must understand and accept that Christ was sacrificed as the complete atonement for their sins (Rom. 3:25; 1 Thess. 4:14). In order to receive salvation one must also believe in Christ’s physical resurrection from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10; Acts 4:2; 1 Pt. 1:21). In essence, one must acknowledge one’s guilt before God and receive the Gospel message, thereby believing the basic truths about God, sin and salvation (Acts 8:12; Gal. 1:8-9). In other words, a child like faith is sufficient; however, no matter the level of sophistication, any other possible alternative is not. To this point, I have established that belief in the Gospel is necessary but not sufficient for conversion, because conversion also entails repentance and trust or submission to the Lordship of Christ.

The necessity of repentance cannot be overstated. Jesus made that point emphatically (Lk. 13:3). In order to describe the nature of repentance I will describe how repentance needs to be understood. Repentance by nature is a reputation of good works as a means of self-justification. Everyone needs to repent of the fallacious hope that one can please God through virtuous acts. In terms of commitment, repentance necessarily entails renouncing all other masters and regarding Jesus Christ alone as sovereign Lord. Through repentance one adopts a biblical worldview and renounces immorality. Repentance requires a holistic aversion to the mindset of the world dominated by the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). Repentance transforms one’s moral values and raises the level of expectation in one’s behavior. Those who are truly repented refuse to be conformed to the world in face of pressure to compromise to a lesser standard. Importantly, the truly repentant refuse to suppress or dismiss biblical truth (Ps. 31:5; Jn. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). In other words the repentant need to be willing to admit they have been wrong in the direction of their moral life and must begin all overall again as a little child. To the point, those who are repentant need to cut through superficial concerns and get to the heart of the problem through repenting of actual sin and wickedness.

BTW, faith is not necessarily synonymous with belief or mental assent. As I have heard it said, we believe in propositional truth; we have faith in or trust the glorified person of Christ. The object of belief is propositions; the object of faith is a person—ie Jesus. Therefore faith is not belief without evidence, but trust without reservation. That is to say through belief in the message of the Gospel; we come to trust the Spirit of Christ. Therefore one must drop the futile attempt at self-justification and depend on Christ alone for salvation. In summary, conversion is the general term encompassing conscious belief in the Gospel message, turning from sin in repentance, and trusting Christ. It could be said that conversion to Christ is that conscious experience of sinners who believe in the truth of the Gospel, repent of sin, and rely on the propitiation of Christ for justification and newness of life. Conversion entails a conscious struggle at an inner depth, usually over a period of time. The inner struggle eventuates in a decisive commitment to Christ. This commitment is complete in its entirety to a holy God. However, the conscious experience of conversion itself maybe instantaneous or gradual. Nonetheless, conversion necessitates and begins a new orientation in life.

To the point, conversion or spiritual gestation differs from regeneration or spiritual birth in several regards. Conversion is primarily a human act and regeneration is exclusively an act of God through the Holy Spirit. Through conversion the Holy Spirit works indirectly or mediately through human testimony, whereas with regeneration the Spirit works directly and immediately. Whereas conversion involves conscious struggle, regeneration occurs beneath the level of consciousness. Conversion occurs over time, the gift of new life is received at a specific time, albeit, an indiscernible point in time. Whereas conversion expresses an initial response to Christ, regeneration permanently renews the moral image of God and provides for a lifelong perseverance.

Which begs the question, are we regenerated in order that we may convert? Or are we converted in order to be regenerated? The typical Calvinist maintains that a conversion which does not flow from regeneration is not a true conversion. However, the position to which I subscribe suggests that it would be better to maintain that a conversion which does not flow from the Spirit’s effectual calling is not a true conversion. In place of regeneration I suggest that it would be best to insert the Spirit’s effectual call. This better fits the biblical texts which indicate that sinners convert in order to become children of God (Jn. 3:16, 18, 36; 5:24; esp. Jn. 20:31, “By believing you may have life in his name”). So I subscribe to a slightly nuanced Reformed order of salvation in which sinners who convert are regenerated. Therefore spiritual conception (calling and conversion) precedes the spiritual birth or regeneration (1 Cor. 3:6). However, one becomes a child of God through a supernatural regenerative work of God. The action of the divine Holy Spirit is as dramatic as a new birth (Jn. 3:3-8), a new creation (Eph. 2:10; 2 Cor. 4:6; 5:17), or a resurrection from the dead (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13).

Shalom,

Pastor Bill

[ February 24, 2005, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Baptist_Pastor/Theologian ]