Thursday, September 13, 2007

Jerry Springer Theology

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

Does denial of limited atonement imply that Jesus is a "playa?" That his story of atonement could have made it on a Jerry Springer show?

"I know you say He died for you, but He died for me too! He's my man too, girl. Don't come up in here and try to act like He's just your man!"

25 comments:

  1. wow...

    10 seconds of my life I'll never get back....

    ReplyDelete
  2. thanks for the comment, 2 seconds of my life I'll never get back...

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's definitely an interesting take on a pedal of Tulip...

    Calvinism is so difficult for people to understand because it is so antithetical to our way of thinking. It's tough to read it sometimes, but also assuring.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul quotes one of my favorite biblical passages and then jokes about the atonement.

    Let’s change gears and get past this unsuccessful attempt at humor, and get serious about Paul’s limited atonement view. Paul presumably believes that Jesus died only for the elect. That is a position of exclusivity, that Jesus died for only those who would eventually become believers, not for people who will never eventually come to become believers. Paul believes his position to be the biblically correct one on the atonement.

    Couple challenges for you Paul:

    (1) show me one bible verse that says that Jesus died exclusively for believers, the elect;
    (2) show me one bible verse which speaks of some group of people, or individual persons, that Jesus did not die for

    If your view of the exclusivity of the atonement is true, you should have no problem coming up with these kinds of verses.

    He who asserts must prove, you assert exclusivity, so your burden of proof is to show that from scripture. If you find a verse that says that Jesus died for the elect, for believers, for the church, for his sheep, for saints, that is not sufficient to establish exclusivity. Those kinds of verses show only that some of the people for whom He had to have died. Your burden of proof is tougher, you have to show that he died **only** for one group and not for others (or other groups).

    Should be no problem if your view is biblical, so let’s see your verses.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  5. Show us how your position doesn't lead to universalism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robert,

    The arguments are out there. Show me why they fail.

    Anyway, the "one bible verse" business is a little lame. Shoe me "one bible verse" that says God is one is being, three in person."

    Bottom line, the Bible only says Jesus died for the sheep, not for wolves. The Bible says that Jesus' death was the death *of a high prest for his people.* The day of atonement in OT Israel was never for non-Israelite nations. It was limited then, it was limited now. And, in Jesus' high priestly atonement prayer, he only prays for the elect...not for everyone in the world. Not "luving," I know; but hey, that's the reality.

    If Jesus died for you, then he is your high priest. If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you. Therefore if Jesus died for you, he makes intercession for you. Jesus does not interceed for all people. Therefore, Jesus did not die for all people. QED.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (1) show me one bible verse that says that Jesus died exclusively for believers, the elect;
    (2) show me one bible verse which speaks of some group of people, or individual persons, that Jesus did not die for.

    By way of reply:

    Each group has it's own burden of proof to discharge, Robert. Since you seem to know what the general consensus of our camp is, it is you who need to present a contrary argument.

    Right now, what we have from you is a classic example of begging the question.

    Let's review this basic exegetical fallacy for him one more time.

    Over on the right of this blog is an index of articles Steve has archived. I copied his essay "Favorite Fallacies" 1 and 2 awhile back. I encourage Dr. Mccain to review them.

    Steve writes: Christians who deny special redemption typically appeal to the “pantos” (“all’) passages of Scripture. But this confuses extension (referent) with intension (sense). A universal quantifier has a standard intension, but a variable extension. That follows from the nature of a quantifier, which is necessarily general and abstract rather than specific and concrete marker in the text. That’s what makes it possible to plug in concrete content. A universal quantifier is a class quantifier. As such, it can have no fixed range of reference. In each case, that must be supplied by the concrete context and specific referent. In other words, a universal quantifier has a definite intension but indefinite extension. So its extension is relative to the level of generality of the reference-class in view. Thus, there is no presumption in favor of taking “all” or “every” as meaning everyone without exception.

    Robert, there is no presumption for taking words like "world" and "all" to mean "all person without exception." “All” or “every” is always relative to all of something. All of what? What world?

    Take 1 John 5:18 and 19:

    18We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

    19We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

    So, here we have the whole world being under the power of the evil one, but immediately before this, we have believers excluded. This is the world of unbelievers and the world system, yet it is "the whole world."

    Then we have 1 John 2:2: 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

    Shouldn't we allow John to define what he means by "world" here instead of assuming it means "all persons without exception?" Or should we let our outrage define it for us? Is this the whole world, every person without exception? Is it the known geographical world? Is it the planet? Is it the world system? Is it the world of unbelievers? There are many ways to define the term.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Robert summarizes people's positions inaccurately in a pointless opening sentence in all his posts and then procedes to issue challenges left and right in an attempt to trivialize the opposing position.

    See, I can do that too.

    In any case, Robert claims:
    ---
    If you find a verse that says that Jesus died for the elect, for believers, for the church, for his sheep, for saints, that is not sufficient to establish exclusivity. Those kinds of verses show only that some of the people for whom He had to have died. Your burden of proof is tougher, you have to show that he died **only** for one group and not for others (or other groups).
    ---

    This is so profoundly dense it has planets orbiting it.

    Suppose I said, "I gave Robert $10." Suppose I elsewhere I said, "I gave Henry $10." Of course I'd be repeating myself, so let's add Paul in and have me say, "I gave Paul $10."

    Who did I give money to?

    The burden of proof is not on you to say that I gave money to Robert, Robert, and Paul--you have to prove I didn't give any money to anyone else too!!!! MWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey look, I win the debate! Arguments from silence are so awesome.

    We can expand this. Just because the lottery says it will provide winnings to the person who matches a ticket, that doesn't mean we should conclude that because our ticket doesn't match they won't give us money too! Just because one of my friends says he loves his wife doesn't mean I can't conclude that he loves me in the same exact sense, since he's never said, "I don't love you like I love my wife." In fact, the burden of proof is on you to show that he does *NOT* love me the same way he loves his wife.

    Yeah, that logic will get you far....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ben Douglass9/13/2007 9:40 PM

    Anonymous said:
    Show us how your position doesn't lead to universalism.


    That's an excellent point. If Christ's atonement consists in Him being imputed with the guilt of the sins of men, and paying the full legal penalty for those sins, then there is no way that anyone for whom He died could go to hell. In this system, in order for God to damn someone for whom Christ died, God would have to play double jeopardy, and punish someone for sins whose legal penalty Christ had already paid in full. Clearly, this is impossible. Thus, the proposition that Christ died only for the elect is an irresistable logical conclusion for anyone who accepts the central premises of Protestant systematic theology (penal substitution, forensic justification). This will leave a consistent Protestant with two, and only two options: to affirm limited atonement, or to affirm that all men are elect.

    Of course, the proper solution to this dilemma is to reject the false premise which creates the dilemma in the first place, i.e., to reject the double imputation theory of the Cross and justification. Then all the clear biblical arguments against limited atonement can be affirmed without committing intellectual suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Of course you can't do away with the premise:

    Heb. 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

    Heb. 7:26 Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

    Heb. 8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
    3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

    Heb. 9:7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

    11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
    15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

    25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

    Heb. 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
    5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
    "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
    but a body you prepared for me;
    6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you were not pleased.
    7 Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
    I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

    15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
    16 "This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
    I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds." 17 Then he adds:
    "Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more." 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.


    ************

    So you ned to justify your premise. You need to show that Jesus' death was not the death "of a preist for his people." The ones he died for have their sins forgiven, and they have been made perfect by that sacrifice. Have all men in the world been made perfect? Then they lose this position. A sort of garden re-do (even though Adam wasn't perfect, technically, but this only makes the position worse). You need to show how is death for sin can be called better than the death of bulls and goats. You need to show where the idea of an atonement for non-Israelites is found in Scripture. You need to show where the idea that Jesus death wasn't enough to do what the above says that it did is to be found in Scripture. So, reject the premise all you want. All you've done is to reject biblical premises.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ben Douglass9/13/2007 11:00 PM

    Dear Paul,

    I've never denied that Christ died as a priest for his people.

    The whole question of limited/unlimited atonement is completely obviated from a Thomistic perspective. Christ was imputed with the sins of nobody. By His death He merited sufficient grace for the salvation of all men, but with the intention to apply that grace savingly to the elect alone. So, as regards sufficiency, he died for all, as regards efficiency, only for the elect.

    I don't see the need to find a place in the Old Testament where the Jews make sacrifices on behalf of the nations. I have better: a Pauline teaching that, in a sense, Christ died for the reprobate:

    "But take heed, lest your liberty become a stumbling block to the weak. For if a man see him that hath knowledge, sit at meat in an idol's temple; shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols? And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (1 Cor 8:9-11, DRV) Now, let's look at this from the perspective of a 5 point Calvinist. If this "weak brother" is one of the elect, then he is not supposed to "perish," and if he is not one of the elect, Christ was not supposed die for him. Yet St. Paul explicitly says that (a) he could very well perish and (b) Christ died for him. Thus limited atonement must be false.

    Incidentally, Romans 14:15 says the exact same thing as 1 Cor 8:11: "For if, because of thy meat, thy brother be grieved, thou walkest not now according to charity. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." I will close with Fr. Haydock's commentary on this verse: "S. Paul repeats this, in almost the same words, in 1 Cor. c. viii. and plainly gives us to understand, that Christ died for the salvation of all men, by supposing a Christian brother, for whom Christ had died, in danger of perishing by the scandal given by another. This supposition could never have been made, if the death of Christ was only offered up for the elect: but be learn from S. Paul, that they for whom Christ shed his blood and suffered the death of the cross, may perish eternally..."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert,

    Then you don't understand what Jesus accomplished for his people, or you must say that he died for some people, but not as their priest. The latter is foreign to Scripture, the former leads to universalism. You also do nee dot show the idea of atonement made for non-Israelites. The longest and clearest teaching on the atonement is found in Hebrews. Hebrews' reliance on OT concepts of "the day of atonement" is *crucial* for the intelligibility of Jesus death. Your universalism would have been totally foreign to the mind of the first century reader. Any position that would have been totally foreign to the first century reader is suspect. Thus your position is suspect.

    Secondly, your rendering of I Cor. 8 is suspect. Your idea of eschatological destruction is far from clear or agreed upon. You're resting a conclusion on something that is not obvious, and with no argument at that! (See Thiselton and Gundry-Volf.)

    Your "perishing belivers" argument is at odds with other texts:

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

    And, if you think this means "he will go to hell now because you stumbled him, and there is nothing he can do about it," then you have a problem with your indeterminism.

    So, I see no reason to accept your interpretation, indeed, if I did, it would be at odds with other philosophical positions I am supposed to hold as an Arminian.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And I meant "Ben" not "Robert." Sorry Ben.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'll be at the hostpital for a few days for the birth of our son (by c-section). I won't be here to respond to anyone and probably won't, if at all, for a while. But I'm sure other T-bloggers can help anyone out with their questions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paul says:

    “The arguments are out there. Show me why they fail.”

    You prove my point, you can argue for it, but you do not have the verses to show it to be true. Since you do not have the texts, you like Owen, must construct logical arguments to substitute for biblical texts.

    ”Anyway, the "one bible verse" business is a little lame. Shoe me "one bible verse" that says God is one is being, three in person."”

    Not a fair analogy. With the trinity I can present the verses that there is one God, I can also present the verses that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, that the Spirit is God, and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three separate persons. Because the bible clearly teaches this, it is held by the Catholics, the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox. And no bible believing Christian disagrees on the trinity because the verses are there.

    Not so with limited atonement as espoused by Calvinists, the verses are not there. You provide no verses here at all showing exclusivity, if this were a court your claim would be thrown out based upon insufficient evidence. You have not met your burden of proof (demonstrating exclusivity) nor can you do so.

    ”Bottom line, the Bible only says Jesus died for the sheep, not for wolves.”

    Just because the bible says he died for the sheep, it does not logically entail that he died only for them (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1). That is precisely your problem, the so-called particularist verses do not carry the weight they need to, they cannot show or demonstrate exclusivity which is what your view demands. And there are universalistic texts that show the provision of atonement was for more than just the elect.

    “The Bible says that Jesus' death was the death *of a high prest for his people.* The day of atonement in OT Israel was never for non-Israelite nations. It was limited then, it was limited now.”

    Interesting that you bring up Israel and the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement was provided for all of the Israelites was it not? And yet only some were saved (cf. Rom. 9:6-8 “For they are not all Israel who are from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, . . . That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants”). So the Day of Atonement in the OT was a provision for all of Israel, and yet applied only to some (those who were believers).

    “And, in Jesus' high priestly atonement prayer, he only prays for the elect...not for everyone in the world. Not "luving," I know; but hey, that's the reality.”

    Interesting you bring that up, are you referring to John 17? There is nothing wrong with Jesus praying for His own, and praying for His own in a particular instance with a particular purpose in mind. John 17 does not logically entail that he did not die for the world. Wright explains the purpose of this prayer well when he writes: “What Jesus now prays grows out of the fact that he is going away. He is entrusting the disciples to the father he has known and loved throughout his own earthly life, the father who, he knows, will care for them every bit as much as he had done himself. He is very much aware that the disciples are at risk. The world, which hates them as it hated him, will threaten and abuse them. They don’t belong to it, but they are to be sent into it, and they need protecting. That’s what the prayer is about”. If that is what the prayer is about then we should expect him to be praying for his own.

    It is not an “atonement prayer” it is a protection prayer.

    ”If Jesus died for you, then he is your high priest. If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you. Therefore if Jesus died for you, he makes intercession for you.”

    Right, Jesus died for His people, just like the scripture says he would (cf. Matt. 1:21). But dying for his people who would eventually become his people, does not mean that he did not die for others as well. It does mean that those who become His people are secure in their salvation because He makes intercession for us.

    All you’ve got is arguments, like Owen, you have to construct arguments for your view, you cannot establish your view from the biblical texts. The biblical texts suggest an atonement that was provided for all, but only applied to those who believe.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  16. Robert,

    Re-read Hebrews and see the difference between the day of atonement in the OT and the day of atonement in the NT. Bit of a difference? Anyway, it was only, every, always (there's your "only" that you want) made FOR ISRAELITES. Burden is on you to show where the idea that non-Israelites get atoned for comes from.

    You go beyond the Bible. It only tells me everywhere that it was sheep and friends and the invisible church who was died for. I don't find it interesting to "make up" atonement for people who the Bible doesn't say were atoned for "all in the name of luuuv." That's all you got, no verses, you just got emotions.

    Anyway, it's a little dishonest to claim that I don't have "verses" when you know very well that I cited *plenty* of verses in support of my view. Look at how many verses I have cited in this thread. More than any universalist. No, what you *mean* is that *you don't agree* with the verses I cite.

    That you find the need to twist and distort and slander the facts is indicative that you have an "agenda." You're not here for honest debate. Your mind is made up, and NO VERSE I cite will change it. Isn't that right?

    It *is* like the trinity. Cults always ask "give me one verse that says God is triune." When I respond like you did, they take *each and every verse I cite* and try to show how that doesn't get me to my conclusion. Just like you do, Robert. So don't pretend like I don't have, or have not given, verses to support my view.

    Besides that, all people agree that the Bible doesn't mean 'all' every time it says 'all.' But, the flip side is that it doesn't mean "all" when it says "many."

    "The Son of Man came ; to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28).

    The blood of the new covenant was "shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28).

    "So Christ was once offered to bear the sin of many" (Heb. 9:28).

    "Who gave himself for us." Whom? The redeemed (Titus 2:14).

    "The Good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep" (John 10:11). Seems a bit of a rip off to make this comment and then turn around and say, "Oh but the good shepherd ALSO GIVETH his life for the WOLVES TOO!

    "Jesus himself limited the purpose of his death when he said: 'I lay down my life for the sheep.' If, therefore, He laid down His life for the sheep, the atoning character of His work was not universal. On another occasion He said to the Pharisees, 'Ye are not my sheep' (John 10:26) ; Will anyone maintain that He laid down His life for these, seeing that He so pointedly excludes them?" (L. Boettner, RDP., p. 156).

    He purchased the "church of God with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).

    And, if you are all into this "burden" and "show me one verse" deal. Show me one verse that says that Jesus' death doesn't save. Show me that it is powerless to save apart from men coming to save the day with their 'faith'. Show me verses where God cannot accomplish what he intends. Show me one verse that says atonement can be made for those who "are not my people." For those other than Israelites (Gentiles are Israel by faith). The atonement is made intelligible by the preconditions we get in the OT. His death was "a curse." It was "outside the camp." It was "the offering of a priest." Your view of an atonement for the sins of non-Israelites is foreign to Scripture, Robert. Show me where you get your justification. Show me by "one verse." I mean, it seems a little redundant to say "Jesus died for the church." "Yeah, duh, we know. Didn't he die FOR EVERYONE? Are you saying we can draw valid inferences from universal claims?"

    Then, if you do, I'll say that those verses can be answered and so "see(!), you don't have verses, only pre-conceived ideas and arguments." See how your "shell game" looks to those on the outside?

    Then, why didn't he pray for "everyone" before he went to die for "everyone?" Seems a "little mean.' Especially if his purpose in going to the cross was to "save everyone" you would think he would have "prayed for everyone." but he says, "I pray NOT for the world." Why? What view makes the most sense? Because he is praying AS A HIGH PREIST FOR HIS PEOPLE. That's the view that fits the entire context of the Bible - Genesis to revelation. Noah and his family were saved, not the whole world. Israel was saved from Egypt, not every nation in bondage. Every where you look, those saved are *particular* peoples. Our view of the prayer and the atonement fits the flow of the Bible. Yours fits the flow of Humanism's Bible. "God must save all men because men are the highest good!"

    Lastly, Jesus says that he lays down his life "for his friends."

    John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

    Who are his friends:

    14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.


    But then he turns around and, according to you, dies for his non-friends TOO! What love is this? What a slap in the face. "There is no greater love I could show than to die for my friends.....so I'll show my friends how much I love them by dying for my non-friends too!"

    Sorry Robert, you can console yourself by saying we have no "verses" to support our view. In fact, we have the totality of Scripture behind our view. You make a mockery of the atonement. But, thanks be to God that his atoning death is powerful enough to save us from our theological errors too.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Get Real Robert9/14/2007 1:24 PM

    Robert-- "Interesting that you bring up Israel and the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement was provided for all of the Israelites was it not? And yet only some were saved."

    +++++++++++

    Heb. 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
    5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
    "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
    but a body you prepared for me;
    6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you were not pleased.
    7 Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
    I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

    15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
    16 "This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
    I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds." 17 Then he adds:
    "Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more." 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

    ++++++++++++

    Types and shadows Robert, types and shadows.

    The OT represented the work that the Messiah would do for his people. His death was of more worth than the death of bulls and goats.

    And, even if you are right, all that follows from you is that the atonement was made for *professing believers.* There is a distinction between "his people" and "those who are not his people." You still have not met Manata's challenge to show the concept of an atonement for non-Israelites. So, you must believe that the atonement was not made for all people, just a specific subset of all people, and some in that subset will not be saved. Remember your "logic" about "saying sheep doesn't only mean sheep?" Well, likewise. Saying "some" *Israelites* were not saved says *nothing* about *non-Israelites.*

    ReplyDelete
  18. Multiple Triablogers apparently just don’t get it.

    Gene Bridges says:

    “By way of reply:

    Each group has it's own burden of proof to discharge, Robert. Since you seem to know what the general consensus of our camp is, it is you who need to present a contrary argument.

    Right now, what we have from you is a classic example of begging the question.”

    Each group has its own burden of proof to discharge, OK so far. But then he attempts to shift the burden of proof to me with “Since you seem to know . . . it is you who need to present a contrary argument.”

    The major point of my initial post on this thread was to bring out the fact that you folks have a burden of proof for your view which you do not even get close to meeting. Your view involves a burden of proving EXCLUSIVITY. Your so-called particularistic verses do not show exclusivity whatsoever. So you do not and cannot meet your burden of proof. So you view collapses due to lack of evidence.

    I did not beg the question against your view either. Your view demands EXCLUSIVITY, and none of your verses show exclusivity. It is not my view that demands exclusivity, it is yours. That being the case this fact firmly shows what you need to prove. I even stated in my two points precisely how you could prove this exclusivity, if you had the verses, but you don’t, so you cannot meet your burden of proof.

    Peter Pike also showed that he does not understand the burden of proof the advocate of limited atonement faces, he says:

    “Suppose I said, "I gave Robert $10." Suppose I elsewhere I said, "I gave Henry $10." Of course I'd be repeating myself, so let's add Paul in and have me say, "I gave Paul $10."

    Who did I give money to?

    The burden of proof is not on you to say that I gave money to Robert, Robert, and Paul--you have to prove I didn't give any money to anyone else too!!!! MWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey look, I win the debate! Arguments from silence are so awesome.”

    Pike starts with the idea of presenting three people, ten dollars each, and asks who did I give my money to? The answer is that you gave ten dollars to three people. He then adds that the burden of proof is not on you to show that you gave money to three people, it is rather, to prove I didn’t give any money to anyone else too. He then mocks and claims this is an argument from silence.

    Pike’s problem is that he does not understand what the concept of exclusivity means. If his example were presenting exclusivity properly it would be stated as “suppose I ONLY gave ten dollars each to Robert, and Henry and Paul . . . the burden of proof is not on you to say that I gave ten dollars each to Robert, Robert, and Paul you have to prove I didn’t give any other money to anyone else too. The sum total of money that I gave was thirty dollars which I gave to three men (ten dollars to each man) and I did not give any other money to anyone else.

    Now that would be getting it right. If you claim that you ONLY gave ten dollars each to three men, then your burden of proof would indeed be to show that you did not give any money to anyone else too.

    And that is the problem with the limited atonement view, it is claiming that Jesus died ****only**** for the elect. If that is your claim then your burden of proof is not just to provide verses that Jesus died for the elect. Your burden is to show that Jesus died ONLY for the elect.

    None of you can meet this burden of proof using biblical texts, so your view does not meet its own burden of proof, so your view is insufficiently supported, which suggests your view to be false. If your view were true, then you could meet your burden of proof and demonstrate exclusivity from scripture. But you can’t and because you do not even understand your own burden of proof, you present the particularistic verses that are well known showing that Jesus died for His people/the church/ his sheep/ his friends. What is completely lacking is evidence of exclusivity, that Jesus died ONLY for His people/the church/ his sheep/ his friends.

    In order to understand your burden of proof if you want to claim limited atonement as understood by calvinists to be true, you need to be able to clearly distinguish between two very different propositions:

    P1 = Jesus died for His people/the church/his sheep/ his friends, and

    P2 = Jesus died ONLY for His people/the church/his sheep/his friends

    The biblical evidence, the particularistic verses clearly show P1 to be true. But that is not sufficient for your view; a noncalvinist believes P1 to be true as well, your view demands more, your view demands the truth of P2, evidence of exclusivity. There are no bible texts showing P2 to be true. In fact it would only take one, and the burden would be met, but you have none to appeal to. I believe the biblical evidence clearly and unequivocally supports P1, P2 on the other hand has no biblical support whatsoever.

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry Paul, I couldn't resist:

    "If Jesus died for you, then he is your high priest. If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you. Therefore if Jesus died for you, he makes intercession for you. Jesus does not intercede for all people. Therefore, Jesus did not die for all people. QED."

    Just to piggyback on this a little. . . . If you are a member of the New Covenant, then Jesus is your high priest. "If he is your high priest, then he makes intercession for you." All children of believers are members of the New Covenant. Therefore, Jesus is high priest of all children of believers. Therefore, Jesus makes intercession for all children of believers. . . . . oops

    But now let me make a positive [Baptistic] contribution to the discussion of limited atonement:

    p1: Jesus' sacrificial death is only by virtue of His office as priest.

    p2: A priest's sacrificial work is covenantal, that is, performed only on behalf of the members of his covenant.
    -----------------------------------
    c1: Jesus' sacrificial death is performed only on behalf of the members of his covenant.

    p3: Jesus is high priest only over the New Covenant.
    -----------------------------------
    c2: Therefore, Jesus' sacrificial death is performed only on behalf of the members of the New Covenant.

    p4: It is not the case that everyone is a member of the New Covenant.
    -----------------------------------
    c3: Therefore, it is not the case that Jesus' sacrificial death is performed on behalf of everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  20. RobertHenry said:
    ---
    Pike starts with the idea of presenting three people, ten dollars each, and asks who did I give my money to? The answer is that you gave ten dollars to three people. He then adds that the burden of proof is not on you to show that you gave money to three people, it is rather, to prove I didn’t give any money to anyone else too. He then mocks and claims this is an argument from silence.

    Pike’s problem is that he does not understand what the concept of exclusivity means. If his example were presenting exclusivity properly it would be stated as “suppose I ONLY gave ten dollars each to Robert, and Henry and Paul . . . the burden of proof is not on you to say that I gave ten dollars each to Robert, Robert, and Paul you have to prove I didn’t give any other money to anyone else too. The sum total of money that I gave was thirty dollars which I gave to three men (ten dollars to each man) and I did not give any other money to anyone else.

    Now that would be getting it right. If you claim that you ONLY gave ten dollars each to three men, then your burden of proof would indeed be to show that you did not give any money to anyone else too.
    ---

    Robert needs to learn how to follow an argument. He reads half a sentence and assumes what the rest means, ignores the context, invents his own universe, and then pretends that's what I was talking about. It's quite annoying.

    RobertHenry, I was responding to your claim. Your claim was that IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH EXCLUSIVITY, the Bible would have to say "Jesus only died for the elect" (or something similar).

    I countered by pointing out that if I said I gave money to three individuals this would not mean you'd have the ability to argue that I gave money to all people. Thus, I do not NEED to say, "I ONLY gave money to these three people" because there is no reason for you to think I gave any money to anyone I never said I gave money to.

    My counter claim, therefore, does NOT need the word "only" in it to establish exclusivity. How is it possible for you to not be able to grasp this? It's trivially obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just a quick note on my previous post: I didn't mean to open a reformed in-house debate. To be fair, Paul certainly could object that I've equivocated on "New Covenant Member." We could open a discussion on internal vs. external membership, etc., but then we'd lose sight of the real reason for the discussion in the first place. I'll just end by joining with my reformed brother in affirming a real substitutionary atonement that indeed accomplishes the Father’s will and actually propitiates for those for whom it is offered. May our effectual High Priest be glorified for His work for His people!

    ReplyDelete
  22. But then he attempts to shift the burden of proof to me with “Since you seem to know . . . it is you who need to present a contrary argument.

    The major point of my initial post on this thread was to bring out the fact that you folks have a burden of proof for your view which you do not even get close to meeting.


    What Robert, who is apparently now, "anonymous" has failed to do is present any exegetical argument for his position whatsoever.

    Yes, each side does have its burden of proof to discharge, and since it is already known that (a) there are articles in the archives on this subject and (b) the default argument of this blog is "Calvinism," I am WELL within the parameters of being able to state that we, on this blog, have met this burden of proof. It is up to Robert - Anonymous to provide a contrary exegetical argument. The authors of the blog should not have to "reinvent the wheel" for every such discussion on their own blog for the same reason we shouldn't have to do it for Orthodox and others in recent history who constantly repeated themselves as if we should do the same for them.


    You prove my point, you can argue for it, but you do not have the verses to show it to be true. Since you do not have the texts, you like Owen, must construct logical arguments to substitute for biblical texts.


    So Owen does no exegesis? If you think Owen's arguments are incorrect, then where is your refutation of Owen?

    And notice that in this very thread, you present very few texts and exegete them; rather you present "logical arguments" as a substitute for biblical texts. Robert has provided us with a classic example of mirror-reading.

    Just because the bible says he died for the sheep, it does not logically entail that he died only for them (cf. 2 Pet. 2:1).

    A. Yes, it is, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy to infer that if Christ is said to have died for some (fill in the blank), if follows that he only died for them.

    However, that is only a fallacy when we keep it at the purely abstract level of a logical syllogism - which, if you'll notice Robert is the one doing throughout his posts, all the way saying Owen did this. How ironic.

    But in such an allusive writer as the author of Hebrews, for example, the language is loaded with covenantal overtones, and the whole point of covenantal categories is to contrast the insiders with the outsiders. In 1 Peter we have OT allusions too.

    For example, the Bible describes marriage as covenant. And that makes it an exclusive contract between the respective parties.

    If I said that “St. Peter made love to his wife last night,” that does not logically preclude the possibility that St. Peter also made love to a woman other than his wife last night. Group sex. But in terms of NT ethics and NT theology, that abstract possibility is precluded by the conceptual connotations involved in Christian conjugal usage. According to Robert, is the answer, "Yes?"

    Likewise, the OT language of Yahweh as the husband of Israel or Christ as the husband of the Church.

    So these are words with a prehistory. They trigger certain associations. And the author of Hebrews and 1 Peter is using them for that very reason.

    For another example, let's take John 10 and the shepherd dying for the sheep. The problem with applying Robert's argument there is that if we did so we would ignore that the "sheep" presented are in "folds." So, Jesus dies for "His sheep," but they come from two folds (Jew and Gentile). According to the text, He is doing something for these sheep, and the ones in the two separate folds are destroyed by the wolves. The ones in His fold are not destroyed. Ergo, it is perfectly correct to conclude that He dies only for the sheep in the New Fold, because the sheep in the other two are "snatched" and "scattered." That's the point - they are not His sheep, not because they disbelieve and He nevertheless died for them, but because He does something for them that He does not do for the sheep remaining in the 2 parent folds, for He gathers His sheep from those folds and proceeds to lay down His life for them so that they will never be snatched from His hand.

    B. And here is a prime example of Robert's question begging.

    Robert assumes without benefit of argument that 1 Peter 2:1 refers to the atonement.

    1. If it does, then it would mean that Jesus "bought" apostates. So, either He bought them the same way as the Redeemed or He bought them not as redeemer but as judge, for elsewhere Scripture is rather clear that those for whom Christ died do not perish (John 10).

    Robert does not bother to tell us which view he affirms but it appears he is assuming the first. We don't know, because, all the while claiming we can't present an exegetical argument, he simply quotes a verse and assumes we know what he means.

    2. But a better exegesis would actually examine the text in a fuller sense.

    Robert is assuming that “bought” must mean “atoned for sin.” Depending on the way the objection is framed, this is a classic example of either semantic anachronism or semantic inflation.

    Semantic Inflation: The disputant equates the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word. For example, a Catholic will compare and contrast Paul’s doctrine of justification with James’ doctrine of justification. But the mere fact that James uses the word “justification” doesn’t mean that he even has a doctrine of justification. That would depend, not on the occurrence of the word, in isolation, but on a larger argument. Words and concepts are two different things.

    Semantic Anachronism occurs when a disputant maps dogmatic usage back onto Biblical usage, then appeals to Biblical usage, thus redefined, to disprove dogmatic usage. For example, some Arminians appeal to Mt 23:37, Lk 7:30, Acts 7:51, Gal 2:21; 5:4, 2 Cor 6:1; & Heb 12:15 to disprove “irresistible grace.” (We will see this repeatedly in the next section).

    In this text, Peter is not using the verb “to buy” as a synonym for penal substitution, which is a theological construct (cf. Isa 53; Rom 5; 2 Cor 5:18,21; Gal 3:13; Col 2:14; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18). Rather, his usage is allusive of false OT prophets like Balaam (2:15; cf. Jude 11), as well as the Exodus generation (cf. Deut 32:6; 2 Sam 7:23).

    In the New Testament, “bought” is used both salvifically and non-salvifically. In every case where it is used with reference to the atonement, there are specific indicators, usually referring to a price. None of those indicators are in this text!

    “Master” is never used in a redemptive context. It refers to the rulership of Christ or God as a whole, not the priestly or prophetic works of Christ. The text is paraphrasing a text like Deut. 32:6, where God is called the Creator of the nation. These men are false teachers who are not all genuine believers and who are, by falsely professing Christ and intentionally trying to mislead the Christians, defying their Master (either Christ as their King or God as their creator and king), “(W)ho bought them” is a literary device from the Torah pointing to this text in Deuteronomy. The Jews were “bought” by God in the Exodus. To a Jew/Jewish Christian, “Lord” and “Master” in this context, could refer to God the Father, not Christ. In addition, if his interlocutors were Jewish, then Christ is already their master by virtue of them being part of the Old Covenant. As Jews, they were part of the covenant community to which Deuteronomy refers.

    Interesting that you bring up Israel and the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement was provided for all of the Israelites was it not? And yet only some were saved (cf. Rom. 9:6-8 “For they are not all Israel who are from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, . . . That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants”). So the Day of Atonement in the OT was a provision for all of Israel, and yet applied only to some (those who were believers)

    And what's the glaring problem here? Robert is mapping the Day of Atonement in Israel into Hebrews, concluding that since there were non-elect people / unsaved persons in the nation, the atonement must also include them. But where is the supporting argument? Again, he's begging the question.

    1. The author of Hebrews is addressing his letter to Messianic Jews. These readers were steeped in the OT. In particular, they would be intimately familiar with the one-to-one correspondence between sacrifice and intercession in Lev 1-7. That supplies the cultural preunderstanding for the verses the particular redemption cites in Hebrews. This plays off OT imagery in which intercession was made for those for whom sacrifice was made. An Israelite brought a sacrificial offering to the priest. The beneficiary of this transaction was the one for whom sacrifice was made—the one who brought the offering to the priest in the first place.

    By the way, notice that Robert is willing to state that the sacrifice on this day was for the saved and unsaved then and thus also is true now, but he arbitrarily limits it to disinclude the High Priest, for in the OT, it was for the HP, and in the NT it is not. Where is the supporting argument for this move?

    2. They would understand this to mean that the atonement and intercession was for Israel and not Gentiles, which is the point. Yes, the high priest made intercession for elect and reprobate elect. But the author of Hebrews is only concerned with OT typology. Ethnic Israel typifies the elect—including the backslider (national apostasy)—even if ethnic Israel was literally comprised of elect and reprobate alike. So although the OT Jews were a mixed multitude—as is the visible church—yet, in the argument of Hebrews, the covenantal usage typifies the elect.

    3. If Robert is right, it would prove to much, for if so, then he should be very willing to adopt a mixed membership in the New Covenant, for the sacrifice and intercession in Hebrews is also related to the membership of the New Covenant. He should be no Baptist but a Presbyterian or Congregationalist.

    The biblical texts suggest an atonement that was provided for all, but only applied to those who believe.

    But this does not select for general atonement. It could also, if true, select for Amyraldianism in which the full value of the atonement is considered in the abstract to have satisified a covenant hypotheticum and then is applied to the elect and only the elect. It could also mean he died for elect and reprobate, but not in the same manner, which is well within the "Five Point Calvinist" camp, since there is more than one version of particular atonement.

    What Robert is really doing is using the atonement is a warrant to believe. He is no different than the hyper-Calvinist that does the same thing with election.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So is the conclusion that Robert has no answer to the high priest argument? Nice one, Triabloguers!

    ReplyDelete
  24. hahaha, I never thought of it that way before

    -glenn

    ReplyDelete
  25. "10 seconds of my life I'll never get back...."

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete