Arminians like Dave Hunt love to assume a humanistic philosophy of love, and then when the Calvinist's biblical argumentation undermines that very humanism, they say, "See, how horrible! What love is this?"
Let's look at how God, in Christ Jesus, expresses his love:
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Obviously, not all mankind are friends of Jesus:
vv. 14, 15 You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
So, Jesus says that the greatest expression of his love for people is that he lays down his life for his friends, and not all men are his friends.
But, this does not prove limited atonement, says the universalist. You see, Christ doesn't say that he lays down his life for only his friends.
Well then, "what love is this!?"
Jesus attempts to show how what kind of love this is by making a claim about great love. That kind of love demonstrates itself in the laying down of one's life for his friends.
The Arminian would have us believe that Jesus also lays down his life for his non-friends too! Our enemies. Those who seek to devour us.
"What kind of a slap in the face is this?"
I've told my son how much I love him by telling him that I give up a lot of things I would personally like to do, that I spend long hours working so as to provide for him, not out of mere duty, but because I love him. I tell him that he gets food, medical care, a home, pets, toys, etc., with the money I earn because I love him and want to give him good gifts. Would my son think me a liar if I also showered those things on kids who, say, hated me? Hated him? If I spent time away from him working so that I could provide for those who were not my children, giving them everything I gave him, would my claims about doing the above out of love just for him seem hallow? Similarly, I sometimes buy my wife roses that cost over $100. I tell her that I love her. How would she feel if I bought every woman in the world roses too? If I wanted to spend the night with them? What would distinguish my actions that I say show her my love for her, from those I did for them? Greater marital love has no one than this, that a man would buy his wife roses (just stick with the anology, I obviously don't think the buying of roses is the greatest way for a husband to show how he loves his wife)... and every other women in the world roses too! Could my wife (and child(ren)) rightly ask: "What love is this?"
It is the Arminian that makes a mockery out of the love of God, not the Calvinist.
You guys have a good site, and I come here often, but this is not what the Bible teaches.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible teaches that God died for his enemies, not his friends.
Paul tells us this as plain as daylight.
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
(Romans 5:8)
I really don't know what this has to do with the calvinisit/universalist debate you are offering this as a part of, because I am not a part of that, all I know is that it's not correct.
Philip, so far, all you've done is made the Bible contradict itself. I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteJohn 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
And, “I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep,” John 10:14, 15.
Now, we are still sinners in that we sin. But, we are Jesus' friends, no? A sinner can be a friend. So, your claim doesn't even directly lead to your conclusion.
Certainly there is something a bit paradoxical here. As Calvin notes, "there is a state of variance between us and God, till our sins are blotted out by the death of Christ; but that the cause of this grace, which has been manifested in Christ, was the In this way, too, Christ laid down his life for those who were strangers, but whom, even while they were strangers, he loved, otherwise he would not have died for them." And so does Pink, "Romans 5:6-10 emphasizes the same truth, only from a different standpoint. There, the objects of Christ’s atoning sacrifice are described as Divine justice saw them, they are viewed as they were in themselves, by nature and practice—ungodly, sinners, enemies. But here in John 15 the Savior speaks of them in the terms of Divine love, and as they were by election and regeneration—His "friends."
But, that my verse has been used in regards to the atonement from centuries ago is clear. I quote Dordt
Article 9: VII: VII. Who teach that Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ. For they contradict the apostle, who says: “Christ loved me and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20), and likewise: “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died,” that is, for them (Rom. 8:33-34). They also contradict the Savior, who asserts: “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15), and “My command is this: Love one another as I d you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:12-13).
And James white also notes this in many places. For example, see The Potters Freedom, p.256. And, so did scholar Roger Nicole. It's hard to believe that all these men just "missed it."
Paul trying to attack Arminians brings up a strange and false argument:
ReplyDelete“Arminians like Dave Hunt love to assume a humanistic philosophy of love, and then when the Calvinist's biblical argumentation undermines that very humanism, they say, "See, how horrible! What love is this?"”
The claim that God loves the world in a redemptive sense is not humanistic philosophy but comes from verses such as John 3:16.
“Let's look at how God, in Christ Jesus, expresses his love:
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”
In context Jesus is speaking to people who are already his followers, his disciples, the apostles. Those who really are his friends.
“Obviously, not all mankind are friends of Jesus:”
Actually all people including believers start out as enemies of God, in rebellion to God. Only when they are converted to do they become as one of my friends puts it: “tamed rebels”. Prior to our coming to the Lord we live lifestyles of sin and disobedience and we most definitely are not God’s “friends”.
“vv. 14, 15 You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.”
Note the first line: you are my friends if you do what I command you. Let’s use this as our definition of a “friend of God” in the context of John 15. If a friend is one who obeys his commands, what is someone who lives a lifestyle of actively disobeying God’s commands? An enemy. Which is precisely where all believers are prior to their coming to Christ and being saved. Take one clear example, Paul when he was persecuting the church before his Damascus road experience, friend or enemy of God? Enemy is the correct answer. So according to Manata’s logic here, Jesus only dies for his friends so Jesus did not die for Paul (or any of us) when we were his enemies living lives of disobedience to His commands.
“So, Jesus says that the greatest expression of his love for people is that he lays down his life for his friends, and not all men are his friends.”
Again, using the definition that a friend is one who obeys Jesus’ commands. Since all who are saved began as enemies of God, Jesus did not die for any of us since according to Manata Jesus only dies for His friends. Paul is so intent on proving his limited atonement view that he has ignored biblical categories and statements. Jesus died for His enemies, who if they respond with faith to the gospel message become his friends. But they start out as enemies and so according to Manata’s logic Jesus did not die for them as nonbelievers since Jesus only died for his friends.
“But, this does not prove limited atonement, says the universalist. You see, Christ doesn't say that he lays down his life for only his friends.”
Jesus is speaking to his friends in Jn. 15 the apostles, but his laying down his life is not just for his friends but for enemies who become friends if they are converted.
“Jesus attempts to show how what kind of love this is by making a claim about great love. That kind of love demonstrates itself in the laying down of one's life for his friends.”
Friends who were enemies when Jesus died for them. Jesus died for His enemies.
“The Arminian would have us believe that Jesus also lays down his life for his non-friends too! Our enemies. Those who seek to devour us.”
Now Manata explicitly denies the truth which is that Jesus died for His enemies, sinners, those rebelling against him and not obeying his commands, and those who convert from this group of enemies then become his friends. So Jesus died for his non-friends, those who lived lives of disobedience to his commands, those who lived as enemies like Paul before his conversion.
Manata’s message is actually against the grace of God which means that God sent his son to die for the world, which is comprised of his enemies. If Jesus died only for his friends, Manata’s argument here, those who obey his commands, he would not have died for any of us, none of us ever would have been saved.
“"What kind of a slap in the face is this?"”
Yeh, Manata’s argument is a slap in the face of God’s grace towards sinners, enemies who were not his friends.
“It is the Arminian that makes a mockery out of the love of God, not the Calvinist.”
No, the Arminian properly recognizes that Jesus died for the world which consists of a group of people who were living lifestyles of disobedience to Jesus’ commands, who had the wrath of God upon them, and yet Jesus died for these non-friends, these enemies, and some of them get transformed into his friends by the grace of God. That is the wonderful love of God. Manata’s attempt here to prove his view of limited atonement makes a mockery out of the grace of God for sinners as well as what the bible says about us before we were saved and became his friends. The truth is that Jesus died for his enemies, some of which through the transforming grace of God become his friends.
Robert
The enemies that Jesus died for do not remain His enemies, they become "His friends" by God's grace through the work of the Holy Spirit. For Jesus to have died for enemies that remain His enemies is to diminish Christ's work on the cross. Did His death accomplish something? Or did it only make salvation possible, and now, well, it's all up to you?
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteI already addressed the tension.
Jesus lays down his life for his sheep. Sheep are not the enemy of the Shepherd. The wolves are.
You're not progressing the discussion.
We've already addressed John 3. You're just re-asserting.
Yes, of course Jesus is speaking to the disciples. Does this mean that what he says is *only* applicable to his disciples? How about 1 verse earlier:
"12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."
Can I hate you?
How about this:
"Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."
Not us?
Your interpretation has Jesus demonstrating greater love for the disciples than you, me, Henry, lurker, Craig, Plantinga, Moreland, etc!!
Are you serious, Robert?
There are two perspectives. God says he "hates all those who work iniquity." Ps. 5:5 "you hate all evildoers. But, what else do we find? Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved."
You see this idea in 1 John 4:10, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." But we were workers of iniquity, so he also hated us.
Robertian theology and exegesis is so flat it's one dimensional.
I find nothing objectionable with God loving those he hates, and God being friends with his enemies. The point is, his atoning death was to show his great love for those he called. He calls them his friends. He demonstrates his love for them by his death. It would be meaningless to say that and then die for everyone else too.
From the vantage point of the decree, he can certainly call us loved, or sheep, or friends.
Indeed, all those who are not in Christ, followers of him, are wolves, not sheep, yet he tells us that he lay down his life for his sheep.
Or, in one sense we were not members of the church, but in another, we were. And, Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it.
Robert just can't muster the energy to think past the infant stages of his faith. He again comes in blazing away, hits nothing, and then strolls out of the saloon whistling Dixie. We go back to playing cards, and have a good laugh at the gunman who can never hit anything.
Robert seems to think the argument here is "strange and false." Who is Robert, anyway?
ReplyDelete==============
Roger Nicole (b. 1915) is visiting Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and professor emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Seminary. A native Swiss Reformed theologian and a Baptist, Dr. Nicole is regarded as one of the preeminent theologians in America. He was an associate editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and assisted in the translation of the NIV Bible. He is a past president and founding member of the Evangelical Theological Society, and a founding member of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. He has written over one hundred articles and contributed to more than fifty books and reference works.
Nicole received S.T.M. and Th.D. degrees from Gordon Divinity School, a Ph.D. from Harvard University, and D.D. from Wheaton College.
=================
Here is a snipit of some of the texts he finds the Bible uses to support limited atonement:
==================
II. Arguments for definite atonement.
1. The Scripture emphasizes the definite relation of the mission of Christ, and specifically of His death to those whom He actually redeems. Christ gave Himself for His people (Mt. 1:21), for His friends (John 15:13), for His sheep (John 10:15), for his church (Eph. 5:23–26, Acts 20:28), for many (Mt. 20:28; 26:28; Mk. 10:45), for us (Tit. 2:14), for me (Gal. 2:20). These expressions need not be construed as exclusive of others not explicitly mentioned—(this is quite manifest in the case of Gal. 2:20)—but the specific reference in all these passages certainly indicates that the relationship of the work of Christ to those who are saved is different from that which it bears to those who are lost.
==================
I'll side with the likes of Dr. Nicole over "Robert" any day of the week.
People can read Nicole's full article here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleCaseDefiniteAtonement.htm
Why did Robert post something 30 minutes after Paul did when Paul's post seemed to have either already answered Robert's post, or at least would have caused him to respond different? It seems like Robert doesn't read the things you guys write.
ReplyDeleteI did like the Pink quote,
"Romans 5:6-10 emphasizes the same truth, only from a different standpoint. There, the objects of Christ’s atoning sacrifice are described as Divine justice saw them, they are viewed as they were in themselves, by nature and practice—ungodly, sinners, enemies. But here in John 15 the Savior speaks of them in the terms of Divine love, and as they were by election and regeneration—His 'friends.'"
Limited Atonement Fan said:
ReplyDeleteRobert seems to think the argument here is "strange and false." Who is Robert, anyway?
First of all, my comment about “strange and false” is not about the limited atonement argument in particular, but specifically in reference to Manata’s argument in his post. The biblical record is clear, He died for enemies some of which become friends through conversion. Second, truth is not determined by whom I am but by what the bible says, and it presents a provision of atonement for all that is applied only to believers, those who trust the Lord. I could say the same to you: “Who is Limited Atonement fan, anyway?” :-)
You next provide Nicole’s credentials, which I will not quote. The times I have heard about Nicole have been positive, I believe it was him, that once took a strong stand against Open Theism at and ETS meeting.
You are also committing the appeal to authority fallacy here, just because Nicole has scholarly credentials and says it must be true, that makes it true automatically right? Credentials do not necessarily amount to truth. Bart Ehrman has lots of scholarly credentials as well, and he is off base is he not? [cf., GOSPEL ACCORDING TO BART: A REVIEW ARTICLE OF MISQUOTING JESUS BY BART EHRMAN, BY DANIEL B. WALLACE] And I. H. Marshall who is a better exegete than Nicole, in my opinion, holds the universal atonement view, so there! We can trade authorities all day long, that does not prove things one way or another.
”Here is a snipit of some of the texts he finds the Bible uses to support limited atonement:”
I read his article and a good one by Phil Marshall, I think they were from Monergism.com a very good site for reformed material.
”II. Arguments for definite atonement.
1. The Scripture emphasizes the definite relation of the mission of Christ, and specifically of His death to those whom He actually redeems. Christ gave Himself for His people (Mt. 1:21), for His friends (John 15:13), for His sheep (John 10:15), for his church (Eph. 5:23–26, Acts 20:28), for many (Mt. 20:28; 26:28; Mk. 10:45), for us (Tit. 2:14), for me (Gal. 2:20). These expressions need not be construed as exclusive of others not explicitly mentioned—(this is quite manifest in the case of Gal. 2:20)—but the specific reference in all these passages certainly indicates that the relationship of the work of Christ to those who are saved is different from that which it bears to those who are lost.”
Nicole makes a crucial admission here when he writes: “These expressions need not be construed as exclusive of others not explicitly mentioned”. That gives away the store, because his burden of proof is to show exclusivity and yet he says the texts which he uses for his position, do not show exclusivity. I brought this up and thanks for providing an example of a respected Calvinist theologian who outright admits that his verses for particular atonement do not prove exclusivity, which is what he needs to prove.
”I'll side with the likes of Dr. Nicole over "Robert" any day of the week.”
And I’ll side with the bible and scholars who reject the calvinistic view of atonement over Nicole and “Limited Atonement fan” any day of the week. :-)
Robert
========
ReplyDeleteRobert -- First of all, my comment about “strange and false” is not about the limited atonement argument in particular, but specifically in reference to Manata’s argument in his post. The biblical record is clear, He died for enemies some of which become friends through conversion.
=========
And Manata explained this. You, per usual, ignore what people said and simply posted from a knee-jerk reactionary position. And, remember your comeback to Manata? The "friends" were "the disciples," you said. No moving the goal posts now, Robert.
========
Robert -- You are also committing the appeal to authority fallacy here, just because Nicole has scholarly credentials and says it must be true, that makes it true automatically right?
========
No, Robert, I committed no such fallacy. I never said it was true because Nicole said it was. But, as you should be made aware, it is valid to cite authorities to bolster an argument. The fallacy either happens when (a) as you said you use it to deductively establish a conclusion, or (b) you appeal to an invalid authority - for example, if I had appealed to Hillary Clinton's interpretation of a text.
=========
Robert -- Nicole makes a crucial admission here when he writes: “These expressions need not be construed as exclusive of others not explicitly mentioned”. That gives away the store, because his burden of proof is to show exclusivity and yet he says the texts which he uses for his position, do not show exclusivity.
========
That's right, they are not logically exclusive. I believe Nicole was making an inductive case right there. You seem incompetant to jude other's arguments, Robert. As far as the "only" passages, I believe the guys here gave you a few. From what I recall, you failed to answer the argument from Jesus' death as a high preist. There were others too.
But, Manata's point, which you have failed to grapple with, is that Jesus' death for all men fails to show the greatness of his love for his friends. Your comeback, as was pointed out, had the odd conclusion that Jesus loved the disciples more than anyone else he died for.
========
Robert -- I brought this up and thanks for providing an example of a respected Calvinist theologian who outright admits that his verses for particular atonement do not prove exclusivity, which is what he needs to prove.
========
Who has said otherwise? We are not presenting a "deductively certain" argument from these verses. This case is inductive. Scripture doesn't tell us that Jesus died for wolves, why say that he did? And then an abductive argument can be made - i.e., whose position is the best explanation of the totallity of the texts, or the absence of texts.
But, you were presented with deductive arguments in the "Jerry Springer Theology" thread. It led to the "only" conclusion you were looking for. You, up until now, have failed to deal with those arguments. So, you'll excuse me if I take your sophisms and reassertions as so much a dog returning to his vomit.
Robert,
ReplyDelete"First of all, my comment about “strange and false” is not about the limited atonement argument in particular, but specifically in reference to Manata’s argument in his post."
No, it has to be aboput the limited atonement. If almost every scholar who has argued limited atonement has used this verse to support limited atonement, then they take it that Jesus is mentioning the *extent* of those he died for. i just drew out some conclusion.
Other than that, you've not bothered to address anything I've argued, nor the subtle distinctions and tensions found in the Bible. God has said he hates us and loves us. How can that be!?! That's the context of my argument, Robert. Your simplistic claim that "Jesus died for enemies" is true, but uninteresting given the context of my argument. On the other hand, I have given your interpretation serious problems, and have still not had the main point dealt with. And, you Arminians have said that Jesus "loves" all men, and so that's why he died for all men. So, would you say that he doesn't love "all men" with the "greatest love," just some of them? You keep conceeding Calvinistic points without knowing it.
Robert's atonement theology is massively schizophrenic.
ReplyDelete1. He says that he believes in an atonement that is sufficient for all but efficient for a few, but then he proves the reason that many of centuries past said this language was not helpful because Arminians would abuse it and misconstrue it.
2. Sufficiency and efficiency are two separate epistemic questions.
3. That language does not automatically select for general atonement. It can select for Amyraldian atonement, which is very different, or even limited atonement. The only thing it can't select for is pecuniary atonement. Robert needs to present some supporting arguments for his position. By the way, if he speaks about Hebrews and Israel again, he'll need to answer the answer already given, but twice so far he has refused.
4. Robert says that the atonement is infinite. But this is vague, what kind of infinite does he have in mind? Don't worry, he hasn't answered yet - because he refuses.
5. So, how about it Robert, do you have any argument that isn't ethical or philosophical and is actually exegetical? If so, I invite you for something like the seventh or eighth time to present one.
I almost missed this short post, but ya gotta love somebody that posts as “Hostus Twinkius”.
ReplyDeleteTwinky said:
“The enemies that Jesus died for do not remain His enemies, they become "His friends" by God's grace through the work of the Holy Spirit.”
Exactly, God seeks to save the lost and when found to transform them into the image of His Son.
“For Jesus to have died for enemies that remain His enemies is to diminish Christ's work on the cross.”
Not quite, this assumes that God only loves the elect with a redemptive love. God loves all with a redemptive love, but only those who trust Him, who become believers, who develop a relationship of love and trust with Him, will have the atonement applied to themselves. If God does as He pleases (which is the biblical definition of sovereignty) and if He pleases to save all people who will trust Him, why can he not be reaching out to all people with a gracious offer of salvation? The only people who deny this possibility are calvinists who do not want to accept or believe that God really loves the world as God says that He does. If it is God’s sovereign will to provide an atonement for all, and yet many reject it by their own choice, how does that diminish the atonement if God wanted it to be that way? (i.e., a provision made for all, but application limited only to those who are believers). It doesn’t.
“Did His death accomplish something?”
Most definitely, it accomplishes a provision of atonement so that God can be “just and justifier” of whomever He wants to save. By doing it this way God preserves His own character and gives Himself the right to justify whomever He wants to save. He also wanted to demonstrate His love for people, and it accomplishes that. He also wanted salvation to be by grace not something people could work for or merit, and it accomplished that. It also accomplishes the salvation of those who trust Him because they have the atonement both provided for them and applied to them as well.
“Or did it only make salvation possible, and now, well, it's all up to you?”
If God desired to make a provision of salvation for all people and will only apply it to those who trust Him (i.e., believers, saints, the church, the sheep, His People), and if God wants a genuine relationship of love and trust with people, why wouldn’t their decision and interest and desire to enter into such a relationship be part of His plan? If that is the plan, then that is the way it is, whether we like it or not. I happen to like this plan, and am very glad to see others also enter into a saving relationship with Him as well.
Also this idea that it is “all up to you” is not accurate. God expects us to trust Him for salvation, but He actually does every action that makes up salvation. We do not justify ourselves, forgive our own sins, give ourselves the Holy Spirit, adopt ourselves into the family of God, etc. and we don’t transform/resurrect ourselves at the end, God alone does all of those things. And he does all of those things independently of any of our efforts. He saves those who trust Him, but our trust does not cause these other things to happen.
Robert
Paul says:
ReplyDelete“No, it has to be aboput the limited atonement. If almost every scholar who has argued limited atonement has used this verse to support limited atonement, then they take it that Jesus is mentioning the *extent* of those he died for. i just drew out some conclusion.”
The particularistic texts speak of for whom Jesus died, they do not speak of the extent. The universalistic texts speak of the extent, for the world.
”Other than that, you've not bothered to address anything I've argued, nor the subtle distinctions and tensions found in the Bible. God has said he hates us and loves us. How can that be!?!”
The bible says the wrath of God is upon the unbeliever. If that unbeliever remains in unbelief then that wrath remains on him/her and they will be in trouble at the judgment day as they will have no covering for their sins. If the unbeliever hears the gospel message and responds in faith and is converted then the wrath of God is no longer on him/her, they have a covering for their sin and need not fear the judgment day.
“That's the context of my argument, Robert. Your simplistic claim that "Jesus died for enemies" is true, but uninteresting given the context of my argument.”
But you argued that Jesus died only for his friends. Both Philip M and myself saw the problem and responded.
“On the other hand, I have given your interpretation serious problems, and have still not had the main point dealt with.”
You have not shown either that the provision was not for the world or that the application is only for believers. I know you believe that the atonement is only applied to believers so there we agree. Where we disagree is concerning the provision, I say it was for the world, you say it was only for the elect.
“And, you Arminians have said that Jesus "loves" all men, and so that's why he died for all men.”
Who said I was Arminian? I am non-calvinist but not Arminian.
“ So, would you say that he doesn't love "all men" with the "greatest love," just some of them?”
I would say that He died for everyone, in the sense of the provision of atonement. So in that sense Yes he did demonstrate the greatest love a person could do for another person by dying for them. And here we are speaking stricly of his death on the cross. On the other hand He does have a special love for His own, believers. This is clearly seen for example in Rom. 8:28 where it does not say that God works out things for everybody, but that He works all things together for good to those who love Him.
“You keep conceeding Calvinistic points without knowing it.”
How am I conceding calvinistic points? Calvinists and non-calvinists both belive that the application of the atonement is only for believers. The difference lies with their views concerning the provision of the atonement (one side says only for the elect, on side says for the world, including some who will never come to faith in Christ).
Gene says:
“Robert's atonement theology is massively schizophrenic.”
How so? My view is very simple, the provision of atonement was for the world (universalistic passages speak about the provision) and yet it will only be applied to those who are believers (particularistic passages speak about the application, to whom it will be applied).
”1. He says that he believes in an atonement that is sufficient for all but efficient for a few, but then he proves the reason that many of centuries past said this language was not helpful because Arminians would abuse it and misconstrue it.”
Actually I don’t like the sufficienty/efficientcy language that much. Both calvinist and non-calvinists believe that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all people, and both believe that it is only efficient for believers. So then how are they different? I prefer the provision/application distinction. With that distinction in mind we can explain the differences: both agree about the application being only to believers they disagree about for whom was it provided for (only the elect, or the world).
”2. Sufficiency and efficiency are two separate epistemic questions.”
Again, sufficienty/efficientcy is not my preferred distinction.
”3. That language does not automatically select for general atonement. It can select for Amyraldian atonement, which is very different, or even limited atonement. The only thing it can't select for is pecuniary atonement.”
Amyraldians get close, because they recognize that the universalistic passages are talking about Jesus dying for the world, not just the elect in some sense. But they also believe in unconditional election so they don’t get it right.
“Robert needs to present some supporting arguments for his position. By the way, if he speaks about Hebrews and Israel again, he'll need to answer the answer already given, but twice so far he has refused.”
If we look at the particularistic passages we see that Jesus died for believers. If we look at universalistic passages we see that Jesus died for the world. The world is a larger set or category of persons than the set of believers (that is simple common sense). There are also passages teaching a real hell involving some people, so we know that universalism is false. So we put all of the verses and these insights together and what do we conclude: that the provision is for the world, but the application of the atonement is only for believers.
It is similar to how we infer the trinity. Bible verses that speak of monotheism (that there is only one God). Bible verses that speak of the Father, Son, Spirit each being God. Bible verses that speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit being separate persons. Put them together and what do we conclude: there is one God existing in three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit who are all God, are separate persons, and yet only one God.
”4. Robert says that the atonement is infinite. But this is vague, what kind of infinite does he have in mind? Don't worry, he hasn't answered yet - because he refuses.”
If someone ask about how much “ransom” was paid, my answer is that Jesus is the ransom payment and as He is of infinite worth, that makes the “ransom” an infinite sum. If someone asked me about the sufficiency of the atonement I would talk about an infinite sum which is sufficient for all people.
”5. So, how about it Robert, do you have any argument that isn't ethical or philosophical and is actually exegetical? If so, I invite you for something like the seventh or eighth time to present one.”
I think I just did. There are verses that teach that Jesus died for the world, there are verses that teach that some are not saved (so universalism must be false), there are verses that teach that Jesus died for believers, so put them together and what’s that spell! It spells an atonement that is for the world, but not everybody is saved by it (because universalism is false), and yet it will definitely save all believers. In some sense the atonement is for the world, in another sense it is only for believers. The universal sense is referring to the provision, while the particular sense is referring to the application of the atonement. That’s my final answer and I am sticking to it! :-)
Robert
Robert,
ReplyDelete"But you argued that Jesus died only for his friends. Both Philip M and myself saw the problem and responded."
And I've explained this three times now with no interaction from you. You're not moving the dialogue forward. You're repeating what you've already said. This wastes everyone's time. You're simply pushing an agenda. You can't deal with responses to your arguments, but you need to make sure you voice your dislike for Calvinism. So, you simply repeat refuted or answered objections.
Not only that, but you simply let my argument fly right over your head:
"But you argued that Jesus died only for his friends. Both Philip M and myself saw the problem and responded. ...You have not shown either that the provision was not for the world or that the application is only for believers. "
That wasn't my argument. Jesus says he demonstrates the greatness of his love by dying for his friends (in my qualified and unrefuted sense above). You would have him slap us in the face by doing **THE EXACT SAME ACTION OF LOVE** for every one else. This is like me telling my wife that the greatest way I can express my unique love for her is by buying her roses from Rosemary Duffs. I then proceed to do that, and I also buy the exact same arrangement for **EVERY OTHER WOMAN IN THE WORLD!**
There, I've typedin Robert-Henry code, hopefully you get it and can stop responding in an ignorant way. If you weren't such a personal agenda pusher you would be able to see through the haze of emotions and actually read and comprehend my posts. This makes three times now that you have not even come close to acurately representing the post you're responding to. Get with the program, Robert.
Robert said...
ReplyDeleteThe universal sense is referring to the provision, while the particular sense is referring to the application of the atonement. That’s my final answer and I am sticking to it! :-)
**************************
But the "universal" verses don't refer to universal *provision* over against universal salvation. So his prooftexts don't prove what he wants them to prove.
He must interpolate a distinction into the universal verses that isn't there. He limits them by faith.
Robert said in response to Gene's request for exegesis and Scripture:
ReplyDelete"I think I just did. There are verses that teach that Jesus died for the world, there are verses that teach that some are not saved (so universalism must be false), there are verses that teach that Jesus died for believers, so put them together and what’s that spell! It spells an atonement that is for the world, but not everybody is saved by it (because universalism is false), and yet it will definitely save all believers. In some sense the atonement is for the world, in another sense it is only for believers."
You have got to be kidding me, Bob.
You have shown that you have no desire to interact with Scripture. Gene has actually spent time refuting your "universalist" passages and you have not bothered to respond to him. I have made an argument from the high priestly office of Christ, and drew a particular conclusion (the "only" that you keep asking for) and you failed to respond to that one too.
If you have no desire to engage in debate, but just want to spam a Calvinist combox, then why don't you start your own blog and spam and flame away all you want?
Gene does not like when I speak about the OT Day of Atonement, and yet it is by carefully studying the Day of Atonement which is a type for the final atonement that we get some substantial clues about the nature of the atonement. Gene said:
ReplyDelete“Robert needs to present some supporting arguments for his position. By the way, if he speaks about Hebrews and Israel again, he'll need to answer the answer already given, but twice so far he has refused.”
If we go back to the Day of Atonement as described in Lev. 16 we read:
Leviticus 16
The Day of Atonement
1 Now the LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered profane fire before the LORD, and died; 2 and the LORD said to Moses: “Tell Aaron your brother not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud above the mercy seat.
3 “Thus Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with the blood of a young bull as a sin offering, and of a ram as a burnt offering. 4 He shall put the holy linen tunic and the linen trousers on his body; he shall be girded with a linen sash, and with the linen turban he shall be attired. These are holy garments. Therefore he shall wash his body in water, and put them on. 5 And he shall take from the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats as a sin offering, and one ram as a burnt offering.
6 “Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering, which is for himself, [for himself] and make atonement for himself and for his house [and his house]. 7 He shall take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. 8 Then Aaron shall cast lots for the two goats: one lot for the LORD and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD’s lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering. 10 But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness.
11 “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bull as the sin offering which is for himself. 12 Then he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from the altar before the LORD, with his hands full of sweet incense beaten fine, and bring it inside the veil. 13 And he shall put the incense on the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the Testimony, lest he die. 14 He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east side; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.
15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat [that sprinkling on the mercy seat is this for all of the Israelites or for only the believing ones?]. 16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins [does this refer to all of the Israelites or only those who were genuine believers?]; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness. 17 There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel [all the assembly, does this refer to all of the Israelites?]. 18 And he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD, and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around. 19 Then he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, cleanse it, and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
20 “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. 21 Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, [all the iniquities of the children of Israel is that all of the Israelites or only the believing ones?] and all their transgressions, {all Israelites?] concerning all their sins [all of the sins of all of the Israelites?], putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. 22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities [all of the iniquities of all of the Israelites?] to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
23 “Then Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of meeting, shall take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there. 24 And he shall wash his body with water in a holy place, put on his garments, come out and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. 25 The fat of the sin offering he shall burn on the altar. 26 And he who released the goat as the scapegoat shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp. 27 The bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. And they shall burn in the fire their skins, their flesh, and their offal. 28 Then he who burns them shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and afterward he may come into the camp.
29 “This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. 30 For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you [the “you” is that all Israelites?], to cleanse you [same question], that you may be clean from all your sins [same question] before the LORD. 31 It is a Sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever. 32 And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father’s place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments; 33 then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary,[a] and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly [all the people does that include all Israelites?]. 34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins the children of Israel, all their sins = all of the Israelites], once a year.” And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
When I was teaching on this it occurred to me that clearly the atonement spoken of here was meant to be for all of the Israelites. Having taught through and studied the OT I know that not all of those folks were saved persons. So this sets a precedent, that the atonement was for everyone and yet not all were saved. But if the atonement actually covered the sins of all of them including those who were not genuine believers, then wouldn’t this mean that people who were not believers had their sins covered? Just as the NT teaches that universalism is false, the OT teaches that universalism in regards to Israel is also false. We also have Paul’s clear words in Rom. 9 that not all Israel was Israel, not all of them were spiritual descendents of Abraham, saved persons. So it occurred me then that while the atonement was a provision for all of them, it really only applied to those who were believers. So the type shows that the atonement was a provision for all and yet only applied to those who believed. And the fulfillment of the type, the cross of Christ also involves an atonement provided for all (in the case of the NT this is shown by atonement passages that speak of it being for the world). So both the type (OT Day of atonement) and the fulfillment (the cross of Jesus) show this same pattern: provision for all, application only to believers.
Robert
Robert re-asserts refuted arguments. He sees no difference between the death of bulls and goats in the OT and the death of Jesus in the NT. The blood of bulls and goats didn't SAVE. So, to point out that atonement was made for people who weren't saved can't refute our arguments, Robert! You're analogy is dissimilar in the relevant area. Furthermore, non-professing Christians ARE NOT "jews" IN ANY SENSE! They are not part of "his people." Thus your idea of an atonement for non-Jews IN ANY SENSE is foreign to Scripture.
ReplyDeleteRobert admits that Jesus' death is the death of a high priest for his people. This admission refutes him.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.*
Lastly, the "world" argument has been addressed. So, you can't keep re-asserting it. Deal with our responses to your interpretation of "world" and "all."
Steve says:
ReplyDelete”But the "universal" verses don't refer to universal *provision* over against universal salvation. So his prooftexts don't prove what he wants them to prove.”
Perhaps you might not think it is the thing to do, but when I am reading one text I also am reading it in light of other verses that speak to the same issue.
So when I read the so-called universalistic passages, they speak of Jesus being given for, or dying for the world. I know that universalism is false from other passages, so I know that these universalistic passages cannot be saying that all people will be saved. So then I ask what must they be referring to? Jesus dies for the world and yet not all of the world is saved, so how can he be dying for the world and yet not saving all persons that make up the world? The answer appears to be that the atonement is for the world in one sense but only for believers in another sense. How do we get these two ideas together? The sense of “for the world” is speaking of the provision of the atonement (it is provided for, given for, the world). The sense of “for only the believers” is speaking of the application of the atonement.
Back in the OT they were told to put blood on their door frames. If they did then the death angel would Passover their homes. But what if they did not apply it to their homes? They would have faced the same fate as others who had not done so. So the provision for “Passover” was there, but it had to be applied. And who was going to actually apply it? Those who believed God’s word. Similarly the cross of Christ shows the provision to be there, but if you don’t believe, it will not be applied to you.
”He must interpolate a distinction into the universal verses that isn't there. He limits them by faith.”
I do limit them by faith, because this is the pattern of how the Day of Atonement works in the OT, the pattern of how the Passover worked, and also the pattern of how being saved in NUM. 21 by looking up worked. In Num. 21 God provides a way of escape from the fatal snake bites, a provision for all of the Israelites. But it only applied to those who looked up, who had faith in God’s word. This pattern of provision and application only to those who have faith occurs repeatedly.
If the text says that Jesus died for the world, but other texts say that some are goats and go to hell, then I know that Jesus dying for the world does not save the whole world. But I also know from other texts whom it does save: those who trust the Lord.
What I am attempting to do is compare scripture with scripture and then make my conclusions after putting them together.
Paul says:
”You have shown that you have no desire to interact with Scripture.”
No, it is precisely because I do interact with scripture that I see the provision/application distinction throughout scripture in both the OT and NT.
“Gene has actually spent time refuting your "universalist" passages and you have not bothered to respond to him.”
I guess I missed that. Where does he show that “world” only refers to the elect? If you can show that “world” means only the elect, then you establish limited atonement in the calvinistic sense. But Paul, does not “world” in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 refer to a set of people larger than the set of people who will eventually believe? Unless you can show that “world” and the “elect” are equivalent sets, equivalent terms, I don’t see your position being established.
“I have made an argument from the high priestly office of Christ, and drew a particular conclusion (the "only" that you keep asking for) and you failed to respond to that one too.”
But your “only” does not come from a text, and even if it did, then you would be contradicting Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 where “world” does not mean only the elect.
Compare two propositions:
A -1 =Paul’s argument = Jesus died only for the elect:
A - 2 = Scripture = Jesus died for the world (with world being a larger set than the elect)
One of these propositions is false and I know it’s not A-2. Unless Paul can show that “world” refers only to the elect, then the two propositions would not contradict each other. And with the provision/application distinction I can explain how Jesus could both be dying for the world and also dying only for believers (the provision is for the world/the application is only for the believers).
Robert
Robert continues to parade his ignorance around for all to see. The noose gets tighter:
ReplyDelete"I guess I missed that. Where does he show that “world” only refers to the elect? If you can show that “world” means only the elect, then you establish limited atonement in the calvinistic sense. But Paul, does not “world” in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 refer to a set of people larger than the set of people who will eventually believe? Unless you can show that “world” and the “elect” are equivalent sets, equivalent terms, I don’t see your position being established."
i) What you don't get, Robert, is that all that needs to be shown is that "world" does not necessarily mean "every single individual on the face of the planet. Let's be consistent now, you've been arguing that our texts which teach that Jesus died for "sheep, many, friends, church, etc" does not logically lead to the conclusion that Jesus died *onlY for "sheep, many, friends, church, etc." Likewise, *just because* a text uses the word "world" *does not* mean that it *must* refer to "every single individual on the face of the planet." So, we must go *beyond* the mere *word,* which is precisely what you fail to do. Unless you can show that "world" means "every single person numerically," then you haven't established your case.
ii) In the Jerry Springer thread, Gene said,
"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."
iii) Steve has posted on this before. You should know, he responded to you, Henry. Steve wrote:
"Henry is now advertising his ignorance of Biblical lexicography. “Kosmos” doesn’t have a single meaning in NT usage generally or Johannine usage in particular. Rather, it has wide semantic domain. For example, Peter Cottrell & Max Turner list seven different senses (among others) for kosmos, including “the beings (human and supernatural) in rebellion against God, together with the systems under their control, viewed as opposed to God,” Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (1989), 176.
Which meaning is appropriate depends on the given context as well as overall theology of the author.
Likewise, Horst Balz defines kosmos in such ways as: “in the Johannine theology one finds again the basic elements of the Pauline understanding of kosmos in the extreme and intensified radicality of the estrangement and ungodliness of the kosmos…the concern is with the nature of the world that has fallen away from God and is ruled by the evil one,” EDNT 2:312."
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/for-god-so-loved-world.html
Moving on....
"But your “only” does not come from a text, and even if it did, then you would be contradicting Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 where “world” does not mean only the elect."
i) My "only" came from many texts in Hebrews. I formalized the propositions already found in Scripture. Thus my conclusion *is* what Scripture says implicitly. It is *just as* authorotative. You seem to think that arguments inferred from Scripture are of less authority than the actual verses. Dr. Michael Sudduth comments on this naive view:
"If Scripture teaches some propositions p and q, and p and q together entail r, r is just as much an objective truth as p and q.
In other words,
(I) If it is true that {p & q} and {p &q entails r}, then r is true.
The truth of each proposition is objective as are the logical relations between each proposition.
[...]
“Reason (broadly speaking) and inference in particular is utilized even at the level of arriving at the meaning expressed by the sentences written in Scripture. Hence, the distinction between "proclaimed by God" and "derived by us" is not a real distinction in epistemic fact, except for those instances when God directly communicates truth to us. But the existence of Scripture implies that this is not the norm. Divine truth is revealed to us mediately through Scripture. Hence, even though what God proclaims is not derived by us, our knowledge of what God proclaims is derived by us in most cases. This explains why solid Christians so frequently disagree about what Scripture says.
[…]
If you begin with the premise that divine revelation is objectively given in Scripture you then have to explain how subjects can know or access the objective truth. (This is just a special case of the broader epistemological problem of realism). Put otherwise, one must come to grips with the subjective conditions of accessing the objective and how this affects how the objective is perceived. The operation of reason is one of those conditions whereby we access the 'objective.' So when cutting down the tree of reason, we should probably consider what good fruit we are sacrificing.”
ii) My interpretation only contradicts those other passages *if* your interpretation is correct. This has not been established, and it has been thrown into question. So, your response is question begging.
Continuing....
"Compare two propositions:
A -1 =Paul’s argument = Jesus died only for the elect:
A - 2 = Scripture = Jesus died for the world (with world being a larger set than the elect)
One of these propositions is false and I know it’s not A-2. Unless Paul can show that “world” refers only to the elect, then the two propositions would not contradict each other."
i) First, technically, they would only "contradict" if "dief for" was used in the same sense. So, you don't even know how to apply logic to this situation.
ii) Your comments *assume* that (A-2) is what Scripture teaches. This hasn't been established.
iii) Also showing that "world" doesn't necessarily mean "every single person individually" is enough to undercut your argument. This puts a burden on you. You seem to think you don;t have one. I have demoinstrated that you do. Now you'll be forced to do exegesis. What a bummer for you, huh?
a) Since Jesus didn't die for *himself,* then you can't think that "world" means "every single person that live/s/d in the world. To say, "oh, it jsut means "sinful humans" (or soemthing) is to begin to *qualify* world yourself!
b) I've offered reductios of your view in this combox, you've simply avoided my arguments and responded with question begging statements that the Bible teaches that Jesus died for everyone.
All in all I'd say that you have a lot of work to do before you respond, Robert. Please, stop wasting everyone's time by serving re-heated objections.
ROBERT SAID:
ReplyDelete"Perhaps you might not think it is the thing to do, but when I am reading one text I also am reading it in light of other verses that speak to the same issue."
Which is exactly what a Calvinist does. Therefore, the universal verses don't select for your position over against the Reformed position.
So, we're still waiting for you to give us a prooftext for universal atonement in contradistinction to universal salvation.
"How do we get these two ideas together?"
Hint: try exegeting what "komos" means in Pauline and Johannine usage.
"I do limit them by faith, because this is the pattern of how the Day of Atonement works in the OT, the pattern of how the Passover worked, and also the pattern of how being saved in NUM. 21 by looking up worked. In Num. 21 God provides a way of escape from the fatal snake bites, a provision for all of the Israelites. But it only applied to those who looked up, who had faith in God’s word. This pattern of provision and application only to those who have faith occurs repeatedly."
But the universal verses don't say that only *some* people will believe. So even if the universal verses were only referring to believers, that doesn't prove that everyone won't be saved. A universalist would say just the opposite: since everyone will be saved, and only believers will be saved, everyone will be a believer—sooner or later.
So we're still waiting for a prooftext for universal atonement in contradistinction to universal salvation.
"If the text says that Jesus died for the world, but other texts say that some are goats and go to hell, then I know that Jesus dying for the world does not save the whole world."
And a Calvinist would make the same move. Therefore, the universal verses don't select for your position over against the Reformed position. So we're still waiting for a prooftext for universal atonement in contradistinction to universal salvation.
You haven't offered a single prooftext that singles out your own position. In the meantime, you can't deal with the Reformed prooftexts.
And your appeal to the damnatory texts is inconsistent with your appeal to libertarian freedom.
Paul or Gene or whoever is being copied and pasted here writes:
ReplyDelete“He sees no difference between the death of bulls and goats in the OT and the death of Jesus in the NT. The blood of bulls and goats didn't SAVE.”
Where did I say that the old covenant sacrifices are superior to the final sacrifice of the new covenant, Christ? Clearly one of the themes of the book of Hebrews is the superiority of the new covenant over the old because of the superior sacrifice, the final sacrifice.
“So, to point out that atonement was made for people who weren't saved can't refute our arguments, Robert! You're analogy is dissimilar in the relevant area.”
NO, appealing to the type of the final atonement, the day of atonement, helps understand the pattern. In the OT type the pattern was a provision for all of the Israelites though only some were believers. The analogy is the same as the pattern in the NT where the atonement of Christ is for the world but saves only those who believe.
“Furthermore, non-professing Christians ARE NOT "jews" IN ANY SENSE! They are not part of "his people."”
Where did I say that?
“Thus your idea of an atonement for non-Jews IN ANY SENSE is foreign to Scripture.”
You keep ignoring the OT texts on the day of atonement, which shows it was FOR all of the assembly of Israel/all of them, yet we know that not all of them were saved. You can deny this and ignore this, but it is the truth.
”Robert admits that Jesus' death is the death of a high priest for his people. This admission refutes him.”
In the context of Jesus and new covenant believers, the death of Jesus, our high priest, is for his people, us. But that is in a very specific context, namely the book of Hebrews. You are taking it out of there and then trying to universalize it, because you are doing whatever you can to come up with an argument for exclusivity, since the biblical texts themselves will not give that to you.
You provide your argument as follows:
”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.”
The problem is in the first line: “if Jesus died for you”. That assumes that the “you” can only be the elect, which is the very thing being disputed, so you beg the question here. Take this phrase over to Jn. 3:16 where it says that Jesus was given for the world. Is “you” part of that world? Yes if “you” are a believer who was saved and came out of the world. But others remain in the world their entire lives. For these folks, Jesus died for them (so it could be said of them that “Jesus died for you” in reference to them) and yet they never get saved. If they never get saved then Jesus is never their high priest as He is for believers in the book of Hebrews. So Jesus could die for a “you” that never gets saved and never has him as their High Priest. So your first premise begs the question, and so invalidates your whole argument. Take away that first premise and the house of cards collapses.
”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?”
No, not all men have been perfected in this way, it only refers to believers. Did the sacrifice of Christ save OT believers, such as Abraham and Moses? Yes. Did it save the other Israelites who were not believers, not spiritual descendants of Abraham? No. So why does it save the believer in the OT but not the unbelievers in the OT? Because while it was provided for all, it is only applied to those who believe. This principle is true in both the Old and New Testaments.
“You need to show how [h]is death for sin can be called better than the death of bulls and goats.”
The book of Hebrews demonstrates that.
“You need to show where the idea of an atonement for non-Israelites is found in Scripture.”
I never talked about atonement for non-Israelites. I talked about the fact which you continually ignore, that the assembly of Israel for which the Day of atonement sacrifices were provided consisted of both believers and unbelievers. Or are you going to claim that all of the Israelites were saved?
“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.”
Again, the book of Hebrews argues for and demonstrates the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ over the OT sacrifices. I don’t need to show it because Hebrews shows it.
“So, reject the premise all you want. All you've done is to reject biblical premises.”
No, I rejected your question begging argument not biblical premises.
”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?:
Yes the sacrifice of Jesus is a superior and final sacrifice for the people of God. That is a clear difference. However the pattern that the atonement was provided for a group which consists of both believers and unbelievers (the assembly of Israel in the OT/the world in the NT) and yet applied only to believers is the same.
“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.”
Again, not all Israel was Israel, not all were believers, and yet the day of atonement was provided for all the Israelites (which included both believers and unbelievers).
”You go beyond the Bible.”
NO, my atonement view is squarely based upon the bible. It is you who have to resort to invented arguments rather than biblical texts to try to prove your view.
“It only tells me everywhere that it was sheep and friends and the invisible church who was died for.”
Then I guess you haven’t read Jn. 3:16 or 1 Jn. 2:2 where it was for the world, and the world is a bigger set than the set of believers.
“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.”
Actually I’ve got the verses but you are so committed to your calvinism that the proper meaning of the verses takes the back seat to your system of theology. Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 refute your system because they teach that Jesus died for the world, not just the elect. And God’s love which is demonstrated in all of this is mocked by you as humanism.
”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.”
Jesus’ death does save, those who believe, and only them because the atonement is only applied to them.
“Show me that it is powerless to save apart from men coming to save the day with their 'faith'.”
Now you mock the message of Romans that we are saved by grace through faith. We don’t save the day with our faith, it is God who does the saving. But he does choose to save those who trust Him to be His people.
I have said enough,I've got a weekend coming, your argument from Hebrews begs the question in its first premise and so is false. Go ahead and go back and try to come up with another logical argument for your view of the atonement. Meanwhile I am quite content that I have the biblical support for mine.
Robert
“You keep ignoring the OT texts on the day of atonement, which shows it was FOR all of the assembly of Israel/all of them, yet we know that not all of them were saved. You can deny this and ignore this, but it is the truth.”
ReplyDeleteIsrael was a type of the church, not a type of the world. And atonement was made for the covenant community.
“Then I guess you haven’t read Jn. 3:16 or 1 Jn. 2:2 where it was for the world, and the world is a bigger set than the set of believers.”
I guess you haven’t bothered to exegete kosmos in Johannine usage. For example, does the “whole world” in 1 Jn 5:19 include believers, or does it stand in contrast to believers?
In context, it clearly excludes believers. So it doesn’t refer to everyone.
Kosmos in Johannine usage is qualitative rather than quantitative. The fallen world order. The evil world system.
You know, I think I just decided to tell my wife that she has a low view of love to ask me to be committed to her and to give myself to only her. I mean, come on, there's plenty of my love to go around. After all, why should I be committed to only her? I mean, every woman in the world should be the object of my love and affection--now that is true love!
ReplyDeleteI'd like to thank the Arminians who visit this blog for showing me how to be committed to every woman in the world. It's so much more loving that way. Their view of God's love and their view of the extent of the atonement helped me to see that my only being committed to my wife and giving myself only to her was such a limited view of love. I'm so glad that now my love is universal!
“Now you mock the message of Romans that we are saved by grace through faith.”
ReplyDeleteTo the contrary, Robert mocks the message by divorcing faith from grace.
“You keep ignoring the OT texts on the day of atonement, which shows it was FOR all of the assembly of Israel/all of them, yet we know that not all of them were saved. You can deny this and ignore this, but it is the truth.”
Actually, no Jew was saved (from damnation) by the OT system of atonement, because the OT system was a *symbolic* atonement. It was a *token* of the real atonement to come.
The only OT Jews who were saved were members of the remnant, and they were saved by the atonement of Christ—which the OT system merely prefigured.
“I talked about the fact which you continually ignore, that the assembly of Israel for which the Day of atonement sacrifices were provided consisted of both believers and unbelievers.”
Naturally, since the OT system was made for members of the covenant community, and you didn’t have to be a believer to belong to the Mosaic covenant. Rather, that was a birthright. If you were born to Jewish parents, you were automatically a member of the covenant community—although, beyond a certain age, it would also be possible for you to become a covenant-breaker and be excommunicated for your apostasy.
Yes, Josh, Robert is a soteriological polygamist.
ReplyDeleteRobert said:
ReplyDeleteRobert: "Paul or Gene or whoever is being copied and pasted here writes:"
In this particular response of yours, it's me. But, you ASKED me to show you where gene argued against you. So, don't complain when I did copy and paste in the post below the one you're responding to here.
Robert: "Where did I say that the old covenant sacrifices are superior to the final sacrifice of the new covenant, Christ? Clearly one of the themes of the book of Hebrews is the superiority of the new covenant over the old because of the superior sacrifice, the final sacrifice."
If you think they are different, then your claim about some of those that atonement was made for in the OT were not saved is irrelevant to the argument.
I mean, the point is that in the OT the death of bulls and goats DID NOT SAVE ANYONE!!!! What saved was *faith in* what the sacrifices *pointed to!* They were *pictures,* they were not *salvific.* Your point about the atonement made for the congregation is IRRELEVANT to the discussion, therefore.
The sacrifices were a REMINDER of sin, they were not meant to TAKE AWAY sin.
Hebrews 10:11 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.
In what sense, then, is Jesus death "for the people" "better than" the death of the goats for the people, Robert? You've asserted that it is better. How?
Robert: "NO, appealing to the type of the final atonement, the day of atonement, helps understand the pattern. In the OT type the pattern was a provision for all of the Israelites though only some were believers. The analogy is the same as the pattern in the NT where the atonement of Christ is for the world but saves only those who believe."
i) Where does it say that the death of bulls and goats was a provision for salvation? Hebrews says it was "a reminder of sin."
Heb. 10:3 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.
So, how was "the blood of bulls and goats" a "provision" for the removal of sin, if it was "impossible" to do this? You're still shooting from the hip, Robert.
ii) The shadow was that an atonement would be made "for the people" - the true Israel of God - and it would take away sins once for all. On your view, why would the author of Hebrews have warned people to not go back to the OC ways? If the sacrifices saved there with faith, then what did it matter to leave the New Covenant??? Your theology can't answer this. You're a dispie. Two ways of salvation.
Robert: "The analogy is the same as the pattern in the NT where the atonement of Christ is for the world but saves only those who believe."
i) No, because *this atonement* takes away sin. You said you weren't a universality. The analogy isn't similar because the old sacrifices NEVER took away sin...EVER...even for those who believed. If they did, the author of Hebrews says, there would have been no need to go back year after year!
ii) Your still not dealing with the argument. In the OT the atonement shadows were only made FOR THE PEOPLE OF GOD. The Israelites. Where do you get the idea that it was made for Egyptians, Syrians, Canaanites, &c???
iii) Where do you get your idea of a "provision" for the whole world? Steve already ripped this idea to shreds. Where is your Scripture? your "world" arguments have been addressed.
Robert: "You keep ignoring the OT texts on the day of atonement, which shows it was FOR all of the assembly of Israel/all of them, yet we know that not all of them were saved. You can deny this and ignore this, but it is the truth."
I'm not ignoring them. I've actually given an account of what's going on. You just think you can assert some things based on your a prior assumptions. You're lazy. You're not arguing. you're asserting. That's all. That's it.
And, so, yes, it has ALWAYS and EVER and ONLY been a sacrifice FOR ISRAELITES!!!! You're saying that the Bible now teaches an atonement made for NON-ISRAELITES! Where do you get this idea (and remember, the "world" texts have been addressed).
Robert: "In the context of Jesus and new covenant believers, the death of Jesus, our high priest, is for his people, us. But that is in a very specific context, namely the book of Hebrews. You are taking it out of there and then trying to universalize it, because you are doing whatever you can to come up with an argument for exclusivity, since the biblical texts themselves will not give that to you."
In the context of THE DEATH of Jesus. Now you're saying that Jesus death for some people was NOT the death of a high priest for his people. Where do you get this idea? When we look at the LONGEST teaching on the atonement, it is dripping with OT language. Funny that the longest and most detailed teaching on the death of Christ is a teaching of a limited atonement. Funny that when the Bible takes the time to really break down the atonement, there is nary a word on your precious universalist ideas. That must goad you. If you were God, you would have written the Bible differently. Your view would be unintelligible to the 1st century reader.
I am only putting the context that THE BIBLE puts on Jesus' death. And that is the death of a high priest for his people. Show me where there is any other. The burden is on you.
The PURPOSE of the OT types and shadows was to point forward to the reality in the NT! You CANNOT divorce Jesus death as a high priest from its OT context, Robert. You are going beyond the text. You cannot find your view in Scripture, no matter how hard you try (oh, and the "world" texts have been addressed).
Robert: "The problem is in the first line: “if Jesus died for you”. That assumes that the “you” can only be the elect, which is the very thing being disputed, so you beg the question here."
No, the first line is what the bible teaches us. It ONLY teaches that Jesus' death was that of a priest for his people. I only assume that the "you" is someone who had Jesus as a high priest. I assume just what the Bible tells me. You go beyond the Bible, Robert. You invent an "OT sacrifice" that is not made by a High priest and is not made only for Israelites. This is unintelligible. There is ZERO warrant for your move here.
Robert: " Take this phrase over to Jn. 3:16 where it says that Jesus was given for the world."
Already addressed. begs the question.
Robert: "No, not all men have been perfected in this way, it only refers to believers."
That's not what the text says. The text says that his death is the death of a high priest. It says that it is for his people. It says that by it he has perfected those he died for. You're committing the bat wing and eye of newt fallacy. You think you can just throw out a bunch of junk and then magically come up with teachings that are NOWHERE to be found in Scripture.
Robert: "I never talked about atonement for non-Israelites. I talked about the fact which you continually ignore, that the assembly of Israel for which the Day of atonement sacrifices were provided consisted of both believers and unbelievers. Or are you going to claim that all of the Israelites were saved?"
Yes, as a REMINDER of sins. If they SAVED ANYONE, then those saved would not need to go back year after year. This is what the Bible tells us. This foreshadowed the PERFECT atonement that would be made FOR THE ISRAELITES that WOULD take away sin. Are you getting it now, Robert?
Robert: "So your first premise begs the question, and so invalidates your whole argument. Take away that first premise and the house of cards collapses."
Nope. First premise defended, established, proven. Your rejoinder has fallen like a house of cards.
Robert: "Again, not all Israel was Israel, not all were believers, and yet the day of atonement was provided for all the Israelites (which included both believers and unbelievers)."
You're misrepresenting Paul. First, the sacrifices were made ONLY for the NATION of Israel (and in this sense it was ONLY made for Israelites). You can't show one made for non-Israelites in this sense. Second, the Israel Paul refers to is the one who had atonement made for them. Thus it was only made for believers!! there was no more national Israel!! So, since the atonement was ALWAYS and ONLY made for Israel, and the Israel that had atonement made for them is the Israel of God - believers - you've refuted yourself. Third, the atonement in the OT never took away sins FOR ANYONE. They had to go year after year. In a sense it did take away sins for the year, but it did this FOR EVERYONE! Show me any Israelites that were covenant members on the OT day of atonement that didn't have their sins placed upon the animals. THEY ALL DID. Now, what you'd have to argue is that some people had their sins placed on Jesus, i.e., he bore THEIR SINS FOR THEM, yet remained unsaved. Again, what is the difference then between Jesus' death and the death of animals? Robert would have us go back to the beggarly shadows of animal blood.
Robert: "NO, my atonement view is squarely based upon the bible. It is you who have to resort to invented arguments rather than biblical texts to try to prove your view."
Assertion. We've addressed this. You're re-serving objections.
Robert: "Then I guess you haven’t read Jn. 3:16 or 1 Jn. 2:2 where it was for the world, and the world is a bigger set than the set of believers."
Refuted above.
Robert: "Jesus’ death does save, those who believe, and only them because the atonement is only applied to them."
Jesus' death was wasted on the others, then. Did he intend to save them but couldn't? They could foil his plan? Quite spitting in the face of the Savior, Robert.
Robert: "I have said enough, I’ve got a weekend coming, your argument from Hebrews begs the question in its first premise and so is false. Go ahead and go back and try to come up with another logical argument for your view of the atonement. "
You've written much. But there's little to no substance in your posts. A list of assertions. Pontifications.
My argument from Hebrews has been established. You've failed to refute it.
Go ahead and try to refute another biblical argument for the atonement with your "logic" and your "humanistic philosophy."
Gene does not like when I speak about the OT Day of Atonement, and yet it is by carefully studying the Day of Atonement which is a type for the final atonement that we get some substantial clues about the nature of the atonement.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that this analogy breaks down at the critical point of comparison.
Robert is saying the sacrifice of the cross is like the one @ the Day of Atonement because there were nonelect and elect in Israel and the sacrificed covered both, for he writes: However the pattern that the atonement was provided for a group which consists of both believers and unbelievers (the assembly of Israel in the OT/the world in the NT) and yet applied only to believers is the same.
But "the world" is not composed of only Jews, Robert. It's composed of Jews and Gentiles. Tell us, Robert, did the sacrifices in the OT cover Jews and Gentiles or only those who were part of the covenant and thereby Jews?
You see, as a Baptist, Robert, you affirm the New Covenant's membership is composed only of those who are elect / regenerate. So, your analogy falls short, for it would prove far too much, since the author of Hebrews is quite specific that the blood of the covenant ratifies the covenant in Hebrews 9.
Tell us, Robert, are unsaved persons members of the New Covenant? If you say "Yes," you're heading, no offense to Paul here, into Presbyterian territory. Do you, Robert, believe that the sins of everybody, regenerate and unregenerate in every visible church is covered by this blood? If so, you believe in mixed, not regenerate church membership, since, in Baptist ecclesiology, the membership of the church is determined by actual membership in the New Covenant - which is known by a credible profession of faith, not a covenantal promise at infancy. So much for your Baptist ecclesiology, or do you deny regenerate church membership?
And notice that Robert quotes Leviticus (and repeats himself, since I already addressed this argument but he did not respond), without reference to Hebrews.
Not only does Hebrews teach that the blood of the covenant ratifies the covenant, there is much more.
As Paul pointed out the blood of animals did not save. It was a shadow of what was to come. It covered the sins of the elect nation, Israel - not everybody on the planet. Robert needs a supporting argument that the typology in Hebrews means that the elect/non-elect distinction in Israel obtains for "the world" - everybody on the planet in any given time. Where is this in Hebrews, since Hebrews is the text that draws this analogy?
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.
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.
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 too, and in the NT it is not. Where is the supporting argument for this move? - Another place where his argument falls short, for this is an element that Hebrews specifically denies, but Robert is using Leviticus, not Hebrews as his point of departure.
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.
Robert is right to say that the blood of the New Covenant is superior to the Old, but in his atonement that has no saving efficacy that is intrinsic to it, it is identical with that of the Old, for it does not, in itself, save anyone.
"Tell us, Robert, are unsaved persons members of the New Covenant? If you say "Yes," you're heading, no offense to Paul here, into Presbyterian territory."
ReplyDeleteWell, many Arminians *would* say that there are unsaved in the NC (see the two Arminian contributions in "Four Views on The Warning Passages").
But, their problem, is that they believe the high priest died for them. All in the NC have Jesus as their high priest, interceeding for them, on their view. This is where they run into big problems.
So, there'd be a distinction between us at that point.
And, no offense taken, Gene. Robert can come on over to the Presbyterian side any time, we'd welcome him. Robert, the sprinklers are ready for you and your kids to come on down! :-)
Robert, are you ready to become a WCF affirming Presbyterian? :-P
I think Gene would be happier with that than where you're at right now, anyway.
A question for Robert. What would you do if the Christ and the God of the bible is what the Calvinists described Him to be? Bow before Him and worship Him, or spit in His face? Please do be very careful in answering.
ReplyDeleteHey, it looks like I've missed a lot of rabble. I'll be brief...
ReplyDeleteRobert, you said:
"God loves all with a redemptive love, but only those who trust Him, who become believers, who develop a relationship of love and trust with Him, will have the atonement applied to themselves."
How can God love all with a redemptive love if some of the objects of that love are ultimately lost forever? What love is this?
It appears that your theology is some kind of Calvino-Arminius pretzel.
"God loves all with a redemptive love,"
ReplyDeleteWe're only told that he loves the elect, the church, his friends, "us," but we are never, anywhere, told that God loves every single person with a "redemptive love." In case Robert wants to appeal to John 3:16, that has been addressed in probably 5 or 6 posts here.
First, I normally do not respond to someone who does not post by name. Second, an “Anonymous” person wrote a post that if answered shows one of the major problems with determinism. Some “Anonymous” person said:
ReplyDelete“A question for Robert. What would you do if the Christ and the God of the bible is what the Calvinists described Him to be? Bow before Him and worship Him, or spit in His face? Please do be very careful in answering.”
This question is actually quite ironic. “A” asks what I would do if Jesus and the God of the bible is what Calvinists believe Him to be? Would I bow before Him and worship Him OR spit in His face? Doesn’t this scenario presuppose or assume that the global determinism of calvinism is false? For me to actually be able to choose either of these options in the same circumstances would not be possible if calvinism were true and God was a Calvinist!
Because I could not really do either action. If it had been predetermined that I would bow and worship, then that is what I would have to do, and it would be impossible for me to do otherwise and choose to spit in His face. On the other hand, if it had been predetermined that I would spit in his face then that is what I would have to do, and it would be impossible for me to do otherwise and choose to bow before Him and worship Him. I would not be able to choose either one, I would be predetermined to do one or the other, so I would have no choice in the matter if global determinism were true.
In order for me to have a real choice, to be able to choose either option in the same circumstances, that would have to mean that global determinism is false. But if global determinism were false, then I would not be standing in the presence of a calvinistic God now would I? So there really are only three possibilities. P-1 is that the Calvinistic conception is false and so I would have a real choice about what I would do when standing in the presence of God and if I had a real choice then I would not be standing in the presence of a God as conceived by calvinists. In that case why would I want to spit in His face? What would that accomplish? And if you had a choice why would you ever spit in the face of God? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! :-)
The other two possibilities obtain, if and only if the calvinistic conception is correct. In that case I would P-2 bow down and worship or I would P-3 spit in His face (and the one I would do would be the one that God himself had predetermined that I would do). So if God had predetermined that I would spit in his face, then that is what I would do and I could not do otherwise (and vice versa if he had predetermined that I bow down and worship Him).
If you understand so far then you would understand that if the calvinistic conception is true then we are all just puppets acting according to what strings the puppet master is pulling there never have been any choices even if we thought there were. If he pulls the you will never believe and will go to hell sets of strings then that is what will happen to us. If he pulls the you will be one of the elect sets of strings then that is what will happen to us. We have no say in any of it, and we are (as a friend of mine likes to put it) either big winners or big losers in this divine lottery. Big winners get lucky and go to Heaven, while big losers are not so lucky.
Does that answer your question “A”?
Robert
I don't think it's saying too much to assert that if it's redemptive love that it is a love that actually redeems. Otherwise you empty "redemptive" of it's meaning. What's redeemed, what's purchased, if the sinner isn't saved?
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteYour last comment came up as I was posting mine. I think anonymous' question was simple enough. Judging by your comments above you are attacking a caricature of Calvinism (dare I say it, straw man). Do you think Calvinists believe that men are just puppets and God the puppetmaster? No, we don't. Have you considered the possibility that you don't understand Calvinism as much as you may have thought?
Manata: "Arminians like Dave Hunt love to assume a humanistic philosophy of love"
ReplyDeleteEd's reply: I've read Dave Hunt. He denounced Leo Buscaglia's (the love doctor from the 1980s) humanistic philosophy of love. He even denounced Anne Frank's humanistic philosophy of love, thoroughly rejecting her view that "deep down inside" there was something "good" in people. And now you're telling me Dave Hunt himself is too full of a "humanistic philosophy of love?" What's left I ask? The abominable fancy? (Google "abominable fancy"), or read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Hell-Trevor-Christian-Johnson/dp/1414102569
Sincerely,
Ed Babinski
Ed,
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Man is so special and neat-o that if God were to predestine them to hell, that would be a great and terrible crime. It's an anthroprecentrism rather than a theocentrism.
Now, I certainly don't think he is a "secular humanism," espousing something like a Kurtz, or a Rand does, but my use of "humanism" was broader than that. Where man is so important that "bad things" done against him are crimes. if it's bad for humans, it's bad.
Then again, I wasn't even writting to outsiders such as yourself. I had a specific audience in mind. people who are familiar with the borader context. And, sorry to say, that didn't include you.
So, you're close to committing the intentional fallacy (google it and look it up).
This post is meant for those "in the fold." You "lefvt the fold," remember? So, when I attack the god "Scientific Method" or the goddess "Reason," feel free to come back here and defend your deities. Other than that, study more about our internal debates, learn the language, and then make apprpriate shots. I mean, you may raise your hands in victory when throwing a basketball into a hoop, but when you notice that the game on the field is a football game, and the hoop turned out to be a trashcan in the stands, you'd feel pretty embarrassed, right. Likewsie....
And, and don't bother cutting and pasting a 8 page post from something else you wrote to some pastor in the Ozark mountains. I frankly don't care about your "apostacy" and your brand of "atheologetics."
Hello Twinky,
ReplyDelete“Your last comment came up as I was posting mine. I think anonymous' question was simple enough. Judging by your comments above you are attacking a caricature of Calvinism (dare I say it, straw man).”
No it is not a straw man. If God predetermines every single event that makes up the history of this universe, then he predetermines our every thought, our every movement, our every action, think of it as a causal chain in which every event is predetermined and must necessarily follow its predetermined path (another friends uses the analogy of a long string of dominoes set up by a person to go in an inexact direction). A puppet and puppet master is a good analogy for this. Because whatever strings the puppet master pulls is the way the puppet will behave. Calvinists will balk at this claiming that we are not puppets but have consciousness, minds, wills. Ok, then make the puppet a conscious one with a mind a will, but whose every thought, intention, desire, movement, action is determined by a person outside of his consciousness. Noncalvinists regularly bring up this kind of analogy because that is what total determination would be like, if it were actually occurring.
“Do you think Calvinists believe that men are just puppets and God the puppetmaster? No, we don't.”
Of course you don’t want to believe that, but you do not honestly face the implications of your own line of reasoning. You claim total determinism of every event, but then when someone tries to imagine what this would look like, what it would involve (puppets, robots, hypnotized persons, dominoes, etc. Etc.) you want to distance yourself from the consequences of your own view. If I were a calvinist I would believe that everything is predetermined that everything was always going according to plan, so I would never get frustrated, never be angry, never be overly concerned, always content with all things that happen. But no calvinist I know is like that, and neither is the God revealed in scripture. Because in fact some things are not what God wants to occur.
“Have you considered the possibility that you don't understand Calvinism as much as you may have thought?”
Sure, that is possible, but when I read smart non-calvinist thinkers (both believers and unbeliever) and they are using the same analogies, then I conclude that we are all seeing the same implications, the same problems with calvinism (e.g. would you like for me to share Antony Flew’s statements about puppets and hypnotists? He is sharp and a good example). Recall that Plantinga, one of the top Christian philosophers, spoke of how weak and anemic the determinist arguments are. He is no slouch, and there must be some truth to it if we are all seeing the same problems with Calvinism. Of course if it is all predetermined then even our bringing up these problems and analogies is exactly what God wants to happen. But then why are you getting frustrated by it, not happy that we are doing exactly what God has predetermined?
Robert
PS- when I get more time I want to get into the meaning of Kosmos, as that really is a key and determining factor. But for now a little person needs some new shoes and a new jacket.
Robert, just a little comment.
ReplyDelete“If I were a calvinist I would believe that everything is predetermined that everything was always going according to plan, so I would never get frustrated, never be angry, never be overly concerned, always content with all things that happen.”
You are confusing praise for the whole with regret for the parts. You commit the fallacy of division. Just because one does not have regret that the universe is the way it is on the whole—because the existence of evil is for the greater good—does not mean that one cannot have regret for evil that occurs in the past, present, or even future for that matter.
William James did the same thing (although with a different variation) in a paper he wrote against determinism.
ROBERT SAID:
ReplyDelete“A puppet and puppet master is a good analogy for this.”
These childish metaphors (puppets, robots, hypnotized persons, dominoes, etc.) don’t even rise to the level of a serious philosophical argument, much less a serious exegetical argument.
“Noncalvinists regularly bring up this kind of analogy because that is what total determination would be like, if it were actually occurring.”
No, they keeping bringing it up in the absence of a serious argument.
“Of course you don’t want to believe that, but you do not honestly face the implications of your own line of reasoning.”
i) I’d rather face the implications of Scripture.
ii) Robert didn’t like it when I pursued the implications of Arminianism and open theism in my critique of Olson.
“You claim total determinism of every event, but then when someone tries to imagine what this would look like, what it would involve (puppets, robots, hypnotized persons, dominoes, etc. Etc.) you want to distance yourself from the consequences of your own view.”
No, I simply distance myself from childish metaphors.
And there are many varieties of determinism.
“If I were a calvinist I would believe that everything is predetermined that everything was always going according to plan, so I would never get frustrated, never be angry, never be overly concerned, always content with all things that happen.”
i) Why wouldn’t that apply to the Arminian, who believes in God’s omniprescience?
ii) Robert is also confusing ends with means. I may not enjoy a bone marrow transplant even if that will save my life.
iii) And some forms of frustration and anger are simply due to sin.
“Would you like for me to share Antony Flew’s statements about puppets and hypnotists?”
A secular indeterminist. Big deal.
What about secular determinists like Blanshard, Dennett, Ayer, Pereboom, &c.? Would you like me to share their statements?
“Recall that Plantinga, one of the top Christian philosophers, spoke of how weak and anemic the determinist arguments are.”
That’s not an exegetical argument, now is it?
Does Robert agree with Plantinga’s supralapsarian theodicy?
And what about Paul Helm? He’s a top Christian philosopher too, you know.
“PS- when I get more time I want to get into the meaning of Kosmos, as that really is a key and determining factor.”
For you, maybe.
But even apart from the meaning of kosmos, Reformed theology derives from many direct prooftexts irrespective of the “cosmic” terminology—as well as the logical implications of other Scriptural doctrines.
Twinki-- “Do you think Calvinists believe that men are just puppets and God the puppetmaster? No, we don't.”
ReplyDeleteRobert-- Of course you don’t want to believe that, but you do not honestly face the implications of your own line of reasoning.
Libertarian Arminian -- Do you think Arminains believe in a weak, impotent, and pansy God? A God that can't accomplish what he wants? A God that dies to save all men, but fails? No, we do not.
Calvinist-- Of course you don’t want to believe that, but you do not honestly face the implications of your own line of reasoning.
Robert said:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I normally do not respond to someone who does not post by name. Second, an “Anonymous” person wrote a post that if answered shows one of the major problems with determinism.
But that doesn't stop Robert from posting under the monkier of "anonymous" himself. I'll file this away for future postings when he does this.
As much a Robert writes on this blog, one begins to wonder why he doesn't take the time to register with blogger and create his own blog. Then he can post to his heart's content and stop abusing ours by wasting combox space repeating the same arguments over and over after they've been addressed multiple times, only to disappear from a thread to pop up later doing the same thing. Then he can just post some links to his articles and ask us to reply the way we reply to Babinski, Prejean, Robinson, Loftus, et.al.
Continuing, where is Robert's exegetical foundation for libertarian freedom? He can witter on all about "determinism" all he wants, but until he produces an exegetical foundation, it's utterly worthless meandering. Robert is like the Roman Catholic who starts with an aprioristic idea of what constitutes a "real" rule of faith and then judges Sola Scriptura thereby, only Robert begins with an aprioristic view of what "real" freedom is and then proceeds to attack from there.
If God predetermines every single event that makes up the history of this universe, then he predetermines our every thought, our every movement, our every action, think of it as a causal chain in which every event is predetermined and must necessarily follow its predetermined path (another friends uses the analogy of a long string of dominoes set up by a person to go in an inexact direction). A puppet and puppet master is a good analogy for this. Because whatever strings the puppet master pulls is the way the puppet will behave. Calvinists will balk at this claiming that we are not puppets but have consciousness, minds, wills. Ok, then make the puppet a conscious one with a mind a will, but whose every thought, intention, desire, movement, action is determined by a person outside of his consciousness. Noncalvinists regularly bring up this kind of analogy because that is what total determination would be like, if it were actually occurring.
The problem for Robert, aside from his question begging assertions about what constitutes real freedom is that the analogy falls apart at a critical point of comparison not only in one but two places.
One of them, he acknoledges - puppets do not have wills.
The other is of his own making. He says "whatever strings the puppet master pulls is the way the puppet will behave."
The problem here is that Robert is glossing right over the determination of the agent itself - secondary causation.
"Determinism" is not one way. It refers to what causes the agent to make a choice, and that is internal as well as external. God has only to leave an agent alone in order for its action to be "determined."
And this is self-defeating for Robert's position, for Robert believes that God should let an agent get what is wants - and this is precisely what Calvinism states about free agency. Every agent is willing. Robert wants to say that Calvinists believe in a God who pulls strings like a puppeteer, but that falls apart at the point where the puppeteer leaves the puppet under its own power to do whatever it will do by nature. Of course, the puppet collapses and cannot move. The difference is that people have wills and continue moving. God only needs to leave them to their own devices to do many things - that's why the standard confessions talk about God like this:
LBCF2 5. Paragraph 2. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly; so that there is not anything befalls any by chance, or without His providence; yet by the same providence He ordered them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingentl
And what is Robert's position on agent causation? Why do agents behave as they do given the constraints of libertarian freedom? All he's said in the past is that they have "reasons," but if that's so, then so much libertarianism, since choices are uncaused.
Of course, this entire discussion about foreordination is just a diversionary tactic for Robert to avoid the exegetical proofs for his own position.
He also conflates two things: the doctrines of grace and the foreordination of all things. These are two separate questions.
I suppose he does this on the notion that since he thinks Calvinism turns on "global determinism" he's going after that as a presuppositional sort of argument.
The problem, however, is that if he's going to go that route, that's a historiographical argument, and there's a mountain of material he must present in order to show that his assertion about Reformed theology is true before he can even address that - and he still has to produce exegetical material to overturn the doctrines of grace much less establish his own position on freedom/agent causation. He has yet to do this.
Gene said, "All he's said in the past is that they have "reasons," but if that's so, then so much libertarianism, since choices are uncaused."
ReplyDeleteYes, seems right. But, in case "Robert" says, "No, they're not uncaused, they're self-caused," we've dealt with that before:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/todays-your-lucky-day.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/agent-causation.html
and here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/contemporary-compatibilism.html
Robert,
ReplyDeleteYour summation of your understanding of Calvinism reminds me of what I've read from the likes of such apostates as John Loftus (I'm not implying you're an apostate, but your understanding of what you denounce is school yard). I do honestly face the implications of the doctrines of grace, which is Scriptural reasoning. However I don't overlook the theological complexities of the truth, and boil them down to puppets and robots. My brotherly admonition to you is to dig deeper into the subject, be open and teachable, and not so quick to reject the God who is sovereign in salvation, and in whose hands are all things. A christian having a problem with this is troubling to me...
Paul,
I hear there's a new addition to the Manatas. May God bless your parenting, and give you abundant patience.
--the twinkie
Twink,
ReplyDeleteYes, there is! Thank you. :-)
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI am very glad you avoided answering the question. There is still hope. But the way you answer shows that you do not quite understand Calvinism.
"A"(I do not blog. I do not write well).
Well as promised I want to get into the meaning of “world” as I believe the proper meaning of this word provides a very strong argument against calvinism and specifically its doctrine of limited atonement. The two key passages for me that are so clear that it amazes me that people willingly choose not to see it, are John 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2. I believe in both verses “world” has the same meaning, but what does it mean?
ReplyDeleteI am not going to re-invent the wheel here, but I may quote from where Steve Hays and Henry spoke about “world” to save myself time if I need to. Hays argument repeated over and over to Henry was that “world” does not mean EVERYONE. And I would readily grant this, as did Henry. Henry said: “I repeat my principle again: **everyone** (with the exception of Jesus, Adam/Eve prefall, and possibly John the Baptist) at some point was part of the world, but **not everyone** (without exception)is now part of the world.” There may be dispute about whether or not Adam/Eve before the fall, or John the Baptist (possibly regenerated in the womb) were ever part of the “world”, but surely we can agree that Jesus was never part of the “world”.
Or put another way, Jesus did not die for Himself, so Jesus could not have died for EVERYONE.
Let’s call this set #1 (the set of all human persons who have ever been conceived and/or lived on this earth). If we mean EVERYONE then we are referring to set # 1. Since we can agree that Jesus did not die for Himself, we can conclude that the atonement was not a provision for all of the people that make up set #1. Some Calvinists mistakenly believe that if they prove that Jesus did not die for everyone (not for set # 1), then they have proved their view of limited atonement to be true, not so fast.
There are also others sets of persons to consider. At the opposite end of the spectrum, is the set of no human persons, let’s call this set #4. If we claimed that Jesus died for set #4 persons, we would be claiming that Jesus did not die for ANYONE. Set #1 then refers to ALL, while set #4 refers to NONE. As with set # 1 I believe it is safe to conclude that Jesus did in fact die for some, so we can discard set # 4 from consideration at this point as well.
That leaves us with two other sets of human persons that need to be considered. Another set of human persons that is less than everyone but more than no one, is the set of all believers throughout history. Calvinists call them “the elect” so let’s use the same terminology here. We know from rather clear scripture such as Matt. 25 sheep/goats parable, that not everyone becomes the elect, only some human persons do so. So when referring to the set of persons who are elect, let’s call that set # 3.
There is one more important set of human persons to consider. The bible teaches that “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” Those who are “of God” are the elect, those “in the power of the evil one” are the “world.” In 1 Jn. 5:19 the “world” must refer to a set of human persons who are not believers at that time. And I would argue that this “whole world” does not just mean the Roman Empire but the entire earth, so that those who are in the “world” is the set of all unbelieving persons on the earth at that time.
The apostle John when speaking of this “world” throughout his gospel speaks of it in a negative way. It is this “world” that persecutes Christians. It is also this “world” from which Christians come out of when they come to faith in Jesus Christ. Does this “world” then refer to the set of every human person (set # 1)/EVERYONE? No, again Jesus, and possibly others, were not part of the “world”. Now it is important to realize that Christians, believers, who come to Christ were at some point of their lives also within this “world”. Paul at another place speaks of: “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13). I take “the domain of darkness” to be referring to the “world” the same “world” which John says in 1 Jn. 5 is under the evil one. So according to Col. 1:13 when a person is converted to Christianity they are transferred out of Satan’s kingdom, the “world” and placed in the kingdom of God. The elect then are persons who have had(or will have) this experience, who have been taken out (or will be taken out) of the “world” and are now (or will be) part of God’s kingdom.
John says in 1 Jn. 2:2 that “and He himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Two groups mentioned here, the elect (“our sins”) and the “world” (“for those of the whole world”). The “world” to which it refers is the set of persons who are nonbelievers who have not converted to Christ, and are under the authority of Satan. John says that Jesus died for (here presented with the language of “propitiation”) both the elect and the world. And this “world” here has to be unbelievers in line with John’s usage of “world” throughout his gospel.
We need to remember that this “world” or set of unbelievers under the authority of satan that opposes God and Christ and the people of God is a fluid or dynamic set of persons. The number that makes up the world is constantly changing (more people are added to the world and also others, those converted to Christ are being taken out of the world, transferred to the Kingdom of God). Let’s call this set of persons, set # 3.
According to 1 Jn.2:2 Jesus died for both set #2 (the world) and set # 3 (the elect). In Jn. 3:16 we are told that for God the Father so loved the “world” that He gave God the Son, Jesus, to the “world”, with the purpose that those believing ones, those who believe in Jesus, those who accept Jesus, should not perish but have eternal life. So God gives the Son to the “world” (that is set # 3) and from that “world” those believing ones (that is set # 2) will not perish but will have eternal life. Then verse 17 speaks of how “God did not send the Son into the “world” to judge the “world” (set # 2), but that the “world” (set # 2) should be saved through Him.
Now key question: is everyone from set #2 “the world” going to be eventually saved? The answer according to other scripture is clearly NO. Another way to see this is to compare set # 2 the “world” and set # 3 the elect. Are these equivalent sets, do the same people make up both sets of persons? Well if the “world” includes everyone besides Jesus, (and possibly Adam/Eve prefall, John the Baptist”) and the elect includes only those who eventually believe, then set # 2 “the world” is larger than set # 3 the elect. It is true that the elect come out of set #2, but not all of the people that comprise set # 2 become elect. If all of the people that comprise set #2 were to become believers then universalism would be true. But we know that universalism is false from other scriptures.
Now how does this all have a bearing on the issue of the doctrine of limited atonement? The bible says that Jesus died for the world/set # 2 (Jn. 3:16, 1 Jn. 2:2) and yet not all of the world will become elect/set # 3. So that means that Jesus had to have died for some who are part of set # 2 (the world) who will never become part of set # 3 (the elect). But if He did so, then Jesus died for some who will never become believers (i.e. Jesus did not die only for the elect; thus limited atonement as conceived by five point calvinists is false).
The scripture clearly says that Jesus died for the “world”. As the “world” is a larger set of people than the set of people that make up the elect, that means that Jesus had to die for some who will never be elect.
In order for the calvinist to salvage his position, he would need to show that “world” in Jn. 3:16 or 1 Jn. 2:2 does not refer to set # 2 human persons/the “world”, but actually refers to set #3 persons/the elect. Now “world” may have some different meanings in scripture, but it never refers to the elect, it never refers exclusively to set # 3 persons. Most Christians see Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 and the meaning is plain to them: Jesus died for the “world” which is a group of persons and not all of them are elect.
It is not enough to show that “world” does not mean EVERYONE,that is easy to see. Hays kept arguing for this point, but it is not enough to make his case.
What the calvinist needs to show is that “world” in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 refers exclusively to the elect, set # 3 persons. That has not been shown by calvinists nor can it be shown by calvinists. And it should be noted that if the calvinist could show that all of the world will eventually be of the elect, then He would be arguing for universalism (and we know that universalism is false). At least on limited atonement the calvinists are most definitely wrong. Analysis of “world” in the apostle John’s writings clearly demonstrates this to be true. It is significant that even “4-pointers”, people like Bruce Ware, Amyraldians, all have rejected five point calvinism because the biblical texts are too clearly against the five pointers’ position. You cannot claim that they reject it because they are Arminians or molinists or noncalvinists (they in fact believe in unconditional election, depravity, etc.). They reject it because the biblical texts on atonement require that we reject it.
Robert
PS - Some calvinists like R. T. Kendall, Tony Byrne and David Ponter even suggest that Calvin himself was not a “five pointer” but held to four of the points and held to the “sufficiency/efficiency” concept.
PS - Some calvinists like R. T. Kendall, Tony Byrne and David Ponter even suggest that Calvin himself was not a “five pointer” but held to four of the points and held to the “sufficiency/efficiency” concept.
ReplyDeleteR.T. Kendall admits to being an Amyraldian these days. It is no secret he agrees with the Theology of Samur in the old era. If you agree with Kendall, then we look forward to your review of Paul Helm's Calvin & The Calvinists and several other works published since.
1. Since we can agree that Jesus did not die for Himself,
But it isn't clear we agree at all. You appealed to the Day of Atonement out of Leviticus for your own analogy, and in Leviticus the sacrifices offered included the High Priest.
If you'd like to exclude Christ, you are more than welcome to do so, but you'll need a supporting argument to justify your exclusion of Christ from your own selected paradigm.
Some Calvinists mistakenly believe that if they prove that Jesus did not die for everyone (not for set # 1), then they have proved their view of limited atonement to be true, not so fast.
Again, we've been over the fallacious logic of this assertion. And we've also been over the exegetical argument to the contrary, as from John 10. So, all Robert is doing is continuing to repeat himself.
The bible says that Jesus died for the world/set # 2 (Jn. 3:16, 1 Jn. 2:2) and yet not all of the world will become elect/set # 3.
Where does John 3:16 say "Jesus died for "the world?" It only says that God loved "the world" (however defined) and gave Jesus so that all the ones believing (a present participle) might have eternal life. That's a prooftext for limited, not general atonement.
In order for the calvinist to salvage his position, he would need to show that “world” in Jn. 3:16 or 1 Jn. 2:2 does not refer to set # 2 human persons/the “world”, but actually refers to set #3 persons/the elect.
No, he could say it refers to the world as
1. As eschatological construct.
2. He could say it refers to all kinds men, both Jew and Gentile.
3. He could draw on John 11:32 and show the exact grammatical parallel with "the children of God scattered abroad."It is like saying, "Robert speaks to everyone." That does not require Robert speak to every person on the planet, only all kinds of persons.
4. He could view the text as Christocentric, as in the case of J. Ramsey Michaels (The Glory of God in the Atonement, "The Atonement in John's Gospel and Epistles), such that Jesus is the one propitiatory sacrifice for any man or woman who would ever seej have his or her sins propitiated, but this does not require He propiate the wrath of God for the sins of every man and woman. It is a statement of exclusivity. There is not one propitiatory sacrifice for Christians and another for pagans.
In short, there are several ways to go about this, none of which you bother to interact with.
Now “world” may have some different meanings in scripture, but it never refers to the elect, it never refers exclusively to set # 3 persons.
An assertion minus an argument. This may or may not be true. Is this how they teach exegetics at the seminary where Henry teaches?
You cannot claim that they reject it because they are Arminians or molinists or noncalvinists (they in fact believe in unconditional election, depravity, etc.). They reject it because the biblical texts on atonement require that we reject it.
This, of course, is not why we reject their view. It would help Robert's case if he could muster the truth telling ability to accurately present what we have ourselves stated.
And, as we can see Robert does nothing to exegete either John 3:16 or 1 John 2:2 themselves. All he does is talk about what the text can't mean based on his definitions and continue on about what he thinks Calvinists "must" prove.
In order for the calvinist to salvage his position, he would need to show that “world” in Jn. 3:16 or 1 Jn. 2:2 does not refer to set # 2 human persons/the “world”, but actually refers to set #3 persons/the elect.
ReplyDeleteEasy, Jesus dies as a high priest for his people. That is the teaching of the Bible. The OT sacrifieces is what gives Jesus' death its very intelligibility.
To go back and say that this contradicts "John 3" is to beg the question.
Now, show me where Scripture teaches that Jesus died for someone who did not have him as a high priest.
And you think Hubt's view of God's love is humanistic? You should read your own stuff.
ReplyDeleteHunt, not Hubt. Sorry for being stupid.
ReplyDelete***QUOTE***
ReplyDeleterobert said...
The two key passages for me that are so clear that it amazes me that people willingly choose not to see it, are John 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2. I believe in both verses “world” has the same meaning, but what does it mean?
The number that makes up the world is constantly changing (more people are added to the world and also others, those converted to Christ are being taken out of the world, transferred to the Kingdom of God).
Let’s call this set #1 (the set of all human persons who have ever been conceived and/or lived on this earth). If we mean EVERYONE then we are referring to set # 1.
According to 1 Jn.2:2 Jesus died for both set #2 (the world) and set # 3 (the elect).
There is one more important set of human persons to consider.
That leaves us with two other sets of human persons that need to be considered. Another set of human persons that is less than everyone but more than no one, is the set of all believers throughout history…Let’s call this set of persons, set # 3.
There are also others sets of persons to consider. At the opposite end of the spectrum, is the set of no human persons, let’s call this set #4. If we claimed that Jesus died for set #4 persons, we would be claiming that Jesus did not die for ANYONE. Set #1 then refers to ALL, while set #4 refers to NONE. As with set # 1 I believe it is safe to conclude that Jesus did in fact die for some, so we can discard set # 4 from consideration at this point as well.
The scripture clearly says that Jesus died for the “world”. As the “world” is a larger set of people than the set of people that make up the elect, that means that Jesus had to die for some who will never be elect.
In order for the calvinist to salvage his position, he would need to show that “world” in Jn. 3:16 or 1 Jn. 2:2 does not refer to set # 2 human persons/the “world”, but actually refers to set #3 persons/the elect. Now “world” may have some different meanings in scripture, but it never refers to the elect, it never refers exclusively to set # 3 persons. Most Christians see Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 and the meaning is plain to them: Jesus died for the “world” which is a group of persons and not all of them are elect.
What the calvinist needs to show is that “world” in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 refers exclusively to the elect, set # 3 persons.
It is not enough to show that “world” does not mean EVERYONE,that is easy to see. Hays kept arguing for this point, but it is not enough to make his case.
It is significant that even “4-pointers”, people like Bruce Ware, Amyraldians, all have rejected five point calvinism because the biblical texts are too clearly against the five pointers’ position. You cannot claim that they reject it because they are Arminians or molinists or noncalvinists (they in fact believe in unconditional election, depravity, etc.). They reject it because the biblical texts on atonement require that we reject it.
Some calvinists like R. T. Kendall, Tony Byrne and David Ponter even suggest that Calvin himself was not a “five pointer” but held to four of the points and held to the “sufficiency/efficiency” concept.
***END-QUOTE***
1.One of the fundamental flaws in Robert’s analysis is that his analysis is purely quantitative. He assumes that kosmos denotes a certain number of individuals. He then subdivides this sum into a various subsets.
It never occurs to him that the Johannine usage of kosmos is *qualitative* or ethical rather than *quantitative* or numerical.
In other words, the import of the term signifies a particular *kind* of people rather than a particular *number* of people. People identified with the fallen world order or evil world-system.
This oversight alone vitiates Robert’s entire analysis.
2.If that wasn’t bad enough, he also commits the elementary semantic fallacy of failing to distinguish between sense and reference or connotation and denotation. The *meaning* of a word is not defined by its *referents*.
The meaning of a word is general, whereas its possible referents are particular and variable. That’s why the same word can cover more than one referent.
3.Notice that Robert doesn’t cite any lexicographers, whereas I did quote from lexicographers to establish the legitimacy of an ethical or qualitative import.
4.In yet another semantic fallacy, pointing out that there are various exceptions to the (allegedly) default meaning of “everyone” for kosmos does not, in fact, show that kosmos means “almost everyone,” or “everyone”…but see article 4, subsection 3 for a list of exceptions.
The bare meaning of the word doesn’t specify a list of exceptions. Rather, Robert is starting with his presumptive meaning of kosmos, and then qualifying his presumptive meaning with a set of exceptions. But the putative meaning and the exceptions are two different things. The exceptions are not derivable from the meaning, and the meaning is not derivable from the exceptions. What he is attempting to do, therefore, is to take two independent factoids, and then generate the meaning by squishing them together, like rubbing two damp sticks together to start a fire—and with the same dismal results. But that’s no way to determine the meaning of a word.
5.A Calvinist doesn’t have to show that kosmos signifies the elect. Rather, a Calvinist only has to show that kosmos connotes an ethical or qualitative rather than numerical or quantitative identity.
6.It’s amusing to see Robert claim that his analysis represents the “clear” or “plain” sense of the word. There’s nothing clear or plain about subdividing kosmos into 4 different sets of partly related, partly unrelated individuals. To the contrary, that’s a very complicated analysis of the word. You would need a chart or diagram to keep track of who belongs to which subset—like trying to draw the family tree of feuding, interbreeding Appalachian clans, where Ella-Mae is the second cousin thrice-removed of Billy-Bob Jr. on her paternal grandma’s side.
And it’s hardly the “clear” or “plain” to “most” Christians that this is the correct way to read the Fourth Gospel or 1 John.
7.Apropos (6), we’re treated to his phony, populist appeal to what is “plain” or “clear” to most Christians. This is a disingenuous appeal, since Robert doesn’t believe what most Christians believe. Most professing Christians are Roman Catholics. The second most popular Christian tradition is Eastern Orthodoxy, the third is Oriental Orthodoxy, while the fourth is Anglicanism. I believe that Robert is some sort of faded Baptist. And I don’t think he’s a Southern Baptist, although the SBC is the largest Baptist body.
So this is another trademark example of Robert’s resort to cheating when he can’t win an argument by the rules.
8.Apropos (7), most Christians don’t read Greek, most Christians are not NT scholars, and most Christians are not lexicographers. Hence, what most Christians believe is irrelevant to establishing the meaning of kosmos in Johannine usage. Robert keeps using shady arguments.
9.The “plain” or “clear” sense is not a sound hermeneutical or lexicographical principle. You won’t find this appeal in the scholarly literature. Vern Poythress has a good discussion of this slippery and overly facile appeal in his book, Understanding Dispensationalists.
10. His two grand prooftexts are Jn 3:16 and 1 Jn 2:2. But Jn 3:16 is a prooftext for limited atonement, since, in that verse, the atonement is limited to believers.
11.The problem with the “Arminian” appeal to 1 Jn 2:2 lies in the parallel wording of 1 Jn 5:19b. Here we have the word “kosmos” intensified by a universal quantifier (“whole”). If the quantitative analysis were correct, then the combination of “kosmos” intensified by the adjective “whole,” ought to mean everyone, for there would be no more emphatic way of expressing a totality.
But while the “Arminian” would love to use that argument in 1 Jn 2:2, the very same reasoning produces an antithetical result in 1 Jn 5:19. If everyone is propitiated in 1 Jn 2:2, then everyone is diabolical in 1 Jn 5:19b. Yet the terminology is identical in both cases.
12.Robert has no right to stake his claim in 1 Jn 2:2, for that verse doesn’t say that Christ has propitiated the sins of every *believer*, but rather, that Christ has propitiated the sins of the *whole world*.
His attempt to subsequently pare down the scope of the passage to believers does not derive from the actual wording of the text, in terms of what either “kosmos” or its adjective (“whole”) means, in and of themselves. So his interpretation is no “plainer” or “clearer” than what he attributes to the Reformed interpretation.
13.Since, however, I was never operating within a quantitative framework, I don’t have to qualify the force of 1 Jn 2:2. I can take it at full force or face value since the meaning is ethical rather than numerical.
By contrast, Robert is the one who has to artificially cut this verse down to size. He’s the one who’s guilty of special pleading by first lodging a claim about the general meaning of kosmos, only to demand a series of ad hoc modifications when one of his two major prooftexts doesn’t square with his theological system.
14.For personal reasons which I don’t plan to discuss in public, I’ll waive the classification of Ponter. However, Kendall is by no stretch of the imagination a Calvinist. Rather, he’s a Sandemanian.
15.In yet another one of Robert’s sophistries, it is totally insignificant that most groups oppose 5-point Calvinism. It’s child’s play to produce shifting alliances in which one temporary set of Christian traditions opposes another Christian tradition, depending on which doctrine we choose to showcase. One can keep rotating these combinations and recombinations until one is dizzy.
So, Robert, thanks for demonstrating, through a string of semantic fallacies and underhanded sophistries, the wholly discreditable character of your logically, ethically, semantically, and exegetically shoddy alternative.
"And you think Hubt's view of God's love is humanistic? You should read your own stuff."
ReplyDeleteYeah, and? Have an argument or is being cryptic your modus operandi?
I wanted to stay away from argument, since it is obviously not your strong suit. Your argument makes no sense. Perhaps you could convince a Calvinist.
ReplyDeleteYou go from examples of human love and extend them to God's love.
You are a harsh person. I see no love in your writing.
Randy McRoberts said:
ReplyDelete"I wanted to stay away from argument, since it is obviously not your strong suit."
Where's your argument for that conclusion?
"Your argument makes no sense."
Where's your argument for that conclusion?
"You go from examples of human love and extend them to God's love."
No, I start with what God says about himself in the Bible.
"You are a harsh person. I see no love in your writing."
I see no love in your statement that I'm a harsh person.
So, from you I don't get love and I don't get a reasoned argument. Impressive performance all around.
You go from examples of human love and extend them to God's love.
ReplyDeleteHuh? Arminians, not Calvinists do that. Robert, to take just one example, has argued from the perspective of what constitutes human love and what is most loving from a human perspective.
There's also a certain amount of analogical language Scripture itself uses, so when we employ that language, we're taking Scripture, not intuitions, as our cue.
Some interesting and even bizarre things have come in response from the Triablogers. In his response. Starting with my PS comment Bridges says:
ReplyDelete”R.T. Kendall admits to being an Amyraldian these days. It is no secret he agrees with the Theology of Samur in the old era. If you agree with Kendall, then we look forward to your review of Paul Helm's Calvin & The Calvinists and several other works published since.”
I was not aware that Kendall was a self-professed Amyraldian, so I will give that to you. But I know that Bryne and Ponter are calvinists and they provide lots of evidence for the claim that Calvin himself held to universal atonement on their website. I have read Helm’s book and I have also read Calvin’s actual comments, Bryne and Ponter are right about this, Helm is not.
I had made the simple and I thought beyond argument claim that:
1. Since we can agree that Jesus did not die for Himself,
And yet Bridges responds:
”But it isn't clear we agree at all. You appealed to the Day of Atonement out of Leviticus for your own analogy, and in Leviticus the sacrifices offered included the High Priest.
If you'd like to exclude Christ, you are more than welcome to do so, but you'll need a supporting argument to justify your exclusion of Christ from your own selected paradigm.”
Jesus died for sinners, Jesus never sinned, therefore Jesus did not die for Himself. Good enough?
Now it gets bizarre. I had said:
The bible says that Jesus died for the world/set # 2 (Jn. 3:16, 1 Jn. 2:2) and yet not all of the world will become elect/set # 3.
Gene responds:
”Where does John 3:16 say "Jesus died for "the world?" It only says that God loved "the world" (however defined) and gave Jesus so that all the ones believing (a present participle) might have eternal life. That's a prooftext for limited, not general atonement.”
I know of no Christian who does not believe that Jn. 3:16 is a bible verse speaking about the atonement (especially in light of v. 14-15 where Jesus compares the cross to the snake on the pole incident of Numbers 21). And Bridges even says so when he writes in reference to “the believing ones” which is part of Jn. 3:16 “That’s a prooftext for limited, not general atonement.”
How can it be a prooftext for limited atonement unless it is a text about atonement? Yet Bridges also asks here: “Where does John 3:16 say ‘Jesus died for ‘the world’? It only says that God loved ‘the world.’
Let’s see, the immediate context of Jn. 3:16, vv. 14-15 are talking about the cross the “lifting up of Jesus” which is a reference to atonement through the cross. So when it says Jesus is given for the world in 3:16 it is speaking of giving Him in reference to being an atonement. And who does the text explicitly say Jesus was given as an atonement for? THE WORLD. Note it does not say He was given for the elect, though John could have written that. It says for the world, because that is the truth, a truth that five-point calvinists will do anything to deny. Other Christians see such playing fast and loose with the scripture and are justified in concluding that calvinism ought to be rejected.
Bridges wants to challenge my meaning for “world” so he says:
”No, he could say it refers to the world as
1. As eschatological construct.”
In John the “world” which is hostile to God is not an “eschatological construct”. Jesus was not given by the Father for a CONSTRUCT. This is laughable it is so off base, and surprising you would even bring it up. Shows desperation on your part.
”2. He could say it refers to all kinds men, both Jew and Gentile.”
The “world” does include all kinds of men, both Jews and Gentiles. And the term “world” refers to all of these kinds of people that make up the “world”. Again, in John’s writings “world” refers specifically to that group that opposes God and is under the authority of the devil. In Jn. 17 it does not speak of how Jesus prays for his disciples and not for all kinds of people both Jews and Gentiles. “World” in Jn. 3:16 is not shorthand for all kinds of people. Calvinists groping for some way to escape certain texts sometimes read this meaning into the text.
”3. He could draw on John 11:32 and show the exact grammatical parallel with "the children of God scattered abroad."It is like saying, "Robert speaks to everyone." That does not require Robert speak to every person on the planet, only all kinds of persons.”
Got your verse wrong here, 11:32 speaks of the death of Lazarus.
”4. He could view the text as Christocentric, as in the case of J. Ramsey Michaels (The Glory of God in the Atonement, "The Atonement in John's Gospel and Epistles), such that Jesus is the one propitiatory sacrifice for any man or woman who would ever seej have his or her sins propitiated, but this does not require He propiate the wrath of God for the sins of every man and woman. It is a statement of exclusivity. There is not one propitiatory sacrifice for Christians and another for pagans.”
So there is only one propitiatory sacrifice. I agree. And this one propitiatory sacrifice does not propitiate the sins of every person. I agree. This seems to be a statement similar to my view: the provision, the one propitiatory sacrifice is given for the world, but only applied to believers. Jesus is the one and only propitiatory sacrifice, the final sacrifice according to Hebrews, and this is given for the world according to Jn. 3:16, so that those from this world who believe (who receive him, Jn. 1:12) will never perish but have eternal life.
”In short, there are several ways to go about this, none of which you bother to interact with.””
I presented my view of what “world” means in Jn. 3:16, the kingdom of darkness, those under the evil one, nonbelievers who are in opposition to God. I thought I was clear but to help you out some more, here is a quote from Gary M. Burge’s commentary on John: “For John kosmos (used seventy-eight times in the Gospel, twenty four-times in his letters) is the realm of humanity arrayed in opposition to God (1:9, 7:7) . . . the Son did not come to the world to save a select few (those chosen, those privileged) rather, he came to save the world, namely, the all-encompassing circle of men and women who inhabit this planet, people who embrace darkness habitually (3:19-21).” “The realm of humanity arrayed in opposition to God . . . people who embrace darkness habitually” sounds about right.
Steve Hays presented some commentators who said the same thing:
“Likewise, Horst Balz defines kosmos in such ways as: “in the Johannine theology one finds again the basic elements of the Pauline understanding of kosmos in the extreme and intensified radicality of the estrangement and ungodliness of the kosmos…the concern is with the nature of the world that has fallen away from God and is ruled by the evil one,” EDNT 2:312.
And as Andrew Lincoln, in his recent commentary on John, explains, “Some argue that the term ‘world’ here simply has neutral connotations—the created human world. But the characteristic use of ‘the world’ (ho kosmos) elsewhere in the narrative is with negative overtones—the world in its alienation from and hostility to its creator’s purposes. It makes better sense in a soteriological context to see the latter notion as in view. God loves that which has become hostile to God. The force is not, then, that the world is so vast that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it, but rather that the world has become so alienated from God that it takes an exceedingly great kind of love to love it at all,” The Gospel According to St. John (Henrickson 2005), 154.”
Henry brought up D.A. Carson would you like to see those quotes again?
And of course let’s add Steve Hays” own definition of “world”:
“The "world" is not a neutral synonym for "everyone." Rather, the "cosmos" personifies the fallen world order, in opposition to God.”
These quotes perfectly support the meaning which I suggested: the world refers to those people who are nonbelievers, under the authority of Satan, part of the kingdom of darkness. It is for **this** world that Jesus was given as an atonement according to Jn. 3:14-16. And not all of this “world” will be eventually saved, so in fact Jesus was given for atonement for some people who will never be elect. And since he died for some who are part of this “world” who will never be saved, that means that his atonement was provided for more than just the elect.
Steve Hays says of universal qualifiers that: “2. A universal qualifier ("all," "every") denotes the members of a given class of individuals. But it doesn't specify the class in question. That must be supplied by context. "All" denotes all "that" belong to the class in question, but it doesn't identify "who" or "what" is covered by the quantifier. The referent remains to be filled in..”
A class is a set, and in logic it is common to speak of classes by means of sets and drawings involving circles (what is within the circle belongs to that class, what does not is not part of that class or set). In my presentation since the folks here pride themselves on their logic, I brought up and analyzed what different sets or classes need to be understood (representing the all, none or some of logic). How do we “specify the class in question”? According to Hays it is by context. The context for the meaning of “world” in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 is the writings of the apostle John, what he means by “world”. Examining the biblical texts and commentators there seems to be common consensus in regard to the meaning of “world” in Jn. 3:16, and 1 Jn. 2:2 (e.g. “the fallen world order, in opposition to God”). That class or set, refers to human persons and includes both some who will eventually become believers and others who will remain in their unbelief, who will never become believers. If Jesus died for that class, that set, that group of human persons, that kind of person, then He did not just die for the elect (those who will eventually be saved) alone, but also for that part of the world that will never believe.
Hays did not appreciate my use of logic and sets and so he says:
”One of the fundamental flaws in Robert’s analysis is that his analysis is purely quantitative. He assumes that kosmos denotes a certain number of individuals. He then subdivides this sum into a various subsets.
It never occurs to him that the Johannine usage of kosmos is *qualitative* or ethical rather than *quantitative* or numerical.
In other words, the import of the term signifies a particular *kind* of people rather than a particular *number* of people. People identified with the fallen world order or evil world-system.”
Hays misrepresents what I shared. I represented the “world” as a set in order to logically discuss it. But that does not mean that I only discussed “world” in terms of “quantity”. I also made it very clear about how this set, this class, this group, is ethically described: as under the evil one, as in opposition to God, as not being believers (though believers come out of the world when converted), as part of a kingdom of darkness. So the reality is that I discussed “world” both quantitatively and qualitatively. The “kind” of people that comprise the class or set referred to as “world” were described.
I had written:
Now “world” may have some different meanings in scripture, but it never refers to the elect, it never refers exclusively to set # 3 persons.
Bridges responds:
”An assertion minus an argument. This may or may not be true.”
“World” in John can refer to the physical universe (e.g., Jn. 17:5), it can also refer to the people in the kingdom of darkness who opposed Jesus and his ministry (e.g. 1 Jn. 5:19). But no where in John’s writings does it ever refer exclusively to the elect. In John it is never a reference to the elect. In Jn. 17 Jesus prays for his disciples but not the “world”. I am not going to go through every incidence of “world” in John, but if you want to claim that “world” can be referring exclusively to the “elect”, then you show the verse, I am unaware of it. The frequent referent of “world” in John is to that hostile kind of people who are part of the kingdom of darkness, unbelievers.
Question for any calvinist here: do all of the human persons that comprise the “world” (the “world” which the apostle John refers to, in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2, the “world” which is under the evil one [1 Jn. 5:19] which opposes God, which Jesus does not pray for in Jn. 17), eventually become believers (or “elect”)?
If yes, then how do you avoid universalism (i.e. that no human person experiences eternal separation from God)? If no, then how do you avoid universal atonement (that Jesus died for believers and people who will never be Christians and yet the atonement is only applied to believers)?
Robert
Randy McRoberts said...
ReplyDelete"You go from examples of human love and extend them to God's love."
No, I made an argument from analogy. You missed the relevant points of the analogy. I could have made the same argument with angels, the trinity, whatever. You think non-relevant attributes affect arguments from analogy and yet you say that arguments are not *my* strong suite? Beam; speck; eye; ring a bell?
Robert,
ReplyDelete"But I know that Bryne and Ponter are calvinists and they provide lots of evidence for the claim that Calvin himself held to universal atonement on their website. I have read Helm’s book and I have also read Calvin’s actual comments, Bryne and Ponter are right about this, Helm is not."
Well, that "evidence" is presented here, but one can see that the point *they* try to draw from Calvin cannot be drawn. Their imposing categories of thought that came about *after* Calvin and so it's unfair to chain Calvin to their side if he never spoke on the matter. All that's happening is a *reading into* what Calvin wrote, what you want to be there.
See this discussion:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/there-problem-use-sufficient-limited-atonement-discussions-15244/index2.html
Regarding John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
You say that "sending/giving the son" is talking about "the atonement. John 3:17 says that the *intention* was to *save* the world. You take "world" to mean "everyone besides Jesus" (or, maybe one or two others). So, on your view, Jesus' death aimed to *save* all those he died for. So....Jesus is a cosmic failure on your scheme.
Paul Manata’s latest post is one of the weakest arguments that I have ever seen him present. While I sometimes disagree with Manata, mostly on calvinism, he usually presents some interesting arguments that do need to be seriously considered. Not this time.
ReplyDeleteHe says:
“Regarding John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
You say that "sending/giving the son" is talking about "the atonement. John 3:17 says that the *intention* was to *save* the world. You take "world" to mean "everyone besides Jesus" (or, maybe one or two others). So, on your view, Jesus' death aimed to *save* all those he died for. So....Jesus is a cosmic failure on your scheme.”
What I am about to say is common sense and generally known, so obvious, and yet I have seen lots of calvinists stumble on this point and make Manata’s argument.
Manata says that if Jesus death aimed to save all those he died for, and yet if they all do not get saved then Jesus is a “cosmic failure on your scheme.” This argument is so lame it really does deserve to be put out of its misery and permanently buried. I will bury it here, but I am sure I will see it rise again in the words of some other calvinist somewhere.
Say a car manufacturer builds a car and says that the car will run well for at least, say 100,000 miles, provided you perform an oil change about every 3,000 miles. So Greg buys the car, knowing what the manufacturer has said and yet rejecting the suggestion. Greg knows and understands the words about the need for the oil change but refuses to do it. At about 100,000 miles the car begins to have problems directly attributable to Greg’s having chosen not to do the oil change. Who is responsible for the problems with the car at this point? Is it the manufacturer or is it Greg? Who failed here the manufacturer or Greg? God provides an atonement for the world, those who believe and receive Christ by faith are saved (cf., Jn. 1:12) and those who choose to reject Christ do not have their sins covered. God gave the provision, and gave instruction about what ought to be done with it, but you rejected that instruction, who failed you or God?
In the Los Angeles area at about Christmas, a certain priest goes to the downtown area and begins handing out $1 bills, $5 bills, $10 bills, and even $20 bills to people he runs into on the street. Some people reject these bills thinking there is some sort of catch involved. Those who receive the bills get to keep them with no strings attached, those who reject them do not get the bills. Question - the priest gives different amounts to different people as He sees fit and the bills are freely given: if someone rejects this offer, has the priest “failed” in giving out the bills? He keeps giving out the bills until he is done to whomever he wants to give them. Has he “failed” with those who refuse to accept the bills? God freely gives the gift of salvation to those who will receive it, if they themselves reject this gracious offer, has God failed or did they?
One more example. Say a man is in his fifties and he starts feeling chest pains, some weakness in one of his arms, some exhaustion. He tells his wife, who tells him they are giving free heart exams at the local hospital. The doctors there are available to do tests, the hospital makes sure there are plenty of doctors present to do the testing. But the man freely chooses not to go. He continues to have these episodes and say other opportunities of free exams are available in his neighborhood. But he keeps freely rejecting the offers. Then he dies. Was the hospital a failure, the doctors, the wife, who was the failure here? God also sometimes speaks to people in different ways, through their wives, through Christians they work with, through the awesome and beautiful universe which God has made, through preaching, etc. and the person keeps freely rejecting God. If that person dies in unbelief, did God fail or did the person who freely and repeatedly reject God fail?
Normally when we speak of “failure” and “success” we determine which is which by some sort of criteria. When a parent plays a simple game with their young child and the parent “loses” intentionally so that she has fun, the parent was actually successful because their criteria of “success” was not to win the particular game but that he/she would have fun playing the game and “winning”. The criteria by which we evaluate success or failure involves some goal or even a set of goals we might have. In the military it is common to be willing to lose some troops if it wins the battle, if it achieves some objective (the objective being the criteria of “success”).
The calvinist assumes that God’s criteria for “success” must be that if Jesus dies for someone then that person must be saved or Jesus has failed. Well if that is the sole criteria, and no other goals or criteria are involved then Manata is right, poor Jesus failed if he died for the world but they don’t all get saved. But this way of thinking leaves out some important considerations. If God wanted to have a personal relationship with human persons he could have created automatons that did everything that He wanted perfectly never made a mistake (think Stepford wives). On the other hand, if God wanted relationships with genuine persons who have their own will, their own consciousness, who perform their own actions (according to the agent causation model which I believe to be the best theory currently available) freely, then there also exists the possibility that they can also freely choose to reject God and relationship with Him. Libertarians have been making this point for a long time. Now if God Himself acts freely and experiences libertarian free will and if God wanted us to have that same ability, if He wanted to create such a being could He do so? Again, libertarians and philosophers have affirmed this for a long time as well. And creating such a being capable of freely performing its own actions involves a criteria as well. God as the creator of such a being would be aiming at creating such a creature and “success” would be actualizing such a being in the space time universe. Put another way, and this almost unimaginable for committed calvinist determinists, what if God’s criteria for success in creating us was to create a human person with libertarian free will? Now if one of the criteria for “success” that God is operating by is to create such a creature and if another criteria for “success” is that God wants these creatures to freely choose to be in relationship with Him. Then “success” for God is not necessarily that all do in fact choose to be in relationship with Him, but that those who do enter into a relationship with Him, freely choose to do so. Do you see the distinction? The criteria for “success” is not that they all freely choose to enter into relationship with Him, but that those who do so, do so freely.
I use the analogy of marriage again. In this modern age where marriages are not arranged and we are given the choice as to whom we marry, what we desire is that someone freely choose to marry us. That they do so not because they were coerced to do so, or manipulated to do so, or tricked to do so, or brainwashed to do so, or conned to do so, or any other option that is not them freely choosing to marry us. If this is the way we think, then our criteria of “success” is restricted to a freely made choice by the other person. I cannot overemphasize this simple but true point, success is not determined by an outcome per se, but by whether or not a particular outcome meets our criteria for success that we operating by.
It is significant that while God is gracious and offers the gift of salvation to the world, He also says to his disciples, if you present the message and they hear it and reject it, then shake the dust off your sandals and move on to the next town. What this indicates is that while God is gracious in offering salvation to people, He does not beg people to be in relationship with Him. While he wants us to freely choose to accept Him, he does not need us, we need Him. I have a friend who does a message on this theme and at the end of his message after talking about God’s gracious offer of salvation to the world. He then talks about how while God would like for you to accept the gift of salvation, He does not beg, and if you reject it, then you failed, you blew it, and that is OK with God because He does not need to be in relationship with you. The message gets some people mad because they want to conceive of God as some person who has no self-respect, who is desperate to be in a relationship, any relationship. That is not the picture the bible presents, and when you study Jesus carefully while He has compassion on people, he never begs anybody for anything. But then if the trinity involves a perfect divine love then why should God need us or need to beg for us to be in relationship with Him? It is gracious on His part to even make a relationship with him possible.
So putting this all together then, if God wants people to freely choose to be in relationship with Him, and if he does not beg anyone for this to occur, and if His own plan is to provide a provision of atonement for the world because he would like to see everybody get saved, and yet “success” is that people freely choose to accept or reject the offer of salvation, then how is it a “failure” if Jesus dies on the cross and thus provides the atonement for the world and yet not all people choose to accept it, even after they have received instructions about accepting it, instructions about the way of salvation through Christ, and they still choose to reject it, who has failed? God has met all of His criteria for “success” in the way he has set things up. I think that this idea that unless everybody gets saved God has failed is a theory based upon sentimentality, not upon what God has revealed about Himself and His plans. If God wants to design a human person with libertarian free will and God wants that person to freely choose to be in relationship with Him, then if some people freely choose to reject God, then God’s own criteria have not failed to have been met. Those who freely reject Him are the ones who have “failed”. Jesus was perfectly successful in providing the atonement on the cross, that is why on the cross He could say “It is finished.” Had every person who is going to become a Christian been saved? No. So what had actually been accomplished? What Jesus accomplished is that by His death He had provided an atonement for the world. That was accomplished, and that is an objective fact. What remains to be done is that that atonement needs to be applied to those who trust in the Lord. And that is another criteria of “success” for God, throughout scripture, he provides salvation, only to those who will trust Him. Salvation is designed in such a way that only those who trust Him will be saved. And only those who freely choose to trust Him will believe. Judged by His own criteria, God’s way of salvation is perfect and He is saving precisely whom He wants to save. Universal atonement then, can only be seen as a “failure” if you judge it with some criteria different than the actual ones which God has. Jesus did not fail, those who freely reject the gracious offer are the ones that fail. According to the libertarian “scheme” dying for the world and yet not all freely choosing to receive the gift of salvation is not failure. Better get that oil change, when you complain to the manufacturer and try to hold them responsible for your car’s problems, even though you freely chose to reject their suggestion about changing the oil, they will shrug their shoulder and just keep building their cars because you failed, not them. And if you are having some chest pains, get it checked out.
Robert
“If Jesus died for that class, that set, that group of human persons, that kind of person, then He did not just die for the elect (those who will eventually be saved) alone, but also for that part of the world that will never believe.”
ReplyDelete“Class,” “group,” and “kind” are not synonymous persons. If Jesus died for a particular kind of person, that says nothing about how many or how few he died for. It’s not, of itself, either a totality or a part/whole relation. It’s qualitative or ethical rather than quantitative or numerical.
“I also made it very clear about how this set, this class, this group, is ethically described: as under the evil one, as in opposition to God, as not being believers (though believers come out of the world when converted), as part of a kingdom of darkness.”
Your analysis was not consistently ethical, because you subdivided the “world” into four different subsets, and ethical considerations are hardly a sufficient individuating principle to differentiate these four groups. Your analysis is simply confused, without a consistent principle.
“Question for any calvinist here: do all of the human persons that comprise the ‘world’…”
Notice that Robert is reverting to a quantitative analysis (through the use of the universal quantifier=”all”), which makes it a trick question since I reject his operating assumption.
“If yes, then how do you avoid universalism.”
I avoid universalism by answering in the negative. John says that Christ died for “worldly” people as he defines “worldly.” That is John’s way of describing the *type* of individual for whom Jesus died. John also says that Christ died for the elect. There’s no tension between these two different descriptors.
you say that arguments are not *my* strong suite? Beam; speck; eye; ring a bell?
ReplyDeleteAnd I also said I was avoiding argumentation because of it. I have plenty of beams in my eye. How about you?
Do you agree that every theological system has its strengths and weaknesses?
ReplyDeleteIf you do, I'm sure you'll agree that one of the strengths of your system is in its view of God's sovereignty.
What is one of its weaknesses?
But I know that Bryne and Ponter are calvinists and they provide lots of evidence for the claim that Calvin himself held to universal atonement on their website. I have read Helm’s book and I have also read Calvin’s actual comments, Bryne and Ponter are right about this, Helm is not.
ReplyDeleteI'll refrain from addressing Ponter myself, for personal reasons, but Byrne is on record stating that the sufficiency of the sufficiency of the atonement must underwrite the free offer.
There are two obvious problems with this:
1. Saying the atonement is infinitely sufficient is an argument from tradition not an argument from Scripture. Accordingly, saying it is of "infinite worth," does nothing to advance the argument since (a) it's a philosophical consideration and (b) there is more than one sort of "infinite."
2. Here's what Byrne has actually stated about the atonement/
3. As I recall, he regularly claims that Owen denied the sufficiency of the atonement, but this is not so. Here what Owen actually says: rgues that it IS sufficient but is limited by the intention. It's intention is fixed (sufficiency); it's extension is limited (efficiency).
Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. The sufficiency of His sacrifice hath a two-fold rise: First, the dignity of the person that did offer and was offered. Secondly, the greatness of the pain He endured by which He was able to bear and did undergo the whole curse of the law and wrath of God due to sin. And this sets out the innate, real, true worth and value of the blood shedding of Jesus Christ. This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be applied unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends on the intention and will of God. It was in itself of infinite value and sufficiency to have been made a price to have bought and purchased all and every man in the world.
4. I look forward to your detailed interaction with work of Dr.Jonathan Rainbow.
5. Given the demonstration of your acontextual readings skills on this very blog, forgive me if I don't exactly trust your analysis of Calvin or Helm.
Jesus died for sinners, Jesus never sinned, therefore Jesus did not die for Himself. Good enough?
No, because as I pointed out you made your argument from Leviticus. If you switch to Hebrews, you'll need an argument from Hebrews that supports your view that since Israel included both elect and reprobate in the DoA sacrifice in the OT that the same thing carries over into the New Covenant sacrifice. You'll need to get it from Hebrews. Adding ad hoc restrictions without exegetical support does you no favors.
So when it says Jesus is given for the world in 3:16 it is speaking of giving Him in reference to being an atonement.
No, the text says "God loved the world," not Jesus died for the world, every single person that ever lived.
And who does the text explicitly say Jesus was given as an atonement for? THE WORLD. Defined as every person without exception? Where is this in the text?
Note it does not say He was given for the elect, though John could have written that. No, it says "so that all the ones believing might have eternal life." It does not say, "to give everybody a chance to believe" or some similiar idea. That's fatal to Robert's argument.
1. As eschatological construct.”
In John the “world” which is hostile to God is not an “eschatological construct”. Jesus was not given by the Father for a CONSTRUCT.
So I take it you reject the Arminians who say, in relation to elect, that the "elect" are a class with an interdeterminate number at the time of "election" itself, and whose numbers are filled by faith. That's a key concept for those who affirm election based on foreseen faith." They believe Jesus was given for "a construct" through and through.
This is laughable it is so off base, and surprising you would even bring it up. Shows desperation on your part.
Your response only shows your own naivety. There is long pedigree to this interpretation of "world" and "human race" that goes well back into the Church Fathers, where "the world" or the "human race," for whom Christ died is the New World, the New Jerusalem, and other like ideas, and it's population is, of course, "all the ones believing." Calvin, whom you profess to have read, did this himself.
A.W. Pink named several places where "world" refers to believers only.
And notice that I'm not offering my own view here, I'm merely running down a list of possibilities without committing myself to any, because Robert said that the Calvinist MUST show that "world" is "the elect." That simply isn't true. What shows "desperation" is Robert's mirror-reading here.
Got your verse wrong here, 11:32 speaks of the death of Lazarus.
You're right, it's 11:51 - 52. Robert could have simply corrected this citation and dealt with it, but no....
Johanine parallels between texts often define terms and the delineate meanings of his syntax.
So there is only one propitiatory sacrifice. I agree. And this one propitiatory sacrifice does not propitiate the sins of every person. I agree. This seems to be a statement similar to my view: the provision, the one propitiatory sacrifice is given for the world, but only applied to believers. Jesus is the one and only propitiatory sacrifice, the final sacrifice according to Hebrews, and this is given for the world according to Jn. 3:16, so that those from this world who believe (who receive him, Jn. 1:12) will never perish but have eternal life.
No, in your view, it is applied by the free will exercise of faith not by the Holy Spirit. As such it has no intrinsic efficacy. So, no, this is not at all similar to your view. And notice what the rest of John 1 says about the new birth: not by the will of the flesh or that of man, but the Spirit.
Your view is asking questions of the text that are not in the text.
1 John 2:2 is just a generic statement about the atonement and not a specialized statement on the part of John one way or the other. You're pressing it too far. People are asking John's text to state something that is quite specialized to go looking for general or particular atonement in that text. It's just a very simple, prefatory statement about Christ's work, with the accent on Christ Himself, not "propitiation" or "world."
One of the major themes of 1 John is the centrality of Christ and the difference between that which is "antichrist" and that which is not. Christ - not traversing some sort of pleroma - is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours (those of us who are believers) but for the false teachers as well, not in the sense of being a general atonement in the Arminian sense, but of being the one and only atonement that can ever take away the sins of anybody in the world (however defined) and that can (and will) remove the taint of sin itself from the whole of the created order (through redemption of the elect, judgment of the reprobate, and the reversal of sins overall curse) when all is said and done. It says nothing about its actual intent/design or application.
These teachers were drawing a dualistic distinction that John here denies. There is a unity to Christ's work. It applies to the whole of the created order in an eschatological sense, not just the "spiritual" order. Christ is not an ethereal Christ. He's a "down and dirty" Christ. He rose from the dead - bodily, He died for the sins of His people - bodily, and therefore, He is the one and only sacrifice that has ever been offered and ever will be offered for the sins of anybody - period. John says this in the midst of talking about these teachers saying "I have no sin," and the true believer admitting otherwise about himself. John is drawing attention to that fact and effectively telling his audience that these teachers do have sin (their denial being proof of it) and that they are without hope if they try to make their way to God any other way but through Christ. There is but one true Christ, one true way to God, one church, etc. He then goes on to delineate the difference between a true believer and a nominal/false believer and the basis of this is, of course, the work of Christ - the true Christ, not that of these false teachers - in His death and resurrection. This isn't "rocket science." Going on and on about the quantity "world" does and does not delineate is absolutely irrelevant to this text, since John simply isn't addressing that issue.
In your view, you are implicitly affirming that the atonement must be "general" in order for the gospel call to be "true" of "sincere." You're just like a hyper-Calvinist who finds the warrant to believe in election, only you place it in the atonement.
I presented my view of what “world” means in Jn. 3:16
No, what you did was present a logical argument in lieu of an exegetical one, which is precisely what you castigate Calvinists for doing. Now, you're running back here trying to cover it up by finally offering something. But throughout your presentation, you simply beg the question that it is quantitative and not qualitative. When you blend the two, you need an argument for it, otherwise, you're committing a category error.
Are all Calvinists also constipated? They seem to be tied in knots.
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteI find it funny that you mock my argument, strut around like a peacock, talk about decimating my argument, and then post something like this below. I was so looking forward to a good fight based on your Razor Ramon machismo. What a let down. I was about to say, after reading your bravado filled post, "Don't taz me, bro."
"Say a car manufacturer builds a car and says that the car will run well for at least, say 100,000 miles, provided you perform an oil change about every 3,000 miles. So Greg buys the car, knowing what the manufacturer has said and yet rejecting the suggestion. Greg knows and understands the words about the need for the oil change but refuses to do it. At about 100,000 miles the car begins to have problems directly attributable to Greg’s having chosen not to do the oil change. Who is responsible for the problems with the car at this point? Is it the manufacturer or is it Greg? Who failed here the manufacturer or Greg? God provides an atonement for the world, those who believe and receive Christ by faith are saved (cf., Jn. 1:12) and those who choose to reject Christ do not have their sins covered. God gave the provision, and gave instruction about what ought to be done with it, but you rejected that instruction, who failed you or God?"
Bad argument from analogy:
1) For the car to work well (salvation) Robert has just said that the maufactuerer (God) and the car buyer (man) must COOPERATE!!!!!! And Arminians deny that they're not synergists.
2) Having an oil change is supposed to = "having faith." Problem: faith is a gift from God. He PUTS IN THE OIL!!! Is "begging the question" Robert's regular forte? Is that how he "puts arguments to bed."
3) God is a wee bit different than an Automotive company! The automobile company is not omnipotent. If they could make a car that didn't need an oil change every 3,00 miles, don't you think they would?
4) An "oil change" is "of myself," faith is "not of myself." I can boast about how I kept my car in pristine condition, I cannot do so, on the Calvinist's God-glorifying scheme, do so with my faith.
5) Those who "come to Jesus by faith are saved." Correct. And, "No one can come to me [by faith] unless the father who sent me draws that man, and I will raise that man up on the last day." I don't find such a hinderence with oil changes!
6) There are roughly 6 billion people on the planet. There were not 6 billion cars made. So, the atonement was limited!!!
7) Some cars run well for 100,000 EVEN IF the owner fails to do the recommended oil changes!!!! I know from experience.
So, I think I just put your argument from analogy to bed with no supper. Now, care to take another shot, or is big talk all you got?
Btw, I'd say that you didn't actually refute my argument from the Bible. You just gave a bunch of philosophically driven arguments from analogy - something you chide Calvinists for.
Btw, let's all note that you still haven't dealt with my surrejoinder to your rejoinder to my argument from Hebrews.
So, get to work my friendly neighborhood synergist. Put in the oil.... LOL, classic!
so with robert's failed response, is his jesus still a cosmic failure?
ReplyDeleteGod came to save the "world," by which, according to Robert, means every single person in it (besides Jesus), and failed. A divine, omnipotent, awesome God couldn't do what he set out to do. Maybe the atheists are right, afterall?
ReplyDeleteSteve Hays wants “world” not to be referring to a group of persons but to a kind of person. But in neither Jn. 3:16 nor 1 Jn. 2:2 is “world” an adjective, in both places it is a noun. A noun referring to a group of persons.
ReplyDelete“Class,” “group,” and “kind” are not synonymous persons. If Jesus died for a particular kind of person, that says nothing about how many or how few he died for. It’s not, of itself, either a totality or a part/whole relation. It’s qualitative or ethical rather than quantitative or numerical.”
The word “world” in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 refers to a specific group of people. Comparing scripture with scripture we know what kind of people they were (under the evil one, part of the kingdom of darkness, hating the light, opposing Jesus and his ministry, not believers, children of wrath, In Adam, etc. etc.). It is like when we see the word Pharisees. That word refers to a specific group of people, and from comparing scripture with scripture we know what kind of people they were.
Jn. 3:16 is not saying that “For God so loved worldly people that He gave . . . If John had wanted to write that he could easily have done so, he could have injected an adjective for “worldly” (cf., Titus 2:12: “instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age.”). But He did not, he wrote a noun, Kosmos, “world.” Similarly, 1 Jn. 2:2 does not say “He himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours only but also for the whole worldly ones.” In 1 Jn. 2:2 “whole” is with “world”, to signify the WHOLE WORLD, every member of that group. There is no adjective for “worldly” in that verse.
”Your analysis was not consistently ethical, because you subdivided the “world” into four different subsets, and ethical considerations are hardly a sufficient individuating principle to differentiate these four groups. Your analysis is simply confused, without a consistent principle.”
You misrepresent what I shared. I did not divide the “world” into four different subsets. I analyzed the possibilities by means of the standard logical categories (all, none, some). Jesus did not die for Himself, so He did not die for ALL. We also know that He at least died for someone, so NONE is also eliminated as a logical possibility. That leaves SOME. So the referent “world” designates a specific group of people.
The class or group called the “world” may be subdivided into two classes: (A) those from the “world” who eventually come to faith in Jesus; and (B) those from the “world” who never come to faith in Jesus.
If Jesus died for the whole “world”, which consists of these two sub-groups, as John says explicitly in 1 Jn. 2:2. Then Jesus died for both group (A) and group (B), the “whole world”. And if he died for group (B), then the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement as believed by you, is false.
I had asked:
Question for any calvinist here: do all of the human persons that comprise the ‘world’…
”Notice that Robert is reverting to a quantitative analysis (through the use of the universal quantifier=”all”), which makes it a trick question since I reject his operating assumption.”
It is not a “trick question” because “world” does refer to a specific group of persons. You don’t want to answer the question because the question shows your view to be false. And you intentionally reject the truth, so you choose not to answer the question. It is like when Jesus asked them by what authority did John do his baptisms, the Pharisees knew if they answered a certain way they would invalidate their own position, so they answered “we don’t know”.
“I avoid universalism by answering in the negative. John says that Christ died for “worldly” people as he defines “worldly.” That is John’s way of describing the *type* of individual for whom Jesus died. John also says that Christ died for the elect. There’s no tension between these two different descriptors.”
You are inventing yet another distinction to avoid the proper interpretation of the noun “world”. Your latest distinction is now between “worldly” and “world”. The scripture does not say that Jesus was given for the “worldly”. “Worldly” would be an adjective, “world” is a noun. In Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 “world” is a noun is it not? For your latest invented distinction to work you would need an adjective or the noun would have to be modified in some way. Neither of these is the case in these verses, so it is a noun, “world” referring to a group of people, not a kind of people. Though comparing scripture with scripture we see what “kind” of people they are.
Robert
You are inventing yet another distinction to avoid the proper interpretation of the noun “world”. Your latest distinction is now between “worldly” and “world”. The scripture does not say that Jesus was given for the “worldly”. “Worldly” would be an adjective, “world” is a noun. In Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 “world” is a noun is it not? For your latest invented distinction to work you would need an adjective or the noun would have to be modified in some way. Neither of these is the case in these verses, so it is a noun, “world” referring to a group of people, not a kind of people. Though comparing scripture with scripture we see what “kind” of people they are.
ReplyDeleteRobert
*****************
You have no grasp of lexical semantics. I'm the one who's cited lexicographers to corroborate the legitimacy of my construction. You, by contrast, are simply talking through your hat.
Bridges says:
ReplyDelete”I'll refrain from addressing Ponter myself, for personal reasons, but Byrne is on record stating that the sufficiency of the sufficiency of the atonement must underwrite the free offer.”
Bridges and Hays apparently have some major personal problems with Ponter. That is no surprise considering how these folks regularly treat people with which they disagree. I will put that whole issue aside, my original point stands: even among calvinists there is disagreement with some not affirming the limited atonement view as espoused here.
In analyzing the possibilities I rule out the idea that Jesus died for himself. So if he did not die for himself on the cross, then he did not die for “everybody without exception”. I stated my simple argument for this as:
Jesus died for sinners, Jesus never sinned, therefore Jesus did not die for Himself. Good enough?
Bridges replied:
”No, because as I pointed out you made your argument from Leviticus. If you switch to Hebrews, you'll need an argument from Hebrews that supports your view that since Israel included both elect and reprobate in the DoA sacrifice in the OT that the same thing carries over into the New Covenant sacrifice. You'll need to get it from Hebrews. Adding ad hoc restrictions without exegetical support does you no favors.”
In the OT the high priest needed a sacrifice for his own sins as well as for all of the people. Jesus being sinless (and if he had sinned he could not be the perfect and final sacrifice for sin) needed no such sacrifice. The Day of Atonement and the sacrifice of Christ are not exactly the same. Though they are similar in that the high priest gave sacrifices for people who were not believers (the OT Jews who were not all children of promise: Jesus sacrificing himself for the “world”).
I had said:
So when it says Jesus is given for the world in 3:16 it is speaking of giving Him in reference to being an atonement.
Bridges responds:
”No, the text says "God loved the world," not Jesus died for the world, every single person that ever lived.”
Here Bridges asserts that Jesus did not die for the world (which he says some people define as “every single person that ever lived”). But I have made myself clear, “world” cannot refer to “every single person that ever lived” because then it would include Jesus and Jesus was never part of the “world”. But just showing that “world” does not mean everyone without exception is not enough to support calvinism. If Jesus died for any human persons who never eventually get saved, then Bridges limited atonement view is false. And in fact, the “world” consists of people who eventually become believers AND PEOPLE WHO NEVER BECOME BELIEVERS.
”Defined as every person without exception? Where is this in the text?”
Gene why do you keep bringing up this idea that “world” is defined as “every person without exception”? When I have explicitly and clearly defined it in such a way that it does not mean “every person without exception”? Are you just copying and pasting without reading what I am saying. You do have this tendency.
”No, it says "so that all the ones believing might have eternal life." It does not say, "to give everybody a chance to believe" or some similiar idea. That's fatal to Robert's argument.”
The fatal flaw for you is that you cannot take “world” in both Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 with its intended meaning. And if Jesus really died for the “world” which the text presents as true, then your view is false.
”So I take it you reject the Arminians who say, in relation to elect, that the "elect" are a class with an interdeterminate number at the time of "election" itself, and whose numbers are filled by faith. That's a key concept for those who affirm election based on foreseen faith." They believe Jesus was given for "a construct" through and through.”
The biblical text does not say he was given for a CONSTRUCT, it says he was given for the “world”. Who said I was Arminian? Though you seem to enjoy attacking Arminian beliefs, I do not agree with them on everything (e.g., I do not agree that we can lose our salvation). I do agree with them that both God and human persons have libertarian free will.
”Your response only shows your own naivety. There is long pedigree to this interpretation of "world" and "human race" that goes well back into the Church Fathers, where "the world" or the "human race," for whom Christ died is the New World, the New Jerusalem, and other like ideas, and it's population is, of course, "all the ones believing." Calvin, whom you profess to have read, did this himself.”
I think your comment here is funny. I understand the biblical meaning of “world” just fine, but you seem to imply that you know what the church fathers said about it much better than I do. Fine, but if you end up taking “world” in some way other than the apostle John intended, then you and the church fathers are all wrong. The bible properly interpreted has final authority does it not?
”A.W. Pink named several places where "world" refers to believers only.”
Why don’t you go right on ahead and share the “several places” where it refers to “believers only”, I would really like to see that for myself.
”And notice that I'm not offering my own view here, I'm merely running down a list of possibilities without committing myself to any, because Robert said that the Calvinist MUST show that "world" is "the elect." That simply isn't true. What shows "desperation" is Robert's mirror-reading here.”
Gene why don’t you go ahead and share your view of what “world” means in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2. If “world” includes any persons who never come to faith, then Jesus in dying for these folks died for people who will never come to faith. But that cannot be possible under the limited atonement view where Jesus died only for the elect.
Gene cited the wrong verse and I said:
Got your verse wrong here, 11:32 speaks of the death of Lazarus.
Bridges replied:
”You're right, it's 11:51 - 52. Robert could have simply corrected this citation and dealt with it, but no....”
Yeh, right, and if I had discussed the wrong verse I would have been attacked for that no doubt. Besides I have a life in the real world, do you think that I have the time to check up every possible reference that you might be referring to? Perhaps you are a professional student like Hays, and so have the time, I do not.
”Johanine parallels between texts often define terms and the delineate meanings of his syntax.”
OK, Gene compare scripture with scripture in John’s writings, what does “world” mean in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2? You want to make statements like this using fancy high sounding language, is this meant to impress?
I had said:
So there is only one propitiatory sacrifice. I agree. And this one propitiatory sacrifice does not propitiate the sins of every person. I agree. This seems to be a statement similar to my view: the provision, the one propitiatory sacrifice is given for the world, but only applied to believers. Jesus is the one and only propitiatory sacrifice, the final sacrifice according to Hebrews, and this is given for the world according to Jn. 3:16, so that those from this world who believe (who receive him, Jn. 1:12) will never perish but have eternal life.
Bridges responds:
”No, in your view, it is applied by the free will exercise of faith not by the Holy Spirit. As such it has no intrinsic efficacy. So, no, this is not at all similar to your view. And notice what the rest of John 1 says about the new birth: not by the will of the flesh or that of man, but the Spirit.”
You misrepresent my view. In my view there are certain acts that are part of salvation that God alone does. God alone justifies. God alone regenerates. God alone glorifies/resurrects the dead. God alone forgives sin. God alone applies the atonement to an individual. God alone gives someone the Holy Spirit. Now I know from scripture that God will justify those who trust Him, that God will apply the atonement to those who trust Him, but our trust does not cause or force God to do anything. These actions by God are unilateral and involve no power or ability on our part whatsoever. Imagine if it depended upon us or our faith, to get raised from the dead at the end? None of us would be raised.
”Your view is asking questions of the text that are not in the text.”
Actually my view is attempting to deal with both the universalistic texts and the particularistic texts in a reasonable way. My conclusion from examining these two kinds of texts is that the provision of atonement was made for the world, but the application of the atonement is only to those who believe.
”1 John 2:2 is just a generic statement about the atonement and not a specialized statement on the part of John one way or the other. You're pressing it too far.”
In that text John states that Jesus is the propitiation both for us (i.e. believers) and for “the whole world”. Well that “whole world” is not a reference to people who were currently believers (that is the “us”) so who is it a reference to? I say it is in reference to the same group referred to in Jn. 3:16. If so, it is also making the claim that Jesus died for people who will never come to faith (since part of the “world” includes people who will never come to faith).
“People are asking John's text to state something that is quite specialized to go looking for general or particular atonement in that text.”
Gene he uses the word “propitiation” which is part of the language of discourse for atonement. So he is clearly making reference to the atonement. You just don’t want to believe or accept that because it goes against your system. In your system the bible can’t be saying that. So you invent ways to suggest that it really isn’t saying that.
“It's just a very simple, prefatory statement about Christ's work, with the accent on Christ Himself, not "propitiation" or "world."”
If that verse said something like “and He is the propitiation ONLY for us and not for the whole world”, you would have no trouble seeing that as reference to the atonement and you would be shouting that from the housetops. But instead it says the opposite, and if it says that, your system and view is wrong. But the system must be defended no matter what ends up being done to the text.
”One of the major themes of 1 John is the centrality of Christ and the difference between that which is "antichrist" and that which is not. Christ - not traversing some sort of pleroma - is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours (those of us who are believers) but for the false teachers as well, not in the sense of being a general atonement in the Arminian sense, but of being the one and only atonement that can ever take away the sins of anybody in the world (however defined) and that can (and will) remove the taint of sin itself from the whole of the created order (through redemption of the elect, judgment of the reprobate, and the reversal of sins overall curse) when all is said and done. It says nothing about its actual intent/design or application.”
“Pleroma” huh? Where is that in the text? And if it is not, why do you bring it up? It is the one and only atonement that takes away sin, which is why John the Baptist said: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” Jesus is the only way, his atonement is the only provision for sin that God provides. You just want to restrict it because your system demands that you restrict it. Scripture does not, your system does, and you always go with the system.
”These teachers were drawing a dualistic distinction that John here denies. There is a unity to Christ's work. It applies to the whole of the created order in an eschatological sense, not just the "spiritual" order.”
So now you wanna claim that “the whole world” in 1 Jn. 2: 2 refers to “the whole of the created order”? Is that going to be your next attempt? Does this propitiation involve angels too, or just human persons?
And if it only involves human persons, who are these human persons that comprise “the whole world”?
“Christ is not an ethereal Christ. He's a "down and dirty" Christ. He rose from the dead - bodily, He died for the sins of His people - bodily, and therefore, He is the one and only sacrifice that has ever been offered and ever will be offered for the sins of anybody - period.”
John does not say that this sacrifice “will be offered for the sins of anybody”, he says that Jesus was offered for “the whole world”. How many “anybodies” comprise the world? And do all of these “anybodies” eventually get saved? Or do some of these “anybodies” not get saved and thus Jesus died for them as well?
“This isn't "rocket science." Going on and on about the quantity "world" does and does not delineate is absolutely irrelevant to this text, since John simply isn't addressing that issue.”
You are right that it is not “rocket science” and it does not take a “rocket scientist” to understand what “the whole world” refers to in 1 Jn. 2:2. Nor is it hard to understand what “world” refers to in Jn. 3:16 either. But when you refuse to take the text at face value and invent all sorts of distinctions and disclaimers to avoid the text and defend a system, then it gets quite complicated.
In 1 Jn. 2:2 John does not say that Jesus died for “the whole worldly”, he says Jesus died for “the whole world”. That “world” is a noun. To which persons does that noun refer? And do all of these persons eventually get saved?
I said:
I presented my view of what “world” means in Jn. 3:16
Bridges responds:
”No, what you did was present a logical argument in lieu of an exegetical one, which is precisely what you castigate Calvinists for doing. Now, you're running back here trying to cover it up by finally offering something.”
I presented a logical analysis of the sets or classes of persons involved since you folks pride yourselves on your logical abilities and castigate others as being irrational or not logical. And I clearly presented my understanding of what “world” means in both Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 (persons who are under the evil one, 1 Jn. 5:19, persons who are not believers [at least not yet] Jn. 17 Jesus praying for his disciples and not the “world”, persons who are part of the kingdom of darkness, Col. 1:13, persons who persecute the church and oppose Jesus, Jn. 15:18, persons who prefer darkness over light, Jn. 3:19-20, persons who are In Adam, Rom. 5:12, etc. etc. etc.)
“But throughout your presentation, you simply beg the question that it is quantitative and not qualitative. When you blend the two, you need an argument for it, otherwise, you're committing a category error.”
“World” in both Jn.3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 is a noun. It is a fair and important question to ask: to what persons does this noun/Kosmos/world refer? The minute you do so, you are speaking of a group of human persons. That is not begging the question, assuming the very thing to be proved, that is answering an important question. And since the answer completely flies in the face of your system, you have to reframe things away from what the noun refers to, to some invented distinction which will allow you to escape the force of the word.
If I am a new Christian and I read the word “Pharisees” or “Sadducees” in one of the gospels and I do not know what the word refers to. The first thing that I need to establish is that it refers to some group of human persons. Once I do that, then I go to other bible verses or bible helps to see what is true of these persons. But you would attack that as “begging the question” when in fact it is properly answering the question. Similarly, if a new Christian comes across “world” in John, he is perfectly justified to check other scriptures to see what “world” can refer to. He will find that it can refer to different realities (including the physical universe and the group of human persons under Satan). He will also find that this group of human persons under Satan is described in different ways. He will also amazingly find that the love of God is demonstrated in that the Father gave His Son, Jesus, for this very “world”. I’m not the one who goes to the texts and has to come up with ways to explain why the text really isn’t saying what it clearly seems to be saying. It is folks like you, people committed to the system of calvinism over everything, that must do so. And all of your attempts up to now have failed, and they will continue to fail. God says that He gave His Son Jesus as an atonement for “the whole world”. I understand what He means and take His world for it.
Robert
Hays is now claiming that I just don’t know enough about lexical semantics to get the understanding of “world” right in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2. I thought it would be fun to present some comments by a respectable commentator and comment upon his comments.
ReplyDeleteA friend gave me a series of articles by D. A. Carson that appeared in Bib Sac on the love of God. It is an excellent series by an excellent exegete and bible scholar. In the fourth part of the series Carson talks about “God’s Love and God’s Wrath.” In discussing this he makes some pertinent comments about the issue of “limited atonement”.
He gives what he calls a thumbnail sketch, but his comments just happen to validate everything that I have been saying in this thread.
“Others, however, respond that there are simply too many texts on the other side of the issue. “God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son” (John 3:16). Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label referring to the elect are not very convincing.”
Carson says these attempts to take “world” to be referring to only the elect are just “not very convincing.” This is true and also an understatement. The attempts by Calvinists to avoid the intended meaning of “world” in John 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 are extremely weak. Carson who is a Calvinist concedes this here.
“If one holds that the Atonement is sufficient for all and effective for the elect, then both sets of texts and concerns are accommodated. A verse such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. The proto-Gnostic opponents John was facing thought of themselves as an elite group who enjoyed an inside track with God because of the special insights they had received. But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only, or now of some group, Gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as the elite of the elect. Far from it, John says: It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context then understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception”, for the latter would mean that all without exception must surely be saved, and John did not teach that that would take place.”
So Carson says universalism is clearly unbiblical and not taught by 1 Jn. 2:2. He also says that the sufficient/efficient distinction accommodates both sets of texts (i.e., both the universalistic texts and the particularistic texts). And my distinction between the provision which is for the world and the application which is only for believers is strongly backed up here.
“Both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love . . . .Further, all Christians ought also to confess that in a slightly different sense Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect.”
I make a very similar point, that while the provision of the atonement is for the world, not everyone will be saved, because the atonement will only be applied to those who trust in the Lord. When a scholar of the stature of Carson is making these kinds of statements it gives me great confidence that I am on the right track.
“Pastorally, there are many important implications. I mention only one. This approach, I contend, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying to unbelievers things like “God loves you.” When I preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?” . . . . Obviously I have no hesitation in answering this question from Reformed preachers affirmatively: of course, I tell the unconverted God loves them.”
It is sad that some because of a calvinistic system are reluctant to preach the love of God for the world as Carson discusses here. The reluctance does not come from what scripture says, but from their system of theology. I have a lot of experience in preaching and from reading the posts by the Triablogers they are not preachers but apologists for Calvinism. I have no hesitancy in saying things like: “God loves this rebellious world so much that He gave His Son on the cross for this sinful bunch of people. And if **you** put your trust in Jesus alone for salvation you can be brought out of this evil world and into the Kingdom of light, the kingdom of God . . .” I speak of God’s love for the world and then particularize it by saying that if you want to be saved you have to trust the Lord, you have to humble yourself and acknowledge your sinfulness, etc. etc. I am also very careful when speaking to people to say that the bible does not teach universalism or decisionism, but discipleship, following Jesus as your Master.
I wanted to share Carson’s comments because it bolsters my own view and shows that even great expositors, experts in “lexical semantics” present things which fully support my view.
Robert
Since I never took the position that kosmos denotes the elect, Carson's remarks don't even connect with my position.
ReplyDeletePaul says:
ReplyDelete” I was so looking forward to a good fight based on your Razor Ramon machismo. What a let down.”
I stopped reading comic books years ago, who is Razor Ramon?
I gave multiple analogies to make a very, very simple and I thought uncontested point: If so-and-so is responsible for (X), [not another person other than so-and-so] and (X) does not get done, then we hold so-and-so responsible for not doing (X). So if we assign blame and say that someone was a “failure”, we say that the person who did not do what they were supposed to do is the one that failed. Not the other person who was not responsible for doing (X). So with the manufacturer they are not responsible you are. So with the priest, he is not responsible for not taking/receiving the money, those who rejected the money are. So with the man with a heart problem, the doctors, nurses, hospital and wife are not responsible for not getting the check up, he is.
Does God hold people responsible for their rejection of the gospel?
If not, then who is responsible? Oh, it must be God then since he predetermined that they reject the gospel.
If yes, then how are they held responsible for something that was not something that they had to/or could do?
But wait, that is your position, I keep forgetting. The poor “loser” was predestined for reprobation, and God made sure that it would be impossible for him to be saved or have a faith response to the gospel. So he had no chance to be saved from the get-go, and yet God then on the judgment day is going to hold him responsible for not having faith, something which it was impossible for him to have. That is pretty sadistic on the part of God if that were true.
A good person would not set some one up to fall, and then hold them responsible for the fall, and then eternally punish them for the fall which they could not avoid and was predetermined for them. A person with the character of a cardsharp, however, would have no such scruples, as long as the game was going the way they wanted it to go.
The point of my analogies was simple: God is not a failure if he freely offers something and another person freely rejects the offer. We hold the person who rejected the offer responsible not the one making the offer.
I noticed that in your response you completely avoided all that I had said about evaluating success or failure by a criteria. God’s criteria being that He wants people to freely accept the gracious offer of salvation. And if they do not, then they are held responsible for that rejection, and they have failed, not God. Simple point that kids in Sunday school understand but apparently you choose to not understand.
”1) For the car to work well (salvation) Robert has just said that the maufactuerer (God) and the car buyer (man) must COOPERATE!!!!!! And Arminians deny that they're not synergists.”
A genuine relationship of love and trust will always involve cooperation from both parties involved in the relationship. If salvation is a personal relationship with God, if it is real, not illusory, not just playing the part of a character in a prewritten script (as Hays is suggesting in another thread), then cooperation will be involved. That is one thing I have to give the open theists credit for, they understand the nature of free will and love much better than the calvinists. The calvinists want to believe that a world populated by Stepford wives is a world involving real love and choice, when it is not.
”2) Having an oil change is supposed to = "having faith." Problem: faith is a gift from God. He PUTS IN THE OIL!!! Is "begging the question" Robert's regular forte? Is that how he "puts arguments to bed."”
Begging the question? It is the calvinist position that we are incapable of having a faith response to the gospel message unless we are regenerated first, unless God gives the capacity for faith to a person. Paul you simply state your own assumed position here. The bible is clear it is our part to have a faith response to the gospel. God does not take over our bodies and have faith in our place, nor is it His faith, it is our faith. And since it is our response for which we are held responsible, if we reject the offer it was our failure, and our responsibility, not God’s. When we sin are we held responsible for our failure to obey God’s commandments? Or is God held responsible for our acts of disobedience? And if we are held responsible for our own sins, are we the failure or is God the one that failed?
”3) God is a wee bit different than an Automotive company! The automobile company is not omnipotent. If they could make a car that didn't need an oil change every 3,00 miles, don't you think they would?”
Who said the analogy is true at all points? Isn’t it the nature of an analogy that it is both similar and dissimilar to that to which it is compared?
”4) An "oil change" is "of myself," faith is "not of myself." I can boast about how I kept my car in pristine condition, I cannot do so, on the Calvinist's God-glorifying scheme, do so with my faith.”
Actually if you have biblical faith, then you won’t boast, at least that is what Rom. 4:27-28 explicitly states. Paul that passage says that faith excludes boasting. Are you claiming that if a person is saved by faith that they will then boast? So are you saying that verse is false?
”5) Those who "come to Jesus by faith are saved." Correct. And, "No one can come to me [by faith] unless the father who sent me draws that man, and I will raise that man up on the last day." I don't find such a hinderence with oil changes!”
And how do you know that He draws only the elect? Does the John passage to which you refer here say that he only draws the elect? No, though you must be assuming that. Or does it say that if you do come to Jesus and accept him that you had to have been drawn? Or stated another way, how do you know that He never draws a person who does not end up believing in Jesus?
”6) There are roughly 6 billion people on the planet. There were not 6 billion cars made. So, the atonement was limited!!!”
The provision of the atonement is for the “world” (and the “world” is not an unlimited number, nor does it mean everybody without exception, as I have already explained) but the application is only for believers.
”7) Some cars run well for 100,000 EVEN IF the owner fails to do the recommended oil changes!!!! I know from experience.”
OK, there are some exceptions, in my analogy I clearly stated **if** the car problems that developed were caused by not changing the oil, then you and not the manufacturer would be responsible.
”Btw, I'd say that you didn't actually refute my argument from the Bible. You just gave a bunch of philosophically driven arguments from analogy - something you chide Calvinists for.”
Your claim that Jesus failed unless everybody gets saved is not a biblical premise. You invent that premise in an attempt to argue against the non-calvinist position. You are in effect poisoning the well. Then when this “argument” is shown to be weak and ineffectual against the noncalvinist view through common sense, you cry foul since bible verses were not used.
”Btw, let's all note that you still haven't dealt with my surrejoinder to your rejoinder to my argument from Hebrews.”
I am done with that argument because the first premise begs the question. I have already explained that and will not keep beating a dead horse. :-)
”So, get to work my friendly neighborhood synergist. Put in the oil.... LOL, classic!”
You know what is really “classic”? On the one hand you calvinists get annoyed about metaphors like the puppet master and his completely controlled puppets, the hypnotist and the person he controls, a world of falling dominoes, claiming that that unfairly represents calvinism. But then out of the same mouth you want to affirm monergism in which human persons do not do anything, do not cooperate in the process at all, have no free will at all. So I get it now, when it is an analogy by an opponent of calvinism it is wrong, childish, not a fair representation, but then when you are affirming that the human person is completely passive and no free will is involved in them coming to faith, then it OK.
I am still trying to figure out how you can say with a straight face that it is completely the unilateral actions of God with us doing nothing, AND YET IT IS A RELATIONSHIP? If it is completely unilateral as you want to believe, then it is not a genuine relationship. If it is a genuine relationship then some cooperation from both parties is involved.
“God came to save the "world," by which, according to Robert, means every single person in it (besides Jesus), and failed. A divine, omnipotent, awesome God couldn't do what he set out to do. Maybe the atheists are right, afterall?”
There you go again, presenting your Jesus “failed” nonsense. God has libertarian free will and desired to create us with libertarian free will because He wants us to freely choose to love and trust Him. If He then offers a provision of salvation for the world, and some freely accept it and some freely reject it. Then in the case of those who rejected it, God did not fail, they did.
In your original argument the claim was that within the Arminian **scheme** if Jesus died for the world and yet not all of the world is saved, then Jesus failed. But you refuse to understand the noncalvinist **scheme**. Within the noncalvinist *scheme** both God and man have libertarian free will. God’s goal, or criteria of success was to provide an atonement which would save those who freely choose to respond to the gospel with faith.
Numbers 21 is such a perfect illustration of this. There God told Moses to make a bronze snake and attach it to a pole and lift up the pole. And whoever looked up at the snake on the pole, lived. Whoever did not choose to look up, died. God set it up so that only those who trusted Him and His Word and looked up, lived. And if they looked up at the pole, it was not their gaze in itself that saved them (they had been bitten by poisonous snakes) it was the power of God alone that could miraculously heal them when they looked up. If they looked up and were saved, rescued from the fatal snake bites, they could not boast that it was their faith/ looking up which saved them. No, it was the power of God which saved them. Likewise Jesus in John 3:14-15 brings up the Numbers 21 story as an analogy for what he was about to do, die on the cross for people’s sins. Likewise, those who look up at Jesus on the cross and trust in that provision of atonement for their salvation are saved. Those who reject the provision of the cross are not saved. And for those who respond in faith, it is not their faith per se that is miraculous, it is God’s power which He manifests in His actions which saves.
If we realize that the Spirit worked to develop our faith and that we could not even have a faith response without the Spirit’s work, we will not boast about our faith response to the gospel. Instead we will have deep gratitude and we will boast instead in the Lord for his wonderful provision of the atonement and for His saving actions which He alone performs in connection with those who trust Him.
Robert
Within the noncalvinist *scheme** both God and man have libertarian free will.
ReplyDeleteReally, so God can do evil.
God having "libertarian" freedom does not mean He can do good and evil.
Libertarian freedom in humans, by definitions, requires they can do both good and evil.
Numbers 21 is such a perfect illustration of this. There God told Moses to make a bronze snake and attach it to a pole and lift up the pole. And whoever looked up at the snake on the pole, lived. Whoever did not choose to look up, died. God set it up so that only those who trusted Him and His Word and looked up, lived. And if they looked up at the pole, it was not their gaze in itself that saved them (they had been bitten by poisonous snakes) it was the power of God alone that could miraculously heal them when they looked up. If they looked up and were saved, rescued from the fatal snake bites, they could not boast that it was their faith/ looking up which saved them. No, it was the power of God which saved them.
The question is why did one look and not another?
So, we're back to why one person believes and not another.
Where is the exegetical argument for libertarianism? You have yet to provide it
And my distinction between the provision which is for the world and the application which is only for believers is strongly backed up here.
No, it isn't because your analysis continues to assume a quantitative, not a qualitative distinction. Your interpretation could also select for Amyraldian atonement, which is wholly different.
Your entire objection has been that Calvinists "must prove" world = elect. This is simply untrue, and it's been demonstrated to you a number of times.
Gene he uses the word “propitiation” which is part of the language of discourse for atonement. So he is clearly making reference to the atonement. You just don’t want to believe or accept that because it goes against your system. In your system the bible can’t be saying that. So you invent ways to suggest that it really isn’t saying that.
Since I did not say anything that would deny the propiatiatory nature of the atonement, this criticism is completely irrelevant- like so much of what you write. What I stated was that the text is not telling anybody anything about the scope of the atonement. It is a statement of identity and exclusivity, not a statement of the design or intent. It is a statement about who Christ is and the exclusivity of His work, not a statement about the inner workings of the atonement's design. For you to derive a general atonement from this is to commit a category error.
In that text John states that Jesus is the propitiation both for us (i.e. believers) and for “the whole world”.
Us is simply a pronoun. You've given it a very wide referent. Where is the supporting argument from the exegesis of the text that "us" = believers? If "us" = believers then "world" = unbelievers. This still does not select for a statement about the intent/design of the atonement.
? I say it is in reference to the same group referred to in Jn. 3:16.
Where is the argument for a paralllel with John 3:16 that would make that connection? There certainly is not a grammatical or syntactical parallel.
I presented a logical analysis of the sets or classes of persons involved since you folks pride yourselves on your logical abilities and castigate others as being irrational or not logical. And I clearly presented my understanding of what “world” means in both Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 (persons who are under the evil one, 1 Jn. 5:19, persons who are not believers [at least not yet] Jn. 17 Jesus praying for his disciples and not the “world”, persons who are part of the kingdom of darkness, Col. 1:13, persons who persecute the church and oppose Jesus, Jn. 15:18, persons who prefer darkness over light, Jn. 3:19-20, persons who are In Adam, Rom. 5:12, etc. etc. etc.)
Thank you for admitting that you did not exegete these texts. Rather, you proposed a logical analysis and then overlaid this over these texts.
“World” in both Jn.3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2 is a noun. It is a fair and important question to ask: to what persons does this noun/Kosmos/world refer? The minute you do so, you are speaking of a group of human persons. That is not begging the question, assuming the very thing to be proved, that is answering an important question. And since the answer completely flies in the face of your system, you have to reframe things away from what the noun refers to, to some invented distinction which will allow you to escape the force of the word.
This, of course, is a stellar example of the sense-reference fallacy. You are mistaking intention with extension. Extensions are variable, intentions are not. We've been over this before.
Gene compare scripture with scripture in John’s writings, what does “world” mean in Jn. 3:16 and 1 Jn. 2:2?
I've already been over this. You really don't read what people write to you, do you?
Besides I have a life in the real world, do you think that I have the time to check up every possible reference that you might be referring to?
You take time out to write lengthy and often irrelevant responses. You don't read what people write to you, and now you're crying about your life in the real world. You're the one talking about interacting with different scholars. Is it too much for us to ask that you acqaint yourself with the opposing position? Since the argument from John 11 is pretty standard fare in Calvinist circles, you'd think you'd know it.
Why don’t you go right on ahead and share the “several places” where it refers to “believers only”, I would really like to see that for myself.
And here we have an example of that very sort of thing. You don't bother to acquaint yourself with the opposing position. You'd think you could use a search engine.
Gene why do you keep bringing up this idea that “world” is defined as “every person without exception”? When I have explicitly and clearly defined it in such a way that it does not mean “every person without exception”? Are you just copying and pasting without reading what I am saying. You do have this tendency.
Pardon me, but above this very reply you said:And in fact, the “world” consists of people who eventually become believers AND PEOPLE WHO NEVER BECOME BELIEVERS.
Since we agree it is a given that Jesus is not included I've not at all misrepresented your position. I simply asked you to support that caveat exegetically - which has proven to be exceedingly difficult to do with you, considering it is only now that you've begun doing so, despite over half a dozen requests. Your position remains that Jesus died for all people without exception, elect and non-elect alike - or are you hiding another set of ad hoc restrictions?.
In the OT the high priest needed a sacrifice for his own sins as well as for all of the people. Jesus being sinless (and if he had sinned he could not be the perfect and final sacrifice for sin) needed no such sacrifice. The Day of Atonement and the sacrifice of Christ are not exactly the same. Though they are similar in that the high priest gave sacrifices for people who were not believers (the OT Jews who were not all children of promise: Jesus sacrificing himself for the “world”).
And what does Israel typify in Hebrews? According to you, it typifies both elect and non-elect in the Day of Atonement. Where is the supporting exegetical argument?
Bridges and Hays apparently have some major personal problems with Ponter. That is no surprise considering how these folks regularly treat people with which they disagree.
You'd do well to refrain from commenting on things about which you know nothing.
The biblical text does not say he was given for a CONSTRUCT, it says he was given for the “world”. Who said I was Arminian? Though you seem to enjoy attacking Arminian beliefs, I do not agree with them on everything (e.g., I do not agree that we can lose our salvation). I do agree with them that both God and human persons have libertarian free will.
Another irrelevant objection, since I did not state that you are "Arminian." But then, when asked you continue to avoid answering certain questions. Tell us, what is your view of election? Are you in agreement with "Henry" that election is based on foreseen faith? If so, it would seem that on at least 3 key soteriological points defined centuries ago, you're in agreement with Arminianism, and if that's the case, the moniker fits, regardless of your belief in eternal security.
You misrepresent my view. In my view there are certain acts that are part of salvation that God alone does. God alone justifies. God alone regenerates. God alone glorifies/resurrects the dead. God alone forgives sin. God alone applies the atonement to an individual. God alone gives someone the Holy Spirit. Now I know from scripture that God will justify those who trust Him, that God will apply the atonement to those who trust Him, but our trust does not cause or force God to do anything. These actions by God are unilateral and involve no power or ability on our part whatsoever. Imagine if it depended upon us or our faith, to get raised from the dead at the end? None of us would be raised.
No, I didn't misrepresent your view, not one line of it, and if I did, you have only yourself to blame, since I have asked you more than one time to present a brief sketch of your own soteriology in relation to the doctrines of election and effacious grace in particular. Since, for you regeneration does not precede faith, none of these activities your list can take place apart from the object of evangelism exercising saving faith. That is, by your own admission, a product of libertarian freedom. As such the atonement, in your view, has no instrinsic efficacy, since saving faith is not one of its inherent benefits.
And how do you know that He draws only the elect? Does the John passage to which you refer here say that he only draws the elect? No, though you must be assuming that. Or does it say that if you do come to Jesus and accept him that you had to have been drawn? Or stated another way, how do you know that He never draws a person who does not end up believing in Jesus?
In John 6, those given (vs. 37 - 38) are those drawn (44). 44 states that nobody is able to come without being drawn, and 45 is epexegetical to 44, such that all the ones who hear and learn from the Father (eg. are drawn) come to Christ, and previously we're told that those who come will not be cast out. If you think that everyone is drawn, then John 6 is a prooftext for universalism.
Roberthenry offered a junk counter-argument to my argument and now he's in the bad position of having tom defend his junk. He responds to my counter-counter argument thusly:
ReplyDeleteBob: "I gave multiple analogies to make a very, very simple and I thought uncontested point: If so-and-so is responsible for (X), [not another person other than so-and-so] and (X) does not get done, then we hold so-and-so responsible for not doing (X)."
Faith qua faith *is not* what saves. It is an *instrument.*
Furthermore, you are held responsible for Adam's sin, not just Adam. Your point isn't agreed to by the Bible. And, the major problem is that we are dealing with GOD here. If God *intends* to save, what hinders him????? What can "stay his hand???" Your position is blasphemous.
Bob: "Does God hold people responsible for their rejection of the gospel?"
Yes. And, he holds them responsible for being perfect too. Thus "ought implies can" is refuted, on biblical grounds.
Bob: "If yes, then how are they held responsible for something that was not something that they had to/or could do?"
So humans "can" be perfect????
And, your use of "can" is ambiguous. They are *physically* able in the sense that their mouths "can" utter the words, "I believe." But, here's another "can,"
Romans 7:18
I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
{Was Paul not "morally responsible, therefore?}
Romans 8:8
Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
{Are those controlled by their sinful nature not morally responsible for not pleasing God?}
And,
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
{Guess on your scheme people are not responsible to have faith!!!! But you just said theyr were. RAA. QED}
I also blogged on ought-implies-can before:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/03/immorality-of-hell.html
Bob: "But wait, that is your position, I keep forgetting. The poor “loser” was predestined for reprobation, and God made sure that it would be impossible for him to be saved or have a faith response to the gospel."
Not my position, God's:
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Romans 9:22 "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?"
{What!!!! God actually chooses who can come to Jesus by faith???
God actually desires to show his wrath to those he prepared for wrath??? Say it aint so!}
Bob: "So he had no chance to be saved from the get-go, and yet God then on the judgment day is going to hold him responsible for not having faith, something which it was impossible for him to have. That is pretty sadistic on the part of God if that were true. "
Romans 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
{Think you should repent for your blasphemy?? Bob the blasphemer}
Bob: "A good person would not set some one up to fall, and then hold them responsible for the fall, and then eternally punish them for the fall which they could not avoid and was predetermined for them."
Exodus 9:13 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go. 18 Therefore, at this time tomorrow I will send the worst hailstorm that has ever fallen on Egypt, from the day it was founded till now."
{Think you should repent for your blasphemy now?}
Bob: "The point of my analogies was simple: God is not a failure if he freely offers something and another person freely rejects the offer. We hold the person who rejected the offer responsible not the one making the offer."
Doesn't matter, your analogies were disanalagous in relevant ways.
Furthermore, the Bible declares that no one has the ability to "accept the offer" apart from the regenerating work of the spirit. Disanalogy #67.
Bob: "I noticed that in your response you completely avoided all that I had said about evaluating success or failure by a criteria."
I showed relevant disanalogies. That's all I needed to do to refute your counter-argument. Were you under the impression that you could use bad arguments and think they led to the truth of your conclusion?
Bob: " That is one thing I have to give the open theists credit for, they understand the nature of free will and love much better than the calvinists. The calvinists want to believe that a world populated by Stepford wives is a world involving real love and choice, when it is not."
But man needs a new nature first. The Bible says that he "cannot" love God. That he "cannot" do good. That he "cannot" chose Jesus. So, God loved his chosen people so much that he died for them, and then changed their nature so that they would willingly respond in love to their father. You leave all the middle part out. Given the Bible, your "story" is an impossibility.
Bob: "Begging the question? It is the calvinist position that we are incapable of having a faith response to the gospel message unless we are regenerated first, unless God gives the capacity for faith to a person. Paul you simply state your own assumed position here. The bible is clear it is our part to have a faith response to the gospel. God does not take over our bodies and have faith in our place, nor is it His faith, it is our faith."
Right, so you begged the question. No doubt we are *commanded* to have faith (I've already proven that we are commanded to do things we cannot do). The real question is, how does a God-hater get that faith? he is DEAD. Dead men don't accept gifts, Robert. Or, have you always lived under that assumption? Dead men don't do oil changes, Bob. Are dead people responsible for not doing oil changes??
Bob: "Who said the analogy is true at all points? Isn’t it the nature of an analogy that it is both similar and dissimilar to that to which it is compared?"
Sure, but it can't be disanalogous at *relevant* points!!
Bob: "Actually if you have biblical faith, then you won’t boast, at least that is what Rom. 4:27-28 explicitly states. Paul that passage says that faith excludes boasting. Are you claiming that if a person is saved by faith that they will then boast? So are you saying that verse is false?"
Exactly my point, Bob!! I can "boast" for keeping my car in pristine condition, for making the oil changes, but I cannot do so with faith! Disanalogy #68. Your "argument" from analogy can't do the job you want it to, Bob. In fact, you just undercut your own argument!
Bob: "And how do you know that He draws only the elect? Does the John passage to which you refer here say that he only draws the elect? No, though you must be assuming that. Or does it say that if you do come to Jesus and accept him that you had to have been drawn? Or stated another way, how do you know that He never draws a person who does not end up believing in Jesus?"
Easy, because he raises all who come to him, and you can only come if you are drawn.
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
You said universalism was false above, thus you've again disproved your own argument!
Bob: "The provision of the atonement is for the “world” (and the “world” is not an unlimited number, nor does it mean everybody without exception, as I have already explained) but the application is only for believers. "
If the Car company said "I have come to make cars for the entire world," and they didn't, who failed???? The car company! So, even according to your own analogy, God is a failure.
Disanalogy #70!
Bob: "OK, there are some exceptions, in my analogy I clearly stated **if** the car problems that developed were caused by not changing the oil, then you and not the manufacturer would be responsible."
The problems can even occur if the oil changes have been made on schedule! Relevant disanalogy #71.
Bob: "I am done with that argument because the first premise begs the question. I have already explained that and will not keep beating a dead horse. :-)"
I showed how it didn't "beg the question." You actually mean, "No, Paul, I can't answer that argument." Further, I showed that every other one of your points was false. So, you had better try again, as it stands, i have proven limited atonement from the argument.
Okay, have a nice day, Bob. You still haven't put my argument to bed, either. What happened? You made it sound so easy above.
P.S.
ReplyDeleteRobert also implies that God soemhow "owes" every man the same "shot" at "getting to heaven." But, as jesus said, he didn't come to condemn because ALL MEN are condemned already!!! We are guilty, Bobert. God doesn't "owe" guilty people anything. He mercies who he mercies and hardens who he hardens. Rober'ts view is that God has to give all criminals who are guilty the same chance at freedom. Robert's god is a chanied and impotent deity. He lives to bow down to man. To cater after man. To exault man to the highest of places.
Bob: "So he had no chance to be saved from the get-go, and yet God then on the judgment day is going to hold him responsible for not having faith, something which it was impossible for him to have. That is pretty sadistic on the part of God if that were true. "
ReplyDeleteOf course, the reason that they reject the gospel is the love of their own evil. Nothing here is happening that is against their wills. They do not desire to believe the gospel. They get what their hearts' desires.
Robert's entire scheme is designed to give men what they desire, isn't it? So, on the one hand he wants God to dispense justice, and on the other he wants God to give them what they desire. When we point out that reprobation does not violate their "free will" one jot, he then complains that their ability limits their responsibility, but where is this to be found in the Bible?
"Ability limits responsibility" does apply to a certain degree - within the realm of guilt for sin. The person given the Law and the Prophets and having them explained to them is in a position of greater moral culpability for his rejection of it compared to the absolute pagan. However, both are still rightly condemned for sin before the bar of God, for man's sin itself arises from his love of evil and not God.
Also, let us not forget that the charge of sadism equally applies to Robert's own position, for God is still creating men knowing full well they will not believe or ever hear the gospel - the only gospel by which they can be saved, or does Robert believe in a separate method of salvation for some people, based on natural revelation/common grace?
By the way, is unbelief not a sin covered in the atonement? According to 1 John 3, the command to convert to Christ is not an invitation. It carries the force of a divine command. Therefore, disobedience to it is a sin. In Robert's view, the atonement is a propitation for sin, but either God is exactly double jeopardy for sin for which Christ died (a thing requiring an exegetical argument or it is a sin exempted from the atonement (which I believe is frankly stated by some at Dallas Theological Seminary) - a position still requiring exegetical support - or this is not a sin at all. Which of these options will he take?
Gene you present some real lack of awareness concerning libertarian conceptions of free will in your post. You said:
ReplyDelete”Really, so God can do evil.
God having "libertarian" freedom does not mean He can do good and evil.
Libertarian freedom in humans, by definition, requires they can do both good and evil.”
God can do whatever He wants to do. He does not do evil however, He may have various choices available to Himself, all of which are good choices, He then chooses the one that He wants.
When Jesus was on the earth he healed people in different ways, sometimes by direct touch, sometimes by saying the word and healing a person who was not even in his immediate presence (his actions were not predetermined but up to him). One example, in John 9 he heals a man blind from birth by “He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes” (Jn. 9:6). Could Jesus also have simply touched his eyes without the clay and healed him? Did Jesus have the choice to do it either way? If he did it the other way, without the clay, would that have been a good action?
Libertarian freedom in humans does not require that we must be able to do both good and evil in **every instance** to have free will. In heaven we will have libertarian freedom and will not be capable of sin (but we will be capable of choices). So we will have multiple choices all of which are good.
Adam had multiple choices all of which were good, before the fall. So all of his choices prior to the fall were good choices and he had made nothing but good choices, so free will does not require the ability to do both good and evil in every situation. God explicitly told him he could do whatever he chose to do and it would be good, except for one thing (cf., “From any tree of the garden you may eat FREELY but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Gen. 2:17)
Gene those choices Adam made prior to the fall, involving the other trees, were they sinful choices?
You will have to answer No to this question. But if you answer No, then you’ve got a real life historical situation in which a human person had multiple choices before him all of which were good and he could do as he pleased without doing evil. And that is all that is required for free will to exist, that he had multiple options he could choose from and the choices were up to him (note especially the word “freely” in Gen. 2:17).
Alvin Plantinga, a Christian who holds to the libertarian view and no slouch when it comes to philosophy, defines free will as:
“If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won’t.” (God, Freedom, and Evil, p. 29)
Note there is nothing here about free will in the libertarian sense **must** involve the ability to do both good and evil in every situation. Note also that when God created the world, he could have chosen to do so, or chosen to refrain from doing so (with either choice being good and neither choice being evil), which fits Plantinga’s definition of free will very well. Also a believer in heaven, who has the choice to do or refrain from doing something, also fits Plantinga’s definition of free will. And Adam’s experience pre-fall fits this definition as well. So your notion that free will must involve the ability to do good or evil “by definition” is completely false and out of touch with the contemporary discussion of free will.
Libertarian free will exists wherever a choice is not predetermined. A person does not need to be able to, or have the option to choose evil, in order to have libertarian free will. Having multiple choices, even if they are all good choices suffices for free will to be present.
”The question is why did one look and not another?
So, we're back to why one person believes and not another.”
People do different things for different reasons. It should also be duly noted that if a person does something for a reason, then his/her choice is not “without cause”. You repeatedly claim that libertarians believe in actions done “without cause”, another misrepresentation that you repeatedly indulge in. People do things for reasons, even if you don’t like those reasons. The term for the libertarian view that people do things for reasons, but those reasons do not necessitate, that persons do their own actions, is called agent causation. Some proponents of it would include Reid, Plantinga, Searle, and little ole me!
”Where is the exegetical argument for libertarianism?”
Technically speaking the bible never defines “free will” for us. What it comes down to is an abductive argument for one conception over another. By abductive I mean that we have competing theories each claiming to be the best explanation of the given data (in this case the data is the bible verses that we have). Libertarians believe that the libertarian conception best explains the data, while Compatibilists believe their conception best explains the data.
It should also be noted that the libertarian position can include some events that are determined. The calvinist compatibilist view however, presupposes that all events are predetermined, there can never be any libertarian freedom under any circumstance (not even before the fall of Adam so he was not “mutable” he was predetermined to sin; nor did Jesus during the incarnation have free will). One view can incorporate both sets of evidence (evidence of libertarian free will and evidence of predetermined events), while the other must argue for the universal negative that under no circumstances can there, or there ever will be, or there ever was, instances of libertarian free will.
That Gen. 2:17 verse by the way, does not fit calvinistic determinism, and to any unbiased reader sounds like God was giving Adam libertarian freedom regarding what choices to make (he could choose FREELY to do whatever he wanted to do in the garden with one notable exception). And ordinary people understand this perfectly. If I say to a small child in a toy store you can pick any toy, except this one, and I will buy it for you, what will the child understand? That I gave him the freedom to make his own choice. If I take someone out for dinner and say you can choose anything on this menu except . . . they will understand that I have left the decision to them and it is a free will selection on their part. On the old dating game TV show, one contestant had the freedom to choose from among three contestants/options. Seeing why they chose one over another, for what reasons made the show fascinating and popular.
“For you to derive a general atonement from this is to commit a category error.”
D.A. Carson is a much better exegete than you are, and he sees no “category error” in my interpretation. I say he has got it right, which means that you are wrong.
Did you miss those Carson quotes that I provided?
”Your position remains that Jesus died for all people without exception, elect and non-elect alike - or are you hiding another set of ad hoc restrictions?.”
The bible presents universalistic passages where the atonement is for the world (and the world is more than just the elect). The bible also presents that not all are saved. So put these two simple concepts together: if the atonement is provided for the world, but not all of the world gets saved, then why is this true? My simple answer is that while the atonement is provided for the world it is only applied to those who believe. It is not an “ad hoc” restriction to realize that it does not in fact save everyone because the bible clearly presents that not everyone is saved. That is a biblical parameter not an “ad hoc” restriction. It is also a biblical parameter that it is for the whole world.
”Tell us, what is your view of election? Are you in agreement with "Henry" that election is based on foreseen faith?”
I believe that God elects people who trust Him to be his people. I also believe that since God knows everything, his vantage point, an eternal perspective, is to see everything at once. To have an eternal vantage point is to be beyond the limitations of time and space. We are limited in our relationship with time, we remember the past, are in the present, and imagine the future. God however has no such limitations so He sees it all at once. Technically speaking he does not see “beforehand” from this eternal vantage point. But when he reveals things in scripture he usually accommodates us by using time frame words (e.g. Pre-destine, fore-know, knows the end from the beginning, etc. etc.).
God does not look down “the corridors of time” (that implies a distance between where He is at one end of the tunnel and the events that are at the other end of the tunnel; it also presupposes a limitation of being in time and looking ahead to the future; God has no such limitations in regard to time) as I hear some calvinists when they mock divine foreknowledge as understood by noncalvinists. Rather he sees “now” and He sees **everything** now. As scripture puts it, “and there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do” Heb. 4:13. Nothing is “at a distance” from his view, but He sees everything, every detail, simultaneously.
C.S. Lewis spoke of this “eternal now” as have others. Or to use another famous illustration, when we are standing on a street and see a parade passing by, we see most clearly what is directly passing in front of us. God sees the whole parade in one shot. Peter says that election is according to foreknowledge, not election according to foreordination. God chooses those who trust Him to be his people. From a time perspective, this is represented as God calling us to believe in response to the gospel message (and this call through the gospel occurs in real time and involves the proclamation of the gospel in our hearing).
From an eternal, outside and beyond time perspective, this is represented as “whom he foreknew [saw them as believers] he predestined [before they existed God had a plan for them] to be conformed to the image of His son [the plan from eternity that God has for his people, is that those who trust Him be Christ-like] and whom He predestined [defined in the verse as not predestination to individual salvation but predestination to conformity to the image of Christ] these He also called [by means of the gospel], these He justified [if they trust in Him for salvation they are justified] and whom He justified, these He also glorified [still to come in our experience, the end of the parade that He already sees and so it is stated in the aorist as already have been accomplished though we are still here in our unglorified state]. Paul can state this in the aorist, because God is seeing the whole parade and so those who come to faith, will become Christ-like, and they will be glorified, these are certainties. If you saw everything at once then you could make statements about things that have not yet happened in history, as if they are certainly going to happen, because you know they are going to happen, because you see the whole parade.
I had said:
You misrepresent my view. In my view there are certain acts that are part of salvation that God alone does. God alone justifies. God alone regenerates. God alone glorifies/resurrects the dead. God alone forgives sin. God alone applies the atonement to an individual. God alone gives someone the Holy Spirit. Now I know from scripture that God will justify those who trust Him, that God will apply the atonement to those who trust Him, but our trust does not cause or force God to do anything. These actions by God are unilateral and involve no power or ability on our part whatsoever. Imagine if it depended upon us or our faith, to get raised from the dead at the end? None of us would be raised.
”Since, for you regeneration does not precede faith, none of these activities you list can take place apart from the object of evangelism exercising saving faith.”
Gene you seem to be incapable of seeing my point. Calvinist inability perhaps? :-) Yes, these things that God does will be done in connection with someone who has saving faith. But that faith is not what causes these things to occur; only God alone does these things and they are all sovereign acts of God. Didn’t you ever learn in logic that just because something follows something else in time, does not mean that the first thing caused the second thing to occur? You just cannot seem to get past that: if these things listed follow after someone has faith, then the faith that the person has **must** be causing these other things to occur (according to you). In your mind there are only two possibilities: either regeneration precedes faith, or faith produces/causes regeneration. That is a false dilemma. The truth which is a third possibility has been left out of your thinking completely.
You like to present yourself as something of a logician with your frequent references to fallacies, “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, after this, therefore because of this (or post hoc fallacy) is the one which you are committing here. You also seem to believe that if I believe that faith does not follow regeneration in time,that that must mean that faith is the cause of, or produces regeneration (which I do not believe). Regeneration is a miraculous action by God that human persons cannot do. So it is impossible for our faith to cause or produce regeneration.
In the discussion of regeneration and faith two very common errors occur repeatedly:
Error 1 = regeneration precedes faith (Calvinists)
Error 2 = faith produces or causes regeneration (Arminians)
Truth = faith precedes (or occurs simultaneous with regeneration), but does not cause regeneration. (or = God regenerates those who trust Him, but their faith/trust does not cause God to regenerate them, that is something that He does to his people).
Robert
Gene says:
ReplyDelete“Of course, the reason that they reject the gospel is the love of their own evil. Nothing here is happening that is against their wills. They do not desire to believe the gospel. They get what their hearts' desires.”
No one desires to believe the gospel unless the Holy Spirit has worked in their life. John 16:8-11 says that the Spirit works in the hearts of those who make up the “world”. Left to ourselves we have no hope for salvation, but God does not leave us to ourselves.
And since you want to believe that God predetermines EVERYTHING Gene. Then who predetermines “what their hearts’desires” will be”?
God does in your system. So if He predetermines for you to have evil thoughts and intentions that you will act on, then that is what you will have and do. Gene you want to believe in global determinism, but then you don’t take it far enough. If He predetermines everything, then we are just puppets in His hands: He chooses what choices we will make.
But then when it is pointed out to you that this would make God the author of sin, the cause of sin, then you want to back off and appeal to “secondary causes” or “it’s not like that”, “it’s different than that”. You cannot even stomach the implications of your own view, and you wonder why noncalvinists reject this determinism that you want us all to believe in? We love the God of the bible, we reject your determinism.
”So, on the one hand he wants God to dispense justice, and on the other he wants God to give them what they desire.”
If we all got strict justice from God, because of our sin we would all receive eternal separation from God. But God is also merciful, and because He is merciful some will be saved. He is giving us more time to get the gospel to people as an act of mercy (cf. 2 Pet. 3:3-9). But when the curtain comes down (i.e., when Jesus returns) then final judgment will commence (cf. Matt. 25:31-46). Regarding God giving “them what they desire” that is already happening (cf. Rom. 1:18-32, especially the phrase “God gave them over”) which partly accounts for why there is so much sin in the world currently. The fact that there is so much sin being allowed shows that God’s mercy is still on-going. But the curtain will come down.
“When we point out that reprobation does not violate their "free will" one jot, he then complains that their ability limits their responsibility, but where is this to be found in the Bible?”
My concern is not that “ability limits their responsibility”. My concern is that a good person would not predetermine for most people to go to hell after predetermining their every thought and action so that they must sin and live a life of disobedience to God. A good and loving and merciful person would not do that. God presents himself in scripture as having a love for the “world” (Jn. 3:16), not taking pleasure in the eternal death of the wicked (Eze. 18), of desiring for all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4-6), of desiring to have mercy on all people (Rom. 11:32), etc. etc. So the scriptures contradicts the god conceived of by theological determinists.
”"Ability limits responsibility" does apply to a certain degree - within the realm of guilt for sin. The person given the Law and the Prophets and having them explained to them is in a position of greater moral culpability for his rejection of it compared to the absolute pagan. However, both are still rightly condemned for sin before the bar of God, for man's sin itself arises from his love of evil and not God.”
Again, the issue is not the universal guilt of mankind: the fact that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, is clearly taught throughout scripture. It is nice to see you at least acknowledging that different people are held to different levels of responsibility depending upon their different abilities (e.g. bible teachers will receive a stricter judgment; to whom much is given much is required; one is given two talents one is given five talents, etc. etc. etc.).
In your system God wanted Adam to sin and predetermined for it to occur, so the resulting effects of sin is exactly what God wanted to occur. Every evil and sin is exactly what God wants to occur. I disagree. God can use evil acts and bring good out of situations (the best example of this being the cross with Jesus being crucified by the evil actions of evil men and yet God bringing great good out of it). And God allows or permits sin to occur. But that is very different from predetermining each of these sins to occur because He wanted all of this sin to occur.
And your line that: “man's sin itself arises from his love of evil and not God”, is false according to your determinism. If I predetermine every event including the thought, intentions, actions, sins of people, then their sin directly arises out of my will, what I wanted to happen. “Man’s sin itself arises from his love of evil and not God” is true only if the man freely chooses to do his sin and his sin is not predetermined by God. In your statement you are forced to “borrow” from noncalvinist thinking. If He is predetermined to do the sin, and it is not his choice, but he is constrained to do it, then his sin arises directly from God’s will and God is the author of the sin through and through.
If God predetermines everything as you want to believe, then “his love of evil” has also been predetermined by God for him to have.
To claim that something arises from man and not God, or to claim that God permits or allows something is to “borrow” from noncalvinism and depart from theological determinism. Doestevsky famously remarked: where there is no God everything is permitted. If there is no absolute basis to ethics, then anything and everything goes. If nothing is considered wrong then everything is considered to be right. If God permits people to choose evil, to “do their own thing” then all sorts of evils are possible.
And God does in fact sometimes leave people to their freely made choices and the consequences of those choices (e.g., “every man did what was right in his own eyes” Judges, they were able to do this not because God did not exist but because He permitted them to make their own choices).
”Also, let us not forget that the charge of sadism equally applies to Robert's own position, for God is still creating men knowing full well they will not believe or ever hear the gospel”
It is not evil if God creates people the way He wants them to be due to his sovereignty (i.e. having libertarian free will) and it is not evil if He reaches out to rebellious human persons with love, mercy and grace. If these rebels choose to reject God and the work of the Spirit, that is evil, and it is done by the human person not God and they are responsible for their action not God.
As Christians if we sin, we chose to do it and we could have chosen to do otherwise (we have the choice of whether or not to serve the flesh or righteousness, cf., Romans 6). In your view, if Christians sin, we **had to do it** and could not have chosen to do otherwise. Your conception of God leads to God desiring for sin to occur even by His own people. In contrast, the God of the bible hates sin though He permits it.
”By the way, is unbelief not a sin covered in the atonement? According to 1 John 3, the command to convert to Christ is not an invitation. It carries the force of a divine command. Therefore, disobedience to it is a sin. In Robert's view, the atonement is a propitiation for sin, but either God is exactly [exacting?] double jeopardy for sin for which Christ died (a thing requiring an exegetical argument or it is a sin exempted from the atonement (which I believe is frankly stated by some at Dallas Theological Seminary) - a position still requiring exegetical support - or this is not a sin at all. Which of these options will he take?”
I affirm that the atonement was provided for the world but only is applied to those who believe. So Gene asks whether or not unbelief is a sin covered in the atonement? Whether or not the atonement covers your sins depends on whether or not you are a believer. All sins are covered in the atonement which is applied only to believers. For believers their every sin is covered. For unbelievers who reject the provision of Christ for their salvation, none of their sins is covered. There are only two kinds of people in history: believers whose every sin is covered by the cross, and unbelievers who have no covering for any of their sins because they reject the atonement.
Robert
In regards to my argument from Hebrews.
ReplyDeleteSomething ocurred to me. Robert says that it beggs the questtion. That *just in Hebrews* is the death of Jesus referred to as the death of a high priest for his people. That, *just in Hebrews* this is for the elect. Jesus death for the rest of the people, the whole world, was not the death of a priest for his people.
John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Looks like the OC concepts are applied to even so-called universalist passages.
This seals the argument from Hebrews. Limited atonement has been proven.
QED.