Pages

Monday, April 21, 2008

The Warrant To Believe

Martin said:

Actually, whilst it may not be readily apparent, every man relies on a warrant to believe - although since, no man fully grasps all the implications and nuances of the gospel when they first believe, the details of the warrant may vary from person to person. But every person who puts their faith in Christ, must have reason to believe that God would show them mercy else they wouldn't do it would they? So, it seems to me that the matter of a warrant to believe *is* important. If someone who is considering the gospel happens to have heard of election and predestination then thay may well have questions about how can they put their faith in Christ if they can't be sure that He died for them? To say, in effect, 'believe, then you'll find out' seems to me to be unsatisfactory because it would not be answering that person's question.


TF replied:

It is sufficient warrant that man is commanded both to repent and believe. In other words, a command from God is sufficient ground, even if we have no reason to suppose that God will justify those who do believe.

Furthermore, it is also a sufficient response to someone who protests, "What if I am not one of the elect?" to say

"While it is true that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, nevertheless seize hold by faith of the promise that those who come to him he will not cast out. Do not come to God demanding your share of Christ's blood, but begging God that you might be adopted as one of His sons, and share in the benefits procured by Christ."

Here! Here!

Martin, this confuses assurance with the warrant to believe. The question, as TF has plainly stated so well," is "What constitutes the warrant to believe?"

Put another way, "What impels the Gospel call?"

The scope or sufficiency of the atonement does not impel the Gospel - Amyraldians and Arminians frame it that way.

The ability of man does not frame the call - Arminians frame it that way.

Questions about their personal election and predestination do not impel the Gospel - hyperCalvinists frame it that way.

And notice the subjectivity of the way it is framed. If a man says, "If I am not able, I will not convert," he is substituting his autonomy as an excuse for his unbelief.

If he asks how he can know he is elect, he is saying he will believe, if God will subjectively reveal it to him that he is elect. That's an excuse not believe.

If he says, "I will only believe if I know a priori that Christ died for me," he's trying to excuse his unbelief by asking for a subjective warrant.

And all of these would ultimately amount to a violation of Sola Scriptura at some point, because God is being called upon to engage in continuing revelation, especially for the man who asks to know if he is elect before he believes. If he really wanted to convert, he would just do so. So the impertinence of that question inculpates him. Sure, he may have a real question, but the answer is not to look for assurances, the answer is to be found in simply doing what God says to do.

The command itself impels the call - the Bible frames it that way, period. And this - and only this - is truly objective. Questions about whether Jesus died for me, whether I am elect or not, or if I have the ability to comply are really irrelevant, for they are impertinent.

Why? It's like being presented with a "Tablet of Stone." God says, to wit, "Repent and believe,sinner, and you will be saved." That's a command - not just an "offer," a command, according to Acts and 1 John. He says in effect, "Trust me; trust my command, trust my promise to save you." God says this, and we have an objective warrant. That, Martin, is the warrant to believe that the Bible gives.

To all sinners who hear the call:

God does not say, "Believe because Jesus died for everybody."

God does not say, "Believe because you are elect."

God does not say, "Comply because you are all able."

He says, "Do this, and you will live."

It's very simple, and I think He does this to draw attention to the fact that if we start asking those questions, we are, at some level asking for personal, subjective assurances when we are still "children of wrath." God's children have every right to know these things - for they belong to our assurance, but assurance is given as a gift to us after we are converted, not before, for "children of wrath" have no such right. They have no "right" except condemnation. God gives this command, makes this "offer" indiscriminately, and He makes it equal for us all thereby. There are no special qualifications or rules for the elect vs. the reprobate. They are all, when confronted by the preaching of the Gospel, given the same command, presented with the same offer. It's man who tries to add these assurances, and that panders to the self-interest of sinners. This offer will call the elect; it will reveal the reprobate by inculpating them.

Speaking personally, I think saying this has done a lot of harm in Baptist churches in particular, for their pews are lined with unregenerate "members," yet they say they affirm regenerate, not mixed, membership. Presbyterians believe in mixed membership, yet in my personal experience these days, they do better with regenerate membership than us Baptists have in many years.

And it's perfectly logical. If we ask, "How can I know...?" We're asking an epistemological question. I can know, because God made a promise in His Word - Jesus said that He will not cast out the ones who come to Him, not because I have a subjective sense of assurance before I convert that tells me that Christ died for me or I am one of the elect or that I have the ability to do this (eg. Libertarian Freedom). I can know if I do what God says I should do,because that's the means that God has licensed. So, we are driven not to subjective assurances and feelings or attempts to divine God's secret decrees or figure out if we are truly able, but to God's Word itself, and thus to His promises, and to the centrality of Christ Himself.

I have frequently asked General Redemptionists and others to find me a single text of Scripture that says that we are appeal on the basis of "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you," or "Jesus died for you." To date, nobody has been able to demonstrate the offer. One Roman Catholic at Beggars All tried recently but found not a one. For all the farrago of words, he finally said, that it was the general drift of the New Testament. If that's true,then where's the actual argument? Where's the text that teaches it? It's merely an assertion.

We can simply say that God has made a single once for all time atonement for sin in Christ, and that the way to know if our sins are covered is to turn to Him and Him only. He will not turn such an one away, not ever.

By the way, at the level of logical argumentation to say that we are to frame the call as "Jesus died for you" is confusion. It confuses the nature of the atonement with the way a person knows if atonement has been made for his sins in particular. That confuses, for all intents and purposes ontology (the nature of a thing, in this case the atonement),thus the ontological question, with epistemology (the way a person knows a particular truth), thus the epistemological question. The way to know (the epistemological question) if Jesus died for you (the nature of the atonement for any person) is to repent and believe the Gospel. It's really simple.

I agree with Dr. Frame that logic is a reflection of God's mind, indeed one of His attributes. The Gospel call issued from the Reformed pulpit is quite logically framed. The Arminian call is confused at best.

So, if a person says,

"Am I able?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned."

"Did Jesus die for me?" The answer is, "It is irrelevant, for if you do not believe, you will be damned. The scope and sufficiency of the atonement will do nothing but inculpate you if you do not believe."

"Am I elect or reprobate?" The answer is "Knowing this beforehand is irrelevant to your obligation to do as God says, " for the answer will not matter if you do not comply with God's command.

The Gospel call is given such that all who comply with it will be saved, period. None will be turned away. God is faithful to keep His promises. So, the answers to these questions, if asked before one complies, are irrelevant to doing what God has said you must do. Comply with what God has said, and then we can talk about the answers. Your eternal soul does not hang on subjective assurances given before you comply with the Gospel call as it is given universally. It hangs on what you do when and where confronted.

So, if anybody comes here today and does not know Christ, this is the call to you:

God has said that we are all condemned at His judgment bar for the love of our own wickedness, for things we have done and left undone. Yet God has made a perfect atonement for sin for the ungodly in the Person and work of Jesus Christ, God the Son incarnated in human flesh, crucified, dead, buried, and resurrected on the third day according to the Scriptures. That is the Gospel. Your consequent responsibility is to cast yourself on the mercy of God to come to Christ with the empty hand of your faith, for He is now commanding all men everywhere to repent and turn to Christ. Repent of your wickedness, and place your faith in Christ and Christ only, not a Church, not a philosophy, not Calvinism, not Arminianism, not Catholicism, Orthodoxy, not Baptistery, not Presbyterianism, not Lutheranism, or any other visible organization, not your baptism, not your ecclesiology, not your congruent merits, not your prayers, not "Holy Tradition," nothing else but Christ only and His sole and sufficient merit. He will, as John 6 says plainly, in no wise cast you out. We'll talk theology afterwards. Do this, and you will live.

And for believers it is this:

To our Arminian friends with whom we so often disagree, I encourage you, of course, to take a closer look at how you frame the Gospel when you present it. That said, while these discussions between us and you all often get heated, my challenge to you, and to the Reformed folks as well, is to remember that unbelievers and apostates read our blogs too. Take time to engage them and confront them with the Gospel call from time to time. In the past several months, if you can't tell from comboxes here and there, this has been a particular conviction of mine - to do it myself and to call others to do so.

To my (Quasi)Amyradlian brothers, particularly those of you who have a habit of posting on the atonement, common grace, etc. and nothing but - your work in historical theology in particular, is duly noted, and I thank you for reminding us of the universality of the Gospel call. However, I ask you to remember, the scope and sufficiency of the atonement are no warrant that impels the Gospel call. My challenge to you is to practice what you preach and engage the apostates and unbelievers yourselves and confront them with the Gospel call that you remind us so well is universal. Yes, it is, and all men are required to obey it when they hear it. While these discussions are so often heated between us, remember that the answers to questions about the nature of the atonement as you see it or I see it are really irrelevant to the unregenerate, and there are many on the blogs. What's relevant is their need for Christ. I urge you to put your obvious gifts to better use if you are not already doing so, by engaging these folks with those of us who are doing so already. Not to do so is, I honestly think, particularly to get snippy about it when told this, not a good testimony for you. Practice what you preach to the rest of us. We would welcome your help. We need your help. Beat your swords into plowshares and sow with us a harvest. We can meet behind the barn occasionally - not continually- to discuss these issues about which you continue to devote so much time and attention.

To all believing bloggers across the board, preach the Gospel, in season and out, pray for those you regard as apostates and unbelievers, whether you are none other than Dr. Tom Ascol, Dr. Vern Poythress, Dr. James White, or a slug like myself. What we do here does make a difference. We are not here to talk to ourselves or win arguments or be liked (goodness knows we at Tblog aren't here to be liked). We are here,ultimately, to help each other and others grow and to preach the Gospel to the lost through our writing.

12 comments:

  1. Gene, thank you for an excellent post. Before I comment on an area in which I disagree with you, allow me to say to you and to anyone reading that (1) your phrasing of the gospel call is excellent and worth re-reading; and (2) your comments regarding how we ought to interact with both believers and unbelievers bear meditating upon and repeating. I hope that my own comments here reflect them. That said, I do have an objection, or possibly just a question—

    If he says, "I will only believe if I know a priori that Christ died for me," he's trying to excuse his unbelief by asking for a subjective warrant.

    Surely this is actually asking for objective, rather than subjective warrant? That is, is it not merely seeking assurance that the command and offer is really applicable to the questioner? We can say that his question is fueled by the wicked desire to avoid submitting to God's command. But can we not also say that it is fueled by his hopeful desire to know that such a sublime offer can really be extended to him, a wicked sinner? Is it not entirely reasonable that he has an objective warrant for believing that the gospel actually applies to him? After all, the gospel call and offer is predicated upon God's promise of salvation: that Christ died for me. So I need to know that this promise is for me before I can avail myself of it and submit to it.

    What I mean is, a prerequisite to knowing that salvation is possible for me (prior to faith), and for assurance that salvation is given to me (consequent to faith), is first believing that Christ died for me. If, prior to faith, I only know that he died for others without knowing that he died for me, then it doesn't appear that I have any basis for obeying the command, or accepting the offer. Both are predicated upon the promise; so I need to know the promise applies to me. But even if I dare to hope that the promise is for me and put my faith in Christ, knowing that if I believe then I can be sure he died for me, it would appear that my only assurance is my own faith (which, given my mercurial and self-deceiving nature is a very weak assurance indeed). If my own assurance of the truth of the proposition "Christ died for me" becomes conditional upon my own faith, then whatever objective warrant the proposition is supposed to have as a promise from God is irrelevant, since that warrant itself is no stronger than my subjective faith. This seems very problematic. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but surely our faith should be conditional upon the truth of God's promise; rather than the truth of God's promise being conditional on our faith? If the only way I can know that Christ died for me is because I believe it, what assurance do I really have; and how would I come to that faith in the first place?

    Like Calvin, I think it is not only exegetically, but epistemically necessary to affirm that Christ died for all people (this is not the same as general redemption, mind you). Only if we affirm this are we actually presenting an offer which can be (i) believed by anyone at all and (ii) taken hold of with assurance by the elect. It isn't a matter of what rights or responsibilities man has to obey the command or accept the offer; it's about there being actual epistemic justification for faith in the first place (ie, there is an ontological reality which grounds the promise which grounds the command and offer which grounds our faith); and for assurance in the second place.

    I'd appreciate your own thoughts on the matter. I know the extent of the atonement's sufficiency is a topic of some controversy, and I am not terribly well versed in the current state of the debate.

    Regards,
    Bnonn

    ReplyDelete

  2. Surely this is actually asking for objective, rather than subjective warrant? That is, is it not merely seeking assurance that the command and offer is really applicable to the questioner? We can say that his question is fueled by the wicked desire to avoid submitting to God's command. But can we not also say that it is fueled by his hopeful desire to know that such a sublime offer can really be extended to him, a wicked sinner? Is it not entirely reasonable that he has an objective warrant for believing that the gospel actually applies to him? After all, the gospel call and offer is predicated upon God's promise of salvation: that Christ died for me. So I need to know that this promise is for me before I can avail myself of it and submit to it.


    No, it is a subjective warrant. The request is masquerading as a request for an objective warrant. The questioner is asking for personal assurance. He's not taking God's promise at its face. He's asking how he can know God's promise is for him by asking a question about the scope of the atonement.

    Here is what the sinner would say:

    "Jesus did not die for me?" I am not responsible to believe.

    "I am not elect." I am not responsible to believe.

    "I am not able." I am not responsible.

    So, to take a current example on the Founders blog this very day, Steve Gaines and his kind try to say "Jesus died for you," so you should believe. "Election is based on foreseen faith," so you must believe. "You are able" so you are responsible.

    So,in principle, Mr. Gaines and his friends are in agreement with the motive lying behind these questions - that's why they try to provide the answers that they provide. They agree that ability limits responsibility. They agree that election limits responsibility. They agree the scope of the atonement limits responsibility to believe. They are revealing either their ignorance or their impudence or both.

    (Quasi)Amyraldianism is doing the same thing as Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. It's just more subtle. By using the atonement as a Gospel warrant, all they are doing is moving the warrant off of LFW (Arminianism) or a subjective sense of election (Older Hyper-Calvinism). And that is why it's a subjective, not an objective warrant.

    By the way, this is a good place to make a wider point about subjectivity and objectivity ; this is the same sort of thing the Keswickites do with "God's will." The whole "Henry Blackaby" school of seeking God's will is about "finding the dot." That is just as subjective as these soteriological positions' practices. The Bible doesn't teach us to "Find the Dot" it teaches us to concentrate on character and use our wisdom. The Bible isn't about providing subjective assurances about God's will.

    Likewise, for unbelievers, it's not about providing assurances that Jesus died for you. The General Call is about telling people to repent and believe, not "Jesus died for you." The Holy Spirit by His effectual call and the working of assurance after conversion does that. - But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about how we, as preachers, teachers, writers, etc. frame the call - and that's the General call. It's the Spirit's business to provide a sense that Jesus died for any particular person, not the preacher. If you do that, you're no better than the Hyper-Calvinist who tries to parse the elect from the non-elect in his own preaching or by teaching them that they have to peer into God's will to find out of they are elect. Maybe you're Presbyterian and don't have that sort of history in your background, but we Baptists certainly do. In the 18th century, there were Baptist preacher running around doing that, and there are today in some Primitive Baptist circles too.

    After all, the gospel call and offer is predicated upon God's promise of salvation: that Christ died for me

    This confuses the command with assurance that Christ died for you in particular. God says He will forgive all sinners who repent, not because they believe Christ died for them, but because they turn to Christ alone and cast themselves on God's mercy. You never, not one time, find a sermon that frames the Gospel call that way. God's promise of salvation is that Christ has died for His people and is now commanding all men everywhere to repent. His promise is not that Christ died for any particular person,but that He will receive all who come to Him. One knows that "Christ died for me" by doing what God has said to do.

    Take Peter's sermon. Peter told the crowd this, in essence: You murdered your King, who is now risen from the dead and is both Lord and Christ. Peter invoked images of covenant curses. He never made an appeal to the scope of the atonement or an assurance Christ died for them. His appeal made reference not to the number for whom Christ died or the sufficiency of the atonement, but to Christ's Right of Judgment upon them for what they had done to Him. When they asked, "What shall we do?" He simply said, "Repent and be baptized." Not one time do we find the Bible framing the promise in terms of "Believe Christ died for you in particular."

    Only if we affirm this are we actually presenting an offer which can be (i) believed by anyone at all and (ii) taken hold of with assurance by the elect. It isn't a matter of what rights or responsibilities man has to obey the command or accept the offer; it's about there being actual epistemic justification for faith in the first place (ie, there is an ontological reality which grounds the promise which grounds the command and offer which grounds our faith); and for assurance in the second place.

    The epistemic justification is found not in the scope of the atonement or its sufficiency but in the faithfulness of God to His promise to save any and all who come. Will God do this? Yes. He says so. The sacrifices rest on the covenant,and the covenant rests on God's faithfulness to it. Likewise the offer/command to repent rests on God's faithfulness. The scope of the atonement is irrelevant to the sincerity of the offer, and therefore to the epistemic justification for personal faith.

    It is sufficient warrant that man is commanded both to repent and believe - period. The command, not facts about the scope or sufficiency of the atonement, election, or ability/inability compels the call.

    What underwrites the command? The sacrifice? Is that what Scripture teaches? Is the Law underwritten by a sacrifice? Are God's covenants resting upon sacrifice? Or does the sacrifice rest on the covenant? Reformed theology, as matter of history, teaches the latter, not the former.

    And as to the "infinite sufficiency" of the atonement itself, there are many kinds of infinities. Which one does anybody have in mind? That's a rhetorical question to show that our understanding of "infinity" today isn't what it was in the days of Calvin or Dort anyway. So, we're really entering the realm of philosophical theology at that point. I agree with John L. Dagg, arguments for the standard infinite sufficiency view and the pecuniary view are both addressing matters Scripture does not clearly address. What Scripture does say is that Christ died for His people and that God is commanding everybody to repent. He will save anybody that does so. That's all we need to know, and it's enough to frame a Gospel call - period, for, when a man asks, "How can I know if Christ died for me?" We can say, "Repent and place your faith in Him and Him alone" and you can know this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for your reply Gene. I'd like to consider this further before I reply.

    Kind regards,
    Bnonn

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd ask you to consider that appealing to the atonement itself in an evangelistic call, as if Jesus died for everybody savingly is also an implicit appeal to election on either a Calvinist scheme or an Amyraldian scheme.

    Take the Infra position: The decree of election falls before the decree to atone.

    So, it's obvious that to use "Jesus died for you" as an evangelistic assurance is not really different than saying "You are elect." That's hyper-Calvinists who do that.

    On an Amyraldian scheme, it's still that appeal, but it's a more subtle appeal. In Amyraldianism, the decree of election falls after the decree to atone - but in real Amyraldianism, you have a covenant hypotheticum. The atonement satisfies those requirements,then the decree to elect leads to the application of those benefits.

    But this isn't what you would be discussing if you used this as an evangelistic assurance. You are telling them that Jesus actually, not hypothetically, died for them, and that is also an implicit appeal to their election.

    And any appeal to the decree of election and/or atonement is an attempt to divine the mind of God and that's highly subjective. To know that you are elect, you need a personal revelation from God - violating Sola Scriptura, and that's necessarily subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gene, again, thanks for your comments. I've spent a lot of time pondering this issue over the past day or so, and I have a few more thoughts I'd like to share; I hope you don't mind.

    In your original post, you frame the question of what constitutes warrant to believe as "What impels the Gospel call?" I presume by this you mean that whatever impels the gospel call is what warrants our believing and submitting to it; that is, whatever impels the gospel call is what grounds it and drives it as an authoritative and genuine call to all people. I agree with this. You couch this call as God saying in effect, "Trust me; trust my command, trust my promise to save you." So the issue to my mind is: what impels this; what is the warrant we have to trust the promise?

    Now, you say that the call is impelled by God's command. That is, the warrant we have is the command itself. Fair enough; we need no more reason to trust God. But the difficulty arises when we (i) consider that the gospel call is not just a command, but also an invitation; and (ii) compare the call to a limited view of redemption.

    In the case of (i), it does not seem to my mind to be an evasion or an excuse to ask whether God's intent toward me is consistent with his invitation to me. If his command and invitation is "trust my promise to save you", but I suspect that his intent toward me is not to save me at all, but rather to damn me to hell using the gospel call as a means of exacerbating my guilt, then I may justly be concerned. I don't need to be looking for excuses to disbelieve in order to find this problematic. It is not unreasonable to evaluate the gospel call for genuineness and consistency. It doesn't take much to realize that a God who does not desire all people to be saved cannot then sincerely invite all people to be saved. This is simply a matter of definition; nothing more. It would contradict the meaning of the word "invite" to say that he doesn't desire the invitation to be accepted.

    As regards (ii), the call to trust the promise seems to imply that the promise is actually made to me. Put another way, a universal call to obey a promise seems to imply a universal applicability of that promise (not necessarily a universal application though). But if the promise of salvation is only made to the elect, how can God call the reprobate to trust it? What are they being called to trust? If Christ died for the elect exclusively, then there is no sense in which the promise of salvation can be extended to the non-elect (whether as a command or as an invitation). In this sense, the ontological reality of the sacrifice does seem to ground the promise—inasmuch as it dictates the extent to which that promise can be applied. God cannot promise to save someone for whom Christ did not die. He cannot say to the reprobate "believe and you will be saved"—that is simply a lie. He can only say that to the elect. The moral inability of the reprobate sinner to respond to the call seems irrelevant because the ontological reality which would save him does not exist. There is nothing for him to trust. How can he be condemned for failing to take hold of an atonement which was not actually ever made for him? And how can he be called impertinent for pointing out that it is manifestly dishonest for God to call everyone to believe a promise which is actually made only to the elect?

    I agree with you that the command to repent and believe is sufficient warrant to do so; and the promise of God is sufficient warrant to trust him. I don't think any Calvinist would disagree with this. But some Calvinists, such as myself (a supra baptist with a very high view of God's sovereignty), believe that limited redemption is inconsistent with God's trustworthiness and the moral perfection of his commands. That is:

    1. God's commands and promises are trustworthy and constitute sufficient warrant for belief.
    2. Limited redemption is true.
    3. But limited redemption makes God's commands questionable and his genuine invitation impossible.
    4. Therefore, either (1) or (2) is false.

    We prefer to believe that (2) is false. I'm not saying you must agree, and I am certainly open to your arguments; but so far I cannot see how limited atonement does not at least obviate the possibility of a genuine invitation to faith and therefore impugn upon God's character in a number of ways. That is why we raise the atonement in the context of this discussion. I hope you can see where we're coming from.

    Regards,
    Bnonn

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bnonn,

    In your chain, (3) seems to be the weak link. It's weak for at least the following reasons:

    a) "Questionable" is so vague as to be totally subjective. The fool says in his heart that there is no God, yet the "questionable" (in that sense) nature of God's existence is not a valid objection to it.

    b) Given God's omniscience (which we presume you'd grant), a universal conditional invitation is no less genuine because Christ has not offered himself on behalf of those that God knows will never believe.

    c) Given the absolute necessity of regeneration (which our Amyraldian friends must grant - and perhaps you [though not an Amyraldian] might grant as well), a universal conditional invitation is no less genuine because Christ has not offered himself for those that the Spirit has no plans to regenerate.

    d) Thus, "limited atonement" renders a universal conditional offer no less genuine than infallible divine precognizance or the necessity of unconditional irresistible grace.

    e) Furthermore that the call needs to be "genuine" (or that command needs to be "unquestionable") in some sense that would conflict with any of limited atonement, omniscience, or irresistible unconditional grace is not supported by Scripture.

    f) Thus, we should reject (3) as essentially irrelevant, while maintaining both (1) and (2).

    Gene,

    You make an excellent point about the problem of using "Jesus died for you" in evangelism.

    For Calvinists, its equivalent to the presumption of saying "you are elect."

    For Arminians, its simply an emotional appeal, to which the unregenerate answer is "Poor chap. I wish he'd asked me if I was interested first."

    Frankly, I think the same is the case for others who - when they say to an unbeliever "Christ died for" - simply mean that in an ineffectual, Arminian (or Arminian-eque) sense. If the unregenerate person responded to them, "Why did he do that?" The person lying on the imbalanced ground between the Calvinist and the Arminian cannot reasonably respond, "So that you would have eternal life," unless he wants to engage in the same presumption of election discussed above.

    Let's be clear about one further thing: a textbook Amyraldian (see chart here also has to answer the question "Why did Christ do that," with an answer that sounds just like the Arminian answer and just like the answer above, because the Amyraldian cannot presume that the person is elect.

    So, it seems that the appeal is simply an emotional appeal in each of the cases above.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi TF. I don't want to turn this into an extended debate (there's been enough of that going around), so I'll just briefly comment on your points.

    (a) I think I gave good reasoning to support my thesis; my argument isn't "this doesn't sit right with me", but rather "there is a logical inconsistency in all people being commanded to believe a promise which is not applicable to all people."

    (b) I'm afraid you'll need to explain this. I don't see how God's omniscience makes any difference to whether his invitation is, by definition, an invitation or not.

    (c) This equivocates between moral and natural ability. I agree with the traditional Reformed position that moral inability does not obviate moral responsibility—but my argument above was not regarding moral ability. It was that without an ontological reality to which the promise and invitation and command refer, there is no natural ability to trust the promise, receive the invitation, or obey the command.

    (d) Not so; see above.

    (e) I'm not sure what you mean; are you saying that Scripture does not claim that God's universal offer of salvation is genuine? That Scripture in fact teaches his invitation to everyone to "come, drink" is insincere? Surely not?

    Gene, You make an excellent point about the problem of using "Jesus died for you" in evangelism.

    I think he does as well; so bear in mind that I am not defending "Jesus died for you" evangelism per se. I am rather taking the position that if Jesus did not die for the whole world, that is, all men, then evangelism is undermined even though we do not preach the gospel in this way. If Jesus did not die for everyone, then the command and invitation which we are tasked to present has no basis for the unregenerate. This is a problem of internal theology, not necessarily of practical witnessing.

    Regards,
    Bnonn

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bnonn,

    No extended debate needed.

    a) Saying that the promise is "not applicable to all" is a bit ambiguous. The promise is a conditional promise. It is only a promise to those who believe. Don't you agree?

    b) I agree that omniscience doesn't change the invitation to a non-invitation. However, your original claim was not that limited atonement changed the invitation into a non-invitation, at least I think it wasn't. I was drawing a parallel.

    c) Maybe I missed something, but I don't see how you established (or could have established) that Limited Atonement requires a denial of man's "natural ability to trust the promise, receive the invitation, or obey the command," in the sense in which "natural" ability is distinguished from "moral" ability as explained by, for example, Edwards.

    d) per the above - this too is restored.

    e) My point here was not to deny or affirm anything, just to indicate that the terms have not been defined Scripturally. That is to say, I have a feeling (based on discussions with people other than yourself, who may have different ideas from you) that you may have loaded the terms "genunine" and "sincere" with senses that produce the result you are talking about. In contrast, however, I'd probably explain those terms differently, and obtain a different result.

    I've heard people go so far (and perhaps you have heard them too, and disagreed with them) as to claim that if man does not have both natural AND moral ability to obey the command, then the gospel offer is not genuine or sincere.

    But when you ask them to explain how they get their definitions for genuine or sincere, their response tends to be to assert the definition they want quite dogmatically, but without recourse to Scripture.

    It's a bit inflammatory to say that the gospel offer is not "sincere" or not "genuine," but if someone means by "sincere" and "genuine" something quite specific about God's intent/wishes/desires, it only seems fair to ask them to back up such a definition.

    I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that you think calling the promise "genuine" or the offer "sincere" implies something about God's intent/wishes/desires with respect to the offer/promise, and that it is such an intent/wish/desire that is actually what is in conflict with "limited atonement" (and possibly with omniscience and irresistible uncondtional grace as well).

    By the way, if you'd prefer to take this off-line, my email is accessible through my blogger profile.

    -Turretinfan

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey TF.

    a) Saying that the promise is "not applicable to all" is a bit ambiguous. The promise is a conditional promise. It is only a promise to those who believe. Don't you agree?

    This is really the issue, as I see it. To say that the promise is conditional upon belief is not the same as saying that the promise is only made to the elect. For the gospel to be offered to everyone, the promise must be applicable to everyone (that is, it must be able to be applied; it must refer to an actual ontological reality).

    Which brings us to your question about what constitutes a genuine offer. Well, Hoeksema identified four major elements, with which I agree: (i) an honest and sincere desire on the part of the offerer to give something; (ii) that the offerer possesses that which he extends to some person(s); (iii) the desire that it be accepted; (iv) the one who offers something does so either unconditionally, or upon the condition that he is aware that the recipients of the offer are able to fulfill the condition. If any of these elements is eliminated from the concept, the idea of offer is no longer retained. (cf The Well-Meant Gospel Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K Schilder, A C de Jong; Franeker: T. Wever, 1954); p 43)

    This is a simple lexical issue: if the gospel is offered to all men, these four elements are entailed by merit of what an offer is. So:

    1. If any of these elements are denied, the gospel cannot be offered to all men.
    2. Limited expiation denies (ii) explicitly, and (i) and (iii) by implication.
    3. Therefore, the gospel is not offered to all men.
    4. But the gospel is offered to all men (Is 55:1; Ez 18:23,31-32; 33:11).
    5. Therefore, limited expiation must be false.

    Regards,
    Bnonn

    ReplyDelete
  10. "4. But the gospel is offered to all men (Is 55:1; Ez 18:23,31-32; 33:11)."

    These passages were not addressed to "all men." They were addressed to Israel. Israel stood over against the nations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. dominic bnonn tennant said...

    “I do not believe that the Triablogue chaps can answer this question satisfactorily, because their view of limited expiation entails a limited promise of salvation to a limited group of people, with no possibility of objective assurance on the part of any particular individual that he is a member of that group.__That said, there is a venerable Reformed view of the atonement which regards the expiation as unlimited, and thus applicable to everyone; though only applied to the elect. This provides a genuine ontological reality to which the general gospel call can refer, and in turn an objective basis for the assurance of salvation.”

    Dominic,

    Unless universal atonement entails universal salvation, how would universal atonement constitute an “objective” ground of assurance?

    If universal salvation is false, while universal atonement is true, then the net effect would be, not extend the objective grounds of assurance, but to remove the objective grounds for anyone whatsoever since the fact that Christ died for you is not causally connected to your salvation. On this view, Christ also died for the damned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bnonn thinks the elect cannot lose their salvation.

    There are warnings given to all the congregation in Scripture, cf. Hebrews.

    It is not possible for the elect to lose their salvation.

    Therefore, the general principle behind Bnonn's argument must be false.

    He may say, as one possible answer, the warnings are means for the elect to persevere.

    Then the general call is a means to damn the non-elect.

    That's a rough sketch.

    ReplyDelete