Friday, January 02, 2009

Arminianism Unveiled

In response to my "all means all, except when it doesn't" post, the Arminians have been forced to lay their cards on the table.

Before it was so easy to say, "It's obvious unlimited atonement is true because it says Jesus died for all." Now, not so easy. Now, they are forced to admit that they plop the Bible on their Procustean bed and either stretch it in places or lop it off at the legs in places, depending on what makes it fit their predetermined (!) notions of what God must be like.

For example, we read this from Robert:


Logically there are only three possibilities regarding the “all verses” in the bible: (1) all never means all; (2) all always means all; or (3) all sometimes means all and sometimes does not mean all. We can easily dismiss possibility (1) as no one suggests that. We can also easily dismiss possibility (2) as we can all present verses where all does not mean all. That leaves only possibility (3) that sometimes all means all and sometimes all does not mean all in the bible verses. I believe careful consideration of the texts and contexts will show where all means all and where all does not mean all. The determinist will also grant that possibility (3) is the correct one. Their problem is that when they come to soteriological passages, where all in fact means all, because of their system and not proper interpretation of the biblical texts, they will argue that in those soteriological passages all does not mean all. So for the committed determinist it always comes down to allegiance to an erroneous system over proper interpretation of clear biblical texts. And if someone makes this move, there really is not much chance of dissuading them of their false interpretation. So due to their allegiance to the false deterministic system, they will then have to argue that in fact Jesus does not love all the children of the world. And that He does not want to save them all nor did He want to provide a provision of salvation for them all through the cross. And if they are candid about what they truly believe they have to claim that in fact Jesus planned from eternity to reprobate/damn most of the children of the world. If they wrote the song in accordance with their false theology it would be “Jesus hates most of the children of the world and he reprobated them before they were born for his ‘glory””.
Perhaps Robert can help out his pals like Victor Reppert who says things like:

"You see, every time I get into an exegetical argument about Calvinism I usually end up saying "All means all," and the Calvinist says "well, it means from all groups, not all persons." To people like us, Calvinists are saying "OK you signed onto following Jesus and you think He loves everybody. But read the fine print."

Oh, by the way, Robert lauded Reppert's defenses and understanding of Arminianism.

Anyway...so, my post demonstrated that Arminians can't appeal to the "But it says Jesus died for all" arguments anymore, Robert saw that, and tries to recover what's left for his fellow Arminians.

Now, notice that no "careful examination of the texts" is made. It is simply asserted that "all means all in the salvation texts, even though it may not elsewhere.

But, can an examination of the text demonstrate this? If so, let's see it.

Actually, what is really being said, as is clear above, is this:

"I have an allegiance to a specific system of what it means to say "God is love" and that must mean that Jesus would die for all men to give 'em a shot at heaven, because if he didn't, that would be unloving.

Now, can this view be exegeted from the text of Scripture? If so, let's see it.

I don't think so, though. Why not? Well, actually, the above a priori tradition is actually based on another a priori tradition that cannot be exegeted from Scripture. It looks like this:

"Well [say that pushing a lot of air out of your mouth and with a perplexed look on your face], it wouldn't be loving because, well, you know, God has to give everyone an equal shot and allow all to libertarianly choose him, 'cause that's real love. If a 'decision to accept Christ' is free, then God knows the sinner really loves God and wants to be in heaven."

Can this conception of libertarianism be exegeted from Scripture? No, it can't. Moreover, if the Arminian appeals to texts that say "God loves all" and they mean "God soterically loves all," why do they think that? It can't be because "all means all." That would be to massively beg the question. No, it's because this is an assumption they have.

So, the Arminian who takes the bait in my "all doesn't always mean all" post is forced to claim that context can determine the extent of "all" passages.

He must then (a) demonstrate that the context of soteric passages means all, but he does this by (b) resorting to raw emotion (we can't be robots, if you love something set it free, if it comes back it was meant to be, whoopee!) and extra biblical philosophical assumptions unable to be proved from Scripture.

Now, the Arminian may think that these assumptions brought to the text are true. That's fine. It's a free country. But, they should stop pretending that they have exegeted things like unlimited atonement from Scripture. They should do the honest thing and admit that they have certain philosophical assumptions, and so, with Wesley, they say, "I don't know what the text means, but I know it can mean that [where "that" means "Calvinism"].

As for me, I'm actually glad God determined that I would love him. Left to my own devices, I'd actually love my sin more than Him.

A world where God and fallen man have libertarian freedom, and man is totally depraved, is a world where God and fallen man are never reconciled. And if, per impossible, they could be reconciled, that world provides no guarantee that they will remain reconciled.

Just like Islam provides no eternal assurance, so does a world with libertarian free will for God and man. Funny how libertarianism ends at the same place as the hard-core conjunction of determinism and voluntarism presented in Islam.

35 comments:

  1. Hi Paul,

    For an exegetical argument based on 1 John 2:2 and a study of the word "world" please see here and here.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,

    The second wasn't "exegesis" or an "argument," so I'll leave that alone.

    Your other one needs tons of work.

    For example, your argument for UL is unsound:

    P1: Christ died for the whole world
    P2: The whole world in 1 John 2:2 means everyone
    C1: therefore, Christ died for everyone

    It needs to be cleaned up. Jesus didn't die for himself.

    Here's another argument you have:

    P1: Judas was among those for whom Christ gave his body
    P2: Judas was ultimately lost
    C1: Therefore, Christ gave His body for those who were ultimately lost.

    This is fallacious on numerous levels. The form is:

    All M are P
    All M are S
    Therefore, all P are S

    Here's a quick counter-example:

    P1*: All dogs are four-leged animals

    P2*: All dogs are mans' best friend.

    P3*: All four-leged animals are mans' best friend.

    Your only argument, as far as I can tell, from John 2 that world means every single person, assumes that "our" means "all the elect." This point alone is sufficient to undercut your entire rejoinder to the Calvinist reading.

    You also must eisogete "potential" into your reading otherwise we have universalism.

    The rest of chapter 2 goes on to show that John doesn't mean by 'world' "every single person" because he says "don't love the world" right after he says Christ propitiated for it.

    So, every single reason you postulate for "whole world must mean whole world" is either not exgetically demonstrated (resting on eisogeted concepts), or totally unpersuasive because it refutes straw men.

    Your argument for whole world seems to be this:

    [1] World can either be physical world, that opposed to Christ, or all people in the world.

    [2] Jesus didn't die for the physical world.

    [3] He died for "our" sins, but not "ours" only.

    [4] "Our" means all the elect.

    [5] Jesus died for others besides the elect.

    [6] Invoking those opposed to Christ is irrelevant because sinners that are not "our" (the elect) are by definition not-elect.

    [7] So, if Jesus died for them, he died for non-elect and the calvinist doesn't get anywhere.

    [8] Therefore the world Jesus died for must mean all people in it.

    Not only will rejecting [4] defeat your argument, rejecting your understanding of 'world' in John 2 based on the universalist reductio, the eisogeted "potentialist" solution, and his other uses of the word in the same chapter, are sufficient to dismiss your argument totally.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had a Catholic friend who accepted, as a Catholic, the sinlessness of Mary. Romans 3:23 didn't faze him, since obviously you have to make an exception for Christ, therefore, it has to be possible to make an exception for Mary.

    Do you think you can refute the Catholic Marian doctrines by appealing to Romans 3:23?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Concerning the verse in Isaiah, how should we take Calvin's possibilities?

    "I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that "many" sometimes denotes "all.""

    Or how about in Romans 5:18:

    "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."


    I think its a false dichotomy to say that all means all always, OR, all means some/many always.

    Why does the Calvinist choose the "all" mean some in the high priestly prayer?

    Paul, you cant decide to be keen on intentionality when it comes to the Arminian, and then blind to your own standards of hermeneutics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. correction: Why DOESNT the Calvinist choose 'world' to mean some when it comes to the high priestly prayer?

    i think you said it best, procrustean bed indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Victor,

    I've never really understood why the Roman Catholic makes an exception for Mary in Romans 3:23 as if she parallels Jesus in this passage. First, by definition we don't "make" an exception for Jesus, by definition He is the exception.

    Even if we just read v. 23 with no context whatsoever Jesus is ruled out. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

    Jesus being God cannot fall short of His own glory. Even in restricting the view here to only the Father we'd have Jesus falling short of His Father's glory which also isn't possible.

    Then, given just a little broader context of v. 23 where the beginning of this sentence actually starts with- For there is no distinction- we can get a clearer definition of just "who" "all" is.

    That's my simple look at this RC claim.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  7. now wait just a minute here -

    P1: Christ died for the whole world
    P2: The whole world in 1 John 2:2 means everyone
    C1: Therefore, Christ died for everyone

    The reason you have for rejecting this argument is just that Jesus didn't die for himself? Can't you come up with a better argument that that? Need I even say that when Scripture is talking about Jesus dying for the world throughout the entire New Testament, never is Christ considered to logically be part of "the world"? Elementary. You dissapoint me, man. Just saying that the phrase "the world means everyone" has to include Jesus too is ignoring the point of the whole argument. Do I really have to change the argument to get you to take a different approach?

    P1: Christ died for the whole world
    P2: The whole world in 1 John 2:2 means every human sinner
    C1: Therefore, Christ died for every human sinner

    Still sounds Biblical to me. Also the fallacy in the second argument is easily corrected if you change one thing -

    P1: Judas was among those for whom Christ died for
    P2: Judas was ultimately lost
    C1: Therefore, Christ died for one man who was ultimately lost

    The parts don't necessary equal the whole fallacy has nothing to do with this particular argument.

    I'm almost finished with my article on Limited Atonement (there is a ton of Scripture used by both sides). (And by the way, the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement is not necessarily Arminianism. I'm not an Arminian but I still cannot accept the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.) When it's finished, I'll post a link to it here.

    But looking just at 1 John 2:2 (just one out of many different verses) -

    "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

    you said - The rest of chapter 2 goes on to show that John doesn't mean by 'world' "every single person" because he says "don't love the world" right after he says Christ propitiated for it.

    How does that work again? I don't understand what you're getting at here. I mean obviously you'd agree that "world" is used in different ways. 2:2 is talking about Christ's death on the cross as a "propitiation." 2:15 says "Do not love the world or the things in the world." Does John mean people by this? Or isn't he referring to the world system that is under sin, the "things in the world" referring to sin?

    ESV Study Bible notes say - Do not love the world should not be read as an utter rejection of the world, for "God ... loved the world" (John 3:16). Rather, John warns against devotion to a world system that is opposed to God (cf. John 12:31; James 4:4, I John 5:19). Love of the Father probably carries a double meaning, referring both to the love God has for his people and the love they have for him. The former generates the latter (4:7, 9-10).

    While in contrast, the notes for 2:2 say - Propitiation (Gk. hilasmos) here means "a sacrifice that bears God's wrath and turns it to favor," and that is also the meaning of the English word "propitiation." As the perfect sacrifice for sin, Jesus turns away God's wrath (see also 1 John 4:10). For the sins of the whole world does not mean that every person will be saved, for John is clear that forgiveness of sins comes only to those who repent and believe the gospel (see 2:4, 23; 3:10; 5:12; cf. John 3:18; 5:24). But Jesus' sacrifice is offered and made available to everyone in "the whole world," not just to John and his current readers."

    Besides, I would say the "love your neighbor", "love your enemies" principle says that we are to love every person out in the world. We just aren't to love the sinful world "system."

    So aren't there very rational grounds for believing that John is using the words "world" differently in these two verses? The other ground for thinking so is that he is contrasting it with "not for ours only."

    There's no reason to just blindly assume that "our" means "the elect." There's actually reasonable grounds for believing it. Who is John writing to? John's probably writing this letter while he's in Ephesus. If not, he's at least nearby. And his letter is clearly to Christians (most likely to the churches in the surrounding region - Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea - all churches full of Gentiles - look up any Bible commentary). "Our" is not a Jew versus Greek distinction here. So doesn't "our" refer to the Christians John is writing to?

    So I honestly don't know what you mean by resting this interpretation on "straw men." It seems that, on it's face, the most obvious meaning of the test is -

    "He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our [Christians, elect, etc.] sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world [including those who are lost]."

    Your strongest argument for rejecting this interpretation seems to be saying that "our" means something other than "Christians/the elect." Doesn't your interpretation rest more on Reformed theological assumptions rather than the other way around? Isn't Jesus' sacrifice, and thus the gospel, being offered, and made available, to everyone in the world?

    Forget Arminianism for a moment. Personally, I think Arminians get a number of doctrines wrong. Just looking at this verse in particular, it looks like you have to have Calvinist assumptions first in order to interpret it differently than it's most obvious meaning.

    I will go over the whole list of Scripture saying basically (a) the same thing, particularly in contrast to the fact that all/everyone is born under sin (II Corinthians 5:14-15 is another example), and (b) affirming the attribute of God's omnibenevolence, being all-loving in my next article.

    I hope you don't take this personally, but respect you guys and your writing, and I've come to expect better arguments than the shots you were taking at Godismyjudge. The idea of world meaning everyone is not just a Arminian fallacy, it's a position taken by a large number of Biblical scholars and even some Calvinists too (Thomas Aquinas, W.G.T. Shedd, Lewis Sperry Chafer, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Fred Howe, Norman Geisler, Adam H. Clarke some of the ESV Study Bible guys for starters).

    ReplyDelete
  8. It needs to be cleaned up. Jesus didn't die for himself.

    Jesus was (John 1:9) "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." In the inerrant word of God, every means every. So think of his work, the atonement, as the sun which God "causes to rise on the evil and on the good" or the rain, which God sends "on the just and on the unjust."

    The rest of chapter 2 goes on to show that John doesn't mean by 'world' "every single person" because he says "don't love the world" right after he says Christ propitiated for it.

    The scripture says Christ died for sins. And it says all have sinned. So Christ died for all. 1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Paul,

    Regarding Judas, I think your response misses the point I am making. In the intro to that section (Christ died for those who ultimately perish) I stated:

    There are several passages of the word of God that teach that Christ died for those that ultimately perish. These passages don't teach that Christ died for all, because they only talk about specific groups or even one individual. Never-the-less, these are powerful arguments that Christ died for all, because they disprove substantially every Calvinist argument for limited atonement.

    In short, it’s a takeout argument aimed at the logic of definitive atonement, by way of counter-example.

    It seems you have three problems with my explanation of 1 John 2:2: 1) my understand “our” as true believers, 2) my “potentialist” solution (your term – my phrase was “forgiveness is conditional”) and 3) my definition of the word world.

    I note you provide no alternative definitions for “our” and “world”. It’s important that you do so, especially with regard to the word “world”, because of my “process of elimination” argument. It may look like I am taking out straw-men, but what I am doing is closing escape hatches. I am arguing that the definition of the word “world” used by Calvinists is a special pleading, used no were else in scripture, and existing only to get the Calvinist off the hook. For more, please see the word study.

    As for “our”, please note, I didn’t say “elect”, I said true believers. Also you didn’t address my reasons why I think it’s true believers:

    Not for Our Sins Only

    The "our" in the phrase "not for our sins only" is a reference to true believers. Throughout the book John is careful not to include pretenders within “us”. In chapter 2 verse 3 & 4, he says "we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith, I know Him and keepeth not His commandments is a liar..." Notice how John contrasts "we" with he that says. This same care to distinguish between us (true believers) and others (even pretenders) in verse 19:

    1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

    The "our" then, is clearly only true believers.


    As for forgiveness being conditional (your term “potentialist”), again I demonstrated this based on the lead in context. You dismiss it, without 1) providing an alternative or 2) addressing my reasons why I see forgiveness as conditional.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Btw, Paul, I must warn you! Someone has hacked your login and is providing arguments in your name that I know you would never say. For example, they argued:

    Jesus didn't die for himself.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  11. Victor,

    If I made a formal argument, I would try to make it correct. As a logician yourself, surely you note this. One way to go about rejecting the Marian dogmas is that it is simply tradition, undercut the argument from tradition, there no epistemic warrant to believe Marian dogmas.

    G,

    I have no clue what you mean telling me about what I'm keen on and about being consistent as you never quoted anything I said. I don't say that all means all always, or that all means some always.

    Persiflage,

    My first point was a logical one. I only said the argument needed to be cleaned up. Couldn't "all mere humans" be used? I don't need to come up with better arguments since a mere syllogism means nothing. I gave reasons for supposing Scripture underwrote his syllogism.

    Secondly, I didn't accuse Dan of the parts and whole fallacy, though I could have. Your "fixed" argument is still fallacious. It has the same form and that form leads to unreliable inferences. See my counter-example for proof. Here's another:

    All dogs are mammals
    All dogs are canine.
    All mammals are canine.

    I also didn't take "shots" at Dan.

    As far as my comment that "our" doesn't mean "all the elect," questions do not a counter argument make. Acting astonished that I said that is not a comeback.

    Quoting ESV study notes doesn't an argument make.

    Dan,

    On a logical point, I am correct. I gave you better terminology above. Sorry to hear you think I wouldn't make logically correct points. :-)

    "Regarding Judas, I think your response misses the point I am making."

    The argument was fallacious. Bottom line.

    Lastly, I gave some short responses in a combox and didn't intend to offer a detailed rebuttal. I gave quick reasons why I dismissed what I read. Those points for me still stand and haven't been refuted. I know you're just shocked and amazed that "our" might not be "all true believers whoever", but foot stamping doesn't an argument make.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Botton line:

    Re 1 Jn 2:2

    i) I do not think "our" means "all the elect" or "all true believers."

    ii) I think you can avoid universalist inferences by including the notion of a *potential* propitiation, but I don't buy arguments for potential propitiation or atonement.

    iii) I don't think "world" means "all mere humans whoever" because (a) that would contradict other passages and (b) John seems to use world qualitatively throughout the letter and in other places, as carson says: bigness as opposed to badness.

    There needs to be a lot of work then to make the argument from 1 Jn 2:2 work. Simply rehashing the old debates between Arminianism and Calvinism (i.e., potential/actual, etc) isn't a good argument. But perhaps Dan is under the illusion that he done what no others have done. Dan settled everything.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let's also note what John wrote elsehwere, which seem to bolster the "our" is not "all true believers whoever."

    John 11:51-52: "He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Michelle,

    "The scripture says Christ died for sins. And it says all have sinned. So Christ died for all. 1 Peter 3:18 - For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God."

    Wow, I guess I just don't how to respond to this. The illogic is impeccable. The universalist implication in the last sentence is just...awesome. Not universalist? Oh, then failure Jesus. He died for ALL people to bring them to God. Not all God. He failed in his intent. In his mission. Maybe the Messiah should have been "Ahnold". Perhaps Flash Gordon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Quotes & Arguments from Paul Manata -

    Jesus didn't die for himself ...

    The rest of chapter 2 goes on to show that John doesn't mean by 'world' "every single person" because he says "don't love the world" right after he says Christ propitiated for it ...

    I don't need to come up with better arguments since a mere syllogism means nothing ...

    ... questions do not a counter argument make ...

    Quoting ESV study notes doesn't an argument make ...

    On a logical point, I am correct ...

    I gave you better terminology above ...

    Lastly, I gave some short responses in a combox and didn't intend to offer a detailed rebuttal. I gave quick reasons why I dismissed what I read. Those points for me still stand and haven't been refuted ...

    Simply rehashing the old debates between Arminianism and Calvinism (i.e., potential/actual, etc) isn't a good argument ...


    Well, humble apologies for (1)quoting some other scholars in order to make a point instead of actually making an argument, and for (2) just asking questions instead of making arguments.

    If you're not interested in fully engaging the comments about your post, just say so. Of course you're entitled to just write short, quick responses dismissing what we say.

    I had some other questions, but since you're not interested in answering them since they're not arguments, I'll stop.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Persiflage,

    You do what you want. But taunting won't get you anywhere with me. If you got something, post it. If I deem it worthy to spend my time on, you might get a response. Or, I might get to the point and point out where the argument is totaly unpersuasive, as I did with Dan's arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Persiflage said, "ESV Study Bible notes say..."

    Persiflage,

    Those notes were written by Robert Yarbrough. In his commentary on 1-3 John (p.80), he makes it clear that the term "world" means all men without distinction, not all men without exception.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can you exclude any individual when viewing "world" "without distinction"?

    All individuals would still be included. We need to suppress the next steps of logic so that you can say "all men", without reaching the more desired Calvinistic ending of "some men".

    ReplyDelete
  19. S&S,

    That's correct.

    G,

    Yes, you can. Btw, feel free to drop an argument off next time you stop by.

    ReplyDelete
  20. G said, "All individuals would still be included. We need to suppress the next steps of logic so that you can say "all men", without reaching the more desired Calvinistic ending of "some men"."

    Actually, it wouldn't. "All men without exception" would necessarily entail "all men without distinction" but not the other way around.

    The word, "world," as it is often used in the Gospel and Epistles of John, has reference to quality, not quantity.

    Sometimes it has reference to the evil nature of human society. John 3:16 does not mean that God had so much love that He loved every single last human being, but rather, it means that God had so much love that He loved humans in spite of their sinfulness.

    Sometimes (as in 1 John 2:2), it has reference to all people groups (a universal of qualities), i.e. both Jews and Gentiles, and is used to oppose the 1st century Jewish idea that God would only bless the Jews, Gentiles were sub-humans, and other assorted racist ideas.

    Thus, God chooses men out of *every* (universal) tribe, tongue, people, and nation, but *not* *everyone* in every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

    It is all men without distinction (i.e. *some* from *every* people group), not all men without exception (i.e. *everyone* from every people group).

    ReplyDelete
  21. oh okay, ill be sure to do it next time...

    im glad its up there to be read by any calvinist that stops by.

    ReplyDelete
  22. S&S you wrote:

    "Actually, it wouldn't. "All men without exception" would necessarily entail "all men without distinction" but not the other way around."

    You would have to add the wording "some of all men without distinction". Or else the Arminian has no problem with this wording when taken literally. Of course Arminian commentators have problem with this because they know what the Calvinist REALLY is trying to argue. But leaving the words "some of" makes the definition seem less contrived.

    So the mind of the person arguing for things like "all kinds" or "all types" of men, would NOT be having any force against the one who is arguing "all men". However, to keep the Calvinist vagueness, the mind of the person arguing it purposefully stops thinking about the scope and instead focuses it on breaking down limitations of "types". The Arminian fully agrees with breaking down the limitations of types, which is why we believe "all men".

    ReplyDelete
  23. G,

    Your premise is:

    If you say "all men without distinction" this necessarily means ALL men.

    Can you prove that conditional please?

    How do you understand passages like this:

    1 Kings 10:24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "You would have to add the wording "some of all men without distinction"."

    Eh?

    I have no clue what you're saying.

    "All" as it is used in many of the Pauline texts makes reference to all people groups, not everyone in every people group.

    So again, you're assuming that "all" or "world" means every single last human being when in fact it does not.

    It has reference (in 1 John 2:2) to people groups, a quality not a quantity.

    All people groups but not necessarily all men in all people groups.

    I don't think that I could be clearer.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If Christ died for...

    1 German
    1 Frenchman
    1 American
    1 African
    1 Mexican
    etc.
    etc.
    ...
    1 from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation...

    then *all people groups* are represented and He would have died for "the world" and "all men" in the sense John and Paul mean it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Paul,

    Could you show me where I said that conditional? I'm not sure why I should defend things that I dont say. And I thought you said that I didn't leave an argument last time? =)

    S&S:

    On what basis do you choose 1 John 2:2 to be an emphasis on all the different types rather than on "men" as a whole? In other words, why not I create my own category and fill in "all time periods of men" rather than "types"? To show both you and Paul my point about the ambiguity that you open yourselves up to by choosing "without distinction" but insisting that its not "without exception" (on what basis might I add? A word study of John and Paul is ridiculous as it will give you a number of different usages S&S so I'm not sure how you think you're fooling anyone), you can see Calvin using "without distinction" but in fact, also, "without exception" in his later writings concerning 1 John 2:2:

    "Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception He summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

    Could you in a sense exegete this for me?

    ReplyDelete
  27. G,

    Like S&S, then, I have no clue what you're saying. Please make your initial objection to me more clear, cause it is unintelligible as it stands. I want to gove you this opportunity since maybe you're from another country and are having trouble communication in english.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ahh okay i guess i'm "from another country".

    in any case, glad i could get the last word, too bad you cant reply to my last statement since its unintelligible. hope everyone who stops by reads it.

    G

    ReplyDelete
  29. John uses the term "world" in different ways. So, saying that the Calvinist is engaging in special pleading when he makes it have more than one meaning in the Johannine corpus is something that will backfire on the Arminian.

    In John 1, it says that "the world did not know [Christ]." Does that mean that "[every single last human being] did not know [Christ]"? No. Instead, it refers to evil human society that had suppressed the knowledge of God.

    The main basis for seeing 1 John 2:2 in the Calvinist way is the parallel passage in John 11 where the wording is almost the exact same. There it has the meaning of all nationalities.

    As to Calvin, you're taking him out of context. There are several passages in Calvin's works where he states that Christ did not die for all men without exception. See Turretinfan's blog and search his archives.

    ReplyDelete
  30. G,

    I think I followed your argument and found it very intelligible. It seems to me that you are saying that when the Calvinist says, "all men without distinction" that fits well with "all men without exception" so the Calvinist really must qualify "all" even further and make "all" into "some" and that is where things start to sound ridiculous, especially when the context does not warrent such a limitation or restriction.

    So "all men" is qualified as "all ment without distinction" and then further qualified as "some men among all men without distinction" or "relatively few elect men among all men without distinction", etc. Is that correct?

    You then point out that Calvinists tend to just press the "all men without distinction" without adding the further qualifiers even though those qualifiers are necessary to preserve their argument. And why is that? Perhaps because when those further qualifiers are added it becomes easy to see just how eisegetical the C interpr really is (but that is just a guess on my part as I am not a mind reader). How did I do?

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ben, that is just great! Remind me to declare you as an honorary Korean and a Ph.D in cryptography, since thats obviously what you needed to do. =)

    P.S. good work on your blog.

    G

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well, of course you understood G, but G did not understand me since he keeps overlaying his Arminian grid upon the words "world" and "all" and importing quantitative definitions rather than understanding them to have qualitative definitions.

    In other words, if Christ died for...

    1 German
    1 Frenchman
    1 American
    1 African
    1 Mexican
    etc.
    etc.
    ...
    1 from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation...

    then *all people groups* are represented and He would have died for "the world" and "all men" in the sense John and Paul mean it, a first-century, Palestinian, culture-specific sense.

    Of course, if you keep anachronistically importing your 21st century, American, culture-specific definitions of "world" and "all", then of course you'll think that the Calvinist exegesis is absurd.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    ReplyDelete
  33. S&S: I'm sure all the NT scholars have their Arminian grids turned on and angrily tear out pages and pages of textbooks and journal articles concerning the Greek grammar and contextual usage of 'kosmos' huh? While only the Calvinistic scholars like to read huh?

    And I'm sure you would import the qualitative understanding of "world" when it comes to John 17 and the high priestly prayer right? Afterall, you aren't like those naive Arminians and would never refer me to the search function on an entire blog archive (that is not even your own) in order to answer rebuttals huh?

    Seriously, my point is, on what basis you do decide to take the qualitative understanding of "all men" rather than quantitative? To further the arbitrary special pleading when it comes to unlimited atonement-like verses, why not a different qualitative category such as time-periods of men? Hypothetically, let's say I'm completely wrong about this..it still begs the question "why are you right?" A word study will not help you.

    Another thing to look at is if I am taking Calvin out of context concerning his commentary on this verse, go through each instance of "whole world" or "all men" in his comments and tell me which ones are referring to a qualitative and quantitative meaning in describing the verse. That, I think, should raise some eyebrows in terms of its consistency if you want to say (all at the same time) 1: the verse should be taken qualitatively 2: it is NOT quantitative and 3: Calvin views are being misinterpreted out of context.

    P.S. S&S, not sure if you caught it but by saying "of course you understood G" to Ben, you are undercutting Paul Manata's previous comment =(

    G

    ReplyDelete
  34. then *all people groups* are represented and He would have died for "the world" and "all men" in the sense John and Paul mean it, a first-century, Palestinian, culture-specific sense.

    S&S, this has always seemed a strange way for the Calvinist to argue as it seems to undercut another favorite C argument for unconditional election. Many Calvinists point to unreached natives hidden in the jungle somehwere who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel as an indictment against the A belief that God desires all to be saved. They further see this as evidence for unconditional election since they can just say that such tribes are full of reprobates that God has not elected.

    But now enter your "all people groups" argument above. Are not these unreached tribesman a "people group"? Do they not represent a "type" or "race" or "tribe" (as in your reference to Rev.)?? I think if the Calvinist wants to force this line of reasoning then he is left to explain why these people are unreached in the same way Arminians might try to explain it, or drop the "all men without distinction" argument you are suggesting we adopt and maybe go with "some men" among "most" types, groups, tribes, races, etc., or something cute like that.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  35. Lastly, I gave some short responses in a combox and didn't intend to offer a detailed rebuttal. I gave quick reasons why I dismissed what I read.

    Paul,

    These comments are very interesting to me in light of what you said concerning Robert's comments in the combox at my site:

    Anyway...so, my post demonstrated that Arminians can't appeal to the "But it says Jesus died for all" arguments anymore, Robert saw that, and tries to recover what's left for his fellow Arminians.

    Now, notice that no "careful examination of the texts" is made. It is simply asserted that "all means all in the salvation texts, even though it may not elsewhere.


    Note especially the part in bold. Now don't you suppose that Robert should be able to respond to your comments just as you have responded to Dan's (above)? Maybe you should retract your comments about Robert not providing "careful examination of the texts" since he was obviously just,

    "[giving] some short responses in a combox and didn't intend to offer a detailed rebuttal. I gave quick reasons why I dismissed what I read."

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete