Over at Ponter’s blog, Bnonn is raising a different objection to special redemption.
I don’t think a conditional constitutes an offer. If all God were saying was “If you believe then you will be saved” then I don’t think LA would have a problem. But that’s not all God is saying at all, as you agree. Rather, God is saying, please be saved, be reconciled to me, accept the gift I have bought you with my blood. And that’s where LA careens off the rails in terms of sincerity, because that isn’t a conditional statement. God is proffering salvation—the LA conditional just describes how to take it. It doesn’t describe the offer itself; only the condition required of us to accept it.
So I guess he’s saying the gospel offer is more than a conditional–it’s an imperative. The question then would it if it's sincere to issue a command or imperative absent the requisite “provision.”
However, if that’s what he has in mind, then it raises the parallel objection regarding election. Is God sincere if he commands the reprobate to repent and believe the gospel?
In both cases, the requisite “provision” is lacking. In the case of limited election, the reprobate lack regeneration; in the case of limited atonement, the reprobate lack redemption.
These are different types of provision (or the lack thereof), but they still involve the absence of a necessary precondition. Either God is sincere in both cases, or insincere in both cases. Either the offer is well-meant in both cases, or ill-meant in both cases.
Yet Bnonn himself says:
Right, it’s not possible, but it is obligatory. A man who has stolen and then spent some money may find it impossible to pay it back, but he can still be obligated to do so.
So that concession seems to undercut his own argument.
But perhaps Bnonn thinks the gospel offer is more than just an imperative. Perhaps he’s alluding to something which lies behind the imperative, namely: God’s desire to save the reprobate.
i) If so, then this raises the question of how God’s desire to save the reprobate is compatible with God making them reprobate in the first place.
ii) In addition, that’s no more or less of a problem for 5-point Calvinism than 4-point Calvinism. So that’s not a distinctive objection to limited atonement.
iii) Likewise, 5-point Calvinists have well-trodden strategies for relieving the tension–although some 5-point Calvinists prefer to leave the tension intact.
Finally, Bonn’s objection fails to take into consideration the nature of mass communication. To reach the target audience, you address a wider audience than the target audience. For the greater includes the lesser.
Cast a wide net, not because you want every fish you catch, but because that’s the way to catch every the fish you want:
47Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. 48When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad (My 23:47-48).
Bnonn wrote
ReplyDeleteI don’t think a conditional constitutes an offer. If all God were saying was “If you believe then you will be saved” then I don’t think LA would have a problem. But that’s not all God is saying at all, as you agree. Rather, God is saying, please be saved, be reconciled to me, accept the gift I have bought you with my blood. And that’s where LA careens off the rails in terms of sincerity, because that isn’t a conditional statement.
1. I hope he's not saying that no offer could be cast in terms of a conditional. This seems like a perfectly good offer:
"If you'd like to go to the movies with me, then I'll buy your ticket."
In fact, one could imagine this coversation:
"Why did you go to the movies with Pete?"
"Because Pete offered me a ticket."
So the question is, why can't the LA cast matters this way? Who says he must put things Bnonn's way? Does the Bible define 'offer' Bnonn's way? I don't think so. Indeed, Bnonn's understanding of 'offer' specifically presupposes unlimited atonement. This is to ensure victory by stipulation. But a problem with this strategy is that others don't buy your stipulation, or they stipulate a definition of their own.
2. So it seems to me that LA "careens of the track" that is built to precise UA specification.
So, the LA is free to stipulate. he might say everything Bnonn did but exclude "gift I have bought you with my blood," and swap it with "gift Jesus purchased with his blood for any who would simply believe." Bnonn's definition has no authoritative status. So we can play the stipulation game.
3. In fact, the LA may find more than mere stipulation. The LA can say, "If you believe on Christ, then God offers you eternal life." This would be taken from Jesus words: Whosever believes on me shall not perish but have everlasting life. Which is (x)(Bx -> (~Px & Lx), i.e., if the universe of discourse is 'all men without exception,' then we have: for all x, if x Believes on christ, then x does not Perish and x will freely and lovingly be given eternal life.
Suppose I announced: Whosoever comes with me to the movies shall not buy a ticket but will be given a ticket plus all the concessions they want.
How could we view the above as a non-offer? At this point, Ponter's constraints could be appealed to, but we've given counter-examples to them and he said he didn't want to focus on necessary conditions for offers, like S must "have the goods on hand," etc.
The non-Calvinist of course would claim that 2 Cor. 5:20 isn't cast in terms of a conditional.
ReplyDelete2 cor. 5:20
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. (NKJV)
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.(NASB)
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.(ESV)
But 2 Cor 5:20 isn't a full statement of the gospel offer. For the gospel offer is a (conditional) promise, a with an implicit threat.
ReplyDeleteWhy be "reconciled to God"? What's the benefit? And what's the alternative consequence?
By itself, 2 Cor 5:20 doesn't promise anything. It doesn't "offer" anything. It's just an imperative or exhortation.
Steve, you know that some non-5 point Calvinists would argue in the following fashion. They would note that:
ReplyDelete1. Paul is claiming to be Christ's ambassador (along with his fellow preachers) . [all three translations]
2. God is speaking through Paul (and his fellow preachers) [ESV]. Or it's "AS THOUGH" God were speaking through Paul [NKJV, NASB]
3. Presumably, Paul would select and use words Christ Himself would use. Or God the Father would Himself use.
4. Presumably, Paul would express and convey a message with the same "feelings", "heart", "desires", "intentions" that the one(s) on whose behalf he's speaking has (either from Christ and/or the Father) .
5. Paul is, on behalf of another, appealing, pleading, imploring, even begging others to be reconciled to God.
The conclusion that non-Calvinists often come to is that God the Father and/or Christ the Son wants everyone who hears the Gospel to be saved. Or more commonly, for everyone (without exception) to be saved regardless of whether they have heard the Gospel or not (based on ver 19 where they interpret "world" in a universalistic sense).
Steve, Phil Johnson's "A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism" is an internet classic. For the record, where do you side on all 5 indicators of Hyper-Calvinism that Johnson lists? According to him:
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
From what I read over the years, I get the impression that you agree with #5. Would I be right about that? Would you say that God has any kind of genuine belevolence or good will toward the non-elect even if it's not "love"?