Dr. Allen starts with John 3:16. He plans on quoting only Calvinsts to prove his case against limited atonement. Calvinists are going to be “shocked.”
What two things to these men have in common – Calvin, Bunyan, Bullinger, Watts, Brainerd, Hodge, Edwards, Shedd, Barnes, Strong, etc. etc.? (I couldn’t get them all) Dr. Allen wants to be firm but fair. Answering the questions of must a Calvinist hold to the L, did they all hold to it and does Scripture teach it.
He mentions Tony Byrne at theologicalmeditations.com who is a four-point Calvinist. Dr. Allen gave a six page hand-out. (I’ll see if I can upload it tonight.)
Intent – I missed this summary. Sorry.
Extent of the atonement
- Jesus died for all humanity equally.
- Jesus died for the elect only.
Application
- From eternity passed (If I remember correctly.)
- At the cross held by some hypers and Calvinists.
- Applied at the moment the sinner exercises faith. He says this is the correct view.
Sufficiency -Sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect. (I missed some of this.)
The opening question answer – all men mentioned are Calvinists who did not hold to limited atonement. He is putting proof of this in a book to be published. He mentions signers of Dordt who rejected limited atonement. He says we don’t know this because we’re reading popular high Calvinists who are gatekeepers rather than the original sources.
He mentions reading the minutes of Westminster and the debates of limited atonement. He challenges us to read the primary sources rather than Piper and MacArthur. He mentions the Calvinists past did not hold to “strict” particularism. This is the first time he’s inserted the qualification “strict.”
John Owen’s view has always been the minority view in history. He mentions Gottschalk as the first person to hold to limited atonement and he was condemned by three French councils.
Calvin’s rejection of limited atonement
On Romans 5:18, Hebrews 9:25, John 3:16, Acts 1-7, sermon on Isaiah 53:6
On John 3:16 he seems to think that quoting Calvin here goes against limited atonement, but he doesn’t quote the part where Calvin says only the elect will be saved. Nor the last line of the commentary: “redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.“
It is Allen’s contention that no one goes from a four-point Calvinism to hyper-Calvinism. He claims that this is a five-point problem. He didn’t have time to argue this today though.
Westminster Assembly – Henry Scudder, pp. 279 Walk in Peace.. quote that Christ’s sacrifice is enough for all men. That all men might become salvable by Christ.
Arrowsmith – Chain of Princples – all of the world.
Baxter -Christ died for all, though not equally.
Bunyan – Death of Christ extends to all, then points to John 3:16.
Edwards – Christ in a sense died for all and to redeem Christians and by the whole world. Freedom of the Will, Vol. 1, page 88. Redemption accomplished is unlimited.
Categories of high Calvinism, amyraldianism, arminianism – it’s wrong to have only these three categories. He quotes Richard Muller about the amyraldian view is consistent with Dordt.
Here he mentions Bryne and David Ponter to read all their quotes of four-pointers in history.
All and world texts
Owen on Death of Death denies Jesus has any love for the non-elect on Vol. 10, point 24. He hangs Owen’s entire case on this belief. Hypers get this idea from Owen and others.
D.A. Carson who is wavering on limited atonement due to exegetical problems. Christ died for the whole world. Here’s Carson on the atonement.
Dabney – world in John 3:16 does not mean elect.
JC Ryle – Allen loves him, especially, on holiness. Ought to say God loves you and Christ died for you.
Limited atonement is built on a faulty foundation and should be rejected. Calvinists make a negative inference fallacy when
Robert Raymond – a hyper-Calvinist. Gives a logical, long quote.
Sam Waldron – In Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue the free offer of the Gospel does not require that we tell people that Christ “died for you.” No where in the Bible is the Gospel proclaimed that Christ died for “you.”
Opposition to Waldron – 1 Cor. 15:3 – Paul that Christ died for their sins. Acts 3:26 on Peter. Luke 22:20-21 where Jesus states His blood was shed for Judas. Calvin says Judas was at the table.
Go to www.Baptisttheology.org to read Dr. Allen’s arguments interacting with Dr. Nettles and others.
Mentions Ligon Duncan approving a dissertation that’s against limited atonement.
Quotes Tom Ascol on desiring all people to be saved, but God shows two wills. Quoting from the almost Caner debate.
James White is a hyper-Calvinist by the definition of Phil Johnson. Oct. 10 on the Dividing Line White denied God wills the salvation of all men which is against Tom Ascol.
Some evangelize out of obedience of God’s command not because God’s desire the salvation of all men.
Mark Dever leaves two crucial things out of the book The Gospel and Personal Evangelism: Christ died for all men as motivation for evangelism and God universal saving will.
A consistent five-point Calvinist cannot say “Christ died for you.”
Nathan Finn mentioned.
Invitations and altar calls
SBC professor said we do not need and should not extend and evangelistic invitation. As it is an attempt to manipulate the sovereignty of God.
Quotes MacArthur when he was at Woodstock saying “Jesus was a Calvinist.”
Allen has the largest library of Calvinists than any of his fellow professors.
Closing with “Five point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel and not towards it.”
Mark
tagged as Arminianism, calvinism, First Baptist Woodstock, hyper-calvinism, John 3:16 Conference, Southern Baptist, TULIP in Arminianism,Baptist,calvinism,Church Issues,Gospel,Southern Baptist,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman attending seminary in the off hours working on his M.Div. preparing for vocational ministry.
{ 294 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Dear JohnMark,
God bless you for your question. As you know, it is the most important question that a man can ask, and it is my greatest trust and responsibility to give you a truthful and correct answer.
First, ALL must be done by God Himself, but yet not apart from His holy Word. God has bound Himself to His Word. It alone is our guide. We know nothing certain about God, ourselves, or salvation, but by its objective, provable and defendable, statements.
There are two chief doctrines of the Word of God, the Law and the Gospel, and both of these must be accurately understood in accordance with what God has Himself revealed about them. False and humanly-derived definitions will not do – as Paul makes abundantly clear in Galatians 1. So we must have the true Law and the true Gospel, derived only from God’s Word, as a starting point.
Now God uses the Law to prepare the heart to receive the Gospel. The Law is likened to a hammer that breaks apart the hard heart or a plow that breaks up the hard soil to receive the seed of the Gospel in a good and honest heart. The Law has completed its initial work when a person comes to see that apart from the grace and mercy of God he is a lost and condemned sinner.
Such a person is now ready to hear and receive God’s saving Gospel, that is, that the loving Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, has shed His precious blood on the Cross of Calvary as a complete and satisfactory atonement for his sins. The sinner is directed by the Word of God to turn the eys of his heart away from himself and his own works, and place his trust and reliance alone upon this blessed work of Christ for the forgiveness of his sins.
The issue of the extent of the atonement is crucial for two reasons. 1) God Himself has defined the Gospel in His Word as “for the sins of the whole world”. Therefore, any other gospel is not the Gospel of Christ as revealed by God, and therefore is not saving. 2) The universality of the atonement is crucial for the lost sinner himself, because by it he has the invincible assurance that what was done for all was surely done for him. If he thought that even one soul was left out of this wonderful atonement, he would always fear that perhaps he was the one excluded, and thus could not put his FULL FAITH in the work of Christ.
So to summarize. The Gospel is the seed of God that creates new life in the sinner’s heart. He who receives the true Gospel, receives the whole seed and thus the whole Christian tree that is sure to follow. He who has the Gospel has Christ, and he who has Christ has salvation, and every spiritual blessing that goes with it, including the knowledge of one’s own election.
This is why Luther says that if you want to know your election, you must look to the Cross of Christ. There, and there alone, you will see your name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
If there is anything at all that I said that is not clear, then by all means, let me know, and I will make every possible effort to make it clearer. May God Himself bless these wonderful truths to your heart.
Stuart,
You must be the king of unsubstantiated assertions!
As I mentioned before, it is not hard to find particular (limited) statements in the fathers (He died for the church, He died for me, etc.), even though they held to a universal atonement
Nicely done.
How about another “hollow call” for scripture?
yeah right…not likely at this point.
God bless and see you later…
bob
“We know nothing certain about God, ourselves, or salvation, but by its objective, provable and defendable, statements.”
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened”
Oh that’s right you don’t necessarily believe what the Holy Writ saith.
“Now God uses the Law to prepare the heart to receive the Gospel. The Law is likened to a hammer that breaks apart the hard heart or a plow that breaks up the hard soil to receive the seed of the Gospel in a good and honest heart. The Law has completed its initial work when a person comes to see that apart from the grace and mercy of God he is a lost and condemned sinner.”
And all this is done despite Romans 8 and John 3:16. Again, I know, dismissing the pertinent Scripture is necessary if one is to believe the gospel according to Stuart. Beside, this hardly follows the Biblical patter tht God removes the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh.
“for the sins of the whole world”. Eventhough Scripture defines this as not all who have ever lived or will live, John 17, especially.
“and place his trust and reliance alone upon this blessed work of Christ for the forgiveness of his sins.”
Except where did he get that trust? If he is not saved until he does this, is this not a good work and not grace? If he does this, how is the atonement complete? Why does it take the sacrifice of faith? And, this is known as decissional regeneration, i.e. making the decission of the individual instrumental in regeneration. A heresy.
“The Gospel is the seed of God that creates new life in the sinner’s heart.” So, is this an admission that the whole of faith is in the heart before it germinates, grows and produces understanding? Beside that Stuart, you still haven gotten it have you? The Gospel is more than words preached or printed, just as Jesus is not found or coveyed to the individual by either. He himself said that was not true. The Gospel Stuart is more, including the secret working of the Holy Spirit which regenerates a man so that he has faith and can receive. You have unregenerate sinners doin what Luther would laugh in you face over, doing good Godwards without a renewed nature.
JohnMark (and others who might be listening),
I can tell from Robert’s and Thomas’ responses that they are just scoffers, so I am not going to answer them anymore because they lack sincerity. But just so you don’t get confused by their smoke, I will answer what objections they make that might seem palatible.
First, as to Thomas’ assertion about the light of nature and Romans 1, I said, ““We know nothing CERTAIN about God, ourselves, or salvation, but by its [the Word of God's] objective, provable and defendable, statements.” I will stand by my statement, thank you very much.
Second, Thomas’ appeal to Romans 8 or John 3:16 in regards to what I said about the working of the Law makes no sense. I’m not sure what verse he has in mind in Romans 8, but John 3:16 is all Gospel, not Law.
Thirdly, I said that the poor lost sinner is directed by the Word of God to “place his trust and reliance alone upon this blessed work of Christ for the forgiveness of his sins.” And Thomas asks, “Except where did he get that trust? (notice the teachable spirit here). My answer, again for your sake, not his, is that the Gospel itself works this faith in him. As Paul said, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17). No one is asserting synergism here. Don’t forget it was Luther who wrote the definitive book on this subject, “The Bondage of the Will”.
Fourthy, I said, ““The Gospel is the seed of God that creates new life in the sinner’s heart.” To this, Doubting Thomas retorts, “So, is this an admission that the whole of faith is in the heart BEFORE it germinates, grows and produces understanding?” My answer to this is the same one I gave earlier, and that is “no”. The Spirit and power of God is in the Gospel itself, like air in a football. The Gospel comes first, as Paul says “the first of all” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It alone works faith in the heart and imparts the Spirit of God to the one who was formerly dead in his trespasses and sins.
Notice here, too, that Thomas still believes that the Spirit works APART FROM and BEFORE the Word. I told you I didn’t believe his feigned repentance on this point.
Wrong Stuart, I believe that the Spirit works only in the Gospel. What I do not accept is your assertion that the Spirit is resident in the words of a preacher or of the written text. Simply put, if that were the case all would be saved. So, you’re either a universalist of the worst kind, or confused. My position and the position in Jesus’ Gospel is that the Spirit regenerates individual so that they can and will respond to the outward call. That was Christ’s teaching. Something you refuse to accept though it is clear in Scripture. That would make you what, a denier of the Gospel? Or, we might ask, is the Gospel only the evangel? You seemingly are so shallow as to beleive that to be the case. We on the other hand include in the Gospel all that Jesus taught. How many pages are in your Bible? If by what you have presented we are to believe you have the true gospel, yours is a thin text indeed.
Dear Mr. Switchell (er, Twitchell),
No matter how many times you flip flop on this point, the bottom line is that you have the Spirit doing an end-around BEFORE the objective external preached Word of the Gospel ever gets to the poor lost sinner, dead in his trespasses and sins. This puts you in the same position as the unbelieving Mormon who is trusting his “burning in the bossom”.
You say, “the Spirit works only in the Gospel”, but you have a different gospel in mind than I do or the Word of God does. I know that the word “Gospel” can be used in a wider sense (including even the whole Word of God), but we are talking about that specific Gospel message that saves a soul. As Paul writes, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I PREACHED unto you, which also ye have RECEIVED, and wherein ye stand; BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you FIRST OF ALL that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
Stuart,
And as I pointed out in the email that I sent you that you decided not to deal with (wow…surprise) Paul saying
“Christ died for our sins”
doesn’t automatically mean “everyone who ever lived or who will ever live”
That’s the error that I pointed out that you made in your “essay” that you sent to me…you’re reading into it something that isn’t there.
JohnMark,
This question is for you ONLY (no need for Robert or Thomas to answer). Since you asked me “Please, tell us biblically, how a person is saved?”, and since I responded with a clear answer, and since I have now given you sufficient time to think about it, I would now like to know your thoughts about that answer. Do you agree with my answer? If not, why not?
Thanks so much
Stuart,
I give up…I’m with you…when I read that Jesus died for the world, it means the whole human race from start to finish.
But now I’m confused. I was reading John 17 about Jesus’ Prayer to the Father, and He seemed to be NOT praying for “the world.” I don’t get it…CAN YOU HELP?
Here it is:
17:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you – Just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.
17:6 “I have revealed your name to the men you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed your word. …I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because they belong to you.
You can understand why I’m so confused…Why is Jesus praying this prayer and what does He mean by
“I’m not praying for the world but only those you’ve given me out of the world?”
As I said…I’m with you on Jesus dying for the whole world, but now I’m confused…help!
Stuart,
Why did you stick a particular belief in the atonement in the Gospel? Just so I understand you. Are you saying that if one beliefs in a Calvinist view of limited atonement, even if they are trusting solely in Christ by faith alone, that they are not saved?
Mark
Robert/JohnMark,
Robert, I am assuming that you are being sincere with me here, and I do appreciate that. I also have a good answer for you, but give me just a few minutes to get to that, as I want to first quickly give JohnMark my answer to his question. Both your responses have come in at the same time.
JohnMark, the issue here is that the Gospel is the single truth that, when received, regenerates the soul and imparts Christ and the Holy Spirit into our hearts. One cannot, in truth, begin to trust in Christ without first trusting in His holy Gospel, how that He suffered and died on the cross for our sins. This is the “first of all” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). The Catholics, Mormons, JWs, etc. would all say that they are trusting in Christ. But we know that that is not true, either because they have the wrong Christ, or do not know their own depravity, or are really trusting in themselves and their own works, or whatever. So it is if someone says they trust in Christ, but have the wrong Gospel.
I have been trying to show you all that based upon the many simple clear statements of Scripture concerning the universality of Christ’s atonement, that the one and only true Gospel is the objective proclamation to poor lost sinners that “Christ died for OUR sins”. The doctrine of limited atonement will not let this word “OUR” stand in the objective proclamation of the Gospel. For that reason, the doctrine of limited atonement actually creates another gospel, which I do not believe can or does save. There cannot be two saving Gospels (Gal. 1:6-8), one that says “Christ died for our sins”, and another that says “Christ died for sins”. God is jealous for His Word and there is also good reason why He included this word “our”.
Hi Robert,
I probably believe this passage word for word exactly as you do. The main difference is that I see Jesus here speaking as the great High Priest of His Church, and not as the Saviour of the world. Thus, I don’t have a problem with Him atoning for the sins of the world, and yet praying in this context for His own people. Both are true.
To respond to the verses that you highlighted. I believe that the Father did give His Son authority over all flesh. I also believe that the Son gives eternal life only to as many as the Father has given Him, that is, to His elect. They alone believe the holy Gospel, and this faith is not of themselves but is the gift of God. I believe verse 6 is speaking specifically about the disciples at that time, but that Christ also does manifest Himself to all believers through faith in His Word. I believe verse 9 is again in keeping with Christ’s office as our great High Priest. He specifically prays for His Church, and not for the world. The writer of Hebrews says that “He ever liveth to make intercession for us” (Heb. 7:25).
I hope this helps. Please let me know if there are any other things that need more clarity, and I am happy to serve you in this way.
Thanks.
Stuart,
thank you for the very detailed answer…but now I’m more confused than ever!
You said that Jesus atoned for the sins of everyone who ever lived and who will ever live…
But
As you pointed out…the Father only gives some to the Son for the purpose of raising them to eternal life….
Then you pointed out rightly that Jesus raises only those who are His…
Then my question would be…What did God intend to do here?
It was His intent to atone for people that He’d also spend eternity punishing in Hell?
Forgive me if I say that that doesn’t make sense.
To me it makes more sense that God INTENDED to save His elect…Jesus atoned perfectly for them, and saved them to the uttermost. And he intercedes for them perfectly.\
Was Jesus sacrifice no good in some instances? It failed?
He took the wrath of God, now they are also?
Very confusing….
Stuart,
and now thinking about it more…
Jesus intercedes for the one that Jesus Himself said was “destined for destruction” just 4 chapters earlier?
How could Jesus satisfy the wrath of God; appease His requirements on behalf of Judas, and Judas being “destined for destruction” spend eternity in Hell?
It just doesn’t make sense…can you explain?
Robert,
I haven’t had time to consider your second question, and will need to know what verses you have specifically in mind, but I want to first address your previous post about being “more confused”.
Isaiah said, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts… For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:7-9). Paul tells us to “bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Luther tells us that due to the total depravity of our natural minds, we are to “put a bag over our heads, as though we know absolutely nothing about spiritual matters, and let the Word of God alone be our guide, as a trustworthy Voice to those who are by nature completely blind.”
This is all to say that there are alot of things in the Bible that don’t make sense to my natural mind, but that doesn’t mean that I am to reject them. These are infinitely high truths, that are infinitely above my ability to totally understand, and I do God’s Word honor if I but receive them as they are written with simple child-like faith. I can only affirm the truths that are plainly stated in the Scriptures, and not let my natural mind draw conclusions that would violate other Scriptures. I can reason, but only within the confines of the Word of God.
So, in answer to your questions, this much I can affirm. God indeed loves the whole world. Christ indeed suffered and died for the sins of the world. The Father indeed only gives some to the Son for the purpose of raising them to eternal life. Christ indeed intended and accomplished a full atonement for people that He also knew would spend eternity being punished in hell. I would not affirm that Jesus sacrifice was no good in some instances or that it failed. But I can affirm that He bore the wrath of God for the damned, and yet, “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Th. 2:10), they “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Th. 1:9). How God puts all of this together, I will leave with Him, but that is clearly what He Himself has revealed, and it is my place to accept that. I believe that God is pleased with such faith.
Here’s one other thought that may help. While the extent of the atonement and the Gospel are universal, the application of it is particular. God grants the gift of faith only to His elect. But there is a mystery here because those who are lost are not damned because GOD did not give them faith. Rather, they are damned because THEY themselves did not believe. In other words, if a man believes, it is due only to the grace of God, but if a man does not believe, it is his own fault. “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help” (Hos. 13:9). Again, I am of the mind that we will not and cannot understand such a truth in this life, but yet God will show that to ultimately be the case.
I have many other things to share on this, but I don’t want this to be too long or tedious. So I will leave it at that for now.
Thanks again.
Concerning …will spend eternity in hell…
I think one must be careful not to bow too far out of the window here.
How do we know whether anyone will most definitely “spend eternity in hell? Note, there is no such prediction made. Eschatology is clothed in fancy and often figurative literary devices. Prophecy is tricky, as we know from the past. Things sometimes prove to come about in vastly different ways than people expected. Who would have thought in old times that God would save his people by a crucified Messiah, for example? Is it proper to explain the present by fancy conceptions about the future? Note, when Adam was expelled from the Garden of Eden he was actually eternally damned. But God was still able and willing to save. When Jesus was crucified he was irrevocably cursed. Damned to the uttermost! Think of this! Yet God saved Him to the uttermost! Who can safely tell where any one is going to end up? Doesn’t the gospel train us to consider that life has the final word over death? That even the irrevocable like such a curse can be overtrumped? That life overtrumps death? “The first things are over” (Rev. 21,4), the book of revelation finally says. So we don’t know what next is going to happen and what God has in store.
Prophecy is tricky and might well prove God to be wiser in the end than we allowed Him to be.
So I think we should not use an unclear picture of the future as our presuppositional basis and explain the things of the present that are given by plain language, by these unclear presuppositions. Such would be a kind of putting the cart before the horse. Again, there is nothing in the scriptures that predicts in definite terms, that anyone will “punished in hell”, as you guys put it. There is no presage, no definite divination that some will never benefit from God’s grace.
I leave the question open. However, using the eternal exclusion of some persons as a firm premise is unsupported by the scriptures. A foundation that is not firmly supported by the scriptures however, should not be used as a presupposition.
Stuart,
Quote:
I haven’t had time to consider your second question, and will need to know what verses you have specifically in mind,
Here is the verses:
John 17:6
“(Father) I have revealed your name to the men you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed your word. …I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because they belong to you. Everything I have belongs to you, and everything you have belongs to me, and I have been glorified by them. I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. When I was with them I kept them safe and watched over them in your name that you have given me. Not one of them was lost except the one destined for destruction, so that the scripture could be fulfilled.
So why was a payment necesary?
The Greek word for “Finished” in “It is Finished is “tetelestai”
In the Jewish culture at that time, that word was used in legal statements to signify that a “legal debt” had been fully paid.
Why was this necessary legally? Because sin only has power because of the law (legality) of God. The law has a punishment and the punishment is death.
• 1 Cor. 15:56, “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.”
• Rom. 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
The whole atoning work of Christ was a legal action where Jesus substituted himself for sinners and paid the legal requirement of the punishment of sin, and death.
And I guess then I’m still left with…Jesus paid that legal debt but they also pay that legal debt?
So when YOU SPEAK OUT AGAINST Limited Atonement, you mean “the Calvinistic view” of Limited Atonement.
You have no problem limiting the atonement another way…
God intended to save everyone in history but only some are saved…and its due to something they do or don’t do….that’s a very “Limited Atonement” and a very weak God in my vew.
Stuart,
I’m sitting here thinking about what you’ve said…Christ somehow made atonement for all….but God never intended to save all…
How am I supposed to approach a sinner and tell them that??
“Hey buddy…you got atoned for but there is a good chance that God never intended to save you…He only gave some to the Son…so that atonement? It doesn’t mean much in your case….sorry….
Isn’t that EXACTLY your argument; that Calvinists cannot tell a sinner that God died for them…????
Well, neither can I used this “system.”
Wow…typos abound….
I meant “…that CHRIST died for them….”
and
Well neither can I using this “system” where Jesus atones, but it makes no difference….
I think that you arguing against a “limited atonement” doesn’t hold much water based on this; you’re limiting it just like those whom you decry.
Stuart,
Sorry for the multiple posts but I just went back over your post where you say:
But I can affirm that He bore the wrath of God for the damned, and yet, “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved”
(2 Th. 2:10),
This is the text of 2nd Thess 2:10
“…and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved. Consequently God sends on them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false. And so all of them who have not believed the truth but have delighted in evil will be condemned.
It doesn’t say “because they received not the truth” it says that God SENT THEM A DELUDING INFLUENCE for the specific purpose that they WOULDN’T BELIEVE THE TRUTH.
So…tying this together…
1.) God INTENDS only to save “the elect”
2.) Jesus Atones (appeases the wrath of God) for everyone who ever lived and will ever live, even Judas who was “destined for destruction”
3.) God sends “deluding influences” to some so they won’t believe the truth, the “hardens hearts” and all this…
But the debt has been paid…
And why pay the debt for them and then harden them or delude them?
What would be the point?
And you say Calvinism is flaky?
Get real.
A_helmet..
So you haven’t read the passages on this subject?
So you haven’t read the passages on this subject?
Which ones?
A_helmet:
Well for starters:
Jesus speaking:
Luke16:22
“Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side.
And speaking of duration:
Jn. 5:28-29
“Then both body and soul “shall be cast out from the favorable presence of God, and the glorious fellowship with Christ, His saints, and all His holy angels, into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torments, both of body and soul, with the devil and his angels forever.”
And
“The Lord Jesus [shall be] revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Th. 1:7-9).
I guess that would be a place to start.
I’m not quite sure where you’re going by implying that there is no “everlasting destruction” no Hell for eternity, These seem like straightforward statements. Yes they use figurative language but that doesn’t mean that they are “obscure” or hard to understand.
“I’m so hungry I could eat a horse!”
Firgurative language…but you knew what I meant didn’t you?
…but this thread isn’t really about hell…
Robert,
by the way, you did not respond to the question about the verses John 6:44 and 45. Regarding verse 45, I asked what God is actually teaching here, what is the content to learn there. While you correctly explain the text in John 6:35-43, you actually skipped my crucial last verses, that I referred to. Concerning the content of the teaching in v. 45 you said:
I don’t believe that there is a literal teaching content being spoken of here is there?
Well, there most assuredly is. If there is no literal content, then what is this teaching about at all? What do people learn here? If I give a math lesson and teach that 2 times 2 eqals 4, then the content of this math lesson is “2 times 2 equals 4″. If there is nothing to say regarding the teaching in v. 45, then what is going on there? And why is this important to know? Note, God reveals everything by the Logos (John 1:1), His Word. “In the beginning was the logos”. Now, the logos means word but also reason, rationality, expressivity, clarity . This is where the word logics comes from.
(It is also the origin of the suffix -logics/-logy in various sciences like biology, psychology, theology, etc.)
Now note God reveals only through the logos. As you know, the logos is Christ and Christ is God’s one and only mediator. All truth originates with God and is reaveald only via the Word, the logos. No truth by-passes the logos , there is no other revelation channel. It is impossible to receive any revelation, any teaching from God unless it is transported by the logos, who is expressibility, reason and rationality.
Now note, if someone claims to have received a certain truth from God, a certain “teaching” or “revelation” which he cannot express, cannot pronounce in any way, than this alleged conviction cannot originate with God. Often people claim things like “God told me this and that….” but they cannot express, cannot pronounce what this conviction actually is, what exactly they experienced here.
So back to the matter of John 6:45 — we must know what the content of the teaching is, or else 1)the verse is utterly void and meaningless and 2) how do we know whether we “learned” anything at all? A teaching from God is always something expressible (and hence also shareable!) A teaching whithout a content is no teaching at all!
The other part of my question referred to v. 44 and the drawing action. You did not answer that but simply said maybe it can be found elsewhere.
2.) What does God do when he draws someone?
I think that the text just states what happens, not anything beyond that.
I do believe that other places deal with bits of these questions, but it’s not addressed here.
Well the text states that the teaching in v. 45 inevitably leads to faith in Jesus Christ. So the drawing is this teaching. That’s why it is so crucial to know the content thereof. Only those who are drawn “come to Christ”. But All who have been taught by God, have learned from the Father, “come to Christ”. You see? The content of the teaching is absolutely vital, in order to understand the entire passage of John 6 that was in question.
You are right, that the passage in question, John 6:35-45 portrays a forensic treatment of unbelief. The audience there is in fact partly “driven away” there and left with a question mark “What is God doing here?”
Now while pointing out that the passage is a judicial treatment of unbelief, that is not sufficient. The key is in verse 45 — You must know the content of the teaching . It is like the “password” to conversion. It is like the “access data” to heaven.
Now you say the “text states what happens by the drawing” and probably you mean “they come” (faith).
Sure, that was not in question at all, but note, there are different kinds of believers. There are
1) soon-to-fall-away believers (rocky ground)
2) no-fruit-believers (thorny ground)
3) true believers (good ground)
Now, what must a person learn or what is the teaching that irresistibly leads to a type 3 faith? Shouldn’t that cause you a bit of concern?
So if the teaching is not explained here, is it elsewhere in the bible? If not, if there is no content of teaching, isn’t the verse John 6:45 actually utterly dispensible and meaningless?
Robert,
Concerning Luke 16:22
Note, the word hell here is hades , the abode of the dead. Hades will finally be destroyed (Rev. 20,14).
Is your next example John 5:28-29 ? Sorry, this isn’t the biblical text what you are qouting there. This isn’t John 5:28-29.
Rather the passge reads like this: (NIV)
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice29 and come out- those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
Where is the eternal torment in body and soul ? Where did you get the text above from?
2 Th. 1:7-9
There is much of an eschatological literary style being used, isn’t it? And where is the eternal torment here? They shall be destructed . This normally means annihilation. Adam was sentenced to eternal destruction as well, right? To death. From the beginning to the end of history, the penalty of sin is death. As I said in the previous post, wasn’t Jesus definitely damned as well? That is the point. There is salvation even out of eternal damnation! That is the core of the gospel which we should emphasize. So this passage isn’t so convincing to be sure. In fact there is little controversy portrayed in the new testament scriptures on the topic.
A-Helmet…
I stateed that the “content” was not explained.
I can’t go beyond what’s written and speculate…sorry…
You can speculate but like I said…I see no mention of content.
bob
A_Helmet,
And PS:
I’m not inclined to go down anymore rabbit trails…
The issue is Limited Atonement, and it’s hard enough to stay on track with that let alone speculate on content that isn’t stated or the doctrine of Hell.
Don’t take offense…but I want to keep on subject with Stuart.
Robert,
You initially said, “I give up…I’m with you…when I read that Jesus died for the world, it means the whole human race from start to finish.” Again you said, “I’m with you on Jesus dying for the whole world, but now I’m confused…help!”. Now you tell me, “Well neither can I use this “system” where Jesus atones, but it makes no difference.” Did I say, “it makes no difference”? No, that’s your conclusion, not mine. And that [carnal] conclusion does not stay within the confines of God’s Word, and is therefore necessarily false. If you carefully re-read my last post you will see that the foundational problem you are having is that you haven’t yet learned “to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”. You are still trying to figure it out, rather than be led by the simplicity of God’s Word. I do not believe in the universal atonement of Christ and the universality of the Gospel because it is a “system”, but rather because it is revealed in plain and simple language in the Word of God. If it appears to others as a “system”, fine. If it appears to others as “nonsense”, fine. But for me, God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
JohnMark,
I am still waiting for your response to my last post to you. I am very interested in what your conclusions were as to how I said a person is saved. Again, I would like to know if you agreed with my statements there, and if not, what specifically you would disagree with.
Thanks again.
Stuart,
I still would like to ask how you explain to those you witness to that although Christ died to atone, that their is a possibility that God did not “give them to the son”…
And how that’s better in any way than Limited Atonement Calvinism style…
Since what you’ve said limits the atonement just as much….but in a different way…
Stuart,
PS: you keep taking the “imagined High Ground” on this, implying that you don’t interpret scripture, but “let it speak” simply….
Well, on that level…there is a real problem…here is one example:
Has anyone ever seen God?
Exodus 33:11
“And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend . . .”
Exodus 33:20
” . . . Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”
How in the world would we reconcile these two statements without going into the history, idioms of the Hebrew culture, and the grammar of the language??
If not that…then the alternative is that there is a huge contradiction in this passage.
So which is it? A man speaks face to face with God OR no man can see God’s face and live?
Robert,
1) I still would like to ask how you explain to those you witness to that although Christ died to atone, that their is a possibility that God did not “give them to the son”
I would tell them that Christ did indeed die for their sins, and that this is the true Gospel of their salvation. So long as they cling to this Gospel [which cannot be done in one's own strength], they also cling to their election, that is, that they are one whom the Father gave to the Son. He who has the Gospel has Christ. He who has Christ has election and every spiritual blessing in Christ. “Then said Jesus to those Jews which BELIEVED on him, If ye CONTINUE in my word, then are ye my disciples INDEED” (John 8:31), that is, My TRUE disciples.
2) And how that’s better in any way than Limited Atonement Calvinism style… Since what you’ve said limits the atonement just as much….but in a different way…
I don’t see how this limits the atonement. The atonement is still for all men and the Gospel is still the objective Good News that “Christ died for the sins of the world”. But if you say that the atonement is actually limited because not all are ultimately saved, then I say “so be it”. This is God’s plan, not mine. I am not opposed to the doctrine of limited atonement because it limits the number of people that will be saved, but because it violates God’s plain simple Word, and my faith can only rest upon His Word.
3) The reconciliation of Exod. 33:11 and Exod. 33:20.
I agree with you that there are many passages that take alot of study to “understand”, but “understanding” is not the chief thing – faith is. Faith must go BEFORE understanding. Jesus said to Mary, “Did I not say to you that if your BELIEVE, you will SEE” (John 11), etc. So in this passage we are to affirm both statements as being true, and if necessary concede that we do not yet understand how they go together. In this case, I believe they go together in the fact that no one can see God’s face in His naked unveiled glory, and live. When it says that Moses spoke to God “face to face” in the same passage, I understand it to mean that he was speaking with Christ, who is the “face of God” (2 Cor. 4:4). Consider Jesus at the Transfiguration.
Stuart,
First I will comment on the Exodus scripture interpretation you gave…
What, in that text itself, leads you to your conclusion that it was Christ?
the fact is that THE PLAIN READING is contradictory!
It’s only until you go further…that any sense can be made of those to seemingly opposite statments.
But you keep saying that their is a “plain reading” and when confronted with a “contradiction” you go further than the “plain reading” and say that it must have been Christ!
But…on the Limiting of the Atonement “stuart style”
Here is the comparison:
Calvinism:
Christ Atoned for His sheep.
Christ died for His sheep; the elect.
The Father Gives those elect to the Son to save.
The Father intended to save only His elect.
When we witness to the unsaved, we can say that Christ died to save sinners…to seek and save the lost, and that they must repent and believe. (biblical)
Stu:
Christ Atoned for everyone.
Christ died for His sheep; the elect.
The Father Gives those elect to the Son to save.
The Father intended to save everyone?
When we witness to the unsaved, we can say that Christ died for them…BUT it makes no difference since they might or might not be elect.
It would seem that your understanding limits not only the atonement, but also you cannot truthfully tell anyone that they are the elect and will be saved!
You are in the same boat as the Calvinist’s!
bob
Robert,
The issue is Limited Atonement, and it’s hard enough to stay on track with that let alone speculate on content that isn’t stated or the doctrine of Hell.
But in your argumentation on “Limited Atonement” you are very often referring to things mentioned in that John 6 passage. You often use a phrase like “the father gives to the son…” in your explanations. For example, see this text of yours:
As you pointed out…the Father only gives some to the Son for the purpose of raising them to eternal life….
Then you pointed out rightly that Jesus raises only those who are His…
Then my question would be…What did God intend to do here?
You’re wondering about God’s intention (which is not mentioned in the passage) but don’t wonder about the teaching of v.6:45?
You are using the thoughts of this very passage frequently in order to make your point in favor of “Limited Atonement”. And also, your concept of limited Atonement obviously is quite closely related – if not dependent – on your theory of an eternal hell and the permanent and irrevocable exclusion of some persons from God’s grace, right?
So this is why the John 6 passage as well as the hell issue is not far-fetched but has very much to do with the plausibility of limited Atonement, don’t you think?
Concerning the content of the teaching in John 6:45. Your statement that there simply is no content mentioned is indeed remarkable. Note, this is exactly the forensic aspect of the entire discourse there! If you don’t know what being drawn is, then you do not know, whether you have ever been drawn. Consequently, you cannot know whether you are one of those, who persevere. Do you understand that?
Be that as it may, would you say that the verse 45
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
communicates nothing and is merely a dispensible utterance of words?
Note, you cannot explore doctrinal issues like “Limited Atonement” in isolation. You must take the key passages into consideration. You say “The father gives some to the son”. But you don’t bother what this giving means, what is being said here? What is going on? Or put differently, how do you know, whether you are/have been given? If you don’t know what these words are telling us (=the “content” here again), how can you establish a profound argument in favor of “Limited Atonement” on them? Why try to built a house without having a solid foundation? The same holds true for your opinion about “hell”. And limited Atonement touches on these issues, so it is not far-fetched to consider them, right?
To conclude let me say, if someone claims to have received a revelation from God, a certain knowledge, claims to have been enlightened but cannot say what the content of this enlightening is — then we know that he hasn’t received any knowledge from God at all.
Robert,
You initially said, “I give up…I’m with you…when I read that Jesus died for the world, it means the whole human race from start to finish.” Again you said, “I’m with you on Jesus dying for the whole world, but now I’m confused…help!”. Were you saying this sincerely? If not, then what was your point in saying it?
A_Helmet,
Again…I’ll restate.
I don’t know where you’re going with this…I’ve discussed limited atonement A LOT and didn’t have to define hell and speculate on what’s the “taught by God” content of John 6…
the text is there….I can’t help you further.
Stuart,
My point in saying that was to try and understand exactly what you are saying and I think I do understand now.
Frankly, I don’t see how you can call Calvinism all the names you’ve called it based on your understanding of the scope of the Atonement.
1.) Just was was INTENDED by the Atonement?
2.) Just what is accomplished for those in Hell?
3.) How do you evangelize and say that Jesus died for them AND SAY IT SINCERELY in it’s commonly understood meaning???
When you tell a sinnner, Jesus died for them…they understand that “my sins are forgiven”….but you must tell them…”sorry….that’s ONLY IF you wre given by God…that Atonement is worthless unless that happens”
And Calvinism is satan’s gospel because why?
What you’ve explained is just as limiting as what you call Satans Gospel, and you impose your reading of the text on it to understand it that way…when it suits you…you call it the plain reading…when it doesn’t suit you (seeing God face) you import something not found in the text (Must have been Jesus) and abandon the “plain reading”
You’re not being very consistent….
Robert: I suspected as much. Also, for your sake, you really don’t yet understand what I am saying. If you did, you would rejoice in it. Also, being dishonest with someone is not Christian. I don’t think it is even Calvinistic. What are we to make of a religion that compels one to lie?
JohnMark: I am still waiting for your reply. I again post my answer to you on how a person is saved:
****************************************************
God bless you for your question. As you know, it is the most important question that a man can ask, and it is my greatest trust and responsibility to give you a truthful and correct answer.
First, ALL must be done by God Himself, but yet not apart from His holy Word. God has bound Himself to His Word. It alone is our guide. We know nothing certain about God, ourselves, or salvation, but by its objective, proveable and defendable, statements.
There are two chief doctrines of the Word of God, the Law and the Gospel, and both of these must be understood in accordance with what God Himself has revealed about them. False and humanly-derived definitions will not do – as Paul makes abundantly clear in Galatians 1:6-8. So we must have the true Law and the true Gospel, derived only from God’s Word, as a starting point.
Now God uses the Law to prepare the heart to receive the Gospel. The Law is likened to a hammer that breaks apart the stony heart or a plow that breaks up the hard soil to receive the seed of the Gospel in a good and honest heart. The Law has completed its initial work when a person comes to see that apart from the grace and mercy of God he is a lost and condemned sinner.
Such a person is now ready to hear and receive God’s saving Gospel, that is, that the loving Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, has shed His precious blood on the Cross of Calvary as a complete and satisfactory atonement for his sins. The sinner is directed by the Word of God to turn the eyes of his heart away from himself and his own works, and place his trust and reliance alone upon this blessed work of Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. And this faith is “not of himself”, but is wrought in him by the Gospel itself. As Paul said, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17).
The issue of the extent of the atonement is crucial for two reasons. 1) God Himself has defined the Gospel in His Word as “for the sins of the whole world”. Therefore, any other gospel is not the Gospel of Christ as revealed by God, and therefore is not saving. 2) The universality of the atonement is crucial for the lost sinner himself, because by it he has the invincible assurance that what was done for all was surely done for him. If he thought that even one soul was left out of this wonderful atonement, he would always fear that perhaps he was the one excluded, and thus could not put his FULL FAITH in the work of Christ.
So to summarize. The Gospel is the seed of God that creates new life in the sinner’s heart. He who receives the true Gospel, receives the whole seed and thus the whole Christian tree that is sure to follow. He who has the Gospel has Christ, and he who has Christ has salvation, and every spiritual blessing that goes with it, including the knowledge of one’s own election.
This is why Luther says that if you want to know your election, you must look to the Cross of Christ. There, and there alone, you will see your name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
If there is anything at all that I said that is not clear, then by all means, let me know, and I will make every possible effort to make it clearer. May God Himself bless these wonderful truths to your heart.
*************************************************
I also again post you what Martin Luther said concerning the universal atonement and Gospel:
Luther writes, “Yes, he assumes not only my sins but also those of the whole world, from Adam down to the very last mortal. These sins he takes upon himself; for these he is willing to suffer and die that our sins may be expunged and we may attain eternal life and blessedness… THIS IS THE BASIS OF ALL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. WHOEVER BELIEVES IT IS A CHRISTIAN; WHOEVER DOES NOT IS NO CHRISTIAN, and will get what he has coming to him. The statement is clear enough: “This is the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world.”
Ahhh..Stuart….
More insults and more Ad Hominem.
You have said more in the WAY you’ve spoken here than any theology could.
I’ve been asking you to explain just what you think that God intended by the Atonement?
And I also asked about your evangelization in that you cannot tell them with any real sincerity, and taken the “orthodox” way…that Christ died for them…which is the base accusation you made against Calvinism!
Do you evangelize? I do…
Do you street preach? I do…
If you do….what do you tell sinners?
Certainly not that Christ died to save them…that wouldn’t be the truth now would it?
He didn’t die to save them….He died…and it accomplished nothing…and ONLY for those given did it do anything for them at all…right?
At least with my “Satanist Calvinistic” Gospel I can tell them what the bible actually says!
That they are currently under God’s wrath…that they are sinners…That Christ came to save the lost, that they need to repent and believe…and that Christ can save perfectly, his sheep….losing none.
All biblical….all true…
Stuart…
And one last thing ok?
This simplistic “world means everyone who ever lived or will ever live and I don’t have to show it or prove it” thing you’ve got going just doesn’t fly.
You DO KNOW that “world” is used many ways in scripture right? I didn’t think it had to be pointed out but you ASSUME the meaning and then call it the “plain reading”
Examples:
Acts 17:24
Used of the Universe as a whole:
“God that made the world and all things therein seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth.”
John 13:1
Used of the earth:
Ephesians 1:4, etc., etc.- “When Jesus knew that his hour was come that He should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved His own which were in the world He loved them unto the end.”
John 12:31
Used of the world-system: etc.
“Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the Prince of this world be cast out”—
Romans 3:19
Is used of the whole human race: etc.
“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”
John 15:18
Used of humanity minus believers:
“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.”
Used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews:
Romans 11:12 etc.
“Now if the fall of them (Israel) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their (Israel’s) fulness.” Note how the first clause in italics is defined by the latter clause placed in italics. Here, again, “the world” cannot signify all humanity for it excludes Israel!
Used of believers only:
John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19.
So when you ASSUME what meaning you are assigning to “the world” and then call it the “plain reading” what you are really doing is interpreting it the way you want, and then shutting down all dialogue about it’s meaing.
Stuart,
I’m not sure what I need to respond to since my other brothers have done so well responding to you. They are much more patient than I.
Again, I do not need to tell an unbeliever that Christ died for *his* sins specifically. I can, however, tell them that God’s desire is for them to believe that Christ died for *your* sins. For if that unbeliever repents and believes that Christ died for his sins then he is no longer an unbeliever.
See, unless one believes in Christ and his work on the cross it doesn’t matter if you tell them Christ died for *their* sins or not.
The motivation to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ is not to think, to put it crassly – “Jesus died for me so I better return the favor and do something for Him and believe.” That’s like trying to get a date with someone by telling them how much you like them even though they don’t really know you.
Bottom line: No one is changing their mind here. If you think we Calvinists are unsaved and have a false Gospel and we are unmoved by your arguments it’s probably time to move on.
I would have closed this comment stream a while ago if my brothers weren’t still engaging you. I don’t want to close the comment in case anyone actually has anything to say about the John 3:16 Conference, but I may.
We’ll see…
Mark
Johnmark,
thank you for your patience…
I’m done.
bob
Robert/JohnMark,
Truly and rightly did my Saviour say, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (Matt. 7:6). I have learned a valuable lesson.
Robert/johnMark,
Welcome to the heretic doghouse brothers. It was getting cold in here all by myself
You know, I don’t think I have ever heard one of those angry Calvinist make the bald faced statements about anti-calvinists that Bro. Stuart has made about us and our faith. Just an observation.
Grace and Peace…
abclay
ABClay,
Yeah…you are right.
I think it can safely be said and it was demonstrated from this “interesting thread” that the pattern holds true.
1.) Calvinist’s are accused of having “unloving” doctrines of men (or worse in this case; Satans Gospel)
2.) Many assertions are made…unfounded on careful Scripture exegesis of course.
3.) Calvinist tries to get Synergist (or worse) to substantiate their assertions.
4.) Synergist repeats claims over again OR rabbit trails a new path leaving the old one behind.
5.) Calvinist repeats plea for substantiation.
6.) Synergist calls Calvinist names.
7.) Conversation ends with Synergist pointing out how it’s obvious Calvinist’s twist scripture.
Have I missed anything?
Have you seen this video? “How to defeat Calvinism”?
It’s a crack up and true…this thread is proof.
http://goshareyourfaith.wordpress.com/2008/12/08/437/
Just something interesting considering the thread of comments that’s gone on here.
I was sitting this morning doing my bible reading and a friend of my son’s who’s 17, sat down beside me.
He asked what I was reading and I showed him…he didn’t know anything about the bible, Jesus or anything.
So I asked him; what does he think will happen when he dies…and he said he’d probably go to Hell…he’s done some bad things.
When I asked him what he felt about that…he said that he was afraid that God would not or could not forgive him…that God might refuse! So he was afraid to even ask!
So what did this Calvinist do? I showed him John 6:35-45 and showed him that Jesus himself said that those that come to him, will never be cast out…there is no way he could come to Jesus; repent and believe, and be turned away…
I showed him John 19:30; Jesus saying “it is finished” the debt has been paid.
Nobody believing has to fear that they will be cast out.
I presented the gospel message straight from scripture…no problem…and he didn’t seem to mind that I didn’t use the phrase “Christ died for you!”
bob
Over 40 years ago I was wading through all of the info I could get my hands on about the atonement, limited and general. When I realized that even general and universal atonement was limited (e.g., not everyone for whom the blood was shed was redeemed in this life, etc.), I thought I pretty well had the L of TULIP under control. But then I thought about it for 40 years, and I found that such a view has an inverse function to it, that it is paradoxical. In other words, the opposite effect is to be expected. So I preach particular redemption/limited atonement in order to get more people saved. There is a reason for every one of the doctrines of grace, and it is often totally contrary to the expected results. The secret of Reformations, Great Awakeings, Great Centuries of Missions, is each truth of TULIP along with Predestination and Reprobation, if set forth in the right manner and with true confidence and reliance upon the Lord Jesus Christ. Each truth is an invitation, not a billy club to beat someone over the head with. Each doctrine has the effect of lifting off the burden on every soul that hears. It is interesting to find that Mr Spurgeon believed there would be a day in which the Gospel would take the whole earth, that the whole world and every soul in it would be converted to Christ. He didn’t say for how long. So I pray for a generation and even a thousand generations of converts that reach from one end of the heavens to the other. I should add that Mr. Spurgeon prayed for every soul on earth (Read his Morning & Evening Devotion, esp. for the Evenings of Aug. 6 & Dec. 24). The wisest man I ever met asked me one day, “Have you ever thought that at any one time every soul on the face of the earth could be the elect of God?” I answeed no, and 7-8 years later that question and Jonah 3 blew my my eschatology to smithereens. I was then pastoring in the Sandy Creek Assn. (the Gum Springs Baptist Church of Moncure, NC), which as we all know grew out of the labors of Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall who had been converted in the First Great Awakening. Gum Springs Church,founded in 1829, grew out of the labors of a man converted about the time of the Second Great Awakening, Elder Hezekiah Harmon. It was strange to pastor in Sandy Creek Assn., since I had done 6 years of research in Baptist Church History and had written a MA thesis in Americn Social & Intellectual History on the subject, “The Baptists & Ministerial Qualifications:1750-1850.” That thesis had involved Philadelphia, Charleston, Sandy Creek, Ketocton, Kehukee, and Elkhorn Baptist Assns. I am utterly humbled by what I read. The secret of Baptist success in the centuries that followed grew out of those awakenings and out of the doctrines thus elucidated. What we seem to have done is to have lost the knowledge of how paradoxical and apparently contradictory teachings actually work. We have also failed to grasp how they work humility and wisdom in true believers. My prayer is God grant us the Third Great Awakening. Let the heavens drop down, let your will be done on this earth under the most adverse conditions just as your will is being done in heaven. Let deep heaven come down upon us in the presence of truth, and that for the whole earth and evey soul upon it for a whole generation and for a thousand generations. The enemy has come in like a flood, lift up a standard against him, a counter flood, a trunami. Let the whole earth be filled with your knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea. Let the nations beat their swords in to plowshares and learn war no more. Let very man set under his own vine and fig tree, and let none make him afraid. Let the inhabitants of one city say to the inhabitants of another city, Let us go up for to worship the Lord of Hosts. God, once more, shake not the earth only, but the Heaven also by bringing Heaven down to earth in all of its tender awesome melting power. How can any evil stand in the presence of such goodness? How can any and all hate stand in the presence of omnipotent love? How can ignorance resist lovely omniscience? How can hearts of stone resist the flame of such love?
Dr. Willingham,
You have said much more elequently, (and with more knowledge)than I ever could, what I’ve thought many times.
thank you for a good, thoughtful post.
bob
Thank you Robert for a kind but undeserved comment. I wish I was as good as you make it sound. I am interested in answering Bro. Stuart above. I came to believe in Sovereign Grace as a result of wrestling with very simple terms such as can as opposed to will as in “no man can come to me”. Now, that spells inability in any one’s language. Man’s Fall in the Garden destroyed his ability. We suffer from disability, darkness, depravity as in so desperately wicked that only God knows the extent and intent, deadness. Jesus even considers the woman of Canaan as so depraved as to deserve the term dogs (surely a term descriptive of reprobation) and no one can argue that the woman didn’t accept his designation, because she said, “Truth, Lord, but even the dogs…” She treated her reprobate state as a matter of appeal to the goodness and mercy of God. Also when Jesus said in her presence to His disciples, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” the woman, no jew after the flesh, came and worshipped Him. She treated his doctrine of limited atonement as an invitation to worship. Can our dear brother understand the nature of paradoxes and how they can accomplish the very opposite of what they clearly state? Spurgeon, a limited atonement advocate, yet prayed for the conversion of the whole world. The inverse function of biblical teachings, the intellectual depths, the omniscience, reflected in Holy Truths are in their clarity another medium into which we peer and we cannot evaluate the goodness, etc. of such a thing as we tend to think of it only within the parameters of our own filters for thinking and evaluating evidence. Naturally, we suffer from the paralysis of analysis (Dr. Jess Moody more than 40 years ago). Thinking outside the box is a hard strain on the brain. Synthetical thinking is a real challenge, but worthwhile. Just ask yourself these questions: Why did God send two great awakenings and the beginning of the great century of missions upon people who believed in calvinistic (I still prefer Sovereign Grace any day of the week)theology when it came to salvation? Just consider this: Peter Peterson Van Horn and Benjamin Miller came down from the Philadelphia Assn. to NC in 1755 and persuaded some General Baptists to become particular Regular Baptists. These General Baptists had little evangelistic or missionary concern, and the limited atonement people had both. This group went along for years arfter 1755 baptizing 25-30 a year. Then in 1801 (46 yrs later), they baptized 870+. The Second Great Awakening had taken place with them. As to liberal and radical practices, the Baptists of VA fell out and got back together, because they were ashamed of their conduct. So the idea of preaching Christ tasted death for every man was allowed as no bar to communion (obviously the doctrine was He tasted death for the Elect). The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel is a greater, more powerful, more intense, more wonderully compelling, and irresistible because it is so wonderful. But some folks just can’t see that as the Syro-Phoenecian woman did in Mt.15. Like Whitefield and Wesley let us think that we will not see our fellow saints in heaven because they will be so near the throne and we so far that we won’t be able to see them. It all sort of reminds me of a children’s quarrel in the school yard. Five minutes later, the whole thing will be forgotten in a new round of fun, excitement, adventure, and understanding as we see and experience reality from different perspectives. AND ANY POSITION CAN BE MISREPRESENTED BY ANY ONE AT ANY TIME. I MEAN IF YOU HAD HEARD PETER CURSING AND DENYING HIS LORD WOULD YOU HAVE WANTED ANY PART OF THE GOSPEL HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE? OR WHAT ABOUT THE CONTENTION BETWEEN PAUL AND BARNABAS OVER JOHN MARK THAT THEY PARTED ASUNDER (ACTS 15:39)AND PAUL’S REMARK ABOUT LOVE NOT BECOMING PROVOKED (I CORS.13:5)? THE WORDS FOR CONTENTION AND PROVOKED ARE THE SAME; IT IS THE WORD FOR RAGE. THESE MEN GOT SO ENRAGED, WELL YOU GET THE IDEA. THEY WERE JUST POOR, SINFUL HUMAN BEINGS LIKE US. AND WHAT ABOUT DAVID AND ADULTERY AND MURDER? WHY DON’T THE LEGALISTS TEAR THE MATERIAL WRITTEN BY THIS MURDERER AND ADULTERER OUT OF THE BIBLE, WHEN THEY COME DOWN SO HARD ON PEOPLE WITH SECOND MARRIAGES? Let us also note the unconditional prophecy of judgment in Jonah 3. It was a literal, unconditional prophecy, but the point is that literal and unconditional is not the point. The point is the purpose for which it was stated. Could things like limited atonement, unconditional election, and irresistible grace be the most inviting, the most intensely inviting truths in the Bible? The woman of Canaan thought so. Jesus’ fellow citizens of Nazareth did not, and he did not get to depravity and dogs as they acted out That doctrine (Lk 4:18ff). Jesus used the same approach in both cases. Were these truths invitations in the one case? Were they not the same in the second? I think so. And note the humility of the woman in Mt.15. Also note our Lord’s comment on her response, one He never applied to any of His disciples. “Great is thy Faith!” Hey! It is a great time to be alive and present our Lord’s case for HIS GRACE BEING GREATER THAN OUR SINS!!!!
Dr. Willingham,
another good post; very thought provoking. I’ll go over it and the scriptures sited again to make sure that I “get it”…(I’m not very smart)
I would however, not expect much from our buddy Stuart. If you’ve spent time reading the amazing amount of posts here at this topic, and seen the utter inanity of some of the responses given by Stuart and others, you might not be so optimistic.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
{ 3 trackbacks }