Let's play Calvinism for awhile.First read 1 John 2:1-2. Afterwards, I have a few questions.
1. Who/What is Jesus a propitiation for?
2. What does propitiation mean?
Before you listen to my babbling (or as Cody calls it, "pontification"), please answer these questions in your own mind according to the Text or the dictionary...as needs be.
Let's start with question number 2. What is propitiation? According to Easton's:
"...in 1 John 2:2...Christ is called the “propitiation for our sins.” Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is “the propitiation,” because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured...."
I'm not sure I want to use the entire Easton definition as yet, simply because it uses the exclusive language "our." Our substitute. Our obligations. Our guilt. So with this information, let's use the more common definition of "atoning sacrifice."
Redemption 101
Jesus is the atoning sacrifice. As was standard in Hebrew Law, a sacrifice was necessary for the expiation of the sins of the people. In those days, various animals were slaughtered. Under the New Covenant, Jesus has become the effective atoning sacrifice for the sins of the people. Jesus was sacrified on the cross. He became for us the Atonement, the Redeemer and the Propitiation. The slaughtered Lamb.
The due wage for sin is death. Beyond the physical death, each sin will be punished by God. Each person not atoned for by the Redeember receives wrath. Divine wrath. Eternal judgment.
However, Jesus Christ died to set aside that wrath. He effectively atoned for the sins of the people. Since Christ is the propitiation, the sins of the people are not taken into account.
End Redemption 101
Now, let's answer the first question. Who/What is Jesus a propitiation for? According to the 1 John 2 and other verses - "not ours only, but the sins of the whole world." Jesus' sacrifice is the propitiation of the sins of the whole world.
Yet...
The world is still going to Hell.
Why? Why are they still under judgment if their account has been settled? Why are they going to the unquenchable fire if Jesus died for their sins? Did Jesus not purchase their salvation at the cross?
We do not believe that the rejectors, unbelievers, idolotors or God-haters are saved. However, we do believe that that our sins "are nailed to the cross." We sing, "old rugged cross..." We know it was at the cross that our atoning sacrifice was made. We were purchased there on those timbers. The death of Christ was effective that Friday. It paid the price. Propitiation was once for all.
Why is the world still going to Hell? Is it their sin? Unbelief? Yes. Because they have rejected the Christ, the Holy One of God, they will face the Holy Wrath of God. They will go to eternal destruction. Were their sins accounted for? No. They were never expiated. The sin remains uncovered.
Atoning sacrifice has always been for those under the Covenant, whether Old or New. It was never meant to account for the sins of those outside of the Covenant.
Sacrifice is powerful and effective. Therefore we must read 1 John 2 in light of the effective power of the cross experience. We do not believe that God has set aside His wrath from the whole world. On the contrary, most of the world will be consumed. To believe otherwise is essentially universalism.
What does "world" mean then?
I won't pontificate too much further. But does "everyone" always mean "everyone?" In Bible class we ask, "Is everyone here?" What we mean is "Is everyone who is supposed to be here, here?" Or someone may say, "Everyone is watching the World Cup." This is common with many inclusive words. Every, everyone, all and world. Does "world" always mean the "whole of the human population?" Sometimes. Sometimes it means, "those not made righteous." Other times it means "the collective nations."
That said, better we redefine "world" rather than "propitiation." :)
Who did Jesus die for? I believe it is biblical to say that Jesus died to redeem His people. He was sacrificed for His people, not only from the Jews, but from every nation. The whole world.
We can use other more ugly words. Jesus died only for the Elect. The Foreknown.
( Now some will ask, "But if Jesus didn't die for everyone then how can everyone have a chance to be saved?" I won't answer this question here, because I don't want to labeled a "5-Pointer." However, let me just say that no person can say, "I want to be saved, I want to believe....but Jesus didn't die for me." Thanks John Piper.)
Please tell me what you think. I need to wrestle with these thoughts some more. Bring the Scripture. There are plenty.
Allow me this last blasphemy:
"To the Calvinists I have become Arminian, to the Arminians I have become Calvinist. I have become all things to all men that I may by all means save some. Just some. "
31 comments:
I guess I'll take another shot at the whole notion of "limited atonement." Is John's point not that the death of Jesus has power to save the world. It has paid the price to satisfy God's wrath completely so that anyone can be saved. Not just the "elect" which is the 2nd point of Calvinism (unconditional election). So anyone who believes in Jesus is saved from the wrath of God and those who reject the one sacrifice that satisfies the wrath of God will have to face that wrath both now and at the end of time. I think "world" in the passage refers to the all people not just the world of believers. I think that's stretching the text. One more thought, under the Old Covenant, there was a national sacrifice to atone for the nation's sin but it had to be appropriated by faith. what do you think?
Hey Sean. Thanks for jumping on this.
Few would argue that the "death of Jesus has the power to save the world." It does. The death of Christ did (indeed) pay the price to completely satisfy the wrath of God...so that anyone who believes can be saved. Not just anyone. On the day of judgment I believe we will notice a certian pecularity at the separating of the sheep and goats: Everyone who is saved will be the Foreknown Elect. The goats (Bleeeet!) will be history's unbelievers, revilers and hypocrites. The wrath of God has not been and will not be removed from the goats. Jesus did not purchase opportunity. He purchased salvation.
Does this ring true?
Mr. Katinga, fine to hear a voice from your slice of the globe. Mr. W., i think it's not properly pontificating if you announce it and then follow it with a question. That's the business of demigogues and sophists. ;-) i'll hafta edit my link (or i might find myself having been all along not among the elect). Now if i may stick my hairy nose in on your conversation...
It seems the basic point o' contention is a pull for "the chosen" (or "elect") vs. "those who choose." Maybe it's more germane to the context to say you're arguing about whether "world" in the passage should be taken to refer to "the chosen" or to "those who may choose"--- the latter being those for whom an "opportunity" has been purchased, which, of course, would be "all people not just the world of believers." It does not, on the other hand, seem to be the issue whether the entire world will in fact be saved. (That would be obviated well enough later on in 1 John. For example, if "he who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life," then it seems reasonable to assume, based on the author having bothered writing all that, that someone doesn't have the Son.)
So the question really seems to be "How are we supposed to view ourselves qua world?" But that exposes the fault in both views, i think: maybe the problem is in viewing "ourselves qua world" at all. The problem with Calvin's view of election, i.e. with viewing ourselves as "the chosen," is that doing so tends to justify us in skipping over the whole personal-responsibility bit. (Why not sin so that grace may abound, seeing as i'm chosen and all?) Thus, seeing ourselves as "the chosen" is either tautologous ("in my estimation the 'Ones God Chooses' are the ones God chooses") or else grossly arrogant insofar as i have even the least say in whether somebody is among the chosen or not. That is to say, who am i to say whom God is obligated to save? On the other side of the coin, there's also a sort of arrogance in viewing us "those who may choose." It obviously puts the choosing in our hands. On that view, Jesus died and is now sitting back waiting for some of us lucky ones to slip through the net, hear the news and get into Heaven.
Neither of those seem right vis-a-vis scripture. Not everyone is saved, we do have a responsibility to live out our belief, yet it's still entirely at the whim of God whether we will live or not; God is not somehow obligated by whatever doctrine we can eke out of scripture. (i doubt that Calvin would have differed from that at all; he made the mistake of codifying what he thought.) So again, i think there's a mistake in trying to make a call for the "world" at all, when the "world" consists of anyone outside of myself. Jesus died for the sins of me. i have an (infinite) obligation to God. If God feels like it, He'll "give light to my eyes or i will sleep in death." So to answer your (JW) last question, i think God certainly did purchase salvation for the elect, but that only has a meaning from His point of view. From down here, He purchased opportunity (i.e. hope) and somehow putting all our chips on that hope is our movement in the direction of salvation. Maybe that doesn't sound strong enough, but i think that's the way it's supposed to be.
Wow, Cody! Thems'r big words.
I just jumped right in the Calvinist end of the pool, didn't I? Well, let me clarify a couple of things. First, as you may have noticed, I am not a Calvinist. I only use the name to tickle Sean. On the other hand, I am not Arminian. Second, though I enjoy reading John Calvin, I am not necessarily a proponent. Neither am I an antagonist. I will defend him at this point: he did not officially "codify" his theology. The so-called Five Point Calvinism was established after his death. Some would argue that Calvin would not even be Calvinist. Perhaps.
I think your other points are valid. I appreciate the attempt at balance and reconciliation.
The idea of the Elect is understood by faith. Though Paul clearly teaches that the saved have been chosen beforehand, we understand our inclusion in the Elect through faith. Not all of the indicators of Election are non-observable, of course. Yet, as you mentioned, we have hope in our salvation. But we are not serving an arbitrary, whimsical God. We are serving a God who is saving people. And these people are not ignorant of their salvific status nor lacking in hope. They are obedient and hopeful and faithful.
I agree very strongly that who is Elect is known first and foremost by God. They are of His choosing, calling and election. As such, it seems fitting that He send Jesus to die for them. Actually, it does not seem fitting. But it does seem merciful; a demonstration of Grace.
Our confidence before God is not in our belief that we are Elect. We are confident only in God's grace. We are not proud to be Elect. But thankful. So we sing appropriately, "Why have you chosen me out of millions your child to be? You know all the wrongs that I've done. How could you pardon me? Forgive my iniquity? To save me You gave Jesus your Son."
Many of the religous perspectives assume the place of God's perspective. (For instance, the whole Objectivity argument.) But things like Election are rooted in pre-historic decision, well beyond the grasp of man. At the cross, Jesus died for those God will save. And who God will save...we will find out. Our hope (not unfounded) is that we are among them. So they apostles said, "Let us work out our salvation with fear and trembling" and "Make your calling and election sure."
There are some fine arguments in the traditional TULIP theology. We grew up in the anti-flower tradtion. I fear that we may have thrown the baby out with the bath-water. I only bring these things to the table, so that we might discuss them, maybe even reject them, but in the process sharpen our view of our Redemption and the work of Christ on the cross.
Thanks for the thoughts, Cody.
The Katinga-Ward motto is not (as some suspect) "Agree to Disagree." Rather our motto is "Unity."
Of course, under our motto is our tagline, "Agree? Where's the fun in that?"
i am also not a Calvinist and i also suspect that Calvin wouldn't have been either. "Codify" is not the right word... that's what i get for writing at 2am. What i meant (if this is worth defending at all) is that he made the mistake of writing down what he thought. Seems the best way of having your material twisted is by making any sort of definite statement about anything whatsoever '-)
On to the meaty, interesting stuff...
"But we are not serving an arbitrary, whimsical God." And then, "So we sing appropriately, 'Why have you chosen me out of millions your child to be?'" There's the hard bit of Christianity, the paradox, the finite-historical vs. eternity. On the one hand you have God who will "save whom He'll save and damn whom He'll damn"--- "the saved have been chosen beforehand" and so what do we have to do with it?--- and on the other hand we're to make our "calling and election sure," and "work out [our] salvation." So if we're saved by, let's say, our belief, then it's because we were elected beforehand to have belief. But putting confidence in our election seems (by way of a whoooole lotta experimentation) the surest way to arrogance (i.e. idolatry). So our belief (along with, perhaps, the righteousness reckoned to us thereby) seems to be exactly opposed to any belief in the importance of that belief. That is to say, while belief in my salvation (or, if i want to stay on the straight and narrow, the possibility of my salvation)produces hope in me, belief in my election produces arrogance and laziness. In other words, i can't believe in the positivity of my election and maintain the fortitude to work out my salvation with "fear and trembling" at the same time.
It's not that i don't believe in our predestination/ election. It's just that i don't believe that can have a meaning for us if we're to keep working. You can't make yer calling and election sure if you're already sure of it.
Also, i don't mean to say that God is "whimsical" or arbitrary-- indeed, i'm confident that chaos is the Devil. But from our strange p.o.v. i think God is supposed to seem somewhat arbitary. Consider David when he's praying and fasting for the life of Bathsheba's first baby by him. "Who knows? Maybe the Lord will be gracious to me and let the child live." If we have perfect confidence we can't have hope or faith, fear or trembling. Sounds good to me, but that's not for this life--- even, it would seem, for Jesus.
"So tell me mister Nezzer, now whaddaya think of that?" It might also be enlightening to discuss Sean's question about faith in corporate atonement. Peace out.
A wise man once said:
"The theologian who puts his theology into practice will not be a theologian for long."
Me, I'm putting my theology into soccer practice.
Excellent, excellent points, Farisee. Deep, wide and devestating. But i guess first you'd hafta be a theologian long enough to scrape together enough theology to put you out of business. Then you can quit thinking about the whole business altogether. And on those late nights when you're utterly failing to baptize the fallen world or serve the widows and orphans, instead of lapsing back into theologoholism and blogging your mates some matter reeking of lurid thoughts on God, you just gather together your twelve closest disciples, rent an upper room and break bread. It's just that i can't seem to keep twelve people with a unified purpose together in a room for long enough to celebrate anything with them. ;-)
Good to hear from you bro.
Yep A. Jason R.,
It was indeed a "wise" man who said that!
I'm practicing Election now. Don't have time for much else.
Thanks for all your thoughts, Cody.
Hi Jason,
When you say few would argue that the death of Jesus has the power to save the world, who are you referring to? Jesus died for the sins of the world, isn't this what Scripture teaches? It also teaches that Jesus' blood is able to save completely those who come to God through him (i.e. faith in Jesus). Limited atonement says in essence that Jesus only died for the elect/saved/foreknown which is not the whole world but only a select portion. This I believe is contrary to the teaching of the bible and the express desire of God in 1 Timothy 2:3-4. The 4 passages that speak of the atonement (Romans 3:23-26; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10) make the following points: One, Jesus is the atoning sacrifice. Two, that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Third, that in order to escape the wrath of God, one must appropriate the sacrifice of Jesus by placing your faith/trust in him. Fourth, that Jesus' atoning death for sin is a demonstration of God's love (1 John 4:10). John 3:16 bears this out some more ... "For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him ...Limited atonement in my estimation says God loves the elect and only the elect and as a demonstration of his love for them, he chose to die only for them. Get where this is going. Come at me again.
Love you brother
I want us to stay focused on one particular doctrine, that of the "limited" scope of Jesus atoning sacrifice. I do believe that the cross has meaning, influence and importance for the world. The cross is wisdom, as Paul says. However, what I am arguing for is the propitiation. Please don't try to anticipate all the Calvinist threads (i.e., the other 4 points) but just consider whether this doctrine stands on its own merit.
I could see little connection,in terms of a refutation, with the Romans 3 and Hebrews 2 passages. Sorry. I am not trying to dodge a bullet or anything.
Let's take 1 John 2 and 1 Timothy 2.
Paul mentions to Timothy, "God is not willing that any should perish but all should come to a knowledge of the truth." As you stated, the express desire of God is the salvation of all. This is His heart. Yet the reality, if my use that term, is: men are going to perish. Men are going to reject and be ignorant of the truth. Has something broken the will of God? Has God contradicted Himself in condemning the unbeliever? I don't believe so.
John says is his letter, "Jesus is the propitiation.. for our sins...and the sins of the whole world." But the reality is that He is not the propitiation for the sins of the unbeliever. Their sins remain unaccounted for. Is the wrath of God set aside from the world? I do not believe so. And neither is the apostle contradicting himself. Another interpretation of these two passages seems necessary. There is more than meets the eye, if only because the judgment of God seems to be in conflict with the standard "any" and "World" interpretations.
Should we say, as some do, that they will be judged solely on the basis of their rejection of Christ? On the contrary! We believe every evil man will be punished not only for his rejection of the Christ but for each and every sin before God.
I like this good, Gospel-preaching verse (somewhere it is written): But God demonstrates His love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. The just for the unjust.
In all of this talk, I never want it to be lost on us that we were all lost. Elect or not, we came from the world. Elect or not, we owe are salvation to the grace of God through the work on the cross. Elect or not, we once had enmity with God. [Editor's note: "Elect or not" is not the best way to say these points but you get the idea.]
John 3:16 is a beautiful verse, capturing the hearts of all Christians, because every one of us was once the "world." But world in John 3:16 is actually "the whole of human existence." So one may ask, "How can God show love to an entire group of people and yet only redeem a particular people?" All I can say if (not smugly) - He is doing it and has done it. In fact, in John 3:16 He states that only believers will inherit eternal life. (Inside Joke - Sean, when you start a blog, you can talk about how God hates the world, too. - hehehe)
Somewhere along the line it should be determined whether or not Jesus' propitiating act was punctilliar (to use a Greek tense.) If so, then we believe that Jesus died "once for all" and at the moment of His death, God's wrath was appeased. This would obviously limit us to a "particular redemption" or "definite atonement." (These are the modern terms for limited atonement. It destroys the TULIP acronym though.) We are limited to the limited because of the punctilliar nature of the event and because it only applies to the sins of the believers. However, if Jesus' effective propitiation is awaiting the belief of the future man, then this is another matter. ButI don't think this is what Scripture teaches.
One other thought (just thinking aloud): Typically we think of Jesus' act as transcendent, accounting for the sins of the faithful from all of history, both BC and AD. Now if He died for the sins of the whole world, what of the Pre-Christ unbeliever? Its hard to imagine that they would even be taken into account. They do not pass Go, they do not collect $200. So if at the cross Christ only died for the faithful of times past, why is it a stretch to say that He died for the faithful in the coming years?
Thanks, Sean.
Even though I am not quite settled in my thoughts, I know that if I were to re-write the original blog entry, I would change it a hundred ways.
My brother and friend, your words sound good but I believe they are just not right. Jesus death is the atoning sacrifice for the whole world but it can only be appropriated by/through faith. More than that, I do not know at this point. This view makes salvation entirely a act of God's grace - without God's atoning sacrifice what's the use of faith? But this view also emphasizes man's need to response to God's grace so as to appropriate the free of gift of "propitiation." Thank you for your thoughts. They help deepen me in my pursuit of our wonderful Lord.
In one sense, everyone agrees with the "limited" atonement because the atonement only applies to a limited group of people. Namely those who have faith. So even the devout Arminian, if questioned, would say, "Yes, the atonement is limited - to those who have faith." In fact, there is no reason that the Calvinist could not make the same claim.
I can live with these marginal agreements. :)
What did you think about Jesus dying for those who lived prior to His incarnation?
Again, in agreement with Cody, this "limited atonement" perspective is God's perspective. The knowledge of the foreknown, predestined, elected condition of the believer is a luxury only afforded the Creator. (Similar to "Once saved always saved?") I believe there are plenty of good reasons for us NOT to know who is Elect and who is not. Here is where I am on shaky ground. Is it possible that Jesus died for everyone and yet is only the propitiation for the Elect? So, like the Gospel message, it goes out to the whole world and is the "power of God unto salvation" but only saves the Elect. Is this one way to consider it? I just am uncomfortable with the language that propritiation is awaiting "appropriation."
Overall, I am not sure how are this will drastically affect our message. Our message is still:
You have sinned against the holy, righteous God.
This holy God intends to judge and punish sin.
He, in love has sent his Son so that you might be saved through faith.
Salvation is the free gift of God.
Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
Jesus is the propitiation of our sins.
Repent.
Be baptized.
Live according to the Spirit.
Pray.
Worship.
Devote yourself to the Sacred Writings.
Love your neighbor.
Love God even more.
Jesus is coming soon.
I am not one to proof-text. But...these are some verses that speak in the language of the particular redemption.
Matthew 1:21
"And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
John 10:27-30
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. "I and My Father are one."
Hebrews 2:9-13
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Ephesians 5:25-27
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Titus 2:14
who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds
Acts 20:28
Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
John 10:11-18
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father
Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen
and they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation
Romans 8:28-32
We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?
(John 11:49-52 compare with 1 John 2:2 )
But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
It is very easy to explain the language of "us" and "our" and "their." If you and I are speaking, we would say for example, Jesus died for our sins, not at all excluding the rest of the world. The language that Jesus and the apostles used are not meant to be exclusive. They are simply applied to those who are addressed. What do you think? Perhaps to simplistic for you. Keeping thinking out loud.
Nothing you say is too simplistic for me, Sean.
From a grammatical standpoint, the words "us", "we","them","our","their" are used to indicate a certain group of people or, if in the possessive, the possessions of a particular group. These words are by "nature" exclusive.
For instance, this is my blog. These are our thoughts. We are the only ones who read this blog because they just don't know how good it is.
People obviously can abuse this definition. i.e., a certain instructor who said that we can't be "ambassadors of reconciliation" because we arent part of the "us" in the text.
Generally its easier from a grammatical standpoint to limit the definition of the inclusive words rather than expand the focus of the exclusive ones.
Well, we have beat this dead horse long enough. I know because we are discussing English grammar. :)
Time to tally up the batting average. Did any of these particular redemption points sound correct? How long can you agree before you start veering off to the right?
At a practical level, its hard for me too. I can't imagine looking at an unbeliever and saying, "Jesus died to redeem you" but really meaning "but only if you are elect."
On the other hand, maybe our message can just be the Christ and Him crucified. And with that state very clearly that His death is the propitiation of the sins of the believer.
Closing comments are appreciated.
Here's another perspective -
Romans 9:18-21
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us: For who resists his will? But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like this? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
I think this is pretty self explanatory. We're all choosen by Him and He's in control of EVERYTHING and He doesn't want us to even question why...
I think Jesus died because that was the will of his Father, and because he loved us so much that he was willing to save us by His own blood so we wouldn't be condemned to the fate of the world.
After sin this world was cursed, everything in it, so it had to be redeemed through Jesus's death...
Hey Anonymous People,
I would like to know who I am talking to. I wont hate ya.
Anonymous #1,
That Romans 9 passage is another topic for another day!
I agree with the content of your statement but I would soften it a bit. While we understand God to be sovereign, its hard to think of Him as a "controlling" god in control of everything. While nothing is beyond His control, He rarely presents Himself to be controlling.
Also, it's one thing to question God's motives as the man in Romans 9 does (or as Job did) but I doubt seriously that God does not want us to make inquiry into the "hows" and "whys" of His work.
And...God certainly has chosen His chosen. :)
Anonymous 2,
I am right on with your first sentence. Not sure about the 2nd. Remember, both the world and the worldly will be consumed one day.
Redeemed?
This is anonymous #2,
When I say world I mean it in the since that it talks about in the New Testament, meaning not being a part of the world ( being non-believers, sinners )they are the condemed ones. Yes, I agree the physical world we now live in will also be destroyed.
I didn't mean the world is redeemed, we( believers)are redeemed...
Redeemed:( Webster's definition )
To buy back, to pay off,
Redemption:
the act of redeeming: rescue: ransom: that which redeems: salvation
Gotcha #2. Thanks.
j
i like your thinking in these posts jw, amen! more than like, i appreciate your irenic tone.
it just so happens that sk appeared at our worship assembly this morning. he lifted my spirit so much by his words and presence.
after visitig for about 42 minutes we had a brief discussion of "limited atonement" and he mentioned your post. so as soon as possible i logged on to read it.
i tried to preach on the conversion of saul today and weave the history and theology of his conversion into one tapestry.
anyway, if Jesus died for every single individual person, then every single individual person should be saved. if Jesus died for specific people then those will be saved and others lost for the glory of God. (i do not understand all i know about that, and i am sure i do not know all i should about it.)
i don't know if this is still a live conversation, but it's, notwithstanding, an int'resting one; instructive even if i'm just talking to myself in a now-obscure backwater of yer blog.
i haven't really meant to take on the conciliatory tone i think i've given the impression of taking. i'm trying to argue for a third view. Namely, i believe that to argue for a limited atonement vs. a more universal (or perhaps more appropriately, "shotgun") atonement is to try to do away with the paradox, the equivocation, that makes us what we are. We have to believe on the one hand that if God is sovereign, then we are (to what degree i cannot even guess) on deterministic rails, that God "hardens whom He'll harden and mercies whom He'll mercy", that (to wrench and mercilessly twist a quote from Einstein) "God does not play dice." On the other hand, if we're to have faith, not only in the sovereign design of God, but also that there is any point to our doing anything at all, then we have to believe that "God is not slow in keeping His promise... but is patient, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance." The equivocation (obviously) is that from any p.o.v. we are capable of assuming, those two views are irreconcilable. How do we, at the same time, have a Creator who is (so to speak) wishing for something to happen and-- from before the beginning-- making it happen?
The answer, i believe, is very similar to God creating a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it. Can He do that? If He wants to, He can. That's not terribly satisfying because it doesn't really give an answer. It has to be this way or that way; it can't be both. But i wonder if that's true. If it isn't, then the trick is coming up with a way (a model) for believing both at once, i.e. a way to stay balanced on top of a very, very slippery ridge.
You (JW) said at one point:
On the day of judgment I believe we will notice a certian pecularity [sic] at the separating of the sheep and goats: Everyone who is saved will be the Foreknown Elect.
"Foreknown Elect" is a loaded term. Naturally, if someone is of the "Elect" he is also (in the sense we're using it in) foreknown. But it doesn't work the other way 'round; the two describers are not the same thing and don't necessarily belong together. If we are somehow "Elect", then we have, nonetheless, to find a way for our faith to mean something. In other words, if in fact we are "Elect", in order to remain elect-- if that makes any sense-- we have to act and work as though we're not. i'll maintain that election is purely the domain of God no matter what it means. The most we can do with it is give mental ascent to it as the prerogative of God or, maybe closer to home, we can put our hope in it as in our salvation-- not as something we certainly have, but as something we very much want to have and hope we will be gifted with.
i would like to take a shot at explaing two oft (i believe) mishandled texts. both are mentioned in these posts.
1) 1 john 2:2 seems to point to a universal atonement, unless we permit the apostle to define his own terms, in which case we see that john actually meant particular atonment for many but not all jews and gentiles (see revelation 5:9-10). i prefer to call it something like "realistic atonement" because it corresponds to the way things are. so the whole world means "jews and gentiles" but not necessarily every single individual.
(2) the other text was referenced with ellipses by Cody. "God is not slow in keeping His promise... but is patient, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance." the actual text reads differently and (ironically) points away from universal atonement. peter's letters were addressed to "God's elect strangers in the world" whom he urged to make their calling and election certain. so, by the time we get to 2P3:9 a context of christian fellowship is established. "The Lord is not slow about keeping his promise as some count slowness, but he is patient with you [the elect strangers, a chosen people, a royal priesthood, et al], not purposing any [of you] to perish, but all [y'all] to come to repentance." we must be very careful about indiscriminately applying biblical promises to the world that were intended to encourage the church.
(3) 1 timothy 2:4 reads that God our Savior "wishes all men (pantas anthropos) to be saved and come to a full knowledge of the truth." again, what seems like universal redemption on the surface is not. God desires the salvation of Jews and Gentiles--even their kings, rulers and governors. the point here is that God is not the mascot of any one nation, tribe, or sect.
PS - a related text (2 timothy 2:25) makes it clear that repentance unto a full knowledge of the truth is granted by God alone so that enemies of the gospel may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil. the point here is that if God wants to save anyone he will grant them repentance and faith and release them from bondage.
i hold to particular redemption, yet i believe that the actual number of the redeemed is beyond human calculation. God is not as selfish with his grace as some imagine. in fact, it appears to me that he saves far more people than even my arminian brothers imagine he will. (most of them believe God will only save a few because only a few choose to be saved.)
sorry for hi-jacking your blog jw.
jon.marq,
Thank you for bringing that up. i tried fastidiously to term my way around allowing any sort of actual universally universal atonement to be brought up as part of the issue (because i don't think anyone present is really trying to defend it), but i failed. At any rate, it allows for an important dialectical point to be made that might otherwise remain muddy: It doesn't matter how big the "universe" is. The "universe" is just all the members of whatever set we're discussing. It could comprise every creature in the galaxy, all the humans on earth, or "God's elect strangers in the world". Interestingly, even while the limits of that set are terribly important for other reasons, the definition doesn't change the mode of salvation within the set. Dig, if you will, two universes:
1) God forges out the community of the "elect" from among the "fallen world" from before the beginning of time and then (so-to-speak) hopes that none among the "fallen world" will perish.
2) God forges out the community of the "elect" from before the beginning of time and then (so-to-speak) hopes that none from among these "elect" will perish. In 1) the universe is the "fallen world", in 2), the "elect". But just as the "elect" is the subset of the "fallen world" in 1), the "elect", as universe in 2), also seems to have a subset. Since God is still (so-to-speak) hoping that none from among the universe-- in this case, the "elect"-- will perish, there seems to be a subset of the "really elect": those already among the "elect" who additionally won't "perish, but will come to repentance".
Of course, a serious problem ensues by looking at election that way-- to wit, the term "elect" ceases to have the meaning it's supposed to have-- but it highlights the point nicely.
Please keep in mind that i'm not trying to make a point for the "really truly fully elect" called out from among the "merely elect". i'm just trying to preserve the equivocation (for us) between the omnipotent, divine fiat of God Who Elects and the shotgun-redemption-apparent nature of our salvation.
Peace Out
Hey Marq,
Thanks for the kind words. You had me with "irenic." Before looking it up, (as I am not an educated man), I considered whether or not you had mispelled "ironic." :) I am happy to hear that Sean went to your fellowship. In fact, he called me at 330 in the morning to tell me about it!
I jump on your blog everyday. All Blogspot blogs are blocked in China but I have rigged up some kind of super-secret-bypass-the-filter internet connection which I won't explain here. This allows me to read and and sometimes respond to the posts. Not every time. I think, if you look back on your post/comments, I signed my comments, "j." I know "j" is just one step up from "anonymous" but now you know...it was me. I think I was amiable. :)
I started studying through your Saul's conversion post yesterday. I think I will re-read the Holy Spirit/Re-generation post with it.
God bless you. I very am glad to hear from you. You are welcome to teach here at blog-church anytime.
You're right.
Hey Farsighted One,
Right about what?
:)
Marq,
Good insight on those Scriptures. Excellent points. I must admit that while (somehow) I had come to a "correct" interpretation, I had also taken the verses out of context.
Cody,
I intend to address (at some point) the following issues that you brought up:
1. The dialectic nature of Election. i.e., the 2-3 parts that are in tension with one another
2. Living as an Elect person
3. Our understanding of or our faith in God's Election
Please be patient with me.
Thanks for being Down with O.P.P.
Your original post.
Post a Comment