-----------------------
The author wants to insert himself and his fellow Calvinists into verses where they don't belong. Calvinists believe that the various predestination Scriptures apply to them. They believe God chose those will get saved, which of course must mean that Jesus didn't die for the world, only for the ones who were chosen. Thus the reason for his article.
The author wants to insert himself and his fellow Calvinists into verses where they don't belong. Calvinists believe that the various predestination Scriptures apply to them. They believe God chose those will get saved, which of course must mean that Jesus didn't die for the world, only for the ones who were chosen. Thus the reason for his article.
Our position is that there were indeed predestined ones, and they lived and died 2000 years ago. They were the early believers, the "firstfruits" God chose as His inheritance (Ps. 28:9, Ps. 33:12, Ps. 74:2, etc.); they are His sheep (Ps. 79:13, Ps. 100:3). They are the children of promise chosen as a remnant from Israel (Ro. 9:8).
No one alive on earth today is a firstfruit. We who accepted their message (Jn. 17:20) were included in Christ when we believed (Ep. 1:13). No one alive today is predestined.
Interestingly, the author never quotes or even mentions John 3:16 as promised in the title.
Lastly, we must note that none of this makes a difference. It's an empty exercise. Predestined or not predestined changes nothing about our privileges or obligations as Christians.
-------------------------
Every Christian believes in limited atonement. That may sound ludicrous to my Arminian friends (The author is quick to divide everyone into camps.)
Every Christian believes in limited atonement. That may sound ludicrous to my Arminian friends (The author is quick to divide everyone into camps.)
because it has long been assumed that only Calvinists hold to the dreaded “L” in TULIP. But if the death of Jesus Christ is recognized as an actual atonement (and not merely a potential one), then the question of limitation cannot be escaped, unless you believe the lie of universalism. (The author opens with a false binary choice [limited vs. universalism]. His version of atonement is based on the results, not on the action effected by Jesus on the cross.)
It is the recognition that Christ’s death actually atoned for sins that governs our interpretation of those wonderful texts that speak of the great breadth of His saving work. (Jesus "actually" atoned for all sin. We choose to measure the equation by action not effect, while Calvinists measure by effect not action.
Further, "who Jesus died for" [the whole world] is s different equation than "who Jesus saves" [those who become born again].)
For example, John writes that Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). The choice here is not between Calvinism and Arminianism. (No, it's a choice between action and effect.)
It is between Calvinism and universalism. If “world” means “each and every person who ever lived or will live” then everyone will be saved because of the objective nature of propitiation. (One can start to see how the author's premise manifests in an increasing number of false deductions for which explanations and work-arounds must be invented.
What does "world" actually mean? Is it some sort of mystery, or can we simply look it up? Well here it is: For 1 John 2: 2 the Greek reads, peri holou tou kosmou [the whole entire world, the universe].
World means world. Everyone. Including all creation, in fact. Jesus action propitiated for the entirety of creation.)
No sin would be left unpaid for — including the sin of unbelief. (Jesus did not pay for sin. There is no verse in the Bible that says He did. Jesus paid for us:
1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price...
The author is simply wrong.)
No one who takes seriously the Bible’s teachings on hell and judgment would ever affirm universalism, which means that John uses “world” here to mean something other than each and every person who will ever live (as he often does; see John 14:19; 16:8; 18:20; 1 John 2:15,). John’s concern is to assert that Jesus is the only Savior the world has. (An inventive dodge.)
His death redeems people not just from among the Jews or Americans or from any one group, but from among the whole world.
Calvinism protects from the heresy of universalism on the one hand and the error of reducing the objective nature of the atonement on the other. (No, it doesn't.)
Calvinism protects from the heresy of universalism on the one hand and the error of reducing the objective nature of the atonement on the other. (No, it doesn't.)
The Calvinist recognizes that the death of Jesus saves everyone for whom it was designed. (i.e., The Elect, the ones God predestined for salvation. The reason for Limited Atonement is because of predestination.)
In other words, the atonement is viewed as limited in its scope and purpose. All for whom Christ died will be saved. (2Co. 5:14-15 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.)
Arminianism, however, cannot successfully guard against such mistakes. The Arminian claims that the death of Jesus was designed to save each and every person in history without actually doing so. As such, the atonement did not save everyone for whom it was intended. In other words, the Arminian view, while claiming that the atonement is unlimited in its extent, is forced to conclude that it is limited in its efficacy. It failed to accomplish its universal purpose. (A series of logical steps based on a false premise. Only a Calvinist would think that Jesus failed because not everyone got saved. They think this is a problem for which limited atonement is the answer. This scales the scope of the atonement to match the number of the actual saved.)
The difference between these two views is like the difference between a narrow bridge that extends all the way across a valley and a wider one that only goes halfway. Who cares how broad it is if it does not get you to the other side? (Bad analogy. Both sides of the debate admit there are the saved, so the bridge does go across the valley for each.)
This difference is what made Charles Spurgeon argue that Arminianism, much more than Calvinism, limits the atonement of Christ. The Arminian says:
Arminianism, however, cannot successfully guard against such mistakes. The Arminian claims that the death of Jesus was designed to save each and every person in history without actually doing so. As such, the atonement did not save everyone for whom it was intended. In other words, the Arminian view, while claiming that the atonement is unlimited in its extent, is forced to conclude that it is limited in its efficacy. It failed to accomplish its universal purpose. (A series of logical steps based on a false premise. Only a Calvinist would think that Jesus failed because not everyone got saved. They think this is a problem for which limited atonement is the answer. This scales the scope of the atonement to match the number of the actual saved.)
The difference between these two views is like the difference between a narrow bridge that extends all the way across a valley and a wider one that only goes halfway. Who cares how broad it is if it does not get you to the other side? (Bad analogy. Both sides of the debate admit there are the saved, so the bridge does go across the valley for each.)
This difference is what made Charles Spurgeon argue that Arminianism, much more than Calvinism, limits the atonement of Christ. The Arminian says:
“Christ has died that any man may be saved if” — and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sire, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. (Spurgeon’s Sermons, vol. 4, p. 228) (We wonder what profit there is in arguing in this way. Is there anything here that edifies? Does it assist us in worship to know whose right? Does such knowledge add anything at all to our faith? Nope.)
Well, what is “our” view of the atonement that Spurgeon so passionately defended? Specifically, it is the understanding that Jesus actually redeemed everyone He intended to redeem when He shed His blood on the cross. (Catch that? Jesus had no intent to save certain people because God did not choose them. The lost never had a chance because God purposed from the beginning that they would go to hell.
Let that sink in.)
Just as the high priest under the old covenant wore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his breastplate when he performed his sacrificial service, so our great High Priest under the new covenant had the names of His people inscribed on His heart as He offered up Himself as a sacrifice for their sins. (No Bible verse provided.)
In John 10, Jesus clearly announces the particular focus of His atoning death. He calls Himself the “Good Shepherd” who “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). (Jesus was not talking about us, He was talking about the Jews.)
In John 10, Jesus clearly announces the particular focus of His atoning death. He calls Himself the “Good Shepherd” who “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). (Jesus was not talking about us, He was talking about the Jews.)
Shortly after this, He describes His sheep as those who have been given to Him by His Father. (That is, those who would be saved out of Israel as a firstfruits [Ja. 1:18, Re. 14:4]. We gentile believers are the
...other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. Jn. 10:16.)
Furthermore, He bluntly declares to some unbelieving Israelites, “you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep” (John 10:26–29, NKJV). (They were not among those chosen as a remnant out of Israel [Ro. 9:27, Ro. 11:5].)
Our Lord’s high priestly prayer in John 17 shows the same kind of limited scope. As He braces for His sacrificial death for His people, He prays specifically—indeed, exclusively—for them. (Sigh. Jesus was praying for the apostles. Jesus specifically tells us this:
Jn. 17:20 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message..."
(We are no longer confident that the author is a competent Bible teacher.)
They are the ones whom the Father had given Him out of the world (John 17:6). Consequently, His priestly intercession was limited to them: “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). (The apostles...)
It is inconceivable that Jesus would fail to pray for those for whom He was about to die as a substitutionary sacrifice. The ones for whom He prayed are the same ones for whom He died.
The doctrine of limited atonement, or particular redemption, does not suggest any inadequacy in the death of Christ. (No one has asserted the Jesus' death has inadequacy. Rather, the Calvinistic doctrine is unbiblical.)
The doctrine of limited atonement, or particular redemption, does not suggest any inadequacy in the death of Christ. (No one has asserted the Jesus' death has inadequacy. Rather, the Calvinistic doctrine is unbiblical.)
Because of who it is that suffered, the death of Jesus is of infinite worth. The Canons of Dort go to great lengths to establish this point and declare plainly that “the death of the Son of God . . . is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (2.3).
The limitation in the atonement stems from the intention and purpose of God in sending Jesus to the cross. Christ’s redemptive work was designed to be a particular atonement for His own people — those whom the Father had given Him. His death was intended to save the elect. (Ah, here we have it. He died for The Elect only. One Calvinistic doctrine requires another and another in order for it to make any sense at all.)
Jesus teaches that His whole redemptive ministry was carried out in fulfillment of a divinely prearranged plan. This is what He means in John 6:38–39:
The limitation in the atonement stems from the intention and purpose of God in sending Jesus to the cross. Christ’s redemptive work was designed to be a particular atonement for His own people — those whom the Father had given Him. His death was intended to save the elect. (Ah, here we have it. He died for The Elect only. One Calvinistic doctrine requires another and another in order for it to make any sense at all.)
Jesus teaches that His whole redemptive ministry was carried out in fulfillment of a divinely prearranged plan. This is what He means in John 6:38–39:
For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (Sigh again. Who was Jesus talking to? The Jews [Jn. 6:59]. Who was given to Jesus? The ones who were predestined, the earliest Jewish believers, the firstfruits. The entire context is Jewish, yet Calvinists insist on inserting themselves into every verse.)
Theologians refer to this arrangement as the covenant of redemption in which, before history began, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit pledged to bring about the salvation of fallen people. Out of sheer mercy and grace, the Father chose individuals to be saved (Rom. 9:11–13; (Jews. We cover this here.)
Eph. 1:4; (We were not the first to hope in Christ [Ep. 1:11], the early Christians [the firstfruits] were. They were predestined, not us later gentiles.)
2 Thess. 2:13). (The Thessalonian church was at that time comprised mostly of Jews [Acts 17:1-4]. The early believing Jews, including those in Thessalonica, were chosen.)
These chosen ones He gave to His Son (John 6:37, 39; (The first Jewish believers...)
17:6, 9, 24 (The apostles.))
who committed Himself to accomplish their salvation through His incarnate, redemptive mission (Mark 10:45; John 10:11). In keeping with this divine agenda, the Spirit is sent into the world by the Father and the Son (John 15:26; 16:5–15) to apply the work of Christ to those whom the Father gave the Son and for whom the Son died.
This view of the atonement guarantees the success of evangelism. (Well, duh. If all those who God chose to be saved will be saved, then that would be 100% exactly successful.)
God has a people who will be saved infallibly through the preaching of the Gospel. (Um, if the Elect are chosen, the preaching of the Gospel is irrelevant.)
He has chosen them. Christ has died for them. And the Spirit will regenerate them through the message of salvation. This truth kept Paul going in the face of discouragement at Corinth (Acts 18:9–10), and it will keep us going on in our evangelistic efforts today—not only locally, but globally (Rev. 5:9). (Evangelism is irrelevant. The Elect will be saved regardless. Nothing we do or say will change that fact about us as Christians or those God has yet to actually saved.)
No comments:
Post a Comment