Atonement Debate

Clearing Up the Confusion

One problem with this debate is that we both agree that Christ died to save the elect. Seth believes that Christ also died to do something for the reprobate. I don’t think that the Scriptures say so. Because I adhere to Sola Scriptura, as does Seth, I don’t believe doctrines unless Scripture teaches them.

I don’t suppose that Seth is asking me to find a verse that specifically denies his position. In other words, I don’t suppose that Seth is asking me to find the verse that says “Christ did nothing by his death for the reprobate” or “there was one purpose, and only one purpose to the atonement.” We can call this the “Prove the Bible doesn’t teach it” argument. Instead, I presume that Seth is asking me to present the best arguments in opposition to the doctrines of “multiple intentions” and the “universal atonement.” I don’t think Seth is intentionally trying to use the Prove the Bible doesn’t teach it argument.

In the first verse, which I’ll get back to in a bit, I went after the multiple intentions view with one of the stronger verses that demonstrates the purpose of God in giving his Son, namely to save all the believers.

Now, in the present verse I am demonstrating the same single purpose in another text. I could pick dozens of such verses, but this verse is significant for another reason. It is important because it tends to get cited a lot in these sort of debates. In fact, as much as the format permits, I had hoped to provide something of a softball – a verse that I expected Seth would be quite prepared on, as it has some linguistic similarity to his counter-thesis in this debate.


Can Seth Simply Agree with My Exegesis?

Seth wrote: “I could agree 100% with Turretinfan on his post and it does nothing to the implication of the Scriptures saying that Christ died for all, especially the elect. Even an Arminian could agree with what Turretinfan has posted.”

Well, of course, if Seth agrees, we can just move on to another verse. If Seth agrees, though, that’s one less verse out of the (how many verses are there in your Bible?) verses available from which to attempt to establish a doctrine of universal atonement and/or multiple intentions.

Seth’s right that “ No one is debating that Jesus or God is the Saviour of the elect, we are debating on whether Jesus died for all people.” Yet Seth’s wrong in stating: “Bnonn was correct in asking how this affects the debate in any way...it doesn't.” It does affect the debate, unless Seth’s position were to make the Prove the Bible doesn’t teach it argument.

Examining Seth’s Counter-Exegesis

Seth states: “I really don't completely agree with his thoughts on this.”

Ok, let’s see what Seth backs that disagreement with:

Seth: “The text in question is not saying that God is the preserver, which would be a verb, of the literal bodies, but is in fact stating that God is the Saviour, the noun, of all men.”

Of course, no, “preserver” is a noun, not a verb. Likewise “savior” is also a noun, and like “preserver” it is related to a verb. The related verb in Greek from which σωτήρ (soter – translated “Saviour” in this instance) is σώζω (sozo – usually translated “to save”). Besides all that, while we theologians may see “savior” and think immediately of salvation from eternal damnation, the term “savior” in English (as with soter in Greek) has a wide etymological range. Just consider the results here (link). My contention is that this verse is explaining that God – the preserver of all mankind – is the preserver of the elect in a special sense.

Seth: “He is the One that saves and Him alone.”

I answer: That’s true, but that’s not the point here (it is the point, for example, in 1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” or in John 4:42 “And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.”). Here there is a pair of objects: “all men” and “the elect.” He is the One who saves all men, and he is the one who saves the elect.

Seth: “This doesn't imply that He carries this out for all men, which would be a verb form, but that He is in fact the only Saviour for all men.”

I answer: This noun-verb distinction is a slightly different one than in the previous instance, and presents a slightly different error. The error here is simply ipse dixit. Now, I’m sure Seth may not be the first or only person to say that. Furthermore, there’s some slight merit to Seth’s point, which I’ll point out before explaining why it’s insufficient.

The merit is this: if we had a verse that says (in active voice) God saves all men, that would be a more direct way of asserting such a fact than to say God is the Savior of all men. The combination of a being verb and a nominalization is a weaker way to say what is being said.

Furthermore, we can sometimes use a noun form to speak generally or gnomically. In other words, we can say “salvation is of the Jews” meaning that (before Pentacost) it was Jews generally (and generally only Jews) that were saved.

There’s one further tangent to address. It’s interesting (I think) that Seth identifies this use of “savior of all men” as a gnomic, general expression, but fails to consider that “save the kosmos” may be a gnomic, general expression. It seems to be based on the verb-noun false dichotomy, to which I will shortly return.

Nevertheless, whether noun forms (or verb forms for that matter) can be used gnomically, the fact that it is a noun form does not mean that it is merely gnomic. Consider how absurd it would be to interpret it that way in Luke 1:47: “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” The speaker is affirming that God saved the person, not that God is simply out there as the only possible Savior.

Furthermore, Paul is not using “savior” in a merely gnomic sense here. How do I know? Because there are two objects: two saved groups. The first saved group is “all men” and the second is “those that believe.” Now, the two groups are connected by the term “malista.” That word can mean a variety of things, but the KJV has translated it “specially” and most modern translations generally agree, even if they use a slightly different word. There’s an argument to be made that they might all be wrong, but we’ll leave that aside for now.

In short, assuming the conventional interpretation of “malista,” to say that God is simply “the only Savior there is” for all men is not problematic, but to say that God is specially “the only Savior there is” for those that believe is a bit odd – both because how is it any more special? And because we are well aware that he is the actual savior in the eternal punishment sense, of believers.

Seth: “It would be like saying that no one can be saved apart from Christ. Neither of us would disagree with this.”

I answer: It would be like that, but only if one ignores the “specially of those that believe.”

Seth: “I actually find TF's use of Ephesians 5:23 to show the complete lack of understanding context in this verse.”

I answer: Oddly, I have a similar conclusion with one simply substitution. :)

Seth:

Here is the verse:

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
Ephesians 5:23

I answer:

Since I’m a textus receptus kind of guy, for me it’s:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

There’s – to put it mildly – a bit of textual variation on the last phrase of that verse. It’s probably not worth arguing too much about the textual variant issue at this point, except to point out that the he is not necessarily referring to Christ, but could also reasonably be said to be referring to the husband (that seems to be how the KJV punctuates it). In any event, there is a parallel being drawn between the role of a husband toward his wife and the role of Christ toward the church.

It’s also important to note that Ephesians 5:23 is NOT the verse I selected. It’s simply an example I provided of the use of the term “savior” in a sense other than salvation from sins, in the new testament. I could simply have turned to the LXX at Psalm 27, first verse, or Psalm 62, second verse, or perhaps best of all for the purpose of our discussion, Psalm 65:5:

“Wonderful in righteousness; heed us, O God our deliverer! He is the hope of all the ends of the earth, and of the ones in the sea afar; the one preparing mountains in his strength, being girded with dominion; the one disturbing the extent of the sea; at the sounds of its waves who shall stand?” (Apostolic Greek Bible translation of LXX, form of “soter” in bold)

(or Psalm 79:9, 95:1, etc. etc.)

Alternatively, if the Psalms are too evidently both literal and typical, then simply refer to the descriptions of Othniel and Ehud in Judges 3.

I only mentioned it because someone in the comments had suggested that the Bible only uses “soter” “soteriologically” (ha! – there’s some kind of etymological commentary to be made here) meaning in the sense of being a savior from eternal punishment for sins (or something of that sort). It is used that way, frequently with explanation that it is that sort of meaning that is meant.

Here (in the verse we are actually considering, not Ephesians 5) Paul draws a distinction between the living God the general savior of all men (physical/temporal sense, if you will) and the living God the special savior of those that believe (spiritual/eternal sense, if you will).

Getting back to Ephesians 5, though, the passage is comparing Christ to the church using the simile of husband and wife. In the passage:

- wives submit to husbands (vs. 22) as the church to Christ (vs. 23) (repeated vs. 24)

- and the husband/Christ is the savior of the wife/body/church (vs. 23) (repeated with explanation in following vss.)

- husband/Christ loves wife/church (vss. 25-27)

- husbands love wives as husbands love their own bodies, nourishing and cherishing (vs. 28-29)

- Christ loves the church in an analogous way (vs. 30)

So, yes, the passage is speaking analogously about physical salvation/protection that the husband gives a wife (ought to, at any rate) as a simile to the spiritual salvation/protection that Christ gives Christians, with the actual force of the passage being primarily directed not to emphasize that Christ is our savior, but that husbands should emulate Christ and wives should emulate the church (notice how this discussion is bookended between the directions for church life generally (including mutual submission vs. 21) and the remaining family relations (children to parents 6:1-3, parents to children 6:4, slaves to masters 6:5-8, and masters to slaves 6:9).

Thus, the wife is the husband’s body, and it is his job to preserve it – just as he instinctively preserves his own body, and just as Christ graciously preserves the church (his body/wife by analogy).

I should have avoided that, I suppose, by quoting Psalm 65, or referring to Judges 3. Nevertheless, what’s done is done.

Seth: “The reference here is the comparison of the husband and wife, with Christ and the church. So when TF says that this is saying that Jesus is merely saving a "body" he misses the entire point of Ephesians 5. Christ is the Saviour of the church, the body, not merely a fleshly body as TF would purport.”

I answer: Presumably this comment is moot, in view of the demonstration above.

Seth: “Here is TF's comment in full in response to Bnonn and also TF's post that God is the Saviour of the bodies of all men.

You may be interested to consider/compare the usage of soter in Ephesians 5:23.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Or consider the use of related words such as "saved" (Jude 5, 2 Peter 2:5, or 1 Peter 3:20).

I answer: I think it’s important to point out that contrary to Seth’s statement “when TF says that this is saying that Jesus is merely saving a "body" he misses the entire point of Ephesians 5” I did not say that. I don’t think Seth intentionally misrepresented me, I think he just inferred something he shouldn’t have from my comment. It’s – unfortunately – not the first time that’s happened in our dialogue.

Seth: I will quickly add this. Jude 5, 2 Peter 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:20 all use the term "save" or a derivation of it in the verb form, not the noun form.

I answer: This “part of speech” argument is a bit like saying “there are more letters in that word than this one.” How so? Because it may be a true statement, but it is not a relevant statement. There is no special grammatical-exegetical significance to the fact that one word is a verb (in Jude 5, that’s a participle; in 2 Peter 2, it’s a different Greek verb altogether; and in 1 Peter 3:20 its an active indicative of a related verb with an emphatic particle attached) and another is a noun.

Seth: 1 Timothy 4:10 uses "soter" which is a noun and that is very big difference and the reason so many take 1 John 2:2 wrongly.

I answer: Seth is referring to the fact that hilasmos (propitiation) is used in 1 John 2:2, rather than hilaskomai (make propitious/make reconciliation) or some other verb form. Although it would be helpful in my debates with Arminians to agree with Seth’s noun/verb distinction, I cannot, because I am not persuaded it has any significant degree of merit. It would be a more direct way to say the matter, but that does not mean the indirect way doesn’t say the same thing. Nevertheless, we may find ourselves back on this verse (indirectly) in a few rounds.

Seth: “Even more so...1 Peter 3:20 speaks of "eight persons" being brought safely. TF uses this as kind of a proof text for 1 Timothy 4:10 and Ephesians 5:23, he might want to take a second look. The usage of "persons" in 1 Peter 3:20 is the Greek word "psuche" which means "soul" or "heart," NOT a physical body.”

I answer: The point I was making was a point from English. If I wanted to be contentious, I could point out that it was their physical lives that were preserved, via the mechanism of their “psuche” (breath) not being cut off by drowning in the flood waters, or simply point out that “souls” is simply an idiom for “people.” But that’s really neither here nor there.

Seth: “I actually believe that this comes from TF's continual ignoring the context in other discussions we have had.”

I answer: I feel like this somewhat overstates the point Seth is making, which is simply that he’s felt that way about my position in this debate and not as a general pattern over the years, or something like that. Naturally, as noted above, I think I can demonstrate that I deal more with the context than Seth does, and consequently I don’t think his label is accurate, even though I think he means it sincerely.

Seth next goes back to the discussion of John 3:16, but I’ll hold off for a second to get back to the actual verse I provided (providing the context):

I Timothy 4:1-10

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 6If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 7But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. 8For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 9This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 10For 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.

The flow of the passage is discussing the interaction between the physical and the spiritual.

- seducers will forbid marriage, prohibit consumption of food

- in contrast, food (and marriage) are good things, things created by God to be received with thanks, especially by believers who know the truth and who sanctify the food by knowledge of the word of God and prayer

- there is a parallel between physical nurture and spiritual nurture,

- which is why Timothy should not heed old wives tales, but good doctrine,

- because exercise is important, but godliness is much more important, because it has benefits both in this world and the next

- and after all, that’s why they preach, because they trust in the God who preserves the lives of all men and the eternal life of the elect.

Now, much of this discussion can be rendered mostly moot if Seth simply agrees, for Seth says that God is also something inbetween the two categories of “preserver of all life” and “preserver of the life of the elect.” You could say that Seth’s claim could be simply: “There’s more to God than that.”

Yet, by clearing up the sense of this verse, and properly understanding why it is not a supporting verse for “universal atonement” we can be better prepared to deal with other verses that may be alleged to support the universal atonement.

Seth: “Especially when he says that when John 3:16 says that "God so loved the world" this is speaking of the created order.

I answer: There’s been a substantial discussion about this (much of it here), let me try to summarize, since that link is about 30 pages of reading.

- The literal meaning of the word is “created order.” Lexicons say so, and you can check for yourself. That’s the general, literal sense of the word. It happens that it is that sense which is used in the first instance of “kosmos” in verse 17.

- That word is used by John (in this passage) to refer to the group of “all believers” in a general, global way. “The world” is used to denote a group that is “bigger” than simply the physical nation of Israel. In the context, Jesus is contrasting “ye” (Jewish leaders) with the “world.” There’s not an identity relationship between “world” and “all believers,” but there is a link – and that link is that the expression of God’s loving intent toward the world is in the salvation of the elect (all the believers).

Now, let me turn the exegetical table, and point out that you haven’t offered (that I noticed) any exegetical reason for arguing that the word means “all in unbelief.” So the counter question to you is:

How does someone derive the idea that “all the believers” is in a subset relation to “kosmos” (rather than, say, an explanatory relation) from the text itself?

Seth: Then, TF says that John switches from using the term "kosmos" as "created order" to then John using it figuratively in other places. (I am paraphrasing here so if TF needs to correct me, then so be it)

I answer: Sure, John uses “kosmos” literally sometimes, and figuratively sometimes. People do that with words.

Seth: “Is this not what we would deem as eisegesis instead of exegesis?”

I answer: No. We deem something to be eisegesis when it is not derived from the text. Different contexts often use the same word different ways. Does anyone seriously suppose that “God so loved the world” uses the words “love” and “world” in the same way that “If any man love the world” uses them? And yet it is the same author writing, and the same Greek words for “love” (agape) and “world” (kosmos).

Seth: “Especially in light of the fact that no major theologian, that I have found, would agree that this means "created order" here in John.”

I answer: That, of course, has nothing to do with whether it is exegetical or not – whether or not Seth is correct. I’ve already said enough about the counting reformed noses argument, in previous comments/posts.

Seth: 1. What does "created order" mean? And if you take John 3:16 to say that "God so loved the created order" then does this term, kosmos, switch meanings later in the same chapter? If so, why? Who is the judge of this? I am guessing it is our theological persuasion.

I answer: Hopefully this is mostly answered above. The context is the determiner of meaning. The literal meaning of kosmos is “created order,” which is why the English word “world” is used. The Created Order could be roughly equated to “The Creation” (the thing created, not the event) – and “world” is an adequate translation, except that it has become theologically loaded.

Of course, the precise meaning of “kosmos” is not at all critical to understanding the point of the text, which is that Christ was given to save the elect. That’s the undeniable meaning of the second and third phrases of the verse. Whatever “world” may refer to, Christ was given to save the elect. If it is supposed to convey here, as I think Owen concluded “the world of the elect,” such that the verse reads: “God so loved the world of the elect, that he gave his only begotten Son so that the elect would not perish but have eternal life,” then that makes great sense.

If it is supposed to mean “each and every person” then it creates discordance between the first and second half of the verse, because then the flow of the verse is that God loved “all” and therefore gave His Son to save “some.” That doesn’t make much sense, so we can discard it.

If it is means something in the middle like “Creation” (gnomically and in general) then that two makes sense, because the whole is blessed with reference to the part, in a sort of metonymic relationship.

That’s how exegesis works. You start from the clear, and work to the unclear. You don’t impose a figurative meaning on the word “world” and then try to make the rest of the verse fit.

Seth: 2. How does 1 Timothy 4:10 negate universal expiation? Not sure why you picked this verse as a strong argument.

I answer: I mostly picked it, as noted above, as a way to allow you to deal with a verse that I expected you might think was helpful. It also reemphasizes the fact that God is a Savior in the spiritual sense, only for the elect and not for all mankind.

Seth: 3. Do you really want to stand behind the fact that Ephesians 5:23 is speaking of a literal "body" or do you concede that this is speaking of the church? If so, how does 1 Peter 3:20 help your position...it seems to destroy it.

I answer: I think this is answered above. The answer is, of course, “both” to the first part of the question, and the answer to 1 Peter 3:20 is that – of course – it was physical, temporal salvation that the ark provided, and not salvation from eternal punishment.

-Turretinfan

Read More......

1 Timothy 4:10: Atonement Debate

I guess I am a little confused over this post that has been brought forth. Because I could agree 100% with Turretinfan on his post and it does nothing to the implication of the Scriptures saying that Christ died for all, especially the elect. Even an Arminian could agree with what Turretinfan has posted. No one is debating that Jesus or God is the Saviour of the elect, we are debating on whether Jesus died for all people. Bnonn was correct in asking how this affects the debate in any way...it doesn't.

Although I could agree with the entire post and just leave it, I really don't completely agree with his thoughts on this. The text in question is not saying that God is the preserver, which would be a verb, of the literal bodies, but is in fact stating that God is the Saviour, the noun, of all men. He is the One that saves and Him alone. This doesn't imply that He carries this out for all men, which would be a verb form, but that He is in fact the only Saviour for all men. It would be like saying that no one can be saved apart from Christ. Neither of us would disagree with this.

I actually find TF's use of Ephesians 5:23 to show the complete lack of understanding context in this verse. Here is the verse:

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
Ephesians 5:23


The reference here is the comparison of the husband and wife, with Christ and the church. So when TF says that this is saying that Jesus is merely saving a "body" he misses the entire point of Ephesians 5. Christ is the Saviour of the church, the body, not merely a fleshly body as TF would purport.

Here is TF's comment in full in response to Bnonn and also TF's post that God is the Saviour of the bodies of all men.

You may be interested to consider/compare the usage of soter in Ephesians 5:23.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Or consider the use of related words such as "saved" (Jude 5, 2 Peter 2:5, or 1 Peter 3:20).

I will quickly add this. Jude 5, 2 Peter 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:20 all use the term "save" or a derivation of it in the verb form, not the noun form. 1 Timothy 4:10 uses "soter" which is a noun and that is very big difference and the reason so many take 1 John 2:2 wrongly.

Even more so...1 Peter 3:20 speaks of "eight persons" being brought safely. TF uses this as kind of a proof text for 1 Timothy 4:10 and Ephesians 5:23, he might want to take a second look. The usage of "persons" in 1 Peter 3:20 is the Greek word "psuche" which means "soul" or "heart," NOT a physical body.

I actually believe that this comes from TF's continual ignoring the context in other discussions we have had. Especially when he says that when John 3:16 says that "God so loved the world" this is speaking of the created order. Then, TF says that John switches from using the term "kosmos" as "created order" to then John using it figuratively in other places. (I am paraphrasing here so if TF needs to correct me, then so be it)

Is this not what we would deem as eisegesis instead of exegesis? Especially in light of the fact that no major theologian, that I have found, would agree that this means "created order" here in John.

Here are my questions to TF to make sure we nail this down for his next post:

1. What does "created order" mean? And if you take John 3:16 to say that "God so loved the created order" then does this term, kosmos, switch meanings later in the same chapter? If so, why? Who is the judge of this? I am guessing it is our theological persuasion.

2. How does 1 Timothy 4:10 negate universal expiation? Not sure why you picked this verse as a strong argument.

3. Do you really want to stand behind the fact that Ephesians 5:23 is speaking of a literal "body" or do you concede that this is speaking of the church? If so, how does 1 Peter 3:20 help your position...it seems to destroy it.

Read More......

Atonement Debate Continued

Here is the next installment from Turretinfan, may the discussion begin.

For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 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.

1 Timothy 4:8-10

The living God is Saviour of the bodies of all men who live (it is he that preserves them from death), but the living God is a Savior in the highest form only of the elect for it is they who will live both in this life and the next.

-Turretinfan

Read More......

Off to Alaska

Tomorrow afternoon I will be flying off to Alaska to see family for Thanksgiving. I will have internet access but will obviously not be as often as I would like. So, have fun commenting and I will desperately try and keep up. We will soon have another post from Turretinfan that will continue our process of understanding the position of the atonement.

Hope all have a great Thanksgiving.

To continue our thoughts on this subject I think David asked a great question that never got a response:

I would still like to know from TF what does "created order" mean? Trees, rocks? Created humans? Any non-elect included? And if kosmos means created order is consistently created order in 16 and 17 in all the instances? if it changes why?

To continue on this thought I would like any to answer this:

Here is what Kittell's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament speaks of Kosmos...which by the way is one of the most respected NT Dictionary there is:

Contents: A. Non-biblical Usage: 1. κόσμος == That which is Well Assembled; 2. κόσμος == Order between Men; 3. κόσμος == Order generally; 4. κόσμος == Adornment; 5. κόσμος == World I, Development and Meaning of the Greek View of the Cosmos; 6. κόσμος == World II, God and the Cosmos for the Greeks; 7. κόσμος as World in the Sense of Earth, Inhabited World, Humanity. B. κόσμος in the LXX. The Concept of the Cosmos in Judaism. C. κόσμος in the NT: 1. General. κόσμος in the Sense Adornment; 2. κόσμος == World I, as the Universe, the Sum of all Created Being; 3. κόσμος == World II, as the Abode of Men, the Theatre of History, the Inhabited World, the Earth; 4. κόσμος == World III, as Humanity, Fallen Creation, the Theatre of Salvation History.

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (3:868). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Please enlighten where there is even one instance where world in the Greek means "world of the elect." Please exegete a verse that connotates this.

Read More......

Defending the "Universal" Intent of "Kosmos" in John 3:16

I need to do some "housecleaning" here. Here is how things will progress from here. I am going to do one last rebuttal of Turretinfan's arguments on John 3:16 and then we can continue in the comments section of this post. Turretinfan will then post another passage or verse that he would like to bring to attention, to try and show that Jesus died only for the elect, or more broadly, particular redemption alone. We will then continue on the next post just like we have with this series. What I also want to point out, is that Turretinfan and myself also email each other and I want all to know that posts and comments over the internet can seem "harsh" but I want all to know that we actually have had some very good, charitable conversations, over email, making sure that each other is not taking offense. So, if others think that we are "at each other's throats" this is not our intent or desire, it is just to discuss theology in an open forum for other's to engage in.

With that said, I need to also show, once again, what we believe on the atonement. I have gotten some emails and some comments (from others) that would seem to ask, "What do you believe again?" We would take what we feel is the normal reading (I know that Turretinfan will disagree that this is the normal reading, which is the reason for this debate) of John 1:29 that states:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29

So, we believe that Jesus on the cross took away the sins of the world. This death was a penal death, meaning that there is a condition based upon this "taking away" and that would be faith. So, Jesus is the noun, hilasmos (1 John 2:2), that takes away the sins of the entire world. But, the implication, or application for this death, is for the elect upon their belief on Jesus. This is in no way a "hypothetical death" but in reality is a death to take away the sins of the world, but will only be applied at the onset of belief. We believe that we follow the teachings of Dordt when it states:

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.



I hope this clears up more on what we believe. We would stand beside all Calvinists and define Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the saints the exact same, as long as they are not putting forth a stand on hyperism in any of these. In regards to the middle, the "L", we would define Limited Atonement the exact same way, but we would remove that in the limited atonement aspect it is not "only" for the elect, but the atonement was for all, particularly for the elect. We can say particularly because when Jesus died he knew whom the Spirit would draw and whom the Spirit would seal and whom would be His bride (no more, no less). This part, this intention of the atonement, was the "joy that was set before him" (Hebrews 12).

As far as Turretinfan's post on John 3:16, I will put forth a rebuttal and then we can comment further, but I am guessing we will just say that we are going to have to "agree to disagree" and move on to another passage.

My hope in this is that all those reading would see that John 3:16 is not hardlined to mean the elect, but just the opposite. As we debate this topic further hopefully you will be able to see how we can believe that Christ died for all and not be univeralists, which really comes in the understanding of a penal payment, but we will save that for later. I want all to know, I used to be a hard lined limited atonement for the elect only guy. But, I had to ask myself, "What is the understanding of these passages in a reading without trying to put in my theological structure inside it?" Knowing that if I changed my view on John 3:16 and others, I would also need to restructure what I believed on the atonement. Can this fit? Can this make sense? Because I believe in John 10, Eph 5 and the like, that speak about a particular people in the atonement. Can I make the two mesh without destroying the continuity of the Scriptures? I beleive that I can, and the Scriptures do. Hopefully you will see "why?" as we move forward in the debate.

I first want to say that I am sorry if I misrepresented Turretinfan in anyway in this debate. I am not into strawmen and hate them, so I want him to point them out if I enter into a strawman in any way.

As far as his post, I will write some comments and then we can move on.

Turretinfan comments that in the Greek and the Latin that it could read, in regards to "hina" as "so." The problem with this is that this is not concrete, and even Calvin who was very well versed in both the Greek and Latin didn't even take it as such. Calvin says,

For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Jn 3:16). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Turretinfan, based on this interpretation of the passage then states, in one of his comments, that to say "so that those believing" is giving a more precise way of saying "world." He then uses an analogy by saying, "everyone, that is, everyone understanding rhetoric" showing his intent.

Here is the problem with this. John 3:16 doesn't read like that. It reads, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosover believes shall not perish.

There is something in between "everyone" and "that is everyone understanding rhetoric." So this does not flow how he would like. So we must ask, if we take Turretinfan's remarks and ask, "How does God show his love for sinners?" "How does a sinner know God loves him?" Because if you use this verse as Turretinfan would like us to believe, this shows love for only the elect not the reprobate.

But, the intent of John 3:16 is to say to everyone: "God loves you." How? He sent his Son. If it is only for the elect, the sinner will ask, "How does God giving his Son to others show his love for me?"

Here is the best way I can show for an analogy. By the way, when using analogies you have to look at the verse we are discussing. John 3:16 does not give the full reformed view of the ordo salutis, therefore our analogies don't need to do so as well. So, Bnonn's statement that the analogies fall short because it doesn't talk about the "giving of faith" and the like is really not paramount to this discussion.

Analogy:

I love my whole church, so I send invitations to all for them to come to my birthday party. All those who come to my birthday party will enjoy the fellowship and not be alone at home not enjoying the fellowship.

So, when someone asks in my church, "How do I know that Seth loves me?" They can say,"He sent me an invitation"

What if someone doesn't come? I run into them the following week and we talk. Can they say, "I didn't come because you didn't invite me." No. I invited all to come.
This is how I showed all, that I loved them.

This doesn't mean I love all the same. Please do not read into this analogy other parts of the ordo salutis because that is not the intent of John 3:16. The intent of John 3:16 is to show, "How he loved the world" namely, by sending His Son.

The other part of Turretinfan's argument for "kosmos" really doesn't make sense to me. He states that it means "created order" and does not refer to "humanity." Here is actual comment:

In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.

I am not going to go through all of these verses, but will take a look at both John 7:4-7 and John 15:18.

For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.For not even His brothers were believing in Him. So Jesus said to them, My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune. The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
John 7:4-7

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
John 15:18

So who hates me? Who hated Jesus? Was it the "created order" or was it all of humanity as direct people? Jesus says in John 7 that if you show yourself to the world, the kosmos, then he shows what he is talking about: his specific brothers. He uses this and then tells us the same: The kosmos will hate you, and this is a specific people.

This is the same thing in John 12:47. Turretinfan says that this isn't in context but we can easily refute this being that it is the same author (John), same one being quoted (Jesus) and almost the exact same sentence structure in the Greek.

John 12:46,47 is speaking of God coming into the darkened humanity as a whole, so that the individual one in darkness can be saved. It is taking the whole and bringing it to the individual. I don't understand what is so difficult in understanding this, unless one is trying to bring forth an understanding because of theological convictions.

Jesus says, "I have come as Light into the world." Am I supposed to believe that He came for the created order? What does this mean? Did Jesus come for the rocks and trees? Or, Did Jesus come as the Light for the individuals in the world who love the darkness, so that those who believe in Him will live and not die?

I stand behind my reading of John 3:16 as stated before. God so loved the world, that is, those in darkness, all of them, that He sent his Son, the Light, into the darkened world, so that those who are in the dark, yet believe in Him would not be like those who stay in the dark and perish, but will look to the Light and have eternal life.

God is love, and this is his representation for the entire world to know that he is love, by him giving his Son for the entire world. Otherwise, no sinner, even the future elect, can know that Jesus died for them.

This is why Numbers 21 is brought forth in John 3. To show the love of God. God so loved all those bitten, that he provided a provision for them, so that when they looked they would be saved. If they didn't look, they weren't saved and it was their fault, not God's. Whether there were some who didn't look or not, is not the point, the point is God provided a provision for ALL THOSE THAT WERE BITTEN. To carry this to the usage in the New Testament would mean that God provided a provision in all those who have sinned.

Read More......

Atonement Debate: Turretinfan Response

Introduction

With respect, I think that Mr. McBee (aka "SDM") seems to have misidentified the point I was trying to make. Perhaps this is because I was too brief. I certainly do not believe, and do not wish to suggest, that Mr. McBee intentionally misrepresented me. On the other hand, each time Mr. McBee wrote "Turretinfan's position is," I think he missed the position. Allow me to elaborate.

The Point Restated

Christ died for the express purpose of saving the elect. The point of citing John 3:16 was to point out the third phrase, "ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται," that is in Latin "ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat" fairly literally rendered "so-that-would all the believing-ones (in him) not perish," more casually "so that all who believe in him would not perish" or as the KJV so memorably translates it "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish."


The rest, the question of what does the word kosmos mean, and so forth is all secondary. It is important, but it is secondary. The first thing to understand from the phrase is that God is explaining purpose. The phrase is a so-called "hina" phrase, called because it is introduced by "ινα" (typically pronounced "hina") as can be seen above.

In this case, the hina phrase is connected to and is explained by the preceding phrase. The preceding phrase is "ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν" in Latin "ut Filium suum unigenitum daret" fairly literally rendered "so (the-[one-who-is]) son his (the-[one-who-is]) onlybegotton he-gave" or more casually "so he gave up his onlybegotten son," or as the KJV so memorably translates it "that he gave his only begotten Son."

In other words, grammatically, the feature of all the believers being saved is linked to the feature of God giving His only begotten Son. From the structure of the sentence we can see that the reason why God gave his Son, was to save all the believers.

Finally, of course, the "hoste" (ωστε) similarly connects to the phrase that goes before it. The phrase before it is "ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον" which in Latin is "sic enim dilexit Deus mundum" and can be fairly literally translated "in-this-way for he-loved (the) God (the) world" or more casually "for God loved the world thus" or as the KJV so memorably translates it "For God so loved the world."

This starts the thought, while showing that the thought is providing an illustration of the thought that precedes it. The "For . God loved the world" connects to the preceding thought, while the "thus" tells us that an explanation follows. As seen above, this explanation is two-fold. First, God gave his onlybegotten Son. And Second, God gave him for the purpose of saving all the believers.

It's not particularly important to my argument to define the word "world." Does it mean "the world of the elect" as some have said, or just "men" or perhaps "the natural/created order"? It doesn't particularly matter for the argument that I'm making positively.

The point is that the verse makes the gift's purpose clear: to save believers. My point is that this verse is evidence of the fact that such was Christ's purpose. His purpose always to save the believers, all of the believers, and - while the verse does not say so explicitly - only the believers.

If we had only John 3:17's comment: "but that the world through him might be saved," the question would be open, and we'd have to really dig in to figure out what "world" means. Not so with verse 16. Verse 16 is specific. And we have verse 18 as well, which explains that the "believers-in-him" are not condemned, whereas the "unbelievers-in-him" are already condemned.

Now, I would not take the position "God so loved the world, that is, the elect of the world, that He sent His Son." Why not? There are two reasons: (1) it uses the word "world" equivocally, and (2) the point of the verse is simply: God so loved the kosmos, that He sent His Son to save the elect.

Ok, but what does "Kosmos" mean?

SDM noted that kosmos has a variety of meaning. I would respectfully disagree with one of his claims. He cited Mark 16:15 as being a case of when kosmos means "all of humanity." Mark 16:15 uses kosmos to mean the actual earth (geo-politically). In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.


In other words, I would respectfully submit that using the word as SDM does is mostly based on a philosophical presupposition that SDM brings with him to the text, not based on something in the word itself.

I would expand on what SDM said. In Scripture, kosmos ordinarily is a broad term that conveys a sense of expansiveness. It ordinarily does not carry an exhaustive sense. We use "all" this way frequently (and "world" sometimes) in common parlance. It's a form of hyperbole. The statement: "He has traveled through the whole world (or all over the world)," means he is a globe-trotter, not that there is no stone his soles have not touched. This too will be significant as we proceed.

SDM, however, wrote: "Turretinfan's position is that this term, world or "kosmos", means "elect"." That's not quite an accurate representation. I don't take the position that the word means that, but I think that the word - in context - does refer primarily to the elect as a global group. In other words, the "world" contrasted with just the Jews like Nicodemeus the Pharisee to whom Jesus was speaking. We'll see how this is true, as we proceed. But this misunderstanding (I assume it is not an intentional straw man), leads to most of SDM's counter-arguments being irrelevant.

Unraveling SDM's Counter-Presentation

SDM's position is fairly clear: to SDM "the world" is composed of two groups: those who will believe and those who won't. SDM states this position, but I think if we examine his explanation closely we'll see he hasn't actually establish this position with exegesis.

SDM indicates that in his view the verse starts by treating one group, each and every person, in the phrase "God so loved the world." SDM claims that John then turns to another group "those believing will not perish." SDM correctly notes that this term is implies that there is another group, the unbelievers who will perish. SDM then asserts that those two groups make up the original group of the world.

Based on those premises, SDM concludes that to make "the world" = "the elect" would create a problem, because some of the elect would be unbelievers that perish. The problem, of course, is not in the logic, but in the premises. Specifically, the problem is in assuming that "the believing ones who will not perish" i.e. the elect, is intended to be a sub-category of "world."

From the grammatical/exegetical analysis we saw above, there is no particular need to make the believing ones a sub-category of the "world." In fact, it would be more natural to assume that "the believing ones" is a more precise way of expressing the same thing as what is intended by "the world." Alternatively, we may simply conclude that "world" is a reference to the Creation generally (the natural/created order), and that the phrase about God's love for what he made is to be understood specifically by his expression of that love: giving his Son for the elect.

To borrow SDM's Texas analogy, it would be a bit like saying: "I love Texas; so, I moved to Texas and married a lass from Galveston." Such a comment would not suggest that the speaker plans to play the field with other Texan women, or that his love for Texan women generally is equal to that of his bride. Furthermore, if the same man said that "I didn't come to Texas to visit, but to live there," no one would suppose that the speaker meant that he was going to live in every town in Texas, or that he might not visit Dallas or Houston from time to time, but would understand that he lives in Texas by living in a particular town in Texas, and is wed to Texas by his marriage to the particular Galveston gal, not to every woman who lives there. We also wouldn't assume from his "I love Texas," that he necessarily likes the desert, the beach, the Rio Grande river, Dallas Fort-Worth airport, or Dr. Pepper, whether or not those are a part of Texas. We let people speak in general terms, and we should give Scripture the same flexibility.

Yes, but what about John 12:47?

SDM appeals to John 12:47, which - of course - is not part of the immediate context. Nevertheless, it uses some similar terms, so we should examine it, as well as the other corresponding Johanine passages.

John 12:47 has its own context, which I'll show below:


46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
John 12:46-50

It seems to me that if "the world" just means the created order generally, and not all men exhaustively, then the passage makes more sense. Specifically, verse 46 would seem to be a bit odd, for it appears to refer to Christ's incarnation: his coming into the world, not his coming into the hearts of each and every person.

On the other hand, if we view the word "world" the same way in verse 46 and verse 47, then Christ's statement is easily understood: he's here to save the created order not to judge it. That is to say, He's here as a Savior, not a Judge. He immediately points out, though, that his words do judge those who reject them, because he speaks the words of the Father who sent him, namely the commandments of eternal life.

And John 12:47/John 3:17 is not the only place to find this concept. The same concept also can be found in the fist chapter of John:

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 1:9-14

Now, unlike John 12, John 1 is the preceding context (even if somewhat removed) of John 3. A reader who is reading John's gospel (or hearing it read) will have heard this by the time he gets to John 3. How does John 1 use the term "world." It uses it in the sense of the created order, but it also uses it as a broader term to another group: "his own," which the reader will soon discover are the Jews.

Indeed, we see this same theme in John 3:10-11, repeated just before the verses we are discussing:

John 3:10-11

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Notice the switch in address from simply Nicodemus (thou . knowest not) to Israel generally or especially the Jewish leaders (ye receive not). "Thou" is singular, but "ye" is plural. Thus, as promised above, we can see that the use of the word "world" as a broad term to indicate more-than-just-Jewish-people is both supported by the precedent set in chapter 1, and the confirming context in verses 10-11.

It's worth pointing out that Jesus makes similar claims to be the light of the world and the Savior of those who follow him (the light), several times before John 12:

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

(the precipitates an argument with the Pharisees over whether this is just Jesus' say-so, which Jesus denies, saying that the Father bears witness to the truth of his testimony, but then turns the tables on them, explaining why they do not understand and follow him, that is to say, why they do not see the light, compare Paul's comments in 2 Corinthians 4:4)

Or again:

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

John 9:5
(this context is pretty interesting, because Jesus demonstrates how people see the light by curing the blindness of the man born blind, which is a picture of our spiritual blindness before regeneration)

And again:

Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
John 11:9

(this context is interesting too, because Jesus immediately goes and raises Lazarus from the dead, which is another picture of our spiritual deadness before regeneration)

So also, even if we simply go beyond John 3:18, and get the further explanation in the subsequent verses, we see:

19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
John 3:19-21

In other words, the light shining in the world condemns (demonstrates the guilt of) those who hide, but justifies (demonstrates the righteousness of) those who come. It's an amazing light: first we see our sin, then we see our Savior, and then we come to God in our Savior's righteousness.

Christ is that light. He came to open the eyes of the spiritually blind, to raise the spiritually dead, and to save them from their sins through faith in himself. He came to save them, he did not come to save the reprobate.

Yes, but what about the Brass Serpent?

The serpent is not quite the analogy that SDM was looking for. Let's look quickly at the entire original account, since it is short:


4And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 5And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. 6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. 7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Numbers 21:4-9

SDM claims that this is "a direct parallel . [if] you looked, you were saved, if you didn't look, you died." Actually, though, the original passage doesn't make any mention of anyone not looking and dying. That's not really the parallel at all.

The parallel is two-fold. First, like the serpent, Jesus will be crucified ("as Moses lifted up the serpent . so must the Son of man be lifted up" - see also John 8:28 and John 12:32-33). Second, the point is that in crucifixion, Christ will save those he is intended to save.

I think SDM misreads Numbers 21:8. That verse says: "every one that is bitten, when he looks on it, shall live." And then the next verse explains, "If a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." Now, there clearly are some translational differences between SDM's and mine, but the point of the passage is actually that God is providing salvation to the people who repented of their grumbling against God and prayed to Him. The sense is "everyone who is bitten will live, when he sees the brass serpent," and "when anyone got bit by a serpent, he looked to the brass serpent, and lived." There's really nothing here about a foolish group of Israelites that refused to look at the brass serpent, and consequently died.

Instead, the point is that for those upon whom God had mercy, he provided a serpent, and they looked (everyone and "any man" "if a serpent had bitten" him) and lived.

There's also no discussion about the serpent being a provision for anyone's idolatry (after all, they were being punished for grumbling not idolatry), nor being a provision either generally for a particular category of sin, or for the specific sins of the people. Instead, the serpent pictured the punishment, not the crime. Even so, Christ died for our sins, on the cross. On the cross he was punished in our place. Our sins were nailed to the cross, and taken away. We can see from the rest of the law, that atonement was not simply made for categories of sins, but I fear that such a discussion will get us away from the text we are currently debating, and this post is long enough as it is.

Yes, but what about Calvin, Davenport, Ryle, and Dabney?

For now, I'm going to stick with what the text of Scripture says, not the meta-debate about whether Calvin (or the others) was a Calvinist as defined by Article 21 of Belgic Confession; the Second Main Pint of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt; or Chapter 8, paragraph 8, of both the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646.

The point is that God provided salvation for his people: that is the gem of his love for the Creation. Thus, Christ is the savior of Creation, or to put it more specifically, the elect. That's what Scripture says, and that's what we believe.

Read More......

John Calvin on John 3:16

I figured while we wait I would go ahead and post Calvin's commentary on John 3:14-17. I think you will find some of the things said here is the same that we are purporting to all.

14. And as Moses lifted up the serpent. He explains more clearly why he said that it is he alone to whom heaven is opened; namely, that he brings to heaven all who are only willing to follow him as their guide; for he testifies that he will be openly and publicly manifested to all, that he may diffuse his power over men of every class. 60 To be lifted up means to be placed in a lofty and elevated situation, so as to be exhibited to the view of all. This was done by the preaching of the Gospel; for the explanation of it which some give, as referring to the cross, neither agrees with the context nor is applicable to the present subject. The simple meaning of the words therefore is, that, by the preaching of the Gospel, Christ was to be raised on high, like a standard to which the eyes of all would be directed, as Isaiah had foretold, (Isaiah 2:2.) As a type of this lifting up, he refers to the brazen serpent, which was erected by Moses, the sight of which was a salutary remedy to those who had been wounded by the deadly bite of serpents. The history of that transaction is well known, and is detailed in Numbers 21:9. Christ introduces it in this passage, in order to show that he must be placed before the eyes of all by the doctrine of the Gospel, that all who look at him by faith may obtain salvation. Hence it ought to be inferred that Christ is clearly exhibited to us in the Gospel, in order that no man may complain of obscurity; and that this manifestation is common to all, and that faith has its own look, by which it perceives him as present; as Paul tells us that a lively portrait of Christ with his cross is exhibited, when he is truly preached, (Galatians 3:1.)


The metaphor is not inappropriate or far-fetched. As it was only the outward appearance of a serpent, but contained nothing within that was pestilential or venomous, so Christ clothed himself with the form of sinful flesh, which yet was pure and free from all sin, that he might cure in us the deadly wound of sin. It was not in vain that, when the Jews were wounded by serpents, the Lord formerly prepared this kind of antidote; and it tended to confirm the discourse which Christ delivered. For when he saw that he was despised as a mean and unknown person, he could produce nothing more appropriate than the lifting up of the serpent, to tell them, that they ought not to think it strange, if, contrary to the expectation of men, he were lifted up on high from the very lowest condition, because this had already been shadowed out under the Law by the type of the serpent.

A question now arises: Does Christ compare himself to the serpent, because there is some resemblance; or, does he pronounce it to have been a sacrament, as the Manna was? For though the Manna was bodily food, intended for present use, yet Paul testifies that it was a spiritual mystery, (1 Corinthians 10:3.) I am led to think that this was also the case with the brazen serpent, both by this passage, and the fact of its being preserved for the future, until the superstition of the people had converted it into an idol, (2 Kings 18:4.) If any one form a different opinion, I do not debate the point with him.

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time;

for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸ ν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses,

which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world. It is a confirmation of the preceding statement; for it was not in vain that God sent his own Son to us. He came not to destroy; and therefore it follows, that it is the peculiar office of the Son of God, that all who believe may obtain salvation by him. There is now no reason why any man should be in a state of hesitation, or of distressing anxiety, as to the manner in which he may escape death, when we believe that it was the purpose of God that Christ should deliver us from it. The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith.
The word judge (πρίνω) is here put for condemn, as in many other passages. When he declares that he did not come to condemn the world, he thus points out the actual design of his coming; for what need was there that Christ should come to destroy us who were utterly ruined? We ought not, therefore, to look at any thing else in Christ, than that God, out of his boundless goodness chose to extend his aid for saving us who were lost; and whenever our sins press us — whenever Satan would drive us to despair — we ought to hold out this shield, that God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because he has appointed his Son to be the salvation of the world.

When Christ says, in other passages, that he is come to judgment, (John 9:39;) when he is called a stone of offense, (1 Peter 2:7;) when he is said to be set for the destruction of many, (Luke 2:34:) this may be regarded as accidental, or as arising from a different cause; for they who reject the grace offered in him deserve to find him the Judge and Avenger of contempt so unworthy and base. A striking instance of this may be seen in the Gospel; for though it is strictly
the power of God for salvation to every one who believeth, (Romans 1:16,)

the ingratitude of many causes it to become to them death.. Both have been well expressed by Paul, when he boasts of

having vengeance at hand, by which he will punish all the adversaries of his doctrine after that the obedience of the godly shall have been fulfilled, (2 Corinthians 10:6)

The meaning amounts to this, that the Gospel is especially, and in the first instance, appointed for believers, that it may be salvation to them; but that afterwards believers will not escape unpunished who, despising the grace of Christ, chose to have him as the Author of death rather than of life.

Calvin, J. (1998). Calvin's Commentaries: John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries (Jn 3:14). Albany, OR: Ages Software.

Read More......

John 3:16: A Case for an Unlimited Reading of "World"

I really want to clear up the common misconception of us that call ourselves “6 Point Calvinists,” that is, that we are really 4 pointers or 4 1/2 point Calvinists. Which to be honest, I have no idea what 4 1/2 points means. The reason that we call ourselves 6 point Calvinists is because it is not that we merely accept the idea of unlimited expiation but we also vehemently adhere to particular redemption, that is, that Christ also died especially for the elect. It would be the same as the understanding that God loves all humanity, but especially the elect and that the Holy Spirit calls all of humanity to repentance, but effectively the elect alone. This is what we adhere to in the understanding of the atonement. Christ died for all (John 3:16) especially the elect (John 10).

Also, what I don’t want this to turn into is posts that just start listing out Scriptures and expect the others to “see it how I see it.” I have had this done to me in regards to debating Arminians and it gets very annoying to defend a bunch of Scripture quotations without exegesis. Let’s just suppose that any verse that says, “Christ died for all” or “ransomed for all” needs some explanation behind it and so do any verses that say “Christ died for the sheep” and “Christ died for the many.” This will help this debate in many ways.

Turretinfan has decided to take on probably the most difficult passage for the strictly limited expiation Calvinist to defend, and rightly so, as one will hopefully be able to see through this post. Turretinfan’s position on this is: God so loved the world, that is, the elect of the world, that He sent His Son.


There are a lot of uses of the term world when we look at the Bible. The term is “kosmos” and is used in the New Testament many times to mean “the evil world system” (1 John 2:15-17); the actual earth (Matthew 13:35); all of humanity (Mark 16:15), etc. So, we have to come to this Scripture and try and find what this means here in this context. Turretinfan’s position is that this term, world or "kosmos", means “elect” but I just find that wanting, and here is why:

When we read the verse it starts by lumping all people together: God so loved the world. This is the “one class” of all people, all humanity. Then John starts to put people in different classes by saying “those believing will not perish.” The opposite would then come to mean that there are some who won’t believe and will perish. So we have two classes of people who make up the world; those believing and those not believing. Those who will have eternal life and those who will perish. I have heard Texans say the same thing: There are only two kinds of people in the world, those who are Texans and those who wish they were Texans. If the term “kosmos” means “elect” then we have a real problem. This would mean that some of the elect will not believe and will perish. It would read like this:

God so loved the elect, that He gave His only Son that those (referring to the noun “world”) who believe will not be like those of the elect (referring back again to the noun, “world”) who don’t believe and perish (here is the problem…neither of us believe that the elect can perish), but will have eternal life.

As you read the rest of the text down to verse 21, John continues to differentiate between those in the world that God so loved. He uses terms like: He who believes, and doesn’t believe (verse 18); those practicing evil and those practicing truth (verse 20,21). Notice where the Light came: the world. The light came into the “kosmos” because God loves the “kosmos” to save the “kosmos.”

Further, we find this same sentence structure and theological stance taken in John 12:47

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:47

Interesting. Jesus tells us here the same that is told in John 3:16,17. Here though, he specifically speaks to the class of the people that made up the “kosmos” that do not believe. He specifically uses the same term and sentence structure that is used in John 3:17.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
John 3:17

So this would mean that if John was intending for the “kosmos” in John 3:16 to mean the elect, then we have a real issue here in understanding John 12:47, because that would speak to someone who is elect “not keeping” Jesus’ sayings.

But, to get a complete better understanding of all of this we have to go to the verse that explains this in simple terms: John 3:14,15

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
John 3:14-15

If we read John 3:16 in this context it makes a lot of sense. God provided a provision for all people to “look and be saved.” If you need to be reminded go back to Numbers 21 to get the full understanding. Moses puts this serpent up for all to see. Those believing, i.e. that look, will be saved. Those who are stiff necked and refused, died. Most will say that if Jesus died for all and all aren’t saved, then Christ failed. Did God fail if some didn’t look at the serpent? No. The person failed to recognize their provision and died in their sin of idolatry. This is the definition of the reprobate: those that don’t believe and die in their sin. Also know that if the serpent was only a provision for only those who would have looked, then Moses was a liar. He told the people in Numbers: Everyone who is bitten and looks upon the serpent shall be healed. If the serpent was only for those who would believe then Moses cannot make this remark to the people, it is an empty promise.

Again, this is a direct parallel. The serpent was for all that were bitten. If you looked, you were saved, if you didn’t look, you died. Now take this to John 3:16. Basically Jesus is telling us here: God so loved the world (all those bitten, or in this case sinned) that He gave His own begotten Son (He gave a redeemer, a greater bronze serpent, per se) that whoever believes in Him (whoever looks upon the redeemer, i.e. everyone who looks upon the serpent) shall not perish (like those whose redeemer was provided yet didn’t look upon the serpent) but have everlasting life (will be healed of their bite).

We also have the question of, “Was Christ a provision for each and every sin that I commit, or is Christ a payment for our sins in general?” Meaning: Did Christ have to die for each and every one of my lies, or did He die for the sin of lying and then apply His death to every one of our lies? The serpent clears this up. Was the serpent a provision for each and every person’s idolatry, or was the serpent a provision for the people’s collective sin of idolatry? The serpent was a provision for the nation’s sin of idolatry and then was applied to those who would look upon the provision. (penal payment)

If we read John 3:16 to mean that God so loved the elect, then we must say the same here in Numbers. God loved those elect, of the nation of Israel,and provided the serpent for those who would believe only, not for all. Numbers 21:8 could not be more clear for us:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live.”
Numbers 21:8

Notice God uses the term “everyone” to connotate that the serpent was for all people, not just some. Who was the death effective for? Those who believed and looked.

So, if you think that Jesus only died for the elect, then you have to read into Numbers 21 and also say that the serpent was somehow only for those who would look and was not a provision for all, even though God Himself says that it was for “everyone who was bitten.” The same can be said of us today: Jesus died for all who have been bitten (sinned) and all who believe in Him will have eternal life.

I think a thorough study of John 3:16, Numbers 21 and John 12:47 all point to the fact that this assertation by Turretinfan comes up wanting in the face of seeing the world, the “kosmos,” that John intended was not “the elect” but actually of all mankind. Especially since we can see that John 3:16,17 and John 12:47 are both thought of in the same light, by the same author with the same sentence structure. John really nails his point by drawing on Numbers 21 so that none can be confused with his intent of “God so loved the world” that is, all mankind.

Remember that John is giving the good news of who is included in this Love of God, namely, that God so loved all mankind, that is the good news of our God! We are not denying that there is a special love for the elect, but that is not the point of this particular passage, this passage deals with the love of the Father for all his creation, so much, that He sent the “kosmos” Creator, to die for the creation, because He loved it so much.

If you would like to take a look at some other theologian’s stances on John 3:16 here are a few:

John Calvin, John Davenant, JC Ryle, R.L. Dabney

Read More......

Atonement Debate: Opening Post

John 3:16-17 states:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The purpose that Christ came for was to save the elect.

"For God so loved the world" can be fairly paraphrased: "This is how God loved the world"

The way he loved the world is that he sent Jesus to die to save

"whosoever believeth in him," which can be fairly paraphrased: "all those who believe."

Jesus did not come to save any besides those who believe, just those who believe.

Ergo, the scope of Christ's sacrificial work is properly defined by the elect, and general terms like "world" are explained to refer to the broad expanse of people who will believe (the elect is a numerous and global group), and not to create an exhaustive class of "each and every person."

Read More......

Atonement Debate

So, it is official. We are going to have an atonement debate/discussion. Since my official declaration of change of whom Christ died for, there has been a lot of reaction, both privately in email form and also over some blogs. One of those that showed some concern was Turretinfan. He stated that he would like to discuss my new position on the atonement in this post on his site.
So, here is what we are going to do. We are going to open the discussion with an opening post from Turretinfan probably on Tuesday. All are welcome to post comments and then I will rebut after the comments slow, probably a couple of days after the initial post.

Here is the whole premise. Turretinfan will be affirming the following:

Resolved: Christ's sacrifice has saved or will save each person upon whose behalf it was offered.

I will be denying that assertation and affirming that Christ died universally for the whole world, especially the elect.

I pray that this will sharpen us all and reform us to the word of God.

Read More......

Humility: Book Review and Sermon

I am going to have two parts here. The first will be a book review of Mahaney's book on humility and the other is a sermon by Mark Driscoll. What I find interesting is that Pastor Driscoll does a lot of apologizing for his pride throughout this sermon. He even starts with a story of getting a call from CJ Mahaney with a focus on allowing the attacks against Driscoll to be a chance for humility.

I haven't wanted to read this book for the mere fact that I am selfish and didn't want to be that convicted of my prideful attitudes. It wasn't until one of my elders read the book and told me what impact it had on his thoughts and attitudes of his daily walk, that I decided to pick up the small, but towering book of truth.

CJ Mahaney has put together a very strong book that seems to come from the outworking of his previous works which focus on Christ and His cross. This seems as though it is the natural outflow of his writings on "Christ our Mediator" and also "The Cross Centered Life." CJ comes to this conclusion and outworking by writing the book "Humility: True Greatness."

The book is broken into three parts:

Part I: Our Greatest Friend, Our Greatest Enemy: The Battle of Humility Versus Pride

In this part CJ comes out and helps define what humility is and what pride is. He then walks through the implications, promises and perils of both.

Part II: The Great Reversal: Our Saviour and the Secret of True Greatness

This is classic Mahaney. Pointing us back to our Saviour. It is as although he has "defined" humility and pride in the first part he cannot truly define humility without coming back to the Saviour and the cross. Mahaney shows some ways that the Christ shows humility to his disciples in Mark 10 and also through the great redemptive plan in the cross. This is where you start to simply understand your need of humility to truly walk in the ways of Christ and this is where I started to ask, "give me some ways to understand this practically" and that is what Mahaney delivers in the third part of the book.

Part III: Our Great Pursuit: The Practice of True Humility

Mahaney really lays out some great practical ways to come to an understanding of humility in our lives and ways to see the pride in them as well. He lists out for most of the book, as this is by far the longest part, practical ways to be humble and ways to continually point out prideful parts in our lives.

All in all, this is a very hard book practically to read, as I have found all of Mahaney's books to be, but very easy for any layman to pick up and walk through. Very challenging without being a cry from the high towers of holiness as this book is read and written through the eyes of someone you feel is having the very same struggles you are in the subject that is being written, yet someone who has much knowledge to share on how to "accomplish" the set thesis.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who needs to understand this subject, and if you feel you don't need to understand this subject...you really need to read this book, cause you are missing the point...

Link to Buy

Read More......