Bullinger's belief in Strict Limited Atonement and Unicorns

This is starting to frighten me. Yesterday, I posted something from my friend David on Bullinger's view of the atonement. David made a great comment in his post. He said:

These works have added a lot of useful material for my Bullinger file. What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise.

One may not agree with the doctrine. One may claim it is illogical. One may claim it is inconsistent with the doctrine of Predestination. One may claim that later Calvinists refined and smoothed out earlier inconsistencies. One can think and believe all that. What one cannot do is be dishonest about the plain and undeniable historicity of the doctrine in early Reformed theology.

What is starting to frighten me is the bullheaded process of just outright denying that the Reformers believed in universal atonement. Now, when we say this, we aren't denying that they also believed in limited atonement, we are saying that they believed both. Our friend Turretinfan cannot accept this. He goes to great lengths to try and outright deny that Bullinger or others ever believed in a universal atonement. So, he not only denies unlimited atonement but he now tries to just say, "nuh uh" when we constantly prove otherwise that a lot of the Reformers would agree with us. He might as well try and prove that Bullinger also believed in unicorns. I can accept that he doesn't believe in the unlimited view of the atonement, but this is getting ridiculous how much he twists words and ignores plain language to try and refute that the reformers didn't believe in the unlimited aspect of the atonement. With his arguments I am going to start to debate why Bullinger and the Reformers believed that leprechauns rode in on unicorns with fairy dust to take over Montana. No matter how hard Turretinfan, and others mind you, try and refute the plain language of Bullinger and others, it is still there for all to read. Take a look at this comment from Bullinger (from David's follow up post):

Also they declare by the way, whom he has redeemed: that is to wit, men of all tribes, &c. In which rehearsal he does imitate Daniel in the 7. chapt. and signifies an universality, for the Lord has died for all: but that all are not made partakers of this redemption, it is through their own fault. For the Lord excludes no man, but him only which through his own unbelief, and misbelief excludes himself. &c. Henry Bullinger, A Hvndred Sermons Vpon the Apocalipse of Iesu Christ. (London: Printed by Iohn Daye, Dwellyng ouer Aldersgate, 1573), 79-80.

Can you honestly tell me that Bullinger is not clear as day here? It is now to the point to where we say it is sunny outside and Turretinfan says that it is snowing and it is midnight.

If you would like to see to what lengths Turretinfan is going to try and prove that there are unicorns in the language of Bullinger click here. To see David's rebuttal, click here.

If you don't agree with us, fine. I can take that. But stop with this pretend world that makes no sense at all. At some point, you have to just say, I don't agree with some of the Reformers and move on. But to continue to try and have a smear campaign is retarded.

Read More......

The Reformed Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement

This is a post that my friend David did over at theology online. I really liked it and hope that it will shed some light on those who refuse to believe that the unlimited view of the atonement is merely Arminian or by deviant Amyraldians. Take a look and also take a look at the links included within the post. David has compiled quite the list that is overwhelmingly in the favor of the Reformed TRUE understanding of the atonement. Here it is, enjoy:

For the last few months I have been working my way through some rare out-of-print works by Henry Bullinger.

These works include:

Henry Bullinger, Common Places of Christian Religion, (Imprinted at London by Tho. East, and H. Middleton, for George Byshop, 1572).

Henrie Bullinger, The Summe of the Foure Euangelistes Comprehending both the course of the historie, and also severall points of doctrine set foorth in the same, pointing foorth as it were with the hand, that IESVS is CHRIST, the only perfect and sufficient Saviour of all the Faithfull, (Imprinted at London: William Ponsonby at the signe of the Bishops head, 1582).

[Henry Bullinger], Looke from Adam, And behold The Protestants Faith and Religion (London: Printed by Iohn Haviland, for Thomas Pavier, and are to be sold at his shop in Ivie Lane, 1624).

Henry Bullinger, A Hvndred Sermons Vpon the Apocalipse of Iesu Christ. (London: Printed by Iohn Daye, Dwellyng ouer Aldersgate, 1573).

[Henry Bullinger], An Holsome Antidotus or counter-poyson agaynst the pestylent heresye and secte of the Anabaptistes newly translated out of the Latin into Englysh by John Veron, 1570.

Henry Bullynger, A moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children against the pestiferous secte of the Anabaptytses. set furthe by the famouse Clerke, Henry Bullyinger: & nowe translated out of Laten into Englysh by Jhon Verone (Imprynted at Worceter by Jhon Oswen, 1551).

These works have added a lot of useful material for my Bullinger file. What is clear now, beyond any doubt whatsoever, is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement was a Reformed doctrine. The evidence now is of such efficacy that only a proverbial fool would insist otherwise. When it comes to the Web’s many many uber-Calvinists and uber-apologists who insist that this doctrine was either invented by heretical Arminians or by deviant Amyraldians, it is now clear that they are just wrong. Some of our internet cowboys need to get their head out of their posterior on this point. One may not agree with the doctrine. One may claim it is illogical. One may claim it is inconsistent with the doctrine of Predestination. One may claim that later Calvinists refined and smoothed out earlier inconsistencies. One can think and believe all that. What one cannot do is be dishonest about the plain and undeniable historicity of the doctrine in early Reformed theology. To do that is just to engage in mindless smear campaigns and sectarian polemics. When we add other early Reformation leaders like Luther, Zwingli, Musculus, Gualther, Calvin and many others, it is either willful stubbornness or willful ignorance to deny the evidence of history. When folk over there at Puritanboard or on Paltalk or on the various boards out there, call the doctrine of ‘double-reference’ theory of the atonement “blasphemy” those persons exhibit some of the worst forms of ignorance imaginable.

It’s time that our uber-calvinists out there on the big wide web leave behind their sectarianism and arrogance and rethink their approach to Reformed theology and to those who deviate from them the merest nanometer.

David

Also...here are the links to the quite large database of quotes and references compiled by David on the Reformed view of the atonement, love of God, desire of God, etc.

THE Index

Read More......

Before We Move On...

I plan on moving on, but I have been very busy this last week, so I apologize. I will get around to answering the questions that Turretinfan has posed to me. I wanted to continue a discussion to see what people think on this following verse.

In our last discussion in Hebrews 10:10-14 the language that TF wanted to get across is that all those for whom the offering was made will be sanctified. So, I thought I would see how he would take this from Christ.

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.“But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table."
Luke 22:19-21

So, we have Jesus with all of his apostles, including Judas, and says that the blood was poured out for you (which is in the plural in the Greek), meaning it was for all that were sitting at the table. Judas is sitting at the table, so doesn't this mean that Jesus poured out his blood for Judas?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Again, I promise that I will be posting more in depth responses to what TF has asked for.

Read More......

Hebrews 10:10-14: Rebuttal By Turretinfan

It seems that some are objecting to my presentation on Hebrews 10, on the basis that "them that are sanctified" in Hebrews 10:14, "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," might (according to the objectors) refer to something less than the entire intended beneficiaries of the sacrifice. I went back and forth over whether a long or short argument should be presented, and the following is the short argument.

1. That it means all for whom the sacrifice was made, can be seen first from the parallel to verse 1.

In verse 1, it is written, Hebrews 10:1, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

This verse provides the basis of comparison against which Christ's sacrifice is observed to be better. But it appears that προσερχομενους (the comers) is the entire group for whom sacrifices were offered. As you will recall, the person for whom the priest offers the sacrifice is the person who came to the priest and brought the victim to be sacrificed.

Consider, for example:

Leviticus 15:14-15

14And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before the LORD unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them unto the priest: 15And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD for his issue.

It is the comers to the animal sacrifices that were the group for whom the animal sacrifices were made, but they were not made perfect by those sacrifices. In contrast, those for whom the sacrifice of Christ is made are made perfect by that sacrifice. Furthermore, this perfection is already once for all accomplished. The elect will be (and have been) justified in time, but the judicial reconciliation was accomplished on the cross.

2. We also see it in the parallels to other passages:

A. Hebrews 5:7-9

7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Christ was made perfect as a priest so that he might perfect the intended beneficiaries of his sacrifice: namely those that obey him (aka the elect). This reemphasizes the point above that the single purpose of Christ's sacrificial work was to save the elect.

B. Hebrews 7:19

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

It is here written that the law (that is, the animal sacrifice system) did not make anyone perfect, which is contrasted with the sacrifice of Christ, which did, and by which we can approach God. This reemphasizes that the difference between the old and new sacrifice is that the former did not make its intended beneficiaries perfect, whereas the new does.

C. Hebrews 9:7-12

7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Here again we see the glorious perfection of Christ compared and contrasted to the impotent animal sacrifices. Christ did not have to offer for his own sins, and when he came into the holy place he came with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. This reemphasizes the point above that the reconciliation is already bought - already paid for - and that the execution of that reconciliation is now a matter of justice as between Christ as advocate and the godhead. That is to say, Christ has obtained eternal redemption for the elect, and consequently the elect will not perish.

3. The opposite hypothesis (i.e. that "them which are sanctified" is a subgroup of the intended beneficiaries of the sacrifice) is without support in the text.

That is to say, the text gives no hint that there is some other group that is intended to benefit, but that is not perfected by the sacrifice. Furthermore, if such were the case, it would break down the parallel to the Old Testament above. For the old sacrifices contain no parallel to such a bifurcation in the intent of the sacrifice's benefits.

4. The warning passage in verses 26-29 cannot resuscitate a multiple intention view - instead, it fully undermines it.

Hebrews 10:26-29

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The reason it cannot help the multiple intention view is that in order to press this warning into service, they must state that Christ was sacrificed (vs. 26) for this hypothetical man who was judged, and that consequently he was "sanctified" (vs. 29). This, of course, reinforces the point above, that those for whom the sacrifice was made are equivalent to the sanctified group. The same word for "sanctified" is even used in both cases. Yet, we learn from verse 14 that Christ perfected them that are sanctified. Accordingly, we see that any objection from verses 26-29 just reinforces the original point.

That concludes the short form of the argument.

Read More......

Clearing Up My Position

Turretinfan has asked me to clear up my position and asked if we differ on the thesis. You can see his full question here. I will put forth my position as it stands, and also assert that Turretinfan and I do NOT agree on this. He, for some reason, believes that I have "conceded" to his points of concern, which I have not. I will also make a comment at the end, and putting forth again the quotes on what Shedd is asserting as well. Turretinfan said that he has "substantiated" his claim, which I found wanting.

Here is the original topics to be debated:

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

I will be denying that [assertion] and affirming that Christ died universally for the whole world, especially the elect. (Seth)

Here is my clarification on what I believe:

1. I believe that Jesus Christ died for the whole world of unbelieving humanity. I believe he paid the ransom, wiped away their sin.

2. Jesus Christ only intended (purposed is my word of choice) the salvation of the elect, this is the efficacy of the payment. Really found in the application of it.

3. By Jesus' death, He then offers this death to all men. He desires the salvation of all men, even seeks their salvation through the call of the Gospel, that is, that Christ died for all and by that death it is the means for all to be saved.

So, in the end. God's secret will, will save everyone of the elect, because it(Christ's death) is for them that it is purposed. But, in God's revealed will, Jesus died for all and paid the payment and the desire and offer is to all.

As far as Shedd is concerned. Turretinfan "substantiated" his claim that Shedd believed only in limited atonement with this quote:

But if the answer be that there is not efficient power in the sinful will itself, either wholly or in part, to savingly believe, then faith is wholly the gift of God, is wholly dependent upon his electing grace, and redemption is limited by election, as is taught in 1 Cor. 3:5: “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man”; and in Rom. 9:16: “It is not of him that wills nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.”
Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology.

As we don't deny that the efficacy was found in the elect alone, as Shedd is asserting here, we also see the other side of the atonement, and that is in the actual sufficiency found in the expiation for the entirety of the whole of mankind.

Here is where Shedd explicity agrees with us. We would not disagree with the above mentioned quote, but we also understand that it does not stop there with Shedd, with us, nor with the entirety of the understanding of Christ's expiation. This is the equivalent, in my opinion, of quoting John 10:11 that states: I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. and then stating that the debate is over. The whole of this entire argument over Shedd, Dabney, Hodge, Calvin, Bullinger, Zwingli, etc. does not end with one quote, but with their entire theology of the subject, taken as a whole, and not in part. Of course, we find this because we do the same with Scripture. We don't just state John 10:13 and then declare victory. We must ask some key questions on the entirety of the biblical account to prove the purposes, sufficiency,efficacy, and purposes of the atonement. The same is to be said with Shedd, or any other theologian.

On that note, here again, are a couple of quotes by Shedd that very much clear up his opinion on the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact...This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated “the sins of the whole world,” and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience.

Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.

VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the " one sacrifice "would have been just the same. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3:418.

Read More......

Hebrews 10:10-14: Rebuttal

When I saw this post come across my email, I, at first, was confused at why this one would be chosen. I then read Turretinfan's comments on it and I saw why he would want it to read as he has asserted, but yet, I find it not the point of this passage nor is it feasible. Of course that is my position, so take that with a grain of salt. But, the reason I was perplexed is because I have never heard anyone taking this passage and use it this way. From my reading of Hebrews 10, I have always come to this conclusion, both as a Calvinist and also when I was growing up in the Southern Baptist Churches: Jesus Christ's sacrifice is greater than the bulls and goats because his takes away sin and is the ONE sacrifice to give assurance to believers for their sanctification.

I will be honest, I have not been able to keep up with the comments in TF's post, so forgive me if I am bringing up "old" arguments, but I want to post on how I see this passage playing out and its implications for the elect of God.


What I do see here is Turretinfan making a big jump, exegetically, in the context of the passage. He wants it to read: the offering made was only for those who will be sanctified. The problem is that this is not the point of the verse nor can that be found. He changes some key words in their context to make this happen.

TF: The sacrifice of Christ was offered for particular people; The "τους αγιαζομενους" are those for whom the offering is made.

That is simply not found in the passage itself, but has been added to by TF. Now the second part of both of these statements, I thoroughly agree with as TF states, they are perfected by the offering. This is not going to be argued, but I would argue that this is the actual point of the verse.

The way that this passage reads is simply that those who believe, i.e. sanctified, were sanctified because of the one offering, that is Christ, not the priestly sacrifices of bulls and goats.

Notice in Hebrews 10:1 that it states:

...which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.

If we try and make a parallel here, we can see that those who draw near would be the elect who are believers. Remember, here on earth there are two classes of the elect: those who are currently believing and those who will believe. Where was their hope in being cleansed? They thought it was the sacrifices that were made each year.

So, the passage then goes on to say that these sacrifices had no hope of cleansing but, in actuality, a reminder. So, the passage moves on to Christ. It's the same idea, except, now, we see that those who draw near, which are now used with a different term: those who are sanctified (or being sanctified), have confidence because of the one sacrifice that was made (for us that was about 2000 years ago). The sacrifice, the offering of Jesus, is where these people have hope and confidence.

This is the statement being made.

If one believes that the offering that was made 2000 years ago, forever, at that point, made the elect perfect then we have to ask the reason for duty faith. I am not sure if this is TF's point, so if it is not then we can just skip this.

But, the subject that is being considered here are those that are sanctified, not the elect as a whole. Who are those that are, in actuality, currently sanctified? It is those that are elect that have already believed. What did they believe and where is there hope? On the offering that was made 2000 years ago.

If we take here, that those that are sanctified means the whole of the elect, then we have to ask, "How can an elect person who has not believed be sanctified?" Don't they need to believe first, before they are sanctified? We understand they, in actuality, do, because of Ephesians 2:3 that states:

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Ephesians 2:3

So, if we, as the believing elect, were once the unregenerate elect, then we were not sanctified at the time of the cross, but at the time of Christ's imputation of righteousness at faith.

So, again, the point of this passage is not to point to the offering being made for a particular people, but just the opposite. It is so that the particular people can look to the offering made and have assurance that they have been paid for, that they have been sanctified. But this assurance doesn't happen until faith.

Calvin would agree with me here as well, and so do many major commenters on this passage.

He has hitherto labored enough, and more than enough, in defending the priesthood of Christ; the conclusion then is, that the ancient priesthood, which is inconsistent with this, has ceased; for all the saints find a full consecration in the one offering of Christ. At the same time the word teteleioken,which I render “has consecrated,” may yet be rendered “has perfected;” but I prefer the former meaning, because he treats here of sacred things. By saying, them who are sanctified, he includes all the children of God; and he reminds us that the grace of sanctification is sought elsewhere in vain.

Calvin Heb 10:14.

V. 10 is still closely bound to the quotation: neither θέλημα, προσφορά, nor σῶμα in this sense is part of the epistle’s normal vocabulary. But the author moves away from phrase-by-phrase comment to a statement which not only sums up this whole stage of the argument, but also goes beyond it to state, more explicitly than the quotation, even christologically interpreted, the benefits of Christ’s self-offering for believers, including the author and his readers. With this broadening of the theme there comes a change of time reference: the continuing state (ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν) of believers depends on the once-for-all offering of the body of Christ. The importance of the statement is stressed by the use, for the first time in the epistle (cf. 13:1, 21), of the full name “Jesus Christ”; ἐφάπαξ (→ 7:27) is emphatic by position. The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ has lasting effects (ἡγιασμένοι; see Lane 256 n.x)

Vv. 12f. (especially if εἰς τὸ διηνεκές in → v. 12 is taken with what follows) have been concerned with the death and exaltation of Christ himself; v. 14 is concerned with the consequences of this event for believers. Here, as elsewhere in Hebrews (→ 2:10), τελειόω implies the fulfilment of the Christian goal, namely an access to God which was formerly open only to the high priest. Hebrews emphasizes the unique priesthood of Jesus (Vanhoye 1980.242–247), and thus does not speak explicitly of the priesthood of all believers; but he comes close to doing so here, in language which is not only cultic (Bourgin 1959.79–81) but priestly (Zimmermann 1977.116–125, following G. Delling in TDNT 8.83f.). The perfect tense joins with the following phrase to emphasize the permanent effects of Christ’s sacrifice.

Ellingworth, P. (1993). The Epistle to the Hebrews : A commentary on the Greek text. Spine title: Commentary on Hebrews

Read More......

Hebrews 10:10-14: By Turretinfan

Hebrews 10:10-14

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The sacrifice of Christ was offered for particular people ("them that are sanctified") and was perfectly sufficient and effective for that particular people ("one sacrifice . for ever" and "one offering"). It is done, it is finished. The priest has sat down.

The "τους αγιαζομενους" are those for whom the offering is made. They are perfected by the offering. Matthew 23:17,19 provides some comparable uses of the verb. So, for that matter, does John 17:19, Acts 20:32, 1 Cor. 1:2, and more importantly Hebrews 2:11, 9:13, and 13:12. It's rather standard sacrificial terminology. The effect of Christ's work is to render those for whom the sacrifice was made perfect, and this is contrasted with the use of the same verb in Hebrews 10:1, to show that the OT sacrifices could not perfect those for whom they were offered.

By: Turretinfan

Read More......

Q & A from Turretinfan

Turretinfan has posed some questions to me which I will answer here. We can then comment on them and I am sure that Turretinfan will then follow up with a post.

I will give my answer and then follow up most of my comments with another theologian who also answers in the positive. If any need clarification on any of my responses, just ask away.


1) There have been various comments made that (not necessarily all by you) that seem to hint at the idea that you hold that Christ died on the cross not only to secure the salvation of the elect, but also to obtain something salvation-related (not merely incidental) for the reprobate. Is that true?

Seth: Yes, this is true. Christ then, died for the whole world, especially the elect. Christ, being God, knows who was the elect, who was to be regenerated and called, and who would be given faith and who would receive the imputation of the price that was paid at the cross. #2 will answer this more fully.

2) In what way has Christ taken away the sins of the reprobate? Has he actually taken away the guilt of their sins?

Seth: Jesus has taken away the sins of the world. Jesus has canceled the legal claims of the law to sinners. This is different than being pardoned, these two; cancellation of legal claim and pardon are separate. He has bore their sins on the cross and they have been paid.

He is called the Lamb of God that taketh away (beareth) the sins of the world (John 1:29). Ye were not redeemed, says the apostle Peter, with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Charles Hodge, The Way of Life, (Philadelphia, American Sunday School Union, 1869), 165.

VOL. II., p. 441. The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death ; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the "offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10); but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and "blotted out" by this transaction. Still another transaction was I requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying " Thy sin is forgiven thee." The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, " sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the "one sacrifice "would have been just the same.

Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3:418.

Besides the arguments already mentioned in favour of the unity of mankind, next to the direct assertion of the Bible, that which after all has the greatest force is the one derived from the present condition of our moral and spiritual nature. Wherever we meet a man, no matter of what name or nation, we not only find that he has the same nature with ourselves; that he has the same organs, the same senses, the same instincts, the same feelings, the same faculties, the same understanding, will, and conscience, and the same capacity for religious culture, but that he has the same guilty and polluted nature, and needs the same redemption. Christ died for all men, and we are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature under heaven. Accordingly nowhere on the face of the earth are men to he found who do not need the gospel or who are not capable of becoming partakers of the blessings which it offers. The spiritual relationship of men, their common apostasy, and their common interest in the redemption of Christ demonstrate their common nature and their common origin beyond the possibility of reasonable or excusable doubt.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:90-91

3) In what way has a ransom been paid for the reprobate? Has he actually purchased them as a possession for himself? Do the reprobate belong to Christ as Redeemer?

Seth: Ransom is deliverance language. So when we hear the word, "ransom" there is not someone being "paid off." This is what Origen thought and then also Muslims continue to accuse us of. Origen and the Muslims would say that God paid Satan off, as a ransom payment. In the Old Testament the term ransom, as the Lord uses it, would connotate deliverance. I would not say that the reprobate are a possession of Christ or belong to him. They have merely been ransomed for (delivered), by His death, out of the Law of death.

“Indeed, I brought you up from the land of Egypt And ransomed you from the house of slavery, And I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam."
Micah 6:4

Into Your hand I commit my spirit;You have ransomed me, O Lord, God of truth.
Psalm 31:5

Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from death?
O Death, where are your thorns?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion will be hidden from My sight.
Hosea 13:14

The priestly work of Christ is also represented in Scripture under the figure of a price or ransom. This, also, is an objective term. The price is paid by the subject to the object: “The Son of Man is come to give his life a ransom (lytron)70 for (anti)71 many” (Matt. 20:28); “the church of God which he has purchased (peripoiēsato)72 with his own blood” (Acts 20:28); “the redemption (apolytrōsis)73 that is in Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:24); “you are bought (ēgorasthēte)74 with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20); “Christ has redeemed (exēgorasen)75 us from the curse” (Gal. 3:13); “redemption through his blood” (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14); “who gave himself a ransom (antilytron)76 for all” (1 Tim. 2:6). The allusion in the figure is sometimes to the payment of a debt and sometimes to the liberation of a captive. In either case, it is not Satan but God who holds the claim. Man has not transgressed against Satan, but against God. The debt that requires canceling is due to a divine attribute, not to the rebel archangel. The ransom that must be paid is for the purpose of delivering the sinner from the demands of justice, not of the devil. Satan cannot acquire or establish legal claims upon any being whatever. Some of the early fathers misinterpreted this doctrine of a “ransom” and introduced a vitiating element into the patristic soteriology, which however was soon eliminated and has never reappeared.
Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology. "First one-volume edition (3 vols. in 1)"--Jacket. (3rd ed.) (701). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub.

4) Is Christ the federal head of the elect only, or of all mankind exhaustively?

Seth: Yes, as Adam was the head of the whole of humanity, so Christ as the second Adam, better than the first, represents the whole of humanity, especially the elect.

It is true that the angels well knew that Jesus Christ was the Head of all mankind, but how that should come to pass, or what time, or by what means, that was hidden from them.
Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, Sermon 18, 3:-12, p., 264

5) Did Christ die intending to save the reprobate? intending to make their salvation possible? intending to save only the elect, but yet provide other incidental benefits to the reprobate? (or some other option I have not imagined)

Seth: Christ died to pay for the sins of the world with the intention to save the elect. God's salvific will is purposed for only the elect, but his desire is for all to come to salvation. This is the famous "two-wills of God" theory, which I hold to. So this is where the multiple intentions comes in the discussion. Christ died for the whole of mankind, but his special love for the elect was the "joy set before him" and that is why he "endured the cross." If when you say incidental benefits, you mean ransomed, then I would say yes.

In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite "propitiation for the sins of the whole world," 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact... This reasoning applies to vicarious atonement equally with personal. Justice does not require a second sacrifice from Christ, in addition to the first. "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many," Hebrews 10:28 [sic]. This one offering expiated "the sins of the whole world," and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself, and then it naturally and necessarily cancels his personal guilt, and he has the testimony that it does in his peace of conscience.

Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437, 438.

Read More......

Moving Forward in the Debate

I am going to go ahead and put up my three major "issues" with what TF is purporting in his last argument and he can dialogue, along with others, in the comments box as desired. I have then asked TF to go ahead and come with another argument for limited expiation alone and we'll go from there. What I will say is that by me asking TF to show that the atonement was for the elect alone is not the same as me asking, "prove the Bible doesn't teach it." The reason is, I am not asking TF to prove that "Jesus didn't wear a red t-shirt" but I am asking him to prove that Jesus wasn't a ransom for all, that He didn't come to save the world, that He didn't come to take away the sins of the world. "Jesus wearing a red t-shirt" is a "prove it through biblical silence" treatment, where my questions to him have been in the area of "prove it through through a biblical mandate." I believe that these are questions that beg to be answered, being that the Bible speaks on it. I would also ask all to remember that John's reasoning for writing his gospel and letters is so that we would be saved (John 20:30,31). He is a fisherman, trying to show all the way of salvation. I would think that John is trying to be clear and not "cryptic" in his reading. So, I am asking TF to give me his best arguments for why Jesus is only the atonement for the elect and not the world.

This is why you have seen so much argument on both sides of John's usage of world.


What I am simply going to do is lay out the two things I and TF disagree on and I will ask for a clarification or comment on one last thing. Then Turretinfan can either post on it or comment in the comments of this post (I will let him decide) and then he can post another verse for discussion.

First, Ephesians 5:23

It seems as though we really disagree with each other on this rendering of this passage.

Here is TF's comments:
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 could not disagree more here. Although I believe that TF has hit in one sense, that being physical, that is not where the discussion stops for the husband. The husband is more than just a physical protector for the wife, but he is responsible for the spiritual well being for the wife as well. So, we don't ignore the body, but we also don't ignore the spiritual ramifications here either for the husband. The husband is both the physical and spiritual head of the wife and is responsible for her. How is this comforting for the Christian wife if her husband's job is merely physical? This is why the parallel is made with Christ. The husbands job is to look to Christ and how He laid His life down for the church, and in the same way, the husband for the wife. The husband, like Christ, is to protect his wife spiritually and be ready to do all that is necessary for her in respect to that protection. Chapter 5 of Ephesians starts off this perception by saying, "Be imitators of God..." This is the precedence that the husbands are to adhere to: to imitate Christ. Christ is the physical and spiritual head of the church, as are the husbands to the wife.

Then 1 Peter 3:20 is brought in and said that the thing being saved was merely their bodies?

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.
Turretinfan

Why did God bring a flood? To destroy only the people's bodies? Or was it not because their heart was continually evil (Genesis 6:5) and so God destroyed both body and soul? So, on the other side, God saved the 8 persons body AND soul through the ark, not merely their bodies. Again, look to who Peter is writing to. He is writing to a people who are being lit up like torches by Nero and their confidence is needing building up. I have done studies on 1 Peter and about 50% of 1 Peter speaks of salvation in some way. What is going to comfort these people? Physical salvation or spiritual salvation? I believe both. But if you asked them, which would they rather have confidence in? I believe the spiritual is what is being strengthened here, not just the physical. Look at 1 Peter 3:18

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
1 Peter 3:18

So, is Peter then going to point to the mere physical bodies for their comfort? No, he is pointing to the fact of God's grace in saving the eight's "psuche," or their whole person, both body and spirit.

Second, Created Order

TF: John 3:16. God so loved the created order.

So, is the reprobate a part of the created order? If so, we are back to square one. If not, we need a reason they are not. John 1:10 is a great passage to look at:

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. John 1:10

Which part of the "created order" didn't know him? Would it not make more sense to see that John is trying to convey the thought of unbelieving humanity?

Thirdly, Calvin's Comments on John 12:47

If any man hear my words. After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately--as it were--reject God; for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all. In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospel which has been exhibited to them. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? It is because he lays aside for a time the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, if they reject an invitation so kind and gracious, for it is as if he had said, “Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined.” No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining the lovely message of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself. The word judge, as is evident from the word save, which is contrasted with it, here signifies to condemn. Now this ought to be understood as referring to the office which properly and naturally belongs to Christ; for that unbelievers are not more severely condemned on account of the Gospel is accidental, and does not arise from its nature, as we have said on former occasions. Calvin, John 12:47

TF, I am not going to get into whether Calvin was a Five Point Calvinist (which would need some clarification in of itself) or not as that would take us into a different direction. I think we both agree on this. But, I do wonder what your thoughts are on his exegesis of John 12:47. Cause, like David says, this is what I believe it to be, this is the exegesis that I agree with for John 12:47. So, any comment on Calvin and his exegesis for John 12:47 would be helpful.

I guess in the end, I have to ask TF, and everyone else: What is the fear in John the Baptists words, "Behold the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world!" Of course using my thoughts of world being "unbelieving humanity" that John uses in John 7:7; John 15:18 and John 1:10.

Any thoughts on this "fear" question will be helpful.

Read More......

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......