| Author | Message | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 176 Registered: 2-2003 |
As to the question of limited atonement. I think there is no real conflict in Scripture. 1 John 1: 2 says that Jesus, ìis the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world,î whereas in John 10: 14, as quoted above, Jesus says, ìI lay down my life for the sheep.î Now if Jesus had said, ìI lay down my life only for the sheep, and not for the goats,î there would be a conflict, but he did not say that, that is an addition to Scripture. If the Bible says Jesus died for the church (Ephes. 5: 25) and died for the world (Jn 1: 29), which it does, then can we accept one of the two theories (limited or universal atonement) so that both statements are true? If we consider set theory in mathematics, then we could say that the total number of people in the world in the universal set, and the number of people in the church is a subset of this. These two are not mutually exclusive. It could be drawn as a big circle with a little circle inside it. So if Jesus died for the world (the big circle) this also includes the church (the little circle), but if he only died for the church (just the little circle), then this excludes the rest of the world. So on this model, universal atonement theory means both Biblical statements are true, whereas limited atonement means only one is true and the other has to be rejected. As far as I can see, this means that universal atonement is Biblical, and limited atonement is not, irrespective of philosophical considerations. By the way, Stan, in John 6, Jesus said the people had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. I think the fact that the sermon was about cannibalism would probably have caused more of a scandal amongst 1st century Jews than predestination. They already believed they were Godís chosen people. Hello Colleen, Nice to ìseeî you too. I have been doing other things, just thought Iíd drop in again for a while. Otherwise, still in Hungary, doing just about the same. I agree with the idea of having to realise we cannot figure everything out ñ there is a verse for that too ñ Isaiah 55: 8-9. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 910 Registered: 7-2003  |
Doc, I think you are right that the issue of a "second gift" or "baptism in the Spirit" is another discussion altogether. I don't want to get too far off on a tangent here, but I know how someone from a non-charismatic perspective would answer your qestion. They would say that the book of Acts is a historical narrative, not didactic teaching on how the church should look in every age. For instance, the fact that many believers in the book of Acts lived in a nearly communal setting (having all things in common) does not necessarily mean that modern believers need to live in a communal setting (although there is a principle of charity and of sharing). The fact that the believers in Acts were meeting together daily to worship and break bread does not necessarily mean that modern believers need to meet daily (although there is a principle of gathering together). To more directly address your question. Those from non-charismatic traditions would say that that God was demonstrating something very specific in the book of Acts in pouring out the Spirit in a very externally visable way (often at a time subsequent to inital faith). As we look at the groups that received these manifestations, they were representative groups. We see God demonstrating in a very clear and visable way that He will pour out His Spirit on Jews, on Samaritans, on gentile God-Fearers, and on formerly pagan Gentiles. God is demonstrating that all these will form one new-man joined by the same Spirit. Non-charismatic traditions would say that this doesn't mean that all subsequest believers need to receive the Spirit in a dramatic external fashion at some time subsequent to their initial belief. Non-charismatic Christians would say there is a prinicple here: All believing Christians, no matter their background or ethnicity, receive the indwelling presence of the Spirit. Although I am more of a charismatic than a cessationist, I also believe that we need to be very careful about forming doctrine primarily from historic narrative. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 853 Registered: 10-2004  |
My current thoughts on regeneration/faith are that, as Adrian pointed out, Scripture says that we are born again by the Spirit through the Word, and faith comes from/with hearing the Word (see also Gal. 3:2). And Ephesians 2 says that we have been made alive and in parentheses says "saved" and then a few verses down says that we have been saved through faith. Would it then be correct to say that we are regenerated by the Spirit through the Word producing Faith (which would all be the Gift of God)? In other words, faith and regeneration would be simultaneous. These are just thoughts I'm having based on putting all these Scriptures together. I would like to hear others' input. And Adrian, if in Eph. 2 it's all the gift of God, then that would include the faith being a gift of God, correct? The grace, the salvation, and the faith would all be from God and "not from you," right? Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 912 Registered: 7-2003 |
Jeremy, This brief summary of the two views on the Order of Salvation, along with the linked articles below it, may be helpful: Ordo Salutis Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 913 Registered: 7-2003 |
For those that don't like following offsite links, here's the essence of the two views of Ordo Salutis:
Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 914 Registered: 7-2003 |
Okay, from the same page I linked up above, I had to point out something else I found interesting:
Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 551 Registered: 3-2005 |
Chris, I see you have discovered that www.monergism.com web site. I have been like a kid in the candy store studying the great info on that site. They have classical Reformed works from the Puritans, as well as many others. There is an index on the left column with all kinds of topics, which is very well worth the time spent even if you aren't Reformed. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2310 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, Chris--you're clarification of "free choice" in Calvinism is correct. I was focussed more on his clarification that our definition of "free choice" is significant: if we say free choice is completely apart from input from God, then that "freedom" would be apart from God. I still find myself coming down neither in the Arminian nor the Calvinist "camp". I have trouble with the questions Arminianism leaves me with; God loses a great deal of His sovereignty, as I see it. Similarly, strict Calvinism includes conclusions that don't seem Biblical, such as limited atonement. I really see God's sovereignty in a more "Calvinistic" light than I used to. I do see the Bible teaching that God is completely sovereign over everything, even me and what I do and what happens to me. I wish there were a way to talk about these things without the need for a "label". I don't believe my understanding fits neatly within a label! I still believe my amazement at the Reformed tradition in terms of God's sovereignty is partly because I had such a warped view of it as an Adventist. My worldview was so strongly "Arminian" that God had to defer to man even to decide when to come. I am SO relieved to know that God makes up His own mind--and we humans do not "decide" what God will do. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 916 Registered: 7-2003 |
Colleen, I suspect we are fairly close in our current theological understanding of these matters. I no doubt sound as if I am arguing both sides of the issue, but that's simply because I am attempting to seek clarity. For me that comes in part from fully and accurately understanding the various positions and the biblical rationale for them. My confusion is not because I do not fully understand the arguments or the rationale, but because none of the arguments seem to do full justice to all that is taught in the scripture. As I see it, both camps seem to emphasize certain texts while going to great lengths to deemphasize others. I would love to have a template that would allow me to fit the whole of the biblical data in it, but as you mentioned in another post, perhaps that would only be an attempt at bringing God down to my own level and would make God too small. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2313 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Chris, I completely agree. Colleen | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 113 Registered: 3-2005 |
Hi all: Lots of interesting stuff... Jeremiah: I read the article you posted. Interesting. I enjoyed reading it. The Old Testament information is fascinating, and so important! I think I automatically have a little bit of distrust towards his theology because he left Protestantism for Catholicism...on the other hand, I don't want to discount his thoughts JUST because of that... I DO have a passage floating around in my head (actually in the form of a song)  , specifically John 12:32. 32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN to myself." (emphasis added). What does this mean if John isn't referring to ALL (each and every) MEN? Does it mean only the (elected) ALL MEN? If so, how is that scripturally supported? It seems we have to add to the text to get it to mean 'elected ALL MEN.' Another question is how can 'world' be translated? Is it possible that that can be translated with a different meaning other than the obvious? Patria | ||
| Leigh Registered user Username: Leigh Post Number: 27 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hi Patria Here here are the lexicon results from www.blueletterbible.org for the Greek word "pas" translated "all" 1) individually a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2) collectively a) some of all types ++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption to see the whole page go to http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1121775136-9729.html Leigh | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 177 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello Chris, Thanks for your explanation. I am aware of the Cessationist arguments, but that is not what I was taking about. I just wanted to show that if we assume the Reformed position on the new birth being the same as reception of the Spirit, for the sake of argument, then the narratives in Acts refute their order of salvation. Calvinist theology requires the new birth to come before faith, but in the cases I mentioned, it is clearly stated that reception of the Spirit occurred after the people came to faith. This means either that you have two works of the Spirit, which they deny, or you have faith coming before the new birth, which they also deny. Is it any wonder then, that the claim is made, that you canít get theology from Acts? Though itís OK to use 13: 48 and 16: 14, because it supports TULIP, but not 7: 51 of course. I donít think you can call a theology ìsound,î even when it is supposedly based on didactic teaching, if when you look at the way things worked in practice in the early church (also in the Bible), it is completely different. Doesnít make sense. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 178 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jeremy, Just to try and answer your question. You asked me, ìIf in Eph. 2 it's all the gift of God, then that would include the faith being a gift of God, correct? The grace, the salvation, and the faith would all be from God and "not from you," right?î I donít think that is necessarily the case. Consider the following illustration ñ though of course no analogy is perfect. There is an airline company which provides a service say from London to New York. They build airports, put the planes into service, and advertise in the following way, ìTravel to New York, just get on the plane, you did not invent air flight, itís all provided by the Airline, you donít have to swim.î Assuming we live in a limited world, in which there are no other means of transport, then what can we say? If someone wants to get to New York, he has no chance unless he uses the method provided by the Airline, but this method is sure to get him there, and itís free. I think we can see that the whole of the method of getting to New York is provided free by the company, the passenger just has to get on the plane in order to take advantage of the offer. Otherwise he would have to try to swim, and would therefore never get there. The whole means of getting to New York has been provided as a gift, apart from the act of getting on the plane, but the necessity of this has also been communicated. In a similar way, I think the verse from Ephesians tells us that God has provided the means of salvation, but it does have to mean that the method of laying hold of it, i.e. faith, is also a gift. If that verse is all there is, then the idea that faith too is a gift has an extremely weak basis. Certainly not enough to build a theology on. If faith were a gift, it is difficult to understand why people in the Bible are commended for their faith (e.g. Hebrews 11: 1-2, 6 ñ verse 6 especially makes no sense in terms of Calvinism). And why is Jesus amazed at the lack of it (e.g. Mark 6: 6)? If people were totally passive in terms of how much faith they had, this would be meaningless. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 918 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well, I think the reformed response would be that the representative groups in Acts were in fact regenerate and Spirit indwelt prior to experiencing these external signs that demonstrated the reality of the Spirit to those around them. While the reformed position would not want to over emphasize a "second act of grace" the reformed position would have no problem with multiple acts of grace to include a second, a third, a fourth, a twentieth, a one hundreth, a thousandth, etc. The idea is that the Spirit is received at the moment of regeneration, but the Spirt continues to work in the believer's life and manifest Himself in various ways repeatedly throughout the life of the believer. The fact, that these men spoke in tongues subsequent to their conversion does not necessarily mean that they did not have the Spirit prior to speaking in toungues. Take for example the disciples. They experienced a very dramatic outpouring of the Spirit at Pentacost and yet Jesus had already breathed the Spirit on them prior to His ascension. So clearly they already had the presence of the Spirit, but He was manifest in an even more powerful way at a later time. Chris | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 552 Registered: 3-2005 |
Leigh, Thanks for that clarification of the word "all". Colleen, I have just reviewed pp 594-603 of Grudem's Systematic Theology on the extent of the atonement. Grudem makes it clear that he is solidly in the Reformed, or Calvinistic camp, as John Frame and Vern Poythress of Westminster Theological Seminary were his primary theological mentors. But it is interesting that he also has attended Vineyard Christian Fellowship which is clearly Charismatic. But I think he presents a very balanced view of the pastoral implications of the Limited atonement view (he prefers the word particular or definite atonement) on page 603 under point d. "A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to be to say that this teaching of particular redemption seems to us to be true, that it gives logical consistency to our theological system, and that it can be helpful in assuring people of Christ's love for them individually and of the completeness of the redemptive work for them..." He emphasizes that this doctrine should not divide Christians. I wonder if there isn't some way to reconcile these differences. If we say that in a general sense the Atonement was universal, in that the gospel call goes out to all, and in a sense the death of Christ was a demonstration to the whole world of His love for mankind, But, with regard to the efficacy of the atonement, wouldn't it make sense to say that if we believe that the Father elected some unconditionally to salvation, and the Holy Spirit seals the Elect for salvation, and preserves the Elect, then it seems to make sense that the Son's substitutionary and efficacious atonement would apply only to those that the Father gave to the Son. John 6 "All that the Father gives me will come to me".."and they shall never perish" So, yes, in a sense the Atonement is not limited at all, and is Universal, but is efficacious only for the elect. Does this make sense, or does it sound like I am trying to have it both ways? Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 920 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well, Stan the Arminian view point would say that the atonement was universal, but only becomes efficacious for the elect. The benefits of Christ's atonement are only actually applied to those who come to faith, but the benefits are offered to all and can be accepted or rejected by all. You seem to be using Arminian terminology, but assigning it a different meaning. I think for the sake of clarity in debate we need to avoid redefining terms in ways that will cause confusion. Let's be clear. In reformed theology, there is double-predestination. Christ only died for some. Christ's sacrifice and atonement were made for them and them only. They are the elect and they are predestined for salvation. On the flip side of predestination, are the retrobate. These were chosen for eternal retrobation in order to show God's justice and bring eternal glory to God. There is no offer of salvation to those whom Christ did not die for. The retrobate have no access or avenue for forgiveness or atonement, never have and never will. The cross was not for them. They are vessels of wrath created for Hell and predestined for Hell. Period. If someone believes I have misrepresented the reformed view of the retrobate please let me know. Chris | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 116 Registered: 3-2005 |
Leigh: Thank you so much for the explanation. That clarifies some things, though I still don't see that it would necessarily imply unconditional election and limited atonement. For me, the question isn't that Jesus died only for those who would be saved...as it is a matter of logic. Those who won't come to him aren't saved, so in effect, He hasn't died for them. But the question is still this (for me): if God CREATED people for hell, knowing they would commit evil, then how can we NOT say He's the Creator of evil? And of course, we know that He's the 'Absolute Good'. So, it seems that to follow the idea of unconditional election to it's conclusion, we'd have to say that not only is God the creator of evil, but that Him creating evil is good. I absolutely cannot reconcile that. I hear what you all have said, but there really doesn't seem to be a good answer to this question. Have I misunderstood something? Patria | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 921 Registered: 7-2003 |
Patria, You have hit the nail on the head. Even RC Sproul admits that this is an "excruciating" problem. Adam and Eve were created spiritually alive and yet they sinned and fell. So we can't relate their sin to being spiritual corpses. Also reformed thinkers would say that nothing happens in the universe that is not the predetermined will of God. So by reformed thinking it had to have been the express predetermined will of God that humans sin. I have seen some explanations for this, mostly having to do with a grid explaining potential for sinful choices before and after the fall, before and after regeneration, and before and after glorification. But this doesn't completely solve the problem because before Adam and Eve there was Satan. At some point you get back to the fact that God created a creature who does evil. Now if God creates truly free-will creatures, then it can be seen that God may create the potential for evil, but it is the free-will creature that chooses to actualize the evil. While it is God's will that the creature have free-will, it is not God's will that the creature choose evil. But Calvinist do not believe in free-will per se, nor do they believe that any creature can make any choice that is not consistent with their nature, nor do they believe that any creature can do anything that is not the will of God. Since all things are predestined and all things that happen are the will of God, then it must be the will of God that Satan would do evil. If it were not God's will it wouldn't have happened. Understand, this is different than saying that God foreknew that it would happen (all sides would agree with this). From a Calvinist point of view God would have had to have willed it and caused it to happen for His own purposes (unrevealed to us). How then is God not the ultimate author of evil? That is indeed an excruciating problem. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 855 Registered: 10-2004 |
Chris, I have ALWAYS pondered that question (even as an Adventist growing up)! Because even according to (most) Arminians, God KNEW that Satan would do evil. Therefore, God DID something (create Satan) that He KNEW would result in EVIL, right? Therefore, even according to the Arminians, it would have to be His will for evil to happen, or He wouldn't have created Satan in the first place knowing he would do evil! Right? I've never found a way around that my whole entire life. It seems that the only way around it would be to deny that God knew Satan would do evil. But then again, maybe our human logic can't understand it all! Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on July 19, 2005) |
