tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post5558740862310683591..comments2024-03-27T03:32:53.817-05:00Comments on Euangelion: For Whom Did Christ Die? - Michael Jensen (Amyraldian View)Michael F. Birdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-36876614769802285742015-12-25T00:45:03.816-06:002015-12-25T00:45:03.816-06:00I am sure, if we were all in Heaven right now, thi...I am sure, if we were all in Heaven right now, this column would be much shorter. In fact I think no one would be bothered to add to it, let alone read it. They would all be casting their crowns down and crying out, "For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth. ... Worthy is the Lamb who was slain To receive power and riches and wisdom, And strength and honor and glory and blessing!"Tony and Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11529130775711808391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-65264625558714430372011-07-03T10:58:59.753-05:002011-07-03T10:58:59.753-05:00Lalaina, using your understanding of "all men...Lalaina, using your understanding of "all men" would leave hell empty (aka universalism) since all would be justified, since Christ paid the penalty for all. Clearly Strong's greek lexicon explains who the "world" in John 3 verse 16 refers to ... it does NOT refer to each and every person that ever lived in this world, but to ALL those whom the Father haad given to Jesus Christ, namely the chosen ones also known as the elect or those born of God.Maurice Hartinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871002850229698347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-33851299009047212112011-03-08T01:20:05.543-06:002011-03-08T01:20:05.543-06:00@ Maurice Harting: no sir, it is NOT "clear&q...@ Maurice Harting: no sir, it is NOT "clear", now i'm gonna push it a little further... Do you mean that when Paul says "even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Romans 5:18b He did not mean ALL MEN?? i guess you'd say yes<br />He just meant every kind and race of man...<br />Now, when He said "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" Romans 5:18a, it does NOT mean that ALL MEN actually undergo condemnation...<br />Thanks, you light my day, Blessingslalainahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09272318901364628064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-61327395747985867592010-03-06T15:40:18.529-06:002010-03-06T15:40:18.529-06:00It is clear from scripture that the word "wor...It is clear from scripture that the word "world" has a variety of meanings and when the Bible uses the word "world" it has to be understood in its proper context.<br /><br />The word "world" in John 3: 16 or 1 John 2: 2 clearly does not refer to every human being that ever lived in time and space for that would leave hell empty apart from the devil and his demons and we would end up with "universal atonement" or "decisional regeneration" both of which are wrong. The only people that are saved as seen in 1 Peter 2: 9 are those chosen by God, belong to God, and called by God. It is God's work in the hearts of sinful men who He has chosen. Any attempt at self-righteousness, even man's exercised faith robs Jesus Christ of His glory. For He is the only Saviour and we need to be saved from that which we cannot save ourselves! To Him be all the glory, now and always!Maurice Hartinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741795440261370502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-60927316913759509492009-09-07T23:50:42.754-05:002009-09-07T23:50:42.754-05:00Sometimes I've wondered whether Luke 12.10 mig...Sometimes I've wondered whether Luke 12.10 might provide a key ... despite what Christ has achieved, there is still one sin beyond forgiveness. Maybe Christ died for all people, but not all sins? The world is paid for, but not the sin of rejecting the salvation provided by Jesus.<br /><br />The difficulty with this view is that individual sins are still held against people on judgement day, and not just the one sin of rejecting Jesus. Of course, the whole spectrum of sins can be seen as having a rejection of the Lord at their heart...<br /><br />Just thinking aloud.Martin Kemphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17908454108625787731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-32693805841761564332009-08-29T22:15:55.761-05:002009-08-29T22:15:55.761-05:00Only "pecuniary" in the sense that if I&...Only <b>"pecuniary"</b> in the sense that if I'm talking about numbers, I'm talking about counting real individuals. The difficulty of reading "world" in say John 3:16 as 'everyone-regardless' is that it makes the atonement vague, universalist or provisional. Jesus died for the real sins of real people.<br /><br />"Doubly culpable" could be a useful phrase in the sense that those doomed for destruction (Romans 9 style) are doomed doubly because they have been in the world, in proximity to the good-news but did not respond. The difficulty of distinguishing <i>between Christ's work on the cross and the application of that work to the elect individual</i> is that it threatens to divide atonement up into a universalist vague bit and an exclusive applied bit.lukeishamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02581497541606435885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-42593574571966761242009-08-25T11:23:34.361-05:002009-08-25T11:23:34.361-05:00Luke: Great question. I don't mean to speak ...Luke: Great question. I don't mean to speak for Michael, but here are a few thoughts: Perhaps you are working from a pecuniary understanding of substitutionary atonement rather than a penal understanding of substitutionary atonement? See: http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2005/09/double-jeopardy.html<br />If you can, try to get a hold of Neil Chambers, "A Critical Examination of John Owen's Argument for Limited Atonement" (Th.M. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 1998), 241-293. Perhaps think of it this way: In the case of the elect, before they believe (through God's sovereign working), are they not under God's wrath "like the rest of mankind," even though they have been unconditionally chosen by God from eternity past (Eph 1-2)? Under a strict pecuniary system, why are the elect still under God's wrath prior to conversion if the penalty was already paid at the cross--doesn't that imply something like "double payment"--Christ took God's wrath for them yet they are still under God's wrath (until conversion)? Once one grants that the elect are under God's wrath prior to conversion, one recognizes that Christ's work is applied to the elect within personal history. I.e., one distinguishes between Christ's work on the cross and the application of that work to the elect individual (as one unconditionally chosen by God from eternity past). Such a distinction is made not only by Calvin (who insists that until one is united with Christ by faith, one does not yet enjoy the benefits of his redemption), but by various others in the Reformed tradition (see Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism). On union with Christ in Calvin's thought, tied into the extent of the atonement, see Kevin Dixon: "Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin" (Peter Lang, 2002). Your question might then be seen as pointing toward the distinction being taken to a final, eternal conclusion: Those sent to hell were never united with Christ by faith, and therefore his Gospel work was never applied to them. Calvin spoke of such persons as "doubly culpable," since they never accepted Christ's provision (see Curt Daniel, "History and Theology of Calvinism," 371). Calvin explained: "And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. . . . Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable. For how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith? And let us realize that if we come flocking to our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall not hinder one another and prevent Him being sufficient for each of us . . . Let us not fear to come to Him in great numbers, and each one of us bring his neighbours, seeing that He is sufficient to save us all." Of course, in Calvin's wider theology, the unbeliever left to himself/herself will not trust Christ of his/her own accord (hence the necessity of unconditional election and God's sovereign working). Calvin: "But only those whom he has illumined do this. And he illumines those whom he has predestined to salvation" (Calvin quotes coming from Hartog, "Word for the World: Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement.")Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10277121260064718284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-39568984258878029092009-08-23T19:33:02.273-05:002009-08-23T19:33:02.273-05:00Daft, isn't it: that anyone would reject the f...<i>Daft, isn't it: that anyone would reject the free offer of sins already paid for... that's the tragedy of it, I would have thought.</i><br /><br />How do you avoid the logical inconsistency of Jesus dying for someone's sins and then that person being sent to hell for their sins that have already been paid for?lukeishamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02581497541606435885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-86654422660610351142009-08-22T14:44:38.338-05:002009-08-22T14:44:38.338-05:00John, you state, "Some texts point to the uni...John, you state, "Some texts point to the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ," and you cite 1 John 2:2. Interestingly, Calvin allowed the truth of the maxim "sufficient for all but efficient for the elect" while commenting upon 1 John 2:2, but yet he followed an Augustinian interpretation: "For John’s purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole Church. Therefore, under the word ‘all’ he does not include the reprobate, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth." I.e., Calvin adopted an efficacious rather than sufficient interpretation of the text (and therefore limited it to the elect Church in this final manner, in order to avoid final universalism). Perhaps, following your comment, you might go along with D. A. Carson here: See pages 73-79 of his "Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God," available free at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/2000_difficult_doctrine_of_the_love_of_God.pdf <br /><br />1 Timothy 2:4 has come up a lot, and Calvin's comments upon this text (as found in several of his works) are too complex to completely discuss here. But he consistently refers the text to all "classes of humans," even though he links the text to the revealed Word/proclaimed Gospel. Moreover, it should be noted that both Vermigli and Kimedoncius interpeted 1 Timothy 2:4 as a reference to some of all kinds, yet seem to have held a form of "universal redemption" in their overall systems.<br /><br />On the other hand. Michael, you state: "Daft, isn't it: that anyone would reject the free offer of sins already paid for... that's the tragedy of it, I would have thought." Yes. Calvin declared, "Behold the Turks which cast away the grace which was purchased for all the world by Jesus Christ: the Jews do the like: the Papists, although they say not so openly, they show it in effect. . . . And thus we see now, how men are not partakers of this benefit, which was purchased them by our Lord Jesus."<br /><br />Nick, you state, "There are passages that don't fit neatly into the LA scheme. I'm thinking of 2 Peter 2:1 where false teachers are accused of denying 'the sovereign Lord who bought them.'" Calvin’s commentary on this verse explains: “Christ redeemed us to have us as a people separated from all the iniquities of the world, devoted to holiness and purity. Those who throw over the traces and plunge themselves into every kind of license are not unjustly said to deny Christ, by whom they were redeemed.” In his comments on Jude 4 (“denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ”), Calvin applies the text to “those who have been redeemed by His blood, and now enslave themselves again to the devil, frustrating (as best they may) that incomparable boon.”<br /><br />John, you state, "I do think that ‘definite atonement’ affirms important things that are lost in a position which ONLY speaks of the cross and resurrection making all people able to be saved" (emphasis added). Granted, but may one be allowed to wonder more than that. Perhaps important things are lost in a position which ONLY speaks of the cross and resurrection being intended ONLY to save the elect? Perhaps the issue of intent(s) is more complex than sometimes implied. In any case, Calvin speaks in complex ways that don't seem to fit nicely into any full "system" of a theologian today, and one must let him do so in order to avoid anachronism (nor is one bound to accept all of Calvin's specific interpretations). Recommended: "Word for the Word: Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement" (Paul Hartog), available free at http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf<br /><br />It reminds one of Burk Parson's comment in his book on John Calvin: “The best purpose will have been served (by reading this book) if the reader comes to the conclusion, ‘I ought to be reading Calvin himself!’”Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10277121260064718284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-81167426986945774872009-08-19T06:53:31.670-05:002009-08-19T06:53:31.670-05:00There are passages that don't fit neatly into ...There are passages that don't fit neatly into the LA scheme. I'm thinking of 2 Peter 2:1 where false teachers are accused of denying 'the sovereign Lord who bought them'.Nick Mackisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12267420388000438608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-90806465822425418432009-08-19T03:50:57.287-05:002009-08-19T03:50:57.287-05:00Daft, isn't it: that anyone would reject the f...Daft, isn't it: that anyone would reject the free offer of sins already paid for... that's the tragedy of it, I would have thought.michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-40820746635803844442009-08-18T22:39:11.410-05:002009-08-18T22:39:11.410-05:00Michael,
How do we maintain a position that has J...Michael,<br /><br />How do we maintain a position that has Jesus <b>completely</b> taking the penalty for disobedience and dealing with <b>specific</b> sins while not sending people to hell who have had their sins already <b>paid</b> for?lukeishamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02581497541606435885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-16434120053068718792009-08-18T22:22:56.215-05:002009-08-18T22:22:56.215-05:00Dirk, I appreciate your commitment to the plain me...Dirk, I appreciate your commitment to the plain meaning of 1 Tim. 2:4. However, you make a few comments that seem to contradict that very commitment: speaking of LA, you say, “it is only that then we are talking about a level of reality in God that is normally not addressed in Scripture.” Or again: “That is why I think that ultimately issues such as limited versus universal atonement cannot be decided by comparing the number of 'problem texts' for either position.” We must allow the problem texts to challenge our decision on this issue, even if it is problematic and unsystematic. Wouldn’t you agree?Ryan Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09183510810872341554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-73887054770474429002009-08-18T12:25:18.145-05:002009-08-18T12:25:18.145-05:00Michael
Why do you think LA presupposes Double pr...Michael<br /><br />Why do you think LA presupposes Double predestination?<br /><br />And, do you mean infra or supralapsarian double predestination? It seems to me the difference is huge.<br /><br />I see Romans 9, and so election, as assuming the fall; mercy and hardening assume a fallen creation.John Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409722788388167914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-70033606360064759092009-08-18T09:45:56.113-05:002009-08-18T09:45:56.113-05:00Michael, enjoyed your reflections on Schreiner'...Michael, enjoyed your reflections on Schreiner's volume in the Briefing. I agree with your reservations over some of the Edswardian influences.<br /><br />Regarding Knox, given that he was a non-covenant theologian, it certainly makes his rationale for infant-baptism an interesting one!Nick Mackisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12267420388000438608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-50734044760814900522009-08-18T09:15:52.445-05:002009-08-18T09:15:52.445-05:00Dirk - I have to say that this way of arguing soun...Dirk - I have to say that this way of arguing sounds like a concession that the texts don't support your system !<br /><br />Nick - I'll check Knox's famous piece on Limited Atonement tomorrow at the office, but: yes, he would have argued that LA presupposes a covenant theology, which he would then argue is an artificial imposition on biblical theology. LA also, it seems to me, presupposes double predestination - another disquietingly unbiblical doctrine!michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-30447300111846967662009-08-18T07:08:13.752-05:002009-08-18T07:08:13.752-05:00Michael, the most powerful rebuttal of limited ato...Michael, the most powerful rebuttal of limited atonement I ever read was in the works of Broughton Knox. He made a very strong case for the Ayraldian view, although I remain unconvinced.<br /><br />From what I can gather, Knox seemed to think that limited atonement pre-supposed the necessity of covenant theology. Would you agree with this?Nick Mackisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12267420388000438608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-69537887318964350112009-08-18T04:39:20.501-05:002009-08-18T04:39:20.501-05:00What I mean is that I believe that limited atoneme...What I mean is that I believe that limited atonement follows logically from election and logically precedes grace. It makes the systematic understanding of salvation coherent. However, I do not think that the doctrine 'flows' out of the natural interpretation of Biblical texts, as often these texts are not trying to provide building blocks for a systematic theology (though I equally believe that ultimately there is no contradiction).<br /> <br />As an analogy take 1 Tim 2:4 (God desires everyone to be saved). Within the sphere of God's dealings with the world, in the preaching and realisation of the Gospel on earth, I believe this is completely true. All interpretations that want to limit the 'all' here to simple 'the elect' in the context of this verse are not very convincing. Still I hold that in the ordo salutis unconditional election of a limited number is absolutely true - it is only that then we are talking about a level of reality in God that is normally not addressed in Scripture. Taking the questions raised by systematising what we believe to Scripture is fine, but can be either too simplistic or lead to forcing Scripture in saying something that may be true, but is not intended at the passage under consideration. That is why I think that ultimately issues such as limited versus universal atonement cannot be decided by comparing the number of 'problem texts' for either position.Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759927266909478390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-41036946346134138562009-08-17T14:59:36.266-05:002009-08-17T14:59:36.266-05:00Comments in the Paul Helm blog suggest Christ'...Comments in the Paul Helm blog suggest Christ's death is sufficient for all and efficient for some (the elect). Efficient in what sense? Efficient I take it as a substitutionary sacrifice. Should we think of Christ's death as efficient in some ways other than substitionary sin-bearing sacrifice for the non-elect? What does Scripture mean when it says Jesus is the Saviour of all men, espeially of those who believe?John Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409722788388167914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-12239856408701060872009-08-17T14:09:23.146-05:002009-08-17T14:09:23.146-05:00Dirk, I don't think I get your point. A defini...Dirk, I don't think I get your point. A definite atonement view would insist that God's gracious intention is to save his people leads to the work of Christ. <br /><br />Erik, I think I agree with your view of John 3. But we are seeking to find a way to speak that honours all the relevant texts. So the fact that John 3 doesn't establish the doctrine dosen't mean that other texts don'tJohn McCleanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15837827986303976955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-81974398005984732372009-08-17T12:35:01.349-05:002009-08-17T12:35:01.349-05:00Well, it might be worth interpreting those certain...Well, it might be worth interpreting those certain texts. <br /><br />For instance, when John records Jesus saying "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall never perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16), we must not read it with the systematized grid which says "world" is the "world" of the "elect". <br />"World" here carries the meaning of the moral corruption of the world, which emcompasses the whole arena of human existence. For example, when Jesus says "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved", we cannot fit a strictly "Elect-world" into each of these occurences of "world". <br /><br />What is meant is that God sent Jesus into the world, which is the dark order of humanity. Secondly, God does not intend to send the Son into the world to condemn the world., which is of course human beings (nothing else can be conceived of being condemnable). Thirdly, salvation being given to the world is the world of humanity (nothing else in the context can be conveived of being saved- ex Rom 8). <br /><br />We should then read this verse and come out saying the God loved the world (the order of human existence composed of individual human beings, all in hostility to god) by sending His Son into it, so that it might be saved. <br /><br />The text doesn't give us universalism and it doesn't give us calvinism. It just states that God has loved the world (parameters are not given, only quality) by sending His Son so that it may be saved. <br /><br />Therefore, we will have to cope with this character of God somehow in our thinking.Erick Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13888813194089988051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-4507715509475130112009-08-17T10:26:34.177-05:002009-08-17T10:26:34.177-05:00I couldn't agree more!I couldn't agree more!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04368721797420640915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-33572963089831202592009-08-17T09:01:57.354-05:002009-08-17T09:01:57.354-05:00As for the difference between systematics and exeg...As for the difference between systematics and exegesis: It is telling that limited/definite/universal atonement is placed before grace and not after (with which I agree as far as we want to give a systematic, logical analysis of this doctrine). However, in the practice of Biblical exegesis, you will be hard pressed to find the order atonement->grace, rather than grace->atonement. Scripture is much less rigid than the terminology of systematics, which is why prooftexting by systematicians is so unsatisfactory. Still, I am all in favour of giving a systematic account of our faith, but Michael's 'How do you fit in those texts?' is methodologically, well, suspect.Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759927266909478390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-51964297583308990702009-08-17T05:48:06.764-05:002009-08-17T05:48:06.764-05:00Mike Bird, thanks for letting us Aussies discuss t...Mike Bird, thanks for letting us Aussies discuss this!<br /><br />Michael Jensen,<br />What about the texts that don't fit?<br />Which texts in particular?<br />Some prove ‘too much’ i.e. if you don’t restrict the scope of “all” in a passage such as 2 Cor 5:14-15 then you have actual universalism, which denies other texts which teach a dual outcome. Some texts point to the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ (John 3:16; 1 Jn 2:2). Some (despite your dismissal of Owen) do mean all classes or all conditions or Jews and Gentiles. Some imply the mysterious reality that God in some sense desires an outcome that he doesn't will (2Pet 3:9; 1Tim 2:4). A mystery still if you apply election to the work of the Spirit but not the work of Christ.<br />I’m not saying that there aren’t 'tensions' – that’s why I like Letham’s approach. I do think that ‘definite atonement’ affirms important things that are lost in a position which only speaks of the cross and resurrection making all people able to be saved.John McCleanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15837827986303976955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13840519.post-91976492166381825872009-08-17T04:07:24.760-05:002009-08-17T04:07:24.760-05:00Michael we can find a place for contrasting texts ...Michael we can find a place for contrasting texts without abandoning the "whole counsel of God" approach. You said we might read Owen and <i>"realize that a system is driving exegesis."</i> I think that puts a false tension between exegesis and systematic theology.lukeishamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02581497541606435885noreply@blogger.com