(Note: This is a guest post from Jared Moore. It originally appeared on his site and is reposted with his permission.)
I have served in a pastoral capacity in 4 Southern Baptist churches. In my experience, once Calvinism is explained without calling it “Calvinism,” there are many Christians in our churches that agree with it, and many others that haven’t even thought about in detail what they believe concerning the doctrine of salvation and the doctrine of God. (I don’t call what I believe “Calvinism” because it’s a loaded term. When Southern Baptists hear “Calvinism,” they automatically assume I believe a whole host of things that I do not believe. Plus, 5-point Calvinists, whether they baptize babies or not, often don’t consider me to be a Calvinist.) Here are the 5 points of Calvinism explained using the Acronymn T-U-L-I-P:
T is for Total Depravity
U is for Unconditional Election
L is for Limited Atonement
I is for Irresistible Grace
P is for the Perseverance of the Saints
God is 100% sovereign and man is 100% responsible. Man does indeed choose God, but God first chose him. I affirm and teach 1) Total Depravity: mankind is dead in his sins and unable to save himself; even unable to have faith in Christ apart from the Spirit’s intervention. 2) Unconditional Election: mankind cannot save himself. Salvation is a result of God’s supernatural work in a dead sinner. 3) Irresistible Grace: Once God’s grace is understood in a salvific sense, a sinner cannot resist it. God’s grace is greater than our sin, and our foundational understanding of this reality already reveals God’s work in our hearts. God’s grace is irresistible in the sense that the person who understands his wonderful grace is already gripped by the Holy Spirit; otherwise, he would not be able to spiritually discern and understand God’s grace. 4) Perseverance of the Saints: Those who God saves, He saves to the uttermost. Once sinners belong to God through Christ, they persevere in Christianity because they belong to Him eternally. Now, concerning Limited Atonement, I don’t teach or believe it. I believe that Jesus died for the entire world, not merely the elect; although, of course I believe that the blood of Christ is limited in that it is only applied to Christians. I’m not a universalist. I don’t believe there is enough biblical exegetical evidence to believe or teach limited atonement; however, I do love my brothers and sisters that believe it. I will gladly support and fellowship with Southern Baptists who are 5-point Calvinists.
Most Southern Baptists, in my experience, affirm at least 2 points (T and P) of the above T-U-L-I-P. What’s 2 or 3 more points, really? As Southern Baptists, the question often isn’t “are you a Calvinist?” The question most of the time is “What kind of Calvinist are you?” If many Southern Baptists will search out the Scriptures and examine their hearts, they will find that they often agree more with Calvinism than Arminianism. I believe that there are several Anti-Calvinist Southern Baptists that are more Calvinistic than they realize. Thus, they are Calvinist Anti-Calvinist Southern Baptists!
In the words of Paige Patterson concerning Southern Baptists, “There’s plenty of room under the umbrella for anyone who is anything from a one to five-point Calvinist.” I agree with Paige Patterson.
What are your thoughts?
March 4, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Pastor Jared,
I greatly appreciate your post. I am glad to hear you embrace at least 4 points of the Doctrines of Grace; however, I do want to comment on your rejection of the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
The more I study this issue the more I see this as an important and necessary topic to discuss. First of all, the 5 points are intricately related to one another (they flow from and into one another), and therefore, to accept one is to accept them all. There is a logical connection between them. While some may respond that “God’s logic is not our logic,” such a statement amounts to saying that God is illogical and we are not to use logical inferences in formulating theology (which we know is not true and don’t do, thankfully). Of course, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not limited to logical inference (as I will demonstrate below). Secondly, those who accept 4 (or less) of the points and reject the other(s)(Limited Atonement, which is the most rejected point), either show their failure to rightly understand the historical understanding of the 5 points, or they simply show themselves to be inconsistent.
Here is the big issue: substitutionary atonment is being misunderstood and misused by evangelicals today. Substitutionary atonement is a Reformed theological perspective. By definition, substitionary atonement means that on that cross Jesus bore our sins and the condemnation of our sins (2 Cor. 5:21). This is of course the significance of the term “propitiation.” Now, if Jesus did this for every single human being, then by necessity we must embrace universalism. The only other options are to either do away with substitutionary atonement and believe that Christ’s death merely made salvation a possibility (which is what classical Arminianism teaches) or embrace the Reformed perspective (Limited or Particular Atonement).
Does Scripture teach Limited Atonement? I most certainly think so, and I would like your feedback on these passages.
John 10:14-16 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
Note the relation Jesus presents of the intimate communion of the Father and Son with the intimate communion of Christ and His sheep. His emphasis too is that He lays down His life for His sheep, and He has sheep of another fold (Gentiles) to be brought in. There is clearly a sense of particularly in this passage, and it is tied to His sacrifice. Further, Jesus goes on later in this passage to teach Perseverance of the Saints (vv. 27-30), thus establishing the relation between Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15 “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”
I actually heard a pastor reference this text in support AGAINST Limited Atonement! Of course, the argument goes, “All always means all, and all means every single human being.” Ok, well, yes, “all” does always mean “all,” but all of what? All of these? All of those? You see, we can speak of all in the sense of a particular group. Now, if we believe that “all” in this passage refers to every single human being, then we must, again, by necessity believe in universalism. Why? Because in this passage Jesus’ death guarantees the death of “all,” and Jesus life guarantees the life of “all.” It’s an “if/then” argument. If this is true (Jesus died for all), then this is likewise true (all have died). In other words, Jesus’ death and resurrection guarantees the spiritual death and resurrection of the elect. Lastly, the text specifically says that Jesus died and rose for “their sake”. Whose sake? Every single human being? If so, then every single human being will be saved. I think it’s rather clear that there is a particular aspect to this atonement passage as well.
These are just a couple of texts that I find to strongly support LA, but of course there are more. I hope that I have demonstrated the great importance of this doctrine and why it’s important that we as evangelicals embrace it. Again, the very definition of substitutionary atonement requires that we do. Let me conclude with this. I fear many reject LA because they find it to be unloving. First, God’s grace cannot be demanded, otherwise it is no longer grace. Second, God did not have to redeem anyone for their fallen state, thus condemning all hell (and justly so). So LA is no unloving, rather, it is very loving. Further, LA demonstrates the consistency and wisdom of God’s plan of salvation.
Grace and peace,
Drew
March 4, 2013 at 4:19 pm
I would also like to quickly add that just about every time I hear non-Calvinists attempt to reference Scripture in opposition to LA, they quote passages that are not specifically on the atonment (e.g. Jn. 3:16). The passages I have referenced, however, are specifically on the atonement and possess a particular nature to them.
March 4, 2013 at 4:41 pm
If a person’s sins are atoned for, then they go to heaven, right? So if everyone’s sins were atoned for, everyone goes to heaven, right?
If someone’s sins were atoned for IF they do a particular thing, then they haven’t been atoned for.
As John McArthur said, if everyone’s sins have been atoned for, what are all those people doing in hell?
Also, I believe Spurgeon said something like “It is unthinkable that a person’s sins were atoned for, and they spent eternity in hell as punishment for those same sins.”
March 4, 2013 at 7:28 pm
Jared:
I am a one point Calvinist who affirms eternal security. The problem I have with total depravity is the doctrine that God does not provide supervening grace to all but only to the elect. In my mind, this contradicts 2 Peter 3:9 by saying that God’s acts or forbearances are inconsistent with His will. I am no universalist as I believe that the great gift of free will which He gave mankind enables man to resist the Spirit’s urging, which urging applies to all sinners. Thus I also believe that irresistible grace as defined by Calvinists is also unscriptural.
I particularly think that unconditional election is in direct contradiction with Romans 8:29, which lists a condition precedent (that is, a fact or event without which predestination would not happen): That is foreknowledge. Foreknowledge of what? Man’s response to the Spirit’s urging is all it can mean if true free will exists. This I also reject limited atonement as defined by Calvinism as it contradicts 1 Peter 3:18.
I so not believe God treats us as robots where He elects to save some but not others and their choice is irrelevant. In a court of man total depravity as defined by Calvinists would render a defendant not guilty by reason of incapacity. Do Calvinists think that man is more merciful or understanding than God?
That said, I agree with you and Dr. Patterson on being inclusive.
March 4, 2013 at 8:25 pm
Walt,
I appreciate your comments; however, I’m not sure where to begin. Just about everything you said has either been answered by Calvinists a thousand times, or it demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Calvinist view. I don’t want to write an essay here, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
First, 2 Peter 3:9 reads, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” I encourage you to please suspend your interpretation on this text for a minute and consider with me the surrounding context (2 Pet. 3:1-10). Peter states this in response to the fact that the church was basically being criticized or scoffed at for their belief in Christ’s return which would usher in judgment of the wicked and final redemption of the righteous. Peter is assuring the brethren that God is not slow in fulfilling what He has promised, but will accomplish it in due time. Why has He delayed? Peter gives the answer in 3:9. Now, non-Calvinists immediatley assume that “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” refers to mankind in general. However, Peter says, “[God] is patient toward YOU” (emphasis added). Who? Believers. God’s elect. The “any” is associated with the “you.” Peter is in essence saying, “God is waiting for the full number of the elect to be brought in, lest they perish.” See this in relation to 2 Timothy 2:10. Further, if we take the non-Calvinist position on this text, then we would have to conclude that Christ will never return, because there will always be people who have not yet repented and believed the gospel.
Second, Calvinists also believe in free will, just the biblical teaching about it. The free will that non-Calvinists speak of is like that free will that existed prior to the Fall, but even still man was not absolutely free (autonomous free will), but lived under the sovereign rule of God. However, we live post-Fall, and man is now born with a sin nature, enslaved to sin (Eph. 2:1-3). Look at what Paul says about man prior to salvation:
Romans 6:20-23 “When YOU WERE SLAVES OF SIN, you were FREE IN REGARD TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that YOU HAVE BEEN SET FREE FROM SIN and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctificaiton and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (emphasis added)
Man has free will in the sense that we make real and responsible decisions; however, we are enslaved to sin and therefore live according to this enslavement (cf. Rom. 8:5-8).
Third, Romans 8:29 actually supports the Calvinist position. Again, the (unbiblical) assumption is that God looks down the corridors of time and sees what man will do with His gospel and then makes decisions (i.e. election) based on what he sees. Such flips the biblical explanation of election on its theological head. The Bible grounds election in God’s eternal purpose, not man’s response (Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Cor. 1:26-31). Further, it has already been demonstrated by many scholars and theologians that God’s foreknowledge here speaks of “foreloving”. It is saying that God set His love upon us from all eternity (again, see Eph. 1:3-14). Knowledge, in Scripture, communicates more than mere intellectual insight (for the most part). It is intimate communion (e.g. Gen. 4:1; Jn. 17:3). Further, take your interpretation of foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 and transfer it to 1 Peter 1:20. How does that work out?
Lastly, the accusation that Calvinism has a robotic view of man is a clumsy caricature. The Spirit applying God’s grace in regeneration is not a robotic view of man. God gives us a new heart, making us willing and ready to receive the blessed good news of the gospel. If it were not this way, and it was ultimately up to us, then no one would be saved. The non-Calvinist view basically gives man the final say in their salvation, which they even ground God’s election in (so it’s a circle that begins and ends with man). See, rather, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Quite frankly, the “robot” accusation is very old and quite insulting. It completely avoids the actual explanation of the Calvinistic position and the biblical reasoning given.
Thanks again brother for your comments. I hope this helps.
Grace and peace,
Drew
March 4, 2013 at 8:29 pm
I might also add that those who disagree with Limited Atonement need to first respond to the actual points already made in support of it. Both Bob and I have sought out to defend it from a biblical perspective. Scriptures have been mentioned and expounded, logical connections likewise have been expressed. If you disagree with Limited Atonement, you have to first respond to these points and show how they fail to support Limited Atonement. It doesn’t suffice to go off and quote other Scriptures that seem to go against Limited Atonement (and do such passages that you reference even specifically speak of the atonement?).
So please, respond to the points already made before listing off a bunch of other passages. Otherwise, you’re just setting Scripture against Scripture.
Thank you.
March 4, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Drew: Thanks for your comments. A.J. Strong states that foreknowledge has a single meaning: To know beforehand.
Word: proginoskw
Pronounce: prog-in-oce’-ko
Strongs Number: G4267
Orig: from 4253 and 1097; to know beforehand, i.e. foresee:–foreknow (ordain), know (before). G4253
Use: TDNT-1:715,119 Verb
I disagree with your limited description of “any.” If Peter had meant only the “elect” he would have said “you” instead of the all inclusive “any.” I consider the comment that otherwise Christ would never return to be irrelevant.
I do not intend the robotic comment to be disparaging but descriptive. Bottom line: Calvinism rejects one of God’s precious gifts to man- free will. To say that a person freely acts when he hasn’t the capacity to act otherwise is a contradiction in terms. Please read the McNaughton Rule (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19296283).
I am hitting the high points. This is not intended to be inclusive and no inference should be taken that I agree with the points you made that I have not addressed.
March 4, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Walt,
Thanks for taking the time to reply to some of my points.
First, I am familiar with the meaning of proginwskw. However, you’re assuming that God’s foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 is a foreknowing of people’s faith in Him. Hence, many read the verse, “For those whome he foreknew [would believe] he also predestined….” Such, however, is inserting something that is not implied in the text and that goes against the testimony of other Scriptures (as I’ve already expressed). Paul is saying that God foreknew people, not something these people did (or would do). To say that God foreknew who would believe and then predestined, called, justified, and glorifed based on this foreknowledge, is to ultimately ground salvation in man, not God (i.e. God acts on man’s initiative). I know you aren’t intending to do this, but that’s why I continually emphasize the importance of striving to be consistent in our theology. Further, Acts 2:23 reads, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” If you want to view foreknowledge as passive in Romans 8:29 in regards to taking in knowledge of who will believe, then you likewise have to view God as being passive in taking in knowledge about the crucifixion of Jesus. God’s foreknowledge is active and determining. Christ was chosen for this task before the foundation of the world. This is also what is meant in 1 Peter 1:20. Your passive view of foreknowledge does not fit into these passages.
Let me point out a couple final things in regard to Romans 8:29. To say that God foreknew who would believe and then elected or chose them on that basis, doesn’t really go against Limited Atonement. It actually supports it; for if God still knows all who will believe, then why would Jesus shed His blood for those who will not? And if you still want to say that Christ died for every single human being, how is this any better if His blood fails. You know, sometimes it seems that people reject limited atonement because they think it limits the number of people that will be saved. However, if they believe God knows all who will be saved, then the number of the people that will be saved is still fixed. The only difference between these two things is that one perspective gives all glory to God (His purpose, His will) and the other gives glory to man (our will, God responds).
Second, if Peter had said “you” in 2 Peter 3:9 I think there would have been some confusion in regards to his point. Let’s look: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that [you] should perish, but that all [of you] should reach repentance.” If he had said “you” instead of “any,” then it would appear that he was bringing into question their salvation, and therefore they need to repent. Rather, he seems to use “any” as the larger (yet to come into the faith) group of the particular “you.” The simple point of the matter is that God’s patience toward believers (“you”) leads into the reason (“not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”). We can’t separate God’s patience from His reasoning. This is what is done when we view “you” as believers (or the elect) and “any” as every single human being. Peter has a single thought throughout this passage. Those in focus in the whole contextual passage are God’s chosen/elect (which is who the letter is addressed to).
Third, in regard to free will, man is certainly free, but within the bounds of his sinful nature. This is what Romans 6:20-23 emphasizes. Paul EXPLICITLY states that man is enslaved to sin, only to be freed by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. You continue to fail to realize the consequence of the Fall on our wills. You seem to have this idea that man is barely effected by the Fall, and so may simply choose to believe in the gospel whenever they want. The Scriptures I have referenced, and many others, go against such an idea (Rom. 3:10-18; 8:4-10; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19). The overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that man is enslaved. How do you get free from enslaved? Please help me understand this.
Lastly, I have not seen any Scriptures referenced and expounded upon that directly deal with the nature of the atonement. I have only seen Scriptures referenced that deal with the broader aspects of salvation (and even these don’t support your view). However, from the start I referenced and explained two very key passages that focus directly on the atonement, and there is clearly a particular nature taught in these texts (Jn. 10:14-16; 2 Cor. 5:14-15).
March 5, 2013 at 10:36 am
Drew: We can toss scriptures and interpretations at each other ad in finitum with little results. Bottom line, what I find objectionable, even appauling about Calvinism is the claim that God withholds from some the ability to accept Christ. I do not believe that God is arbitrary but loving. I further find it curious that you, believing this, consider God to be loving and fair.
March 5, 2013 at 11:02 am
Walt,
Yes, we could toss Scripture back and forth all day, but the simple point of the matter is that my Scriptural references and theological points are not being adequately answered (some are outright ignored).
The reason you find Calvinism “appauling” is because you have a misunderstanding of the nature of man and God’s grace. Why is man in the state he is in? Sin! Man is responsible for this sin, and the wages of sin is death. Is God just to condemn all to hell? Yes! Has He chosen to do so? No! Now, what is grace? Grace, simply put, is God’s unmerited favor. We don’t deserve it and God does not owe it to us. Is God required to show grace to every single human being? No! If He were required to do so, then grace could be demanded, but then it’s not grace. This is evident enough in the OT with the nation Israel. God specifically chose Israel and gave them revelation that He gave to no other nation. Further, there’s error in your statement, “that God withholds from some the ability to accept Christ.” It’s not that God withholds it, it’s that man, in his sinful nature, possesses the inability. This fact, however, in no way negates the fact that man is still morally responsible for their sin and responsible for responding to the gospel. Apart from the grace of God man cannot respond savingly to the gospel, because they don’t want the gospel, for they are enemies of God and children of their father the devil, and by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19; Jn. 8:39-47; Rom. 8:4-10). And whoever said anything about God being arbitrray? I have continually emphasized God’s plan and purpose, all according to the praise of His glorious grace. The reason many have a hard time accepting these truths is because our Western, humanistic, culture has led many within the church to have a higher view of man than is presented in the Scriptures, and therefore a lower view of God.
1 John 4:10 “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitation for our sins.”
I don’t know what else to say. But I am thankful we had this discussion.
March 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm
Drew-Since I do not understand and am influenced by a humanist culture I feel unworthy to continue this dialogue.
March 5, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Walt,
Sorry for coming off as insulting. I did not mean to insult, I was only trying to point out theological inconsistencies and why I think you were misunderstanding the Calvinist position.
Grace and peace,
Drew
March 5, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Drew: It is condescending and not argument to say that I do not understand Calvinism. I understand it and reject it categorically. Despite all the denials and equivocations, Calvinism denies that one of God’s most precious gifts to man exists, that of free will.
1 Corinthians 15:22
March 5, 2013 at 6:51 pm
Walt,
But I have attempted to demonstrate that you have misunderstood certain things, and I have continually responded with Scripture and explanation (I haven’t merely accused you of it). And my purpose for pointing these things out to you wasn’t to be mean or condescending, but to generate discussion, clarify points, and attempt to prove the Calvinist position. Much of what I have said still remains unanswered or ignored. I have also attempted to explain why Calvinists reject the non-Calvinist view of free-will, in favor of the biblical view of free-will (which takes into acount the bondage of man’s will due to the Fall).
Can you explain why you referenced 1 Corinthians 15:22? I don’t see how it relates to your point on free will. Thank you.
March 5, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Drew: The Corinthian passage teaches that salvation is open to all through Christ. It would not be open if man was incapable of accepting it absent God’s special grace which He gives some and denies others, per Calvin. I intend no disrespect when I have not addressed all your points but haven’t the time or inclination to get into prolonged theological argument that I see serves no useful purpose. I have tried to hit the high points as to why I consider Calvin having gone much further than Paul in teaching soteriology.
March 5, 2013 at 7:18 pm
“…I have also attempted to explain why Calvinists reject the non-Calvinist view of free-will, in favor of the biblical view of free-will (which takes into acount the bondage of man’s will due to the Fall).”
Declaring the Calvinist position to be “the biblical view” merely extends the condescending attitude.
March 5, 2013 at 7:29 pm
Walt,
Both views can’t be right. Only one can be that which is actually taught in the Scriptures, and that is all I mean by biblical vs. unbiblical. I don’t intend to communicate by that that your faith as a whole is unbiblical.
And in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:22, I will simply have to disagree with your interpretation. I think you’re reading a lot into that text. The simple point of the text is that all in Adam (the entire human race) is spiritually dead, but all those in Christ become spiritually alive. This text does not address the particularities that we have been addressing. It certainly does not espouse the free-will that you have been proposing.
Blessings brother.
March 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm
Drew: Are you saying that the first “all” means a different group than the second “all?” All have the potential of being made alive in Christ, not just the
“elect.”
March 5, 2013 at 8:25 pm
Walt,
I think you raise a good question in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:22. I was actually anticipating it.
The short answer to your question is…yes. Now, let me explain. If we take the second “all” to refer to every single human being, then we must conclude that universalism is true, for Paul speaks of the “all” as actually being made alive, not potentially being made alive. This is further clarified in the next vers (1 Cor. 15:23), where Paul says, “those who belong to Christ.” Even so, it is true that all (every single human being) may have life if they but believe in the gospel of Christ. This, however, does not negate the testimony of SCripture that says that man is by nature opposed to God and therefore unable to do that which pleases God (e.g. Rom. 8:4-8; Eph. 4:17-19).
The same situation is found in Romans 5:18-19. Paul uses the term “all” for both those in Adam (every single human being) and those in Christ (only those who believe), otherwise, we must condlude that every single human being is justified. The “all” is qualified by its referent.
Again, the simple point of the matter is that 1 Corinthians 15:22 doesn’t even address the matter of free-will and man’s ability or inability. It’s simply saying that all have died in Adam and all those in Christ have life. If we’re going to develop a doctrine or theological perspective on something, we need to make sure we do so with Scriptures that specifically address it.
March 5, 2013 at 8:26 pm
This is why God’s grace is absolutly necessary, through and through, for our salvation.
March 5, 2013 at 8:29 pm
Sorry for the multiple posts, but I just had another thought. In Romans 5:18-19 Paul is saying that Adam’s sin necessarily lead to the death of all men. Further, Paul is drawing a comparison/contrast between Adam and Christ. So Paul is also saying that Christ’s death necessarily leads to the life or justificaiton of all men. We must therefore qualify this “all men” to refer to all those who believe (the elect).
March 5, 2013 at 9:55 pm
Drew: I submit that Romans 5:18-19 proves my point, not yours. V. 19 says that Christ’s act LEADS ALL TO righteousness. It is the same “all” used when referring to physical death. This does not mean all accept God’s gift but it is available to all to lead them. Limited atonement contradicts this verse.
March 6, 2013 at 8:14 am
Walt,
I fail to realize why you interpret “leads” as a potential, subjective leading for every single human being. You yourself pointed out the parallel between Adam’s transgression which led to death (both spiritual and physical) and Christ’s righteousness which leads to justification. The death from Adam’s transgression was not potential, but a necessary result. The same is true of our justification in relation to Christ’s righteousness (cf. Rom. 4:22-25). Thomas Schreiner, in his commentary on Romans, agrees that the EIS should be translated as “results,” which is how the NASB translates it. Again, nothing in this passage suggests that man has the ability to respond savingly to the gospel. I continue to make the point that you are looking at passages that do not deal with the immediate matter at hand, reading into it something that is not there, and then assuming it contradicts Limited Atonement. Why not just look at passages that deal specifically with the atonement (as I have already pointed out some, and they have not been answered)?
But I see this going on and on, so I will make this my final post. Thank you.
2 Peter 1:2 “May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.”
March 4, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Drew:
You asked,Further, take your interpretation of foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 and transfer it to 1 Peter 1:20. How does that work out?”
It works out fine as both verses are describing the capacity of an omniscient God.
March 4, 2013 at 10:49 pm
Walt,
How you think these texts are simply about God’s omniscience is beyond me. The passages clearly deal with God’s active and sovereign involvement in redemption. And I would also like to ask, how does God know all things? Do these things merely exist and He takes them in, or do they exist because He has decreed they exist?
I would like to point out, in regards to free will, that the bondage of man’s will is at no fault of God. It was man who sinned and so it is man who is reponsible for his enslavement. This in no way negates our moral responsibility to God and His law.
March 4, 2013 at 11:03 pm
Drew, I appreciate the comments. I don’t have the time though right now to get in a large debate on limited atonement. I appreciate your input though, and think people will find it helpful.
The atonement is complex, not simple. Here’s a summary of the position from Bruce Ware (He’ll be one of your professors at SBTS, if that’s where you end up going for your M.Div.),
“God’s intentions in the death of Christ are complex not simple, multiple not single:
1) Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect.
2) Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people making it possible for all who believe to be saved.
3) Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere.
4) Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for
condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them.
5) Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father.”
The Scriptures concerning Christ dying for the non-elect:
1) 1 Tim. 4:10 – “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”
2) 2 Peter 2:1 – “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
3) 1 John 2:2 – “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
4) 1 John 4:14 – “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.”
5) 1 Tim 2:6 – “who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”
6) 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19 – “14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” Then, v. 19 – “19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”
Here’s a link to an article by Ware discussing the 4-point Calvinist position: http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Ware.%20Extent%20of%20the%20Atonement.pdf
March 4, 2013 at 11:20 pm
Jared,
Thanks for the reply. There are obviously some things I have some disagreement with in your post (I find blatent inconsistency in the first two points that Ware lists, and particular disagreement with the thought process of point 2), especially with some of the Scriptures that are listed in support of Christ dying for the non-elect. However, I can only devote so much time to blogging and responding to blogs, and I think I’ve said enough already (and many other Calvinists have responded elswhere to these passages). Also, in fairness, since you don’t have the time to respond, then I won’t respond either (though I think some of the things I’ve already said in response to others apply to some of your points). But I will certainly look at Ware’s perspective on the 5 points. I do like Ware (I’ve read his book on the Trinity!). And do hope to attend SBTS.
Grace and peace brother,
Drew
March 6, 2013 at 3:18 pm
It would appear that if one rejects limited atonement as unscriptural then one would reject total depravity (as defined by Calvinists) in that a bona fide offer is made to the unsaved and unconditional election, in that the unsaved have a genuine chance at repentance.
March 5, 2013 at 9:04 am
If God, in His foreknowledge, knows that a certain person will be saved, then it is certain that he WILL be saved. So…
What makes is certain that he will be saved? Is it certain because God knows it, or does God know it because it is certain? If the latter, then what makes it certain? Something besides God?
I doubt that.
God says all sorts of things we don’t like. He will harden whom He will harden. He made all things for His own purposes .. even the wicked for the day of evil. We don’t like that because we want some control in this whole scheme, but God has told us that all we can to is be obedient to do whatever’s set before us, and HE (and He alone) is responsible for the outcome.