This is a parable about human ability. When it comes to our salvation, how much do we do? How much can we do? For those who still believe in sin and salvation, there are three main positions: Arminianism, semi-Pelagianism, and Calvinism. In our story below, these positions will be presented in three scenarios that I hope will help draw out the difference between them and show where they are found in the church today. As with any story of this sort, the parallels are hardly exact, but it should get the point across. Further explanation will be given at the end.
The Three Trees
“Oh no, not another one!” Bob exclaimed. There he was, planted in front of his favorite television program at the end of a long week when yet another commercial crossed the screen. A wizened man appeared on screen, surrounded by images of trees. “Hello there, I am Fatherus, part of the Salvictus Sapling Company. We are a family owned and operated business and we think you need a tree in your front yard. Sonus has worked long and hard to ensure we have an adequate supply of trees, and he and Spiritus will come to anyone, anywhere to see to it that you have a tree. Just in case you don’t think you need a tree in your front yard, here is Spiritus to convince you otherwise.” Bob watched as the camera shifted from Fatherus to Spiritus. “Hello everyone, Spiritus here. Let me tell you all the benefits provided by our trees, all the problems this tree will address in your life, all the trouble and toil it will take away…” Spiritus spent the next few minutes of this unusually long and engaging commercial describing in fascinating and amazing detail all the benefits to be had from a Salvictus sapling. He ended his appeal with this warning, “Be aware that this is a time-sensitive offer. These trees won’t be available forever. We will come to anyone, anywhere, anytime! Don’t wait, contact us today!” Bob grabbed another Doritos as the camera panned back to Fatherus, “There you have it, folks. Contact us today and Sonus and Spiritus will be right out. You don’t need to use your telephone or email, just dig a hole in your front yard and we will know you are ready for our tree. We look forward to seeing you soon!”
Scenario A
When the commercial ended, Bob sat and pondered what he had heard. The commercial spoke to him. Spiritus really made that tree look glorious and Bob felt that the tree would make a real difference in his life. The more he thought about the offer, the more excited he became. Despite his fatigue, he jumped from his chair (flipping over the bowl of Doritos in the process) and ran to his shed for a shovel.
Shovel in hand, Bob walked to his front yard. What he saw dismayed him. He had forgotten that his front yard was covered with six inches of concrete.
As Bob stood there, mouth open in dismay, a van pulled up in front of his house and two men climbed out. “Hey, I know you!” Bob said, “you are Sonus and Spiritus! I was just trying to dig a hole to get one of your trees, but I can’t get through this concrete!”
“We know,” Spiritus said, “In fact, it seems that everyone has 6” of concrete over their front lawns. Fortunately, I just happen to have a jackhammer. Sonus and I are going around drilling through the concrete so that people who want our trees can dig the hole. Give us a moment and we’ll get this done. You will be well on your way to having one of our famous Salvictus saplings.”
With that, Sonus and Spiritus set to work drilling through the concrete. True to his word, Spiritus was quickly finished and he stepped back in satisfaction. “Well now, that should do it. You’re halfway there. If you want our tree, just finish the hole and we’ll get it planted in a jiffy.”
Bob was deeply grateful for their help. Taking his shovel, he dug out a spot for the tree. While he dug he heard the encouraging words of Spiritus, “That’s it! You are doing great! Keep going! These saplings are worth it! Remember how wonderful they are! You’re almost there!” Finally, Sonus stepped up and said, “That will do fine. Here, this tree is perfect for you.” Sonus took a sapling from the van and handed it to Spiritus who placed it in the hole and covered it with the loose dirt. “There, the tree is yours. Now take care of it and water it and it will grow and flourish. Don’t worry if you don’t know anything about trees, I will be here to help you every step of the way.”
Scenario B
When the commercial ended, Bob sat and pondered what he had heard. The commercial spoke to him. Spiritus really made that tree look glorious and Bob felt that the tree would make a real difference in his life. The more he thought about the offer, the more excited he became. Despite his fatigue, he jumped from his chair (tripping over the cat in the process) and ran to his basement for a shovel.
Shovel in hand, Bob climbed out of his basement and exited the house to the front yard. As he stood and surveyed his yard, he saw he had a problem. When Bob first bought the house, the soil was rich and clean but it did not take long before rocks began to accumulate in the soil. Over the years, the once rich soil had become rocky and dull. “This will be harder than I thought,” Bob sighed to himself. He pulled off his shirt and set to work.
While he was working, a van pulled up and two men stepped out. “Hey, I know you!” Bob cried out, “Spiritus and Sonus, from the Salvictus Sapling Company!” “Guilty as charged!” Sonus replied. Bob continued his work. As he labored, Spiritus offered regular words of encouragement, reminding Bob why the tree was so worthwhile.
Eventually, Sonus stepped up and said, “That will do fine. Here, this tree is perfect for you.” Sonus took a sapling from the van and handed it to Spiritus who placed it in the hole and covered it with the loose dirt. “There, the tree is yours. Now take care of it and water it and it will grow and flourish. Don’t worry if you don’t know anything about trees, I will be here to help you every step of the way.”
Scenario C
When the commercial ended, Bob spat a wad of tobacco out of his mouth, narrowly missing the flea-bitten cat sitting at his feet. He uttered a stream of expletives with the skill of a seasoned Hollywood movie producer and grabbed for his remote. “If these blankety-blank commercials don’t stop, I’ll just blow up all those blankety-blank businesses! I want to get back to watching Downton Abbey, not sit here listening to some yokels jabber about a tree!” Before he could change channels, Downton Abbey came back on and a little bit more of Bob’s flagging masculinity slipped away.
Suddenly, Bob was jolted from his television-induced catatonia with the sound of enormous banging and clacking. Flinging open his door, he saw a van parked in front of his house. Two men were standing in his yard operating a jackhammer. He watched in amazement as they drilled through a yard entirely filled with concrete. They drilled down deep then cleared away all the broken pieces of concrete, replacing it with rich, beautiful soil. In the middle of the soil they planted a small, sturdy looking sapling.
Bob’s countenance changed. In wonder, he stepped from his house. “What have you done?” he asked, “This is amazing! I saw the commercial, but at the time I wanted nothing to do with the tree. But now that you’ve planted it, this is the most wonderful thing that has ever happened to me! But how… why? I never called you. I never dug the hole!”
Sonus stepped forward and put a hand on Bob’s shoulder. “Bob, we made that offer to everyone. Anyone who wants a tree can call us and we will come, but Fatherus knew you wouldn’t call us. He chose this tree for you and sent us here to prepare the ground and plant the tree.”
“But why me?” Bob asked, scratching his head, “and what about everyone else?”
Sonus looked at Bob with peace and compassion. “Fatherus has his reasons for choosing to send us to specific people, but he does not choose everyone. The others received the same offer as you, it will be left to them whether or not they ever call.”
“I never wanted this,” Bob said, “I never thought I needed this, but I cannot tell you how grateful I am now to have this! Thank you, thank you.”
The End (although for Bob, it is the beginning)
The Lesson from the Trees
The elements of the story should be pretty obvious. The commercial at the beginning represents the universal offer of the gospel as well as the work of the Spirit to call all people to salvation. The offer goes to everyone. In addition to the offer of salvation, God has provided a picture of the glory of the gospel. Through the Word and through the Spirit, God shows people the beauty of the gospel and the filth of sin. People are shown why they need salvation and the terrible state they are in without it.
All three scenarios affirm that the cosmic work of salvation begins with God. Saving people is God’s plan. His plan unfolds throughout the Old Testament and reaches its apex in Jesus Christ. Jesus does what is necessary to bring salvation (acquire the trees) through his righteous life and atoning work. The three scenarios differ when it comes to the application of individual salvation.
In Scenario A we find the Arminian notion of prevenient grace. Human beings are dead in sin and God must do something to break through our deadness. In the story, Spiritus uses a jackhammer to break through the concrete to give access to the soil below. This is not entirely accurate, of course; Arminians do not suggest that we have a hard outer shell with a soft, gooey center. They recognize that we are dead through and through and God elevates people just enough to enable our response. Though we are dead, we become partially revived through God’s work so that we are capable of accepting or rejecting the gospel. He takes the first step in applying our individual salvation when he breaks through the concrete, but we must take the next step by digging the hole (making a decision or choosing to receive Christ).
Scenario B is a little different. In the semi-Pelagian system, the human heart is tainted by sin but not thoroughly corrupt or dead. There is no outer layer of concrete preventing us from digging the hole and choosing salvation. It is not necessary for God to change our hearts before we choose him. We are born sick, but not incapacitated. We have stones in the dirt, but not a barrier. As with the other scenarios, God presents the gospel and the Spirit still draws and woos, but God otherwise remains hands off until the sinner makes his decision. God does not interfere with human free will, either to enable or to hinder a response to the gospel. God gives the universal offer, but the application of salvation to an individual begins with the individual’s free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.
In the end, Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism are very similar. Even though Arminians affirm the need for God to change the human heart before repentance and faith are possible, what ultimately determines whether or not a person is saved is the action and decision of the individual. God does something for all people; what brings salvation to Bob is his specific decision, not God’s specific action toward him.
In Scenario C, we see the full scope of total depravity. There is nothing but concrete. No soil, no interest, no glimmer of desire. This individual would never choose Christ. He is not the least bit interested in the things of God. It is possible that from the outside he looks and sounds pious enough, but inside his heart is nothing but stone. He wants nothing to do with salvation, and even if somehow he did, he would be unable to change his own heart. Thus we find the Spirit coming to do the work of Ezekiel 11:19: removing his heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. A lost sinner cannot do this work and wants nothing of this work. God must do it. Once it is done, the response of the sinner is joy and gratitude and faith.
All three scenarios conclude in a similar fashion: the Spirit plants the tree. Neither Arminianism nor semi-Pelagianism nor Calvinism teach that man is able to save himself. All agree that God must save. In Scenarios A and B, even though God does not save us until we have chosen him for salvation, it is still his work, he must save us.
Conclusion
Here we see three different views of human ability, three views of the degree to which humans participate in salvation. Each view affirms that the cosmic work of accomplishing salvation (as opposed to the individual work of applying salvation) begins with God’s eternal plan and the work of Jesus Christ. Each view affirms that salvation is ultimately applied to us by the Spirit, we cannot save ourselves. The first view holds that God begins the work of our individual salvation by enabling our dead hearts to respond to the gospel, but we must choose whether or not to respond. The second view holds that we begin the work of our individual salvation by our free-will response to the Spirit’s drawing; no change is needed to our hearts, we are able to respond. Finally, the third view holds that God does all the work, we are completely unable to respond to the gospel (and we would never want to respond to the gospel) and would be eternally lost if not for the initiative of God to take us and change us and save us, something he does for his elect.
Each of these views is found in the SBC today. None of them are heretical, though the Arminian notion is problematic and the semi-Pelagian notion even more so. Scripture teaches that we are all sinners who love our sin, who never do good, who never seek God, who are dead in trespasses, who are enemies of God, who are blinded by Satan, who will never come to the Son unless the Father himself calls us and chooses us and draws us – and all those so called by the Father will be saved. From beginning to end, from first to last, salvation belongs to our God.
March 7, 2013 at 9:01 am
Overall I think it’s a pretty good assessment (though I would say that some, but not all, semi-Pelagians would argue that once the person begins to remove the dirt, or makes the first sign, God takes over and does the rest). I do have a few notes where I disagree (or rather, dislike the wording).
First, you say “the Arminian notion is problematic and the semi-Pelagian even more so,” where I would add, “and the Calvinist one is not without its issues either.”
Second, you say, in Scenario C ““Fatherus has his reasons for choosing to send us to specific people, but he does not choose everyone.” But as I understand Dortian Calvinism, “Fatherus” has no reasons for choosing specific people (as that might consititute future merit), but it is rather a somewhat random choice.
March 7, 2013 at 10:07 am
“I would say that some, but not all, semi-Pelagians would argue that once the person begins to remove the dirt, or makes the first sign, God takes over and does the rest”
Agreed, that’s one place where the analogy is imperfect. The idea is that in semi-Pelagianism, the sinner is able to make a decision, make a choice, receive Christ prior to any work from the Holy Spirit to change the sinner’s heart.
And I understand that non-Calvinists would tweak my statement about problems in non-Calvinist systems. :)
“as I understand Dortian Calvinism, ‘Fatherus’ has no reasons for choosing specific people… but it is rather a somewhat random choice.”
I don’t think anyone argues that his choice is arbitrary, rather that his reasons are not revealed and are not based on pre-defined conditions. It is unconditional election – unconditional in the sense that God is not looking for people who meet a certain set of criteria and electing them on that basis. God has his reasons for electing as he does, but the picture emerging from Scripture is that his reasons do not involve some sort of checklist where if a person fills in the right number of boxes, he gets to be in the club.
March 7, 2013 at 11:56 am
How can you say it is unconditional election when Romans 8:29 cites a condition precedent: Foreknowledge?
March 7, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Walt,
Because as you’ve been told before, foreknowledge does not mean what you think it means.
March 7, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Chris: I think it means precisely what A.J. Strong thinks it means: to know beforehand.
March 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Here is one very simple and obvious problem with that oversimplification:
How much does God know?
Is there any knowledge to what God knows?
Does God only know about some people in advance?
All we are told in Romans 8:29 is that those foreknown by God are predestined, called, justified, glorified – in other words, all those foreknown by God will ultimately be glorified in Heaven.
Based on this, if “foreknow” is simply a matter of God knowing beforehand, then one of two scenarios must be true:
1. Either God foreknows all people, and as such all people will go to Heaven; or
2. God must not know about all people in advance, otherwise they would be included in the foreknown who go to Heaven.
On the other hand, it just might be possible that Strong is wrong.
March 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Lessee: Strong or Roberts…..Hmmm…Strong!
March 7, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Chris: There is at minimum a third scenario. That is, God knows everything, including the nature of man free will response to the salvation that God offers to all.
March 7, 2013 at 4:05 pm
So do you believe everyone will go to Heaven? After all, all those foreknown go to Heaven, as Romans 8:29-30 teaches.
As for Roberts vs Strong, you do realize there are a multitude of Greek scholars out there? We could go around and around all day citing scholars who support our views. But as I’ve shown, the Bible itself should make clear that foreknowledge cannot mean what Strong’s says. God knows everything, not all people will be saved, foreknowledge must mean something other than simply knowing beforehand.
March 7, 2013 at 4:39 pm
Chris: Your reply demonstrates how Calvinists do not believe that God’s precious gift to man actually exists. Of course not all will go to heaven because of their free will choice to reject God’s gracious offer, which He gives to all because Christ died for all (unlimited atonement).
http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/did-jesus-die-everyone-my-calvinist-friends-say-no
March 7, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Walt,
“Of course not all will go to heaven”
We are agreed then! Foreknowledge cannot mean “know beforehand” since God knows everyone beforehand, yet not everyone goes to Heaven and Romans 8:29-30 says all who are foreknown will go to Heaven.
March 7, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Chris: It’s amusing how far Calvinist’s go to deny the plain meaning of words that does not fit their grid. God’s foreknowledge is of everything, the person and his actions. God predestined those He foreknew would respond positively with their God-given free will to the Spirit’s pleading, which He does with all. Revelation 22:17 NB “Whoever.”
March 7, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Revelation 22:17
New International Version (©1984)
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.
March 7, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Walt,
A great verse. Reminds us that God has called all people to the gospel (as also Romans 10:18) so that no one has an excuse, none can say they did not know God (Romans 1:20-21). Jesus says to all, “Come, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” And sure enough, any who desires to go to Christ will be well received.
Of course, that does not tell the whole story. The tragedy is that no one goes. No one takes him up on the offer. None are interested. All refuse and reject. (Romans 3:10-18) But God’s mercy is greater than our rejection. The Father draws some to the Son (John 6:44), overcoming their broken, sinful wills and giving them new hearts of flesh that beat for God. The Son receives these and secures them, raising them up at the last day for all given to the Son by the Father will certainly go to the Son (John 6:37, 44). These go because of God’s work, not our work; no man seeks God. No one desires what he offers. Long he has held out his arms in welcome (Matthew 23:37, etc), yet all refuse, all reject, none are willing. So God did in us what we could not and would not do. If not for this sovereign mercy, none would be saved.
March 7, 2013 at 7:31 pm
That is a logical answer only if you believe that free will does not exist. I John 2:2 belies your understanding that God withholds saving grace from some. His offer is to the whole world, and it is not a genuine offer if the offeror knows the offeree is incapable of accepting it.
March 7, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Walt,
I do not believe God withholds saving grace from anyone. He has given a genuine offer to every person on the planet, and every person on the planet has turned up their noses, as Scripture makes plain as day again and again.
March 7, 2013 at 7:50 pm
Chris: Respectfully, yes you do believe that God withholds saving grace from some because He refuses to elect them. An intentional omission that engenders the same results as a commission is logically its equivalent. I understand your reluctance to agree with this as it appears harsh, even cruel. I would agree with this if it were true. God’s grace is resistible because He gave us the precious gift of free will, which Calvinists deny.
Utilizing your terminology, if “God doesn’t withhold saving grace from anyone” why are there people in hell?
March 7, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Walt,
People are in Hell because they willfully choose to refuse his grace. See? I do believe grace can be resisted and I do believe people have free will. They use that freedom to refuse his grace.
God graciously overrides our rejection of him to bring his grace fully and effectually in the lives of the elect. He does not withhold salvation from anyone, but he graciously chooses to ensure salvation for some. That’s a distinction you refuse to acknowledge.
March 7, 2013 at 3:26 pm
I know I’m belaboring a point from a discussion we’ve had before, Chris, but if election is unconditional in the sense that God is not looking for people who meet a certain criteria, or not based on pre-defined conditions, and yet occurs before the creation of the world (as Dortian Calvinism argues), then how can it be anything other than arbitrary? Let me qualify that. Given that God acts out of love, and loves the whole world, why is it then the case that he chooses to exercise the full extent of his love (irresistible grace) to some and not to others? If you say he has his reasons, then there is some merit (that we don’t see) to those persons being saved (or not). The only way to avoid that scenario is to say that, in reality, the decision is rather arbitrary. That is one of my biggest objections to Dortian Calvinism, not that it claims his decision to elect is arbitrary (per se), but that the arbitrary decision is somehow both specifically targeted and the final and only one.
March 7, 2013 at 3:42 pm
Trey,
Something is conditional when a set of criteria is established which, if met, results in a particular action. Perform X and Y, and you will receive Z. Election does not work that way. God has not established a set of universal criteria or conditions which we must meet in order to be elect. Election is not a matter of obeying a certain moral code or performing certain mental requirements. God is not looking around trying to find people who fit his qualifications.
Rather, God is the author of history. As he writes and weaves things this way or that, he has clear reasons for doing so, but not as a matter of our satisfying certain conditions. He has his plan, his purpose, for all things, including for those chosen for salvation. This is not based on whether or not we will satisfy certain conditions but on whether or not his choice fits within his plan, a plan he has not revealed to us in all of its detail.
March 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Chris: Then God acts inconsistently with His stated will, that none should perish. 2 Peter 3:9 NIV NB “anyone” “everyone”
March 7, 2013 at 7:32 pm
This dilemma is shared equally by the non-Calvinist; if God is not willing that any should perish then either
1. No one perishes; everyone is saved.
2. Some people perish, so God must not be powerful enough to do what he wills.
3. Some people perish, so God was lying about his will.
4. Some people perish, so there is more to the story, something he desires even more than the repentance of all people.
I suspect you and I would both hold #4. In your view, God loves human freedom so much, he gives us the choice. The reason he does not accomplish his desire to save all people is because he leaves the choice in our hands.
Calvinists have an answer actually found in Scripture: God’s ultimate aim is the pursuit and portrayal of his glory – glory made manifest both in the display of his love and mercy (Ephesians 2:7) and in the display of his wrath and justice (Romans 9:19-24, etc). (See also passages like 1 Sam 12:22; Psalm 23:3; Isaiah 48:9, 11; etc, etc – many, many passages which speak of being motivated for the glory of God.)
In your view, God becomes captive to human action. He does this voluntarily, but the end result is the same: his desire to save everyone is frustrated by what we do.
March 7, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Chris: God voluntarily “becoming captive to human action” is known by a name: Permissive will. His perfect will is that none should perish but God desires friends, not robots so He offers resistible grace to all.
He foreknew who would choose to love Him and thus predestined them for heaven.
March 7, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Walt,
Care to offer Scripture for any of that? Passages showing God’s foreknowledge are not enough – I’ve already shown you why your imposition on that text fails since it would result in universalism. Passages calling humans to a choice are also not enough – I’ve already shown you that this choice is just as strongly present in Calvinism.
What I want is somewhere in the Bible where God states that he is limiting his will for the sake of human will, something that tells us that the reason God does not accomplish his will is because he prefers our will above his own.
March 7, 2013 at 9:20 pm
Cummon Chris. It is not God’s will that any (note: “of the elect” not added) should perish yet people do perish. They are responsible because of their free will rejection which God permits while it breaks His heart.
March 7, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Scripture, please. Not speculation.
March 7, 2013 at 11:09 pm
“… I’ve already shown you why your imposition on that text fails since it would result in universalism…”
Only to your satisfaction, not mine. You ignored my third scenario. However, we are getting repetitive and I suggest this is a good place to take a break.
March 7, 2013 at 11:19 pm
Except your third scenario cannot work since the text clearly says that all those foreknown go to Heaven. If foreknowledge means knowing before, and God knows all before, then everyone must go to Heaven. Since they do not, your third scenario is not possible.
March 8, 2013 at 8:28 am
Why can’t I get this point across? Yes, all those God foreknew went to heaven because of their response to the Gospel. God also foreknew the responses of those He did not elect. Otherwise free will does not exist.
March 8, 2013 at 8:34 am
You can’t get your point across because you are adding to the Bible. The passage does not say God foreknows everyones response and chooses those he knows will choose him; the passage says everyone foreknown by God is predestined to go to Heaven, etc. Your conclusion requires imposing on the text something not present. You add to the Word.
March 8, 2013 at 9:13 am
It is you who are adding to the Bible because God foreknows everything and this includes the ultimate responses of everyone, which you contest.
March 8, 2013 at 9:25 am
Walt,
Where and when have I ever contested that God knows all things before they happen? In fact, I take it several steps farther – God sees everything always because for him there is no such thing as “before they happened” or even “after they happened”. He sees all of time. He exists outside of time.
But I accuse you of adding to the Bible since your interpretation of Romans 8:29-30 requires adding to the text things that are not present. According to that passage, _all_ the foreknown go to Heaven.
Let’s look at it, shall we?
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”
A very simple logical progression. From foreknowledge, to predestining, to calling, to justifying, to glorifying. Nothing in that passage is an “if” – ie, “if he foreknows that they will choose him, he predestines them.” It is a direct chain of what God absolutely does – those foreknown are predestined, called, etc.
All those foreknown are predestined, are called, are justified, are glorified.
You add to the Bible when you insist he only predestines those he knows will choose him. The text nowhere says that. The Bible nowhere states anything of the sort. This is why you have yet to answer my request that you provide Scripture – such passages do not exist. You must add to the Bible to reach your conclusion.
March 8, 2013 at 9:49 am
OK this is repetitive. You have the last word.
March 8, 2013 at 10:28 am
Walt,
A bit repetitive, yes, but I’m wondering if you see my point about Romans 8:29-30 – that is says all those foreknown are predestined, etc?
March 8, 2013 at 11:05 am
Chris: Respectfully, I strongly disagree with your point.
Election is talking about service, not salvation. In fact, it couldn’t be talking about salvation because Jesus didn’t need to be saved, nor did the angels. Besides, not all of the Israelites were true believers. Therefore, when the nation of Israel was elected, they obviously were not elected (or chosen) for salvation. According to Article 17, (Canons of Dort) God’s election is the same in the New Testament as it was in the Old Testament. Therefore, if the election of the Nation of Israel is talking about salvation, all of the present day Jews should be believers. This, of course, is not the case.
http://www.biblehelp.org/elect.htm
March 8, 2013 at 11:14 am
Walt,
Where did I say anything about election per se? We were talking about the meaning of foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30 which clearly states that everyone foreknown by God will be saved.
As for 1 John 2:2, that’s a discussion on the extent of the atonement, also nothing to do with the meaning of foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30.
March 8, 2013 at 11:24 am
Chris: Truly repetitive. I keep trying unsuccessfully to leave you with the last word.
http://www.biblehelp.org/sumsel.htm
March 8, 2013 at 11:25 am
I keep repeating the question because you have yet to provide an answer.
March 8, 2013 at 11:40 am
I have not provided an answer to your satisfaction which I am unable to do. Your quick response indicates that you didn’t bother to read my attachment.
March 8, 2013 at 11:41 am
You are correct. I’m not having a discussion with your links, I’m having a discussion with you.
March 8, 2013 at 11:56 am
Shall I cut and paste the entire analysis of why selective salvation in not scriptural so that you can “have a discussion with me?”
March 8, 2013 at 11:57 am
That would still be dodging my question regarding the scope of foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30.
March 8, 2013 at 12:51 pm
How do you know if you haven’t read it?
March 8, 2013 at 12:57 pm
I haven’t read it but I’ve read you and I read what you just summarized about it. But my question and observation is very specific: is it not the case that Romans 8:29-30 states that all those foreknown by God will be saved?
March 8, 2013 at 1:17 pm
No. Election means a person has been chosen for a special service. Predestination means God has predetermined that those who become Christians will have certain attributes, such as being “conformed to the likeness of His Son.” Neither of these terms (election and predestination) have anything to do with salvation.
In summary, election means a person has been chosen for a special service. Predestination means God has predetermined that those who become Christians will have certain attributes, such as being “conformed to the likeness of His Son.” Neither of these terms (election and predestination) have anything to do with salvation.
When the Bible says a person is “elected,” it means he has been chosen for something special. As you will soon see, when a person is elected, he is not chosen for salvation, but is chosen to do some special service. The Bible talks about five groups that have been elected to do a specific service. They are:
Nation of Israel
Deut. 7:6,7
Rom. 9:4
Jesus
1 Pet. 2:4,6* 1
Luke 9:35* 1
Luke 23:35* 1
The church
Mt. 24:22,24,31
Mk 13:20,22,27
The 144,000
Rev. 7:4* 2
Rev. 17:14* 3
Angels
1 Tim. 5:21
http://www.biblehelp.org/elect.htm
March 8, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Walt,
You do realize Romans 8:29-30 presents more than just foreknowledge and predestination? It presents a chain that starts with God’s foreknowledge and ends with glorification. As I mentioned again and again, it says that everyone he has foreknown he also predestines and calls and justifies and glorifies. It’s a package deal. Those whom God foreknows, God also glorifies.
March 8, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Chris: I’ve tried to point out that your link in the chain is, to be charitable, a weak one. Election means a person has been chosen for a special service. Predestination means God has predetermined that those who become Christians will have certain attributes, such as being “conformed to the likeness of His Son.” Neither of these terms (election and predestination) have anything to do with salvation.
March 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Walt,
Are you even reading the passage? Foreknowledge leads to predestining leads to calling leads to justification leads to glorification.
What do you think is meant by these people being justified?
What is meant by them being glorified?
If this is not language of salvation and Heaven, what is?
Justification is God making us right with him through Jesus Christ. Glorification is the great experience of the believer participating in the glory of God through Jesus Christ. Lost people do not have these things – if they did, they would no longer be lost.
In all of this I have said absolutely nothing about election. I am strictly limiting my focus to the great chain of salvation demonstrated plain as day in Romans 8:29-30. All those foreknown by God are also justified and glorified by God. In other words, they are all saved. Not potentially, not if they make the right choice, not if they fit some certain condition – all those foreknown are also justified and glorified. This is what God has told us.
March 8, 2013 at 1:45 pm
As you refuse to read a scholarly rebuttal to your premise I’m done.
March 8, 2013 at 2:09 pm
Walt,
As mentioned before, I’m talking with you not links.
What do you think is meant by justified and glorified?
March 12, 2013 at 6:17 am
Walt,
In Romans 8:28-30 as in First Peter 1:2, God’s foreknowledge logically precedes the elective or predestinative act of God.
The order of events is in some cases chronological, but many of the aspects happen simultaneously, making the order primarily logical rather than chronological: (1) foreknowledge, (2) predestination, (3) calling, (4) contrition (2 Cor. 7:10), (5) repentance (Luke 13:3), (6) faith (Heb. 11:6), (7) regeneration (Titus 3:5), (8) justification, (9) reconciliation, (10) sanctification, (11) adoption, and (12) glorification.
March 8, 2013 at 11:11 am
In addition to the above problem, there are many verses where this type of forced conclusion still would not work. For example, 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Using their rules of interpretation, this verse should read: “He is the atoning sacrifice for the elect’s sins, and not only for the elect’s sins, but also for the sins of the elect.”
http://www.biblehelp.org/sumsel.htm
March 12, 2013 at 8:36 pm
Walt, I think you will find this interesting.
The following is a very short article by Dr. John Hammet on why he cannot affirm Limited Atonement. Dr. John Hammett is Professor of Systematic Theology and Associate Dean of Theological Studies at Southeastern. He is Brilliant and universally respected. I will quote the short article here since some will not interact with links…
“For the Record (John Hammett): Being Biblical More Than Logical or Why I am a Four-Point Calvinist
Like most Calvinists who hold four of the traditional five points, I have struggled with the L of limited atonement. On the one hand, limited atonement makes perfect logical sense and I like the idea that the cross actually accomplished salvation for me. Further, if the cross is efficacious for salvation, then it must be limited or it leads to universal salvation, which is unquestionably non-biblical. On the other hand, there are a number of verses that I have not been able to reconcile with limited atonement. Placing biblical arguments over logical or theological arguments has led me to affirm a general understanding of the atonement.
The three texts that seem to point most forcefully to the general view are I John 2:2, I Tim. 4:10, and II Pet. 2:1. First John 2:2 affirms Christ as the propitiation not just for “our sins” but also “for the sins of the whole world.” Those who support limited atonement argue that the “whole world” does not mean every individual but all types of people, or all races, classes, or times of people. Those are possible arguments, and if this was the only verse, it might be exegetically fair to infer such a reading. But there are other verses, and there is nothing in the context to indicate a limitation of the scope of “world.”
The second text, I Tim. 4:10, speaks of God as Savior “of all people, and especially of those who believe.” Admittedly, this verse does not speak of the cross specifically, but if the cross that accomplishes salvation, here that salvation seems to extend beyond those who believe. In some sense, God is the Savior of “all people” in a sense that extends beyond believers. In what sense could God be the Savior of those who do not believe? The most cogent way I have heard is to see it as affirming that God has made provision for their salvation through the death of Christ.
The third text approaches the topic from a different direction. According to limited atonement, all those for whom Christ died, the elect, are saved. But II Pet. 2:1 affirms that some of those “bought” by Christ have become false teachers, deny Christ and bring destruction upon themselves. This sounds very much as if they are lost individuals, and yet they had been bought by Christ. It again sounds as if those for whom Christ died extend beyond those who are saved.
I recognize there are several objections lodged against the general atonement view. To my mind, the most serious is that this view weakens the accomplishment of the cross. It sees the cross as making provision for my sin, but it does not become efficacious for my salvation until I receive that provision by faith. But that is in fact what Scripture seems to teach (see Rom. 5:17). I see my reception of that provision as itself the result of God’s effectual calling and election at work in me, both of which are limited, and so I am still a Calvinist, but the L belongs in calling and election, not the cross.
A second argument is that general atonement leads to universal salvation. But this is true only if the cross by itself is efficacious for salvation; that is, that sins are forgiven by the payment offered on the cross apart from any personal response. But the general atonement view argues that it is theologically permissible and biblically warranted to separate the provision of atonement and the application of atonement.
A third objection is that general atonement seems somehow wasteful and introduces disharmony within the Trinity. If God the Father has chosen a limited group, and the Holy Spirit only convicts and draws to faith a limited group, why would the Son die for a larger group, especially when many of that group will not be saved? But we can note that God often provides more than is accepted. Universal revelation is given to all, but Romans 1 is clear that, rather than utilizing that light, many suppress it (Rom. 1:18). At any rate, this too is a logical argument that I cannot place over a biblical argument.
Thus, I find myself in agreement with the classic if somewhat ambiguous formula: the atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect (or for those who believe, since they are the same group).”
http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2012/04/25/for-the-record-john-hammett-being-biblical-more-than-logical-or-why-i-am-a-four-point-calvinist/
March 12, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Donald,
First, limited atonement has nothing to do with this post.
Second, limited atonement has nothing to do with the foreknowledge issue Walt and I were discussing.
Third, this quote from you:
“Thus, I find myself in agreement with the classic if somewhat ambiguous formula: the atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect”
I find that a bit puzzling – I don’t know of any five pointer who would deny this or claim otherwise. This is a strong statement of limited atonement. It is certainly what I believe.
March 13, 2013 at 3:30 am
Responses, in order..
1st: Walt seemed to be bringing it up as an “In addition to…” statement. So, at the time of my post it was part of the discussion.
2nd: I agree, except for “1st” above. My post was directed to Walt as “something you might find interesting” and I felt it would help him understand the issue he expressed concerning 1 John 2:2. From his response it seems I was correct.
3rd: That’s a quote from Dr. John Hammett. He considers that a statement of General Atonement. Perhaps the following, by William Cunningham, can shed some light on this and resolve your confusion:
“A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect—sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all, but because the statement—whether originally so intended or not—was so expressed as to suggest the idea that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ—viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design—was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, namely, that He died sufficiently for all, seems to indicate that when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.” – William Cunningham. Historical Theology, vol. 2, p. 332
March 13, 2013 at 7:51 am
Donald,
I am afraid the confusion belongs to you and your “brilliant and universally respected” friend.
I first learned the sufficient/efficient formula in a Presbyterian church that clearly held to the five points. The formula is also used by R. C. Sproul, someone who is clearly a five pointer. For instance, consider the following, taken from Sproul’s defense of Limited Atonement in his book Chosen By God:
“It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could understand the other four points of Calvinism and deny limited atonement.”
“We all agree that the value of Jesus’ atonement was great enough to cover the sins of every human being. We also agree that his atonement is truly offered to all men.”
He later explains that the sufficient/efficient formula does not capture the fullness of what is meant by limited atonement, but clearly he believes it summarizes a portion, having stated that Jesus’ atonement “was great enough to cover the sins of every human being.”
As Sproul notes (and notes again at http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/biblical-scholasticism/ ) the formula does not exhaust the fullness of what we mean by limited atonement, but nonetheless serves as a fair summary. The part Sproul adds in the above linked article – which I did not realize until your original use of the formula – is that non-Calvinists also claim use of the formula, adding a twist not intended to be taken as limited atonement. This strikes me as quite peculiar since on the whole the people I hear using it have always been 5 point Presbyterians.
John Calvin, in his comments on 1 John 2:2, notes this same formula, agrees with it, but denies that it applies to this verse since he believes “all” in this verse refers specifically to the elect in all the world, not to all who are lost:
“They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church.”
Again, Calvin says “I allow that what has been said is true” (namely, the sufficient/efficient formula is true) but that it does not apply to this verse.
Glancing around other sources, I notice that Theopedia also associates the formula with Limited Atonement, while also warning that the phrase can be misused/misunderstood: http://www.theopedia.com/Definite_atonement
As it happens, that article also gives your Cunningham quote, but shows that Cunningham is clarifying how the phrase might be misunderstood; he is not rejecting it. Oddly enough, your own quote has him affirming that Calvinists do not object to the formula.
March 13, 2013 at 9:02 am
“I am afraid the confusion belongs to you and your “brilliant and universally respected” friend.”
Aha, begin by mocking…you rarely disappoint.
But, you did miss one big point:
“…original scholastic form of the statement, namely, that He died sufficiently for all, seems to indicate that when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death”
He’s saying that the very words indicate General Atonement, and he is right.
It’s odd to declare it “puzzling” when the actual words used describe General Atonement rather than Limited Atonement.
Cunnningham demonstrates that this expression had fallen out of general use for Limited Atonement for the very reasons already stated, “orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all…”
Calvin himself did use the term, but it seems he might only have been a 4-pointer also…
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/04/john-calvin-on-limited-atonement-by-peter-lumpkins.html
March 13, 2013 at 9:08 am
Donald,
It is very simple. I am a five pointer. I use the formula. I quoted and noted other five pointers using the formula. While I now see the formula has been abused by non-five pointers to the degree that some five pointers are reluctant to use it, it remains a formula fully consistent with limited atonement and serves to explain one aspect of the biblical doctrine that Christ made atonement for the elect.
And now that this comment thread has strayed far from the original post, it is time to close comments. Any further discussion on limited atonement is welcome on one of the posts actually addressing limited atonement.
March 12, 2013 at 9:22 pm
Donald: Thanks for that post. A 4 point Calvinist is closer to me than a 5 point Calvinist. _)