Those
of you who have kept up with these posts know how this works?if you don?t like
jokes, skip to
The Beginning of the Article, though IMHO, you?ll be
missing out on a really good one. In either case, I have once again gone way
beyond the 1,000 word maximum and won?t even try to get it close. So, if you
skim, it?ll be your loss :).
An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church.
He came home and his wife asked him how it was. ?Well,? said the farmer, ?it
was good. They did something different, though. They sang praise choruses
instead of regular songs.? ?Praise choruses?? said his wife. ?What are those??
?Oh, they?re OK. They are sort of like regular songs, only different,? said the
farmer. ?Well, what?s the difference?? asked his wife. The farmer said, ?Well,
it?s like this ? if I were to say to you: ?Martha, the cows are in the corn? ?
well that would be a regular song. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you:
?Martha, Martha, Martha,
oh Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA
the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows
the white cows,
the black and white cows,
the COWS, COWS, COWS
are in the corn,
are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,
the CORN, CORN, CORN?
Then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, then that
would be a praise chorus.?
The next weekend, his nephew, a young, new Christian from the city came to
visit and attended the local church. He went home and his mother asked him how
it was.
?Well,? said the young man, ?it was good. They did something different,
though. They sang hymns instead of regular songs.? ?Hymns?? said his mother.
?What are those?? ?Oh, they?re OK. They are sort of like regular songs, only
different,? said the young man. ?Well, what?s the difference?? asked his
mother.
The young man said, ?Well, it?s like this ? if I were to say to you,
?Martha, the cows are in the corn? ? well, that would be a regular song. If, on
the other hand, I were to say to you:
?Oh Martha dear Martha, hear thou my cry
Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
To the righteous, inimitable, glorious truth.
For the way of the animals who can explain
There in their heads is no shadow of sense
Hearkenest they in God?s sun or His rain
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.
Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight
Have broke free their shackles, their warm pens eschewed
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.
So look to the bright shining day by and by
Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
Where no vicious animals make my soul cry
And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn.?
Then if I were to do only verses one, three and four and do a key change on
the last verse, well, that would be a hymn.?
In my last two posts, we began the process
of looking at each of the components of TULIPS in order to see how well this
model of salvation aligns with Scripture. In looking at Total Depravity, we
agreed with much of the traditional position though we found no Scriptural
evidence for: regeneration prior to faith; an understanding that death means
spiritual inability to act; and that the non-believer is unable to exercise
faith. Thus, we stated that a person will never seek God in their sinfulness.
However, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit, God seeks each individual
making them aware of their standing before Him. It is at this point that a
person does or does not exercise their faith in Jesus. Once they believe, they
are given life which is the presence of God through the Holy Spirit living in
them. All the benefits of salvation are immediately bestowed upon them (though
final fulfillment awaits our resurrection).
In our overview of Unconditional Election,
we found little in the Calvinist position that aligns with Scripture. There is
only one individual in Scripture identified as elect ? Jesus (all other
identifications are of a group of people associated with Him). Ephesians 1
tells us that we are elect in Him (i.e. our election is by association not by
decree) and that God foreknew this in 1 Peter 1 and Romans 8.
In this article, we will look at the third
component of TULIPS ? Limited Atonement. I will follow the same model as I did
with the last posts by defining Limited Atonement from a Calvinist perspective,
list some places where Biblical support is lacking, and make a suggestion for a
position that better embraces Scripture.
Limited Atonement From a Calvinist
Perspective
We stated in our last post that from a
Calvinist perspective, only the elect will receive God?s grace. However, this
causes a problem. If Christ?s substitutionary death was for all sinners, then
why isn?t everyone saved? Does it not seem as though God is demanding a
double-payment for sin if Jesus died on the cross for the unregenerate but then
sends them to eternal punishment? Thus, from a Calvinist position, the intent
of Christ?s death was only for the elect and His death makes their salvation
both possible and certain. Limited Atonement is not stating that the atonement
is limited in value (its ability to save) but is limited in its scope (whom it
will save). Primary Biblical support for Limited Atonement comes from John
10:14-15, Galatians 1:3-4, Ephesians
Where I Think Calvinists Lack Scriptural Support
Let me start by stating that there are no other branches of
Christianity, other than 5-point Calvinists, that I am aware of, that hold to
Limited Atonement. This does not necessarily make it either right or wrong ?
however, it seems to be a significant difference from what the rest of
Christianity sees Scripture saying.
There are a few points that need to made before we ask our
questions. The first are the passages that Calvinists use to support Limited
Atonement. Many of these verses explicitly state that Christ died for ?us?,
?the church?, ?many?, or ?for our sins.? The Calvinists suggest that these
passages must limit the scope of the atonement. However, no such inference is logically
necessary. Because of their view of election, Calvinists see all people as
either elect or non-elect. Thus, if we were to visualize this (I think better
in pictures than words believe it or not 
), they would see all people as
falling into one of two distinct circles that do not overlap ? one circle for
the elect and one for the non-elect. However, as we saw in our overview of
Unconditional Election, this model does not work since Jesus is the only one
who is elect. Thus, a better picture would be to recognize that all those who
are elect (because of their association with Christ) have come out of the
world. Thus, if we were to draw our circles, we would draw one big one (the
unregenerate) with a smaller one inside it (the regenerate).
Why are all these circles important? Because the verses that
speak about ?us?, ?the church?, ?many? and ?for our sins? are accurate. Christ
did die for our sins. But since we are a subset of all the other people who are
in the world, these verses do not logically rule out that Christ did not die
for the sins of the whole world. So the passages that seem to restrict the
impact of His sacrifice are only talking about a subset of people.
This is what Scripture states. I will leave John 3:16 and
the other verses that speak of the world aside for a moment. Instead, let us
look at 1 Timothy 4:10 and 1 John 2:2. In the first passage, Paul quite
explicitly states that Jesus is the Savior of all men and then qualifies it
with the phrase ?especially believers.? Without the last phrase, Paul would
seem to be bordering on universalism. But with the last phrase, we see that
Paul agrees with what we are saying ? that Christ died so that all might be
saved, although not all will be saved. Paul sees here that God really is the
Savior of mankind and that there is no obstacle in God?s mind to pardon
sinners, except their lack of repentant faith.
The passage in 1 John 2:2 is just as explicit. There, John
states that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and not only ours but also
for the whole world. Often Calvinists will try to limit this to mean ?our sins?
= the Christians John was writing to and ?the whole world? = rest of the elect.
However, hermeneutics requires us to look within the immediate context to see
if there is explanation to who these people are. John gives us such
indications. In
states that the letter is written to believers. In
all those who are under the power of the evil one. If these verses do not seem
to be an ?immediate? enough context, only 13 verses after 2:2 John goes into
a 3-verse contrast between God and the
world! In fact, no where in the book of 1 John is kosmos used in a positive
manner. What right do we have to retranslate what John has clearly defined in
his letter?
The other means that Calvinists use to limit the atonement
is to debate the meaning of kosmos or world, especially as it is used in the
Gospel of John. John very consistently uses kosmos, especially in the mouth of
Jesus, to describe those who are at enmity with God. For us to change that and
state that kosmos only applies to the unregenerate elect (a description that is
never used in Scripture) is to take the meaning of this word in John and change
it for the sake of theology.
What the Calvinist needs is a verse that clearly states that
Jesus did not die for the non-elect/unregenerate, or, to put it more
positively, a Scriptural reference that states that Christ died only for the elect. None exists. Though
they state that if we looked at Scripture from their perspective we would see
the difference, it is the very perspective that is under scrutiny. Thus,
without positive proof that Christ died only
for the elect and several passages of positive proof that He died for all (see
above), I must swing in favor of believing that Christ died for all mankind.
So How Do We Understand Limited Atonement Based on
Scripture
We don?t. Without going into a lot of in depth word studies
(as noted in all my previous posts, C. Gordon Olson?s book
Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism does an excellent job of looking
at Biblical and extra-Biblical uses of atonement, substitutional sacrifice,
propitiation, redemption, and reconciliation ? one can always do the word
studies themselves online by going to this
link),
the terms used for redemption in Scripture (lutron, antilutron, agoradzein,
lutroein, lutrosis, apolutrosis, lutrotes, exagoradzein) carry two distinctly
different meanings. On the one hand, several of them (lutron, antilutron,
agoradzein, lutroein, lutrosis) are used to describe an objective
ransom-redemption that focuses on a ransom price paid. On the other hand,
several of them (apolutrosis, lutrotes, exagoradzein, lutroein, lutrosis) are
used in a liberation-redemption sense which focuses on the subjective
liberation of the sinner from slavery. The ransom-redemption words can and
sometimes do carry a universal intent. However, the liberation-redemption words
are consistently limited in their application to believers. Thus, the ransom
price has been paid for all. The individual liberation for each sinner is
contingent on faith and thus all are not saved.
I must also address κοσμον (kosmos ? the Greek word for world).
Calvinists will work hard to show that this word, for instance in John
but instead can mean the elect. Standard hermeneutical principle requires us to
look at immediate contexts first to see if there is an indicator of what is
meant by a word. That is why I believe 1 John 2:2 is so detrimental to the
argument of Limited Atonement ? out of 16 uses, 1 John never uses kosmos in a
positive sense. The second level of hermeneutics, if the first was
inconclusive, is to look at the other writings of the same author. The word κοσμον in the writings of John (Gospel of John, 1 John and 2 John) is used 77
times consistently to mean either ?those at enmity with God?, the created
earth, or the human system (of thought, authority, or sphere ? thus, Jesus
comes ?into the world? in this sense). There is no place in John?s writings
where the kosmos is explicitly used in a positive sense. One could make the
argument that the created earth uses and the human system uses are associated
with the ?those at enmity with God? in John?s writings (for instance, John
16:33 seems to use two different uses of kosmos within the same context, thus
giving them a similar sense). If this level of hermeneutic is inconclusive,
then one uses the larger context of all of Scripture. But other than to make
sure our conclusion is not contradictory to other Scripture, why look outside
John?s writings for a meaning of kosmos. So, my question for Calvinsits is
this: what is so confusing about John?s usage of κοσμον (kosmos)? If John never uses it
in a positive sense (having a right relationship with God or explicitly stating
any goodness about it), why would we not recognize the term world as,
generally, that or those who are opposed to God?
One quick conundrum and we will be done and for this I must
break my own rule and quote someone: ?God imposed His wrath due unto and Christ
underwent pains of hell for, either all
the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men?If
the first, why, then, are not all freed from punishment of all their sins? You
will say, ?Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.? But this
unbelief, it is a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it??
(John Owen,
The Death of Christ, pp.
173-4). This is a typical argument against the position that I am taking, so
I?ll address it now rather than waiting for the comments :). Since the third
option is obviously erroneous and the first one seems to be logically denied,
only option two stands which is the Calvinist position. However, does not God have
the sovereign right to make unbelief the only sin which could not possibly be
under the blood of Christ, if persisted in? Isn?t this exactly what John
purpose to use faith as the means of obtaining our salvation, does it not
follow that unbelief would be a unique sin that would not be forgiven? Thus,
Owen?s conundrum is really not one at all.
Thus, since there is no evidence that Christ died only for
the elect, we do not hold to Limited Atonement. By the same token, we do not
hold to Unlimited Atonement either (in which all mankind will be saved). We
believe there is a universal redemption that has been paid for all mankind (1
Timothy 2:6, 2 Peter 2:1). This redemption is applied to the unregenerate the
moment that they place their faith in Jesus (Galatians 4:5).
-Pastor Russ-
note from Rey: I added the Greek characters for κοσμον (kosmos) for the student’s sake.
Russ on Total Depravity
Russ on Unconditional Election
(Russ on Faith)
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)
