Although I only thought of this on the car ride home (and the mystery part is cliché), I think a good way to close the night would be to stand in awe of a God who is as marvelous and mysterious as our God. Just think, we are only granted knowledge of a portion of His will through the Bible…if we could sit and talk about just one of more than a thousand themes contained in the Bible for two hours, just think of how long we’ll have to talk about and marvel at God once we are in his presence!
Amen, and we press on seeking a greater knowledge of our God. Andy replied:
Agreed. Mystery can lead us to frustration if we loose focus. But mystery should lead us to worship - it seems a cop out, but the fact that God cannot be fully conceived or understood is a testament to his transcendence and a comfort to a limited being like myself, precisely because I recognize my limit. and I can say with Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4):
I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
And since it's so timely - just read this: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/06/11/two-views-of-the-same-door
I have to think about the metaphor a little, but I love the way the quote ends...
And the blog that keeps on giving...
I would especially like to have your take on this article since I think you advocated the 4point view excluding limited atonement.
And the debate rages on (but without anger!). Replied:
Well, I can't give a full-blown response to the blog, but here are some of my thoughts. First, the blog seems to oversimplify some of the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism and tries to foist them upon the horns of a dilemma. For example, towards the end of the article, he says:
"What has come clearer to me as I have pondered these things is that Arminians do not say that in the death of Christ God intends to effectively save all for whom Christ died. They only say that God intends to make possible the salvation of all for whom Christ died. But this interpretation of these “universal” texts does not contradict the Calvinist assertion that God does intend to obtain the grace of faith and repentance for a definite group by the death of Christ."
Now, I think he has papered over one of the major differences in this section. A 5-point Calvinist cannot say to an unelect person "Christ died for you" because in the logic of the Calvinist (5-point) system, Christ only died to save the elect. Arminians, however, can affirm this because they believe that Christ's death makes salvation possible for all as long as they receive it in faith. I think this is a big difference that the author dismissed, and it certainly makes sharing the Gospel much easier :-).
Why I think this is a big issue is when it comes to passages like 1 John 2:2 where it says, "He is the propitiation (yes a big theological word meaning satisfying atonement) for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." Now, a 5-point Calvinist has no choice but to interpret this passage from his or her theology, and they must make "world" be "world of elect" which I think is doing violence to this text. Also, 1 Tim. 2:5-6 which say, "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time." This verse once again forces a 5-point Calvinist to reconstruct the "all" to mean "all of the elect", something which seems to be more like eisegesis than exegesis. Because I believe that the 5-point Calvinist reading of these texts is forced, I have chosen to not hold to Limited Atonement. I personally think the 5-point system is biblically weak, although it is logically consistent.
I agree with the 5-point Calvinists that the application of the atonement is limited since not all believe. However, I do not think it was limited to the elect from eternity past (this has to do with the order of the divine decrees and there is a huge difference here between sublapsarian and supralapsarian Calvinists); it was intended for all, and is applied to those who believe.
(One other random thought: His whole discussion against the Arminian notion of Prevenient Grace is somewhat onesided because it is logically necessary to their system and Irresistable Grace is logically necessary to the Calvinist system and yet never poses a problem in this blog. All I can say is we need to have eyes to see our own system's weakness.)
Maybe this email thread will keep on giving as well.
Reply:
Thanks, a few thoughts in response:
I think the author didn't intend this to be an exhaustive argument, but to spur thinking and conversation...which it is doing!
The first quote you posted is from John Piper, and I read that section as a exploration of the consequences of the assertion, not a refutation of the assertion itself. So both Armenians and Calvinists can say that the Atonement is limited in some way (i.e. not universal), Would I as a 5-pointer say to an unelect person "Christ died for you"? No, but neither should an Armenian.
Can I as a 5-pointer say to a person "Christ died for you"? Yes, but would I? I would probably say something more like: "Christ died so that you can be reconciled to God" which I think is more accurate and more clear to someone who doesn't understand what his sacrifice is about.
As far as 1 John 2:2. I agree that this is a difficult passage. A 'simple' reading of the verse could be paraphrased: Jesus's death payed the penalty for everyone's sins. Wow. Can you affirm that? I can't. It just doesn't jive with other passages of scripture where Jesus himself limits the scope of who's sins he died for (even from the same author in John 10). So we have to decide how to read that text. This article gives one way: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2007/11/understanding_1_john_22.php. We certainly can note that it's not all the sins of the whole world.
For 1 Tim 2:6, in the context of Chapter 2, Paul is working a theme of 'all'. Pray for all, God desires all to be saved, Christ gave himself as a ransom for all. Why? As I read it I think Paul didn't want the church praying and ministering only for the church or to be totally inwardly focused. This part of his letter is not to be a missive on Christ's sacrifice, or provide some teaching on the scope of the atonement. It is meant to encourage the church not to be exclusive. You may say that's eisegesis, but I would say it's trying to read the author through his intent and his audience.
Maybe instead of "it was intended for all, and is applied to those who believe" I would say: "Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to pay for all sins, but only actually pays for the sins of the elect."
By His Irresistible Grace
And one more shot (but this is not tennis so that the last reply doesn't necessarily score the point, but it could...), another reply:
thanks for your response. Just to clarify about the verses, I believe that 1 John 2:2 is the more persuasive and is the one that limited atonement advocates tends to eisegete.
In addition, I also have some more thoughts for further clarification. One of the questions behind the limited atonement debate is not just who gets the salvific effects of Christ's death, but whom Christ was intending to die for as he went to the cross. Was it intended for the elect or for mankind in general? For example, in one of your responses, you wrote, "Would I as a 5pointer say to an unelect person "Christ died for you? No, but neither should an Armenian [Arminian]." I disagree. I do believe that an Arminian (and a four-point Calvinist) can honestly say that Christ died for an unelect person because he makes salvation possible for everyone. However, they must clarify that it only becomes efficacious for them if they respond in faith.
If someone holds to limited atonement, then when Christ is going to the cross, he is only making salvation possible for the elect and no one else. Now, they would still affirm his sacrifice is capable of saving all, but was only intended to save some. As far as whether a 5-point Calvinist can say that "Christ died for you" to anyone, it must always be accompanied by the condition "if you believe" because only then would they be elect.
In the end, I am not sure if the argument over limited atonement has far-reaching practical effects. All parties who are not universalists still say that Christ's blood is applied only when someone responds in faith, and the Gospel should be presented in such a way as to make this clear. Ultimately, I don't think this a quintessential issue in Christian theology, but is one that has caused lots of contention and this does not appear to be subsiding any time soon.
In his (prevenient, irresistible, and efficacious) grace,
No comments:
Post a Comment