The "L" in TULIP
This is the long-awaited third part of a series I began quite some time ago, a series which I am writing not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an exhaustive apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application and to show what these doctrines mean to me as I ponder them and attempt to live in light of them. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than “mere theology,” but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. Still, I will provide a brief explanation of the doctrine before drawing application.
The “L” in the TULIP acronym refers to Limited Atonement, though, like many people, I prefer to speak of Particular Redemption (or, with Michael Horton, to speak of “Mission Accomplished”). Just as the “Total” in “Total Depravity” and the “Unconditional” in “Unconditional Election” can cause people to immediately draw wrong conclusions about the theology, so they “Limited” in “Limited Atonement” can make it seem that the work of Christ is somehow limited in a way that is outside of God’s control. This is, of course, impossible and just plain wrong. The doctrine of Particular Redemption says something like this:
Christ took only the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross, providing a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. He did not provide only the potential for atonement, but actually provided the effectual atonement. His death secured everything necessary for salvation and this includes faith, which the Spirit graciously applies to the lives of the elect. Though Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (or given) to the elect and hence the atonement is not limited in its power, but in its extent. The reason for this limited or particular nature of the atonement is that were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure. Thus, by way of short summary, the scope of Christ’s atonement is limited to those who are predestined to salvation and the primary benefits of this work is given only to those who believe.
Here is a way of illustrating the doctrine.
This is a picture of a bridge. To elaborate a little bit, we could say that it is a partial bridge. It doesn’t look broken, as if a piece of it fell away, but rather looks like it was built that far and then work simply ceased. It spans about half of what appears to be a pretty sizable river and then just ends (or begins, depending which direction you approach it from). I have no idea where this bridge is, what the circumstances are surrounding it’s state or if it has a name (though it would be interesting to know, wouldn’t it?).
Consider this river for a moment and let it represent the chasm between God and man - the chasm created by man’s fall into sin. On the bank of the river stands a man who represents humans in their fallen state, living on this earth. He gazes across the gap to the far side where he can glimpse God, and glimpse heaven. Now how will he get to heaven? This bridge can serve as an illustration of a doctrine known as “unlimited atonement” or “conditional universalism.” This is a doctrine that is the very opposite of Particular Redemption and in effect it states that it was never God’s will to save any specific person. Rather, it was God’s will to do all He could to save all men, provided they would do the little bit that He could not. In other words, the death of Christ erected this bridge which extends across part of the chasm. Man need only swim out into the current and hoist himself onto the bridge. From there he can walk safely into heaven. And if you look again you will see that this is a wide bridge, able to carry many people. This bridge is wide enough for anyone, but extends only part of the way.
Now consider a second bridge that looks like this:
This bridge is quite a bit different from the last. Notice that rather than extending only halfway, this one extends from one bank to the other. Notice also that it is narrow, much narrower than the other. This bridge represents the doctrine associated with Calvinism that we know as Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. This bridge spans the entire gap between God and man, though is not so wide as to carry all men, but only some. Where the first bridge was able to carry all men part of the way, this bridge carries some men the entire way.
Hebrews 12:2 tells us that Jesus is the “founder and perfecter of our faith.” He not only began but also finished the bridge. With His blood He “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,” (Revelation 5:9) not merely providing the potential for their redemption, but effectually redeeming them when He cried out “It is finished!”
Limited Atonement: Confidence
When I wrote about the “T” in TULIP I said that the doctrine of Total Depravity stands as the great equalizer and when I wrote about the “U” in TULIP I said that it stands as the great humbler. When I ponder the doctrine of Limited Atonement and think about how it must be more than mere doctrine and how it must impact my life, I am continually drawn to the word “confidence.” This is not a confidence in myself, my own ability or even in my own status as a Christian, but a confidence in the Father and in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I like how Michael Horton in his book Putting Amazing Back into Grace describes this doctrine as “Mission Accomplished.” The Arminian understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did a great work of redemption but who did it for all men, both those who would be redeemed and those who would not. This is really conditional universalism, as Christ died for all men universally, the condition being that people must use their free will to embrace and accept Him. But the Reformed, biblical understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did the work of redemption for those whom the Father had chosen. He did not just do a work that had great potential to save, but a work that effectually saved.
Because Jesus Christ died for those who are His, and from the perspective of eternity, died for those who were already His—who had been chosen from before the foundations of the world—He accomplished what He set out to do. This doctrine gives me confidence that God will always and ever do exactly what He says. It gives me confidence that the promises of the Bible are not dependent on my initiative or my response, but are dependent on the very nature of God. What God says will surely come to pass because He provides the power to accomplish what needs to be done. Jesus Christ did not die for all men and then await my response to His work. Rather, He died for me and waited only for the time that the Spirit would begin to stir my heart and would call me to Himself. This gives me such confidence in God for it speaks so strongly of the way He works. It tells me that God acts sovereignty and depends upon no one but Himself. This stirs my heart, for I know that if He left the choice to me, I would reject Him every time. My heart swells with gratitude when I think that He died specifically and knowingly not for the mass of humanity, all of whom would willingly reject Him, but for the ones He had known from all eternity and the ones that He would draw to Himself.
We’ll continue this series (hopefully without as big a gap between entries) with the “I” from TULIP.
Comments (71) »
1. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
9:23 AM
Most people reading this may already know about it, but John Piper and Bruce Ware briefly discuss Particular Redempton during an interview with Mark Dever (Piper and Ware have completely different views on the doctrine).
If you haven’t listened to it, it is well worth your time.
2. Samantha
April 25, 2007
11:29 AM
I love your illustrations. I confess that I use to be a 4 point Calvinist until God unveiled the Truth behind Particular Redemption.
And now, I love it. It doesn’t give us reason to boast, but to fall to our faces in worship!!
I’m sure you all know this quote, but I must share it in case you don’t,
“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question-Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They say, “No.” They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died so that any man may be saved if”-and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say then, we will just go back to the old statement-Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why you… We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.” (Charles Spurgeon, Sermon 181, New Park Street Pulpit, IV, p. 135)
3. Dave @ Banannery Public
April 25, 2007
11:51 AM
I’ve struggled a lot with this doctrine…it doesn’t seem to have the explicit biblical support that the other four points do.
But when I read 1 John 2:2, I think your observation that this doctrine gives us confidence is so helpful. It says that Christ is the propitiation not for our sins only, “but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse gives me no confidence if John is referring to a potential propitiation for everyone. But if he is referring to a true and effectual propitiation for God’s children all over the world, then it brings great confidence in our salvation and that Jesus Christ is our “advocate with the Father” (v. 1). There’s a lot of hope in that.
4. Sam Khoury
April 25, 2007
12:05 PM
Dave,
That was an insightful comment on 1 John. Most people assume that “whole world” includes every indivdual ever alive and describes the magnitude of the work of Christ. You see the failure in that and that the work of Christ is most properly seen in light of what it has secured.
That Spurgeon quote can also be found in the introduction by Packer in John Owen’s “Death of Death”. My old church loved to quote Spurgeon but no one seemed to pay any mind to what he actually believed.
5. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
12:05 PM
Hi Dave,
There are two passages in particular that really bring this truth home to me of Christ atoning for a select group of people. One is John 10:7-16…
So Jesus again said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 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.
The other one is Matt. 1:21…
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
I know there are many others, but these two in particular (no pun intended) give me great confidence that Jesus came and effectually accomplished what He intended to do, which was to redeem and ransom all those the Father had given Him.
Grace and peace.
6. Jerry Falwell
April 25, 2007
12:33 PM
Heretic!
7. carissa
April 25, 2007
12:55 PM
brian, how do we know that “his people” in matt 1:21 refers to (in effect) the church, rather than israel? just wondering.
8. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
1:11 PM
Good question, Carissa.
My simple response would be that we know “his people” in Matthew 1:21 must refer to something other than temporal Israel, because there are many Jews who have in fact died in their sins.
As John Gill says:
for though they [Jews] were his nation, his kinsmen, and so his own people according to the flesh, yet they were not all saved by him; many of them died in their sins, and in the disbelief of him as the Messiah: but by them are meant all the elect of God, whether Jews or Gentiles, who were given to him by his Father, as a peculiar people, and who are made willing in the day of his power upon them, to be saved by him in his own way. And these he saves from “their sins”, from all their sins, original and actual; from secret and open sins; from sins of heart, lip and life; from sins of omission and commission; from all that is in sin, and omission upon it; from the guilt, punishment, and damning power of it, by his sufferings and death; and from the tyrannical government of it by his Spirit and grace; and will at last save them from the being of it, though not in this life, yet hereafter, in the other world, when they shall be without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.
9. Marc @ The Jonah Syndrome
April 25, 2007
1:21 PM
I’ll 2nd Dave on this one and say this has been the hardest of 5 points to treasure. And I do now, and I praise God for that, but most of the folks that I talk with about this reject it out of pocket really due to two things:
1) Emotional Response 2) Human Philosophy of what God is capable of and not capable of (in particular, creating vessels of wrath)
I struggle to communicate this piece of the whole in a way that is loving, encouraging, pastoral, and reassuring for those who are hearing it. I really am in awe of men like Piper who can express this with a winsome and humble spirit.
That’s where I pray God would grow me…
10. spicedparrot
April 25, 2007
1:25 PM
I think you should be careful in caracterizing your position as “reformed” or “calvinist”. Why? Because I don’t think Dordt or Calvin goes as far as you do. Unfortunately, what you are expressing is something more along the lines of Gill, Owen, and other theological children of the reformation that don’t hold to the original reformational doctrine. Remember the “L” wasn’t a positive doctrine but rather a response to Arminius.
Simply put, Dordt and Calvin see a situation in which the Objective aspects of our justification are fully completed for all men in Christ. After all, if there was more person added to the elect its not as if Christ would have spent an extra minute suffering. Rather the debt owed to the infinite creator was an infinite debt that was paid for to an infinite extent by Christ.
Of course, not all are elect so there must be a subjective element as well. Simply put that subjective element is Faith which is given by God to his elect. Its that faith that makes the objective atonement applicable to the individual. This subjective aspect is based strictly upon God’s choice - not man’s decision.
In other words, the atonement was “sufficient” for all but “efficient” only for the elect. Thus, the claim to all people that “Christ died for you” is a true and genuine statement (this is the objective/sufficient element). In your description above such call is merely hypothetical - “Christ MAY have died for you”. The gospel call in scripture is never presented as hypothetical but reality.
Just so you know I’m not making this up take a look at the following from Dordt and Calvin:
Dordt, Head 2: Article 3 The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world
Article 6 And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
And a quick quote from Calvin’s commentaries (there are of course a number of others in his commentaries):
“For though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.” (On Rom. 5:18). Editor’s note: “Nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi. atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur; non tamen omnes apprehendum.” It appears from this sentence that Calvin held general redemption.
..for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” (On Galatians, 5:12)
Again, while Christ has purchased us by his death to be his property, this submission, of which he speaks, is so far from diminishing his boundless glory, that it greatly increases its splendor. The word many is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race. (On Matthew 20:28)
He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. (On Col 1:14)
11. John Calvin
April 25, 2007
1:27 PM
Make my day, Falwell.
12. Jonathan Edwards
April 25, 2007
1:28 PM
Yea, Falwell, why don’t you come and say that to my face?
13. David Bromberg
April 25, 2007
1:42 PM
While I would not call myself an Arminian, I really can’t see how this doctrine has firm biblical support, and cannot get over how unfair it seems. Marc, you call this an emotional response, but I think there’s something valid about our emotions, especially as they are influenced by a mature faith and a God-given conscience. How could God force us to love him in a sense by predestining us to? And more importantly, how could he deny others the opportunity to love him by leaving them out of the elect? I appreciate what Calvinists are trying to do with this doctrine- your problem with what you see as the Arminian position is that it makes God seem less powerful, that he didn’t really save anyone, he only allowed people to be saved if they wanted. It also, I imagine, smacks to you of “works”, that we have to do anything to be saved seems wrong to you because of the doctrines of grace. I also appreciate your faith, that you can recognize that there seems to be something unsavory about the doctrine at first, and you press into God, trusting his sufficiency for everything. We will never understand all of God’s character this side of Heaven, and so I think this is a noble practice. But honestly, I think if you think logically and philosophically, about the whole thing, with the aid of scripture, you’ll see that there is a position in the middle of the two that is acceptable, and allows us to see God more for who he is without the difficulties of either what you see as the Arminian doctrine, or the difficult to accept doctrine you hold. I want to look first at Romans 8:29, specifically, “For those God foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son…” I think Calvinists tend to look straight away at the predestined with looking at the foreknew. I don’t believe God predestined us without knowledge of who we would be or how we would choose. I think he looked, from his position outside of time, at our lives, and saw that we would come to faith in Him by his working and our free will, and given that, accepted us into His family, effectively predestining it to happen. In one sense, the Calvinist doctrine can be seen as accurate- Jesus did in fact die only for the elect. The error, I think, is in the definition of the elect. Calvinists see the elect as some group God decided would follow him, and we just have to trust him that it’s the right group, and that all will work itself out. I see the elect as those that God knew would choose to know him, and he therefore accepted into his family. Because God is outside of time, his knowledge of our choice doesn’t invalidate our choice. The main reason I just can’t buy the straight Calvinist line on this is because of my knowledge of God’s love, and my love for him. Take a very close look at John 15- the vine and the branches. Jesus tells us to remain in his love, and talks about how the branches can block themselves off from their source of life and love, and will then fall off. My experience in life has validated this- we are God’s children, and he wants so desperately to love us. But love is not forced. The nature of love (and since God is love, the nature of God) is such that God cannot make us love him, or make us let him love us. We must allow him to work in our lives through staying connected to him. I’m not sure I explained things extremely well, but hopefully this can be a starting point for some discussion.
14. Joop
April 25, 2007
1:50 PM
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your article and your thoughts.
I plainly say to you, as non-Calvinist: I don’t agree with you, brother.
You’re using a lot of metaphores etc. What I miss here is some biblical support here. Of course you have, or you think you have bible verses to support ‘L’, however you chose not to use them. Pity.
You wrote: * The reason for this limited or particular nature of the atonement is that were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure. * How come? If I rescue a person by endangering my own life, and that person dies after all, does that make me less couragious? Were the OT prophets a failure even when the Israelites rejected them. And what about Noach. How many people did he save (apart from his own family)? A failure?
P.S. If you like metophores like half-way bridges, then try the bridge of Avignon, France! ;-) God bless, Joop
15. Michael
April 25, 2007
2:07 PM
Falwall,
I hope you are fireproof,
Servetus
16. carissa
April 25, 2007
2:11 PM
I like how “Jonathan Edwards” said “yea,” because that is something he actually would say.
17. Dallas Pymm
April 25, 2007
2:20 PM
“I am writing not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an exhaustive apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application and to show what these doctrines mean to me as I ponder them and attempt to live in light of them.”
In light of this statement I wanted to tell you I really enjoyed this Tim. It is so refreshing to know that Christ’s death assuredly accomplished something for my life. I can always rest and stand on those promises. This is the best possible news to a sinner, that Christ’s death accomplished something for me, not simply made something possible depending on how I react. I would not get far if that were true. For the Gospel to be good news it has to be effective, and the Gospel is certainly good news. Thanks again Tim.
18. Todd H.
April 25, 2007
3:02 PM
Tim said: “The reason for this limited or particular nature of the atonement is that were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure.”
I’m not sure I buy this either. If a person accepts Christ, but later in life “looses” his salvation by his own doing, you’re saying Christ’s work would have been a failure if God had not predestined him to Hell? Predestined or not I don’t see how the failure wouldn’t be on the man.
Which brings me to my next conundrum, if a man has absolutely no part in his salvation, how is it that he can loose his salvation?
It seems to me, there has to be some small minute iota of an action taken by us, even if it is as simple as to accept the gift of salvation.
TH
19. Tim Challies
April 25, 2007
3:10 PM
“Of course you have, or you think you have bible verses to support ‘L’, however you chose not to use them. Pity.”
I explain this in my opening paragraph. I am merely summarizing the doctrine rather than thoroughly defending it. That would be a whole different series (and may be something I do someday).
“If a person accepts Christ, but later in life “looses” his salvation by his own doing, you’re saying Christ’s work would have been a failure if God had not predestined him to Hell?”
We’ll get to Perseverance with the “P” in TULIP, but Reformed doctrine teaches that a person, once saved, cannot fall away. If salvation is a work of God, so too is preservation or perseverance.
“there has to be some small minute iota of an action taken by us, even if it is as simple as to accept the gift of salvation.”
We do have to accept the gift of salvation. The question is, can we do that of our own accord or must there be a prior work of the Spirit before we can do so? Reformed theology teaches that the Spirit first regenerates us and we then have the ability to express faith and to accept the salvation offered to us. Non-Reformed theology teaches that a person must first express faith at which point the Spirit regenerates him.
20. Tim Challies
April 25, 2007
3:13 PM
“How come? If I rescue a person by endangering my own life, and that person dies after all, does that make me less couragious?”
Whether or not Christ was courageous is beside the point. The question is, was Christ’s work effective? If we adhere to non-Reformed theology, we have to admit that, in some regards, Christ’s work was a failure. He died to save people who ultimately rejected Him. Christ died for the sins of people who looked at Him and, of their own accord, said “No thanks!” Does this not make that part of His work a failure?
“And what about Noach. How many people did he save (apart from his own family)? A failure?”
Good question. Noah saved all the people God intended for him to save. His work was, thus, a great success. Noah was never asked to save anyone who turned down his free offer of salvation!
21. Robbo
April 25, 2007
3:17 PM
Question(s) for anyone.
If I am not one of the Elect and yet I hear the Gospel of Christ dying for my sins, and I repent, accept the finished work of Christ, and live the rest of my life in obedience to God as He is revealed in the Bible through the pover of the Holy Spirit, will I obtain election? Or will it mean I was already elected but I just didn’t know it?
Is it possible to move from non-election to election or am I elected at conception or even before I came into being?
As with the Syrophoenician woman and daughter(Mark 7:24-30) is there a possiblility that crumbs of Grace will fall from the table of the elect for a foreigner with faith in Jesus Christ to pick up?
Or am I confusing the issues and could someone “debrief” me?
22. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
3:29 PM
Shhh…do you hear that???
It’s the proverbial can of worms being opened…
23. Caleb
April 25, 2007
3:30 PM
Robbo,
To answer your first question, your second possibility is correct: the person who does all those things in life is showing that they are of the elect.
Ephesians 1:4 says: “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.”
So Jesus chose the elect ‘before the foundation of the world’. And in that case no, one cannot move from non-elect to elect status.
About the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark, that story is talking about a distinction between Jews and Gentiles (the Gentiles are the ‘dogs’). We see clearly in all of Paul’s writings that the gospel is for all people regardless of there nationality or ethnicity, that is the point of romans 3:22.
I hope this helps. Continue to search the Scriptures and hear and submit to what God has to say.
24. PuritanD71
April 25, 2007
3:32 PM
Tim,
I enjoyed reading your article and understand the particular atonement position. I do think that ‘spiceparrot’ made an excellent point regarding the Synod of Dort where it was the English divines who desired to see that a more sufficient/efficient idea was to be cast and not necessary the view of Owen, which than paints that there are differences within the Reformed camp as to what “Limited” actually means.
One problem that I get caught up on is that the particular atonement view seems to limit God’s ability to forgive a particular sin of an individual who may not necessary be part of the elect.
Generally the debate between limited and unlimited atonement is one of an either/or proposition. God’s wrath poured out on Christ was the wrath only set for those He called his own, or it was for the whole world’s sins and allows everyone the opportunity for salvation.
But, how about those certain points in Scripture where it seems that the Lord has cleared a certain debt or pardon a certain sin of an individual or group. For example, when Christ was on the cross, he asked the Father to forgive them for they do not know what they do. From its context, Jesus is talking about the actual crucifixion of himself to the tree, this reference could include the Roman guards, the Jewish leaders, etc. The same does go with Stephen as well.
Now John Owen sees the dilemma and takes it on concluding that this was only to those three thousand that heard Peter and coming to faith (regarding Jesus). Owen is really hard pressed on this case. He states as one of his points, “Fourthly, There is another evident limitation in the business; for among his crucifiers he prays only for them that were present at his death, amongst whom, doubtless, many came more out of curiosity, to see and observe, as is usual in such cases, than out of malice and despite. So, that whereas some urge that notwithstanding this prayer, yet the chief of the priests continued in their unbelief, it is not to the purpose, for it cannot be proved that they were present at his crucifying.” There is no evidence that this actually took place. How does Owen know for certain that the priests were not there to watch their enemy die? He has eisegesis his point into the text. My conclusion is that there must be some room for atoning specific sins of the non-elect.
Is this a possibility? If no, why not? We see a time where God informs Moses that He has blotted out a specific sin (forgiven?) of the nation of Israel(Numbers 14). Yet, one would probably not jump to the conclusion that the whole nation is up in paradise. Can God blot out a sin/forgive anything without it being atoned for?
It is for this reason that I do see the sufficiency for all and efficient for the elect a more palatable understanding. Or better yet, Jesus’ death atoned for all the sins of the elect and forgiveness of specific sins of the non-elect.
Respectfully submitted,
25. Renee Teate
April 25, 2007
3:36 PM
Thank you, Tim. Long-awaited, but worth the wait.
For those interested, while I was waiting for Tim to provide this posting on the “L”, I listened to 9 of 10 (still have the last one to get on the next road trip) sermons from Steve Lawson. They were titled “Why the Bible Teaches Definite Atonement”. I think the shortest one has been 50+ minutes. He taught them back in the fall on Sunday evenings. With an obviously patient congregation his teaching is wide and deep and thoroughly biblical. He starts with this doctrine has to be true because of the unity of the Godhead. And I especially liked his teaching on this subject from John 17.
Again, thanks Tim. I am fast becoming a 5-point Calvinist, but don’t tell anybody at my church. I’m not ready to defend it, yet.
26. Samantha
April 25, 2007
3:40 PM
Hey Robbo-
If you believe and persevere to the end, then you are a part of the elect. Even if you went through your whole life with the wrath of God abiding on you, but on your death bed God was so pleased as to save you, then it means He determined your election before the foundation of the world. Why? So that there would be no reason to boast in the presence of God. The Doctrines of Grace demote man to his true and natural (which is depraved, wicked, vile, sinful, etc. etc.) state and exalt the True and Living God! All praise and glory to Him!! Not to us, but to HIS Name be the glory!! :D
God’s elect has already been decided, He chose us for salvation before the beginning of the world,
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” -Ephesians 1:3-7
As for your last question….I’m not exactly sure what you are meaning. ;)
27. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
3:46 PM
There are so many different ways from Scripture to come at this issue, but here is one. If Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement on the cross was intended for all, why would He only pray for those the Father had given Him?
I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. - John 17:6-10
28. Joop
April 25, 2007
3:46 PM
To Tim, Was Christ’ sacrifice a failure because many people reject Him? This is a philosophical question, like: Am I a failure after, asking a girl for a date, she refuses? Am I a failure when, after applying for a job, I won’t get it? Are you a failure when you are raising your children according to Christian values, and yet they will go astray, destroying themselves with drugs etc etc. Or would that be according to God’s predestination, turning YOU into a failure??
“Noah saved all the people God intended for him to save.” Hmm, that would mean, only his wife and three sons & wifes, and the rest was predestined to perish. Predestined to perish? Why did this REPENT the Lord (Gen 6:6 KJV)?
I wonder, was Cham ultimatily saved?
To Robbo,
according to Calvist/Reformed theology, once unelected, you never will be able to come to Christ. Reformed Theology claims: once you repented, you allways have been one of the elect. Right, folks?
God bless, Joop
29. Tim Challies
April 25, 2007
3:50 PM
“according to Calvist/Reformed theology, once unelected, you never will be able to come to Christ. Reformed Theology claims: once you repented, you allways have been one of the elect.”
That is mostly correct. Reformed theology teaches that, before the foundations of the world, God chose those who would be His own. All others are necessarily unable and, more importantly, unwilling to be saved. It is only God who can so change our wills that we desire salvation.
30. Tim Challies
April 25, 2007
3:52 PM
“Was Christ’ sacrifice a failure because many people reject Him? This is a philosophical question, like: Am I a failure after, asking a girl for a date, she refuses?”
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Jesus did not die so we could possibly be saved. Jesus, when He died, declared that His work was finished. But, if we say that He died to make salvation possible, what was finished? If Christ died to save me and I reject that salvation, his sacrifice failed at least as it pertains to me. If he hung on the cross and thought of me and I reject Him, that work failed.
31. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
3:58 PM
All others are necessarily unable and, more importantly, unwilling to be saved.
I would add to Tim’s statement here that those who sound a cry of unfairness are coming at the condition of man from an entirely unbiblical perspective.
Every person deserves death, hell and the grave or, in a nutshell…God’s unrestrained wrath.
The fact that God chooses to save certain individuals in no way impedes upon the fact that those who still receive judgment deserve it.
Everyone deserves hell. Some receive mercy, the rest receive justice (or what is fair).
32. Marc @ The Jonah Syndrome
April 25, 2007
4:09 PM
David,
Thank you for the response. Your first sentences were:
“While I would not call myself an Arminian, I really can’t see how this doctrine has firm biblical support, and cannot get over how unfair it seems”
It’s hard to believe and no one who would say they are 5 point would say it isn’t. As Piper would say, there are texts in the Bible that blow your mind. But the Bible is inerrant, I am not. The Bible is ultimate truth. My emotions are not. And while my emotions may change, the text never does. I guess one of the texts that really sealed “L” for me, and it typically isn’t a proof text for “L” as it is for “U”…but anywho:
“To God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout……who have been CHOSEN according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obendience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood” 1Peter 1: 1-2
I look at this verse and I cannot get away from sprinkling of blood being tied to CHOSEN whether directly or indirectly here. And I can’t wish away this text or hope that it doesn’t mean what it means. But for those whom He chose, the sprinkled blood of Jesus proves effectual. If it is any other way, I believe we dilute the blood of Jesus shed at the cross. Not only did he buy the opportunity for me to believe, he bought my believing. And it’s texts like these that blow my mind.
It’s hard, but it’s there. And I didnt’ write it. I just try to conform to the image of God through it.
33. robbo
April 25, 2007
4:10 PM
Caleb #23.
you wrote “To answer your first question, your second possibility is correct: the person who does all those things in life is showing that they are of the elect”
Here is part of my problem. This implies that if I get in then I was “elect” anyway and if I don’t then Christ didn’t die for me. How does that tie up with John 3;16.? “For God so loved the WORLD ……. that WHOMSOEVER believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life”. For me WHOMSOEVER implies anybody, even me. Does that not imply that I have to consider everyone in this world as a potential child of the promise?
The Old Testament is replete with stories of the “non-chosen”, outsiders from Israel who were incorporated into the Promise to Abraham and by faith alone. I am thinking particularly of Ruth. I ask, why would God bother with the people of Nineveh?
If I go out to preach the Gospel, I have to believe that I am preaching to rescue potentially everyone. Of course, not everyone will receive it but I think I will be careless if at the back of our mind I think “Christ probably did not die for that one and that is why they are like that”. Because we were all like that once!
Then you wrote “Continue to search the Scriptures and hear and submit to what God has to say”
I often see this suggestion form people who once held one view and then came to the other, the implication is that once you learn more of Scripture and you mature in the Faith, you will have to arrive at our way of thinking. I don’t know Caleb, I honestly don’t.
I think I am just wired to support the outsider, the underdog and the immigrant and to tell them that this Great Salvation is for you too. And the bridge analogies on “Limited Atonement” and “Particular Redemption” don’t work very well for me.
And I am done here. This is going to be a busy thread and I think I have fulfilled my quota of two comments as a regular lurker :-)
Sincerely in Christ, Robbo
34. Todd H.
April 25, 2007
4:47 PM
Tim said: “If Christ died to save me and I reject that salvation, his sacrifice failed at least as it pertains to me. If he hung on the cross and thought of me and I reject Him, that work failed.”
But by that logic, if God created me and predestined me to not accept Christ, wouldn’t the work of God be a failure?
Or, if God chooses not to fill someone with the HS so that he can accept Him (since they can’t without that), couldn’t we reason then that it is God’s fault (not the person’s) that he rejects Him?
35. Tim Challies
April 25, 2007
4:50 PM
“But by that logic, if God created me and predestined me to not accept Christ, wouldn’t the work of God be a failure?”
We have all been created to bring glory to God. Some will do so by showing the justice of God.
Romans 9:22-23:
“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”
36. Caleb
April 25, 2007
5:21 PM
Robbo wrote: “This implies that if I get in then I was “elect” anyway and if I don’t then Christ didn’t die for me. How does that tie up with John 3;16.?”
That’s a good question, and it can be made stronger by including another text, 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.” And I see that I agree with you Robbo. Like the verse says: “WHOEVER believes in Him” will have eternal life.
A statement that most people use when talking to a non-believer is “Christ died for you.” And that is what the text in 1 John says, and I want to say that to anyone I meet. And everything is determined by what the word ‘for’ means. It means that he died for you so that if you believe the blood covers your sin you will be saved.
So I agree with you on that Christ died for ALL, provided we keep in mind what ‘for’ means.
When you speak of the OT, I don’t understand what you are saying at all. Of course people outside of the nation of Israel would be saved…it is a foreshadowing and some would probably say an imperfect fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham where he promises to bless the nations through him. It’s looking forward to Christ as the fulfillment of that blessing.
I suggested that you search the Scriptures because that is where Truth is found. God is a speaking God and we have the revelation he wants us to have and it is sufficient. I do not say it condescendingly because I know that I need to do the same.
Again, I don’t understand what you mean when you say: “I think I am just wired to support the outsider, the underdog and the immigrant and to tell them that this Great Salvation is for you too.” Of course we say this to everyone, that is what we are commanded to do by Jesus. I guess I am for the outsider, underdog and immigrant just like you are then.
I guess the main difference I see is that only the elect will respond positively to the gospel proclamation, and maybe not even at first it may be the 70th time they have heard the gospel. Christ died for EVERYONE in the whole world in the sense that “he died for you so that if you believe the blood covers your sin you will be saved” and the elect are the particular group of people who will believe in Christ
your brother in Christ, Caleb
37. David Bromberg
April 25, 2007
6:04 PM
I’m interested in you reformed folks answering more specifically my earlier post and the scripture verses I posted. It seems like most of the posts above from reformed folks are basically saying the same point, which Tim states as:
“If Christ died to save me and I reject that salvation, his sacrifice failed at least as it pertains to me. If he hung on the cross and thought of me and I reject Him, that work failed.”
I agree with what Todd posts above when he says: “But by that logic, if God created me and predestined me to not accept Christ, wouldn’t the work of God be a failure?”
I understand the theological point you’re trying to make- Christ can’t ever be a ‘failure’ and therefore if someone doesn’t come to know him, it must be because God didn’t try with them- they must not have been one of the elect. I think you’re missing the whole point and beauty of the gospel, especially as outlined in Romans 5:8, which says, “And God demonstrates his love for us in this, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” It’s not about God “succeeding” to bring every person on the earth, or a select few, or whatever, to know Him. Actually, God could make everyone on earth painfully aware of his existence very easily. He’s God. But as it is written, even the demons know God, but they fear him. So you could call it “success” if God came down and converted us all by his unresistable presence. But what exactly would he have accomplished? If the goal is, as Romans talks about, to make us reconciled to him, and as John talks about, to love him, then that is not at all what he would do. When Calvinists talk about “the elect”, that sounds like what you’re talking about- God removing the humanity and choice from a person and directing their entire life to fit some perfect on the outside, but empty on the inside scenario. I don’t believe God is interested in that sort of success. He wants everyone to come to know Him, as the Word says, but by definition, cannot force that. He died for us while we were still sinners. If he elected us, then our sin was meaningless, done with no free will, as is his death, since he could have transformed us into the perfect people by another means.
38. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
6:10 PM
Mr. Bromberg,
You talk about the doctrine of election as if it is nowhere found in Scripture. This doctrine permeates the whole Bible.
Now, we may disagree on what the basis of God’s election is…but make no mistake, God having an elect people is clearly taught in Scripture.
39. David Bromberg
April 25, 2007
7:54 PM
First of all, I apologize for my tone, and some of the way I worded things. Was in a bit of a rush to finish my post, and you know how things come out when you don’t re-read them.
I’ll keep this one short. I recognize that scripture has the concepts of predestination, or ‘election’ in them. I am saying that I disagree with how Calvinists assume that means choice is taken out of the picture. I think that constitutes an incomplete understanding of the philosophy, especially where the Bible talks about ‘foreknowledge’ and, at least for me, an incomplete or incorrect view of God’s love, as described all over the Bible, but particularly in John 15. That’s a short summary of my two posts above
40. donsands
April 25, 2007
8:23 PM
“this bridge carries some men the entire way.”
Amen. God is perfect, and His mercy is given to whom He desires it for. He for sure should condemn us all, but He chose to give His Beloved Son for all those whom He would one day bring to eternal life and allow them to inherit the new heavens and the new earth. He chose to forgive their sins. To blot them out on the Cross. Every sin has been paid in full. The sin that deserved hell was taken by our Lord, and He drank the cup of God’s wrath, and all sin is washed away in His precious blood. He will gather all His elect, those He died for, and has not only forgiven, but also gien the right to be called children of God!
“For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. … He shall see the labour of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify MANY. For He shall bear their iniquities. And He bore the sin of MANY, And made intercession for the transgressors.” Isa. 53:8-12
Christ died for many. He died for His Church, His Bride. Ehp.
Christ died for all the Father gave Him. And it is a people that includes every nation, and as many people as the stars in the heavens. The Lord promisied this, and it was going to happen, because He was doing it.
41. Nath @ ReformedGeek
April 25, 2007
9:16 PM
Thanks Tim. I praise God for bringing the truth of not just ‘TULIP’ but of the ‘L’ as well to my ears. A few sermons I would recommend are:
I believe in the love of God, but I also believe in the holiness and justice of God. Although me a sinner and a creation would not dare tell God what is and isn’t justice, I think I am safe to say the following. It would not be ‘just’ for God to pour His wrath out on Jesus for Mr Smith’s sin and then just because Mr Smith chose not to repent & trust, that God would then pour His wrath out again on Mr Smith for those same sins in hell.
I praise God that “it is finished”; the penalty for the sins of all those whom the Father predestined have been paid for on the cross by Jesus.
I just don’t know why He chose me - I don’t deserve it. What an awesome God!
I look forward to ‘I’ Tim.
42. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
April 25, 2007
9:33 PM
There has been mention of foreknowledge in this thread as if it is a mere knowing of something before it comes to pass. God has foreknowledge, in that sense, of everything…including those who never get saved.
God’s foreknowledge of all those who will be saved certainly includes knowing what they will do prior to their doing it…but it is so much more than that.
God’s foreknowledge is no mere knowing OF something that will take place…but knowing some thing (person) intimately. It has more to do with the knowing a person, rather than just knowing what that person will do.
43. Dan B.
April 25, 2007
9:56 PM
I have to preface my comments with the fact that I have not studied Scripture nearly as hard as I have liked (and most likely not as much as some of the commenting folk here).
With that said, I have to say something that has not been said: Calvinists/Reformed folk DO NOT KNOW who the elect are. We don’t—we don’t get mailed lists or getting a “elect” carrying card. God has chosen those who would come to faith before time existed. To say that he looked forward in time to see that we would choose Him and so in response, he chooses us? Ultimately, then, we effect salvation—if this is true, can we not un-choose it (and I’m sure as Tim said he would cover this under “P”)?
I would use another bridge analogy, and would even borrow from the first picture Tim posted. Instead of stating it is a wide bridge, I would say that the bridge is incomplete and instead of the river being filled with water, it would be filled with fire and pending wrath/judgment.
The bridge is out and yet we walk towards it—some argue that the Reformed position is God taking away free will and “forcing” us to choose Him, when in fact, Reformed folks would say the opposite. Apart from God, we would walk through this world and straight into the fire, dead in our sins, since our “free” will in our sinful nature will choose the sin. HOWEVER, God in His grace shows mercy and through His Spirit has determined to save some—which could likely be a great multitude, millions, maybe billions, I don’t know! NO ONE DOES! But through His Spirit He calls to us, telling us the bridge is out and awakening us from being dead in our sins and enabling us to come to faith and saving us from the just and deserved destruction that all mankind, apart from God, would be destined for.
Please make no mistake—there is a conscious point where we must assent and come to Christ—it is a real event, repenting and believing. Reformed folks would simply state that God has set out EVERYTHING to happen in a certain way, right down to the time a person is awakened and comes to faith. He doesn’t leave it to chance!
Yes, it doesn’t seem fair to our dichotomy and thinking—I fought with it adamantly for years and shook my fist at God. Just my two cents on this subject—I just wanted to make it clear the doctrine of election is not a secret society where you get a decoder ring—we are called to preach the Gospel to all people because we don’t know who God will save.
44. Anne
April 26, 2007
2:10 AM
Thanks for this discussion, Tim. Limited atonement is the hardest thing for me to get my head around and your post has helped me to understand it a bit better. It is so much appreciated.
45. Joop
April 26, 2007
10:51 AM
To Brain,
You quote from scripture (#27):
I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. John 17:9
According to Calvinism and “L” the “THOSE whom you have given me”, are the elect.
A few problems arise here.
First, nowhere the “elect” is mentioned here. Second: what about Judas Iskarioth? Third: what about the “good seed” which fell on rocky ground, accepted the gospel and after a while, forsake it. Where they not GIVEN to Jesus? And what about other people who, after being converted, fell away? There are some examples in scripture, as you probably know.
Moreover: what about “for them also which shall believe on me through their world” John 17:20 KJV. Now who are the elect here?
What about the rich young man? He came to Jesus, because he felt somehow emptiness, I guess. Did Jesus sent him away straight away because he was not elected? Or what?
And finally: what about the OT saints? Were they also given to Jesus?
God bless, Joop
P.S. I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘worms’ (#22). Are you a fisherman, Brian?
46. Peter Ould
April 26, 2007
12:00 PM
Tim,
The first bridge (stops halfway across) is typical of a number of bridges we used to come across on the Austrian / Czech border before the Iron Curtain came down. Where the Communists didn’t want to have border crossing where the river demarcated the border, they would simply remove their halves of the bridge. If this is one of those bridges then the picture is taken from the old Iron Curtain side, and the building on the left would be the old Austrian / German guardpost.
47. Joop
April 26, 2007
1:29 PM
To Tim,
you said (#30)
“Jesus did not die so we could possibly be saved” Here I totally disagree with you, Tim. In order to get saved, Jesus had to die (also for me!)
“Jesus, when He died, declared that His work was finished.” I would say: true!
Again: when are we, in general, a failure: what if we do something right, and we know it IS right, and people are rejecting that what IS right, who is / are the failure(s) here?
What about my question: if you raises your children with Christian values (with prayer etc etc etc) and nevertheless, your children go astray, which -to be Calvinistic here- God forbid, would you say that you as a parent has failed? Apples and Oranges? I don’t thing so here. Then who has failed then?
“If he hung on the cross and thought of me and I reject Him, that work failed.” Again: no, His work did not fail. You cannot support that statement from scripture, it’s only a typical Calvinist/Reformed statement.
Good discussion though.
God bless, Joop
48. Joop
April 26, 2007
2:00 PM
To Tim,
Romans 9:22-23:
“What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”
These verses say that vessels of wrath are prepared for destruction, not that God created vessels for destruction. No potter is creating vessels just to destroy them. But he may destroy vessels when they are not useful (anymore).
See Job 10:7-10 Thou knowest that I am not wicked; and there is none that can deliver out of thine hand. Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?
To Job it was absurd that the Lord did such things. But Job was not a Calvinist….
However in Rev. 22:7 is said: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.
See also Jes 30:14: And he shall break it as the breaking of the potters’ vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare (..)
To me it is quite clear: there are vessels ready for destruction. However, God did not create vessels IN ORDER TO BE DESTROYED. Not one sensible potter would do that!
49. Todd H.
April 26, 2007
2:32 PM
Its been said already but I have to say it again…
Reformed believe: If Jesus died only for the elect, and no one else, then this means Jesus does not fail, but its wrong to say Jesus’ gift of salvation is offered to everyone because some do not accept it and that would mean Jesus fails???
It seems to me the only one who should be at fault here are those who reject Jesus. But the above theology appears to take the blame away from them since their choice has been made for them.
Secondly, could someone please clarify for me…
Is Jesus’ gift of salvation offered to everyone? Y/N
Does Jesus love everyone? Y/N
From what I know so far, I would guess Reformed thinkers must answer No to both. I think this is where I keep getting hung up.
TH
50. SteveE
April 26, 2007
3:52 PM
Todd H, I believe that I would have to agree with you, in that, under Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine, the only answer to both of your questions can be, “no”. God/Jesus becomes the respecter of persons that he specifically stated that “he was not”, under reformed theology. The commandments that we are to “go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” are for the most part largely ignored, along with dozens of other scriptures that state, “all, everyone, whoever, etc.”
It is true that scripture states there are elect, and uses predestination a single time in all of the new testament, yet a whole theology rides on these few words and descriptions. Are there elect? Of course, but scripture tells us that all who have believed in christ are sons of God.
Calvin wanted to purport that only through the act of the spirit could man make the leap to acceptance of God, yet he sort of got it backward. The Spirit does indeed act upon us through God’s word, as it states in the very first chapters of Acts. The Spirit acting ‘through’ the men preaching, but it is God’s word that is the enabler. As scripture also states none of them had received the gift of the Holy Spirit except those that had been baptized. With the exception of the apostles and later Paul, this is the only method to receive the Spirit.
Thus grace becomes something different than Calvin/reformed theology teaches. Grace is not a thing we get. It is a thing we operate under; a thing that God does for us based on the sacrifice of His son. It is not an ubrella that we carry around that defends us. It is a choice that God makes, because of our belief in His son, to view us through the umbrella of Christ’s sacrifice. Thus we are freed from His wrath, we can now come to Him in prayer, and seek His assistance as we grow up into Christ. The key factor is that “grace” is ours only when we believe. We are saved through faith, by grace, and this not of ourselves lest we should boast, it is the gift of God. The gift is the grace; the willingness of God to withold his justified wrath because of His son. So, Jesus did die for all….for all who would believe. Yet in the midst of all this, are there some that God created/knows will not make it. Of course. The problem is, that falls into a realm of knowing God’s mind, and what and how He makes decisions on and about the lives of His creations. And he has never deigned to lower Himself with the need to explain this to us; contrary to some theologies. The interesting key here is that God never asked us to figure all this out. He simply said to take this good news to all the world, seeking and saving the lost. Some/many/most may never make it simply because of the plethora of wrong doctrines, but if we are seeking the truth, I believe it will find its way to you.
51. donsands
April 26, 2007
4:49 PM
” it is God’s word that is the enabler.”
I disagree here. Steve, What do you think the Lord means when He says, “Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God”.?
Also Paul corrolates with our Lord’s words here when he states: “But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judges all things”. 1 Cor. 2:14-15
And also: ” .. according to His mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Titus 3:5
I believe the Spirit of God has to quicken us, or make us alive from the dead. We are dead spirtually. We are blind. Can a blind man read? he needs to have His eyes opened, then he will see.
God, by His mercy opens the eyes of sinners who don’t want Him to open their eyes. That’s what makes this mercy so incredible.
Once again, Limited Atonement shows us that God, for reasons we will never know, set His love upon people who were ungodly hell deserving mockers and blaspemers. Thank You Lord.
52. SteveE
April 26, 2007
6:52 PM
Hey DonSands…. In regard to your first scripture, this refers to baptism. “One cannot be born again of the flesh, but of water and the spirit” Again a reference to receiving the Spirit at baptism.
Paul’s reference is accurate, we cannot discern the things of God without the Spirit. Titus also refers to baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
Eph. 6:17 “Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God.” Heb. 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” Acts 2:37-38 “When the people heard this they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, brothers what shall we do? Peter replied, Repent and be baptized , everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Not to mention, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” “The Word became flesh.”; “by God’s word the world was spoken into exsistence.” 1 Cor. 1:21 “For since in the wisdom of the world, through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believed.” 2 Cor. 1:21-22Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal upon us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit. guaranteeing what is to come.”
I would posit that there is more than ample evidence that God’s word is the power while the Spirit was given to us as scripture tells us, as a comforter, teacher and guide.
53. andrew
April 26, 2007
7:12 PM
it’s amazing to see the differences between man-centered theology and god-centered theology. God defines “success” in his creative and salvific work not primarily by how many people he “gets to love” and how many people are reconciled to him, but rather, that in his acts of creation and redemption that he displays the glory of his name. many of us make the tragic mistake of believing that God somehow was lonely and that he NEEDED us and as a result created the world, we fell, and now he’s desperately trying to get us back. this is not the case. the fact of the matter is that creation and salvation is god’s work by which he plans to bring glory to himself in the coming ages. I encourage everyone to read romans chapter 9 and see who is in control from start to finish in regard to salvation. when a man perishes and goes to hell god is succesful insofar as he makes his wrath and power known to those he chose to have mercy on for his glory in the coming ages.
54. donsands
April 26, 2007
8:32 PM
“God’s word is the power while the Spirit was given to us as scripture tells us, as a comforter, teacher and guide.”
I believe the Spirit has to change a heart, and He surely does this so that the heart can repenet, see it’s sin, and then trust in the good news of Jesus Christ. God the Holy Spirit takes a callous heart, a heart of stone, and makes it a heart of flesh. There’s no way we can take our own heart of stone, and change it. And the law, which is spiritual can be preached at a stone heart from now until the Lord returns, and it will never become a heart that receives the truth.
The human heart is wicked, and encapable of hearing the truth. It hates the truth.
The religious people in the Church hear the gospel, and it’s a stumbling block to them. And the non-religous hear and say it’s foolishness.
The first have their own righteousness plus the Cross, and the second believe the Cross makes no sense.
I disagree with you interpretation Steve. I suppose we need to part ways here.
55. Dan Evans
April 26, 2007
9:23 PM
Great discussion by all. One of the things that I have found missing thus far in the discussion(though it may have been said) and what helped me with the doctrine of particular redemption is to develop a comprehensive biblical definition of “atonement”. Once I did this, it really helped me understand the “cross-work of Christ” and to keep every scriptural passage within it’s biblical context. Either Christ’s finished work on the cross appeased the wrath of God against my sin accomplishing everything for me, or my salvation is of my own ability to choose Christ. It can’t be both, and anything thought to be in the middle is in reality still my accomplishment.
56. Ron
April 26, 2007
9:48 PM
Question: There are some who teach that God loves only His elect and hates the non-elect. Please comment.
John: The fact that some sinners are not elected to salvation is no proof that God’s attitude toward them is utterly devoid of sincere love. We know from Scripture that God is compassionate, kind, generous, and good even to the most stubborn sinners. Who can deny that these mercies flow out of God’s boundless love? Yet it is evident that they are showered even on unrepentant sinners.
I want to acknowledge, however, that explaining God’s love toward the reprobate is not as simple as most modern evangelicals want to make it. Clearly there is a sense in which the psalmist’s expression, “I hate the assembly of evildoers” (Ps. 26:5) is a reflection of the mind of God. “Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies” (Ps. 139:21-22). Such hatred as the psalmist expressed is a virtue, and we have every reason to conclude that it is a hatred God Himself shares. After all, He did say, “I have hated Esau” (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13). The context reveals God was speaking of a whole race of wicked people. So there is a true and real sense in which Scripture teaches that God hates the wicked.
So an important distinction must be made. God loves believers with a particular love. It is a family love, the ultimate love of an eternal Father for His children. It is the consummate love of a Bridegroom for His bride. It is an eternal love that guarantees their salvation from sin and its ghastly penalty. That special love is reserved for believers alone.
However, limiting this saving, everlasting love to His chosen ones does not render God’s compassion, mercy, goodness, and love for the rest of mankind insincere or meaningless. When God invites sinners to repent and receive forgiveness (Isa. 1:18; Matt. 11:28-30), His pleading is from a sincere heart of genuine love. “‘As I live!’ declares the Lord God, ‘I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?’” (Ezek. 33:11). Clearly God does love even those who spurn His tender mercy, but it is a different quality of love, and different in degree from His love for His own.
The following Question and Answer was taken from John MacArthur’s book, The God Who Loves, pp. 14, 16. ©2001 by John MacArthur. All Rights Reserved.
57. Ron
April 26, 2007
10:11 PM
Stevee Said: Todd H, I believe that I would have to agree with you, in that, under Calvinistic/Reformed doctrine, the only answer to both of your questions can be, “no”. God/Jesus becomes the respecter of persons that he specifically stated that “he was not”, under reformed theology. The commandments that we are to “go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” are for the most part largely ignored, along with dozens of other scriptures that state, “all, everyone, whoever, etc.”
Respector of persons? Is Romans 3:23 true? All have sinned right? Is the heart evil only? Isn’t the point that, while we were yet sinners( rebels, idolaters, murders in our hearts, despisers, mockers) Christ Died for Us.
No reformed christian would jump from the L or the U and say that being elected or Redeemed makes us something out of us. It is humbling precisely (as the post mentions which it appears many who comment here don’t read at all!) BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON FOR OUR ELECTION. THAT’S WHAT MAKES THIS GRACE AMAZING.
We don’t assume that we are special because of it. We have been sprinkled with the blood and are/will be the bride of Christ, his people…that makes us special, BUT NOT by anything in us. For God to be a respector of persons, in the context of scripture would be to say that he sees how we’re deserving or better than others and treats us differrent (because of our money as in James or concerning the warnings Jesus gave to those who would treat pharisees differrent because of their religous status) Noone would say this. this presumes a that there’s something in us for GOD to respect. WE Do not hold this view. Noone really believes that God is a respector of persons. This is straw man afire.
58. Ron
April 26, 2007
10:57 PM
I was an arminian for years. I hated the L. I didn’t mind Election because it was so clear in scripture, (I just marginalized it quite a bit)…but I still haven’t hammerred it all out yet. Now I don’t know if I fully believe the L, some arguements simply aren’t convincing to me.
that’s just background to say that I don’t have a pony in the race.
I have been lurking on many calvinist sites to learn more. What I am becoming more convinced about is that no arminians are willing to listen to what calvinists are saying. No arminian will accept accept God actually loving those he kills even though the bible may actually teach this. The problem with this is that the bible says that God does both. He loves the whole world. He floods the earth. He kills the first born of egypt, swallows isrealites in the earth when they rebel, sets up nations to destroy nations and to bring pestilence and war. This is the world Before Chirst, the world that God loved so much that he gave his son to call them to repentance and offer salvation to “whosoever”. God loved them but still condemned them to death and death for eternity. Why can’t both be true. Why can’t God know everything, have foreknowledge, elect us, redeem us completely, preserve us, and use the means of our wills to choose christ when the Spirit doing it’s drawing work. Why can’t God use the means of faith and our wills and will us to work his good pleasure?
i say all this because i hear arminians on these blogs who are interested in a solution to both truths. it’s WHOSOEVER, meaning everyone has the same chance, or NOTHING? WHY? It’s either GOD CAN’T ELECT because that makes him UNJUST or NOTHING (not that he has the ability to make the call)
Why Can’t Both be True?
When there is a man-centered truth in seeming contridiction to a God-exalting truth, why is it that the arminian always chooses to ignore the God-exalting truth and lift up the Man-centered truth and then deny deny deny the God-exalting truth?
Formerly I saw things the same way in every instance, but I am being drawn away because there’s not a willingness to address plain scripture. God is ultimately Sovereign. In all things. if Nebuchenezzer knew it, I should.
I know this rant must sound abrasive. I hope that I am not saying anything out of anger or frustration, and that none of this is hurtful in any way. I humbly ask you to read my words as those of a seeker who is trying to call it like I see it and work it out in fear submitting to the Spirit’s lead and the word of Scripture.
I appreciate eveyone who posts and comes here to think. It helps me very much. thank you Tim. I have appreciated your blog for many months now. Keep it up.
59. SteveE
April 27, 2007
1:08 AM
DonSands, I can only leave you with the few scriptures I already quoted, of vastly more, that say the same thing; and allow them to stand on their own. You must justify your beliefs against scriptures that deny the theology you support.
I do not say this harshly, nor with any intent to inflame anger or hard feelings, yet, I cannot support a theology that denies God’s word in such a blatant manner. Of the scriptures I quoted, there is very little to interpret. They speak plainly, both in context and intent, of their meaning.
I would have to disagree whole heartedly that God’s election makes no sense. In part, because I find no reason, nor statement in scripture, that God feels himself diminished in any way by offering his salvation to all who would accept it. Indeed, this very idea of offering it to all, is prevalent throughout scripture. It is a Calvinistic idea, born hundreds of years after Christ’s death, that this notion of “man centered” theology was conceived.
Scripture supports that God is sovereign. But man has chosen what he considers ‘makes’ Him sovereign. Can God, in His awesomness, create a world where He is sovereign and still give his creations a free choice to choose him? Of course. Would this diminish him? No. Only in the minds of man; for scripture states nothing of the kind, anywhere! This is the mindset of a man made theology, not found in a single scripture; not even implied.
So, does God love those, he condemns? Yes. But this could only be so, if those who are condemned, are as errant children who refuse to change, no matter the consequense. For if he condemns those who had no choice but to be what they were forced to be, wherein lies their guilt? What joy could even a human creator have in the creation of something he had every intention of destroying? It was built for a purpose, nothing more…thus loving all, as God said he does, would be nulified; for he had no intention of his creation being anything more than cordwood….something to burn for no other reason than to burn it.
It can show no glory to his other creations, for they know that those who burn were made to burn, and they in turn were made to live. Love is lost, because who loves the computer they made, or the plants they planted? They do what they were intended to do, but they cannot offer love of their own, for love of the sort that is forced and has no choice, is not love. Love is freely given, or it is not love.
You may not like the idea that God can give choice and still be sovereign, but I have seen nothing in scripture that denies this, and much to support it. Thus, I will quietly step away from this discussion and watch with interest as this subject is discussed.
60. George Talent
April 27, 2007
2:46 AM
I think you’re quite wrong…..I see that most vessels (people) were created specifically to be damned, in order to show the justice of God. Some may not like the idea that God would do this, but it’s clear. He hardens hearts, he hates before birth, he speaks in parables specifically so “they will not understand and believe”. He does not love everybody. It seems so obvious!
God is omniscient, therefore he knew before time, before creating men, that he would not save them all. He created men with the full knowledge that they would disobey, that they would be born into original sin, die, and would be tortured forever.
I think Calvinists who try to make this more palatable are doing a disservice to the Bible. They try to use pleasant words like “pass over” and “the unelect want to be damned, or don’t care”. The truth is that most sinners either don’t know they are damned, or don’t believe it…..because God has kept this knowledge from them, actively deciding to hide it from them from all eternity.
This seems unfair to us because we do not see the relative relationship. God is God, he is the creator, he made the Universe with his thoughts, he is sovereign, God knows his business. Just because we don’t understand does not mean it’s not just….after all, who determines justice, us or God? Humans are such tiny pathetic creatures when compared to God that the loss of our souls is nothing compared to what God wants.
Don’t try to make the truth palatable to men. God is God and we should tremble before him.
61. John Knox
April 27, 2007
3:56 AM
To Joop (#48) Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? Rom 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, Rom 9:23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—
Read vs 21. it says quite clearly the potter makes some for “dishnorable”. Verses 22 and 23 are an explanation of this. Also if you read the previous 3 verses it gives even more clarification to the idea that God created some for glory and some for wrath.
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
It’s very clever to say that theyre “prepared for wrath” but not “created for wrath”, however the fact remains that when i prepare something, i have in fact created it. Who prepared the vessels for wrath? The text is clear enough that it is the potter.
62. donsands
April 27, 2007
6:17 AM
“Of the scriptures I quoted, there is very little to interpret. They speak plainly, both in context and intent, of their meaning.”
That’s exactly how I see it Steve. But I couldn’t disagree with you more. As I have already explained. And I see the Holy Writ the same as so many Calvinist before me, and who faithfully are serving the Lord even now.
63. JOhn
April 27, 2007
10:18 AM
George Talent really said a mouthful. God is so mighty, so perfect, so good and so just, that the idea that we can judge him fair or unfair him is ludicrous. A fleeting whim of God is worth the eternal suffering of millions of we little flakes of dust, if it is what he wants. His pleasure is the only thing that matters, and if that means the destruction of nations simply to show his justice and might, so be it. Compared to him, we are not even as important as bacteria, and have less understanding of what is good or bad.
We are totally at his mercy, as it should be. Those who are saved should be even happier and more grateful when they realize how little they deserve it.
64. Todd H.
April 27, 2007
10:45 AM
^^^”Compared to him, we are not even as important as bacteria,”
I hope you don’t really believe that. It certainly is not what the Bible says. If I’ve only gotten one thing out of the Bible it is that God is Love. And I don’t think anyone here is disputing the fact that we don’t deserve it.
I began reading this webpage not really knowing which way to think, but so far I think SteveE has made the most compelling case (#50, 52, 59) based on Scripture. Thank you Steve, your words have helped me alot.
TH
65. donsands
April 27, 2007
12:14 PM
This is a teaching from a brother in Christ I thought may help. And I agree with him completely. Very clear and biblical.
” I have found Scripture to be very clear on the exegesis of Limited Atonement. I start with the nature of atonement before I ever discuss the extent of atonement. Just what does the Bible say was the intention of the atonement of Christ? Did it merely speak of it as possible, or did it speak of actually saving and cleansing people from sins? What of sins? Is unbelief a sin? Is it included in the “all” regarding sins being cleansed?
Once I have established the nature, power, and expectations Scripture gives the atonement, I then look into the extent: for whom did Christ die?
Jesus said that he came to seek and to save that which was lost. We easily grant that he sought. Did he actually save? Is he able to save to the uttermost those who draw near?
Consider Eph 5 where husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. If the love of Christ for the church is a special love, then it cannot be for anyone other than the church. So, consider how the passage is turned on its head when universal love or universal atonement is understood:
Husbands love your wives as Christ loved everyone. If the love I have for my wife is the same, generic love I have for everyone, then does this mean I can fool around with other women, or does this mean I do not devote myself to caring for my wife?
Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for everyone. Does this mean that I need not give a special commitment to my wife but can show the same actions I show my wife to everyone?
No, but love and atonement are here special and go hand in hand. Husbands love your wives (special love that no other woman has) as Christ loved the Church (Christ held a special love for his Church, no one doubts that) and gave himself up for her (the special love was displayed by a special act for the love alone).
Christ died for the Church alone, otherwise the passage is meaningless.”
This is a good teaching, because it doesn’t bring in any presuppositions, as we all have a tendacy to do. Such as God is love, and I believe love to be suchh and such, so the Bible means such and such.
66. Joop
April 27, 2007
2:06 PM
To George Talent, also to John Knox,
“I think you’re quite wrong…..I see that most vessels (people) were created specifically to be damned, in order to show the justice of God.”
First: Romans 9 is not about the damnation of the non-elect
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
Calvinists claim it is said here that God created both righteous people and wicked people. If God creates wicked people, God would be the originator of sin. Also, God never created the devil. He created ‘Lucifer’ who chose to rebel and became the devil or satan.
In fact, vessels are just empty, it depends on what they are used for. Besides, Romans 9 is about the election of Jacob above Esau. Not about salvation. Nowhere it is said that Esau was created to be damned. Israel (Jacob) is depicted as a vessel of honor, and with Jacob the whole nation of Israel. So Israel was or is, according to many Christians, the elected people. But does this mean that all Israelites were predestined to get saved forever? Ultimately, they turned out to be a rebellious people, or, vessels of dishonour.
The vessels were not created but formed out of clay.
“Humans are such tiny pathetic creatures when compared to God that the loss of our souls is nothing compared to what God wants. “
Not so! Yes, we are tiny and sometimes pathetic. Yet there are many people to whom God once will say: well done, good servant!
The loss of our souls is nothing to God?! How come! How do you know that? It is like saying that a parent considers the loss of a son as ‘nothing’ compared with the great performances of his other children. It seems to me that you believe God doesn’t love people in general. However, this is contrary to Joh 3:16: For God so loved the world (us, ‘tiny pathetic creatures’) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
What about the parables of the lost coin and lost sheep?
67. Joop
April 27, 2007
2:55 PM
To DonSands (#65)
You quoted: (…) [Conclusion]: Christ died for the Church alone, otherwise the passage is meaningless.”
The Church cannot be compared with a wife, like the way as stated in your quote. The Church is ‘dynamic’, people are added (or some may leave). Yes, Christ does love and nourish the Church, but then the Church as a dynamic entity. The ‘wife’ in Ef. 5 is ‘static’ in the sense that it will always be, hopefully, ONE wife. We do not have harems. (Well, at least not in the Netherlands)
Another flaw in the whole quote is that, while it is true that husbands should love their wifes in the way God designed for marriages, we all should love people outside our marriage, outside the Church, yes, we even are commanded to love our enemies. So, if we are commanded to love our enemies (some of them might never get saved), would not God Himself love our enemies too? We, as husbands, have to love our wife and forsake all the others. That does not mean we should hate all the others!
So, while it is true that Christ loves the Church in a special way, this does not mean He hates all the rest of mankind! He is still seeking the lost, that they call upon His name and might believe in Him.
I find the whole quote a good example of taking a preassumption and then building some philosophic bricks around it by way of comparing apples with oranges (or as we say here: apples with pears).
Nevertheless: I am curious who wrote this stuff.
God bless, Joop
68. donsands
April 27, 2007
5:35 PM
”..it is true that Christ loves the Church in a special way..”
I would say special is a very weak expression considering what Jesus did for us, His elect, those who are His Church.
His becoming sin for our sins, and He imputing Himself with our blasphemies, cowardice, sexual perversions, disobedience, drunkenness, hatred, and every conceicable evil, is so much more than special. It’s incomprehensible, and it’s an act of love, that is infinte and divine. Man’s love in comparison would be like the peak of Mt. Everest to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, and even that is far from what this perfect and holy love accomplished. That’s why the elect love God, and Christ, because He first loved us, and gave Himself for us, as Paul says in Galatians 2. Not to mention He impoutes His righteousness to us as well.
Jesus determined to do this for people He set His love upon before the foundation of the world. He is, and was, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
I just wanted to share my heart Joop.
The brother who sent me that excellent teaching is Mike Porter. I don’t know him personally, but he is with Alpha & Omega Ministries. (aomin.org James White is the chief elder of this ministry.) It’s a fine ministry of the Lord. I encourage to visit it.
69. SteveE
April 27, 2007
11:58 PM
So, DonSands….explain away the few scriptures that I mentioned…, for there are multiple dozens of others saying the same thing.
You are not arguing with me….you deny the scriptures that deny your ideology….therefore…present your argument via scripture, not Calvinistic dogma. Even the scriptures you mentioned prior to, as support of your theology were out of context, in regard to Calvinistic theology, and directly supported what you seem to want to dismiss.
So, support your idea….I’m curious to see your interpretation.
70. Joop
April 28, 2007
3:48 AM
To Donsands,
Me: “..it is true that Christ loves the Church in a special way..”
You: “I would say special is a very weak expression considering what Jesus did for us, His elect, those who are His Church.”
I agree with you it IS a very weak expression. Words cannot comprehend the way Chirst loves His Church.
God bless, Joop
71. donsands
April 28, 2007
7:50 AM
“So, DonSands….explain away the few scriptures that I mentioned.”
I would never do that.
This doctrine, Limited Atonement, has been debated by theologians and scholars throughout the history of the Church. There are chapters and chapters written on this teaching. There’s not enough room on a blog to engage each Scripture.
I was making a general statement of the Bible. And I did share a teaching on one Scripture verse and it’s context to explain the “L” in TULIP.
Steve, I believe Jesus died for His people, and saved them from their sins. he loved them before the foundation of the world, and He was given these people from His Father, and the Father asked His Son to lay down His life for these people, and Jesus did just that for the glory of His Father, and for the glory of His grace. And we, the ungodly proud rebels, who hated God, are sought out by this wonderful Savior, and we are rescued from hell, which is what we all deserve.
This whole staement is Scriptural. It is.
You can surely find Scriptures to refute this, I know that. Church History bears that out.
I say all that to say, we disagree. And The Bible is the final authority for us both, so i commend us to continue to study it. And we also need to study Church History.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day!