If we look at Jesus, and we say he has something to do with God, we have to see that the God to whom Jesus points wanted Jesus to be crucified and therefore wants something which we cannot imagine on our own.
Which brings us back to what Peter was talking about 40 days after Jesus was crucified. “You killed him, and that’s what God wanted,” Peter said, “But God raised him up from the dead, and we are all witnesses to that fact. So you should know for certain that Jesus, whom you crucified, is both Lord and Christ!”
See: Peter is saying that this empty tomb changes the way we have to see the world.
Some people might see that as a set up for a great movie about zombies, right? You know: George Romero has made a career out inventing the consequences of a world where the dead come back from the grave and want to eat the living. For about 2 hours at a time, we can believe it good enough to get a good scare — or maybe a good laugh. We can suspend our disbelief and draw conclusions from it — in a way, we can have faith in a movie long enough for it to do what we think it is trying to do.
But here’s what you should consider: if we can understand what it means to have our world-view changed even briefly by believing in a movie long enough to get creeped-out by the zombies in it, we have to see what Peter was saying to the Jews — because he wasn’t asking them to suspend their disbelief: he was telling them things they had witnessed for themselves.
And the Israelis at Pentecost got it right away — because as soon as Peter had said all that, the account in Acts says, “they were cut to the heart.” They were profoundly sorry for what they had done. And in one moment they changed from people who were sort of mocking or shaming a bunch of guys who they thought were drunk, into people who were asking the question, “what can we do? Is there any hope for us?” So Peter gave them some instructions, but he also said this to them: “God is making a big promise here — a promise for you who are here, for your children who are not yet born, and for anyone who ever hears this news: because God is calling a people to himself!”
Listen to me carefully: Jesus died on a cross. That wasn’t something that was accidentally or unexpectedly done to him: it’s what he came to do in the first place. And the reason he did it wasn’t to show us an example of martyrdom, or a way to kick off a great idea by giving it your all by speaking some kind of “truth” to “power”. Jesus died on a cross because God was making a promise to all people. Some folks I have read say that this is the “objectivity” of Gospel — that is, it is an event which happens in a specific time and place which we can refer to historically and without regard to ourselves. That’s what I’ve been telling you for the last few installments in a very long way. But the “objectivity” is almost irrelevant unless it is happening to someone and for a particular reason.
So let me say this plainly: this Jesus was crucified for the sake of everyone who would believe, but that fact is not merely an event apart from our real lives. It is an event which calls people out of the world as it was before, and into the real world — the place where Jesus is factually raised from the dead for a particular reason.
And I hope it’s not too late to point this out to you: this is what God is jealous about.
February 5th, 2010 | 12:43 pm | #1
And Evangel says, “Ho hum.”
February 5th, 2010 | 1:17 pm | #2
And Evangel says, “Ho hum.”
Because it’s a post that’s hard to argue with.
February 5th, 2010 | 1:34 pm | #3
And because it has ramifications in real life.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #4
It got buried. I have to learn to post at 1:13 PM or something to get late-day play.
February 5th, 2010 | 2:59 pm | #5
Mr. Turk,
First, I do want to offer my appreciation for your identification and description (earlier in your series) of our inherent desire to create a god in our corrupt and confused image rather than submitting to the mercy of the God who created us in His image. You are correct in pointing out that Oprah judged God on the basis of her own ideas of what God should be and I do believe every sinner is guilty of this to some degree. While reading your post, I recalled reading about this judgment of Oprah’s back when it was first publicized. I remember thinking about what I would say to her if I had the personal access to try to explain the truth to her myself.
Now to the very end of your series. So here is the Calvanism with which I must disagree. You say, “But the ‘objectivity’ is almost irrelevant . . . this Jesus was crucified for the sake of everyone who would believe . . . .” On the contrary, the objectivity is *not* irrelevant to any degree and the objective fact that “Jesus was crucified for the sake of everyone” must not be confused with the separate issue of “who would believe”. The reason the objectivity is not irrelevant is that the Gospel is something to be proclaimed and it must be proclaimed objectively (i.e. to all people). The Gospel does not exist for the purpose of trying to solve the mysteries of the doctrine of election; it exists to be proclaimed *objectively*.
Again, I do appreciate some of your observations and your unique style of communication, but on some important doctrinal issues, Calvinism is still not the answer.
February 5th, 2010 | 4:09 pm | #6
Karyn:
I think there are three choices –
1. Jesus died for no one. (objective death; no subjective intention)
2. Jesus died, but for whom he died is indeterminate. (objective death; unknown/unknowable subjective intention)
3. Jesus died for those who would believe. (objective death; knowable subjective intention)
If 1 is true, then the purpose of Jesus’ death has to be understood in a way other than a redemptive scheme.
If 2 is true, while some will benefit from Jesus’ death, we cannot know who they are. Therefore, there is no hope in jesus’ death any more than there is hope in willing the Lotto.
But if 3 is true, the purpose of Christ’s death is clear and the work he accomplishes does more than merely inspire: it saves. And more than that, it saves in a way which, as Paul said, was not done in a corner — even today.
While this point is necessary for Calvinism, it’s not necessarily Calvinism. It is, however, necessary for there to be a church, which is the point of my series. We’re close enough to the end here that I don’t need to keep it under a bushel: Christ died for the sake of a people, and that people is the church.
Anyone who wants to tell you otherwise isn’t reading his Bible very closely or carefully. I suggest that you consider that whether you accept “Calvinism” or not.
February 5th, 2010 | 4:33 pm | #7
Mr. Turk may regret the patronizing tone he used to respond to Karyn.
If she chooses to engage him she will be a worthy sparring partner.
By the way, Mr. Turk, your qualification of the Gospel puts a question mark where God had put a period.
Christ died for all, the Just for the unjust.
February 5th, 2010 | 4:38 pm | #8
If 3 is true, it doesn’t solve the epistemology problem you cite for 2. Who can know he/she is one of the elect?
Jesus died for all, but not all will come to faith. Let God be true and every man a liar. A good man said that. Let God be GOOD and every man EVIL. God’s goodness is not contingent upon anyone believing it. The act of coming into the world to be crucified is a good act in and of itself. Saying Jesus only died because some would believe puts the cart before the horse and makes God a subscriber of teleological ethics (it’s good because of its outcome).
The Bible says very clearly in multiple places that God wants ALL to be saved, that Jesus died for all. I struggle to find what’s unclear about that.
Then again, I may just be unregenerate and unable to know the things of God. If that’s the case, no one should argue with me anymore because that would be casting pearls before swine. Not that I can be anything but swine, anyway.
If Jesus didn’t die for me, then I have no reason to admire what He did on the Cross. If He did die for me, and if Calvinism is true, then I can only admire what He did on the Cross because I have been re-wired to do only that. I cannot be anything but of the elect (a static, pre-determined category of which I have always been a part and therefore never truly lost).
So, forget “faith alone”. I’m saved by election alone.
February 5th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #9
The object of the cross was not man, nor that handful of men some reckon as “the elect”; the object of the cross was God. That is the meaning of propitiation (hilasmos). The primary object was God, the primary effect the turning away of wrath, accomplished by Jesus bearing the penalty for our sins.
Get that wrong, and you can easily find your way to many odious errors, “Limited” Atonement being chief among them.
February 5th, 2010 | 5:28 pm | #10
By the way, Mr. Turk, your qualification of the Gospel puts a question mark where God had put a period.
Christ died for all, the Just for the unjust.
Or are you putting a period where God puts further explanation?
“…he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”
“…the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God….”
When you leave the rest of those quotes on, I think you get at exactly the point Mr. Turk was making in this post. I’d see this post as an argument for this specific and revealed purpose in what Christ did for us. And as he says, a Calvinist is going to believe that, but that’s not necessarily Calvinism.
February 5th, 2010 | 5:50 pm | #11
I disagree that the Cross was “for God”, as if God lacks something. He lacks nothing. God did all He can do to unite man to Himself.
February 5th, 2010 | 6:05 pm | #12
Ortho, no one said anything about God “lacking” anything, so your objection seems manufactured.
Tell me, what does the word “propitiation” mean? That will get us back on track.
February 5th, 2010 | 6:07 pm | #13
“The primary object was God, the primary effect the turning away of wrath, accomplished by Jesus bearing the penalty for our sins.
Get that wrong, and you can easily find your way to many odious errors, “Limited” Atonement being chief among them.”
You’ve got your conclusion backwards Johnny. If (and you’re exactly right on this, Scripture is clear) Jesus turned away God’s wrath by bearing the penalty for sins, then that leads directly into limited (or particular) atonement.
We know from Revelation and a host of other places that God’s wrath is/will be poured out on sinners. So then from whom was God’s wrath turned away?
The church, only.
February 5th, 2010 | 6:21 pm | #14
Oh boy, I didn’t even hear the bell ring for the rumble to begin.
There should always be ground rules laid out clearly before the fisticuffs over the atonement begin. Johnny Dialectic already broke one.
that handful of men some reckon as “the elect”.
Who said handful? Did you say handful? Perhaps you might explain why only a “handful” of men get saved. If he appeals to man’s choice of sin over God, then the Calvinist agrees. Moot point. Straw man. The Calvinists I know say that men go to hell over sin, not election. Of course, “Calvinist” is a nigh useless term these days since us Baptists started getting to wear it.
February 5th, 2010 | 6:28 pm | #15
Jesus turned away God’s wrath by bearing the penalty for sins, then that leads directly into limited (or particular) atonement.
I think you’ve skipped a step. Leads how? If Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), where is the “limitation”?
The church, only
That’s the first part of the right answer. But who may become part of “the church”?
This answer to that is a universe away from Limited Atonement.
February 5th, 2010 | 6:43 pm | #16
Someone answer me a question before we go further.
If Calvinism is true, why does this debate matter?
February 5th, 2010 | 7:07 pm | #17
If Calvinism is true, why does this debate matter?
Because truth is something valuable.
February 5th, 2010 | 7:12 pm | #18
In spite of these differences over the atonement, I’ll be rather surprised if anyone here wouldn’t sign off on:
“Christ died intending to accomplish the salvation of everyone who would believe–and didn’t intend to accomplish anyone else’s salvation. (Though there may be certain graces & blessings that it secures for others.) His death means that we can tell anyone & everyone, ‘If you repent and turn to Christ, depending on him for your salvation, you will be saved. It is the promise of God in the gospel.’”
February 5th, 2010 | 7:13 pm | #19
You kill me, OrthoDJ.
It matters because both fatalism/hypercalvinism and universalism are patently false, and the identity of the church — that is, the local church — hangs in the balance.
February 5th, 2010 | 7:37 pm | #20
I also want to point out that the word ‘calvinism’ is utterly absent from my series, and that being a ‘calvinist’ is utterly unnecessary to agree with this post.
Any Lutheran can (and should) affirm that all who believe shall be saved. That is plainly the point of this post — and the antagonists to that point need to think about why they would oppose that.
February 5th, 2010 | 9:08 pm | #21
Frank,
I really don’t want to get involved in another lengthy debate, but out of Christian love for you I would encourage you to seriously consider the truth of what Karyn and Rev. McCain said about the objectivity of the Gospel. That is the whole ball game, and you have not yet grasped the vital importance of that. In truth you have another form of Roman Catholicism without realizing it. Luther rightly said that both Calvinism (Reformed) and Romanism are ultimately the same religion as they are both founded upon human reason and experience, rather than the objective verifiable external Word of God.
As I tried to tell you in our debate, “Calvinism is a religion of reason. The false doctrine of limited atonement is a reasonable deduction based upon the doctrine of election. However, while reasonable, it is not true to the revealed Word of God which plainly states that Christ died for all men. With this departure from Scripture, Calvinism denies the Gospel, the objective proclamation to another human being that Christ died for their sins personally. Calvinists also no longer have a Scripturally-based foundation for their own assurance of salvation. Without the objective external Word that tells them that Christ died for their sins personally, they must look inwardly to their own perceived repentance and faith for a ground of standing. Furthermore, they are compelled to wrongly define repentance and faith in an active sense, as only the active fruits of repentance and faith can be objectively identified. Ultimately, Calvinism is another religion of works, placing one’s confidence in oneself, and not in the Word of God.”
“True Christianity, however, follows the path of child-like faith. It openly confesses the true universal atonement of Christ, without denying anything of the doctrine of election. It announces the one and only true Gospel to every human being, how that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross of Calvary for their sins personally. This Gospel Word creates faith and confidence in the hearts of God’s elect. All is of God’s power and grace. Those who receive this blessed Word look to that which stands outside of them. Christ’s death in their behalf always remains objectively true. Their faith rests only upon the Word of God, requiring nothing at all of them. The more they observe this Word, the more confident they become. They have grabbed hold of the love of God in truth, and out of gratitude they now bring forth the fruits of this love (love begetting love) in true Christian works. All is perfect. There is not a flaw in it.”
Stuart
http://arlomax.googlepages.com/takingthemaskoffcalvinism%3Athedangerofhum
http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/search/label/tuLip01-pt03
February 5th, 2010 | 9:44 pm | #22
I guess my question goes to both Karyn and Frank. I agree that the gospel is objective and that those who believe will be saved. Isn’t a primary point of the gospel that if we with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, we will be saved? (I am paraphrasing here, and I am not a theologian so that is the warning to people who might be kind of harsh on me). And I do believe with Karyn that this is an objective truth. But then my question would be, “Why are you proclaiming the Gospel to others?” You must think there is some benefit to doing so.
My intent here is not to come across as harsh. And Frank has always responded to my comments with respect so I am not worried about any challenges he might give to me–as the newer Orthodox Christian!
February 6th, 2010 | 7:42 am | #23
Mr. Turk, I think that you know there is a difference between affirming the truth that those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved and your assertion:
Jesus was crucified for the sake of everyone who would believe
That assertion throws people back on their belief as the ground of their confidence in salvation. It also explains why there are more re-baptisms in the Baptist Church than people being baptized. Your assertion requires the following conversation:
“How do I know I am saved?”
“Have you believed in Christ?”
“I think so, but I’m not sure. How can I be sure?”
“Say this sinner’s prayer.”
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Oh, yes, and then there’s that “minor detail” that asserting Christ was crucified only for those who would believe contradicts Sacred Scripture, left and right, guts the Gospel of its good news, elevates faith to the work that saves, and turns CHRISTianity into Faith-ianity.
In other words, do we trust in Christ or in faith, to save us?
We are not saved BY faith, we are saved THROUGH faith.
We are saved BY grace, through faith.
That grace is the grace of the One crucified for the sins of the *world* and for *all.*
Calvinism, and all derivations thereof, simply does not get the Gospel right, at the very core of what the Gospel is. Limit the Atonement and you limit the Gospel. And a Gospel limited is not good news.
Cue Hays. Cue the Reformed Watchbloggers. Cue the Truly Reformed.
February 6th, 2010 | 8:39 am | #24
I was going to start at the top, but because Rev. McCain rolled out the “sinner’s prayer” jalopy, I’ll start there instead, then go back to the top.
He said:
I like that Rev. McCain says this. It points us exactly to the place we should look for the answer, which is Scripture. I’m sure it would be useful to go through what Peter said at the end of Acts 2 in the NKJV to see what he says about that, but that phrase is lifted from John 3:16 — [God] gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
I’ll let him refute that passage. It will be enjoyable, yet disappointing, to watch.
To the second half of that statement, it’s not “calvinism” which causes people to seek multiple rebaptisms: it’s the stupid idea that repentance is a one-time event and not the whole life of the believer. Refraining from being a Lutheran doesn’t mean we have to repudiate everything Luther actually said — and that statement from him is still his very best.
I’ll refer Rev. McCain to this exchange I had with another Lutheran on this topic, and ask him again to unpack John 3:16 for us.
I had no idea that Rev. McCain was a Universalist. I’m sure he’s not foolish enough to say that God sends anyone to hell whose sins have been forgiven — that’s a departure from the book of Revelation which simply can’t be justified by a reputable publisher of Christian non-fiction — but many a good man has sadly swallowed the pill of universalism.
I’ll leave it to him to unravel how people for whom Christ has died and for whom he has become the propitiation of sin can go to hell.
Cue the condescension, anyway. It seems to me that Rev. McCain doesn’t actually know a thing about Calvinism, which is an outright shame. You’d think he’d read up on it before he’d say something like this.
February 6th, 2010 | 8:48 am | #25
I’d also like to point out (again) that this post is not about Calvinism: it’s about the fact that there is a people for whom the death of Christ is more than just a public spectacle. You know: Festus knew that Jesus had died — and Paul says that Festus was different from himself. Paul had something Festus did not (aside from the chains). When Paul talks to the Ephesians about who they are, he says that they used to be far away, but now they are near — unlike the rest of the world.
In the Gospel, Christ’s death is presented to everyone — there’s no question about it that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to every living person. But it doesn’t save everyone. And in that distinction, Christ assembles a people for himself.
There is no church — and certainly no local church — without this plain fact in Scripture. It is the defining difference between those who are called to be saints together with all who call on the name of Christ [1 Cor 1:2] and those who are not.
February 6th, 2010 | 8:50 am | #26
If you are seriously arguing that Calvinism posits resting your faith on the “sinner’s prayer” . . .
Really?
February 6th, 2010 | 8:56 am | #27
Christ’s death is presented to everyone, but under the Turkish plan here’s how it is presented:
“This may be good news for you too, let’s see what you decide to do with it.”
February 6th, 2010 | 8:57 am | #28
Really. When pressed, every Calvinist I’ve queried intensely about the ground of their confidence that they are in fact “one of the elect” always comes down to their apprehension and feeling of being one of the chosen. They describe it various ways.
While the sinner’s prayer is crass and otherwise pretty much a legacy of Arminianism, in the end, it’s all the same.
When the good news of Christ is compromised either by a limited atonement or a synergism, it’s all the same: a conditional Gospel.
Which is not the Gospel.
February 6th, 2010 | 8:58 am | #29
Mr. Turk, you are dodging the question being raised about your assertion that Christ was crucified only for those who would believe.
February 6th, 2010 | 9:24 am | #30
Rev. McCain,
What do the Lutherans then do with the clear language of election and chosen-ness?
February 6th, 2010 | 9:41 am | #31
Mr. Regier, you can read what the Lutheran Church teaches on this point here. The doctrine of Free Will also applies as well, and here is what we teach on this point.
Standard disclaimer: The word, “Lutheran,” like the word “Presbyterian,” when used by liberal mainline churches, should not be confused with the genuine, historical definition of those words.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:05 am | #32
Thank you. I will read it in good faith.
Have you read the Westminster Confession?
February 6th, 2010 | 10:11 am | #33
OrthoDJ said:
This is a major problem in this sort of discussion: rank ignorance of actual Calvinism, and rephrasing things is uncalvinistic ways.
Who says that “you have to know you are elect in order to be saved”? I never said that; Calvin never said that. No calvinist I know has ever said that. It’s like the word “chosen ones” (“ἐκλεκτός”) is inserted into the text by the non-calvinist where it is not present in order to somehow refute the places where it is actually present.
Here’s how the Bible presents the Gospel, ODJ, which no Calvinist would repudiate: Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.
You don’t have to know you are “elect”: you have to know you need to repent, and then trust Christ in your repentance. The way we know we are “elect” is that we have trusted Christ, and then done the things those who trust him will do. You know: get baptized, be in fellowship with other believers, share their burdens, come under the teaching of the apostles, pray, etc.
See: “election” is not the motif of evangelism. It is the motif of discipleship. That is: because you are the elect, turn to Christ so that you may have confidence. Because He will not abandon you, you must not abandon him. This is the theme of Paul’s first letter to Corinth, and in many way it is a central topic of Ephesians: confidence in Christ, and knowledge of our election, gives us hope when we fail, and hope for the future.
That is the substance of Calvinism: not the rank-stupidity of the formula, “only non-believers who are elect should bother to repent.” There is no epistemological problem in the theology of election: there is a problem when people try to make election the basis of evangelism when plainly, it is not.
John 3:16 says otherwise; Acts 2 says otherwise; the book of Romans says otherwise; the book of Ephesians says otherwise. Sorry.
Well, if this is how the Orthodox handle scripture, no wonder you hate what it says. Here’s what that “good man” actually said:
That’s from Romans 3 where Paul is actually asking the hypothetical question, “But didn’t God elect Israel to be saved? Why then are all Jews not now saved?” The bold irony there is that Paul is fortifying the doctrine with his declaration that all men are liars, and you are turning him on his head to make your point.
Wow. Now I have to wonder if you’re actually a believer in the Gospel at all. See: Peter, at Pentecost, says:
Jesus died on a cross because God had planned for Jesus to die on a Cross. That’s an indisputable fact of the Bible. This is what Jesus was telling Peter back in Matthew when Peter had the audacity to tell him, “may it never be, Lord!” And let’s be plain about something: when Jesus walks the Emmaus road and explains what happened in Jerusalem to poor Cleopas and his friends, beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. That is, whatever it is that Jesus did, in God’s plan, it has always been God’s plan — and clearly, the human end of that plan is that the death of Christ would purchase a people for God’s on possession.
Christ didn’t die just to show what a great guy/God he is: He died for us. He made a people out of us when we were not a people. He makes us grafted into the promises to Abraham.
To disconnect what Christ did from the people for whom he did it makes our faith an utter sham. It ignores the entire story of the Bible, and certainly the culmination of that story which is the very hope of our faith.
I would be willing to stipulate all your verses that say “God wants all to be saved”. The clear problem is that not all will be saved.
Look here: in Eph 2 Paul says to the Ephesians that it is Christ’s blood which brings us near to God can allows us to be changed from children of wrath into living heirs in Christ.
If Christ’s blood buys forgiveness for all people , why does Paul say this:
That is: how is it that any people anywhere can be said by Paul to “have no hope and be without God” in the world if your reading of the Bible is right?
It seems to me that there is no hope for those who do not believe, and that the only hope is for those who do believe — if Paul is right. The idea that there is hope for everyone because all sin is forgiven is utterly struck down by Paul here because he says there is a specific difference between those who believe and those who do not — namely, reconciliation with God.
This is the truly offensive part, btw: that in your view, those with the Gospel should care nothing for those without it — or at least that you would foist this belief on anyone else. The joy of Calvinism is that this good news is for all who will repent — all who will call on Christ rather than go their own way. It’s not just for Jews. It’s not just for white people. It’s not even for only those who can read Greek. It’s for all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus.
This is our commission: to tell the world about Christ, and tell them to repent so they can be forgiven because there is a great God who will do this. It is not to ask people “how do they know that they know that they know”. It is to say that Christ died so that there can be forgiveness, and if you need forgiveness turn to what he did to get it.
Those who do that can take refuge in being called out by Christ, and forvegiven by Christ, and protected by Christ, and comforted by Christ, and assembled by Christ.
Those who do not do that have none of these benefits. If you say they do, you’re simply wrong — there’s no place in the Bible which tells us those who do not repent have any of these benefits, yet you say they do. Why would you do that?
Yeah, hang on a second: you need to decide what it is you’re arguing against. My position — and the necessary point for this post — is that there is unquestionably a people who can all say without any doubt or second-guess, “Christ died for my sins.”
There is no person on earth to whom I (or any “Calvinist”) would say, “well, you’re not the elect — don’t bother with repentance.” The elect are known by their repentance from sin and calling on Christ to be saved — and by their living in repentance and in the shadow of the cross as people who are being sanctified by the great gift they have been given.
The idea that Christ died for no one in particular but for all sin in the hopes that somebody will repent can’t get out of Genesis 1-3 without coming apart at the seams — let alone the Gospels, or the letters to the churches.
Well, sadly, this again points to your abject ignorance of Revelation, ODJ, where every living creature will bow down before Christ and worship him — not because he forgave them all, but because what He did do was worthy of honor and praise. You should read that book sometime as it might really challenge you to consider who Jesus is.
But that said, your theory here is somewhat childish. You know: I have no affiliation with the University of FLorida. And yet for me to say, “Since he didn’t win any games for me, I can only admire what Tim Tebow has done if someone rewires me,” would reveal some pretty deep-seated limits to my relationship with the rest of the world.
Even if the plea of the Gospel was, “Jesus only died for the elect! Are you the Elect?” the unsaved could certainly see that what Christ did for the elect was a great thing.
The problem is that the Gospel is not a plea to the elect: it is a plea to sinners. It’s too bad that you won’t give Calvinism that much credit, and that you see salvation as something which is not an admirable gift.
You’d be the first. Try learning something about this topic before you come back to it here. It’s not in any way an offense to object to actual Calvinism: it’s offensive to argue in ignorance against something you cannot even correctly describe.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:13 am | #34
Yes, I have. And also:
# The Belgic Confession
# The Canons of Dort
# The Heidelberg Catechism
# The Westminster Confession
# The Westminster Larger Catechism
# The Westminster Shorter Catechism
# The French Confession
# The Second Helvetic Confession
# The Waldensian Confession
# The Children’s Catechism (from Summertown Texts)
# Savoy Declaration New!
# London Confession of Baptist Faith
# Thirty-nine Articles of Religion
February 6th, 2010 | 10:20 am | #35
Johnny Dialectic said:
On the other hand, the writer of Hebrews said:
Sure: Christ’s sacrifice is to the Father, but it is unquestionably for someone in particular to “cleanse the conscience from dead works”.
I’d be careful with the way Johnny said what he said.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:23 am | #36
Rev. McCain,
I went over and read that first link concerning predestination and foreknowledge. My favorite part was this:
And of this we should not judge according to our reason, nor according to the Law or from any external appearance. Neither should we attempt to investigate the secret, concealed abyss of divine predestination, but should give heed to the revealed will of God.
I want to be a Lutheranish. When it comes to mystery, you tell people, “Hey, quit thinking about that so much.” Nice. Problem is, Calvin said the same thing.
The point still stands that Jesus’ atonement availeth only for them that believeth.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:28 am | #37
I was about to strike my last comment, as it was in bad faith while pretending good faith. I beg your pardon.
All of our theologies have to deal at some point with the fact that God has reconciled all things, heaven and earth, to Himself by making peace through the blood of Christ’s cross, while understanding that He saves those who repent and are baptized, believing in Him, and that He knows who they are, because He chose them. It is these people that He is using in this ministry of reconciliation, and He’s doing it that way on purpose.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:31 am | #38
Rev. McCain: “Calvinism, and all derivations thereof, simply does not get the Gospel right, at the very core of what the Gospel is. Limit the Atonement and you limit the Gospel. And a Gospel limited is not good news.
When the good news of Christ is compromised either by a limited atonement or a synergism, it’s all the same: a conditional Gospel.
Which is not the Gospel.”
The name of this blog is “Evangel” which (roughly) means Good News. And the Gospel is Good News.
Is it a feature or a bug that not all the co-bloggers of this blog agree on what substantively constitutes the Gospel? We have Calvinist, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Western Rite of Eastern Orthodox, etc… represented on “Evangel” blog which is a part of First Things, a Roman Catholic blog.
Feature or bug? Or both? Or mostly one?
I think it’s mostly a feature.
_________________________________
Frank interjects:
It is a function of the poor definition of the word “Evangelical” by the ecumenical crowd. It is actually a feature of this blog.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:34 am | #39
I’d be careful with the way Johnny said what he said.
Absolutely. Good advice for all. Be very careful with the doctrine of the Atonement. Get that wrong, even a little, and down bad hillsides you slide. There’s a drainage ditch at the bottom full of those who would limit the doctrine in various and unbiblical ways.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:35 am | #40
Allison asked:
Amen.
Without qualification, yes: that’s the point.
She’s not wrong about it being an objective truth: she’s mistaken to say it is only an objective truth. It has subjective results. That is: it ultimately has different effects of some and then on others.
Exactly.
My point is that God is jealous about that benefit. It seems to me that others in this thread don’t think so at all: they think he is rather passive about that benefit — maybe in the best case he’s optimistic but not very committed to anyone in particular receiving that benefit.
For the record, it’s easy to be charitable to some who is honest. As I said above, disgreement is not the problem: ignorant accusations are the problem.
February 6th, 2010 | 10:53 am | #41
Rev. McCain:
[removed due to a misunderstanding of Rev. McCain's prev. comment which I am correcting]]
I’d be interested, since you listed all the major Reformed confessions and catechisms, where you find this gem:
Since you think I’m the one being condescending, educate me and prove me to be the fool. Show me where that sort of thinking is even seeded as an implication in those documents.
My opinion is that being able to say you’ve read the documents you’ve listed and demonstrating that you can tell us about them with any manner of fairness are pretty far apart. At some point your High Lutheran disdain for the people who have frankly out-evangelized, out-discipled your corner of the Christian world needs to come out of its self-impressed seminary and engage the actual beliefs, and actual writings, and actual place in this world and God’s plan for those who do not think the Medieval age of the church was a golden age with dirty fingernails.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:05 am | #42
Rev. McCain,
I can’t help but wonder at your comment:
“Calvinism, and all derivations thereof, simply does not get the Gospel right, at the very core of what the Gospel is. Limit the Atonement and you limit the Gospel. And a Gospel limited is not good news.”
Particularly when you yourself, and all your Lutheran brethren, likewise limit the atonement, as do Arminians and every other Christian on who ever lived.
Clearly you don’t believe that Jesus paid for everyone’s sins in such a way as to finally remove their punishment in hell? Do you?
Are not the saving effects of the atonement limited to those who believe? Do not the unbelievers die in their sin, and suffer eternally for it?
Perhaps you would be easier to interact with if you’d at least be honest enough to say “Calvinists limit in this way but we Lutherans limit it in this other way”.
I used to think it pure hyperbole when I heard or read people saying that the difficulty in discussing Calvinism with non-Calvinists is that, almost without exception, the non-Calvinist has never understood what Calvinism teaches.
I don’t think that anymore…
February 6th, 2010 | 11:11 am | #43
With all that, my honey-do list calls.
Try not to run with scissors while I’m away.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:20 am | #44
Mr. Turk, would you please offer your defense of your assertion that Christ was crucified only for those who would believe? Would you like to retract that assertion and rephrase?
February 6th, 2010 | 11:24 am | #45
Mr. Williams, would you support Mr. Turk’s assertion that Christ was crucified only for those who would believe?
February 6th, 2010 | 11:25 am | #46
Mr. Turk, and where in that Scripture do you find any assertion that Christ died only for those who would believe?
February 6th, 2010 | 11:27 am | #47
Mr. Little, it is interesting to notice in these conversations how long it takes for a Calvinist to respond to a critique by saying, “Non-Calvinists just don’t understand Calvinism.” It happens, sooner or later. In this case, it happened, very soon indeed.
Odd and, frankly, rather revealing.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:34 am | #48
No less odd to me is the charge that Calvinists attempt to limit the atonement, when you do so as well, as does Scripture.
How effective was the atonement for the Canaanites I wonder? Or Judas?
Not very.
February 6th, 2010 | 11:41 am | #49
I will simply have to raise my hand and say, “Count me among the hopelessly obtuse when it comes to Calvinism.”
I’ve come to realize that I am simply not smart enough to understand how, when the Bible says that God loved the world, the word “world” does not mean world. When the Bible says, “Christ died for all” the word “all” does not mean all, but rather “only some.” And other such examples where the Bible says one thing, but thanks to Calvinism, we must understand it not to have said what it appears to have said.
I guess one does have to be a very, very smart person to understand Calvinism.
: )
February 6th, 2010 | 11:58 am | #50
I find that often Calvinists don’t understand Calvinism as well as many on the “outside,” who can look dispassionately at it.
Of course, you’re indeed correct that, when cornered, the playbook naturally falls open to that favorite of all go-to fakes, the ol’ “you just don’t understand” play. But we can see it coming, the blitz is on and no one is fooled. Ten yard loss, resulting in a fumble. (I have Super Bowl on the mind).
Mr. Little apparently does not appreciate the difference between Limited Atonement as explicated in TULIP, and the de facto result of conditionality in salvation. This is another example of how those on the “outside” can understand the plays even more than the team that’s scratching up its own X’s and O’s.
February 6th, 2010 | 12:16 pm | #51
Mr. Little, I know it is frustrating for Calvinists that Lutherans refuse to answer the question, “Why are some saved and not others.” We believe that providing the answer of Calvinism: “God predestined some to eternal destruction, others to eternal salvation” or providing the answer of synergism, “Because some choose to believe in Christ, and others do not” or the answer that is a mixtum compositum of the two views: “Because God, from eternity, in view of people’s decision to believe, elected some to heaven” is to contradict what Scripture teaches:
(1) Christ died for all. The sacrifice of Christ was for the whole world.
(2) Those who are not saved are entirely responsible for their lack of salvation, not God.
There is no capability in sinful mankind to make a decision to believe in Christ. It is entirely the work of God.
There is no limitation on the Atonement.
Mr. Little, let me ask you a question.
How do you know you are among those whom God predestined to heaven and not among those whom God predestined to go to hell?
February 6th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #52
While preaching on John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”, Martin Luther beautifully states the importance of the universal Gospel. He says, “This is an extraordinarily fine and comforting sermon on Christ our Savior. Neither our thoughts nor our words can do the subject full justice, but in the life beyond it will redound to our eternal joy and bliss that the Son of God abased himself so and burdened himself with my sins. Yes, he assumes not only my sins but also those of the whole world, from Adam down to the very last mortal. These sins he takes upon himself; for these he is willing to suffer and die that our sins may be expunged and we may attain eternal life and blessedness… This is the basis of all Christian doctrine. Whoever believes it is a Christian; whoever does not is no Christian, and will get what he has coming to him. The statement is clear enough: “This is the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world.” Moreover, this text is the Word of God, not our word. Nor is it our invention that the Lamb was sacrificed by God and that, in obedience to the Father, this Lamb took upon himself the sin of the whole world. But the world refuses to believe this; it does not want to concede the honor to this dear Lamb that our salvation depends entirely on his bearing our sin. The world insists on playing a role in this too, but the more it aspires to do in atonement for sin, the worse it fares.”
Luther continues, “For the Lamb itself preaches to us, ‘Behold how I bear your sins!’ However, no one will accept it. If we believed and accepted it, no one would be damned. What more is the Lamb to do? He says, ‘You are all condemned, but I will take your sins upon myself. I have become the whole world. I have incorporated all people since Adam into my person.’ Thus he wants to give us righteousness in exchange for the sins we have received from Adam. And I should reply, ‘I will believe that, my dear, dear Lord, the Lamb of God, has taken all sins upon himself.’ Still the world will not believe and accept this. If it did, no one would be lost… Refusal to believe this is not Christ’s fault, it is mine. If I do not believe this, I am doomed. It is for me to say simply that the Lamb of God has borne the sin of the world. I have been earnestly commanded to believe and confess this, and then also to die in this faith. You may say, ‘Who knows whether Christ also bore my sin? I have no doubt that he bore the sin of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints; these were pious people, O that I were like St. Peter or St. Paul.’ Don’t you hear what St. John says in our text: ‘This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.’ And you cannot deny that you are also a part of this world.’ For if you are in the world, and your sins form a part of the sins of the world, then the text applies to you.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, pp. 162-169)
February 6th, 2010 | 12:27 pm | #53
Rev McCain,
Frank appealed to John 3:16. I will appeal to it as well. God sent His Son so that whoever believes will be saved. If you object that this has nothing to do with the extent of the atonement, then the question remains as to why those who are atoned for are not indeed saved. So far, you haven’t answered that with any of your links or objections to an inability to grasp the profoundly simple.
Your appeal to inability to understand is simply disingenuous. You know the issues. You know what “Calvinists” are trying to explain. That is, they are “limiting” the effects of the atonement to the elect, or if you’d rather, the one’s who will believe, or if you’d rather, the sheep of God’s pasture. They do this because, in fact, those are the only one’s whose sins are taken away. Because, and anyone with a modicum of intellect can grasp this simple point, if someone’s sins are truly taken away, there seems to be no reason to send that person to hell.
Disagree with it all you want. Rave and rant about how we mess up the gospel with our “limitations” if you so desire. But don’t act like we aren’t making sense. Or that we aren’t aware of your facile objections offered here. It makes you guilty of the sort of condescending attitude you blame Frank for. We get our quandries. We really do. And yet, we preach and believe that God will save those who place their trust in Jesus. And that all men should believe. And that if they don’t believe, it isn’t the fault of God, or the fault of the scope of the atonement, or the fault of the preacher, but rather it is due to stubborn, obstinate, unrepentant sin that God is in no wise obligated to overcome.
You follow me?
February 6th, 2010 | 12:29 pm | #54
@Stuart, obviously Martin Luther did not understand that “the world” means, “only a part of the world.”
: )
The Calvinist can never do what Luther has done: point people to the atoning sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world, but can only point people to the possibility that the atonement is for them, and the ground of assurance is not placed in/on Christ, but in/on one’s personal faith.
Mr. Turk spoke as a Calvinist when he said that the crucifixion of Christ was only for those who would believe. He did not speak Biblically.
February 6th, 2010 | 12:31 pm | #55
So, when the Bible says “all” and “world” it does not really mean “all” or “world.”?
I admit to being profoundly simple, but I’ve never been able to read the Bible as Calvinists do and understand words to mean something other than what they are.
Similarly, “This is my body” … etc.
February 6th, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #56
Woah! While I slept this comment thread was exploding…
But no one who is objecting to Frank’s post has answered this central question:
Which one is it?
1. It was God’s plan that Christ die in order to save every person in the world.
2. It was God’s plan that Christ die in order to save believers.
It really is, for the purposes of this post, that simple.
February 6th, 2010 | 12:32 pm | #57
Mr. Williams, may I ask you to answer this question:
How do you know that you are among those whom God has predestined to heaven, and not among those whom God has predestined to hell?
February 6th, 2010 | 12:35 pm | #58
@Rebecca, it is rather simple, isn’t it?
When the Bible says “world” and “all” the Bible means “world” and “all.”
It is and was God’s plan that Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
It is and was God’s plan that those whom are called to faith and trust in this fact are saved.
I’m sorry you and other Calvinists have such a need to try to rationalize and satisfy your desire for a “logical system” to explain this simple reality.
Yes, it is really that simple.
Please let me ask you a question, Rebecca, and forgive me for using your first name, but I do not know your last.
How do you know that you are among those whom God has predestined to heaven and not among those whom God has predestined to go to hell?
February 6th, 2010 | 12:39 pm | #59
@ Rev McCain
Mr. Turk’s scenario is this:
1. Christ died only for the elect
2. The elect have repented of their sins
3. I, Frank Turk, have repented of my sins
4. I, Frank Turk, am therefore one of the elect
5. I, Frank Turk, am saved
As you can see, his (and all those who hold to the same error) faith rests upon his own repentance.
February 6th, 2010 | 12:57 pm | #60
Rev McCain,
Happily! In short, I believe that Jesus is the Christ of God. That was enough to get Phillip to stop the coach.
I have never in my life heard any Calvinist counsel someone to try and figure out if they are predestined or not. Have you? It seems to me that you ought to rejoice in that instead of manufacturing problems were there are none. Unless, of course, you are angry with us for simply stating that people go to hell who don’t believe.
Now, could you be so kind as to explain why poor souls go to hell despite the fact that their sins have been propitiated? If you answer that it is because they do not believe, then I will say that sin is unbelief and should therefore be propitiated as well. So, unless you are willing to say that unbelief is not sinful, it will not help.
I look forward to your explanation. Seriously. Or you can just point me to some catechism or something. If you can’t be as simple as I have been.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:06 pm | #61
“How do you know you are among those whom God predestined to heaven and not among those whom God predestined to go to hell?”
Because I have repented, and when I answer the question “On what grounds am I right before God”, I will always and only say that my only ground is the work of Christ on my behalf, not any grounds of my own doing.
I recognize that repentance and faith are both gifts of God, and since I have them, I must have been given them.
Further, it is not my responsibility to know, it is my responsibility to repent and believe. It is only having done so, that I can know that I am of the elect.
Further, if I am wrong, and am not among the elect, God is still just and true and right in whatever judgement He lays on me.
By the way…on the “all means all” and “world means the whole world”, in every instance thing…I wonder where the records are of the Chinese and native Americans reporting to the place of their birth when, while Quirinius was govennor of Syria, they, along with “all the world” were to be taxed.
I’m sure the data must be out there somewhere, after all, it does say “all the world”.
And the atonement…again…so let me understand, the Father knew who would be saved (we agree on that, He knows the end from the beginning) and yet Jesus died for every sin of every person, so they would have the opportunity to be saved, all the while knowing that they wouldn’t be?
How well meant is that?
So…the extent of the atonement, and the well meant offer of salvation, are not just issues for the Calvinist to explain, they fall equally on your lap.
Both of us agree that whichever way God planned it, the outcome has never been in doubt. Call it knowing the future, call it an intentional plan, the problem is still there.
Saying “I don’t know and neither can you” may or may not be right (obviously I don’t think it is), but it certainly doesn’t provide any high ground over those who would examine Scripture (as you have as well) and conclude that God planned this and knew what He was about, does it?
February 6th, 2010 | 1:10 pm | #62
Brad, it is interesting that you point to your faith as your ground of certainty that you are not predestined to hell.
As for your questions…I know how frustrating it is for Calvinists when Lutherans refuse to explain what the Scripture does not explain. I’m not going to be able to help you here.
When the Bible says “world” and “all” the Bible means “world” and “all.”
It is and was God’s plan that Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
It is and was God’s plan that those whom are called to faith and trust in this fact are saved.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:12 pm | #63
Mr. Little, it is interesting that you point to your repentance as your source of security and confidence that you are among the elect.
I know it is frustrating to Calvinists that Lutherans insist on not trying to solve the “riddle” which Calvinism so desperately wants resolved, and put into a nice, neat, logically satisfying “system.”
I’m not going to be able to provide the “solution” you are looking for, because Scripture does not.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:24 pm | #64
Rev. McCain,
“Brad, it is interesting that you point to your faith as your ground of certainty that you are not predestined to hell.”
Acs 16:30-31. What else can I say?
You also imply that my simple question cannot be answered because, apparently, the Bible does not tell us why people go to hell. How very “interesting.” As for this, I know it is frustrating to Calvinists that Lutherans insist on not trying to solve the “riddle” which Calvinism so desperately wants resolved, and put into a nice, neat, logically satisfying “system.” My conscience compells me to remind you that I am a Baptist. We are not known for nice, neat, logically satisfying systems. I just like my inconsistencies better than yours.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:26 pm | #65
Rev. McCain,
Go back and re-read my comment, I point to Christ’s work as my source of security, as well as my belief that He will always do right.
I find it equally interesting that you point to your baptism as your source of security when it is plain that many many of those who are baptized have never and will never believe.
I’m sure it is also frustrating for those who believe that “world” and “all” always mean absolutely “all” and absolutely the whole “world”, when it is so easily demonstrated that they don’t. If you can find those Chinese/Roman census records, then I might think you had a point.
As for the riddle you point to, I see it plainly in Scripture and I’m sorry that you do not. Particularly when it leads you to admit that God, who knows the end from the beginning, pretends that He doesn’t.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:26 pm | #66
It is and was God’s plan that Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
It is and was God’s plan that those whom are called to faith and trust in this fact are saved.
Interesting answer. You seem to be saying that God’s actual saving intention is toward the faithful.
How do you know that you are among those whom God has predestined to heaven and not among those whom God has predestined to go to hell?
All I need to know is that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those those who draw near to God through him. So I just keep trusting him. When my faith wavers, I remind myself that it is not my righteousness, but Christ’s that counts.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:29 pm | #67
Rev. McCain,
One more thing. Can we please dispense with this silliness?
When the Bible says “world” and “all” the Bible means “world” and “all.”
We both believe that “world” and “all” mean “world” and “all.” I just happen to know that “world” and “all” does not always mean every single person who ever lived or is currently alive. This is a grammatical fact, not a Calvinistic conjuration.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:34 pm | #68
Simply put, if Christ died for all, then all should be saved.
“How do you know that you are among those whom God has predestined to heaven, and not among those whom God has predestined to hell?” -Rev. McCain
Quite simple Rev McCain…
If your life mirrors the BIBLICAL representation of a saved person. Belief, repentance, and a pattern of spiritual growth. (see 2nd Peter 1)
Stuart,
Christ enabled us to repent and believe, its not a work of our own ability, or an inherent righteousness, but God’s Irresistible grace that He calls his elect through. (see John 6:43-44)
February 6th, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #69
Now, could you be so kind as to explain why poor souls go to hell despite the fact that their sins have been propitiated?
You’re misusing the word, confusing it with “expiated.” Sins are NOT “propitiated” (I don’t even think there is such a usage of the word). Propitiation is directed toward God. It means turning away wrath.
Expiation of sins is another matter entirely. This is why little counterfeit coins can throw off an entire theological train.
February 6th, 2010 | 1:50 pm | #70
Mr. Keanon,
To your question, without the one and only true saving Gospel, how that “Christ died for our sins”, your faith necessarily rests upon something within yourself (repentance, faith, fruit, etc.), rather than looking away from yourself to the objective verifiable external Word of God.
Luther explains, “For he trusts and builds on his own, namely, on a gift which God has given him, and not on God’s Word alone, just as another builds and trusts in his strength, riches, power, wisdom, holiness, which as well are gifts given him of God” (St. L. XVII:2213).
Luther writes, “I always say that faith must have absolutely nothing but the Word on its side and must permit no subtle argumentation or human ideas in addition. Otherwise it is impossible for faith to be retained and preserved. For human wisdom and reason cannot progress beyond judging and concluding in accordance with what it sees and feels or with what it comprehends with the senses. But faith must transcend such feeling and understanding or make its decision contrary to these and cling to whatever the Word submits. Reason and human competence do not enable faith to do that, but this is the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart of man. Otherwise, if man could comprehend this with his reason, or if he were to resolve this in accordance with what is and what is not consonant with his reason, he would not need faith or the Holy Spirit… Reason cannot and will not remain within the Word or be captive to it, but it must also give its cleverness a voice, and thus insists on understanding and mastering everything… But against all that reason suggests or tries to fathom, yes, against everything that all senses feel and perceive, we must learn to cling to the Word and simply judge according to it… In short, if you will not esteem the Word above all your feelings, eyes, senses, and heart, you will inevitably be lost, and there is no help for you.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 28, pp. 69, 70)
February 6th, 2010 | 1:56 pm | #71
Johnny,
Good point about the meaning of propitiation.
Can you explain how God pours out His wrath on sinners at the judgenment, even though that wrath has already been turned away?
February 6th, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #72
Propitiation is directed toward God. It means turning away wrath.
Yes.
Is God’s wrath toward every single sinner who has ever lived, who is living, and who will ever live propitiated?
February 6th, 2010 | 2:01 pm | #73
If your life mirrors the BIBLICAL representation of a saved person. Belief, repentance, and a pattern of spiritual growth.
How do you know that mirror won’t show, at the end, one who did not persevere in the faith, and thus was never “truly saved”? How do you know your present mirror is not a delusion, a rank component of your depravity, in which you still reside?
How can you tell that you are not, as Calvin put it, of “the reprobate [who] are sometimes affected in a way similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.”
February 6th, 2010 | 2:02 pm | #74
Stuart,
So…on what do you base your security?
Remember now, in order to counter the Calvinists here, you need to explain it in such a way as to avoid saying that trusting in Christ’s finished work, and repenting of your sins, and believing in Christ; are sufficient grounds.
Those are, after all, a pretty fair summation of the ways in which Rev. McCain’s question was answered.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:12 pm | #75
Daryl,
If someone were to ask me, how do I know I am saved, I would say, “because God’s Word says that Jesus Christ died for my sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3). My faith and hope rest completely upon the objective and verifiable Word of God (Romans 10:17). If someone asks a Calvinist the same question, he says, “because I have repented”. His faith and hope rests ultimately upon his own perception of his repentance.
Luther writes, “This is the reason why our doctrine is most sure and certain, because it carries us out of ourselves, that we should not lean on our own strength, our own conscience, our own feeling, our own person, and our own works; but onto that which is outside us, that is to say, the promise and truth of God, which cannot deceive us” (St. L. IX:509). “You must be certain that your sins are truly and certainly forgiven you through the external Word.” (St. L. XIII:2438).
True Christianity follows the path of child-like faith. It openly confesses the true universal atonement of Christ, without denying anything of the doctrine of election. It announces the one and only true Gospel to every human being, how that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross of Calvary for their sins personally. This Gospel Word creates faith and confidence in the hearts of God’s elect. All is of God’s power and grace. Those who receive this blessed Word look to that which stands outside of them. Christ’s death in their behalf always remains objectively true. Their faith rests only upon the Word of God, requiring nothing at all of them. The more they observe this Word, the more confident they become. They have grabbed hold of the love of God in truth, and out of gratitude they now bring forth the fruits of this love (love begetting love) in true Christian works. All is perfect. There is not a flaw in it.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:13 pm | #76
On the contrary, I attribute my salvation to Christ alone, through His grace alone. If the Word claims my faith is a gift from God (see Eph 2:8), and I state I believe in that statement, I am pointing to Biblical truth in response to a question.
“In short, if you will not esteem the Word above all your feelings, eyes, senses, and heart, you will inevitably be lost, and there is no help for you.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 28, pp. 69, 70)
Johnny Dialectic…
Because the mirror comes from scripture.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #77
Are you sure you will not “fall away” a few years from now? If God wants you to look like a Christian for a time, but fall away later, all for his own glory, are you ready to accept that? (Or, more bluntly, what choice do you have?)
Daryl, that’s the right question. Thanks! IOW, why doesn’t propitiation result in universalism? It is not because we think propitiation must work that way if Jesus is truly thought to be the atoning sacrifice for the whole world. Simply put, the Sovereign God himself made expiation of personal sin conditional. Justification is by faith. It’s His call, and He’s made it just that way.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:21 pm | #78
Mr. Keanon,
Can you declare to me that Jesus Christ suffered and died for my sins? (yes? or no?, no qualifications)
February 6th, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #79
Honey-do list is going forward nicely.
This thread, not so much. [this sentence was somehow omitted from this comment; I add it here as a correction]
Be back later, especially to respond to the idea that I think people should put their faith in their faith.
February 6th, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #80
Johnny,
We’re oh so close. (Which isn’t surprising since I know that you are a true Arminian and not what passes for Arminianism these days.)
It’s true that justification is by faith. It’s also true that faith is a gift. So…why do some have faith, and some do not?
February 6th, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #81
Daryl,
As for Judas, have you not read Luke’s inspired account of the Lord’s Supper? “And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table” (Luke 22:19-21).
February 6th, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #82
Johnny Dialectic,
I answer simply with the truth of scripture,
Romans 8:28
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
There in lies the source of my comfort as I lean and trust only in God.
Romans 9:13-15
(13) As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
(15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Stuart,
If you are who Christ prayed for here, then yes
John 17:6-10
(6) “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.
(7) Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you.
(8) 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.
(9) I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
(10) All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them.
My apologies if this is not a sufficient response in your opinion, but I lean not on my own understanding but only of what God says.
(see Proverbs 3:5)
February 6th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #83
Stuart,
Where does the Scripture tell us to tell everyone that Jesus died for their sins? Repent and believe, I get, it’s everywhere, unmissable, but the other??? I’m not so sure.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:09 pm | #84
Keanon, may your trust turn out to be genuine, and not fake. I wouldn’t call that “assurance,” though.
Daryl, It’s also true that faith is a gift.
I can’t agree yet, since I know what Calvinists do to Eph. 2:8. In what sense do you mean “gift”?
February 6th, 2010 | 3:10 pm | #85
Daryl,
Mark 16:15, 16 alone should be sufficient, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
But it is also clearly evidenced by “behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” (Lk. 2:10); “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin (sin – whole lump) of the world [world = world] ” (John 1:29); “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son” [world = world] (John 3:16); “This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world [world = world]” (John 4:42); “who is the Saviour of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10); “who will have all men [all = all] to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4); “who gave himself a ransom for all [all=all]” (1 Tim. 2:6); “one died for all [all=all]” (2 Cor. 5:14); “God was in Christ, reconciling the world [world = world] unto himself, not imputing their [their=whole world] trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19); “who tasted death for every man [every man = everybody]” (Heb. 2:9); “even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1); “who is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9); “he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2); along with the equally clear Luke 14:16-24; 22:20, 21; John 3:17-18; 6:33, 51; 8:26; 12:47; 16:8, 9; Acts 13:26; 17:31; Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 15:1-4; 2 Cor. 4:3,4; 1 Tim. 2:5; Tit. 2:11; 3:4; Heb. 10:28, 29; and 1 John 4:13, 14.
The problem is not that we do not have Scripture to show, but that the error of limited atonement has blinded your eyes from seeing and your ears from hearing the truth.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:22 pm | #86
It is interesting, Mr. Keanon, that you base the hope of your salvation in what you see in yourself.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:23 pm | #87
Assuming the English translation “world” in scripture carries only an English meaning would be a great error indeed.
What of 1st John 2:15?
“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. ”
Why are we commanded to not love the world that God loved so much? Unless “world” here isn’t the same as the “world” in John 3:16, and it would seem a major contradiction for Christ to explicitly state He WAS NOT praying for the “world” in John 17 if indeed its the same “world He came to die for.
This is where we need a firm and extensive study of the original texts.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:27 pm | #88
@Rebecca:
Your comment saddens me and permit me to explain why. I pray that you know you are saved because Christ Jesus our Lord died for your sins. You are not throwing yourself entirely on the merits and mercy of Christ, but rather, are hopeful that you are among those predestined not to go to hell. There is a more certain and sure way. It is the way of unlimited atonement and absolutely grace alone, apart from any decision, action, work or otherwise on our part. It is the way of the Gospel.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:28 pm | #89
Rev. Paul T. McCain,
Again, that is a misrepresentation of my position.
I trust NOT in MYSELF, but only in CHRIST’s saving grace.
As was stated earlier….
Ephesians 2:8-9
(8) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
(9) not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:31 pm | #90
Johnny D,
I mean ‘gift’ in the sense of, one only has it if it’s been given. Likewise, if one has it, it was given.
I realize that we differ here, but I seen Eph. 2:8 referring to faith as a gift from God, which not everyone has. Same with repentance (2 Tim 2:25).
One other thing, in discussions like these, while I have not always been as charitable with you as I ought, I appreciate that you seem to honestly seek to understand what I am saying.
Stuart,
I’ll take that as a “no”. Seeing as you answered a question you wished I’d asked and not what I actually asked.
Rev. McCain,
On what do you base your hope and security?
February 6th, 2010 | 3:38 pm | #91
Mr. Keanon, I’m asking you how you know you are among those who have been predestined to eternal life? How do you know you are not among those predestined to hell?
What is your evidence?
February 6th, 2010 | 3:40 pm | #92
Mr. Keanon, firm and extensive study of the Greek text does not change the meaning of “all’ and “world” in those texts that speak of God’s love for the World and the unlimited nature of the atonement. It is only when Calvinism seeks to improse is a priori rationalistic doctrinal system on the texts that suddenly, effective, black is black, and white is white.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:44 pm | #93
Let’s see what happens if, in this conversation, we refrain from personally insulting remarks, including but not limited to:
Telling others they are not Christians.
Telling others they are idolators.
Complaining that people here are stupid and just don’t know what they are talking about.
Making snarky passive-aggrevise remarks.
To that end, I’m going to edit out any/all such remarks when they occur.
Let’s see how it improves the nature of the debate.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:46 pm | #94
Daryl asks, “Where does the Scripture tell us to tell everyone that Jesus died for their sins?”
I answer (along w/ 30 other verses), “Mark 16:15, 16 alone should be sufficient, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Daryl responds, “I’ll take that as a “no”.
Does this response make sense to anyone? I’m sorry, but I just don’t get that. How could a verse answer his question any better than Mark 16:15,16?
February 6th, 2010 | 3:47 pm | #95
Rev. McCain,
Thanks for that.
On what do you base your security?
Why is all, not all, in “that all the world should be taxed”?
Thanks.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:48 pm | #96
Stuart,
Where, then, is the Gospel defined as “Jesus died for YOUR sins”?
What is wrong with what the apostles said “Repent and believe”? Was that insufficient?
February 6th, 2010 | 3:53 pm | #97
@Daryl, in reply to comment 100:
I think I’d like to let one of the great Lutheran chorales answer your question. I have several other answers I’m happy to provide as well, but perhaps this will help answer your question about where I base my hope and security for salvation:
1. Salvation unto us has come
By God’s free grace and favor;
Good works cannot avert our doom,
They help and save us never.
Faith looks to Jesus Christ alone,
Who did for all the world atone;
He is our one Redeemer.
2. What God did in His Law demand
And none to Him could render
Caused wrath and woe on every hand
For man, the vile offender.
Our flesh has not those pure desires
The spirit of the Law requires,
And lost is our condition.
3. It was a false, misleading dream
That God His Law had given
That sinners should themselves redeem
And by their works gain heaven.
The Law is but a mirror bright
To bring the inbred sin to light
That lurks within our nature.
4. From sin our flesh could not abstain,
Sin held its sway unceasing;
The task was useless and in vain,
Our gilt was e’er increasing.
None can remove sin’s poisoned dart
Or purify our guileful heart,-
So deep is our corruption.
5. Yet as the Law must be fulfilled
Or we must die despairing,
Christ came and hath God’s anger stilled,
Our human nature sharing.
He hath for us the Law obeyed
And thus the Father’s vengeance stayed
Which over us impended.
6. Since Christ hath full atonement made
And brought to us salvation,
Each Christian therefore may be glad
And build on this foundation.
Thy grace alone, dear Lord, I plead,
Thy death is now my life indeed,
For Thou hast paid my ransom.
7. Let me not doubt, but trust in Thee,
Thy Word cannot be broken;
Thy call rings out, “Come unto Me!”
No falsehood hast Thou spoken.
Baptized into Thy precious name,
My faith cannot be put to shame,
And I shall never perish.
8. The Law reveals the guilt of sin
And makes men conscience-stricken;
The Gospel then doth enter in
The sinful soul to quicken.
Come to the cross, trust Christ, and live;
The Law no peace can ever give,
No comfort and no blessing.
9. Faith clings to Jesus’ cross alone
And rests in Him unceasing;
And by its fruits true faith is known,
With love and hope increasing.
Yet faith alone doth justify,
Works serve thy neighbor and supply
The proof that faith is living.
10. All blessing, honor, thanks, and praise
To Father, Son, and Spirit,
The God that saved us by His grace,-
All glory to His merit!
O Triune God in heaven above,
Who hast revealed Thy saving love,
Thy blessed name be hallowed.
February 6th, 2010 | 3:56 pm | #98
Rev. McCain,
Thanks for that, I loved it.
How that disagrees with a Calvinist answer is truly beyond me. So far, have we not all claimed that our only hope is in Christ?
February 6th, 2010 | 3:57 pm | #99
And I quote myself…
“If your life mirrors the BIBLICAL representation of a saved person. Belief, repentance, and a pattern of spiritual growth. (see 2nd Peter 1)”
I do not understand how you ignore this, the Bible paints clear pictures of the evidence of believers,(see Eph 5, Philp 2:12, Col 3:12) and non-believers alike (Ecclesiastes 7:20, Jeremiah 17:9 Rom 3:10-18, Rom 5:10, John 3:19)
If they mean the same thing explain the contradiction I posed earlier….
February 6th, 2010 | 3:57 pm | #100
I guess the issue really is, Rev. McCain, how do you know that Christ’s sacrifice applies to YOU, specifically.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:00 pm | #101
My apologies, I left out a header…
Rev. Mcain…
in response to
“Mr. Keanon, firm and extensive study of the Greek text does not change the meaning of “all’ and “world” in those texts that speak of God’s love for the World and the unlimited nature of the atonement.”
If they mean the same thing explain the contradiction I posed earlier….
February 6th, 2010 | 4:00 pm | #102
Because God says it does in His Holy Word.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:03 pm | #103
I rejoice in all who hope only in Christ. But the Calvinist system leads many to assume that assurance of their Election is not to be found in Christ, and Christ alone, and in God’s Word, but in a search for assurance in their actions in this life. “Believe, repetance and a pattern of spiritual growth.” Where we see these lacking, we should rightly fear we have fallen from grace, repent and turn back to Christ.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:08 pm | #104
Rev McCain…
“Because God says it does in His Holy Word”
How so?
February 6th, 2010 | 4:18 pm | #105
Rev Mcain…
You are not sure? Thats fine,but how then do drop such condemnation on the rest here in this post?
you right, I didn’t spell out the process of regeneration for you, I assumed we all held to it , I can certainly clarify.
I am saved through CHRIST sacrifice on the cross, He paid for my sins. He has gifted me with faith, and regeneration, which YEILD the evidence of true belief as stated earlier on.
Romans 8:29-30
(29) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
(30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:19 pm | #106
Daryl, I can’t remember any uncharitable things. A good honest scrap I appreciate. Thanks. I do agree we see Eph. 2:8 in mutually exclusive ways. And that, as Frost might have put it, “makes all the difference.”
Keanon, ever heard of false evidence? Like a forged letter? How do you know the “evidence” in your life is not false? Does God have the power to take away your mirror? Can you be assured he won’t?
February 6th, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #107
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:23 pm | #108
Side question… are there post disappearing? there is one missing between my previous ones.
Johnny Dialectic
Yes I have heard of false evidence, but how can you assume it would be the same as the Biblical evidence given in scripture? Would that not also pose a contradiction?
February 6th, 2010 | 4:27 pm | #109
Brad, I know it is very difficult to keep up with so many comments, but I actually did say why people go to hell: Because they do not trust in Christ for their salvation.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #110
Rev. McCain,
Galatians 2:20 is not a point we disagree on, in fact Galatians 2:20 supports my previous posts… we are not saved through our works, but when Christ becomes the center and focus of a person’s life, through true belief, there is evidence of it. I think we can all agree on that point
February 6th, 2010 | 4:32 pm | #111
Rev. McCain,
Okay. I think I’ll catch you on the next round of the atonement debate. I can’t keep up anymore.
This is all Frank’s fault. :)
February 6th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #112
Brad, I think I’m pretty much there myself. In fact … wait for it … yup, I’m there right now.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:35 pm | #113
Mr. Keanon, you asked where God’s Word says Christ died specifically for my sins. I gave you Gal. 2:20 and now I’m puzzled what you are trying to do with that verse which disproves the equivocating nature of Calvin’s doctrine of limited atonement.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:37 pm | #114
I disagree with you there Rev McCain, I don’t see this thread as being snark or demeaning, if you interpreted it that way I apologize. But this debate is centuries long, we cant expect to convert each other overnight :)
February 6th, 2010 | 4:39 pm | #115
I did not ask you that, that was
Daryl Little
February 6th, 2010 | 4:41 pm | #116
@Rebecca:
I’m very sad to hear you can not say, without hesitation, that you know you are saved because Christ Jesus our Lord died for your sins.
For one thing, you are reading into my answer something I didn’t say, so you can save your tears.
For another, there is a difference between the reason I know I am saved and the reason I am saved. There is a difference between the cause of my salvation and the cause of my own subjective knowledge of my salvation. Which question are you asking?
You are not throwing yourself entirely on the merits and mercy of Christ, but rather, are hopeful that you are among those predestined not to go to hell.
See, this makes me wonder if you even read my answer to you. The one where I said that I am throwing myself entirely on the merits and mercy of Christ, who is a complete Savior.
You know, I can’t remember ever, in my whole life, thinking that I might be predestined to hell. Why would you say I was?
There is a more certain and sure way. It is the way of unlimited atonement and absolutely grace alone, apart from any decision, action, work or otherwise on our part. It is the way of the Gospel.
If Christ’s work is as effective for every single person in the world as it is for me, then how can my assurance lie in the work of Christ?
February 6th, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #117
I have no problem with a vigorous debate, the problem here is the need of some of us to demean others, accuse people of being stupid, not being able to read what is “so obvious” and accuse people of not being Christians but idolators: I have with that last comment covered both Calvinist and Lutheran comments that have been posted here.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:45 pm | #118
Daryl,
You ask, “Stuart, Where, then, is the Gospel defined as “Jesus died for YOUR sins”?
I answer, if Christ died for all (cf. 30+ verses above), I know with certainty that He died for my sins. If he did not died for all, then I have no Biblical certainty that I am included in His atonement and thus have no ground for my faith. Like yourself, I would then be forced to look to myself – my faith, repentance, fruits, etc. (which are always wanting).
Paul plainly defines the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:1-4, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached (aor.) unto you, which also ye have received (after hearing the preaching), and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our (your and my) sins.”
February 6th, 2010 | 4:46 pm | #119
Rebecca, I’m sorry if I mistakenly assumed you are a Calvinist who believes in double-predestination.
How can your assurance lie in the work of Christ?
How can it possibly lie anywhere else, Rebecca?
February 6th, 2010 | 4:46 pm | #120
Agreed, debate shouldn’t fall in to that, but at the same time, be mindful of the forum of communication we are on, tone and intent can be misinterpreted very easily.
February 6th, 2010 | 4:50 pm | #121
Rebecca
“For another, there is a difference between the reason I know I am saved and the reason I am saved. There is a difference between the cause of my salvation and the cause of my own subjective knowledge of my salvation.”
Well put….
February 6th, 2010 | 5:03 pm | #122
Rebecca, I’m sorry if I mistakenly assumed you are a Calvinist who believes in double-predestination.
I do. But that doesn’t mean I spending time hoping that I’m among those who are predestined not to go to hell.
How can your assurance lie in the work of Christ?
How can it possibly lie anywhere else, Rebecca?
That doesn’t answer my question to you, does it?
February 6th, 2010 | 5:05 pm | #123
Rebecca, well, in that case, since you do believe in double-predestination, I would again put the question to you:
How do you know you are not one of those whom God has, from all eternity, predestined to hell?
And if your assurance for your salvation does not lie in the work of Christ, you have no salvation or assurance of it.