Particular Redemption - Part 3 of 7
The author recognizes this doctrine to be controversial. He asks for the grace of the reader to prayerfully consider the merits of this doctrine in the light of scripture.
In defending the biblical teaching of limited atonement, consider the following passages; “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Mathew 1:21). This text reveals a certainty about the work of Christ in atoning for the sins of “His people”. He will accomplish this work and there is absolutely no possibility that He will not accomplish the purpose of “saving His people from their sins”. Note also that “His people” are the ones to benefit from Christ’s work as Savior; not a universal, faceless mass of fallen humanity. Also, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out….This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (John 6:37, 39). Here Jesus reveals that the Father has given a people to Him. These are now “His people” and Christ assures us that every last one of the elect will come to Him and in fact be saved. Not one of the elect will be cast out or turned away because Christ will bear their sins and provide atonement for them. Jesus again asserts that the Father’s will is to save each and every elect sinner completely meaning that they will not finally nor totally fall away from faith and salvation. They will be saved and glorified “at the last day”.
Jesus prays the following just before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, “…Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him…I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:1-2, 9). How would Jesus in fact accomplish His mission to “give eternal life” to those the Father gave Him? He accomplished redemption and eternal life through His atoning work on the cross. Jesus was only concerned with those whom the Father had given Him. He said as much by not even praying for the world universally but only for those whom the Father had given Him before time began.
Christ does not state in Scripture that His death on the cross for sinners is intended for everyone, everywhere, of all times without exception. Christ does however state that He is offering Himself upon the cross for sinners, for many, for the sheep, and for all whom the Father has given Him. Consider the following passages, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “For this is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mathew 26:28). Did Christ die for all universally? In these two passages Christ spoke specifically of the atonement being for “many” as in a large numerical number but not “all” universally as in every man, woman, and child who ever lived or walked on the planet. Someone may ask how many then did He atone for? (Revelation 7:9) states that the number is so high that no one can number it.
An important limited atonement passage is found in John chapter ten. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep…as the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 14-15). To further explain the purpose for His death in actually redeeming “the sheep” Jesus states that He has other sheep whom He must bring and who will hear His voice (John 10:16). Being challenged by unbelieving Jews, Jesus states, “But you do not believe, because you are not My sheep” (John 10:26). This statement by Christ establishes election as unconditional. This can not be overly emphasized in the doctrine of limited atonement and the corresponding doctrine of election. He did not state, “Because you don’t believe, you are not My sheep” which would make a person’s choice the determining factor as to whether they are a sheep or not a sheep. He said, “You do not believe because you are not My sheep.” We conclude then that the sheep for whom Christ died (John 10:14-15) are sheep by election and not by choice. Sheep have always been sheep and always will be sheep. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost, ie: the lost sheep dead in trespasses and sins. Jesus goes on to state that He gives eternal life to His sheep and they shall never perish and the Father has given the sheep to Him, (John 10:28-29). The clear statement given in this passage is that not everyone, universally, is a sheep belonging to Christ. Therefore, Christ did not lay down His life for everyone, universally.
The apostles bore witness to this in their writings in the New Testament also. For example, Paul stated, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (Romans 8:32-34). Paul stated that God delivered Jesus “up for us all” and then stated that He was speaking specifically of “God’s elect”. Notice also that Paul spoke of Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and His ministry of intercession is for “us”, or for God’s elect.
The Scriptures are the revelation of God. The student of Scripture is careful to follow strict principles of interpretation. One of the foundational rules in interpretation is to identify the context and the audience to whom the author is speaking. The audience of the New Testament, especially in the context of the atonement, is the body of Christ. Those who have been saved, are already saved, or those who will be saved are identified time and again as the one’s to whom the Holy Spirit is speaking. Hence, the New Testament references to the atonement of Christ use the language of limited atonement. Some examples are; “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” (Galatians 1:3-4). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). “But God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
The biblical revelation of limited atonement is further established in Paul’s discussion of marriage in Ephesians chapter five. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might cleanse her with the washing of the water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27). For whom does Paul state that Christ died? He died for the church? For whom did Jesus previously state he would die? He died for the sheep. The incredible and deep application of this reality for those who are saved is that Christ died actually for “us.” He suffered for “us.” He loved “us.” He purchased “us.” He cleanses “us.” He makes “us” perfect, holy, and without spot, wrinkle, or blemish. This He did not do to make possible our salvation but to actually accomplish our salvation and not only us who are saved now but for all of the elect of God throughout the ages.
Another critical verse establishing limited atonement is found in Revelation. “And they sang a new song, saying: You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). Notice the text does not say that Christ has redeemed every tribe, tongue, people, and nation which would be universal atonement. But rather it says that Christ redeemed “us” “out of” every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. His redeeming blood has actually purchased a people “out of” the world. Who are those people? They are the ones whom the Father has given to His Son as His inheritance, the elect of God from every age. Thus the bible reveals not a universal atonement for all men but a limited atonement for the elect.
The author concedes that there are difficult passages related to this doctrine. But, there are difficult passages with every doctrine. Even Eternal Security has difficult passages but the great majority of us still believe it is true based on the evidence and clear teaching of the majority of the biblical texts. In subsequent posts to follow, the author will address some of the objections and difficult texts associated with the doctrine of Particular Redemption.
In defending the biblical teaching of limited atonement, consider the following passages; “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Mathew 1:21). This text reveals a certainty about the work of Christ in atoning for the sins of “His people”. He will accomplish this work and there is absolutely no possibility that He will not accomplish the purpose of “saving His people from their sins”. Note also that “His people” are the ones to benefit from Christ’s work as Savior; not a universal, faceless mass of fallen humanity. Also, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out….This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day” (John 6:37, 39). Here Jesus reveals that the Father has given a people to Him. These are now “His people” and Christ assures us that every last one of the elect will come to Him and in fact be saved. Not one of the elect will be cast out or turned away because Christ will bear their sins and provide atonement for them. Jesus again asserts that the Father’s will is to save each and every elect sinner completely meaning that they will not finally nor totally fall away from faith and salvation. They will be saved and glorified “at the last day”.
Jesus prays the following just before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, “…Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him…I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:1-2, 9). How would Jesus in fact accomplish His mission to “give eternal life” to those the Father gave Him? He accomplished redemption and eternal life through His atoning work on the cross. Jesus was only concerned with those whom the Father had given Him. He said as much by not even praying for the world universally but only for those whom the Father had given Him before time began.
Christ does not state in Scripture that His death on the cross for sinners is intended for everyone, everywhere, of all times without exception. Christ does however state that He is offering Himself upon the cross for sinners, for many, for the sheep, and for all whom the Father has given Him. Consider the following passages, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “For this is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mathew 26:28). Did Christ die for all universally? In these two passages Christ spoke specifically of the atonement being for “many” as in a large numerical number but not “all” universally as in every man, woman, and child who ever lived or walked on the planet. Someone may ask how many then did He atone for? (Revelation 7:9) states that the number is so high that no one can number it.
An important limited atonement passage is found in John chapter ten. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep…as the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 14-15). To further explain the purpose for His death in actually redeeming “the sheep” Jesus states that He has other sheep whom He must bring and who will hear His voice (John 10:16). Being challenged by unbelieving Jews, Jesus states, “But you do not believe, because you are not My sheep” (John 10:26). This statement by Christ establishes election as unconditional. This can not be overly emphasized in the doctrine of limited atonement and the corresponding doctrine of election. He did not state, “Because you don’t believe, you are not My sheep” which would make a person’s choice the determining factor as to whether they are a sheep or not a sheep. He said, “You do not believe because you are not My sheep.” We conclude then that the sheep for whom Christ died (John 10:14-15) are sheep by election and not by choice. Sheep have always been sheep and always will be sheep. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost, ie: the lost sheep dead in trespasses and sins. Jesus goes on to state that He gives eternal life to His sheep and they shall never perish and the Father has given the sheep to Him, (John 10:28-29). The clear statement given in this passage is that not everyone, universally, is a sheep belonging to Christ. Therefore, Christ did not lay down His life for everyone, universally.
The apostles bore witness to this in their writings in the New Testament also. For example, Paul stated, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (Romans 8:32-34). Paul stated that God delivered Jesus “up for us all” and then stated that He was speaking specifically of “God’s elect”. Notice also that Paul spoke of Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and His ministry of intercession is for “us”, or for God’s elect.
The Scriptures are the revelation of God. The student of Scripture is careful to follow strict principles of interpretation. One of the foundational rules in interpretation is to identify the context and the audience to whom the author is speaking. The audience of the New Testament, especially in the context of the atonement, is the body of Christ. Those who have been saved, are already saved, or those who will be saved are identified time and again as the one’s to whom the Holy Spirit is speaking. Hence, the New Testament references to the atonement of Christ use the language of limited atonement. Some examples are; “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). “Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” (Galatians 1:3-4). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18). “But God demonstrated His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).
The biblical revelation of limited atonement is further established in Paul’s discussion of marriage in Ephesians chapter five. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might cleanse her with the washing of the water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27). For whom does Paul state that Christ died? He died for the church? For whom did Jesus previously state he would die? He died for the sheep. The incredible and deep application of this reality for those who are saved is that Christ died actually for “us.” He suffered for “us.” He loved “us.” He purchased “us.” He cleanses “us.” He makes “us” perfect, holy, and without spot, wrinkle, or blemish. This He did not do to make possible our salvation but to actually accomplish our salvation and not only us who are saved now but for all of the elect of God throughout the ages.
Another critical verse establishing limited atonement is found in Revelation. “And they sang a new song, saying: You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). Notice the text does not say that Christ has redeemed every tribe, tongue, people, and nation which would be universal atonement. But rather it says that Christ redeemed “us” “out of” every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. His redeeming blood has actually purchased a people “out of” the world. Who are those people? They are the ones whom the Father has given to His Son as His inheritance, the elect of God from every age. Thus the bible reveals not a universal atonement for all men but a limited atonement for the elect.
The author concedes that there are difficult passages related to this doctrine. But, there are difficult passages with every doctrine. Even Eternal Security has difficult passages but the great majority of us still believe it is true based on the evidence and clear teaching of the majority of the biblical texts. In subsequent posts to follow, the author will address some of the objections and difficult texts associated with the doctrine of Particular Redemption.
posted by Christopher Redman at 11:00 PM
9 Comments:
CR,
I suggest you take a look at the book I mentioned earlier. While the authors, who are convictional Calvinists (yes, the 5Point kind), embrace Limited atonement, some of the main points you propose are listed in their "weak arguments" section.
As I noted earlier, which you seem to have missed, trying to prove one doctrine by constantly appealing to another one convinces no one but the already convinced CR.
Finally, one statement you penned stands, I am almost afraid to say, unbecoming of the One Biblically identified as "the Savior of the world". You write "Jesus was only concerned with those whom the Father had given Him." Not knowing it, CR, you hit dead-center the vast difference between modern Calvinism and non-Calvinism. It really is about God's love for His creation.
And one can make all the distinctions one desires between God's one kind of love for His elect and His other kind of love for the non-elect. Yet this is special pleading at best and disingenuous at worst. For, in your words, "Jesus was only concerned with those whom the Father had given Him." I assume Him to be, from Calvinism's view, eternally concerned only with whom He has eternally loved.
As has been endlessly pointed out, if this is God's love, as Wesley said, it's the kind of love that makes one's blood run cold.
Oh well, Peace, my brother. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter
Peter,
I'm afraid that your objections "convinces no one but the already convinced" of your position.
The critical difference between my approach and yours is that I continue to appeal to the text and provide scriptureal support and contextual interpretation of the scripture.
You, however, provide numerous quotes from "scholar's" opinions on the subject. Please, understand me, I appreciate the contribution of scholarly works and I can learn from them but ultimately I want to deal with the text of scripture.
Perhaps you can provide a consistent and valid interpretation of the texts cited? Especially John 17:9 and the related verses.
May I make one other observation? For me, all of scripture is connected as a single revelation. I suppose that I fall deeply into the category of a "systematic theology" student. I don't have a problem believing that John and Paul, for example, both spoke of the same truths under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps this is the reason that I have no problem speaking of the atonement and it's connection with election.
For example, in John 6 when Jesus said that the Father's will was that He should lose none that had been given to Him but should raise them up at the last day, I say that Jesus fulfilled the Father's will expressed here through His atoning work on the cross. Thus His atonement was the means to fulfill the Father's will that Jesus would save and keep all whom the Father had given to Him.
Have a blessed day,
Chris
CR,
For the record CR, my graduate work major was in systematic theology. Thus, I have no problem accepting a systematic approach from scripture.
Moreover, to assume that because I questioned the link you offered between unconditional election and limited atonement means I evidently do not appreciate "that John and Paul, for example, both spoke of the same truths under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." is simply incredible, my Brother CR.
My question of the link between two doctrines was not the link per se. Surely we agree that one doctrine should not contradict another doctrine. Rather my express purpose, if I may arrogantly quote my self was "trying to prove one doctrine by constantly appealing to another one convinces no one but the already convinced CR."
That was also my reason for quoting two prominent Calvinists: "Another less than convincing argument for limited atonement involves deduction from other doctrines."
As for my apparent habit of "providing numerous quotes from "scholar's" opinions on the subject" I am afraid once again ,CR, I come to a loss of words. I will just allow others--perhaps your readers-- to judge that observation themselves.
Now, I must press this, CR, because, from my perspective, my respect for the ultimate authority of God's Word over any other authority takes back seat to none. I unapologetically confess with Warfield: "What Scripture says, God says"
Your apparent self-perception that the difference between us lies in my appeal to others--"'scholars' opinions"--and your appeal to Scripture, stands both intriguing to me as well as puzzling.
You write: "The critical difference between my approach and yours is that I continue to appeal to the text and provide scriptureal support and contextual interpretation of the scripture"
Let's see CR, if you really, in practice, follow your very worthy estimation of your approach.
Thus far, in this series, you have 3 of 7 posts on the Atonement. The first 2 offer no Scriptural interaction whatsoever. That's not surprising, given the introductory nature of your intention.
What is surprising is while you made much of my quoting sources, your first two posts make much of three sources--Hargrave, BFM, and Nettles, the last of which, by the way, is a top-ranked scholar.
I am tempted to ask, my Brother CR, why it is that you can quote "scholars" as support for your position but when others do it, while the quotes are appreciated, you'd rather just deal with the text? I am tempted to ask, but I won't? :)
In post three, you did begin to interact with Scripture. The question is, did you successfully tease out the very worthy estimation that you "appeal to the text and provide scriptureal support and contextual interpretation of the scripture." Let's see.
MT. 1.21.= “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” You write that the "text reveals a certainty about the work of Christ in atoning for the sins of “His people”."
CR, no word in this verse mentions the atonement, the death of Jesus. It does mention "saving", but atonement is only one dimension of salvation, not salvation itself. And while the conclusion you draw that "there is absolutely no possibility that He will not accomplish the purpose of “saving His people from their sins” is truthful,and with which no one would question, the context itself does not speak of such. You bring that conclusion a priori to the text.
John 6.37,39 says nothing of the atonement. Yet you write: "Not one of the elect will be cast out or turned away because Christ will bear their sins and provide atonement for them." This assertion is brought to the text, CR, not exegeted from it.
If it is, what word Jesus used means "Christ will bear their sins" or "provide atonement" for them? I am afraid, CR, your desire for "contextual interpretation" is somehow overlooked here.
John 17.1-2,9: Once again, CR, the Atonement is strangely missing from these sacred words Jesus uttered. You concluded: "How would Jesus in fact accomplish His mission to “give eternal life” to those the Father gave Him? He accomplished redemption and eternal life through His atoning work on the cross." This is definitively not exegesis, CR. It is theological reasoning.
The fact is, my Brother CR, Jesus said nothing here about how eternal life would come to His people. While we can reason from other Scriptures that process, one must admit those conclusions must be read into these words. Contextual interpretation? I fear once again absence is present.
Mark 10.45/MT 26.28: From my view, CR, this is the first instance of dealing with Scripture that actually deals with atonement. Yet, the only exegesis is an assertion that "In these two passages Christ spoke specifically of the atonement being for “many” as in a large numerical number but not “all” universally as in every man, woman, and child who ever lived or walked on the planet." A predictable conclusion for Calvinists in general, one must admit, but not one shred of exegetical interaction about why exactly this is so.
In addition, it may have been a great time to explain exactly why, when Calvinists seem so adamant about interpreting the "all" passages as only "some" but insist here, as do you, CR, that "many" means exactly what Jesus meant "many" to mean: a large number, but not all. Is there a double standard Calvinists employ with "many" being taken at face value but "all" must be "interpreted" and taken in another sense? I think that's a valid question, don't you?
Unhappily for you, the rest of the Scriptures you cite, CR, except for perhaps Rev. 5.9, is ,as I recall, listed in the "weak argument" section of Why I Am Not an Arminian" by two staunch Calvinists.
And while you may not agree, I think it is always telling, when a position one is advocating is rejected by one's own theological tradition.
That is, it is not even convincing to the already convinced. Does this not at all resonate with you, CR? Calvinists themselves dumping old arguments that have been effectively answered and composing new challenges to their theological adversaries?
Later, and With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
Please listen...
I am not trying to offend you. I do appreciate the fact that finally you have interacted with biblical texts that I have brought up in the discussion. This has not been the norm in our previous remarks. From my perspective, you are verbose in quoting scholars and less ambitious in dealing with biblical texts. (I allow for my opinion to be wrong. Again, this is not intended to offend. Please accept my apology if I have erred in this idea.)
I think one possible problem here, at least for outside readers, is the fact that you and I have interacted on numerous occasions on a variety of subjects. Therefore, I make statements that go beyond this particular exchange and takes into account my impressions from many exchanges. So, readers at this site may judge in erre without the knowledge of all of our communication.
I have no doubt of your excellent scholarly study and ability to see through subjects that others may overlook. The biblical texts that I have referenced to this point, admittedly, have not been exclusive regarding the atonement but they have provided a context that affects the purpose and design of the atonement.
If the purpose and design of the atonement was intended to secure the salvation of those whom God has chosen from eternity, this is relevant from my view. I think that I can see why you seem to not appreciate the quote by Dr. Hargrave in post 2. However, as I reviewed the post and the quote in particular, I realized that Dr. Hargrave was not offering a succinct definition of the doctrine but rather explaining the implications of unlimted vs. limited atonement.
In post 1, I quoted Dr. Nettles concise definition of limited atonement. I'm glad this one has met with your approval.
I realize that this is a long series of posts. I understand that you are unsatisfied with the biblical texts that I have already presented, however, they provide a context from which to build further discussion.
I have, however, answered the questions - For whom did Jesus say that He died? ("for the sheep" John 10:11) and For whom did Paul say Jesus died? (for the elect - Rom 8:31-34 and for the church - Eph 5:25).
The heart of the biblical argument must deal with the issue of propitiation and of substitution. This will come in post 5. Perhaps, you may find the scripture citations satisfactory there.
The next post will discuss the historical baptist influence of the doctrine. So, admittedly, it will be light on biblical exegesis.
As for the "all" vs. the "many", I'll note this and perhaps provide some follow post on the subject. To get an idea of where I'm going, reference Eph 3:9 where all is used twice with two different implications.
And, we shall persevere...
Chris
CR,
Your responses sometimes are almost hilarious. I do not know if you intend them to be (I honestly cannot tell). I press you somewhat and all of a sudden, I become the poor offended Brother. Is this really the content of my post to you? Me whining about being offended? I still am smiling about that one...
As for my "excellent scholarly study", I appreciate the comment but frankly I do not qualify, CR. That's why I attempt to reap, as best as I can, the produce of those who definitively are scholars. Thus the "quotations" if you will. Unfortunately, you miss the point I made about your quoting scholars yourself, esp. Nettles, who definitely is a recognized scholar in his field. My intention was to "tongue-in-cheek-fashion" demonstrate the evident sleight of hand you seem to have unconsciously produced by criticizing my use of quotations when you yourself quote others when it serves your purposes.
As for your explanation that our other discussions have bearing on our present comments about LA, I am still trying to unravel, CR., not to mention what your other readers are not privy to about what we have or have not discussed. How is that relevant to whether or not Jesus made mention of atonement in John 17?
In addition, CR, to state that "finally you have interacted with biblical texts that I have brought up in the discussion" makes little sense in light of the fact you offered no Biblical data on the first two posts.
Indeed, that's exactly what I wrote in my last post: "Thus far, in this series, you have 3 of 7 posts on the Atonement. The first 2 offer no Scriptural interaction whatsoever." Thus, to suggest you "brought up texts to the discussion" does not seem to square with what you wrote. Unless, of course, I missed something there.
Finally, CR, you confidently write: "The biblical texts that I have referenced to this point, admittedly, have not been exclusive regarding the atonement but they have provided a context that affects the purpose and design of the atonement."
But, CR, that is not the way you presented the texts in your post. There, you introduce your exposition of Limited Atonement texts with these words: "In defending the biblical teaching of limited atonement, consider the following passages..." Rather than presenting context, your passages are offered as Biblical defense of LA, the first three of which say nothing whatsoever about atonement. Atonement must be read into the passages. And not just any atonement, CR; but Limited Atonement.
I am beginning to see why Calvinists themselves have abandoned this link in the golden 5P chain. Undoubtedly, Limited Atonement is the weakest ammunition in the Calvinist arsenal. Unhappily for you, CR, since all 5ps stand together or fall together, the future looks bleak.
Have a grace filled evening and a peace filled morning. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
I think with a multitude of words, the point is lost. For you and I, sometimes we talk past each other and have very little real communication. Sometimes, we just disagree. Sometimes, we actually have some meaningful, quality dialogue.
There is a little of all of this happening here. May I reword the primary objections that you have raised to this point, as I understand it?
1) You object to connecting Particular Redemption with Unconditional Election and cite some scholars who have said that this is a "weak argument".
2) You object to the use of some of the passages that I have presented because they do not speak specifically about the atonement and because I have merely made assertions without exegeting the passages themselves.
(You may have other objections sprinkled in as well but I believe that these two points encompass your primary objections to my posts at this time.)
My thoughts and response -
1) If other scholars (which I am not one of them) have found ways to communicate the doctrines of grace more effectively than I, wonderful. However, their assertion that my method here is "weak" is water off a ducks back.
As stated in post 1 we are concerned with the purpose and design of the atonement within God's purpose of redeeming sinners. (This is paraphrased from the quote by Dr. Hargrave that you have also objected to)
2) The primary passages that you have objected to indicate, from my humble opinion, the plan and scope of God's purpose in redeeming sinners.
For example: Matthew 1:21 "...He will save His people from their sins." It is my estimation that this prophecy foretells both the work of the atonement in "saving" and the ones for whom Christ will save, "His people". The obvious question is now, who are His people. Scripture answers this question for us but to use Christ's own words, "My sheep" who have been given to Christ "by My Father". (John 10:27-29) Of course, the identity of "His people" is addressed in other places but John 10 is just as good as any to seek an answer. The point is you don't see the atonement in this verse but I do. On this we will simply disagree.
The passage in John 6, Jesus sais that the Father has given people to Him and that the Father's will is that Christ not lose any of them but save them completely.
How does Christ save them completely? Through the work of the atonement. Is there some other way in which Christ would fulfill this mission other than His work on the cross?
As I said, with a multitude of words, the point is lost. So, we will procede...(next post)
Peter,
I just briefly reviewed our correspondance -
You have objected to 3 passages out of a total of 13 provided. You gave a minor concession to 3 passages. From my vantage, there are still 7 passages that have recieved no comment at all.
And, of the 13 passages cited, I have not yet dealt with the heart of propitiation and vicarious substitutionary atonement.
I think it may also help to note that posts 2-7 are one. I've divided them into sections for the purpose of the blog. As a result of the division, some posts deal with certain aspects of the discussion and others deal with other aspects. Some provide biblical interaction and some provide context and commentary.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home