Why I'm Not a Calvinist . . . or an Arminian, Part 2

The biblical concept is the preservation of the saints by God and the resulting perseverance of the saints. One without the other often leads to antinomianism (i.e. Zayne Hodges). Paul uses this tension throughout his writings, particularly in Philippians. Paul exercises a wholesome self-distrust and a simultaneous unreserved trust in God. This explains that while upholding security he would also affirm, “If I might attain unto the resurrection” or “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that God is working in you to will and to do” or “I keep under my body lest having preached to others I myself would be ‘adokimos’ (rejected, reprobate, disqualified)”.

Sufficient for all; efficient for those who believe. Does that accurately blend the two ideas without formally holding to a LA position? If we don’t limit the atonement’s application to non-believers, universalism may not be too far off!

[Mike Harding] If we don’t limit the atonement’s application to non-believers, universalism may not be too far off!

“that Jesus did die to pay the penalty for all” (1John 2:2) sounds like the theme song of universalism. Christ’s propitiation was of sufficient value to include both Jew and Gentile and all categories of men, and it is in that sense that He makes atonement for the whole world. The use of the term “world” in the NT often refers to neither the entire world nor all persons living (Lk2:1)

The biblical concept is the preservation of the saints by God and the resulting perseverance of the saints. One without the other often leads to antinomianism (i.e. Zayne Hodges). Paul uses this tension throughout his writings, particularly in Philippians. Paul exercises a wholesome self-distrust and a simultaneous unreserved trust in God. This explains that while upholding security he would also affirm, “If I might attain unto the resurrection” or “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that God is working in you to will and to do” or “I keep under my body lest having preached to others I myself would be ‘adokimos’ (rejected, reprobate, disqualified)”.

Sufficient for all; efficient for those who believe. Does that accurately blend the two ideas without formally holding to a LA position? If we don’t limit the atonement’s application to non-believers, universalism may not be too far off!

In his first post Christopher informed us that he was neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian but rather was a Biblicist. Unfortunately that term doesn’t mean much in the discussion he is engaged in. It’s not enough to use the phrase “clearly stated” and determine that a “simply stated passage” proves a view inaccurate, without engaging the opposing arguments.

[Christopher] However, that Jesus did die to pay the penalty for all (elect or not) is clearly stated in 1 John 2:2—“and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” This simply stated passage underscores the fact that the limited atonement view is not accurate.

A simple google search on “calvinism 1 john 2 2” brings up a number or responses, showing that the issue is not as clear as the author insists.

In Understanding 1 John 2:2, John Samson notes that

John writes of Jesus Christ being “the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (Hebrews), but also for the whole world (the Gentiles).”

He also shows the similarity between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2

John Piper sees the same parallels and comes to the same conclusion as Samson

This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the “sheep,” “the children of God” scattered throughout the whole world, “from every tongue and tribe and people and nation” are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.

With regard to perseverance, Christopher writes:

The issue here is that the phrase perseverance of saints implies some activity on the part of the believer, whereas the biblical data is explicit regarding God as exclusive Protector.

The problem with the TULIP acronym is that it is very easy to misunderstand (or misrepresent) the meaning of each phrase. Since it was not established by Dort and it’s first documented use was in 1913, it’s not helpful to argue against Calvinism by arguing against the wording of the acronym.

No Calvinist has ever taught or believed that perseverance is based on “activity on the part of the believer.” All (can I use that word) Calvinist’s affirm “God as exclusive Protector.”

p.s. some people prefer 5 strips of BACON over the TULIP (there’s even an FB group)

The issue here is that the phrase perseverance of saints implies some activity on the part of the believer, whereas the biblical data is explicit regarding God as exclusive Protector. If this fifth point was referred to as protection of saints, I think the point would be positioned more biblically, with a theocentric focus.

In fact, the biblical data explicitly teach both—and there is no contradiction so long as we properly frame the relationship between the two. We give priority to God’s preserving power as the cause of the believer’s security, but the believer’s ongoing faith and obedience are the essential effect. I think the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Divines would be in complete agreement on this point for neither group would deny the essential union of perseverance and preservation grounded in God’s sovereign election.

Selectivity of Scriptural texts and binary analysis enters the discussion the first article in this series, as well. For example,

In short, depravity seems to include representation in Adam, but extends beyond that to an ontological depravity due to our own individual natures: we are born from a sinner—in the image and likeness of that sinner—therefore, we are by nature, sinners.

Representation in Adam is inseparable from the reality of our depraved nature; it explains the origin of that nature. And, I would argue, depravity not only “seems to include representation in Adam,” but this representation is essential to our understanding of the gospel itself, according Romans 5.

Full disclosure: I am a 4.5ish Calvinist. LA makes sense logically, but I have never been able to reconcile it with the clear biblical statements that say otherwise. I realize this issue has been debated ad infinitum here on SI, but I just want to make two points.

1. If we’re going to examine John’s writings by comparing 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51-52, why wouldn’t we rather compare 1 John 2:2 with 1 John 5:19, where he uses the same phrase in the very same letter. Talk about context! Is anyone prepared to argue that “whole world” in 1 John 5:19 does not refer to the evil, fallen world system as a whole? Wouldn’t it mean the same in 1 John 2:2?
2. Regardless of where we come down on this, I hope we can all agree with Wayne Grudem (who believes in LA), who writes:

Finally, we may ask why this matter is so important at all. Although Reformed people have sometimes made belief in particular redemption a test of doctrinal orthodoxy, it would be healthy to realize that Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it once make it the subject of any explicit theological discussion. Our knowledge of the issue comes only from incidental references to it in passages whose concern is with other doctrinal or practical matters. In fact, this is really a question that probes into the inner counsels of the Trinity and does so in an area in which there is very little direct scriptural testimony—a fact that should cause us to be cautious. A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to say that this teaching of particular redemption seems to us to be true, that it gives logical consistency to our theological system, and that it can be helpful in assuring people of Christ’s love for them individually and of the completeness of his redemptive work for them; but that it also is a subject that almost inevitably leads to some confusion, some misunderstanding, and often some wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God’s people—all of which are negative pastoral considerations. Perhaps that is why the apostles such as John and Peter and Paul, in their wisdom, placed almost no emphasis on this question at all. And perhaps we would do well to ponder their example (Systematic Theology, 603).

Greg,

I am with you that this is more semantics than anything else where the rubber meets the road. Historic Arminianism does not teach universalism, so we both come to the place where only certain people, the elect, are redeemed. That said, I am curious how you understand the rest of I John 2:2 if you accept the “whole world” as meaning all humanity? How is it that propitiation is provided for the non-elect who still suffer eternal damnation?

Chip, the Bible neither asks nor answers that question. Just like with divine sovereignty and human responsibility, there is a tension there that is beyond human comprehension. The Calvinist explanations of 1 John 2:2 and other passages just seem like forcing a theological system upon the text. But of course we are all probably guilty of doing that at some point or another. :)

I feel that the author does himself disservice by just glossing over 1 John 2:2. It is not as easy as he states. There are solid arguments otherwise from some very solid theologians, which I won’t rehash. I know Greg that you state that it seems like forcing a theological system onto the text, but I think that we must also question our interpretation if a significant amount of Scripture points one way, and a single verse is interpreted a different way, whether we should look at our assumptions on this verse? For me, I became very convinced after reading John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” along with Packer’s intro. I think a broader amount of Scripture supports the framework. While I feel that there are tensions in Scripture, I don’t feel that 1 John 2:2 presents that kind of tension for a Calvinist, and I think there are solid interpretations that maintain the framework, without doing disservice to Scripture.

We’ve all heard them before.

In my opinion, the reason many Calvinists hold so tenaciously to Limited Atonement is that the whole system really breaks down without it. If the Atonement is not Limited, then grace is available to a whole whack of people who aren’t appropriating it. So much for “Irresistable”…

As far as the atonement is concerned, have any of the Limited Atonement advocates considered that the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) covered believing and unbelieving Israel? Atonement makes God propitious (willing and just to save), but doesn’t by itself save.

[dgszweda]

I feel that the author does himself disservice by just glossing over 1 John 2:2. It is not as easy as he states. There are solid arguments otherwise from some very solid theologians, which I won’t rehash. I know Greg that you state that it seems like forcing a theological system onto the text, but I think that we must also question our interpretation if a significant amount of Scripture points one way, and a single verse is interpreted a different way, whether we should look at our assumptions on this verse? For me, I became very convinced after reading John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” along with Packer’s intro. I think a broader amount of Scripture supports the framework. While I feel that there are tensions in Scripture, I don’t feel that 1 John 2:2 presents that kind of tension for a Calvinist, and I think there are solid interpretations that maintain the framework, without doing disservice to Scripture.

The Day of Atonement was not a “get out of jail free” card for corporate Israel. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). The Day of Atonement did not atone for the sin of unbelieving Israel.

[Don Johnson]

We’ve all heard them before.

In my opinion, the reason many Calvinists hold so tenaciously to Limited Atonement is that the whole system really breaks down without it. If the Atonement is not Limited, then grace is available to a whole whack of people who aren’t appropriating it. So much for “Irresistable”…

As far as the atonement is concerned, have any of the Limited Atonement advocates considered that the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) covered believing and unbelieving Israel? Atonement makes God propitious (willing and just to save), but doesn’t by itself save.

I wouldn’t put it that simple. To me it is a framework to understand Scriptures. It doesn’t fall or die on a single verse, nor does it rise on a single verse. It is the grand story that is told. Maybe it can be said the grand exposition of the entirety of the Bible. I also wouldn’t be so quick to call them tired. There is no framework that is free of any holes. This is the great mystery and the depth of salvation, that is not fully revealed in Scripture.

[Greg Long]

Full disclosure: I am a 4.5ish Calvinist. LA makes sense logically, but I have never been able to reconcile it with the clear biblical statements that say otherwise. I realize this issue has been debated ad infinitum here on SI, but I just want to make two points.

1. If we’re going to examine John’s writings by comparing 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51-52, why wouldn’t we rather compare 1 John 2:2 with 1 John 5:19, where he uses the same phrase in the very same letter. Talk about context! Is anyone prepared to argue that “whole world” in 1 John 5:19 does not refer to the evil, fallen world system as a whole? Wouldn’t it mean the same in 1 John 2:2?

Game, set, match.

There’s also John 3:

Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

[Don Johnson]

In my opinion, the reason many Calvinists hold so tenaciously to Limited Atonement is that the whole system really breaks down without it. If the Atonement is not Limited, then grace is available to a whole whack of people who aren’t appropriating it. So much for “Irresistable”…

This has been my experience as well, and the thing that scares me the most about the Calvinist system is that more than a few people I’ve talked to about Calvinism are far more concerned with the system than they are in anything else, and they will break fellowship - or treat you as a lesser Christian - if you do not agree with them. When I worked at BJU, we had to explicitly ask one student to stop bringing the subject up, because it became a staff morale issue. There is another guy in my church who looked at me like I didn’t believe in the Trinity when I told him I wasn’t a five pointer. It’s sad.

[Jay] Game, set, match.

Yes, in his single paragraph Greg undoes all the defenders of definite/limited atonement because they never ever deal with those verses.

:eyeroll:

Dr. McCune who was not a LA advocate argued that the atonement enabled God to justly give common grace to all men and the offer of the gospel to all men. At the same time, he believed that the atonement was applied personally to a man’s sin only when that man became a believer in Christ. McCune clearly limited the atonement in its application to believers. He says, “The atonement of Christ has certain benefits that are limited to those who receive them–i.e., believers or the elect. These benefits are saving or redemptive in nature. Election limits the atonement in its application. Thus, the atonement is both universal (1 Jn 2:2) and in some respects, limited (Jn 15:13; Matt 1:21; Jn 10:15; Eph 5:23—26; Titus 2:14). Clearly, there is something in the design of the atonement of Christ that is for believers that does not obtain for one who ends up in perdition. That factor is in the application of the atonement’s accomplishments and benefits… . There is an internal redemptive value of Christ’s atonement that is infinite, but the application, and thus the limitation, is based on external considerations, either the will of man of the absolute will of God. The latter is the obvious biblical teaching.”

“I’ve never been able to understand how the Calvinists, some of them, believe in a “limited atonement.” That is, the sacrifice of Christ applied only to those who are the elect, but there is no sacrifice of Christ for the whole world—when John expressly says He is the sacrifice, the atoning, dedicated gift of God in our lives for the whole world [1 John 2:2]. And it is just according to whether we accept it or not as to whether the life of our Lord is efficacious for us in His atoning death.”

-W. A. Criswell; wacriswell.com

There is not one single statement in Scripture that overtly states Christ died only for the sins of the elect. There are easily a dozen New Testament Scriptures overtly stating Christ died for all people.

-Dr. David Allen, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

David R. Brumbelow

[Mike] McCune clearly limited the atonement in its application to believers.

Every believer affirms a Limited Atonement! The non-Calvinist affirms that it is limited in its application, the Calvinist affirms that it is limited in its intent.

Since the Calvinist affirms that the Trinity is unified in its purpose, we insist that it is the intent that is limited. God elected persons; Christ atoned for those persons; the Holy Spirit regenerates those persons.

The question for the non-Calvinist who affirms conditional election is “why does God require Christ to atone for those persons whom God knows will not believe?”

Again, John, a question the Bible never asks nor answers.

These questions are along the lines of the same questions asked of Calvinists:

• “Why would God command us to believe if He’s already decided who will be saved and who won’t be?”
• “Why should we pray if God has already decided everything that will come to pass?”
• “If the elect can never fall away, why are there commands to persevere in the faith and warnings against falling away?”

Of course every theological system is required to reconcile seemingly paradoxical or even contradictory teachings of Scripture, but there is a point at which we say, “I don’t know. I guess God didn’t think it necessary to explain that to us. We just hold these paradoxical (or better put, complementary) truths in tension, and believe God at His Word.”

Criswell’s quote has been responded to above

Allen’s first statement may be right that there is no overt statement that “Christ died only for the sins of the elect.”

His second statement though is debatable. Calvinists would object that there are NT passages that “overtly” state that Christ died for all people.

[JohnBrian]

Allen’s first statement may be right that there is no overt statement that “Christ died only for the sins of the elect.”

If his statement is right - and no one I’ve seen disputes that - then why is there a whole theological system built upon it? And why do we tolerate that?
Hello? Do we not believe in the perspicuity of Scripture? Did we all skip Hermeneutics class in college or seminary?

Because even a total lack of such statements does not necessarily falsify the thesis.

http://andynaselli.com/falsifying

[Jay]

JohnBrian wrote:

Allen’s first statement may be right that there is no overt statement that “Christ died only for the sins of the elect.”

If his statement is right - and no one I’ve seen disputes that - then why is there a whole theological system built upon it? And why do we tolerate that?

Hello? Do we not believe in the perspicuity of Scripture? Did we all skip Hermeneutics class in college or seminary?

Dr. McCune’s explanation of the atonement from his systematic is excellent, and was very helpful to me personally. The excerpt that Mike Harding quoted above is one that hit me right between the eyes when I read McCune’s systematic. I also benefited enormously from Chafer’s discussion (3:193-194; 210-224), who isn’t as succinct as McCune but rightly emphasizes the Spirit’s role in the salvation of the elect. I think we sometimes get tunnel vision on Christ and ignore the work of the Spirit when we have these discussions.

I believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, but the benefits of that atonement are only applied to the elect by the sovereign work of the Spirit - which is the only reason why men repent and believe.

I personally think James White’s The Potter’s Freedom is an excellent book if anyone hasn’t read it.

Surely James White believes in definite atonement.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Perhaps we tolerate it on the same grounds we tolerate teaching on the Trinity, about which there are no overt biblical statements either despite being considered a fundamental issue of the faith.

But we have formulations for the Trinity as early as, what, 50-60 AD? Calvinism popped up in the fifteenth century, if I remember correctly, although it wasn’t formulated as such until the 16th. There’s a massive difference between something formulated twenty years after Jesus and 1540 years after Jesus. Not to mention that there are hints of the Trinitarian formula in the OT.

Wikipedia:

Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine. Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110, exhorting obedience to “Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit”. Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”. The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word “Trinity” was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the “Praxean” heresy.

Another early, and already more philosophic, formulation of the Trinity (again without usage of that term) is attributed to the Gnostic teacher Valentinus (lived c.100 – c.160), who according to the fourth century theologian Marcellus of Ancyra, was “the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures”. The highly allegorical exegesis of the Valentinian school inclined it to interpret the relevant scriptural passages as affirming a Divinity that, in some manner, is threefold. The Valentinian Gospel of Phillip, which dates to approximately the time of Tertullian, upholds the Trinitarian formula. Whatever his influence on the later fully formed doctrine may have been, however, Valentinus’ school is rejected as heretical by orthodox Christians.

Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.

Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism.

Dr. McCune - care to weigh in on this if you are reading?

[Jay]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Perhaps we tolerate it on the same grounds we tolerate teaching on the Trinity, about which there are no overt biblical statements either despite being considered a fundamental issue of the faith.

But we have formulations for the Trinity as early as, what, 50-60 AD? Calvinism popped up in the fifteenth century, if I remember correctly, although it wasn’t formulated as such until the 16th. There’s a massive difference between something formulated twenty years after Jesus and 1540 years after Jesus. Not to mention that there are hints of the Trinitarian formula in the OT.

Lets skip the term Calvinism, because most Calvinist don’t call it that. Calvin didn’t even espouse it, as others have said. Definite Atonement is much better. The book “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her”, outlines in the first few chapters on how Definite Atonement was found in the earliest days of the church and was much more widespread than only beginning with Calvin or at Dort.

You wrote:

Surely James White believes in definite atonement

He does, but he is arguing against a synergistic view of redemption. He doesn’t address the Amyraldian arrangement (which I hold to) at all - he was responding to Geisler’s book. If you are looking for a book that, in my opinion, effectively destroys a synergistic approach to salvation, White’s book is one to get.

I have Lightner’s The Death Christ Died and need to read it again. I also have From Heaven He Came and Sought Her and I look forward to getting into it sometime down the road. If I ever write anything on this topic, they’ll be two books I consult. Owen’s writing is just too tedious and impenetrable for me. My sympathies to folks who have managed to read him. Andy Naselli has written a summary of Owen’s views and also laments Owen’s writing!

[gpinto]

The Day of Atonement was not a “get out of jail free” card for corporate Israel. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). The Day of Atonement did not atone for the sin of unbelieving Israel.

I never said it was. But what the Day of Atonement did was cleanse the nation so that God would be willing to accept their sacrifices for the coming year. The Day of Atonement was for everyone, but only those who availed themselves of its provisions received its benefits.

[Don Johnson]

gpinto wrote:

The Day of Atonement was not a “get out of jail free” card for corporate Israel. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). The Day of Atonement did not atone for the sin of unbelieving Israel.

I never said it was. But what the Day of Atonement did was cleanse the nation so that God would be willing to accept their sacrifices for the coming year. The Day of Atonement was for everyone, but only those who availed themselves of its provisions received its benefits.

I’m trying to follow the reasoning here, but its not making sense to me yet. If the Day of Atonement cleansed the nation, why was there a need for further sacrifices?

Dr. Cone’s main point was this:

It is better to understand Christ’s sacrifice through the lens of the Passover illustration. The blood shed by the lambs was perfectly efficacious blood, but it had to be applied in a specific manner, otherwise it did not provide benefit for the individual (Ex 12:7,13).

This was also Chafer’s view; “[t] he blood of the passover lamb became efficacious only when applied to the door post,” (3:193). I have no idea whether Dr. Cone would agree with Chafer on the necessity of the effectual call of the Spirit or not.

What do you think about Cone’s basic point, quoted above?

Scriptures overtly stating Christ died for all people:

Who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29
For God so loved the world… For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. -John 3:16-17.
I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. -John 12:47.
Christ died for the ungodly. -Romans 5:6.
If One died for all, then all died; and He died for all…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. -2 Corinthians 5:14-16, 19.
Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Timothy 2:4.
Who gave Himself a ransom for all. -1 Timothy 2:6
Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. -1 Timothy 4:10.
[That Jesus] might taste death for everyone. -Hebrews 2:9.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. -2 Peter 2:1
Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. -2 Peter 3:9.

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. -1 John 2:2.

David R. Brumbelow

David,

You must harmonize Scripture with Scripture. As John has already pointed out, even the non-calvinist limits the atonement. McCune who is not a LA atonement advocate explains carefully what that means in his three-volume systematic. If you don’t limit the benefits of the atonement in its application, then by necessity, you would be a Universalist, which is obviously not the case. I know you well enough. The Calvinist limits the atonement in its intent.

Tyler, Chafer’s “For Whom Did Christ Die” was the most helpful for my understanding also. I just re-read it and Hodge’s of the same name. Lightner’s book is excellent as well.

Without getting drawn into this issue, the main question to be answered (and which lies behind much of the reasoning in the comments) is, ‘Is the atonement efficacious when it is accomplished at the Cross, or when it is applied - when a person believes?’

The follow on is the question of whether there is a distinction in time to be drawn between accomplishment and application, and what are the consequences of holding to one or the other view (Scripturally and logically)?

BTW, the same question may be directed to the doctrine of propitiation, but this time it may be phrased as ‘When is God propitiated - when Christ died or when a person believes and the blood is applied?’

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Don Johnson wrote:

gpinto wrote:

The Day of Atonement was not a “get out of jail free” card for corporate Israel. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). The Day of Atonement did not atone for the sin of unbelieving Israel.

I never said it was. But what the Day of Atonement did was cleanse the nation so that God would be willing to accept their sacrifices for the coming year. The Day of Atonement was for everyone, but only those who availed themselves of its provisions received its benefits.

Don,

I’m trying to follow the reasoning here, but its not making sense to me yet. If the Day of Atonement cleansed the nation, why was there a need for further sacrifices?

You need to do some study on this. For Leviticus, I recommend Gordon Wenham among others. The concluding verses of Lev 16 sum up the effect of the Atonement:

Leviticus 16:32 “So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, 33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 “Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.

The purpose of the Day of Atonement was to propitiate God for the nation, to “open a way” for their prayers to be heard and their sacrifices to be received. It opened the way for everyone, cleansed the land (and especially the temple) of the pollution accumulated by their sins through the previous year. It made God propitious, disposed to hear them. This is part of what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross did in the Atonement.

BTW, as to your question: “why was there a need for further sacrifices?” you might as well ask it for any part of the OT ritual. It is the nature of the OT ritual that it is not sufficient and the whole process must constantly be repeated. And each sacrifice only represented a part of the whole. The sacrifice of Christ was one sacrifice once for all. But it takes a whole system of repeated animal sacrifice (of various kinds) to anticipate all the facets of Christ’s work, and still do so imperfectly.

As I said, though, you need to study this out more. I’ve preached through Leviticus twice, it is a most fascinating book.

[TylerR]

Dr. Cone’s main point was this:

It is better to understand Christ’s sacrifice through the lens of the Passover illustration. The blood shed by the lambs was perfectly efficacious blood, but it had to be applied in a specific manner, otherwise it did not provide benefit for the individual (Ex 12:7,13).

This was also Chafer’s view; “[t] he blood of the passover lamb became efficacious only when applied to the door post,” (3:193). I have no idea whether Dr. Cone would agree with Chafer on the necessity of the effectual call of the Spirit or not.

What do you think about Cone’s basic point, quoted above?

See my reply to Chip as well, just above this comment.

I think that to limit the understanding of Christ’s sacrifice to any one OT sacrifice robs his sacrifice of its full meaning. While I agree with Cone about unlimited atonement, I think his wording here is unfortunate. Perhaps if he were to think about it, he would restate this. Each OT sacrifice prefigured Christ in some way. No one OT sacrifice prefigured everything Christ’s sacrifice accomplished, and none were a perfect representation of even that aspect they point to (because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin).

Your point about the Day of Atonement is very well taken. The work of the OT High Priest is a very explicit parallel to Christ’s atoning and intercessory work. If anyone is interested, this very point came up briefly in a debate on atonement between James White and Michael Brown (click here and start at the 50:00 mark).

[David R. Brumbelow]

Scriptures overtly stating Christ died for all people:

Who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29

Pastor Brumbelow,

This scripture is very helpful in that it demonstrates the word “world” in scripture does not always mean every last person. Thanks for bringing it into this discussion.

Furthermore, notice how few of the verses quoted by Pastor Brumbelow as “overtly stating Christ died for all people” do not actually do so or even necessarily so imply. See them below:

Who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29

For God so loved the world… For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. -John 3:16-17.

I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. -John 12:47.

Christ died for the ungodly. -Romans 5:6.

Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Timothy 2:4.

Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. -1 Timothy 4:10.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. -2 Peter 2:1

Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. -2 Peter 3:9.

[Don Johnson]

You need to do some study on this. For Leviticus, I recommend Gordon Wenham among others. The concluding verses of Lev 16 sum up the effect of the Atonement:

Leviticus 16:32 “So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, 33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 “Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.

The purpose of the Day of Atonement was to propitiate God for the nation, to “open a way” for their prayers to be heard and their sacrifices to be received. It opened the way for everyone, cleansed the land (and especially the temple) of the pollution accumulated by their sins through the previous year. It made God propitious, disposed to hear them. This is part of what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross did in the Atonement.

What you have expressed in the bolded sentence is actually a limited atonement. The propitiation is “for the nation” not for all mankind, so “their prayers” are heard and “their sacrifices” are received, not the prayers and sacrifices of all mankind.

On the internet I came across what to me was most unusual - a Landmark Baptist, King James Only, Sovereign Grace, Baptist Church. The following quote is from a chapter of the book, Leaves, Worms, Butterflies, & T.U.L.I.P.S., which is posted to their site.

The Old Testament Types Foreshadow a Limited Atonement

What preacher has not spoken on the Old Testament types? The Ark? The offering of Aaron? Yet, the Old Testament types present a definite picture of a limited atonement. Take the Ark for example. It was not intended for all. Nor did God invite all to enter. It was only designed for the family of Noah. It was not intended for any others. As a type of Christ it is a perfect picture of the limited atonement of Christ Jesus the Lord. And what of the offerings of Aaron? Were they ever made for all the world? Or, for the elect nation of Israel? Aaron only made atonement for the people of Israel. Not one of the Jewish atonement days had universal dimensions. Nor did the Aaronic sacrifices have universal efficacy. Nor were they ever proclaimed to have benefit to the heathen.

The passover is the most famous Old Testament sacrifice. Yet it was for the deliverance of the elect nation of Israel only.

ty

The NKJV has 3 headings in this chapter:

Jesus Prays for Himself 1-5

Jesus Prays for His Disciples 6-19

Jesus Prays for All Believers 20-26

If his purpose in going to the cross was to make salvation possible for all men everywhere (as opposed to securing salvation for the elect - believers), why are all men everywhere specifically excluded from his prayer?

Verse 9

I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

John, shouldn’t we pray like Jesus? Then should we also limit our prayers by only praying for the elect?

Or should we instead pray for “all men,” because “God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4)? So there can be no conflict between the way Jesus prayed and the way we are commanded to pray, correct?

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Rev 5:9

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,

In Gen 12, God promises a blessing to “all the families of the earth” through Abraham. John 3:16 tells of the love of God for the “all the families of the earth (the world). Rev 5:9 tells us that the end result is that “all the families of the earth” will be redeemed. No “family of the earth” is going to be left without a redeemed representation.

(I think there’s a 3pt sermon on missions right there)

p.s. Here’s the video of David Platt, the new IMB President, preaching at TGC 2 years ago. His sermon title was Divine Sovereignty: The Fuel of Death-Defying Missions

You can download the audio by right-clicking the 14mb file here.

This is from gotquestions.org

Unlimited atonement says that, while Christ does a great deal to bring salvation to His people, His death on the cross did not actually secure that salvation for anyone. Christ’s death is not sufficient in and of itself to save lost people, and, in order for His atoning work to be effective, there is a requirement that sinners themselves must meet. That requirement is faith. For man to be saved, he must add his faith to Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Therefore, the effectiveness of the atonement is limited by man’s faith or lack thereof. On the other hand, limited atonement believes that Christ’s death and resurrection actually secures the salvation of His people. While God does require faith of His people, Christ’s death even paid for the sin of our unbelief, and, therefore, His death meets all requirements for our salvation and provides everything necessary to secure the salvation of God’s people including the faith to believe. That is true unconditional love, a salvation that is by grace alone in Christ alone. Christ plus nothing equals salvation—an atonement so sufficient that it secures everything necessary for salvation, including the faith that God gives us to believe (Ephesians 2:8)

[Greg Long]

John, shouldn’t we pray like Jesus? Then should we also limit our prayers by only praying for the elect?

Or should we instead pray for “all men,” because “God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4)? So there can be no conflict between the way Jesus prayed and the way we are commanded to pray, correct?

we should go with the command in the passage!

For some reason John 16:8 does not receive much attention in discussions regarding the way John understood the term “world.” Yet, I think it provides crucial insight. In the larger context, Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to his disciples to empower them to preserve, complete, and produce His message. The Paraclete will use this message to “convict” the world. Broadly speaking, there are two interpretations of his convicting work: either Jesus referred to the Spirit’s general call or His effectual call. While I am convinced (please ignore my pun) that Jesus described the latter (based on the use of ἐλέγξει and considerations from the larger context), both interpretations treat τὸν κόσμον in exactly the same way: Jesus spoke of the world without distinction rather than the world without exception. Otherwise, his promise simply has not proved true. If the general call is in view, He limited “world” to those who hear the Spirit’s message produced by the disciples. If the effectual call is in view—you get the point.

I would argue the Paraclete passages should occupy a central role in our interpretation of the argument of John’s Gospel. That being the case, I would afford great weight to the clear meaning of τὸν κόσμον in John 16:8 as a guide in our understanding of its use in other passages. I would have to see strong contextual evidence in other passages to conclude that John used it to refer to the world without exception.

[JohnBrian]

The NKJV has 3 headings in this chapter:

Jesus Prays for Himself 1-5

Jesus Prays for His Disciples 6-19

Jesus Prays for All Believers 20-26

JohnBrian, are you seriously arguing for limited atonement on the basis of publisher supplied chapter headings? :)