55 Responses to “Ernest Reisinger on the Importance of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement to Gospel Proclamation (part 1)”

1. Nathan White Says:
   February 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

   If this pillar of the biblical foundation is removed, then the majestic Gospel of Grace will eventually crumble.

   Amen to that. Simply put, Calvinist press this doctrine not because it fits our system nicely, but because it reveals a truth about the atonement that is vital to a proper understanding of the gospel. Understanding this truth will lead to a fuller understanding of our God and deeper communion with Him.

   It’s definitely not about defining ‘the world’ and the use of ‘all’, it’s about directing others to deeper, more intimate worship in ‘the knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness.”

2. Mike Cheek Says:
   February 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

   I can only respond briefly while on my lunch hour. The Puritan Richard Baxter says it well:

   “Now I would know of any man, would you believe that Christ died for all men if the Scripture plainly speak it? If you would, do but tell me, what words can you devise or would you wish more plain for it than are there used? Is it not enough that Christ is called the Saviour of the World? You’ll say, but is it of the whole World? Yes, it saith, He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole World. Will you say, but it is not for All men in the World? Yes it saith he died for All men, as well as for all the World. But will you say, it saith not for every man? Yes it doth say, he tasted death for every man. But you may say, It means all the Elect, if it said so of any Non-Elect I would believe. Yes, it speaks of those that denied the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And yet all this seems nothing to men prejudiced.”

   We must first start with the biblical texts and build up a coherent theology from the data. It is my judgment that especially with Limited Atonement we have a case of developing a systematic theology first, and then forcing certain Scriptures into that theology.

   The Atonement flows from and is an outworking of the Incarnation. A limited atonement implies a limited incarnation. It is my understanding that the Greek Fathers saw Jesus as identifying wholly and fully with all of humanity. The Incarnation should be the starting point for a theology of the Atonement.

   I realize this isn’t going to change anybody’s minds one iota, nor is it offered in any other way but irenic, but I guess I wanted to speak briefly. Well, I’ve got to get back to work. Peace.

3. Simon Says:
   February 9th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

   Mike,

   While I appreciate your irenic tone, you might have a chance of changing minds if you offered some exegesis. Have you ever read a Reformed exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 or 1 John 2:2? If Jesus was the propitiation for every human who ever lived, can you please explain why some are in Hell? The unversalist rightly criticizes the Arminian (and Amyraldian) for his eisegesis when interpreting verses such as 1 John 2:2. Have you read puritans other than Baxter on the extent of the atonement? I’m still waiting for someone to refute John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”.

   You said “The Atonement flows from and is an outworking of the Incarnation. A limited atonement implies a limited incarnation.” This is an assertion, not an argument. I would like to see you flesh this out.

   Thanks.

   Simon

4. Andrew chapple Says:
   February 10th, 2007 at 1:10 pm

   What is wrong with the Amaryldian concept
   He died sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, otherwise we can become hesitant ot offer Christ to all as of course all are sinners but not all repent and believe

5. Robert Higginson Says:
   February 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pm

   Amen to Mike Cheek’s reply.

   The Bible, for example St Paul in Romans, clearly says that CHrist died for ALL, and there is no context which defines “all” as “all the Elect and only the Elect”. But the Bible is equally clear that not all are saved, but only a “remnant”. Contextually, one would have to say that the mere” remnant” who are saved are a remnant out of the Elect, implying that there can be many amongst the “elect” who are not saved - if the “all” as when Scripture says that Christ died for all is not all but only all-of-a-few-Elect. You cannot apply one logic and method of interpretation to one verse and not apply to all verses which have similar contexts.

   St Paul, for example in Acts, said of some that they “counted themselves unworthy of eternal life.” The Gospel had been preached, and they rejected it. In Paul’s letters, and more clearly in Hebrews (author unknown) we have the Midrashic illustration of those who had all the blessings and call of God, but THROUGH UNBELIEF failed to enter into GOd’s rest. Instead, they angered God and were condemned and destroyed.

   I follow the example of John Wesley amongst others because they start with SCripture. As he said, “Let me be a man of one book”, speaking of the Bible, and of comparing SCripture with SCripture. And from THE BIBLE, he believed that Christ died for all even though many are not saved. He also believed that our salvation is totally the work of God, and that we can contribute absolutely nothing to our salvation. He believed in the sovereignty of God, the necessity of a work of God in our hearts before we can believe, and many other points which some calvinists have claimed to be exclusively calvinistic doctrines and condemned Wesley as in error by not believing them.

   As Mike said, we MUST START WITH THE BIBLE and develope our theology from the plain sense of the whole of Scripture. If we do so, we must reject as contradictory to the Bible the notion of “limited atonement” just as we must also reject the “universalism” which (equal and opposite error) says that all are saved.

   (Glossary - Midrash - the Bible-believing method of interpretation of SCripture used by 1st century Jews. 7 Principles were formulated by Rabbi Hillel, whose grandson Gamaliel taught the Apostle Paul. Paul’s letters reveal a clear pattern of midrashic commentary on the Old Testament to illustrate (but never to derive in a vacuum) doctrine.)

6. Nathan White Says:
   February 10th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

   “The Atonement flows from and is an outworking of the Incarnation. A limited atonement implies a limited incarnation.”

   All who are under the headship of Adam die. All who by the new birth are under the headship of Christ live. This is the federal headship. Jesus came and represented His elect, His sheep, His bride, His church on the cross. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

   Thus, when you say that a limited atonement implies a limited incarnation, from what I think you mean, you are correct. Christ came to give life to HIS people, all who are IN HIM. He did not come to give life to those who have been left in Adam. For Christ talked repeatedly about saying ‘His own’, and ‘His sheep’, and that ‘He shall save His people from their sins’. All who were ‘given’ to Him, all who are ‘born of God’, etc.

   Therefore, I don’t think that the ‘limited incarnation’ makes an argument, for those who believe in a limited atonement certainly believe in a limited incarnation, that is, in the sense that is summarized by the Federal Headship.

7. Tony Says:
   February 11th, 2007 at 9:39 am

   Nathan said:
   “All who are under the headship of Adam die.

   True. But those under the headship of Adam are those in him by generation, i.e. those born of his seed, i.e. humans that exist.

   Nathan said:
   “All who by the new birth are under the headship of Christ live. This is the federal headship.

   Notice what you’re saying here. You’re saying that those who have experienced the new birth are under the headship of Christ, i.e. those born of his spiritual seed (regenerated by the Spirit). Not all the elect are born again, but of course they shall be. Once they are born again, they are in Him or in Christ. This is federal headship.

   Nathan said:
   “Jesus came and represented His elect, His sheep, His bride, His church on the cross.

   The fact that Jesus came and represented His elect, His sheed, His bride and His church does not mean that he ONLY came for them. That’s your presupposition. You want to say that he ONLY came and ONLY represented His elect, His sheep, His bride, His Church. There is a tertium quid between the view that Jesus ONLY represented His elect and the view that He EQUALLY represents all mankind with no qualifications. There is the view that He came ESPECIALLY for his elect, but also for the rest of mankind. This would do justice to the view that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but especially or efficaciously for the elect.

   You cite this passage:
   NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

   You seem to be reading it as follows:
   “For as in Adam (all humanity as an abstract class, whether existing or not) all die, even so in Christ (all the elect, whether existing or not) all (the elect) shall be made alive (regenerated).”

   I think it’s better to view the verse this way:
   “For as in Adam (i.e. all humans born by his seed, i.e. existing humans) all (existing humans) die, even so in Christ (all those regenerated by the Spirit, i.e. those in REAL union with Him) all (believers) shall be made alive (physically resurrected unto everlasting glory).”

   The Pauline concept of being “in Christ” or “in Him” here refers to REAL union, not to virtual union as you’re taking it. Also, the concept of being made alive in the passage has to do with the future physical resurrection/glorification (as the context indicates) and not with initial regeneration.

   Nathan said:
   “Thus, when you say that a limited atonement implies a limited incarnation, from what I think you mean, you are correct.

   Nathan is saying that Jesus is only the last Adam for the elect. That’s false. As the last Adam, he represents all those who he shares a nature with and suffers the curse of the law in the stead of all lawbreakers. He suffers the penalty of the law of works which all sinful humanity is under. It’s not only the elect who are under the penalty of the so called Covenant of Works. As the Heidelberg Catechism says regarding Question #37:

   Q. What does it mean that He suffered?

   A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race, in order that by His passion, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.

   Nathan said:
   “Christ came to give life to HIS people,”

   Nathan’s Assumption = ONLY His people, rather than ESPECIALLY His people.

   Nathan said:
   “all who are IN HIM.”

   Nathan’s Assumption = “In Him” references virtual union (all the elect as a class) instead of real union (the believing elect enjoying vital union with Christ).

   Nathan said:
   “He did not come to give life to those who have been left in Adam.”

   Where’s the proof for this? Is this merely a deduction from a presupposed theological system? Or are you inferring this proposition from the idea that not all are “made alive” (which goes back to your assumption that being made alive references regeneration rather than physical resurrection)? All that Christ represented are not made alive because all do not believe. Only the elect believe by virtue of the Spirit’s regenerating power using the quickening seed of the word of God, and thus they alone obtain the benefit unto a glorious resurrection.

   Nathan said:
   “For Christ talked repeatedly about saying ‘His own’, and ‘His sheep’, and that ‘He shall save His people from their sins’. All who were ‘given’ to Him, all who are ‘born of God’, etc.”
   Again, your inserting an “only” into those references and then you seek to make a deduction. You might consult the words of R. L. Dabney who saw this argument as an “Inconclusive Proof”:

   “In proof of the general correctness of this theory of the extent of the Atonement, we should attach but partial force to some of the arguments advanced by Symington and others, or even by Turrettin—e. g., That Christ says, He died “for His sheep,” for “His Church,” for “His friends,” is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse. All the force which we could properly attach to this class of passages is the probability arising from the frequent and emphatic repetition of this affirmative statement as to a definite object.”

   Nathan said:
   “Therefore, I don’t think that the ‘limited incarnation’ makes an argument, for those who believe in a limited atonement certainly believe in a limited incarnation, that is, in the sense that is summarized by the Federal Headship.”

   I don’t think you’re properly understanding Federal Headship. You seem to be making the virtual to be actual and the actual to be virtual. You’ve blurred the distinction between virtual and actual union. The text you cited from 1 Cor. 15 has to do with ACTUAL or REAL union.

8. Tony Says:
   February 11th, 2007 at 10:08 am

   Simon says:
   “If Jesus was the propitiation for every human who ever lived, can you please explain why some are in Hell?”

   Some are in hell because they are in the same condition the unbelieving elect were in prior to faith. They have failed to believe in Christ so as to obtain the benefit of what Christ did in suffering sufficiently for all. Even the elect were once children of wrath and justly exposed to divine displeasure, even as the rest (Eph. 2:4), despite the fact that Christ died for them. If your position is correct, then how can the unbelieving elect be justly exposed to divine wrath and sincere hellfire threatenings when Christ died for them? Are you aware of how your Double Jeopardy argument backfires? You’re stuck with either 1) denying that the elect are ever under divine wrath (which is patently unbiblical) or 2) abandoning the Double Jeopardy argument as so many solid Calvinistic thinkers have, such as C. Hodge, R. L. Dabney and W. G. T. Shedd.

   Simon says:
   “The unversalist rightly criticizes the Arminian (and Amyraldian) for his eisegesis when interpreting verses such as 1 John 2:2.”

   As you said to Mike, “This is an assertion, not an argument. I would like to see you flesh this out.” This assertion is built on the assumption that your Double Jeopardy argument (going back to Owen) is not only valid but also sound.

   Simon says:
   “I’m still waiting for someone to refute John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”.”

   One wonders if you’re looking very hard. Just for starters, you might try reading Neil Chamber’s A Critical Examination Of John Owen’s Argument For Limited Atonement In “The Death of Death In The Death of Christ.”

9. Robert Higginson Says:
   February 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

   BTW, Jacobus Arminius was, I understand, giving voice to some of Melancthon’s theology.

   When we say “The Reformed ” doctrine on any issue, it is a bit like saying “the Amrican viewpoint ” on some issue where Democrats and Republicans differ.

   The Reformers differed, and at the same time as upholding the Five Solas the century of the Reformation finished in 1615 with a spectrum of doctrines, all supporting the central teaching of Salvation By Faith in contrast to the Papist mixture amounting to salvation by works.

   Martin Luther thought he was totally biblical in his teaching on the Jews which allowewd Hitler to think that the anti-semitism in Mein Kampf was a Christian teaching. In this, he (Luther) forgot that Romans 9 - 11 teaches the Gentile Church as grafted in to the Jewish rootstock, not uprooting and replacing them. (And Romans 10 gives a clearly Arminian basis for individual salvation, paralleling John 3, applying equally to Jews and Gentiles who take their place in the corporate identity of the People Of God through faith.) And Baptists, who in my opinion recovered the true Scriptural doctrine of Believer’s Baptism, were persecuted by almost all the other Reformers - which may have contributed to their becoming a fringe group and having some questionable doctrines.

   We are in danger of magnifying the differences between the various strands of Reformed doctrine by focussing on the issue of LIMITED atonement rather than the work of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Atonement.

   Sola SCriptura. Starting point and finishing point in doctrine.

10. Simon Says:
    February 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    Reading your comment (#8), I have to wonder if you even understand
    the well-known and biblical idea that God works through means.

    Tony said:
    If your position is correct, then how can the unbelieving elect be
    justly exposed to divine wrath and sincere hellfire threatenings when
    Christ died for them?

    My answer: God works through hellfire threatenings and other warnings as means to draw the elect to himself, so that they might repent and believe,
    and, I might also add, to keep them from falling away. I’m hardly the first person to give that answer.

    Tony said:
    Are you aware of how your Double Jeopardy argument backfires? You’re stuck with either 1) denying that the elect are ever under divine wrath (which is patently unbiblical) or 2) abandoning the Double Jeopardy argument…

    You false dichotomy fails to topple Double Jeopardy. I hold to neither 1) nor 2). The burden of proof is on you to show that my position necessarily implies 1) or 2).

    I said:
    “The unversalist rightly criticizes the Arminian (and Amyraldian) for his eisegesis when interpreting verses such as 1 John 2:2.”

    Tony replied:
    As you said to Mike, “This is an assertion, not an argument. I would like to see you flesh this out”. This assertion is built on the assumption that your Double Jeopardy argument (going back to Owen) is not only valid but also sound.

    Which part of the argument is unsound? Demonstrate specifically where Owen’s biblical argument breaks down.

    I said:
    “I’m still waiting for someone to refute John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” ”

    Tony replied:
    
    One wonders if you’re looking very hard. Just for starters, you might try reading Neil Chamber’s A Critical Examination Of John Owen’s Argument For Limited Atonement In “The Death of Death In The Death of Christ.”

    Apart from the exposure you have given this obscure seminary thesis, it would be quite hard to find, IMO. For those of use who don’t want to fork out the money to purchase it, perhaps you can enlighten us as to the author’s arguments. Unless they are the same as yours, in which case his work adds little to the debate.

    Simon

    Calvin against the Lutheran Heshusius in The Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, wrote:

    “It is worth while to observe in passing, with what acuteness he disposes of my objection, that Christ cannot be separated from his Spirit. His answer is, that as the words of Paul are clear, he assents to them. Does he mean to astonish us by a miracle when he tells us that the blind see it? It has been clearly enough shown that nothing of the kind is to be seen in the words of Paul. He endeavors to disentangle himself by saying, that Christ is present with his creatures in many ways. But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world. And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them? And how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins. I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his Supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and another to be a judge. When he afterwards says that the Holy Spirit dwelt in Saul, we must send him to his rudiments, that he may learn how to discriminate between the sanctification which is proper only to the elect and the children of God, and the general power which even the reprobate possess. These quibbles, therefore, do not in the slightest degree affect my axiom, that Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.”

11. Simon Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 2:02 am

    Nathan is far more knowledgeable and gifted than I, and he certainly doesn’t need me to defend himself. Nevertheless, I’ll respond to a few of Tony’s replies to him in post #7.

    Nathan said:
    “Jesus came and represented His elect, His sheep, His bride, His church on the cross.”

    Tony replied:
    The fact that Jesus came and represented His elect, His sheep, His bride and His church does not mean that he ONLY came for them. That.s your presupposition. You want to say that he ONLY came and ONLY represented His elect, His sheep, His bride, His Church. There is a tertium quid between the view that Jesus ONLY represented His elect and the view that He EQUALLY represents all mankind with no qualifications. There is the view that He came ESPECIALLY for his elect, but also for the rest of mankind. This would do justice to the view that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but especially or efficaciously for the elect.

    Here is a common argument from those who deny particular redemption. Yet it ignores the substance of what the particular redemptionist says. I cannot speak for Nathan or others, but when the Bible says Jesus gave His life for His sheep, His church, etc., I do not immediately insist that the word “only” be inserted in these verses so that I can uphold my theological system, as Tony supposes that I would. Rather, I study the context of these verses. If they refer to specific benefits given to the recipients of Christ’s sacrifice, and such benefits cannot be applied to the non-elect, I would conclude that the verses are unlikely to be saying Jesus’ life was given also for those not of His sheep/church/etc. A case in point:

    Eph 5:25 (NASB): “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her”.
    Now could this verse also teach that Christ loved those outside the church in the same way, and gave Himself up for them also? Let’s read on to see the result of Christ giving himself for the church:

    Eph 5:26-32: 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband>

    So a benefit of Christ’s death is that the church was sanctified and presented to Him holy and blameless. Are the non-elect also sanctified and presented to Him holy and blameless? Does Jesus, in addition to loving his bride because he loves Himself, also love others who are not His bride? If you said to your wife that you love her and would give yourself up for her, would you expect her to then ask you whether you meant you love only her, and whether you would give your life up for only her, the person with whom you became one flesh?

    Tony replies to Nathan by claiming:
    The Pauline concept of being “in Christ” or “in Him” here refers to REAL union, not to virtual union as you’re taking it.

    and

    Nathan’s Assumption = “In Him” references virtual union (all the elect as a class) instead of real union (the believing elect enjoying vital union with Christ).

    A reading of Ephesians 1 shows that Paul is quite capable of describing the elect as being “In Him”.

    Simon

12. Andrew Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 9:16 am

    Recently, a commenter named Michelle posted a response to my article, Was the Death of Christ a Failure? I’ve now replied to her. I’m noting this here in case Michelle looks at this more recent post, rather than the older one.

13. Robert Higginson Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    Simon Says:
    February 9th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Have you ever read a Reformed exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 or 1 John 2:2? If Jesus was the propitiation for every human who ever lived, can you please explain why some are in Hell? The unversalist rightly criticizes the Arminian (and Amyraldian) for his eisegesis when interpreting verses such as 1 John 2:2.

    Taking the second question, 1 Corinthians 10 makes a comment.

    1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
    1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
    1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
    1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

    We could suppose (for the sake of argument) that all who left Egypt with Moses were Elect, “In Christ”. But only 2 made it to the Promised Land. And of those who died, most were destroyed for unblelief, and Hebrews tells us that God swore that they should never enter His rest. (Hebrews 2:18 ; and remember that the use of SCripture is not “proof texts” out of context, but the whole Chapter, or in this case, Chapters 2 and 3.) (Even Moses died for unbelief, Numbers 20, but in his case it was not unbelief leading to hell ; his sin was disobedience to a word from God which midrashically figured whether Christ died once and once only, or again and again as in the Papist mass.)

    Now 1 John 2:2 has been pointed to.

    1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

    Isaac Watts (a calvinist) wrote
    My faith would lay her hand
    On that meek head of Thine
    While as a penitent I stand
    And here confess my sin.

    According to what some people have suggested in other debates, Watts was advocating “salvation by works” in the action of laying his hand, by faith, on the head of the Sin Offering, as prescribed so often in Leviticus.

    Or to re-phrase it, the plain sense of 1 John 2:2 (the A.V. above is a reasonably literal translation of the Greek here) is that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Hilasmos, “propitiation”, for the sins of the whole world. So why are not all saved? Because most people do not have the least desire to confess their sin and let their faith lay a hand on the head of their sin-offering. Pride and unbelief are the barrier. And the arminian says that, until God comes and awakens the sinner to his lost condidtion, and gives the grace of repentance, and gives the faith by which to believe (as John Wesley taught, “the faith by which we believe is itself a gift from God”), then the sinner remains dead to God and alive to sin.

    Now in closing, I am unable to deduce what “eisegesis” the arminian is criticised for regarding 1 John 2:2. This is one of a significant number of Scriptures whose plain sense is that of the “General Atonement” rather than “Particular Atonement” (to use Baptist nomenclature). Do you mean the “eisegesis” of reading into this verse that Christ died for all?

14. Mike Cheek Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Friends, thanks to all for your replies. They would all deserve a careful reply, but time does not permit. I will try to read everyone’s response more carefully offline, but this will take some time. On a personal note, I want to make sure no one thinks I was just posting and then stepping back just to watch the “fireworks” After I posted, I checked back once or twice and there was no activity, and so I went home for the weekend and haven’t checked back until now.

    My intent was to try to step back and look at the bigger picture from a higher altitude on this issue. Also, sometimes you just need to put something down in writing in order to clarify your thinking.

    I do feel the Incarnation should serve as the starting point for our theology. (I know I am in good company with many when I say this.) In the Incarnation the Son reveals the Father to us. Being co-equal and one in essence with the Father, the Son’s forgiveness is the Father’s forgiveness. And the Son, being the second Adam, represents humanity to the Father. It is my understanding that the Greek Fathers (the guys who gave us Nicea) emphasized Christ’s solidarity with all mankind. And if the Incarnation demonstrates Jesus’ solidarity with humanity, well, then, I think this should inform our understanding of the nature of the Atonement.

    I do joyously affirm the mirifica commutatio, “the wonderful exchange” that Calvin and Luther spoke of. Jesus has taken what is ours, our enmity, our sin, our death and given us what is his in exchange (love, righteousness, eternal life) Perhaps on this we can all agree.

15. David Ponter Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    I normally dont post at blogs, but I thought I might butt in here. This might help.

    Simon said:

    “Have you ever read a Reformed exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 or 1 John 2:2?”

    David comments: there are many “Reformed” readings of the first verse, let alone the second verse.

    For example:

    Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness ,and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Calvin, 2 Peter 2:1.

    “The only Lord God,” or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. Calvin, Jude 4.

    You might want to check out the comments by Poole, Henry, Symson and Adams, all of which follow Calvin there.

    Hope that helps,
    David P

16. Simon Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    Robert,

    You referred to 1 Cor 10:1-4 and Heb 2,3 to answer my question “If Jesus was the propitiation for every human who ever lived, can you please explain why some are in Hell.” I don’t think I understand your answer, although you refer to the sins of unbelief and disobedience, so let me ask you about that. Would you not say that Christ died for the sins of unbelief and disobedience for every person who ever lived, including those in the desert, elect or not? If so, is God going to judge and punish those sins again?

    You also said:
    Or to re-phrase it, the plain sense of 1 John 2:2 (the A.V. above is a reasonably literal translation of the Greek here) is that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Hilasmos, “propitiation”, for the sins of the whole world. So why are not all saved? Because most people do not have the least desire to confess their sin and let their faith lay a hand on the head of their sin-offering. Pride and unbelief are the barrier. And the arminian says that, until God comes and awakens the sinner to his lost condidtion, and gives the grace of repentance, and gives the faith by which to believe (as John Wesley taught, “the faith by which we believe is itself a gift from God”), then the sinner remains dead to God and alive to sin.

    Yes, as you said, most people do not have the least desire to confess their sin, but to repeat my question above, did not Jesus die for their sins anyway, including their sins of pride and unbelief? If so, why are they punished for these sins?

    Then Robert said:
    Now in closing, I am unable to deduce what “eisegesis” the arminian is criticised for regarding 1 John 2:2. This is one of a significant number of Scriptures whose plain sense is that of the “General Atonement” rather than “Particular Atonement” (to use Baptist nomenclature). Do you mean the “eisegesis” of reading into this verse that Christ died for all?

    I was referring to the fact that some immediately assume the words pas (all) and kosmos (world) must refer to every human being who ever lived. You called this the “plain sense” of Scripture, but this is begging the question. We interpret Scripture by studying its context, and remembering that it cannot contradict other Scripture. I assume you would agree with this, since I could cite other verses in which we would both agree that “all” and “world” do not refer to every human being who ever lived.

    —-

    Mike said in post #14:

    I do joyously affirm the mirifica commutatio, “the wonderful exchange” that Calvin and Luther spoke of. Jesus has taken what is ours, our enmity, our sin, our death and given us what is his in exchange (love, righteousness, eternal life) Perhaps on this we can all agree.

    Yes, we can all agree that this is true for the elect. However, if one holds to unlimited atonement but not universalism, then he is forced to say that the wonderful exchange is only one-sided for the non-elect. Viz., Jesus took the enmity and sin of the non-elect upon himself, yet He has not given them His righteousness and eternal life.

    Simon

17. Robert Higginson Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    Simon.

    Thanks for having noted my comments.

    Interestingly, (the Holy Spirit through) John wrote Holou tou kosmou in 1 John 2:2 - “The whole world.” Maybe to give us pause for thought when we run too quickly after the idea of Pas, “All”, also translated “Whosoever” (for example in John 3:15, 16) where the context and grammar of the verse points to a sub-set, “All who believe” rather than all regardless of whether or not they believe. While in John 3, John 3:13 gives an important example of a type of Christ Crucified, being made sin on our behalf. The Brass Serpent could have healed all who had been bitten, but only those - all those who looked were healed. “My faith would lay her hand … ”

    Taking kosmos in 1 John 2, there is obviously a different shade of meaning later in the chapter, “Love not the world … ” (v. 15-17) pointing to that which captivates our affections and becomes an idol.

    Theologians tell us that kosmos is a characteristic word of John the Gospel Writer (whom I accept as the writer of the 3 letters). So I am happy to conclude that in 1 John 2:2 kosmos is more likely to carry the same shade of meaning as it does in, for example, John 1:29, or John 3:16 where we read the extent of GOd’s love for the kosmos.

    As you said, I was referring to the fact that some immediately assume the words pas (all) and kosmos (world) must refer to every human being who ever lived. You called this the “plain sense” of Scripture, but this is begging the question. We interpret Scripture by studying its context, and remembering that it cannot contradict other Scripture. I assume you would agree with this, since I could cite other verses in which we would both agree that “all” and “world” do not refer to every human being who ever lived.

    Now we clearly agree on the importance of i) Context ; and ii) Comparing Scripture with Scripture. But I guess we shall continue to disagree on this verse. I have yet to be shown any reason to doubt the plain sense of holou tou kosmou since there is neither immediate context (in the 5 chapters of 1 John) nor other Scripture with which this verse is not consonent to interpretet it differently. (I have shown a different meaning of kosmos later in the same chapter, but the sense of the verse is different, immediate context shows the distinction.) (Romans 5:18 goes so far that we must take it in the context of the whole book. But in the context of the chapter, eis pantas anthrwpous, to all men, has to mean all descendents of Adam. The clear teaching of Salvation by Faith over-rides the possible interpretatoin of universal salvation.) To reach any other conclusion than the plain sense where that sense is clear, we must import (eisegesis) an alternative and less obvious meaning from elsewhere. John has clearly and unambiguously stated that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Whence the interpretation that Holou means “half”? or that tou kosmou means other than the world? Those who would esiegete other than the plain sense should argue their case. However, since we are unlikely to agree, it may be more profitable for the Moderator to close this thread to new comments. And it is way past my bed-time.

    We could also take the example of Exodus 12. The Passover Lamb was killed for the whole household. Yet a Firstborn might still suffer the judgement simply by being outside his dwelling where his Lamb had been killed, and where the blood was applied to the doorposts.

18. Nathan White Says:
    February 12th, 2007 at 11:20 pm

    Tony,

    I was not surprised when I read your comments. I have read many of your comments on other reformed blogs that discuss this subject, and it seems you love to jump on those who hold to John Owen’s views on the ‘L’. You have said nothing new that I haven’t read before, and the text that seems most dear to your heart, Eph 2:3 and ‘children of wrath’, does nothing to discredit Owen’s thesis, in my opinion of course.

    Simon answered very well above, and I am content to let his comments stand as a defense of my position as well. I have read pages and pages where you have interacted with others on this subject, and I do not wish to enter into a similar conversation with you. I have heard what you have to say, and I disagree. That being said, I will briefly clarify a few things from my position and give summary statements without the long discourse of explaining each point:

    -Particular Redemption (PR) does not affirm that the death of Christ has absolutely no benefit for the reprobate.

    -PR does not consistently lead to eternal justification.

    -PR affirms that Christ came to save, that is what He did, and that scripture is crystal clear in that He did not come to make salvation merely possible.

    -PR affirms that Christ’s death was not a failure. There was no dissention in the Godhead between the Son offering a sacrifice for an individual only to be rejected by the Father on the basis that there was no faith. Christ accomplished for the elect the task He was given by the Father. He was given a bride to redeem, and that is what He accomplished.

    -PR affirms in salvation by ‘nothing but the blood’. That is, if Christ died for Judas in the exact same manner as He did for Peter, what differs in that Judas is cursed and Peter is redeemed? Certainly nothing but the blood causes them to differ.

    -PR says that Jesus has a special, intimate love towards those whom He was entrusted by the Father to save. This sacrificial love was evidenced in His atoning death, and is not evidenced in the creatures who will spend eternity under everlasting punishment.

    -Unbelievers who reject Christ cannot say with Paul that they have been ‘crucified with Christ’, as in His death having any specific application to them whatsoever.

    -The Elect were chosen before the foundation of the world; God’s work of redemption was ‘completed’ before the foundation of the world; Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, which ultimately led to the specific names of the elect being written in the book of life before the foundation of the world: Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3, Rev 13:8. If you’re worried about eternal justification, you’ve got bigger problems than just the ‘L’. If your stuck on Eph 2:3 as if it someone hurts the double-jeopardy position, I would only suggest that a closer look at God’s sovereign control over all the events of life, and how He has chosen to accomplish His redemption within the space of created time –even though His decrees are fixed and determined from before time began.

    “For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” –That is what Christ’s death accomplished, and who it accomplished it for.

19. David Ponter Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 12:35 am

    G’day Nathan,

    You don’t know me. I’ve read some of your posts on various blogs. If I may ask you a couple of questions/comments. You said this:

    “Simon answered very well above, and I am content to let his comments stand as a defense of my position as well.”

    David: I went back and found this from above, from Simon:

    “My answer: God works through hellfire threatenings and other warnings as means to draw the elect to himself, so that they might repent and believe, and, I might also add, to keep them from falling away. I’m hardly the first person to give that answer.”

    David: I don’t see how that is an answer. What it does seem to communicate that is that the living unbelieving elect are only under the wrath of God only insofar as they are subject to threatenings of punishment.

    But then we also have this:

    Tony had posted this Tony said:
    “Are you aware of how your Double Jeopardy argument backfires? You’re stuck with either 1) denying that the elect are ever under divine wrath (which is patently unbiblical) or 2) abandoning the Double Jeopardy argument?”

    Then to that, Simon simply said:

    “You false dichotomy fails to topple Double Jeopardy. I hold to neither 1) nor 2). The burden of proof is on you to show that my position necessarily implies 1) or 2).”

    David: okay that reads to me, that he does not deny that the living unbelieving elect are the wrath of God.

    Apart from that, Nathan, I must be missing how he answers Tony, unless he means only that the living unbelieving elect are under the wrath of God only in this way: insofar as they are threatened with wrath.

    But now I say to you, is that a credible interpretation of Eph 2:3: “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.”

    The structure there seems to be this: ‘we were under the wrath of God, even as the rest are.’ That tells me that the nature of the wrath we predicate as being upon “the rest” is of the same kind that we were also under. Right?

    Would it not be very very odd to insist that the living unbelieving elect were only threatened with wrath, even as ‘the rest’ are likewise only threatened with wrath?

    Paul is saying more than that, I think all would agree. The rest are under the actual punishment of God (albeit temporal Roms 1:18).

    But then is this other option plausible: we were threatened with wrath, even as the rest are actually under the wrath of God? That does not make intuitive sense, does it? Not to me.

    I think the point is, many today are avoiding the force of the passage. The end result of Simon’s limited input is that the living unbelieving elect were never actually objects of actual punishment. This seems contrary to Dort, the WCF and classic Reformed theology.

    The question of justification flows from this.

    So to sum up this long post, I havent seen anyone offer a plausible explanation of the clause “even as the rest are”. Can one seriously justify the claim that Eph 2:3 only tells us that the living unbelieving elect were merely threatened with divine wrath?

    Of course I have not even mentioned that this is Semitic idiom which speaks to being subject to punishment.

    The answer has to elsewhere, rather than this way of seeing Paul. The answer has to be in some strategy that admits the force of the verse–that the living unbelieving elect were truly and meaningfully objects of punishment–but that God, yet, was not obtaining two satisfactions for any sin.

    That being so, the question now seems to be in the other person’s court, not Tony’s. But any attempt that disconnects the connection between us as we were formerly, and “even as the rest are” does the same thing I’ve mentioned above. The issue Simon needs to answer, I think is the wrath of God that lies upon the rest, mere threatenability, or actual punishing wrath?

    I am not trying to be combative here. Its just that I see so many folk seemingly miss the force of Paul’s point.

    The piont is, I think for good reasons, as I’ve just outlined, Simon has _not_ answered the dilemma Tony posed: unless of course he seriously proposes that Paul actually did mean to say, we too were subject to the threats of wrath, even as the rest are subject to threats of wrath.

    If Simon rests with that, I can no more, other than its clearly a false and superficial gloss upon the text. I can only walk away at that point.

    Make sense?

    Thanks
    David

20. David Ponter Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 12:41 am

    I should have worded that last better:

    “The point is, I think for good reasons, as I’ve just outlined, Simon has _not_ answered the dilemma Tony posed: unless of course he seriously proposes that Paul actually did mean to say only: we too were subject to the threats of wrath, even as the rest are subject to _________.

    Fill in the blank. Ive chosen to word it that way so that Simon does not think I am trying to unfairly box him in on that point.

    David

21. Simon Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 12:44 am

    Robert,

    Thanks for your reply (comment #17), but if I am not mistaken, you have still not directly answered why if Jesus died for all sins of a non-elect person, those same sins are to be judged again at the final judgment?

    You interpret John 3:13 and Exodus 12. Without getting into a debate over these verses also, I do not believe they address the issue at hand.

    As for the Johannine usage of kosmos (and its cognates), you agreed that in 1 John the word can have meanings other than the one you assign in 1 John 2:2. Now would you consider that in 1 John 5:19 kosmos can be understood as a reference to a certain number of individuals (in contradistinction to the “we” in that verse)? If so, it surely cannot refer to all men who ever lived.

    Regarding 1 John 2:2, my problem is that you appeal to the “plain sense” of the verse, but in fact you are importing into the verse an assumption that “whole world” plainly must refer to every person who ever lived. This assumption is under dispute. In addition, if you are correct, then this verse would contradict other scriptures that indicate certain sinners will be judged on the basis of their sins, and that they will be found guilty and undergo punishment for them in Hell. Revelation 5:9 shows how the “whole world” can be understood with respect to the extent of the atonement: Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. I would also point to the close parallel John makes between 1 John 2:2 and John 11:51-52, as Gene Bridges has ably laid out:

    1 John 2:2
    And
    He Himself
    is the propitiation for
    our sins
    and not for ours only
    but also
    for
    the world

    John 11:51-52
    he prophesied that
    Jesus
    would die for
    the nation
    and not for the nation only
    but also
    that He would gather together in one
    the children of God scattered abroad

    Who, then, composes “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2? Answer: “the children of God scattered abroad.” Thus “our” refers to Jewish Christians and “the whole world” to those who are Gentiles scattered abroad or, more broadly, “our” refers to “all believers alive at the time John wrote his epistle,” and “the whole world” could refer to “all believers yet to come.” Either way this is the whole world of believers.

    Simon

22. David Ponter Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 11:43 am

    Hey Simon,

    Let me try this.

    Let me try and answer some of these questions and points you have:

    Simon says: Thanks for your reply (comment #17), but if I am not mistaken, you have still not directly answered why if Jesus died for all sins of a non-elect person, those same sins are to be judged again at the final judgment?

    David says: That’s an argument that assumes one or more of these premises: God can’t punish sin twice, God can’t demand two payments, two satisfactions.

    Lets put the onus back on you. You make this claim, a claim which has some implicit and undeniable assertions, can you sustain this claim? Can you show why God is not able to punish sin twice, first in the satisfaction of Christ, and then in the impenitent sinner?

    Tony has proffered what’s called a counter-factual to your claim here. God does punish the living unbelieving elect with temporal punishment. And yet with regard to the elect, Christ satisfied for all the sins of the elect. I gather you want to say something like this: “No God does not actually punish any of the living unbelieving elect…” But as I have said, I don’t think this does justice to Eph 2:3. So we do have at least one instance of sin being punished twice.

    Simon says: You interpret John 3:13 and Exodus 12. Without getting into a debate over these verses also, I do not believe they address the issue at hand.

    David says: If the world of 3:16 is all mankind, then the provision of salvation is for all mankind.

    Simon says: As for the Johannine usage of kosmos (and its cognates), you agreed that in 1 John the word can have meanings other than the one you assign in 1 John 2:2. Now would you consider that in 1 John 5:19 kosmos can be understood as a reference to a certain number of individuals (in contradistinction to the “we” in that verse)? If so, it surely cannot refer to all men who ever lived.

    David says: this is a false dilemma fallacy. One need not be committed to saying that world for John means, always and all times, every single person, who has lived, lives and will live. Clearly in 1 Jn 5:19 it does not have this meaning. There is no need to try and impose this meaning on anyone, therefore. World in 5:19 means the same as in 2:2, and that is apostate mankind, the world, those in rebellion outside the church, the gathered community. Now there is no alleged contradiction. Can you tell me what whole world means in 5:19?

    Simon says: Regarding 1 John 2:2, my problem is that you appeal to the “plain sense” of the verse, but in fact you are importing into the verse an assumption that “whole world” plainly must refer to every person who ever lived.

    David: I wont and can’t speak for the other fellow. But I can say for myself, even for Tony there, that world in John does not have to mean every single person who has lived, lives and will lives. Would you concede that if this premise is removed, world for John means apostate mankind? We can add: apostate mankind alive at any given point. Yes, no?

    Simon says: This assumption is under dispute. In addition, if you are correct, then this verse would contradict other scriptures that indicate certain sinners will be judged on the basis of their sins, and that they will be found guilty and undergo punishment for them in Hell.

    David says: That’s the double jeopardy/payment assumption again. It seems to me that you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of a penal substitution versus commercial substitution. Or as Packer well states it, it’s the confusion of civil law verses criminal law. Packer points out that many in the early Reformation tradition would conflate the two types of legal suits (see his dissertation on Baxter “The Redemption of Mankind” p., 276). I would encourage you to read Dabney or C Hodge on the true nature of a penal satisfaction.

    Simon says: Revelation 5:9 shows how the “whole world” can be understood with respect to the extent of the atonement:

    David says: But kosmos is not even used in Rev 5:9 is it? What is more, the logic is a little dodgy. It dangerously says something like this: the last in accomplishment was the limited original intention. There are tacit fallacies here. One cannot reason back from a limited result to a limited intention in any sense. 10 guests show up at the wedding. One cannot infer from that, that only 10 guests were invited. Right?

    Simon says: Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

    David says: See above. You cannot reason back from an actual result to a limited intention like that. Its simply fallacious to do so.

    Simon says: I would also point to the close parallel John makes between 1 John 2:2 and John 11:51-52, as Gene Bridges has ably laid out:

    David says: the parallel overlay, as I like to call it is fun.

    1) Do you know that the only point of contact between the two verses is the word but, “alla”. The overlay is purely in the eye of the English beholder.

    2) The only other similarity is the form of the expression: not only ours, but theirs also (my paraphrase). Maybe John just likes expressing things that way to make a point. But that should never be taken as evidence of subject-matter identity. Remember, no italics, no bold, no underline in the first century, so emphasis has to be made by way of style, idiom and expression.

    3) Next, the problem is, there is no evidence from the text that by the terms “the people” “the nation” either the priest, or John meant the elect or the true believers. There is no evidence that John didn’t see “the nation” as exactly that, the nation of Israel. The overlay just assumes something else without a shred of internal textual evidence.

    4) And conversely, there is no evidence in any of John’s epistles that he used kosmos to denote the children scattered abroad. Rather, he consistently uses it as a place of apostasy and darkness.

    5) When parallelisms in Scripture are identified, more markers or keys are used. For example, the second common references in the synoptics give clear indicators in their respective use of metaphors, topics, subject matters, common words, common speakers, common audiences. But we don’t have anything comparable here, do we? Nothing.

    cut

    Simon says: Who, then, composes “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2? Answer: “the children of God scattered abroad.” Thus “our” refers to Jewish Christians and “the whole world” to those who are Gentiles scattered abroad or, more broadly, “our” refers to “all believers alive at the time John wrote his epistle,” and “the whole world” could refer to “all believers yet to come.” Either way this is the whole world of believers.

    And this leads in to the next problem.

    Dabney says:

    6) 1 John 2:2, it is at least doubtful whether the express phrase, “whole world,” can be restrained to the world of elect as including other than Jews. For it is indisputable, that the Apostle extends the propitiation of Christ beyond those whom he speaks of as “we,” in verse first. The interpretation described obviously proceeds on the assumption that these are only Jewish believers. Can this be substantiated? Is this catholic epistle addressed only to Jews? This is more than doubtful. It would seem then, that the Apostle’s scope is to console and encourage sinning believers with the thought that since Christ made expiation for every man, there is no danger that He will not be found a propitiation for them who, having already believed, now sincerely turn to him from recent sins. Lectures, p., 525.

    The overlay argument was originally proposed on the false assumption that 1 John was written to a mostly Jewish audience, which was also then coupled with the false idea that John uses kosmos to denote the Gentiles. (See the image emerging? The overlay argument could have only been birthed on those two critical assumptions.) Both of these ideas are now largely seen as untrue by modern critical scholarship. Thus the overlay argument unravels.

    The fact that the overlay argument relies on outdated assumptions about John’s use of world and his audience, and that the only common word is a but, along with a simple similarity of form, its very very iffy to try and posit strong exegetical conclusions based on such tenuous alleged identity markers. The fact that the only common word in Greek is a “but” should send up red flags, to say the least.

    The charts are pretty, but unimpressive and generally only work if one looks at the verses in English and imagines that’s a simple repetition in sentence form entails an identify in subject matter, but thats is a really dangerous way to proceed.

    In the end, given that the overlay argument is uncompelling at best, false at worst. Its best to let the normal rules applied: what determines meaning is usage. The normal usage of kosmos by John in the epistles is apostate mankind, the world out there, consisting of all unbelievers. He does not use it to denote all who have lived, will live, and live, but sinners out there in rebellion, alive at any given point of time. With that behind us, Dabney’s read on 1 Jn 2:2 makes the best sense.

    I’ll probably leave it that, unless I get some feedback or see somthing else that I think should be addressed.

    Hope that helps.
    DavidP

23. Tony Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Hi Nathan,

    You said:
    “I have read many of your comments on other reformed blogs that discuss this subject, and it seems you love to jump on those who hold to John Owen’s views on the ‘L’.”

    Well, I don’t “love to jump on” Owenists any more than those who hold to John Owen’s views on ‘L’ “love to jump on those” who do not. It just seems like you favor or “love” Owenists “jumping” on non-Owenists rather than the reverse, hence your complaint.

    You said:
    “You have said nothing new that I haven’t read before, and the text that seems most dear to your heart, Eph 2:3 and ‘children of wrath’, does nothing to discredit Owen’s thesis, in my opinion of course.”

    Eph. 2:3 is dear to me like the rest of the word of God, but that text is dear to me insofar as it defeats the bogus double jeopardy argument. I am just echoing Dabney (not exactly an obscure criticism of Owen here Simon) on the point:

    “Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ’s satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him. See A. Hodge on Atonement, page 369.”

    You said:
    “Simon answered very well above, and I am content to let his comments stand as a defense of my position as well.”

    Simon didn’t answer. He just condescendingly brought up the issue of secondary causation/means (which is beside the point) and then moved on to dozens of other arguments/assertions (as if I have the burden of proof after he made the assertion), such as that Calvin quote that has alread been thoroughly dealt with. If I started to reply to what Simon has said and asked, I would have to now produce an entire doctoral thesis on this blog (and this response is long enough already). We started with the Double Jeopardy issue and now he has brought up dozens of other subjects.

    You said:
    “I have read pages and pages where you have interacted with others on this subject, and I do not wish to enter into a similar conversation with you.”

    That’s fine, but unfortunate. I don’t know you very well and I would like to engage you sometime on this theological matter and related areas, especially since people like Simon think you’re more theologically refined in this area than they are.

    You said:
    “I have heard what you have to say, and I disagree.”

    I would ask what you disagree with, but you don’t “wish to enter into a similar conversation”. I guess my questions following this will merely be rhetorical and for the readers.

    You said:
    “That being said, I will briefly clarify a few things from my position and give summary statements without the long discourse of explaining each point:

    -Particular Redemption (PR) does not affirm that the death of Christ has absolutely no benefit for the reprobate.”

    I didn’t say that it necessarily does. Some who hold to a strict particular redemption view think there is no benefit for the reprobate, but others do not. I am aware of the difference of opinion on the point. I don’t know why you would think I was unaware of that, since you have apparently read so much of my words.

    You said:
    “-PR does not consistently lead to eternal justification.”

    I didn’t say that it does. I would, however, say that the double jeopardy argument logically entails eternal justification. I could turn Owen’s own dilemma around to that end. Why aren’t the elect justified when Christ died? You will tell me that it’s due to their unbelief. I will ask, “but did not Christ die for that unbelief?” etc.

    You said:
    “-PR affirms that Christ came to save, that is what He did, and that scripture is crystal clear in that He did not come to make salvation merely possible.”

    When you say that Christ came to save and that is what he did, who were saved when he died? The elect? Or the believing elect? Christ death by itself saves no one. The work of the Holy Spirit is necessary to apply His cross-work through the instrumentality of belief in the gospel in order for one to be saved. While your either/or dilemma sounds convincing to your average Calvinist today, it’s actually misleading. It’s not my position that the salvation of men is “merely” possible and is just dependent on their free will choice (the non-Calvinist view). That argument won’t work against my classical Calvinistic/Augustinian position. Of course it’s the case that Christ came with the special intent to save the elect, but he also came for the salvation of the world. Scripture is “crystal clear” on that. If the salvation of the non-elect is not possible in any sense, then we run into a denial of the well-meant gospel offer. Charles Hodge admits that there is a sense in which the salvation of all men is possible:

    “The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is, that if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. **But Augustinians say the same thing.** Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well as any other scheme. It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel.”
    So then, the “merely possible” antithesis in your either/or dilemma does not describe my position. In my case, it’s a straw man. In the case of free will theologians, it may be accurate.

    You said:
    “-PR affirms that Christ’s death was not a failure. There was no dissention in the Godhead between the Son offering a sacrifice for an individual only to be rejected by the Father on the basis that there was no faith. Christ accomplished for the elect the task He was given by the Father. He was given a bride to redeem, and that is what He accomplished.”

    It’s not my view that Christ’s death is a failure any more than God’s preceptive will is a failure when it does not come to pass. The failure involved concerns the reprobate who does not take hold of the sufficient sacrifice of Christ as their only remedy. The lifted up serpent didn’t fail when some did not look to it to be healed. It was abundantly sufficient to heal all of those bitten by sin.

    Furthermore, your disunity in the Godhead argument fails to account for the revealed will of God in addition to the secret will. You presuppose that there is dissention in the Godhead if the Son has a general intent to save and a special intent to save. The Father also has such a general intent. In fact, if Christ’s death is REALLY sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race, then it must have been intended to be that why since God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Your disunity in the Godhead argument will only work if you deny that Christ’s death is actually sufficient for all, which is 1) contrary to scripture and 2) undermines the basis for the well-meant gospel offer.

    Again, you repeat your negative inference fallacy. It’s assumed that just because the text says he came to redeem a bride that he ONLY came to redeem his bride. That doesn’t follow. It’s as bogus as inferring that because Paul said that Jesus died for him in Galatians, therefore he ONLY died for Paul. Or, it’s just like saying that because God loves his elect, he therefore ONLY loves his elect. The truth of the matter is that Christ died for all, but ESPECIALLY for his elect, just as it’s the case that God loves all but ESPECIALLY his elect.

    You said:
    “-PR affirms in salvation by ‘nothing but the blood’. That is, if Christ died for Judas in the exact same manner as He did for Peter, what differs in that Judas is cursed and Peter is redeemed? Certainly nothing but the blood causes them to differ.”

    Salvation by “nothing but the blood”? So belief in the blood is not crucial and required for “salvation”? I’ve never head of justification or salvation apart from faith. Where’s that in the bible? The difference between Judas and Peter was in the fact that one spurned the sufficient savior and the other did not, by the grace of God. There is no difference “in the blood” in the sense that his infinite sacrifice can be proportionately measured. Hodge, again, is helpful here:

    “…all mankind were placed under the same constitution or covenant. What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. Every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all. The secret purpose of God in providing such a substitute for man, has nothing to do with the nature of his work, or with its appropriateness.”

    In other words, the nature of what Christ did on the cross is indivisible. It wholly satisifies the claims of the law against the whole human race. The distinction between the elect and the non-elect is not in the blood, but in the intent in Christ shedding his blood. There is a special and general intent. It’s not a case of EITHER the special OR the general intent. The particularity is in the special decree and the application, not in the blood sacrifice itself.

    If there’s absolutely nothing in the blood for Judas (or any other non-elect person for that matter) to save him, then why did Jesus say to him at the Table that “this is the cup of my blood that was shed for you?” Also, isn’t it the case that Jesus’ blood was sufficient for Judas? If it was sufficient to save Judas, then it must have been intended to be sufficient for Judas since God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. The blood does not make men to differ, but the grace of God that effects the salvation of the elect alone.

    You said:
    “-PR says that Jesus has a special, intimate love towards those whom He was entrusted by the Father to save. This sacrificial love was evidenced in His atoning death, and is not evidenced in the creatures who will spend eternity under everlasting punishment.”

    I agree that Jesus has a “special, intimate love towards those whom he was entrusted by the Father to save.” I also agree that His sacrificial death is a manifestation of that special love, but not to the exclusion of a general love for all. Of course it’s not the case that those in hell were loved as the elect are loved, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, does it? You’re arguments seem to presuppose even a limited sufficiency, not just a limited efficacy.

    Even Calvin acknowledged that Christ suffered to save those who perish:

    “3. Now if we demanded here, whether it be not lawful to be conversant with the wicked and froward to win them: I answer, yes, verily, until a man find them to be past remedy. For to give over a man at the first dash when he has done amiss, or when he is as it were in the highway to destruction: is a furthering of the destruction of the wretched soul that was redeemed by the bloodshed of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 119, 20:16-20, p., 731.

    “However, St. Paul speaks here expressly of the saints and the faithful, but this does not imply that we should not pray generally for all men. For wretched unbelievers and the ignorant have a great need to be pleaded for with God; behold them on the way to perdition. If we saw a beast at the point of perishing, we would have pity on it. And what shall we do when we see souls in peril, which are so precious before God, as he has shown in that he has ransomed them with the blood of his own Son? If we see then a poor soul going thus to perdition, ought we not to be moved with compassion and kindness, and should we not desire God to apply the remedy.” Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, Sermon 47, 6:18-19, pp., 684-5.

    “You should have kept silence, says Pighius. It would have been a treacherous and abominable silence by which God’s glory, Christ, and the gospel were betrayed. Is it possible? So God shall be held up as a laughingstock before our eyes, all good religion shall be torn apart, wretched souls redeemed by the blood of Christ shall perish, and it shall be forbidden to speak? …shall the church be plundered by the thieving of the ungodly, shall God’s majesty be stamped under foot, shall Christ be robbed of his kingdom, while we watch and say nothing?” Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p., 19.

    You said:
    “-Unbelievers who reject Christ cannot say with Paul that they have been ‘crucified with Christ’, as in His death having any specific application to them whatsoever.”

    By “unbelievers” I suspect you mean the non-elect. So what if the non-elect cannot say about themselves what Paul said of himself in Galatians 2:20.

    NKJ Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

    Not even the unbelieving elect can say of themselves what Paul says of himself in the passage, yet Christ died for them as well. Only those who can also say “it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” can affirm what Paul says of himself. Again, this text has to do with REAL UNION, just as I argued concerning that 1 Cor. 15:22 text. Simon (who admits that he’s less studied than you are on the point) seemed to think I am denying that there are other passages (such as one in Ephesians) that speak of our virtual union with Christ. That’s false. It’s just the case that the passages you are citing concern real union, or those who believe.

24. Tony Says:
    February 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    Nathan said:
    “-The Elect were chosen before the foundation of the world; God’s work of redemption was ‘completed’ before the foundation of the world; Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, which ultimately led to the specific names of the elect being written in the book of life before the foundation of the world: Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3, Rev 13:8. If you’re worried about eternal justification, you’ve got bigger problems than just the ‘L’. If your stuck on Eph 2:3 as if it someone hurts the double-jeopardy position, I would only suggest that a closer look at God’s sovereign control over all the events of life, and how He has chosen to accomplish His redemption within the space of created time –even though His decrees are fixed and determined from before time began.

    “For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” –That is what Christ’s death accomplished, and who it accomplished it for.”

    God’s work of redemption was “completed” before the foundation of the world??? Was his work of creation already completed before the world was created? That would be a serious already/not-yet confusion that results in the eternality of matter. Certainly God’s PLAN of redemption was completed from all eternity, but his work of redemption is ongoing throughout human history. There is redemption accomplished (when Christ died) and redemption applied (when his work is enjoyed by believers). This work is still going on today.

    With respect to Revelation 13:8, there is some question as to the translation. Does the phrase “before the foundation of the world” refer to the lamb that was slain or to the names written? Here are different translations that illustrate the point:

    NAU Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

    NRS Revelation 13:8 and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.

    Now, whether you take the foundation of the world phrase to refernce the lamb or not (and there is some question there), it’s still the case that the Lamb was not ACTUALLY slain prior to 33 AD, or thereabout. The Godhead had determined that Christ should die in the stead of sinners from all eternity, but he was not actually slain until he shared a human nature and suffered. Incidently, some hyper-Calvinists had so many already/not-yet confusions in their minds that they believed Jesus actually had a human soul prior to his incarnation. This is called Pre-Existerianism. How could Christ actually be slain prior to history if he wasn’t human in some sense? One can see how there’s a tendency to push the not-yet into the already until a thorough distortion of virtual/actual distinction occurs. If you have had disputes with hyper-preterists, you know what I am talking about.

    What I am “worried” about are people’s lives being damaged (as well as a sound interpretation of Scripture) by false systems and logic. Eternal justification is just a symptom of a much largeer problem. How do you think people arrive at the view of EJ? They press commercial views or arguments concerning Christ’s death to it’s logical conclusion. They say that “Christ saved all those he came to save when he died.” You’ve used similar language. The term “saved” refers to justification or conversion in scripture, or to what follows therefrom (sanctification and glorification). Anyone who speaks of people being “saved” prior to thier existence is opening the door to sheer nonsense that damages the church, and these already/not-yet confusions spread like gangrene.

    Why bring up the issue of God’s sovereign control over the events of life and how He has chosen to accomplish his redemption, and how His decrees are fixed and determined before time began? I thought you said you have read my posts. Are you under the false impression that I deny such things? It’s as if you think you’re speaking with an Arminian. I am a classical Calvinist, if you can’t tell already.

    You go on to cite Hebrews 10:14:

    NKJ Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

    Again, who are those being sanctified and made perfect? It’s not the elect as such, but the elect who have believed. It’s as if you’re reading it as saying that His death, intrinsically considered, perfects all of the elect forever prior to their existence, or even prior to their believing. That’s not what the text is saying.

    In closing, here’s a quote by James Ussher that I think is so fitting for those seeking to persuade non-Calvinists:

    “Neither is there hope that the Arminians will be drawn to acknowledge the error of their position, as long as they are persuaded the contrary opinion cannot be maintained without admitting that an untruth must be believed, even by the commandment of him that is God of truth, and by the direction of that word, which is the word of truth.” James Ussher

    In your case, Nathan, it’s the untruth that Christ did not come to die for the salvation of all mankind. You’ve gone considerbly higher than scripture and considerbly higher than Calvin in your sovereignty views. This only serves to harden and cause overreactions on the other side of the theological fence. Arminianism is historically a reaction to high Calvinism. You will not like this accusation, but there’s a sense in which you’re helping to create the very thing you’re fighting against.

25. Jason Robertson Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    The issue of PR is an issue about the nature of the atonement not the extent. And the nature in question is whether or not the atonement was substitutionary or not. Was Christ dying for Pharaoh who was already in Hell or was He dying for those in Abraham’s bosom? Was Jesus actually a substitute or just a generic sacrifice?

    C.H. Spurgeon proclaimed, “Now, mark: when you see Christ going up the Mount of Doom, you see man going there: when you see Christ hurled upon his back, upon the wooden cross, you see the whole company of his elect there; and when you see the nails driven through his blessed hands and feet, it is the whole body of his Church who there, in their substitute, are nailed to the tree. And now the soldiers lift the cross, and dash it down into the socket prepared for it. His bones are every one of them dislocated, and his body is thus torn with agonies which cannot be described. ’Tis manhood suffering there; ’tis the Church suffering there, in the substitute. And when Christ dies, you are to look upon the death of Christ, not as his own dying merely, but as the dying of all those for whom he stood as the scapegoat and the substitute.”
    “It is true, Christ died really himself; it is equally true that he did not die for himself, but died as the substitute, in the room, place, and stead of all believers. When you die you will die for yourselves; when Christ died, he died for you, if you be a believer in him. When you pass through the gates of the grave, you go there solitary and alone; you are not the representative of a body of men, but you pass through the gates of death as an individual; but, remember, when Christ went through the sufferings of death, he was the representative Head of all his people.”
    “Here is the glory of the matter: it was as a substitute for sin that he did actually and literally suffer punishment for the sin of all his elect.”
    [Spurgeon, C. H.—The Death of Christ: Spurgeon’s Sermons: Volume 4: #173]

    A denial of PR is a denial of the substitutionary nature of the atonement and the sovereignty and wisdom of God’s election.

    As Irving Kristol once said, “When we lack the will to see things as they really are there is nothing more mysterious than the obvious.”

26. Greg Gibson Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    First of all, I believe limited atonement is true. Second, it wasn’t
    part of the apostles’ gospel proclamation in Acts.

    Why does it matter? Because ministries who preach a gospel to
    the lost, with advanced, systematic theology, see few
    conversions. But, ministries that preach the apostles “simple”
    gospel in Acts, see more conversions, just like the apostles.

    Jon Hendryx of Monergism.com said it well…

    “Here is another area that these two systems share in common.
    Both Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism make the extent of the
    atonement a part of all gospel presentations to the lost.
    Hypercalvinists make sure that the unbeliever understands all of
    the theological implications of limited atonement before they can
    be saved. The Arminian, on the other hand, erroneously teaches
    that Christ’s died for all men…”
    http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/HyperArmin.html

    Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, a 5-point Calvinist, agrees…

    What the Hyper-Calvinist is really saying is this: Hyper-Calvinism
    believes that knowledge of the extent of the atonement is a
    prerequisite for faith in the work of Christ.
    http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm

    1. Arminian’s gospel preaching: “Christ died for you.”
    2. Hyper-Calvinist’s gospel preaching: “Christ died for the elect.”
    3. The apostles’ gospel preaching in Acts: “Christ died.”

    Examples of the Apostles Gospel Preaching of the Cross:
    “Him…you…have crucified, and put to death” (Acts 2:23)
    “and killed the Prince of life” (Acts 3:14)
    “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified” (Acts 4:10)
    Etc.

    “The Importance of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement to Gospel Proclamation”

    I think the author of this one really needs to rethink his title,
    depending on which definition of “gospel” he’s using. If he means
    the “comprehensive gospel” (Mark 1:1), then he’s right. But, if he
    mean the evangelistic gospel (Acts and 1 Cor. 15:1-4), then he’s
    wrong.

    In the book of Acts, in the reports of the apostles 49 gospel
    proclamations, they never once preached limited atonement.
    http://www.loveintruth.com/amf-docs/gpia-appendix.htm

    “…rather, the purpose of Christ on the Cross– His work
    specifically on behalf of those previously chosen to be His
    people–is clearly proclaimed and is foundational to a right
    understanding of the Gospel. If this pillar of the biblical
    foundation is removed, then the majestic Gospel of Grace
    will eventually crumble.”
    http://strangebaptistfire.com/2007/02/07/ernest-reisinger-on-the-importance-of-the-doctrine-of-limited-atonement-to-gospel-proclamation-part-1/#comments

    Not so! Peter preached predestination in Acts 2:23, not limited
    atonement. Beware of “logicizing” non-explicit implications into
    fundamentals of the faith.

    I’m not saying that it’s wrong to preach limited atonement or
    any other Bible truth with the gospel. I’m just saying, beware
    of making it a “foundation.”

    Plus, if limited atonement is a “foundation of the gospel,” then
    Arminians deny a foundation of the gospel, and thus can’t be
    saved!

    In fact, (and this may surprise you) but the apostles never taught
    the truth of limited atonement explicitly. Like the Trinity, limited
    atonement is true from implicit logic, not explicit exegesis. Try as
    you will, but you’ll never find one verse of Scripture stating that
    Christ died only for one set of people, or that He didn’t die for
    another set of people.

    Again, Dr. McMahon observes rightly…

    But never do we find Jesus preaching on the hillside His limited
    atonement for some men in any explicit manner. He never says,
    “I only died for the elect.”…Is it a prerequisite for faith in Christ?
    Here I must give a resounding, NO! Understanding the theological
    ramifications of the Limited Atonement of Jesus Christ was not the
    prerequisite for faith in the thief on the cross, the jailer, the Jews
    listening at Pentecost, and millions of other Christians since their
    time. Faith and belief in the work of Christ is always a prerequisite
    for salvation, but that is not the same thing as preaching the
    Limited Atonement of Christ to the lost.
    http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonABriefCritiqueOfHyper-Calvinism.htm

    So, how can a truth the apostles only implied, never stated, be
    a foundation to the gospel? This would require ignorant sinners
    to understand logic before they could be saved.

    Brothers, if we want to see the apostles results, then we must
    reclaim the apostles’ gospel to the lost: Christ lived, died, rose,
    reigns, and is coming again.

    Greg Gibson
    www.JesusSaidFollowMe.org

27. Nathan White Says:
    February 14th, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    Tony,

    You said many things that I would like to respond to, but there is way more material above than I have time to address. I will but post a few things in reply.

    In my last post, I briefly stated a few points of ‘PR