"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" --Mark 4:10-12
As the most controversial pillar in the TULIP acrostic, limited atonement is often the "hitch in the giddy-up," per se, of many four-point Calvinists. Many people often look at this point as being unfair, or even cruel. Why would a perfect, loving God deny salvation to some, even if they have "done great works in His name," while granting it to others? This is a hard concept to grasp, and that is why I endeavor to make clearer this profound Calvinist doctrine.
Some would argue against the doctrine of limited atonement by saying that it is not scripurally backed. While this is a seemingly formidable argument, and would pose a great problem were it true, I find that there are scripture passages supporting it. Take for example this scripture taken out of the Gospel of Mark, and is also the header for this post:
When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, 'The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, ' 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!''" --Mark 4:10-12
This passage is very profound. It has Jesus Himself admitting to the fact the He did not come to preach the gospel to all people. What Jesus is saying is He preaches parables to all. Those He pre-ordained to understand the parables would understand them and believe. The rest would hear, but they would not understand. They would see the signs, but they would not perceive them as being the work of God, and therefore would not believe. It was all planned by God beforehand.
One might argue that this is grossly unfair, but allow me to bring you back to Romans 9 for a moment. Does not the potter have power over the clay? Does not God have the right to do what He sees fit to do with His creation? As I said in my last post, each and every one of us deserves nothing but death and judgement. The only thing that is unfair is that God would choose to save any of us.
Another common objection to limited atonement is the fact that there are many. many verses in the Bible that say Jesus died for all men, or "the whole world." This, I think, is a simple misinterpretation of scripture. Think about it this way.
Do you believe that Jesus died for all sins of the whole world? The answer to this question is generally a resounding yes; especially from hard core Ariminians.
Do you believe that unbelief is a sin? The answer to this quetsion HAS to be yes, because by nautue not accepting God is denial of Him, and denial of Him is a sin. There is no other answer to this question but yes.
Do you believe that God died for the sin of unbelief of the whole world? The answer to this question MUST be a resounding NO. If He had, then we would all be in heaven one day. Let me explain. If God had died for unbelief,then man would be saved automaticly. One might argue that no, it is a gift and you have to accept it, but think about it. Unbeief is the state of mind when you refuse to choose it. God, having already forgiven this sin on the cross, would ahve already saved everyman. This simply does not make sense.
So what exactly did John mean when he said "behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?" It is quite simple. Jesus did not diefor every person, but rather every nation. There are elect in every trib tounge and nation, and God died for all of them. This verse was more directed to those people who thought that the death of Christ would only be for one nation or people group, namely the Jews. John was simply making the statement that, no, Jesus was dying for people all over the world, not just Jews.
Notice and compare these verses:
"The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" --John 1:29
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." --1 John 2:2
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." --1 John 4:14
Notice how, when these verses refer to "the world' they are rather vague as to what "the world" means. Nowcompare them to these verses:
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” --Ephesians 5:25
In this verse we have an argument that Christ died only for the Church. It tells us that He loved the church, but notice it does not mention anyone else...
“I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” --John 17:9
"I am not praying for the world..." This is a profound statement to say the least. Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemone, was not praying for the whole world, but only for those who God gave him. This right here is a strong case for both limited atonement and predestination.
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” --Matthew 26:28
This verse puts it more plainly that I can I think. It is plain evidence, if not proof, that Jesus did not shed Hs blood for all people. It say right there in black and white "which is poured out for MANY." If Jesus had died for all people, this verse would say "poured out for all."
People like to use verse like john 3:16 as evidence against limited atonement. I think that this is an unreasonable argument. In John 3:16 all it says is "whosoevere believes in Me." It does not give any indication as to HOW these people were saved. This verse is entirely ambiguous as to the means of salvation.
All said and done, limited atonement is not a shot in the dark. It is not a completely unbiblical dactrine making God into a big bad guy, but is a reasonable, scripturally backed doctrine. I hope I have made this, usually the holdup in the dactrine, a little more easy to understand.
Thanks for reading!
Renzzy
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." --2 Corinthians 4:3-4
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
could you back up the use of the word world with a greek def.? As I remember there are many def. for world not just one. It seems a stretch to argue over the def. of world without the acutual meaning in greek.
The greek definition is not always the answer. In this case it would mean nothing more than what you think it means, which is the earth, mankind, the universe, etc.
What I am talking about is how we interprate the word "world" in english. You take it to mean all men, and I take it to mean all nations. It could mean both in the greek, but we need to look at context and compare it to otherf verses.
I showed you another verse that said Jesus' blood was poued out for MANY, not all. If Jesus blood was not poured out for all, but He takes away the sins of the whole world and every man in it as you would say, then one of these verses is either lying or wrong.
We see then, that the only logical way to interprate the word "world" is to say it is refering to all NATIONS, not all humans.
Make sense?
Excellent Post, Renzzy. I'll be getting started on Irresistible Grace tomorrow. Maybe we should make Perseverance of the Saints a 50/50 thing, because both of us will have done two.
I'm still not convinced. I feel like you are trying to fit the Bible in with your believes instead of forming your believes into what the Bible teaches.
I am not quite sure why you accuse me of twisting the bible to fit my beliefs, because I backed all of my claims scripturally. I am not sure of another way to translate "Jesus blood was poured out for MANY," or "I am not praying for the world, but only those you have given me."
I read exactly what the Bible says and interprate from there. I can understand if you do not agree, but I will ask you not to accuse me of twisting the Bible. Leave that to the Atheists.
Any questions, feel free to ask!
Adam you are missing the point of the Ephesians 5:25 verse. The piont is that husbands should give themselves up for their wives to the piont of death, as Christ did for the Church. It is not meant to make a case for limited atonment
In Mark 4:11-12 Jesus is not trying to exclude people he is not going to save but those who don't believe in Him. The disiples get to know the mysteries of God because they believe and the unbelievers don't have that priviladge probably because they don't want to believe and won't listen anyway. Jesus continually says that they don't listen or see. Look at the context, think about the parable of the sower. That is talking about people who believe or don't believe in God. Another option is that God knows those who refuse to believe such as the Pharissees are doomed anyway so he is simply stating that this is what is going to happen.
Another thing I observed about that verse which does not really have anything to do with Limited attonment but predestination is this. Jesus said he spoke in parable otherwise they might TURN and be forgiven. Sounds like free will to me.
Also, I would like a better argument for the reason "the world" does not mean all people because those verses acutally seem to be supporting the idea that Christ died for all. You really need to look at the Greek word because that is what is important. You can't simply change a def. because of the context though that is one good reason you need more. After all the Bible was origanally in Greek not english.
Hey, Adam I found a verse, tell me what you think of it.
"For the love of Christ controls us, having conclueded this, that one died for ALL, therefore all died; and He died for ALL so that they who love might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf." 2 Cor. 5:14-15
By the way the Greek word all means:ALL
John:
You are missing the point of me posting that verse. I was pointing out the fact that the verse says that Christ loved the CHURCH and gave Himself up for HER. Nobody else is mentioned. This is reinforced by the verse in which Jesus Himself says He is praying only for the elect. The fact that God is commanding husbands to love their wives has nothing to do with it.
Liz:
Concerning Mark 4:10-12...
Look at this verse again. Now look at in the greek. Notice that the word for "so that" can also be translated as "In order that".
When God uses this kind of language He is speaking of a task being accomplished for the most part. Lets look at the wording of this verse again, but lets simplify it a little bit. I will reword it to simplify, but say the exact same thing.
"But to those people who do not believe, I speak only in parables, in order that:
'they may always see, but never preceive, and they may always hear, but never understand'
Otherwise they might turn from their sins and be forgiven!"
Jesus is accomplishing a task here. It is appearant in His language. The task being accomplished is his veiling the gospel from their eyes, because they are not the people the Father have given Him.
This verse goes well with another one that I quoted, and I would like your thoughts on this one as well, please.
"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son AND THOSE TO WHOM THE SON CHOOSES TO REVEAL HIM." --- Taken from Matthew 11:25-27
Once again we have the Son choosing to reveal Himself to some, and not to others. This is not logically arguable. It is plainly obvious.
You say also that the mystery of Christ is revealed to to the dicsiples, because they listen and see, but not to those on the outside because they choose not to listen and see. Once again, look elsewhere in the scripture and you will find that in Romans 3:10-12, it says that NOBODY seeks after God in any way, shape or form. This includes believers and non-believers alike. Saying that they dont see because they refuse to is not a reasonable argument imply for lack of scriptural support.
Claiming that Jesus is simply stating what is to come for these people is also unreasonable. Look at the verse one more time. Jesus says "so that," or "in order that," implying a reference to the present. If Jesus has been thinking into the future when saying this, He would have said "BECAUSE, seeing they WILL NOT preceive, and hearing they WILL NOT understand." Jesus is speaking in the present.
The TURN had nothing to do with anything. Like I pointed out, in Matthew Jesus says that nobody but thise whom HE CHOOSES come to the Father. If this passage is refering to turning under ones own power and ability, it is contradicting many scriptures, including the one I cited in Matthew. This is refering to turning from sin with the power of Christ.
About the translation of the word "kosmos":
What you are looking for is clearity the Bible simply does not Give. How we interprate "the world," then, must be based on what other scriptres have to say about the matter.
Look once again at Matthew 11. You will find Jesus saying the He chooses who He will reveal Himself to. He obviously does not chooses everyone, or everyone would be going to heaven.
So what about those He did not choose? Did He die for them too? If he had, then His sacrifice for them, would have been in vain. Jesus does nothing in vain. Saying taht He died for all people then is contradictory to what scripture teaches.
Saying that "the world" is refering to all NATIONS, then, is the only reasonable option left to us.
Concerning 2 Cor. 5:14-15...
All may mean all, yes, but what is defined by "all"? All men? Yes, but is this refering to all of a PARTICULAR GROUP of men? I think so.
"Why? That is ridiculous! It says all, it means all! Your grasping at straws, Adam!"
No, I do not think I am. Three questions.
1. Do you believe the Bible is infallible?
I trust you answer yes.
2. Do you believe the Bible ever contradicts itself?
I trust the answer is no.
3. Do you believe that that Bible teaches that some are saved and not others by divine choice of God?
Well, now you answer a resounding NO.
I have showed you how this cintradicts Biblical teachings.
If you believe that Bible is infallible, you must believe the Bible teaches that Jesus chooses some and not others according to Matthew 11.
If you believe that the Bible never contradicts itself, well, then I guess you have to scrible out 2 Cor. 5:14-15 unless you are willing to admit that ALL is refering to all of a PARTICULER GROUP OF MEN, namely the elect.
Adam:
Concerning Matthew 11. That verse does not talk about limited atonment but predestination. I fail to see how it goes well with the other verse.
Concerning Mark 4. I just realized something, I don't think Jesus is even talking about excluding others from salvation rather from knowing God's mysteries. Try looking at some commentators on the subject. I mean I know that I don't always interpret the Bible correctly so it is wise to look at others opinions even if you don't agree with them.
Concerning the word 'kosmos'. I looked up the greek def. and here is what it means. "world, world order, universe; world inhabitants, mankind(especially of men hostile to God); world, realm of exisence, way of life(especially as opposed tp the purpose of God; adornmant."
No were does it mean NATIONS. One CANNOT simply change the def. because they think it means something else. Why would the writers not use a diffrent word like Nations if that is what they mean? You can't say mankind either because it refers to those hostile towards God and all men are in their sinful state. Did you ever think that mabey the scripture teaches that Christ died for all men and to say that he died for the nations would be the contradiction?
Concerning 2 Cor. I fail to see how it is a contradiction for Christ to die for everyone instead of only the elect. It almost seems as if you are asking the potter why he made the clay the way he did. All I know is that the Bible does not say one thing and mean another. Once again why would the writers have not used a diffrent word if that is what they mean?
I know you will probably not agree with me at all and you don't have to I just want you to look fairly at the other side as you said you would. I have looked at your side and have not seen an argument I am satisfied with so I cannot agree until I here a more sound argument. I am not trying to make you angry with me. (You are probably seathing by now) I am just trying to figure it all out and this seems the best way I can. Question someone who is a sold out Calvianist. Hey, I may be totally wrong and though you probably don't want to admit it so may you. We are human and have faulty thinking. I just want to enterprit the Bible as best I can. So please lets not make this into a fist fight.
I am not mad right now, as you may think. I am a bit irritated because I cannot seem to say what I want to say over these comments in the right way. I would be better in person, but for now I guess I will try to clarify a little more. I am LOVING this opportunity to share my beliefs with another Christian who is not going to call me a complete idiot for BEING a Christian in the first place :)
OK....
You say that Matthew 11 refers not to limited atonement, but to PREDESTINATION.
If this is the case, why do you not believe in predestination? It is PLAINLY obvious. "...to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him..."
Once again, you have no way to argue against this. It cannot be more obvious. I would like to know your opinion on this verse. I am not the only one who needs to give an account for what I believe and why I believe it.
Also, if predestination is true (this verse makes a very obvious argument), then limited atonement MUST be true. Jesus WOULD NOT HAVE DIED FOR THOSE HE DID NOT CHOOSE. It would be a vain sacrifice, and nothing Jesus does is in vain. His blood was enough to cover all, but no necessarily MEANT for all.
It seems to me that you are reaching beyond what was intended to be spoken in Mark 4. All it says is "I speak to them in parables so they will never see or hear, because if they did they would turn and be forgiven." Jesus obviously does not intend for these people to be forgiven. All you need to do is take this verse at face value to understand it.
Actually, I look at commentators all the time when studying this type of thing. They almost always agree with me…
I would like to show you another verse supporting limited atonement, and I would like your feedback on it.
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” --John 10:11
Notice that he only lays down His life for the sheep. Compare that verse to this one…
“and all the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left.” --Matthew 25:32-33
Obviously not all people are sheep. Jesus, however, lays his life down for the sheep only. Not the goats. It cannot be that the sheep chose Him, because we have already established that this would be impossible due to total depravity.
Look at John 10:27...
“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” --John 10:27.
…and compare that to Mark 4, where it says Jesus speaks so some will not hear. It all seems to fall together if you are willing to look at scripture as a whole.
Concerning Kosmos…
There are certain verse that explicitly say Jesus chose some and not others. There are no verse that explicitly say Jesus allows individuals to choose. Taking this into account, we need to compare verses like this one to the rest of the Bible, and we will see that Kosmos only makes sense as reefing to a certain group of people. I can be at a men’s retreat and say “all the men were at lunch.” Does this mean all the men in the men in the world? Obviously not. It could if we did not compare it to the rest of the story.
The same goes for this verse. The verse says that His blood was shed for the whole world, but does this mean every man in the world? The rest of the story (the rest of the Bible) indicates that it does not. It could mean all of the men in the world, but it could just as easily mean all the men in a certain group that was named before, namely the elect. The writers do not use a different word simply because they do not have to. Context is enough for the most part.
I do look fairly on both side. I would not have claimed to if I did not. The thing is, I see no logical or biblical arguments supporting Arminianism whatsoever. I defend what I believe.
OK, I do believe in predestination. What I don't know yet is if I believe in complete predestiation. There seems to be proof for both sides. I don't know how this is possible but God can do all things. I know that predestination is true though because it is clearly taught.
I need to read more in the Bible to really decide if I belive in limited atoment. Right now I don't and I have decided that from what I read in the Bible. Mabye I will change my mind later but I believe that is what the Bible says.
I don't believe the verse about the sheep nessisarly excludes everyone it just includes the sheep. He is talking about the sheep right now not everyone so why would he say everyone? I think you may be taking the verse out of context.
I am still not convinced about the word kosmos or the word all. I still think that that is what it means. What it says. I don't think you will be able to convince me otherwise on this head so it would be vain to try anymore. Honestly, I can't argue about this anymore until I have studied the Bible and develope my believes based on what I learn with my mind open to the Holy Spirit's teaching.
I have enjoyed debating with you on this head but I am going to have to bow out now. I am not admiting defeat I just think we will not get any further. Thanks for spending time in answering my questions.
-Liz
Adam I still does not see your point on the Ephesians verse. It seems you are pushing more out of it then is their. God wants you to love your future wife as he loved the church. Completely and totally. By dissecting this verse like you are taking away its power. Why do you want it to fit your view so badly? Do we really need to argue over such a valuable verse? Please do not concentrate so much on defending your Calvin that you miss what the Bible says. Though you do not want to admit, it as can be seen from this discussion there is evidence for both sides of this point. Do not talk as though you are without doubt right. Please do not be mad at me for saying what I did, I did not do it in anger.
Liz:
I think you're right, and we are not really getting anywhere. It was fun though :) Like I said before, I am really liking being able to talk freely about this type of thing without being shot down on all sides and having to defend EVERYTHING I say. Thanks for listening and keeping an open mind!
John:
I know you were not mad, and neither am I. I will, however, continue defending my beliefs at every corner, however. That is what I created this blog to do ;)
When I talk as though there is no evidence for Arminianism, it is because I see no evidence at all. I can see verses that you would use to defend it, and can understand how you would ake it that way, but I see them in a different light. The way I see them, there is no reason to believe Arminian teachings. Please do not let this irritate you, I am not trying to be irritating, I am just expressing my beliefs.
When I talk as though I am without a doubt right, it is because I believe I am. I keep an open mind to learning new things from the word of God, but I will never believe any Arminian teachings. I find no reason to believe them. I fully believe that The five points of Calvinism are 100% Biblical and correct, and they are what I will always believe. I do not mind being told I am wrong, I do not mind being asked to defend them, and I do not mind you believing what you do.
Please keep comenting! This is why I created this blog! :)
Adam, are you calling us blind because we don't believe in 100% calvinism? And how can you say that you don't mind John having his own believe about it when you obviously believe he is wrong. Are you saying you think it is ok for him to believe in something that you think is not Biblical? I am not ok with that personally. I can only say that I am ok with you believing in complete calvinism because I am not sure yet if I am right but if I was a sure as you I would not let that pass. Just wondering.
-Liz
Liz,
I go by the Ephesians 4:14, which reads:
"so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes." --Eph. 4:14
Look where it says "no longer tossed to and fro by every wind of docrtine." That is the way we are supposed to be. I have a set of beliefs that I believe to be what the Bible teaches. So to answer you question, yes, I believe Arminianism is incorrect. I believe that It's teachings on the nature of man, the method of salvation, etc. are incorrect. I believe Calvinism IS correct.
The thing is, I have chosen to believe and defend Calvinism because I believe it is more scripturally correct. I do not mind John believing what he does simply because I cannot change his mind, and I believe he is going to heavem same as me. I do not think Arminians are going to hell, that would be ridiculous. We both worship the same God, and we both Love the same God.
So, I believe your beliefes are incorrect, yes, but I can do nothing about that. All I do is present to you what I believe is true, and you do what you want with it.
Did God wait for Calvin to make His revelation known?
If you ask me, or any other Reformed theologist (Calvinist) for that matter, you will get the same answer. The early church leaders taught the same principles as Calvin; that is where we, as reformed theologists get our scriptures.
If you were to go down TULIP, You would find at least one verse in the gospels that supports each one. That is whay we believe reformed thoelogy to be true; because we believe it was the beliefe system held in the early church.
Adam to your response to me well spoken. I just think sometimes you come off stronger then you mean to. Well spoken though.
Post a Comment