The Gospel Verses Calvinism

[Robert Pate]

Yes, even the damned will be raised... at least according to John's gospel..

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus Christ has purchased all of humanity. He owns every soul that has ever lived on the face of the earth. They belong to him, whether they like it or not. He is now free to judge them as he sees fit.

 

[Hammster]

The ALL is ALL of humanity not just those who Paul was speaking to.

I'm sorry, but in context, you can't rightly make that argument from this text.

 

[Ghost air]

Jesus Christ has purchased all of humanity. He owns every soul that has ever lived on the face of the earth. They belong to him, whether they like it or not. He is now free to judge them as he sees fit.

Scripture is clear that He will judge the quick (living) and the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom...

He couldn't be called the LAST ADAM if His finished work didn't include all in the first Adam...

 

[Hammster]

He couldn't be called the LAST ADAM if His finished work didn't include all in the first Adam...

What do you base that on?

 

[Ghost air]

Just words written on a page that have already been highlighted in this thread by the OP... but of course I'm only sharing an opinion here Hammster. I mean, I could be wrong.

 

[Edial]

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
(Joh 10:14-15)

Not all are sheep. Who are the sheep?

Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
(Joh 10:25-29)

Sure. This text emphasises that He died for the church.

It does not say He died ONLy for the church.
Limited Atonement disctates He died ONLY for the church.

Here it says He bought false prophets with His blood.

2PE 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them

A whole bunch of verses the He died for the whole world.

... Calvinism has many great points.

But Limited Atonement is it's weak point.

Hey, us Lutherans also have weak points.

I certainly believe in Infant Baptism, but my Scriptural support on this is weak.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Edial]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but perhaps me reiterating a few things will help clear up any confusion that my prior post caused.

My primary point is that the concept of "justice" is very tricky to apply in a rigorous, philosophically consistent way to God. After all, by definition, God is just. However, God's "just-ness" is not based on God doing or otherwise being in alignment with some external criteria whereby God might be adjudicated as "just" or "not just." Justice is essential to the character of God; therefore, God is justice, so naturally whatever God does is just.

The profound theological implication of this point, however, is that there is then no obligation within or upon God to do "this" or "that." Just as God's justice is not defined by the propriety of God's actions, neither is God constrained to act in any prescribed way. This is important, for much of Reformed theology revolves precisely around such a necessity.

Consider the doctrine of atonement, for example. A key tenant of Reformed atonement theology is the principle that insofar as human sinfulness incurs the wrath of God, God--in order to be just--must punish sin. It is this conditionality to the attribution of divine justice that requires, within this system of theology, that someone--anyone--be punished for sin in order that divine justice might not be violated.

Now, of course, it's quite easy to propagate this theology. Under the right rhetorical circumstances, the tenants of this atonement theology can gain a hearing. However, in light of the previous conclusions that I have outlined about the necessary view of God's justice, we see that the Reformed doctrine of atonement is thoroughly obtuse, for it makes a particular course of action a requisite whereby humans might speak of God as "just."

The Reformed, in response, might counter that God is NOT, in fact, constrained to behave in this way, but that this action belongs more appropriately to the divine, foreordaining will of God. While this certainly brings the theology back into the smallest similitude of some manner of philosophical coherence, this theological band-aid only gives rise to a much bigger problem.

Consider this: if God is not constrained to act in "this" or "that" way, one must conclude that whatever it is that God does belongs to the eternal desire and good pleasure of God (which, in fact, is the proper way to think of it). Since the punishment of Christ for the sins of humanity cannot be explained in terms of any obligation on God's part to unleash such violence against Godself in Christ, the ONLY conclusion one can reach is that divine self-chastisement is, in fact, to be properly considered as part of the DESIRE and GOOD PLEASURE of God.

Let me state this another way. We've already thoroughly established that whatever God does is just, not because of the nature of the action but because of the character of God. Furthermore, we have properly outlined the thesis that in addition to the justice of God being manifest in all that God does, there is additionally no external constraint against or obligation upon God whereby God's actions must proceed in a certain way in order to be considered "just."

Therefore, we know that in the consideration of human sinfulness, God is not obligated to punish, pardon, or otherwise. Further, we know that if God punishes, pardons, or otherwise, God is just because of the nature of God, not the characteristic of the action. Therefore, as God is not constrained to punish human sinfulness because of any external obligation, the punishment of human sinfulness (whether directed at the actual perpetrators or Christ) can only be rightly adjudicated as belonging to the eternal desire of God to execute violence against that which God has made. In the final analysis, we would have to say that God is fully just in doing so. However, we must also question whether or not a God who wields such violence is one with which we would desire to have relationship.

Sorry, hard to understand.

Are you saying that since Reformed believe God is Just in His essense, whatever God does, violence or otherwise is pleasing to Him?

As compared to when God acts justly means that God might do things that are not pleasing to him, such as punishing and so forth.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[depthdeception]

Are you saying that since Reformed believe God is Just in His essense, whatever God does, violence or otherwise is pleasing to Him?

As compared to when God acts justly means that God might do things that are not pleasing to him, such as punishing and so forth.

Hi Ed--

Yes, this is more or less what I am saying. Because God is just in whatever God does; and because God cannot be compelled--either by force or necessity--to act in a certain way, EVERYTHING that God does must proceed from the desire and good pleasure of the divine will.

Therefore, if the cross is a symbol of God punishing Christ for the sins of humanity (as it is in most Reformed theologies), it must be necessarily maintained that the violence displayed by God against Christ is, without qualification, something which God desires to do, and has desired to do from all eternity.

 

[Ghost air]

Isaiah 53 says this...

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

I wouldn't pretend to understand all that this says or means, but it does seem to show us that it was God's pleasure to offer His only begotten Son for the sin of the world.

Who can even begin to understand the enormity of what our Saviour accomplished on that cursed tree that day... when God made Him to be sin for us - who knew no sin, that we may be made the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[chestertonrules]

Hi Ed--

Yes, this is more or less what I am saying. Because God is just in whatever God does; and because God cannot be compelled--either by force or necessity--to act in a certain way, EVERYTHING that God does must proceed from the desire and good pleasure of the divine will.

Therefore, if the cross is a symbol of God punishing Christ for the sins of humanity (as it is in most Reformed theologies), it must be necessarily maintained that the violence displayed by God against Christ is, without qualification, something which God desires to do, and has desired to do from all eternity.

Do you believe that Jesus is God made flesh?

If so, this dilemma goes away.

God became man and suffered for us.

 

[nobdysfool]

The ALL is ALL of humanity not just those who Paul was speaking to.

Context does not support this contention.

If ALL died in Adam then all of humanity is made alive in Christ.

Not all in Adam have yet died physically. And the ones made alive by Christ are those who are in Him, which is not all of humanity, without exception.

Christ as the new Adam puts to death humanity in himself and brings forth a new humanity in the resurrection.

If that is so, why are there so many who are acting like they are still in Adam? It's because they are still in Adam. That's the natural state of any man.

"For since by man (Adam) came death, by man (Christ) came also the reurrection from the dead." 1 Corinthians 15:21.

A resurrection which has not yet happened.

As Adam was the federal head of humanity, so is Christ the new federal head of humanity.

No, Christ is the Head of the church, not all of humanity, without exception. All who are in Christ are saved. Only those who are in Christ are saved. He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. That does not apply to all humanity, collectively and inclusively, as you are trying to claim. Unless you are going to claim that all of humanity, without exception and inclusively, is saved. Then you will have to explain why so many supposedly saved people are acting like the devil.

Good luck with that!

 

[Robert Pate]

I'm sorry, but in context, you can't rightly make that argument from this text.

Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2, "And he is the propititiation for our sins: and not for ours only, BUT FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD."

 

[Hammster]

Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2, "And he is the propititiation for our sins: and not for ours only, BUT FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD."

Switching texts, eh? Okay.

(My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.) But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous One, and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.

(1Jn 2:1-2)
Since v. 2 is a continuation of v. 1, you have to have them together. John is writing to his people about sin. First he tells them, in chapter 1, that if anyone says that they are without sin, they are liars. Then he tells them that if they do sin, they can confess and will be cleansed from all unrighteousness. And then, in chapter 2, he states that he is writing in hopes that they don't sin (doesn't want to give them the idea that it is okay to sin). But, if they do, they have an advocate with the Father, someone who can speak on their behalf, and represent them with authority. His authority is based on the fact of the atoning sacrifice that Christ made on the cross, the sacrifice that satisfied God's wrath. Now, he also wants them to know that it wasn't just for them (how arrogant would that be) but for people all over the world. So how do we know that this isn't an all inclusive atonement effective for all people? Because Jesus is describe, in the same sentence and context as the advocate and the atonement. It is the same Jesus. Now, is Jesus the advocate for the whole world when they sin? Can a non-believer hope to have Jesus pleading His blood to the Father when a non-believe sins? I really don't think so.

Context is key.

 

[Hammster]

<staff edit>

Here's a challenge for you, Mr. Pate (although I doubt you will do it). Go through all of John's writings and see if he uses 'world' in a consistent way, or if he uses it in different ways. You will be surprised to see all of the different ways in which he uses that word.

 

[depthdeception]

Go through all of John's writings and see if he uses 'world' in a consistent way, or if he uses it in different ways. You will be surprised to see all of the different ways in which he uses that word.

Exactly, and thank you for the admission (although it will ultimately be to the detriment of any argument you will attempt to make). Although, I must admit, your frankness on this subject begs the question of how you can, in an intellectually honest way, turn around and do exactly the same thing in other passages...

This lack of precision is precisely why the Scriptures cannot be put to the service of systematic theology. The level of linguistic and logical accuracy needed for this endeavor are not possible in the context of what the writers of Scripture were trying to accomplish.

Therefore, to press the Scriptures to such an end is...well...in the interests of not getting this post banned, I will refrain from finishing my thought.

 

[Robert Pate]

Here's a challenge for you, Mr. Pate (although I doubt you will do it). Go through all of John's writings and see if he uses 'world' in a consistent way, or if he uses it in different ways. You will be surprised to see all of the different ways in which he uses that word.

I have done that, I did that some time ago. He uses the word in a very consistent way. He says "World" How much plainer can it be? I know this is a tough one for you. Jesus also used the word "World" John recorded it. "For God so loved the "WORLD" that he gave his only begotten Son."

 

[heymikey80]

This lack of precision is precisely why the Scriptures cannot be put to the service of systematic theology. The level of linguistic and logical accuracy needed for this endeavor are not possible in the context of what the writers of Scripture were trying to accomplish.

Granted ambiguity, it'd still be reasonable to consider John meant something. To write nothings is a particularly mystical-western-gnostic thing to do -- but there doesn't seem to be much support for that occurring in Jewish Christian writings in the First Century.

Still, "not possible" ... hm ... "not possible". Really? Not possible?

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Gal 2:1-3
​

Did the Apostles agree with one another in principle on the generalities of the Gospel? On what basis were statements about their agreement really being made?

Did they have some kind of agreement? And if so, is it utterly lost to history?

I've no qualms about certain linguistic uses being a challenge to systematics. But I'm also quite aware that systematics has been clear on this point itself for awhile. Many systematists are fairly careful with their own analyses of an individual Apostle's use of terms, recognizing at least what they can and can't rely on in a given letter's uses, and offering rationalizations as to why they make certain assumptions when they do. That's how we get Paulinists and Johannine exegetes, as far as I can tell.

It does take a plain and clear reading of each exegete in turn, and the depth of their conclusions is very hard to recognize at first. But then, we have the luxury of trying on certain assumptions for a few decades of practice to see if it's consistent, not only with today's life in Christ, but also as far as we can understand, of that of the First Century.

The idea that "cosmos" means something to John that's directly translatable into English terms is also something of a leap. Whether John's completely consistent is one issue. But whether John's accustomed use of the term, is another subject. I for one tend to slide toward John's use of the term as "the universe [in total]". It seems to make sense to me. But it's clear that it's not "the universe and every single thing in it". There's almost nowhere such a use can be supported. Another possibility I've seen argued is "the universe as God wants it", or specifically the eschatological universe.

 

[heymikey80]

I have done that, I did that some time ago. He uses the word in a very consistent way. He says "World" How much plainer can it be? I know this is a tough one for you. Jesus also used the word "World" John recorded it. "For God so loved the "WORLD" that he gave his only begotten Son."

So your conclusion is that Christ turned aside God's wrath against the whole world? That's what this verse says, if that's what you take it to mean.

From what I've read, God's wrath will be executed against the world, and many will be punished with extreme and eternal wrath for their transgressions.

Is God going to do this without wrath, now? An unwrathful punishment of pain likened to burning for eternity of eternity? The lack of consistency in such a conclusion would lead me to conclude something's wrong with it.

 

[depthdeception]

Granted ambiguity, it'd still be reasonable to consider John meant something. To write nothings is a particularly mystical-western-gnostic thing to do -- but there doesn't seem to be much support for that occurring in Jewish Christian writings in the First Century.

I'm not advocating that the writer was ambiguous or uncertain in his use of the word. My entire point is that given the author uses the words inconsistently, AND further provides no accompanying clarification for the shift in meanings, interpreters of the words should not try to find theological precision where none clearly exists. That the author meant "something" is obvious, but the meaningfulness of this particular word within it is subsumed within the larger intention of the writing in the first place.

And that, particularly, is the error of systematicians (or those who advocate their systems, at least) in searching out the theological significance of individual words while definitively ignoring what the author was trying to accomplish by the act of writing.

Still, "not possible" ... hm ... "not possible". Really? Not possible?

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Gal 2:1-3
​

Did the Apostles agree with one another in principle on the generalities of the Gospel? On what basis were statements about their agreement really being made?

Did they have some kind of agreement? And if so, is it utterly lost to history?

This is comparing apples and oranges. That the apostles agreed on the fundamental principles of the gospel is, I think, easy enough to affirm. However, that their theological and philosophical understanding--much less expression--of the same is consistent or univocal is, I would argue, much more difficult to prove and, alternatively, much easier to disprove (e.g., Paul's admitted disputes with others in the theological/political leadership of the early Christian movement, the Petrine complaints of Pauline incoherence, etc.).

I've no qualms about certain linguistic uses being a challenge to systematics. But I'm also quite aware that systematics has been clear on this point itself for awhile. Many systematists are fairly careful with their own analyses of an individual Apostle's use of terms, recognizing at least what they can and can't rely on in a given letter's uses, and offering rationalizations as to why they make certain assumptions when they do. That's how we get Paulinists and Johannine exegetes, as far as I can tell.

This is fine and well, and if such self-awareness is in abundance, these individuals are to be applauded. However, what should also be understood completely is that in the place of contextually relevant biblical material, the next (or perhaps first...) recourse of the systematician must be philosophy. It is precisely at this point, in my experience, that proof-texting begins to appear, for in the absence of biblical support, the fundamental philosophical prejudices must be supported (this is human nature, after all), and pressing Scripture to this end is an attractive avenue, given the authority which such a source holds in the minds of most of the systematician's audience.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not advocating that the writer was ambiguous or uncertain in his use of the word. My entire point is that given the author uses the words inconsistently, AND further provides no accompanying clarification for the shift in meanings, interpreters of the words should not try to find theological precision where none clearly exists. That the author meant "something" is obvious, but the meaningfulness of this particular word within it is subsumed within the larger intention of the writing in the first place.

And that, particularly, is the error of systematicians (or those who advocate their systems, at least) in searching out the theological significance of individual words while definitively ignoring what the author was trying to accomplish by the act of writing.

That's not the case, though. If you were to read many of these guys, you'd find they're supporting their case by involving the course of the argument in their systematic conclusions. They're not pulling prooftexts out of thin air, but in fact they refer to a body of work that points to the relevance of the texts to the subject at hand. Footnotes and references draw on this.

For instance, to say that "propitiation" here doesn't refer to something soteriological would be absurd -- although the word's very rare in the New Testament. Most systematic theologians don't even begin to take on that argument.

But many do point out that "propitiation" proves too much if John were using this term to refer to actually propitiating for each individual human ever in the world. The result is universalism. There's no clear reason to make that conclusion, and there are a variety of systematic reasons not to. So they don't draw that conclusion.

This is comparing apples and oranges.

No, it's not. If John meant something ambiguous, there would indeed be a reason to think that the Apostles were not clear with one another on what they were teaching.

That the apostles agreed on the fundamental principles of the gospel is, I think, easy enough to affirm.

I'd have to point out that the fundamental operative principle of the gospel is justification by faith, not will nor action. It's so important Paul emphasizes it again and again. In other words, we are talking about a fundamental principle of the gospel. If there were no agreement over this, then Judaizing would be fine. Yet it receives the worst of condemnations among the Apostles.

However, that their theological and philosophical understanding--much less expression--of the same is consistent or univocal is, I would argue, much more difficult to prove and, alternatively, much easier to disprove (e.g., Paul's admitted disputes with others in the theological/political leadership of the early Christian movement, the Petrine complaints of Pauline incoherence, etc.).

So to clarify, your position is that they are inconsistent with one another? That is, not simply that their perspectives are different and their expressions are different, but they intended to mean different things?

My position, for the record, is that they certainly saw things differently, but made strong and serious efforts to harmonize their views with one another, and agreed on more than just the Resurrection, they agreed by and large on the operation of the Holy Spirit, the purpose and implementation of the gospel, the deity of Christ at a time when such would be highly suspect to their own origins ... quite a number of points which couldn't be abandoned. The level of detail they disagreed on could readily be revealed -- but it's submerged under such ambiguities of expression that to identify an unambiguous disagreement would actually be the tougher linguistic challenge.

I'm not claiming propositional conformity nor uniformity of expression. They may well see the same things, while working from different perspectives. They're not identical in experience, no. And they're limited human beings. To me the disputes between human beings are demonstrably different views, especially those between Peter and Paul. Peter's complaint appears to be about "the unstable and twisted", not particularly about Paul. Paul's complaint is from observing the impact of Peter's behavior.

However, what they're looking at is either the same thing, or it's bunk.

This is fine and well, and if such self-awareness is in abundance, these individuals are to be applauded. However, what should also be understood completely is that in the place of contextually relevant biblical material, the next (or perhaps first...) recourse of the systematician must be philosophy. It is precisely at this point, in my experience, that proof-texting begins to appear, for in the absence of biblical support, the fundamental philosophical prejudices must be supported (this is human nature, after all), and pressing Scripture to this end is an attractive avenue, given the authority which such a source holds in the minds of most of the systematician's audience.

Well, the next recourse of evidence is the next less specific context. For instance, if I were to make a claim about Romans 9 based on my 21st century philosophy to deny Paul was saying what he was saying prima facie, that'd be similar to the prooftexting you're claiming for systematicians. However, if drew from Romans 8, not so. If I drew from First Century philosophy or Hebrew theology, not so.

As for the the systematist prooftexting his own theology, well, it's certainly possible, but that wouldn't explain for instance why I grew up a Methodist and now I'm a Presbyterian. Making the assertion without evidence would be muckraking. It doesn't really permit us to simply pass off an answer to prooftexting. We'd need to have evidence of the point.