John Piper on Limited Atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."

Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.

How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.

As Matthew Poole notes in I Timothy 4:10, God is the preserver of life for all men. There is no common grace found in that life of a lost man? Like the rain falling on the just and the unjust?
 
I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about brothers in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.

Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.

Again with my question: Piper concludes his piece using the famous Owen work and the argument Owen makes about the reason for a limited atonement approvingly.

If I understand Piper correctly, he is arguing for a universal aspect to the atonement in some sense but fully accepts Owen's argument for the limited atonement as doctrinally necessary. As I read the Reformed tradition, there are legitimate differences between Calvinists over how the admittedly limited atonement applies in ways that do not cross the line into Amyraldianism. Can one even be a four pointer and say . . .

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.


What am I missing????

I believe part of the difficulty is that Piper in the quoted piece is inconsistent...while including Owen's
summary (a masterful piece!) he also argues for Christ's death as effecting some other things apart from
salvation for the elect. He seems, at this reading, to go beyond what Owen wrote and argue for Christ's
dying in some sense for all men.
 
Piper was lumped in with Amyraldianism, poison as it was called. Were all the facts known about this? Did anyone bother to check his doctrinal statement on limited atonement?

This was why I said that sometimes unnecessary comments are made about brothers in Christ. Whether it's about the brother himself, what he believes, or his ministry. If I was too harsh in my comment then I ask for forgiveness. I'm not sure of a better way of putting it. It is true - (See the "Piper is down" thread).
 
Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.

How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.

As Matthew Poole notes in I Timothy 4:10, God is the preserver of life for all men. There is no common grace found in that life of a lost man? Like the rain falling on the just and the unjust?

I gather you're not seeing my point, so I'll stop :deadhorse:

I fail to see how it is merciful of God to keep a man alive who is not elect - to give him further opportunities to condemn himself and stoke the fires of His wrath through his sins. Sin begets sin; it is itself punishment - and the longer a non-elect person lives, the longer he lives in the deadness and darkness of his sin-filled mind. I just cannot see this as in any way mercy to him. My last word on this - it's clearly not sinking in.
 
I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."

Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.

The action is a mercy; there is no basis for saying God is "being merciful," or expressing a disposition of mercy. If earthly favours really did flow from a disposition of mercy in God then we should call them blessed who prosper at their will and welcome the prosperity gospel with all its carnal attractiveness. But even if one were to say God shows a disposition of mercy, whence would one derive the idea that this mercy is grounded in the death of Christ? It's fictitious. Any generalisation of the death of Christ serves to undermine the particularity of grace and to throw the believer's assurance into confusion.
 
How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.

As Matthew Poole notes in I Timothy 4:10, God is the preserver of life for all men. There is no common grace found in that life of a lost man? Like the rain falling on the just and the unjust?

I gather you're not seeing my point, so I'll stop :deadhorse:

I fail to see how it is merciful of God to keep a man alive who is not elect - to give him further opportunities to condemn himself and stoke the fires of His wrath through his sins. Sin begets sin; it is itself punishment - and the longer a non-elect person lives, the longer he lives in the deadness and darkness of his sin-filled mind. I just cannot see this as in any way mercy to him. My last word on this - it's clearly not sinking in.

Thanks for the post, brother. You say it's clearly not sinking in. So, obviously I need to get it right.

Jesus Christ says the Father, "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." I believe that is a merciful Creator that does so. Not salvific mercy, but mercy nonetheless.
 
But even if one were to say God shows a disposition of mercy, whence would one derive the idea that this mercy is grounded in the death of Christ? It's fictitious. Any generalisation of the death of Christ serves to undermine the particularity of grace and to throw the believer's assurance into confusion.

Here is where Piper states his case:
We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

He MAY very well be wrong. Romans 2:4 makes a pretty strong argument that a lost man despises the goodness and forbearance and longsuffering of God. Piper believes that is based upon the cross of Christ. Perhaps it is fictitious in your thinking, but obviously not in his.
 
He MAY very well be wrong. Romans 2:4 makes a pretty strong argument that a lost man despises the goodness and forbearance and longsuffering of God. Piper believes that is based upon the cross of Christ. Perhaps it is fictitious in your thinking, but obviously not in his.

Whether it's fictitious or not should be fairly easy to determine. What evidence is there in holy writ for claiming earthly favours as the fruit of Christ's death? Nil. If there were such evidence it would turn the heavenly orientation of the Christian life on its head.
 
My wife and I have sat under Piper's preaching for the last 4 1/2 years. For three of those years I've occasionally expected that his weird take on the law, which seems to border on New Covenant Theology, would make his preaching on justification and the atonement obviously unorthodox. This has not happened. Piper's preaching on the atonement, as far as I see it, is obviously orthodox. I'm confident that an examination of his sermons in the last ten years would substantiate my claim. The claim my be further strengthened when we consider the fact that the only theologian he's more versed in than Edwards is Owen.
Regarding the alleged poison of view on the atonement: I can certainly see the validity of what both sides have brought up here. I have no doubt that great harm would come to the person who followed Piper's view of the law to its logical conclusion. I've voiced this to the elders at Bethlehem. But I've never seen it come out in his articulation of justification or the atonement; not in his preaching or his writing. I humbly ask anyone who thinks otherwise to bring forth some better evidence because anything brought forth thus far could have been said by Durham or Boston or the Marrow Men, in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper.
 
I humbly ask anyone who thinks otherwise to bring forth some better evidence because anything brought forth thus far could have been said by Durham or Boston or the Marrow Men, in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper.

Both Durham and Boston upheld a simple design of the atonement. Both men's writings have regrettably been misinterpreted to present a general reference. That misinterpretation is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by saying that Christ died for sinners as a class. Those seeking to find a general reference in this terminology think that what is done for a class must be applicable to every individual which belongs to the class. This is a fallacy, and fails to take into account an important distinction in these theologians' writings between the death of Christ as unconditionally purchasing the benefit of salvation and the death of Christ as conditionally preached to sinners as such.
 
I humbly ask anyone who thinks otherwise to bring forth some better evidence because anything brought forth thus far could have been said by Durham or Boston or the Marrow Men, in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper.

Both Durham and Boston upheld a simple design of the atonement. Both men's writings have regrettably been misinterpreted to present a general reference. That misinterpretation is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by saying that Christ died for sinners as a class. Those seeking to find a general reference in this terminology think that what is done for a class must be applicable to every individual which belongs to the class. This is a fallacy, and fails to take into account an important distinction in these theologians' writings between the death of Christ as unconditionally purchasing the benefit of salvation and the death of Christ as conditionally preached to sinners as such.
I agree completely. I'm almost done reading Lachman's thesis on the subject, which was quite good. I guess I really have no idea how your last posted added anything to the discussion. I mean no disrespect. I'm just left thinking, "well...yeah, of course."
 
I agree completely. I'm almost done reading Lachman's thesis on the subject, which was quite good. I guess I really have no idea how your last posted added anything to the discussion. I mean no disrespect. I'm just left thinking, "well...yeah, of course."

This would be the particular thought I was seeking to correct: "in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper." Obviously they didn't, if you agree with the summation of their position which has been provided. Piper allows for a dual design of the atonement whilst Durham and Boston maintained a single design.
 
I'm writing this late at night, very tired and in some physical pain, so if I seem uncharitable please bear with me.

Piper on Limited Atonement

...
We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially." ...

As I read the above, Piper seems to be arguing that the benefit Christ's death provides for unbelievers is that it allows God to remain just while providing common grace to those who are not Christ's sheep, an action that (if Christ's death had not occured) would make God unjust. A question for those taking issue with Piper on the point: does Owen in "Death of Death" specifically deny that Christ's death is the foundation for common grace and if so, where is his argument found? (Chapter and/or page numbers in the Banner of Truth Edition appreciated).

To say that Christ died to justify God from the otherwise true charge of being unjust when he offered common grace instead of immediate death and hell to those who would ultimately end in hell is not to at all to say that Christ died for those in hell. Piper is saying the former not the latter.

Nor does Kennedy's argument apply to Piper for Kennedy is not considering Christ's death in relationship to sustainining the righteousness of God. And although Piper's argument is non-Confessional it is not anti-Confessional. I wonder whether Piper's specific argument was known to the Divines of the day; the Divines do not seem to have Confessionally defined how God could remain just without immediately destroying the wicked.

I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners?

And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?
 
I agree completely. I'm almost done reading Lachman's thesis on the subject, which was quite good. I guess I really have no idea how your last posted added anything to the discussion. I mean no disrespect. I'm just left thinking, "well...yeah, of course."

This would be the particular thought I was seeking to correct: "in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper." Obviously they didn't, if you agree with the summation of their position which has been provided. Piper allows for a dual design of the atonement whilst Durham and Boston maintained a single design.
A single design with respect to who the atonement redeems? If that's what you meant, which is how I read it, then yes. I'm thinking I read you wrong though. I apologize and I think we disagree. I'm now wondering how you would read this paragraph from David Lachman's The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988), 33:

Although James Durham admits the infinate worth of the sacrifice, he denies that Christ's death and sufferings were intended as a price and satisfaction to redeem any but the elect [Commentary on Revelation, Edinburgh:Christopher Higgins, 1658, p. 299]. Nor can Christ in any proper sense be called the Redeemer of the reprobate, since no saving or eternal mercy is procured for them. He does acknowledge that the reprobate enjoy many things on earth, including "the glad tidings of the conditional offer of life" in the preaching of the gospel, of which Christ's death is the cause sine qua non. These "cannot be denied to be decreed in the Counsel of God, and contained in the covenant of redemption, largely taken." But they are not of the proper fruits and effects of Christ's death. The gospel is preached to all the visible church for the benefit of the elect. That it is preached to others is an administrative consequence of this and not a proper fruit of Christ's death [ibid., pp. 309-311].

So isn't Durham saying something different than what you're saying? The proper design of the atonement is the redemption of the elect, no one is saying Piper disputes that, right? But in an improper sense, sine qua non, Christ's death can be seen to cause the glad tidings of the gospel preached to all. Piper, and I think Durham, would take issue with you if you deny the second statement. Are you denying it?
Again, I apologize for not understanding you. I thought, at first, you might have been claiming that Piper denies the sufficient/efficient idea.
 
So isn't Durham saying something different than what you're saying? The proper design of the atonement is the redemption of the elect, no one is saying Piper disputes that, right? But in an improper sense, sine qua non, Christ's death can be seen to cause the glad tidings of the gospel preached to all. Piper, and I think Durham, would take issue with you if you deny the second statement. Are you denying it?

In Durham's view, as with all orthodox divines, there are temporal benefits which follow the death of Christ, but not as the fruit of Christ's death. It is simply that these benefits are given to elect and non-elect alike in the purpose of God, and this purpose as a whole centres upon the death of Christ. It would be more correct to say that the death of Christ is the occasion of these temporal benefits rather than the cause of them. But since Durham denies these benefits are the fruit of Christ's death, his single intention view of the atonement remains intact. Piper, however, has said that Christ's death accomplishes something with relation to all men in general which makes it possible for God to "treat the world with mercy." Hence temporal benefits do not merely follow, but are the fruit of Christ's death, thus introducing a dual intention in the atonement.
 
Nor does Kennedy's argument apply to Piper for Kennedy is not considering Christ's death in relationship to sustainining the righteousness of God.

Kennedy's argument pertains to the double reference theory, which supposes Christ died to make possible the salvation of all as well as to secure the salvation of the elect. Piper maintains Christ's death not only secures the salvation of the elect, but also that it means God can mercifully give unbelievers an opportunity for salvation. That is the double reference theory which Kennedy contradicts. Yes, Piper is considering the righteousness of God, but it is in the specific context as to how God can be righteous in making salvation possible for all men, and the answer is to be found in the death of Christ, according to Piper.

As for Owen, he states quite clearly, "To me nothing is more certain than that to whom Christ is in any sense a Saviour in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace here and glory hereafter." (Works, 10:192.)
 
Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.

His position is NOT Amyraldianism. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.

*shaking my head*

When will the Piper-bashing stop ?
 
So isn't Durham saying something different than what you're saying? The proper design of the atonement is the redemption of the elect, no one is saying Piper disputes that, right? But in an improper sense, sine qua non, Christ's death can be seen to cause the glad tidings of the gospel preached to all. Piper, and I think Durham, would take issue with you if you deny the second statement. Are you denying it?

In Durham's view, as with all orthodox divines, there are temporal benefits which follow the death of Christ, but not as the fruit of Christ's death. It is simply that these benefits are given to elect and non-elect alike in the purpose of God, and this purpose as a whole centres upon the death of Christ. It would be more correct to say that the death of Christ is the occasion of these temporal benefits rather than the cause of them. But since Durham denies these benefits are the fruit of Christ's death, his single intention view of the atonement remains intact. Piper, however, has said that Christ's death accomplishes something with relation to all men in general which makes it possible for God to "treat the world with mercy." Hence temporal benefits do not merely follow, but are the fruit of Christ's death, thus introducing a dual intention in the atonement.
So...I suppose then you're not saying anything different than Durham, but you still want to say something different than Piper, though I don't think you are. I guess I'll leave it at that. But it does seem like things cause things in different ways and we should have no problem throwing the word "cause" in there, we just need to be careful. Perhaps Piper has not been as careful as we would have liked here. Either way, an "occasion" is still a cause, if even an improper one.
 
Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.

His position is NOT Amyraldianism. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.

*shaking my head*

When will the Piper-bashing stop ?
Yes, it is certainly shoddy historical scholarship to call it Amyraldianism, just like it would be to call it Arminianism or Socinianism. These were real errors (in the case of the former) and real heresies (in the case of the latter) that sharpened the position of the orthodox. If someone is willing to throw any of those labels on Piper's view of the atonement it calls into question, I believe, their own understanding of it, simply because it appears they don't know what it is not. It would help if we keep history in mind when we use historical terms.
 
And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?

I think Rev. Winzer's earlier answer was that God is not doing the non-elect any favors by keeping them alive and letting them heap more and more judgment on themselves. It could be considered a form of punishment in itself.
 
Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.

His position is NOT Amyraldianism. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.

*shaking my head*

When will the Piper-bashing stop ?

I doubt Piper holds the same position as Dort, but that's besides the point. What we need to do then is define Amyrauldism. I define it as "hypothetical universalism" "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" "COnditional salvation upon faith" Perhaps I am incorrect in the definition I use. We are constantly seeing this word thrown around, accusing some of adhering to it, then they are defended as not saying the same thing. It is very confusing. Now some may say,"It cannot be narrowly defined" Well it can. So let's not get into 50 diferent understandings of Amyraulidism. Anything that speaks of universal benefits for all head for head is unscriptural, no matter what you call it. If Piper says this, well he is unscriptural..PERIOD. ANyone who attaches the death of the elect's savior, the one who would not even pray for the world head for head, yet say in some sophist, mysterious way, He died for them is wrong. It could be Piper, Calvin, Witisius, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc etc etc.
 
http://www.desiringgod.org/download.php?file=/media/audio/seminars/tulip_l_lecture.mp3

This is the link to the message he delivered. If I somehow miss represented the argument he delivers here please correct my understanding. I love John Piper and regardless of his posistion on this one doctrine he is godly servant of our Lord Jesus Christ. My intentions in starting this thread were in no way to bash Piper or even Amyraldianism (whatever that is), but to see how his position (as I understand it) aligned with that of the reformers.

The whole TULIP series can be found here.
Seminars :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
 
I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners?

And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?

No it cannot achieve 2 results. Just as Adam did not immediately die, the reprobate do not either. The rain and sun shining on all is not tied to the cross.
 
Nor does Kennedy's argument apply to Piper for Kennedy is not considering Christ's death in relationship to sustainining the righteousness of God.

Kennedy's argument pertains to the double reference theory, which supposes Christ died to make possible the salvation of all as well as to secure the salvation of the elect. Piper maintains Christ's death not only secures the salvation of the elect, but also that it means God can mercifully give unbelievers an opportunity for salvation. That is the double reference theory which Kennedy contradicts. Yes, Piper is considering the righteousness of God, but it is in the specific context as to how God can be righteous in making salvation possible for all men, and the answer is to be found in the death of Christ, according to Piper.

This argument fails to distinguish between things that differ. Piper is not saying that the opportunity for salvation that is given to reprobate men is a potential salvation of those men as the double reference theory argues. Instead, as the rest of his message makes clear, Piper is explicit that the saving benefits of the cross are for the elect and no one else. His use of preaching that offers salvation to reprobate sinners is just one of several illustrations of God's kindness toward reprobates.

As for Owen, he states quite clearly, "To me nothing is more certain than that to whom Christ is in any sense a Saviour in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace here and glory hereafter." (Works, 10:192.)

Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.
 
This argument fails to distinguish between things that differ. Piper is not saying that the opportunity for salvation that is given to reprobate men is a potential salvation of those men as the double reference theory argues. Instead, as the rest of his message makes clear, Piper is explicit that the saving benefits of the cross are for the elect and no one else. His use of preaching that offers salvation to reprobate sinners is just one of several illustrations of God's kindness toward reprobates.

That is good he is not saying that. Man can proclaim Christ to all head for head indiscriminately, yet in no way does God proclaim salvation for the reprobate. The foundation is wrong with this thought. For some reason, those who propose this think that unregenerate men can respond to Christ proclaimed, when scripture is clear they will not nor cannot. It is never the case that a person can respond savingly, and be left out of the kingdom. The preaching of Christ just hardens the reprobate more and more and more.

Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.

Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.
 
I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners?

And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?

No it cannot achieve 2 results. Just as Adam did not immediately die, the reprobate do not either. The rain and sun shining on all is not tied to the cross.

God, we are told [loves] His enemies... and... is kind to the wicked" ()Luke 6:55,56). If this is not an illustration of the mercy of God to unbelievers, why did Christ adduce it as if it was? And where can such mercy be justified without destroying God's righteousness except by the cross? Is there some other means by which God can justify a delay in punishing the sins of the reprobate and if so what is it? If you can't answer we are left with an unjust God.
Let me explain the problem in more detail.
God is just, right? I am sure you will say "Right?"
He has announced to mankind that "If you sin, you die" right? "Right"
But he lets moments, days, weeks, years or even decades go by before that that punishment is executed, right? "Right"
And, as the writer of Eccliesiastes realized "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Eccl. 8:11).
OK then why is God not unjust for temporarily passing over the sins of the reprobate?
 
I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners?

And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?

No it cannot achieve 2 results. Just as Adam did not immediately die, the reprobate do not either. The rain and sun shining on all is not tied to the cross.

God, we are told [loves] His enemies... and... is kind to the wicked" ()Luke 6:55,56). If this is not an illustration of the mercy of God to unbelievers, why did Christ adduce it as if it was? And where can such mercy be justified without destroying God's righteousness except by the cross? Is there some other means by which God can justify a delay in punishing the sins of the reprobate and if so what is it? If you can't answer we are left with an unjust God.
Let me explain the problem in more detail.
God is just, right? I am sure you will say "Right?"
He has announced to mankind that "If you sin, you die" right? "Right"
But he lets moments, days, weeks, years or even decades go by before that that punishment is executed, right? "Right"
And, as the writer of Eccliesiastes realized "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Eccl. 8:11).
OK then why is God not unjust for temporarily passing over the sins of the reprobate?

FOr a brief answer becasue I have a metting. Immediate death is NEVER spoken of in scripture as a result of sin. God's sentence of eternal death is prescribed for the reprobate. HE has no forebearance towards them. WHy would it make God unjust to let them live this temporal life? IT makes no sense whatsoever to claim that since God does not immediately destroy the reprobate, there must be some benefit derived from the cross of Christ. God is not bound by anything. He dos as He pleases to whomever and however. In David's imprecatory pslams, throughout the whole writ, people complain on why the wicked are allowed to live and continue in their wickedness. The Holy Spirit had ample time to speak of some benefits from a sacrifice. Yet He does not even implicitly say as such. In John's Revelation, the elect are begging God to vindicate them. Yet God does as He will. In due time it is revealed what happens to the reprobate
 
John Kennedy (Man’s Relation to God):

It doubtless sprung out of a desire to find a basis for the offer of Christ to all. To search for it, in a universal reference of the atonement, indicated a suspicion that the Calvinistic system did not afford it.

This seems like a broad brush stoke. Have you found this to always be the case?

John Kennedy (Man’s Relation to God):

The idea of the call being the offer of a gift, has driven the Scriptural form of it out of the minds of many men altogether.

:amen:
 
Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.

Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.

In which Greek dictonary do you find "namely" as a possible tranlsation for malista? The possibility is not even mentioned in BAGD and given that the root mala means "very, exceedingly" and the suffix ista makes it a superlative, i.e. "most of all" or "above all" (Liddell Scott), (LS's possibility "precisely" is not a good description of the usages they cite. A better meaning is "exactly" as in "What exactly is the matter." i.e. the samples provided do not require a more narrow and focused stament of the matter than what has already been given). In view of these facts and the problem that your reading makes Paul contradict himself in the same breath, your interpretation is highly unlikely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top