John Piper on Limited Atonement

[JohnOwen007]

Yes I had a Federal Visionist tell me this on my blog a while back. However, Romans 6 is clear that those who died with Christ shall live with Christ - i.e. those for whom Christ died shall have eternal life - so it is not imposing a pre-determined dogmatic conclusion on the text, but simply comparing Scripture with Scripture to properly interpret it.

Well unfortunately dear brother I'm going to reassert the same point again, because your appeal to Romans 6 indicates to me that there is still a methological problem.

BTW pulling in an FVer who makes the same charge of you is a rhetorical device that distracts from the issue at hand. I am no supporter of the FV.

Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture.

The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).

Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context.

I personally doubt that "saviour" means "benefactor" or "sustainer" because:

[1] The argument of chapter 4 concerns what Timothy is to teach his people so that he and his people will be "saved" (v. 16). Salvation in that verse is definately a reference to eschatological salvation from sin.

[2] Paul never elsewhere in his writings uses the word "saviour" (soter) to mean benefactor / sustainer.

I personally doubt that "all" means "all kinds of people" (i.e. not only Jews) because:

[1] There is nothing in the direct context that shows the Jew / Gentile issue is being discussed.

[2] "All kinds of people" fits awkwardly with the following phrase no matter how we take malista ("especially", "namely"):

a. If "especially": "all kinds of people especially those who believe". Especially serves to narrow the former group, hence "all kinds of people" would be a wider group than those who believe.

b. If "namely": "God is the saviour of all kinds of people namely those who believe", that is, "all kinds of people" is identified by "those who believe", which is a meaningless statement. If malista meant "namely" and is to make sense in context, it would probably be something like: "all kinds of people namely Jew and Gentiles".

Even if you don't agree with my exegesis thus far, you can see that there is much work to be done before the work of integration begins.

I'm all for comparing Scripture with Scripture. However, to do this without prior exegesis will actually end up twisting Scripture. This is precisely how Arminians explain away various Calvinistic texts.

God bless you brother.

 

[Gloria]

I recently listened to John Pipers messages over the TULIP. He presented the L in a way I had never heard it and I was wondering how it aligned with the reformers position on the doctrine.

He basically said that Christ died potentially for every human being, they must only exercise faith to recieve it. However, Christ only purchased irresistible Grace for the elect, therefore they are the only ones who can exercise faith.

Piper said that??? I haven't read the entire thread but I'd like to have a link to this sermon/teaching. I'll see if you've already posted it.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture.

The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).

Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context.

Brother Marty, this is the correct approach, but cannot be the final arbiter. The final arbiter is the full weight of the corpus, 'namely'(no pun intended) the Pauline Corpus. If not we will be pulling verses out of the body, leading us to a wrong conclusion. There is no guessing when it comes to Paul on the matter of atonement. He used no hypothetical's, without giving a clear answer. His rhetorical questions are also answered clearly. Therefore, 1 Tim 4;10 must be answered elsewhere.

 

[k.seymore]

The point you are missing is that the traditional reformed concept of sufficiency is entirely intrinsic. This is the value of Christ's death in and of itself, so that if God had have intended Christ's death to save all men, Christ would not have needed to have suffered anything more. Piper's idea is not that Christ's death is intrinsically sufficient, but that Christ's death actually accomplished something so far as the justice of God is concerned to make it possible for God to show mercy to all men.

Earlier you gave a quote of what you called "poison" and "Amyraldian":

Piper: "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."

How is that actually different than the quotes I listed (here are excerpts):

AA Hodge: "it is plain as the sun in the heavens that the death of Christ did remove all legal obstacles out of the way of God s saving any man he pleases."

C Hodge: "He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.'"

C.Hodge: "...Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world."

Or for that matter, here are more:

Dabney:
This seems, then, to be the candid conclusion, that there is no passage the Bible which asserts an intention to apply redemption to any others than the elect, on the part of God and Christ, but that there are passages which imply that Christ died for all sinners in some sense, as Dr. Ch. Hodge has so expressly admitted. Certainly the expiation made by Christ is so related to all, irrespective of election, that God can sincerely invite all to enjoy its benefits, that every soul in the world who desires salvation is warranted to appropriate it, and that even a Judas, had he come in earnest, would not have been cast out. Dabney, Lectures, 527.

Dabney:
1) There is no safer clue for the student through this perplexed subject, than, to take this proposition; which, to every Calvinist, is nearly as indisputable as a truism; Christ’s design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate, and all that it effectuates, in its subsequent proclamation. This is but saying that Christ’s purpose is unchangeable and omnipotent. Now, what does it actually effectuate? “We know only in part,” but so much is certain.

(a.) The purchase of the full and assured redemption of all the elect, or of all believers.

(b.) A reprieve of doom for every sinner of Adam’s race who does not die at his birth (For these we believe it has purchased heaven). And this reprieve gains for all, many substantial, though temporal benefits, such as unbelievers, of all men, will be the last to account no benefits. Among these are postponement of death and perdition, secular well being, and the bounties of life.

(c.) A manifestation of God’s mercy to many of the non elect, to all those, namely, who live under the Gospel, in sincere offers of a salvation on terms of faith. And a sincere offer is a real and not a delusive benefaction; because it is only the recipients contumacy which disappoints it.

(d.) A justly enhanced condemnation of those who reject the Gospel, and thereby a clearer display of God’s righteousness and reasonableness in condemning, to all the worlds.

(e.) A disclosure of the infinite tenderness and glory of God’s compassion, with purity, truth and justice, to all rational creatures.

Dabney:
"Did Christ die for the elect only, or for all men?" ...the question will be pressed, “Is Christ’s sacrifice limited by the purpose and design of the Trinity”? The best answer for Presbyterians to make is this: In the purpose and design of the Godhead, Christ’s sacrifice was intended to effect just the results, and all the results, which would be found flowing from it in the history of redemption. I say this is exactly the answer for us Presbyterians to make, because we believe in God’s universal predestination as certain and efficacious so that the whole final outcome of his plan must be the exact interpretation of what his plan was at first. And this statement the Arminian also is bound to adopt, unless he means to charge God with ignorance, weakness, or fickleness. Search and see.
Well, then, the realized results of Christ’s sacrifice are not one, but many and various:
1. It makes a display of God’s general benevolence and pity toward all lost sinners, to the glory of his infinite grace. For, blessed be his name, he says, “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth” (Ezek. 18:32).
2. Christ’s sacrifice has certainly purchased for the whole human race a merciful postponement of the doom incurred by our sins, including all the temporal blessings of our earthly life, all the gospel restraints upon human depravity, and the sincere offer of heaven to all. For, but for Christ, man’s doom would have followed instantly after his sin, as that of the fallen angels did.
3. Christ’s sacrifice, wilfully rejected by men, sets the stubbornness, wickedness, and guilt of their nature in a much stronger light, to the glory of God’s final justice.
4. Christ’s sacrifice has purchased and provided for the effectual calling of the elect, with all the graces which insure their faith, repentance, justification, perseverance, and glorification. Now, since the sacrifice actually results in all these different consequences, they are all included in Gods design. This view satisfies all those texts quoted against us.
But we cannot admit that Christ died as fully and in the same sense for Judas as he did for Saul of Tarsus. Here we are bound to assert that, while the expiation is infinite, redemption is particular...
Since their condition is determined intentionally by God’s providence, it could not be his intention that the expiation should avail for them equally with those who hear and believe. This view is destructive, particularly of the Arminian scheme...
Hence, it is absolutely impossible for us to retain the dogma that Christ in design died equally for all. We are compelled to hold that he died for Peter and Paul in some sense in which he did not for Judas. No consistent mind can hold the Calvinistic creed as to man’s total depravity toward God, his inability of will, God’s decree, God’s immutable attributes of sovereignty and omnipotence over free agents, omniscience and wisdom, and stops short of this conclusion. So much every intelligent opponent admits, and in disputing particular redemption, to this extent at least, he always attacks these connected truths as falling along with the other.
In a word, Christ’s work for the elect does not merely put them in a salvable state, but purchases for them a complete and assured salvation. To him who knows the depravity and bondage of his own heart, any less redemption than this would bring no comfort." R.L. Dabney The Five Points of Calvinism (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1895), 60-66.

 

[timmopussycat]

Yes I had a Federal Visionist tell me this on my blog a while back. However, Romans 6 is clear that those who died with Christ shall live with Christ - i.e. those for whom Christ died shall have eternal life - so it is not imposing a pre-determined dogmatic conclusion on the text, but simply comparing Scripture with Scripture to properly interpret it.

Very well noted.

Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.

 

[MW]

Earlier you gave a quote of what you called "poison" and "Amyraldian":

Piper: "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."

How is that actually different than the quotes I listed (here are excerpts):

I explained the difference in the post you are responding to. Please read it and interact with it rather than simply paste more quotations. To prove there are apples in the world you only need to produce one apple, you do not need to multiply a hundred of them. And to prove that a hundred apples are apples and not oranges you only need to examine one of them, and what you prove in that instance applies to the whole class.

 

[MW]

Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.

Then Christ hasn't died for them in any sense. See 2 Cor. 5:14.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Brother Marty, this is the correct approach, but cannot be the final arbiter. The final arbiter is the full weight of the corpus, 'namely'(no pun intended) the Pauline Corpus. If not we will be pulling verses out of the body, leading us to a wrong conclusion. There is no guessing when it comes to Paul on the matter of atonement. He used no hypothetical's, without giving a clear answer. His rhetorical questions are also answered clearly. Therefore, 1 Tim 4;10 must be answered elsewhere.

Dear Nicholas, thanks for the post. However, call me thick, but I can't understand what you're saying.

 

[MW]

Or for that matter, here are more:

Dabney:

Dabney is a different kettle of fish. I have provided some account of his views on another thread. The problem with Dabney's presentation is a lack of coherence -- partially voluntaristic within a necessitarian scheme, that is, requiring faith to make it effectual. This means he can adapt language to suit his present purpose. He can introduce different designs into the death of Christ without actually stating Christ made atonement for all men. But William Cunningham has correctly noted that all other advantages of the death of Christ are subordinate to the great design of satisfying God's justice on behalf of the elect. All benefit therefore rests in the election of God -- true voluntarism. Where there is no satisfaction to divine justice on behalf of a particular man there is no real benefit which flows to that man from the death of Christ.

 

[timmopussycat]

Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.

Then Christ hasn't died for them in any sense. See 2 Cor. 5:14.

By that kind of illogic an Arminian may prove that God so loved the world [defined as all persons without exception] in John 3:16. The context of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14 is clearly all believers and we know that Christ's those who die with Christ are the elect Rom. 6:1-14. Whether "all men" means "all believers only" or all humanity in 1 Tim 4:10 must be justified from the context. Every immediate exegetical consideration mandates the latter: all is not left alone but is spelled out "all men" and that group is distinguished from "those who believe".

 

[timmopussycat]

Or for that matter, here are more:

Dabney:

Dabney is a different kettle of fish. I have provided some account of his views on another thread. The problem with Dabney's presentation is a lack of coherence -- partially voluntaristic within a necessitarian scheme, that is, requiring faith to make it effectual. This means he can adapt language to suit his present purpose. He can introduce different designs into the death of Christ without actually stating Christ made atonement for all men. But William Cunningham has correctly noted that all other advantages of the death of Christ are subordinate to the great design of satisfying God's justice on behalf of the elect. All benefit therefore rests in the election of God -- true voluntarism. Where there is no satisfaction to divine justice on behalf of a particular man there is no real benefit which flows to that man from the death of Christ.

Where is my [distant] cousin's argument on this point found? Is it available online?

 

[Amazing Grace]

Brother Marty, this is the correct approach, but cannot be the final arbiter. The final arbiter is the full weight of the corpus, 'namely'(no pun intended) the Pauline Corpus. If not we will be pulling verses out of the body, leading us to a wrong conclusion. There is no guessing when it comes to Paul on the matter of atonement. He used no hypothetical's, without giving a clear answer. His rhetorical questions are also answered clearly. Therefore, 1 Tim 4;10 must be answered elsewhere.

Dear Nicholas, thanks for the post. However, call me thick, but I can't understand what you're saying.

You stated:

Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture.

The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).

Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context.

If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is how it fits into Pauline vocabularythen in the context of the other writings by the same author

This is the definition of the analogy of scripture. Packer concludes thus: Every text has its immediate context in the passage from which it comes, its broader context in the book to which it belongs, and its ultimate context in the Bible as a whole; and it needs to be rightly related to each of these contexts if its character, scope and significance is to be adequately understood.

“The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

Accordingly, our methods of interpreting Scripture must be such as express faith in its truth and consistency as God’s Word. Our approach must be harmonistic; for we know at the outset that God’s utterance is not self-contradictory. Article XX of the Church of England lays down that it is not lawful for the Church so to “expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”; no more is it lawful for any individual exegete. Not that we should adopt strained and artificial expedients for harmonizing; this will neither glorify God nor edify us. What we cannot harmonize by a natural and plausible hypothesis is best left unharmonized, with a frank admission that in our present state of knowledge we do not see how these apparent discrepancies should be resolved.

James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....

 

[MW]

Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.

Then Christ hasn't died for them in any sense. See 2 Cor. 5:14.

By that kind of illogic an Arminian may prove that God so loved the world [defined as all persons without exception] in John 3:16. The context of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14 is clearly all believers and we know that Christ's those who die with Christ are the elect Rom. 6:1-14. Whether "all men" means "all believers only" or all humanity in 1 Tim 4:10 must be justified from the context. Every immediate exegetical consideration mandates the latter: all is not left alone but is spelled out "all men" and that group is distinguished from "those who believe".

I'm arguing for the particularity of Christ's death, so of course I maintain the contextual intepretation of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14. Your appeal to contextual exegesis buttresses the case for particularism. The "all" for whom Christ died are dead in Christ; every man without exception is not dead in Christ; ergo, Christ did not die for every man without exception. The point is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ died for a particular people. Otherwise you end up with a class of men who can say Christ died for them whilst they continue to live for themselves, which is contrary to the apostle's argument.

I'm not sure why you have reverted back to 1 Tim. 4:10, when it has already been clearly established that there is nothing in that text about Christ dying as the Saviour of men. Let it be granted that the text is speaking universally; the text does not say Christ died as the Saviour for all men, but especially for believers. It simply says that God is the Saviour of all men -- that is, the Saviour of men is God, no one else.

 

[MW]

Where is my [distant] cousin's argument on this point found? Is it available online?

Sermons, pp. 410, 411.

The Scripture affords us sufficient materials to prove that the death of Christ was, in its nature and proper character, the endurance of the penalty we had incurred, or, what is virtually the same thing, of a full equivalent, an adequate compensation for it; and for proving also, that it is only because this was its true character that it was, or could be, a display or manifestation of the principles of the Divine government and law. The inference from all this is clear and certain, that Christ’s death bore upon and effected the pardon and salvation of sinners, not merely or principally through the intervention of its being such a display or manifestation – though this consideration is true, and is not to be overlooked – but still more directly from its own proper nature, as being a penal infliction, in accordance with the provisions of the law, endured in our room and stead; and as thus, by rendering satisfaction to the Divine justice and law, furnishing an adequate ground or reason why those, in whose room it was suffered, should not be called upon to suffer in their own persons the penalty they had deserved and incurred. And indeed it is, we think, impossible to understand how the death of Christ can be a manifestation of the Divine character and law and government, or be fitted to produce those impressions upon men’s minds, for which this manifestation is held to be indispensable, unless it be really regarded in the light in which Scripture represents it, even as the endurance of the penalty of the Law in our room and stead.

Hence the death of Christ serves as a governmental display or moral influence only insofar as it satisfies the penalty which the divine governor requires for the forgiveness of moral transgression -- so far and no farther. We see this clearly in Rom. 8:32, wherein God is said to be willing to freely give us all things because He spared not His own Son but gave Him up for us all. The display is co-extensive with penal substitution, and so extends to the same objects.

 

[Amazing Grace]

AFter giving this more thought and study, I find the root of the error on those who promote universal benefits for all head for head lies in the thought of 'propitiation'

What are the benefits of Christ's death?

1) redemption (paying the price)
2) reconciliation (getting together by removing enmity)
3) justification (declaring righteous)
4) Forgiveness
5) Adpotion
6) Sanctification
7) propitiation(turning away wrath)

It is #7 that lies as the root of universal benefits. That somehow Christ's death turns away God's wrath temporarily towards the reprobate.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

* Only for the elect in Christ

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

*only for the elect

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

* only for the elect once again.

As we see clearly, the wrath of God abides on them(reprobate) continuously.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son (elect) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.(unbelievers/reprobate)


1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,


Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.

 

[k.seymore]

Or for that matter, here are more:

Dabney:

Dabney is a different kettle of fish. I have provided some account of his views on another thread. The problem with Dabney's presentation is a lack of coherence -- partially voluntaristic within a necessitarian scheme, that is, requiring faith to make it effectual. This means he can adapt language to suit his present purpose. He can introduce different designs into the death of Christ without actually stating Christ made atonement for all men. But William Cunningham has correctly noted that all other advantages of the death of Christ are subordinate to the great design of satisfying God's justice on behalf of the elect. All benefit therefore rests in the election of God -- true voluntarism. Where there is no satisfaction to divine justice on behalf of a particular man there is no real benefit which flows to that man from the death of Christ.

Thanks for that follow up. I was a bit confused at your previous reply because those new quotes I had listed were showing that Dabney included the non-elect in the effects of Christ's death and said that the effects of Christ's death "are not one but many". Although what Dabney is saying makes sense to me, it sounds like you have studied him quite a bit and have come to belive he is incoherent (which may very well be, I know little about him). So I guess I would ask this: Would you consider these aspects of theology which seem to match Piper's to also be poison?

 

[MW]

So I guess I would ask this: Would you consider these aspects of theology which seem to match Piper's to also be poison?

Yes. Any universalising element introduced into the doctrines of grace is poison. In reality it creates two gospels -- one which makes men salvable and another which saves; one in which Christ is preached as the wish and possibility of God, the other in which He is the wisdom and power of God. It should go without saying that the Scriptures only teach one gospel and men are called upon to believe one gospel. The only universal element is the command to preach the gospel to every creature. The gospel itself is the authoritative message of salvation, of particular grace. "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." Anything other than this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[k.seymore]

Here are two passages from Acts which seem to me to be saying that in some sense God sent Jesus for each individual, not merely general people groups. Notice in the following passage that it says of the nation of Israel, "God... sent him... to bless you by turning every one of you..." And note that God's intent in sending each individual member of Israel a blessing springs out of the passage of the blessing promised the nations in Abraham. The reasoning appears to me to be: Since God promised to bless all the families of the earth, he must first come and bless Abraham's family. And it also appears that since he interprets God's blessing as being sent through Christ to each member of Abraham's family, then when Christ's message is sent to bless all the families of the earth afterward, it would seem to imply that he understands that to mean each member of all the families of the earth:

"But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you... every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people... You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”" (Acts 3:18-26)

But, although in some sense it seems to me proper to say God sent Christ to bless each member of the family of Abraham first in order that all the families of the earth may be blessed second, many reject the gift:

"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 13:46-47)

 

[JohnOwen007]

If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is how it fits into Pauline vocabularythen in the context of the other writings by the same author

Dear Nicholas, In my humble opinion you've actually gone beyond the analogia Scripturae. If 1 Tim 4:10 did teach (according to the science of exegesis) some sort of universal benefits of Christ's death (let's say for arguments sake), then we would have to explain how it and the other things Paul says about atonement benefits for the elect only to both be true.

That's precisely why there's a "double-end" position. Christ's death has benefits for all people but of a different type to those of the elect. It's not because one position is following the analogia scripturae and the other position is not.

We can never ever squash the grammatical meaning of Scripture!

James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....

Not quite. James uses the word "justification" (according to direct context) differently to that of Paul. If Paul and James had the same meaning of the word "justification" James 2:24 would constitute a direct contradiction to Paul. For James justification = "to prove righteous", in Paul = "to declare righteous".

God bless brother Nicholas.

 

[Amazing Grace]

If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is how it fits into Pauline vocabularythen in the context of the other writings by the same author

Dear Nicholas, In my humble opinion you've actually gone beyond the analogia Scripturae. If 1 Tim 4:10 did teach (according to the science of exegesis) some sort of universal benefits of Christ's death (let's say for arguments sake), then we would have to explain how it and the other things Paul says about atonement benefits for the elect only to both be true.

That's precisely why there's a "double-end" position. Christ's death has benefits for all people but of a different type to those of the elect. It's not because one position is following the analogia scripturae and the other position is not.

We can never ever squash the grammatical meaning of Scripture!

James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....

Not quite. James uses the word "justification" (according to direct context) differently to that of Paul. If Paul and James had the same meaning of the word "justification" James 2:24 would constitute a direct contradiction to Paul. For James justification = "to prove righteous", in Paul = "to declare righteous".

God bless brother Nicholas.

Brother Marty: Than again I ask what are these benefits other than a bodily resurrection? And please do not say as timcat and Dabney that His wrath is turned away(propitiation) for a time, Scripture shows clearly that this is not the case.

And I agree with you about James. In fact, it proves my point. We must go to all lengths to prove that James does not contradict Paul. Yet in a vaccuum, James is used to prove a works salvation.

 

[Amazing Grace]

AFter giving this more thought and study, I find the root of the error on those who promote universal benefits for all head for head lies in the thought of 'propitiation'

What are the benefits of Christ's death?

1) redemption (paying the price)
2) reconciliation (getting together by removing enmity)
3) justification (declaring righteous)
4) Forgiveness
5) Adpotion
6) Sanctification
7) propitiation(turning away wrath)

It is #7 that lies as the root of universal benefits. That somehow Christ's death turns away God's wrath temporarily towards the reprobate.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

* Only for the elect in Christ

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

*only for the elect

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

* only for the elect once again.

As we see clearly, the wrath of God abides on them(reprobate) continuously.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son (elect) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.(unbelievers/reprobate)


1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,


Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.

 

[k.seymore]

Oh strange... I thought I posted this earlier today but now I don't see it. Here's my post again:

It is #7 that lies as the root of universal benefits. That somehow Christ's death turns away God's wrath temporarily towards the reprobate... As we see clearly, the wrath of God abides on them(reprobate) continuously.... Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son (elect) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (unbelievers/reprobate)

So if your line of reasoning proves that God’s wrath is not turned away or delayed for a time for the reprobate, doesn’t it also prove that the regenerate can not ever suffer God’s wrath in some sense for a time? Yet Paul can state in your verse above that God’s wrath doesn’t abide on the regenerate, yet in another sense he can say that God’s wrath can come on the regenerate:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (Rom 13:1-7)

So if Paul can say that in one sense God’s wrath doesn’t abide on the regenerate, then he says in another sense the regenerate can suffer God’s wrath for a time, then how can you say the fact that Paul says God’s wrath does abide on the unregenerate prove that God doesn’t in another sense delay his wrath towards them for a time because of Christ’s death?

I ask what are these benefits other than a bodily resurrection?

Wouldn't the promise of blessing through Christ's fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant be a benefit of Christ's death? As I attempted to show in my last post, for this blessing to come on all the families of the Gentiles, Peter understood that it first had to come on the family of Abraham. And Peter interpreted this as meaning God (in some sense) sent Christ to bless each member of the family of Abraham. This seems to me to imply that Peter also would have understood the blessing promised to all the families of the Gentiles to be promised to each member of all the families:

"‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness."

 

[timmopussycat]

Not to quibble, but this is not a disagreement about words but about the meaning of a word. And I'll stop pressing the issue once you concede that "world" in John 3:16 must mean "all persons without exception." ;-) And Zodhiates has a very mixed reputation with specialists in the period. Does he give examples and does the meaning "namely" make sense in the context? Is the one you quote from him?

Well you must know my take on this passage, so we will not enter that realm.

I know your take on it but I don't know why as you appear not to give a reference from Zodhiates that supports your point.

But just to solidify this thought.

Act 25:26 Of 4012 whom 3739 I have 2192 no 3756 certain 804 thing 5100 to write 1125 unto my lord 2962. Wherefore 1352 I have brought 4254 0 him 846 forth 4254 before 1909 you 5216, and 2532 specially 3122 before 1909 thee 4675, O king 935 Agrippa 67, that 3704, after examination 351 had 1096 , I might have 2192 somewhat 5100 to write 1125 .

Paul uses the same word here. You, thee, specially are ONLY connected to Agrippa.

You have just made my point for me. "Namely" does not mean the same thing as "specially". If the word means "specially" in 1 Tim 4:10 as well, then "God is the saviour of all men" in one sense and "specially" the saviour of believers in another sense.

How can you conclude this? 'Specially' in the context from the words of Festus shows that Agrippa is 'namely' the one whom Paul is brought before. I neve once disagreed that Christ is the savior of all men. WHat is meant by this is exactly what it says, "There is no other name by which one can be saved" Christ is it. He is the King of the World. But to conclude that this means He died in some mysterious way for the reprobate is in error. He is the Savior of all men head for head, there is no other name by which one can be saved, yet, His design and intent is only to shed His blood for His sheep.

By examining a good dictionary. The only definition that the OED gives for namely that could possibly be relevant here is "1. a. Particularly, especially, above all." And it is certain that the word must be taken in the senses of "especially, above all" in the Acts 25 passage since it was Agrippa, who by asking to hear Paul, precipitated the meeting and it was Agrippa as Festus as well as Paul, would have known well who was expert in the Jewish controversies. Festus therefore introduces Paul to the crowd in general and esspecially or above all to Agrippa.
Now you can say that Paul was being introduced by Festus to Agrippa in particular, but that does not make your needed point in 1 Tim 4:10. For Paul was also introduced to the crowd in general. Which means that even if Paul meant to say Christ was the particular savior of those who believe, his use of the word "particular" will not nullify the force of Paul's earlier claim that Christ is the saviour of all men.

 

[timmopussycat]

Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture.

The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).

And complicating matters even more, sometimes one author uses the same word to mean two different things eg. the word "world" in the Johannine writings.

Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context.

If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is how it fits into Pauline vocabularythen in the context of the other writings by the same author

This is the definition of the analogy of scripture. Packer concludes thus: Every text has its immediate context in the passage from which it comes, its broader context in the book to which it belongs, and its ultimate context in the Bible as a whole; and it needs to be rightly related to each of these contexts if its character, scope and significance is to be adequately understood.

“The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

Accordingly, our methods of interpreting Scripture must be such as express faith in its truth and consistency as God’s Word. Our approach must be harmonistic; for we know at the outset that God’s utterance is not self-contradictory. Article XX of the Church of England lays down that it is not lawful for the Church so to “expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”; no more is it lawful for any individual exegete. Not that we should adopt strained and artificial expedients for harmonizing; this will neither glorify God nor edify us. What we cannot harmonize by a natural and plausible hypothesis is best left unharmonized, with a frank admission that in our present state of knowledge we do not see how these apparent discrepancies should be resolved.

James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....

Interpreting 1 Tim. 4:10 as Christ being the Saviour of all men in some sense does not contradict Scripture as has been shown from Piper's exegesis of Rom. 3:25 and Dabney's comments.

 

[timmopussycat]

Where is my [distant] cousin's argument on this point found? Is it available online?

Sermons, pp. 410, 411.

The Scripture affords us sufficient materials to prove that the death of Christ was, in its nature and proper character, the endurance of the penalty we had incurred, or, what is virtually the same thing, of a full equivalent, an adequate compensation for it; and for proving also, that it is only because this was its true character that it was, or could be, a display or manifestation of the principles of the Divine government and law. The inference from all this is clear and certain, that Christ’s death bore upon and effected the pardon and salvation of sinners, not merely or principally through the intervention of its being such a display or manifestation – though this consideration is true, and is not to be overlooked – but still more directly from its own proper nature, as being a penal infliction, in accordance with the provisions of the law, endured in our room and stead; and as thus, by rendering satisfaction to the Divine justice and law, furnishing an adequate ground or reason why those, in whose room it was suffered, should not be called upon to suffer in their own persons the penalty they had deserved and incurred. And indeed it is, we think, impossible to understand how the death of Christ can be a manifestation of the Divine character and law and government, or be fitted to produce those impressions upon men’s minds, for which this manifestation is held to be indispensable, unless it be really regarded in the light in which Scripture represents it, even as the endurance of the penalty of the Law in our room and stead.

Hence the death of Christ serves as a governmental display or moral influence only insofar as it satisfies the penalty which the divine governor requires for the forgiveness of moral transgression -- so far and no farther. We see this clearly in Rom. 8:32, wherein God is said to be willing to freely give us all things because He spared not His own Son but gave Him up for us all. The display is co-extensive with penal substitution, and so extends to the same objects.

Thank you. But you are carrying Cunningham's argument forward against a point he does not specifically address.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.

See my post #107 and you can see that this reasoning is a manifestation of the classic crux in this debate.

Cheers.

 

[MW]

Thank you. But you are carrying Cunningham's argument forward against a point he does not specifically address.

Please read the sermon, especially the fourth head. Cunningham gave no ground to anyone who sought to introduce universal elements into the atonement, because he clearly saw that such universalising tendencies necessarily diluted the concepts of substitution and satisfaction.

 

[timmopussycat]

Thank you. But you are carrying Cunningham's argument forward against a point he does not specifically address.

Please read the sermon, especially the fourth head. Cunningham gave no ground to anyone who sought to introduce universal elements into the atonement, because he clearly saw that such universalising tendencies necessarily diluted the concepts of substitution and satisfaction.

Thank you. Unfortunately the PB link to that sermon seems to be broken.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture.

The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).

And complicating matters even more, sometimes one author uses the same word to mean two different things eg. the word "world" in the Johannine writings.

Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context.

If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is how it fits into Pauline vocabularythen in the context of the other writings by the same author

This is the definition of the analogy of scripture. Packer concludes thus: Every text has its immediate context in the passage from which it comes, its broader context in the book to which it belongs, and its ultimate context in the Bible as a whole; and it needs to be rightly related to each of these contexts if its character, scope and significance is to be adequately understood.

“The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”

Accordingly, our methods of interpreting Scripture must be such as express faith in its truth and consistency as God’s Word. Our approach must be harmonistic; for we know at the outset that God’s utterance is not self-contradictory. Article XX of the Church of England lays down that it is not lawful for the Church so to “expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”; no more is it lawful for any individual exegete. Not that we should adopt strained and artificial expedients for harmonizing; this will neither glorify God nor edify us. What we cannot harmonize by a natural and plausible hypothesis is best left unharmonized, with a frank admission that in our present state of knowledge we do not see how these apparent discrepancies should be resolved.

James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....

Interpreting 1 Tim. 4:10 as Christ being the Saviour of all men in some sense does not contradict Scripture as has been shown from Piper's exegesis of Rom. 3:25 and Dabney's comments.

Please do not use Dabney, he is terrible on the Atonement. There Must be one better for you to shake hands with. And as we agreed before, Romans 3;25 was only speaking of the OT elect.

Marty gave some of the bove quotes, not me...

 

[Amazing Grace]

Not to quibble, but this is not a disagreement about words but about the meaning of a word. And I'll stop pressing the issue once you concede that "world" in John 3:16 must mean "all persons without exception." ;-) And Zodhiates has a very mixed reputation with specialists in the period. Does he give examples and does the meaning "namely" make sense in the context? Is the one you quote from him?

Well you must know my take on this passage, so we will not enter that realm.

I know your take on it but I don't know why as you appear not to give a reference from Zodhiates that supports your point.

You have just made my point for me. "Namely" does not mean the same thing as "specially". If the word means "specially" in 1 Tim 4:10 as well, then "God is the saviour of all men" in one sense and "specially" the saviour of believers in another sense.

How can you conclude this? 'Specially' in the context from the words of Festus shows that Agrippa is 'namely' the one whom Paul is brought before. I neve once disagreed that Christ is the savior of all men. WHat is meant by this is exactly what it says, "There is no other name by which one can be saved" Christ is it. He is the King of the World. But to conclude that this means He died in some mysterious way for the reprobate is in error. He is the Savior of all men head for head, there is no other name by which one can be saved, yet, His design and intent is only to shed His blood for His sheep.

By examining a good dictionary. The only definition that the OED gives for namely that could possibly be relevant here is "1. a. Particularly, especially, above all." And it is certain that the word must be taken in the senses of "especially, above all" in the Acts 25 passage since it was Agrippa, who by asking to hear Paul, precipitated the meeting and it was Agrippa as Festus as well as Paul, would have known well who was expert in the Jewish controversies. Festus therefore introduces Paul to the crowd in general and esspecially or above all to Agrippa.
Now you can say that Paul was being introduced by Festus to Agrippa in particular, but that does not make your needed point in 1 Tim 4:10. For Paul was also introduced to the crowd in general. Which means that even if Paul meant to say Christ was the particular savior of those who believe, his use of the word "particular" will not nullify the force of Paul's earlier claim that Christ is the saviour of all men.

As myself and Matthew Winzer have repeated ad nauseaum, I have no problem saying Christ is the savior of every man head for head in the sense there is no other. But this is a declared statement, not an offer for his blood universally for some imagined benefits