John Piper on Limited Atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Do you mean the "owenians vs double enders?"


That is becasue propitiation is the root. And double enders are wrong!!!! :D

I do not believe I am explaining away the text Marty. We cannot approach scripture without any presumed truths. If one does, we will be most miserable in our faith and understanding. Why look for a middle road or compramising solution? We know that cannot be truth in a matter as this. One that I find most needed of debate. We are talking of the atonement here. This trumps secularism and post modernism. There is just too much weight of scripture against universal benefits. If I took your approach, I would be led to believe I could earn my way in if I read the account of "Christ with the lawyer and sell all you have and follow me." So what do we do there? We do not allow one smidgen of truth to Law salvation. Yet, for some reason we have to hold in tension the 2 or 3 verses pulled out of context and compramise the Atonement. First of all, I am not giving the reprobate any of Christs blood for temporal benefits. If I am wrong, well then I pray to receive more light on the subject.
 
Oh strange... I thought I posted this earlier today but now I don't see it. Here's my post again:

Amazing Grace said:
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?

Amazing Grace said:
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."

TO be honest K., I do not understand Romans 13 at all. I almost wish I could rip it out of my bible. It has been used to pervert so much, that I do not spend time on it. Prematurely, I do not see the connection here. maybe wrath here is not the same as the one in John or Paul's other writings. I would say this is the answer, but like I said, I will have to call in a lifeline to even see if this passage remotely can be used for this discussion. I is clear to me the elect are not under His judicial wrath at all ever. They could be temporarily found under it, but not in a judicial sense.
 
You know what else came to my mind? How can one have the grace of Christ's atonement for a benefit and not have Christ himself actively or passively doing anything for the reprobate? He neither bled, nor prays nor intercedes on their behalf. You cannot have one without the other. Or are we spiritualizing the book of Ruth and the reprobate glean the edges of the field? (Deserved sarcasm) Perhaps in easy terms it would be like this. I put gas in my car. I get the special benefit. But the emissions junk destroys(benefits) the environement from the same gas. That is exactly what happens in referance to the elect and reprobate from the Cross....

Since the Bible is the Word of God it is self-consistent.
Consequently if we find a passage which in itself is capable of two
interpretations, one of which harmonizes with the rest of the Scriptures
while the other does not, we are duty bound to accept the former.
(Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination)
 
Last edited:
Dear Nicholas, great to hear from you again brother.

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.

Do you mean the "owenians vs double enders?"

Yup, absolutely. It's ultimately a debate about the emphasis and place of exegesis versus systematics. The issues involved are not simple (as some want to make it), and hence that's why I'm not willing to be completely black and white on it. To do so, only causes an equal and oppostie reaction. It is an intrumural reformed debate, and I don't want to fling anathemas or use strong language at anyone in it.

As I said before, we in the reformed tradition need to unite together to fight greater battles rather than mutilate each other over this issue.

And double enders are wrong!!!! :D

I love the frankness--perhaps I should try it some time too. :pilgrim:

We cannot approach scripture without any presumed truths.

Dear brother, therein lies the root of your problem. If you don't approach Scripture without presumed truths at some point, then your systematics (which is errant because humans are errant) will never be challenged. Hence, all you find in Scripture is what you already believe. This is a hermeneutical vicious circle, rather than a hermeneutical spiral.

Why look for a middle road or compramising solution?

So as to be faithful to all of Scripture, not some of Scripture. When a half-truth becomes a whole-truth, it becomes an untruth. This is precisely how JWs argue. They find all the texts which expound Christ's humanity, and explain away all the texts about Christ's divinity because they supposedly contradict the texts which speak of Christ's humanity. However, we can't logically tie down all that Scripture says about the hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures. For example, how is it that Christ's divine nature knows everything, and yet in Christ's person there are things he doesn't know, like his return? I don't know how to harmonize that logically, but I believe it, tension and all, because this is what all of Scripture says.

Yet, for some reason we have to hold in tension the 2 or 3 verses pulled out of context and compramise the Atonement.

Well, that's a very debatable point. The double-enders would say that the Owenians muzzle many texts. Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).

Thanks for the interaction on this topic brother. Every blessing to you Nicholas.
 
Dear Nicholas, great to hear from you again brother.

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

Cheers.

Do you mean the "owenians vs double enders?"

Yup, absolutely. It's ultimately a debate about the emphasis and place of exegesis versus systematics. The issues involved are not simple (as some want to make it), and hence that's why I'm not willing to be completely black and white on it. To do so, only causes an equal and oppostie reaction. It is an intrumural reformed debate, and I don't want to fling anathemas or use strong language at anyone in it.

As I said before, we in the reformed tradition need to unite together to fight greater battles rather than mutilate each other over this issue.



I love the frankness--perhaps I should try it some time too. :pilgrim:



Dear brother, therein lies the root of your problem. If you don't approach Scripture without presumed truths at some point, then your systematics (which is errant because humans are errant) will never be challenged. Hence, all you find in Scripture is what you already believe. This is a hermeneutical vicious circle, rather than a hermeneutical spiral.

Why look for a middle road or compramising solution?

So as to be faithful to all of Scripture, not some of Scripture. When a half-truth becomes a whole-truth, it becomes an untruth. This is precisely how JWs argue. They find all the texts which expound Christ's humanity, and explain away all the texts about Christ's divinity because they supposedly contradict the texts which speak of Christ's humanity. However, we can't logically tie down all that Scripture says about the hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures. For example, how is it that Christ's divine nature knows everything, and yet in Christ's person there are things he doesn't know, like his return? I don't know how to harmonize that logically, but I believe it, tension and all, because this is what all of Scripture says.

Yet, for some reason we have to hold in tension the 2 or 3 verses pulled out of context and compramise the Atonement.

Well, that's a very debatable point. The double-enders would say that the Owenians muzzle many texts. Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).

Thanks for the interaction on this topic brother. Every blessing to you Nicholas.

It is very good to dialogue with you Brother Marty. I have no malice towards you or any double ender and will not fling the "papal bull" of anathema towards them. For one, who am I to do so? I know many in this new internet enlightenment self elevated importance of opinion world feel free to do so, but I am nothing but a worm!!!! Therefore I call it a papal bull when I see anyone use terms as that because a papal bull is a declaration that means absolutely nothing. One on the internet may think they have the right to be an ecclesiastical judge, but they are most amiss and fooled by there own self imagined importance.

I obviously mispoke or mistyped on my one point above about approaching scripture. I find the error of Biblical Theology, one of looking at it with an attempt at 100% unbiased presups leads to a mish mash of beliefs. Therefore a systematic study, one with the same vein of truth woven throughout is much more honest to the Word of God. That said, it also has its problems when ones grid is soo small, you begin to avoid troubling texts ot spiritualize them to mean what they never intended. What I should have said is exactly like the quote from LB above;

Since the Bible is the Word of God it is self-consistent.
Consequently if we find a passage which in itself is capable of two
interpretations, one of which harmonizes with the rest of the Scriptures
while the other does not, we are duty bound to accept the former.
(Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination)

Therefore when I see 1 Tim 4;10 or 1 John 1;2 et the 2 others, I have to look at other places to find the weight of truth in its favor. And there is too much evidence that God has ALWAYS had a covenant people that the sacrafice was intended for. Lev 19 shows this clearly. The stranger of the commonwealth was not atoned for in any sense..
 
TO be honest K., I do not understand Romans 13 at all. I almost wish I could rip it out of my bible. It has been used to pervert so much, that I do not spend time on it. Prematurely, I do not see the connection here. maybe wrath here is not the same as the one in John or Paul's other writings. I would say this is the answer, but like I said, I will have to call in a lifeline to even see if this passage remotely can be used for this discussion. I is clear to me the elect are not under His judicial wrath at all ever. They could be temporarily found under it, but not in a judicial sense.

Yes, that is basically what I was trying to point out, that one can exclude all wrath upon the regenerate in one sense and then use wrath in another temporal sense and say the regenerate can suffer it. So when scripture speaks of the fact that God doesn't remove the eternal anger of wrath from the non-elect, that is not proof that he doesn't, in another sense, treat then in a non-angry way. If Christ's death does in some sense provide benefits to the non-elect, scripture makes it clear that it is not in the eternal sense. So if there are benefits, it would be in the temporal sense. The reason I brought this up is because you were using verses which spoke of the regenerate not having God’s eternal wrath to prove that the unregenerate don’t receive temporal grace from Christ’s death... but your verses don’t even prove that the regenerate don’t suffer temporal wrath, so how can they be used to prove that the non-elect were not intended to enjoy temporal blessings as an effect of Christ’s death?
 
I’m curious why no one wants to interact with my post about Peter saying God “sent him to you... to bless you... every one of you.” Oh well, maybe what I was saying didn’t make sense. I do have have some more to add to it... Calvin and Berkhof on Eph 1 and Col 1. I hadn’t thought about what they are saying before, but if correct it would, at the very least, say that Christ’s death does more than just reconcile humans to God:

"For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." (Col 1:19-20)

Calvin on Col 1:20
Both upon earth and in heaven. If you are inclined to understand this as referring merely to rational creatures, it will mean, men and angels. There were, it is true, no absurdity in extending it to all without exception... I prefer to understand it as referring to angels and men... It was, however, necessary that angels, also, should be made to be at peace with God, for, being creatures, they were not beyond the risk of falling, had they not been confirmed by the grace of Christ... But the Spirit declares that the greatest purity is vile, if it is brought into comparison with the righteousness of God. We must, therefore, conclude, that there is not on the part of angels so much of righteousness as would suffice for their being fully joined with God... Hence it is with propriety that Paul declares, that the grace of Christ does not reside among mankind alone, and on the other hand makes it common also to angels.“

And Calvin on Eph 1:10
“So far as they are creatures, had it not been for the benefit which they derived from Christ, they would have been liable to change and to sin, and consequently their happiness would not have been eternal. Who then will deny that both angels and men have been brought back to a fixed order by the grace of Christ? Men had been lost, and angels were not beyond the reach of danger. By gathering both into his own body, Christ hath united them to God the Father...”

Berkhof in his systematic theology, under the heading, “The Wider Bearing of the Atonement” says that these benefits from Christ’s death are not in the same sense as each other:
“That the atoning work of Christ also has significance for the angelic world would seem to follow from Eph. 1:10 and Col. 1:20... [but] naturally Christ is not the Head on the angels in the same organic sense that he is the head of the church.”

It would seem to me that “if all things in heaven” includes angels, and if Paul says that God reconciles all things in heaven, “by the blood of his cross” then reconciling all things to God is the one end or aim of the cross, and within that one end there are a number of benefits, at the very least (if their interpretation is correct) to humans and angels.

This reconciliation of all things through the cross that Paul speak of beautifully captures (in my opinion) what I quoted in Acts that I have yet to hear a response to. Peter says (in some sense) God sent Jesus to reconcile each member of the nation of Israel and God:

“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... 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)

And as I pointed out in my earlier post, the way in which he proclaims this using the promise of blessing to all nations implies (in my opinion) that Peter also assumes God send Christ to bless each member of all the families of the earth (again, in some sense). Even if I am wrong about this implication, Peter still says very plainly that he understands Jesus as being sent to bless each member of Israel, and thus the promise has a reference to each member of Israel, not to the elect only. If such is the case then wouldn’t this mean that this promise of blessing–God “sent him to you... to bless you... every one of you”–have Christ’s death and the reconciliation from Christ’s death in view? If Peter says this gift of blessing is for each of them, doesn’t that sound different than saying blessings from Christ’s work were not intended for the non-elect in any sense?
 
Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).

I have never understood why people think this interpretation is 'exegetically unsustainable'. Moses lifted up the serpent on the cross that whosoever in the tiny nation of Israel looked upon it was saved. God lifted up Christ on the cross that whosoever in the world looked upon it was saved. The context seems to point to the 'world' as those all over the world who look upon the cross. Not every single person who ever lived.
 
Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).

I have never understood why people think this interpretation is 'exegetically unsustainable'. Moses lifted up the serpent on the cross that whosoever in the tiny nation of Israel looked upon it was saved. God lifted up Christ on the cross that whosoever in the world looked upon it was saved. The context seems to point to the 'world' as those all over the world who look upon the cross. Not every single person who ever lived.

I'm confused... you sound like you are disagreeing with him and agreeing with him at the same time. He said "world=elect" is unsustainable. You compare the world to Israel which had elect and non-elect people which seems to prove what he is saying. Yet you preface this by saying you don't know why it is 'exegetically unsustainable' to interpret it as only being the elect. Oh maybe I just haven't had enough sleep and should read your post again later ;)
 
Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).

I have never understood why people think this interpretation is 'exegetically unsustainable'. Moses lifted up the serpent on the cross that whosoever in the tiny nation of Israel looked upon it was saved. God lifted up Christ on the cross that whosoever in the world looked upon it was saved. The context seems to point to the 'world' as those all over the world who look upon the cross. Not every single person who ever lived.

I'm confused... you sound like you are disagreeing with him and agreeing with him at the same time. He said "world=elect" is unsustainable. You compare the world to Israel which had elect and non-elect people which seems to prove what he is saying. Yet you preface this by saying you don't know why it is 'exegetically unsustainable' to interpret it as only being the elect. Oh maybe I just haven't had enough sleep and should read your post again later ;)

In the account of the serpent on the pole in Numbers 21 we are told that many people died of the serpent bite before the pole was even lifted up. It was only in response to those who came to Moses in faith and repentance that the pole was lifted up. It seems that Jesus (or John) is drawing a parallel. Therefore, Christ on the cross is not lifted up for everyone who ever lived, but those who respond in faith and repentance. The pole was lifted up to the elect of the tiny nation of Israel and provided temporary life. Christ is lifted up to the elect all over the world and provides eternal life.

In addition, I don't see how the use of 'world'/'kosmos' in vs. 17 could ever mean the exact same thing as it does in vs. 16. If 'world' means 'every single person who ever lived' in vs. 16 then that would mean Christ came 'into' every person who ever lived and 'condemned' every person who ever lived. If 'world' in vs. 17 means 'the ungodly multitude' then Christ came 'into' the ungodly multitude. I don't think it is so easy to make 'world' in vs. 17 define 'world' in vs. 16 in light of vs. 14 and 15.

If I am off-base please show me.
 
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.

I think Dabney bang on on the atonement, at least in the passages cited here. While Rom. 3:25 is speaking of the elect, you have ignored the demonstration that if Christ's propitiation justifies God's forbearance when justifying sinners, as Rom 3:25 says it does, the good and necessary consequence that follows is that it it will also serve to justify God's temporary forbearance when postponing punishment of the reprobate. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones has noted:

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:
...Paul is telling us that this public act [Christ's crucifixion] has reference also to God's action when he passed over, when he overlooked, when he passed by, the sins of the people [Israel] at that time in His self-restraint and His tolerance. ... [Acts 17:30] The Apostle, working out his great argument says: 'The times of this ignorance (among the Gentiles) God winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.'"
(Romans (vol. 3): Atonement and Justification, pp. 100, 101).
 
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.

Your statement would be true only if I claimed that Christ was the Saviour of all men in the same way as he is the Saviour of those who believe. Piper's entire argument is that Christ is not the Saviour of all men in the same way as he is the Saviour of those who believe.


[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.

Those men can only say that Christ's death has, for them, only the effect justifying God's forbearance in postponing the punishment they will receive for living to themselves, so that they will live long enough to achieve God's purposes for them, in spite of themselves. This is not contrary to the apostle's argument which is that Christ is Saviour (in the fullest sense) of those who believe, and the Saviour of all men (in a different sense for those who do not).

[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.

And as I am trying to make clear, I don't hold that Christ died for all men.
And if God is simply the Saviour of all men in that sense why does Paul not say what you think he says rather than what he does say?
 
This is my final post on this subject.

Your statement would be true only if I claimed that Christ was the Saviour of all men in the same way as he is the Saviour of those who believe. Piper's entire argument is that Christ is not the Saviour of all men in the same way as he is the Saviour of those who believe.

The apostle makes a general statement which does not allow for any qualification: "If one died for all, then were all dead." Whoever the "all" are for whom Christ died, they are now considered dead, each and every one of them. If you aver that Christ died for another group of people in some other way, then you contradict Paul's statement and negate his argument. It's not the truthfulness of my statement you are calling into question, but the truthfulness of the apostle's statement.

And if God is simply the Saviour of all men in that sense why does Paul not say what you think he says rather than what he does say?

Paul says exactly what he says -- God is the Saviour of all men. I haven't added anything to the sense of his words. If anyone is saved either in this life or in the life to come, it is God who saves them and no one else. There is nothing here about the nature of the salvation or the means in which it is accomplished. It is a basic maxim that is true in each and every case, and one that is learned from the light of nature -- if Jonah's mariners and the people of Nineveh are anything to go by.
 
In the account of the serpent on the pole in Numbers 21 we are told that many people died of the serpent bite before the pole was even lifted up.

You are right, many did die, but I don't think that necessitates understanding "world" as "elect". The elect are the form in which the world doesn't perish as I understand the passage. As you mentioned, what John or Jesus is saying is paralleling the story in Numbers: "whoever believes in him may have eternal life... whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." and "everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live... anyone... look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num 21:8-9). Here are the whole passages, the similarity of structure is so striking:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him
should not perish but have eternal life."

"'Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole,
and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.'
So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole.
And if a serpent bit anyone,
he would look at the bronze serpent and live."

The nation was saved though threatened by snakes even though all those in it were not. God loved the nation and saved it in fulfilment of his oath to Abraham, as he told them: "because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers" (Deut 7:8). As Paul interpreted this: "As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers." (Rom 11:28). The quoting of numbers would seem to interpret the nation as being used in a general sense. The nation would perish if all died by the snakes, God loved the nation and didn’t desire the nation to perish, therefore if some of the members of the nation don’t perish the nation survives. Likewise, the world (humankind) would perish if all died because of the sting of sin, God loved the world and didn’t desire that it should perish, therefore if some of the members of the world don’t perish the world survives. Think about it like this: humankind wouldn't perish as long as some humans existed.

So John 3:14-16 is paralleling the earlier story like this:

"As God lifted up Christ on the cross, so was the snake on the pole lifted up, that whoever would look at it would have life. For God so loved the nation, that he gave them the serpent on the pole, that whoever would look at it should not perish but have life."
 
This is my final post on this subject.

What!? I was looking forward to your take on my questions about Acts and Colossians 1:20. I'll pretend that it is because you can't answer them within your perspective on this subject. Just kidding, I've been trying to bow out too due to the overwhelming amount of thinking this thread is racking my brain with... But I just keep getting dragged back in. :)
 
In the account of the serpent on the pole in Numbers 21 we are told that many people died of the serpent bite before the pole was even lifted up.

You are right, many did die, but I don't think that necessitates understanding "world" as "elect". The elect are the form in which the world doesn't perish as I understand the passage. As you mentioned, what John or Jesus is saying is paralleling the story in Numbers: "whoever believes in him may have eternal life... whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." and "everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live... anyone... look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num 21:8-9). Here are the whole passages, the similarity of structure is so striking:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him
should not perish but have eternal life."

"'Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole,
and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.'
So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole.
And if a serpent bit anyone,
he would look at the bronze serpent and live."

The nation was saved though threatened by snakes even though all those in it were not. God loved the nation and saved it in fulfilment of his oath to Abraham, as he told them: "because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers" (Deut 7:8). As Paul interpreted this: "As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers." (Rom 11:28). The quoting of numbers would seem to interpret the nation as being used in a general sense. The nation would perish if all died by the snakes, God loved the nation and didn’t desire the nation to perish, therefore if some of the members of the nation don’t perish the nation survives. Likewise, the world (humankind) would perish if all died because of the sting of sin, God loved the world and didn’t desire that it should perish, therefore if some of the members of the world don’t perish the world survives. Think about it like this: humankind wouldn't perish as long as some humans existed.

So John 3:14-16 is paralleling the earlier story like this:

"As God lifted up Christ on the cross, so was the snake on the pole lifted up, that whoever would look at it would have life. For God so loved the nation, that he gave them the serpent on the pole, that whoever would look at it should not perish but have life."

Thank you for that exegesis brother! It is a joy to discuss this passage at all. I am always moved by it!

I don't think we disagree too much on this. I am happy to go with 'nation of Israel' and 'humankind' as long as we do not stretch it to mean every single member therein. God did not lift the pole to every single member of the nation so I don't see how we can insist on the fact that God lifted up the cross to every single member of humankind.

I sure am glad He lifted up the cross to me!

This is my final post on this subject.

What!? I was looking forward to your take on my questions about Acts and Colossians 1:20. I'll pretend that it is because you can't answer them within your perspective on this subject. Just kidding, I've been trying to bow out too due to the overwhelming amount of thinking this thread is racking my brain with... But I just keep getting dragged back in. :)

This is the nature of PB! Some have had to quit because they were sucked in to the detriment of their families! Be careful. :D (Also, you can go into Rev Winzer's profile page and look up all of his posts. That way you don't miss any)
 
Dear Nicholas,

Sorry to take so long to get back about your last post. The surf over here in Manly has been cranking, so I'm trying to make the most of the good waves whilst on holidays. My arms feel like noodles. :cool:

What I should have said is exactly like the quote from LB above;

Since the Bible is the Word of God it is self-consistent.
Consequently if we find a passage which in itself is capable of two
interpretations, one of which harmonizes with the rest of the Scriptures
while the other does not, we are duty bound to accept the former.
(Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination)

There are two issues this quotation raises:

[1] The opaque element in this definition is "capable of two interpretations". This is a huge linguistic issue that is difficult to pin down simply. In a nutshell: the less words one quotes from a text the more open they are to multiple interpretations. However, the more words we quote from a text the more clear the utterance becomes and the less likely other interpretations can be given to it.

[2] If we believe that God is transcendent, and hence ultimately beyond our understanding (not illogical) then we must be very careful to assume that a certain reading of a text contradicts another part of Scripture. JWs object that the Trinity and the incarnation are both irrational. Hence, they muzzle certain scriptures because they supposedly "contradict" others ("the father is greater than I" trumps other texts). So we must be very careful to assume 1 John 2:2 contradicts Rev. 5:9 in this debate about the atonement.

Therefore when I see 1 Tim 4;10 or 1 John 1;2 et the 2 others, I have to look at other places to find the weight of truth in its favor.

And there is too much evidence that God has ALWAYS had a covenant people that the sacrafice was intended for. Lev 19 shows this clearly. The stranger of the commonwealth was not atoned for in any sense..

The Piper position and double-enders believe that, far from being poison, the universal reading of texts like 1 Tim. 4:10 and 1 John 2:2 actually guard another crucial teaching of Scripture: the fact that anyone can be told that if they repent and believe they will be saved. The single-end view of the atonement can't accommodate that message. All a single-ender can say is this: "if a person repents and believes". They cannot say, "if you repent and believe", because that person might not be one for whom Christ died, and hence that person can't be forgiven because Christ didn't die for them.

However, as Piper and the double-enders argue, Scripture is full of statements of the type, "if you (definite person) repent and believe" (Acts 17:30; John 12:36 etc.), and not just "if a person (indefinite) repent and believe ...".

God bless Nicholas.
 
The Piper position and double-enders believe that, far from being poison, the universal reading of texts like 1 Tim. 4:10 and 1 John 2:2 actually guard another crucial teaching of Scripture: the fact that anyone can be told that if they repent and believe they will be saved. The single-end view of the atonement can't accommodate that message. All a single-ender can say is this: "if a person repents and believes". They cannot say, "if you repent and believe", because that person might not be one for whom Christ died, and hence that person can't be forgiven because Christ didn't die for them.

However, as Piper and the double-enders argue, Scripture is full of statements of the type, "if you (definite person) repent and believe" (Acts 17:30; John 12:36 etc.), and not just "if a person (indefinite) repent and believe ...".

God bless Nicholas.

Brother Marty: please remember one thing I am certain about. The commands to repent and believe in all of scripture are not a one time event. They are correctly translated, begin repenting/believeing. Therefore telling anyone to repent/believe, as a one time event is wrong for either elect or reprobate. I personally see no issue with saying "Believe on the Lord and you shall be saved" ANd I am a single ender as you call it. The other issue we have is that the reprobate NEVER recognize or see any of the commands spiritually.

Luke 8;10 sums it up well:

And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.

Therefore I will NEVER say Christ died, or is dead for you. But I will say, 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”


The double enders invite all becasue of some universal aspect, yet there is no atonement for them.


As an aside, I think more discussion and study has to be done on the OT sacrafice. The shadow of Christ has answers in it, yet I must pass this to one who is more gifted in that area and can speak more clear on the subject bringing more light to the truth.. Prematurely, those outside the Covenant did not receive any benefits from the High Priest offering.
 
Brother Marty: please remember one thing I am certain about. The commands to repent and believe in all of scripture are not a one time event. They are correctly translated, begin repenting/believeing. Therefore telling anyone to repent/believe, as a one time event is wrong for either elect or reprobate.

Amen brother! I'm with you here.

I personally see no issue with saying "Believe on the Lord and you shall be saved" ANd I am a single ender as you call it. The other issue we have is that the reprobate NEVER recognize or see any of the commands spiritually.

Well the problem for the single-ender goes something like this:

[1] The death of Christ has one end, to save the elect and the elect only. Hence, Christ's death is not for the reprobate.

[2] If Christ's death is not for the reprobate then all can't be called on to believe and repent, because it's not for all, only the elect.

[3] Hence, the only way a single-ender can preach the gospel without lying is to say, "if a person (indefinite) believes and repents they will be saved ...". One can't say: "you (definite person) believe and repent", because the atonement might not be for them.

However, in Scripture people are indiscriminately called upon to believe and repent, that is, the gospel is for all people:

"In the past [i.e. OT period] God overlooked such such ignorance, but now [i.e. the new covenant period] he commands all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)

Indeed, God will judge people because they disobey the gospel:

"He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ". (2 Thess. 1:8)

In other words the gospel is somehow for more than the elect.

Hence, to do justice to this aspect of Scripture, arises the Piper and "double-end" view of the atonement. Christ's death has two ends, one for all, and one for the elect. Christ's death is efficient for the elect but sufficient for all. Notice the two "for"s.

I don't think we can neatly formulate the atonement. If we agree that Christ's death has an infinite aspect to it (which both sides affirm) we must recognize we are dealing with something transcendent: we can' t comprehend it all as finite humans. Hence there will arise tensions in our formulation, just like there are tensions in our formulations of the incarnation and the Trinity. I'm happy to say that Christ's death saves the elect and makes all saveable and leave the tension there. It is when we try and relieve this tension that unbiblical extremes arise. And all extremes do is cause equal and opposite re-actions.

God bless Nicholas.
 
Marty,

I think you are right on that scripture seems contrary to not inviting all to the gospel. And, I agree with you and others, that changing the gospel to make it applicable to the reprobate is not the answser.

To me, there is another way out besides coming up with a "double-end" view of atonement, as many say Piper does (I haven't read enough of his material to make a solid conclusion yet). As a high calvinist (and I don't mean one who smokes dope), I have no problem with saying to anyone, "if you repent and believe in Christ, you will be saved." For, it is true, that if they can repent and believe, then they will be saved, for, only the elect can do such. A reprobate person cannot repent and believe, so it is a safe request of them. The gospel is for "whosoever will", and only the elect will respond, for only the elect can. So, I invite all, for all are invited, just as the wedding parable seems to imply. "Many are called, but few are chosen."

That's how I see it for now. Thanks for your helpful insight.

Blessings!
 
Dear Charles,

Thanks for your thoughts brother, I appreciate them.

To me, there is another way out besides coming up with a "double-end" view of atonement, as many say Piper does (I haven't read enough of his material to make a solid conclusion yet). As a high calvinist (and I don't mean one who smokes dope), I have no problem with saying to anyone, "if you repent and believe in Christ, you will be saved." For, it is true, that if they can repent and believe, then they will be saved, for, only the elect can do such. A reprobate person cannot repent and believe, so it is a safe request of them. The gospel is for "whosoever will", and only the elect will respond, for only the elect can.

Yes, that's a good point indeed. However, it seems to me that Scripture goes even further than the "whosoever will" language in presenting the gospel.

In Acts 17:30 we read that "now [new covenant times] God commands all people everywhere to repent". This is more than "if you repent and believe" but "you must repent and believe" (see say John 12:36). That is why people will be punished for not responding to the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8) which logically means that Christ's death in some way applies to them.

Every blessing dear brother.
 
WHy dont we just ask him. Will he defend his position clear?

:amen: I was about to suggest it. I don't like talking about someone too much when he is still alive to defend his views; I would much rather gossip about Simon Peter or the Pharisees. :lol:

While Piper has written quite a bit on the subject and calls himself a seven-point Calvinist (he's partly joking about it), it wouldn't be too much to ask him about his views. :wave:Would someone like to draft a letter of inquiry on behalf of PB?

Piper does teach a "two will" doctrine when it comes to verses like II Peter 3:9, I Timothy 2:4, and Ezekiel 18:23. That's why I wanted to read Rev. Winzer's exegesis on II Peter 3:9, so I could compare it to Piper's. Piper seems to be following in the footsteps of Edwards in this teaching. That doesn't make it right, but you can decide.

I've read the "Two Wills" essay before, though it's been a year or two. Even though it was my first exposure to the questions and answers he raised, I never got the feeling that he really believed there were two wills in the more literal sense. It seems to me that the phrase "two wills" was used purely because there was no better phrase that was that short, and for the fact that he was answering the question "Are there two wills of God?" (hence, the title of the essay). It's a question raised before Piper's time, and he was probably just using the language the ones asking the questions used. It appeared to be used more to show the non-linearity of God's decrees and design rather than make a case for a God divided against Himself.
 
John Kennedy (Man’s Relation to God):

The doctrine of the double reference is an oil-and-water mixture; it is opposed to Scripture; no one who has subscribed the Confession of Faith can consistently hold it; it adopts the practical bearing of Arminianism; it endangers the doctrine of the Atonement; and it is quite unavailing for the purpose to which it is applied.
(1.) Those who hold it are in a transition state, and occupy no fixed dogmatic ground. Sometimes they seem staunch Calvinists, and at other times utter Arminians. They try to move on the boundary-line between the two systems, and would fain keep a foot on either side. But the fence is too high to admit of this. They therefore display their agility in leaps from side to side. But this is very fatiguing work, and must soon be given up. They will find that they must walk on either side. As it was an Arminian bias that moved them to these gambols, the most probable finale is, that they shall utterly abandon the Calvinistic side.
(2.) It is opposed to Scripture. As seen in Bible light, the death of Christ is indissolubly connected with (a) the covenant love of God, of which it was the gift, that it might be the channel; (b) with imputed sin as its procuring cause; (c) with redemption as its infallible result. To insist on a reference of the death of Christ to any who were not loved by God, whose sins were not imputed to and atoned for by Christ, and who shall not be saved, is, therefore, utterly opposed to Scripture. The way to conceal the manifest unscripturalness of this position is to raise the dust of a double reference around it, by saying that it is not in the same sense Christ died for the elect as for others. The special reference is not denied, it is so plainly taught in Scripture. But where in Scripture is the other? A reference to 1 John ii. 2, has been given as an answer to this question. But if there is a passage more conclusive than any other against the doctrine of a double reference, it is that very one. It plainly teaches that in the self-same sense in which Christ is the propitiation for the sins of those whose cause He pleads as an Advocate, He is so for the sins of the whole world -- of all to whom His atonement refers. In all those passages which seem to some to teach the doctrine of a universal reference of the death of Christ, it is seen connected either with love, or suretyship, or redemption; and if with either, it cannot possibly be a death for all. Calvinistic universalists are challenged to produce a passage from the Word of God which seems to support their view, not containing in itself or in its context one of these limitations.
(3.) No subscriber of the Confession can both intelligently and honestly maintain the doctrine of the double reference of the Atonement. It is not in the Confession; it is inconsistent with several of its statements: and a view of the question as to the reference of the Atonement was present to the minds of the Westminster divines utterly incompatible with any such doctrine.
The doctrine of the double reference is not in the Confession of Faith. The only attempts made to find it there have resulted in utter failure. All that can be said by its advocates is, that there is one sentence in the Confession with which it is not inconsistent. That sentence is, “The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through the Eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of the Father.” All that can be maintained is, that the new doctrine does not contradict that statement, because it indicates no reference at all, and connects no result with the satisfaction of justice. But why did Christ require to satisfy the justice of the Father? Was it not because sin was charged to His account? And why was he thus chargeable, but because He was the Just for the unjust? The idea of Christ satisfying justice except as the Surety of His people, and to the effect of purchasing redemption for them, is utterly opposed to the whole teaching of the Confession, and cannot therefore be in the passage quoted. And why are these words dissevered from what follows? Are not the obedience and sacrifice of Christ declared to avail not merely for satisfaction but for purchasing “not only reconciliation, but an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.” His work, finished on the cross, had all this efficacy in it for behoof of those for whom He died. To maintain that it availed to a certain extent for all, and to the full extent for some, is a doctrine utterly unwarranted by the passage referred to. If Christ died, He died with that whole design; and to that full effect He died for them for whom He died at all.
But the doctrine of the double reference is utterly opposed to some statements of the Confession of Faith. The doctrine of the Confession is, that Christ is “the Mediator and Surety” in order to redeem, call, justify, sanctify, and glorify a people whom the Father gave Him from all eternity; that in order “that He might discharge” that office, “He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil; ... was crucified and died; that “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all who are justified, and did make a proper, real, a full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.” In all these passages, the mediation of Christ, in its design, in the reference of its fundamental act, and in its gracious results, is restricted to the elect. What Westminster divine would say, Christ died for “the rest of mankind” whom God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice?”
There was a view of the question before the minds of the Westminster divines utterly incompatible with the doctrine of the double reference. The statements in the Confession bearing on the Atonement were adapted to the state of the question of the extent of the Atonement, as discussed between Calvinists and the French Universalists. Both parties held that Christ redeemed all for whom He died, and neither therefore could hold the double reference. The difference between them is indicated in the words -- “To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, He doth certainly and effectually communicate the same.” The difference between the views of the French Universalists and the doctrine of the double reference is, that according to the former Christ died for all indiscriminately, and did by His death redeem them; while, according to the latter, election determined a special reference of the Atonement to the elect, in order to their redemption, but not excluding a reference to all, in order to something not very easily defined.
(4.) It adopts the practical bearing of Arminianism. It must have been originally invented by some weak Calvinist, who thought that the Arminian had an advantage which he lacked in plying sinners with the gospel call. The suasion of universal grace seemed in his view to give the other an immense practical power. He therefore stole from him as much as would place him on an equal footing in the practical use of doctrine. He remained ex professo a Calvinist, that he might keep hold of his creed, and became de facto an Arminian, that he might get hold of his hearers. And there are preachers not a few who seem to think that though their speculations must be conformed to the system of Calvinism, as the only scientific arrangement of “the things of God,” they must be Arminians when they deal with the consciences of sinners. The consequence is, that so far as a practical presentation of doctrine is concerned, they are Arminians, if they are anything. To tell men that Christ died for all, and that this is the basis on which the call to all is founded, is to quit hold of all that is distinctive in Calvinism in order to command the sympathies of a heart unrenewed. By such a form of doctrine many teach more than they intend. Its phrases suggest to many minds the idea of universal grace, and encourage them in a Christless hope. Any protest against universal grace which may be mingled with such utterances can be easily separated. The two elements are so incongruous that they will not combine: and in the hands of unconverted men it is not difficult to tell which shall be removed.
(5.) It endangers the whole doctrine of the Atonement. It is impossible to account satisfactorily for the death of Christ except by ascribing it to His bearing imputed sin, with a view to His making atonement for it. It is impossible to account for His being “made sin,” but by His substitution for a guilty people. But if men believe that Christ died for many whose sin He did not bear, whose surety He was not, and whose redemption He did not purchase, they are a-drift on a current which may carry them down to Socinianism. An Arminian, with his single universal reference, may in a vague indefinite form, hold by the doctrine of substitution, as he thinks of Christ as the representative of mankind, and may have some steadfast idea of atonement for sin in his mind. But believers in a double reference can have no clear view, and no firm hold of the doctrine of substitution at all. They are more in danger therefore of moving towards Socinianism, than even the undisguised Arminian. Generations may pass before that tendency is fully developed in ecclesiastical formulas, but the dangerous tendency is there, and the sooner it is eliminated the better.
(6.) It is quite unavailing for the purpose to which it is applied. 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. What helpless ignorance such a suspicion indicates! How sad it is to hear men, sworn to Calvinism, declare that without this theft from the Arminian stores, they could not preach the gospel at all! Do they believe that “Christ is all in all;” that God’s testimony regarding Him is true; and that they are commanded to preach “the gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ” to every creature? If so, what can they desiderate in order that they may say to every sinner to whom they preach, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?” This is the Scripture version of the gospel call; and I can never hesitate to proclaim it, till I conclude that Christ is unworthy of being trusted, and God unworthy of being believed. 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. This other was the form it alone assumed in the thinking and teaching of “the Marrow-men.” To their successors it suggested more than these fathers meant. They began to regard it as necessarily an expression of love to the individual to whom it is addressed. They desiderated some sort of interest of all in Christ, before the call is accepted, in order to justify its being given. Extending the idea of the Marrow-men’s “deed of gift and grant,” they reached at last the universal reference of the atonement, while still stretching a long arm to keep a weak hold of the Calvinism of the Confession. They hesitate not to say that without the universal reference, they could not preach the gospel at all -- in other words, that this is the only basis they find for the call of the gospel. And what do they find there on which to base the offer? A reference that avails for no definite end, that secures no redemption, and that leaves those whom it connects with the death of Christ to perish in their sins. This, and no more, they find; and on this they base the offer of the gospel! Verily, if men cannot preach the gospel without this, it is difficult to see how this can help them. There is some carnal sense in the Arminian view, but this lacks even that. If Christ died to redeem all men, there seems something like a basis for a call to believe in Him to the saving of the soul. But this reference outside of that which election is held to have defined, and which connects the chosen exclusively with redemption, is a palpably unsatisfactory thing. Does it even avail to secure an offer of salvation to all? No one can say it does when millions have perished, and there are millions still on earth who never heard the gospel. To what effect then does it avail? To secure the extension to all of God’s providential goodness. And on what avails only to that extent the offer of salvation is based! What to me, an immortal and sinful soul, on the brink of eternity, is a message telling me that “bread which perisheth” was procured for me by the death of Christ! It is salvation I require -- it is for that I agonise. I care not for vague references. Give me a living Saviour, to whom I may commit my soul; give me a “sure word of prophecy” regarding Him; give me a divine command to believe in His name. Then and thus, and only then and thus, can my wearied soul find aught to lean on; and I shall count it both my privilege and my duty, to yield my homage to divine authority, my faith to divine testimony, and my trust to a divine Redeemer.

I don't see were Piper has not preached the doctrines of grace .He did not state that the Atonement was for all men he cleraly stated that it was for elect and elect alone
 
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.

I have heard this reasoning before...it was from a graduate of Moody Bible Institute. The idea that Christ's sacrifice has the potential of saving everybody, but is only effectual in saving the elect.

It seems to be an effort to bridge the gap between particular/definite atonement and universal/indiscriminate atonement. I don't see there needing to be a bridge as particular atonement is the biblical teaching, and we don't have to water it down to be more palatable to those holding other beliefs.

To define terms, let's say that "potential" means "existing as a possibility"...then Christ sacrifice being potentially able to save all does not hold water...because it is not a possibility that all will be saved, but is only possible for the elect.


Another reason some folks like the "potential" caveat is that it seems to them that the power of Christ's sacrifice should have no restraining otherwise it is being "limited." But the problem with this is that while they seek to empower the reach of Christ's sacrifice, they strip power from the effectiveness of His sacrifice.
 
. . . 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.

I think Matthew hit the nail on the head in the above quote. Those who maintain a dual reference in the atonement take the sufficiency from the old "suffient for all, efficient for the elect" phrase to imply a universal provision in the atonement, rather than a reference to the intrinsic value of Christ's death.

This seems to be the thrust of John Davenant in England following Dort. Davenant may be seen as an improvement over the French Hypothetical Univeralists (like Amyraut), but he argues for a dual reference in the atonement based on the "sufficiency" being understood objectively. This is the same idea seen in all "dual enders" or "dual reference" guys who have followed.

The Canons of Dort say it this way: "This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world" (II.3). But this is clearly referring to the intrinsic value of Christ's death, not a general reference or universal provision in the atonement for all mankind.
 
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.

Well untill somebody said it that just didnt seem right to me but i could see how one would think it could be four point calvinism I would have to hear the sereis to decide for myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top