Hebrews 10:26-30 (NIV)
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[a] and again, "The Lord will judge his people."
I believe that the vs. 29 above appears to conflict with the doctrine of limited atonement. I am curious as to how Calvinists view that particular verse in light of their beliefs. To be fair, I think John 10 is equally problematic for Arminianism. Now, obviously there must be a way to reconcile seemingly contradictory truths. That is where I am right now.
35 comments:
Hi Gena, I've been reading your posts and I have been refreshed by your frankness, honesty, and humble spirit. I can also appreciate your quandry that you just expressed. I had no idea about what Arminianism was. I knew some basic Calvinism, but that was it. I found this http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html and it was pretty general, but filled in some of the gaps. I know that over the past fifteen years, I have been influenced (negatively or positively) by almost every major, and a great deal of minor Christian "factions". It had become abundantly clear that the centrifugal forces pulling from the scripture are usually either reactionary to a persons current or past experiences with a church, or sin. Studying the different doctrines, I could see that very same occurance. The scripture became the mainstay of my faith, and scripture alone. Because of all these outward influences - not just the influence of doctrine practiced or a lack there of, but also an influence of charismatic personalities dominating their dynamic influence in a eager to learn young man - the past fifteen years of learning has been difficult, but rewarding. But I always come back to the bible, because Romans 10:17 says, "Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." So if faith comes from hearing the word then it is the word that we need. I speak on the assumtion that you are not in the Calvinistic school of thought. If you are, then there is little room for the scriptures. But it seems to me that you are humbly still in your "journey" as it were. The bible must be the only standard of expectation. When we try to fit a protestant, or Catholic doctrine into the the scripture, we might be able to squeeze it in, but not without contridictions. But when we let the bible speak alone, there are no contridictions, only faith. My encouragment is to please allow yourself time, although Matthew 7 warns of us this issue of time, to grow and learn in the scripture. I even read of your conversion and was curious about a few things, but that can wait. I get a little preachy. I just wanted to show you that web site and encourage you to rely on scripture and not man made philosophies. With and in Christ love, -P. Allan-
Allan,
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your kind words of encouragement.
You said:
"The bible must be the only standard of expectation. When we try to fit a protestant, or Catholic doctrine into the the scripture, we might be able to squeeze it in, but not without contridictions. But when we let the bible speak alone, there are no contridictions, only faith."
I am a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that doctrine is a bad thing? How else are we to understand the bible unless we utilize the whole council of scripture to develop the framework of our theology? If we read passages that seem to indicate free will and others that imply otherwise, then how are we to reconcile these things outside of developing a doctrinal position?
First, I spelled you name wrong, sorry. I appreciate your kind response. I think we would have to go on a scripture by scripture overview of what you mean. I beleive that Jesus died on the cross for all of mankind, because it says so in John 3. What scripture is there that says he only died for a select few? I am familiar with the scriptures in Romans and Ephesians, and 1 Peter, plus proverb, um, 29? I believe? But with these scriptures keeped in context, there isn't any support for predestination via Calvinism. John Calvin choose his theology carefully, and my understanding was that it was to counter any and all works based ideologies. Factious doctrine is sin. If a doctrine is developed as a result of reactionary motives, or doctrine developed to relieve the guilty of their wrong doing, then yes, doctrine is bad. Don't develope any doctrine other that the scripture itself. What I meant is this...If I tell you about a dogma that i have put my faith in first, then pull out some scripture to prove my point, unless you get some seriously outside influence, you will probably always look at that scripture as it was taught to you. If you were taught that there are those whom were predestined pre creation, to be the church, family of God, and that regardless of whether you want to or not, that will happen, then you are being taught something that has no grounds for biblical soundness. I've studied it before, and it's clear to the contrite seeker and servent of God who expresses their Christianity through the love of others. THere are not only not biblcal grounds for that theology, but also humanistic arguments against it. In order for Calvanism to work, that would mean that God intentionally created billions of people for the sole sake of destroying them in hell. Was it God's intent, his want, his desire to create only to distroy human life? If there is no choice, then the whole adam and eve thing doesn't work either. He judged Adam and Eve, and instead of Jesus forgiving them right away, and calling the whole thing back to square one, he let things go, gave out the curses, and here we are, roughly nine or ten billion people later. There is more.
But, we choose our doctrines soundly by studing the word and growing in grace. Grace is the revelation of knowlegde. We realize the truth by obeying the scirpture, so we grow in grace the more we respond in obedience to the scripture. STart with the small stuff, and work your way up. You must trust God that he will lead you if you are honestly seeking Him because you love Him and want to respond to the cross. If it's peace you want, or satisfaction, of mercy, or petition, or penitence, well, you may find it, but peace, satisfaction, mercy, petition and penitence are all self serving. As is much of today's religion. It's about what God can and has done for us as much as it is what can we do for God. One of my mottos is not asking the Lord to come into my life, But asking the Lord if I can go into his! I want to be a part of what HE is doing, a part of what his will is! Why? 1 John says because Jesus died for us. The truth is out there. Don't rely on the Calvins, Tynedales, Weslyns, Smiths, and Luthars. Rely on scripture. The best way to learn about scripture is through other scripture (I think you understand that), so, you must not let those outside doctrines influnce your POV on scripture. There is nothing that contidicts free will, nothing.
So, if you had a scripture in mind, I would be more that willing to go over it with you. BY the way, my back ground is Disciples of Chirst, International Church of Christ, and the Mainline Chruch of Christ. THere is a common theme to all those Churches, can you guess what it is?
Ok. First, how about John 10:22-30?
22Then came the Feast of Dedication[b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,[c] tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
Verse 26 says, "You do not believe because you are not my sheep." It does not say, "You are not my sheep because you don't believe."
What about Romans 9:13-21?
"13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
What about all the verses that talk about God hardening people's hearts? What happened to their free will then? Can you actually find a verse that says we have "free-will"?
Now, to be clear, I don't consider myself a Calvinist. But, I don't think its as cut and dry as I used to. There are a lot of bible passages that refer to election and predestination. They have to mean something. The question is what? To simply dismiss Calvinism as completely unsupported by scripture is unfair in my opinion. Unlike many doctrines, such as the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception (Mary was born and remained sinless throughout her life), Calvinism does rely on the bible for its support. If its wrong, its in the interpretation, but its clearly not just a tradition of men, like many other extra-biblical doctrines.
"If it's peace you want, or satisfaction, of mercy, or petition, or penitence, well, you may find it, but peace, satisfaction, mercy, petition and penitence are all self serving. As is much of today's religion. It's about what God can and has done for us as much as it is what can we do for God. One of my mottos is not asking the Lord to come into my life, But asking the Lord if I can go into his!
I agree with you on this point. I think this is the main point of my conversion story in the Interview Meme post a few days ago. I know for many experienced Christians it may seem to go without saying that its not all about us, but unfortunately I think that is the message that is being presented today in many churches. My dad told me once that he was in a church service and the pastor had just finished talking about healing, prosperity and etc... He then said, "And all this can be yours if you accept Jesus as your personal savior today." This guy's approach reminded me an infomerical. Apparently, many churches think of Jesus as the blue light special. When I came to the realization that we are to serve him because of who he is, not because of what he can do for me, my life was radically transformed.
God does promise us peace and many other spiritual blessings if we serve him, but that should never be why we serve him.
You said in your first comment that you had other questions for me. What were you going to ask?
22At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
Let’s review this scripture. First, Jesus shares the Gospel with them, and THEN they didn’t believe. They would not have had a chance to even believe Jesus if He had not told them in the first place. So, the opportunity to believe was made available to them. Anyone who doesn’t believe nor believe in Jesus is not of his flock. But let’s look at who it was that was questioning Him. It was at the Feast of Dedication, which is Hanukkah. The Jews that would have been there at Solomon’s Colonnade would have been the most religious of the religious. And in Matthew 9:8-13, “9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Jesus points out that the Pharisees were not his target audience. The Pharisees were the religious, they were the ones that had the Torah, and the oral law and would show the most zeal and dedication. Matching who the Jews in Solomon’s Colonnade would have been. Jesus didn’t come for those that thought they had God, but for those who knew they needed God. He says, “For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Jesus would have been in the Colonnade himself to celebrate the Holiday.
But that is besides the point. You say, “It does not say, “You are not my sheep because you don’t believe.”” But that’s exactly what Jesus is saying. Look closer at the scripture. In order - Jesus says, 1. “I did tell you…”; 2. But You did not believe; 3. My miracles speak for me; 4. You don’t believe because you are not my sheep; 5. My sheep listen to my voice. IF the Jews asking about his status would have listened, wouldn’t they have been his sheep. Jesus is stating that those that listen to my voice (Miracles in the name of the Father) are his sheep. These people were so stubborn, that they didn’t even listen to his miracles. Let’s look at Matthew 11:20-26:
“20Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[a] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." 25At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.”
Jesus praises The Father for revealing the truth to “little children”. If I have to reference who the little children are, I will. But for sake of argument, by these scriptures, and the Romans scripture that you referenced, it is obvious that God had a target audience, the poor in spirit. He chooses to have mercy on whom he has mercy – those who repent and make Jesus their Lord and Savior.
So, back to John 10; Jesus continues to say that His sheep (the poor in spirit seeking Christ) follow Him. Well, in order for this to be true, we know by the rest of the Gospel exactly who that is: a small handful of men and women, roughly 120 in number (Acts chapter one). Look at what Peter had to say…
Acts 2:22
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Now, read John 12:37-50. I know this is a lot of scripture, but that is what is required to understand scripture. Jesus says that the Jews didn’t believe in order for scripture to be fulfilled. It is on solid ground that these Jews in John 10 weren’t his sheep. In verse 46 Jesus says, “46I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.” Here we see that there is a free choice. “no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.” Then it goes further to talk about how Jesus’ words are from the father, Jesus came to save, and his words will be what people are judged by. Jesus says that the Fathers command (Jesus conveying the Fathers words) leads to eternal life.
Now, about Pharaoh. Let’s first look at this scripture – 1 Corinthians 10:11 “11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.” In talking about the Exodus Paul preaches this point. Plus the Romans scripture. God Chose to glorify himself in whom he choose. He says that he put pharaoh in his high position to Glorify Himself. And he did. But look at what pharaoh was doing! He refused to obey God. In fact, by resisting God’s commands, his heart hardened. God hardened his heart buy insisting that pharaoh repent. He had two choices here, obey and repent, or harden and disobey. God revealed himself through pharaoh’s lack of repentance and he was hardened for it. I have more to say, but it’s late, I’ll do some more tomorrow. Please excuse some of my frankness. I do believe in absolutes! I think that clarity it there, and we can come to it, but I need to get some sleep tonight. I prayed for that mother, your mother, you, and the baby boy. I believe God will work, and will be glorified with that situation. That doesn’t always mean that things go our way however. But my prayers are with you all.
With love…
I’m sorry for cutting myself so short last night. I really want to answer your questions. You seem so eager to learn, and I do have an understanding. It’s not popular, but I do have an understanding.
I cannot find a verse that says “free will.” Free will isn’t a biblical term. But I want to look at some predestination scriptures. Let’s start with the classic Romans 8:28-30
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[b] who[c] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
On the surface it would seem that people are predestined to become Christians. It would seem that we were predestined to conform “to the likeness of his Son,”. That would leave very little room for “Free will.”
But there is one word in this scripture that we cannot overlook. At that word is “Foreknew.” God has foreknowledge of who will and who won’t become Christians. He knew that you would respond to Christ before you knew. We can accept that God is omnipresent, no? Sure he is. Well, we have to abandon linear thinking for a moment (which is hard for us to do because we are stuck in the forth dimension, TIME)
God can see yesterday, today, and tomorrow as clear as he can see any day. And he sees it all at the same time. Much in the same way you can look at a yard stick. You can look at one inch and 12 inches, and so on all at the same time. You had a choice to respond to Christ, and you did. God knows that today, as much as he knew it when the crust on the earth was still cooling (as it were, that never happened if you believe the bible, but just a figure of speech.)
So by knowing that you would respond to Christ the way that you have, then He went and set it up so you would have a Christ to respond to. He knew you before you were born, because he has foreknowledge of all things. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Look at Revelation 21:6 – “6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.” He says He IS the Beginning and the End. As the Father knows Christ, so does he know you.
Let’s look an other predestination scripture. Ephesians 1:3-10:
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he[c] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.”
Again, we have to a non-linear thinking aspect to predestination. Before creation he predestined all of us to be adopted as his sons (and daughters) through Jesus Christ; to be holy (which means set apart) and blameless (righteousness). Both are aspects of God Himself. We (to whom that would apply, meaning any one who responds to Him; foreknowingly) have been freely given “glorious grace.” Through the scripture we know that Grace is the knowledge of Christ. So, he has freely given us the knowledge of Christ. This pleases God to have done that.
Just because God wanted and planned for us to become Christians and Join with him eternally, and just because he knew we would make that choice, doesn’t mean he predestined us to make that choice. The predestination doesn’t come in our choice; it comes in His will for us when that choice is made. It comes for those of who will make that choice, to God’s foreknowledge.
My other question was: Why did you wait so long to get baptized once you decided to become a Christian? (Of course knowing that I am from a Church of Christ background, you also must know that I believe that the scriptures teach plainly that baptism is required in order to enter the new covenant as prescribed by Peter in Acts 2:38) My hope in all things is that everyone who enters the covenant with Christ and the Father through Christ succeeds in there desire. I’ve been a blow hard on this post, and I’m sorry. I get reeeeeaaaaalllllyyyyy preachy. Please forgive!
Hi Gina, I just stumbled across your blog and thought I would drop a quick response to the question you asked. However, I have read the comments above and do not have the time to address all of the stuff Mr. Frederick had to say. Although, preaching that man must do something for salvation (like be baptized to enter the new covenant) is clearly salvation by works. Please do not let the kindness of Mr. Frederick fool you there. For the Jews in Galatia preached the exact same gospel of the Apostles, but they added one thing: circumcision. And Paul said to them: “let him be accursed” –Gal 1:8. It’s no different with baptism. Baptism cannot cleanse the heart (see Mark 7).
Anyway, saying that one must exercise autonomous free will is also un-biblical:
Romans 4:4 says: “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt” This passage points out that salvation that is determined by man becomes something God OWES us for making the right call, instead of it being 100% of grace.
To address your original question: It’s a very good one! And to be short and sweet, this passage does not deal with who Christ died for. It only makes a statement in passing about being ‘sanctified by the blood’. This is used to describe apostates –people who associate with the church and then turn away. Consider:
“If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.” – 1 Cor 7:14
Here we can also see how unbelievers can be ‘sanctified’. For those in the church, just like those in a Christian home, are sanctified by the believers around them even though they are not redeemed.
Anyway, limited atonement should be the easiest of the 5 points. For not all will go to heaven right? Then did Christ atone for all the sins of mankind except for one? –(unbelief) That’s not what the scriptures say. How can a believer in Hell cry out “I have been crucified with Christ”?? That’s absurd, but that is exactly what ‘Christ died for every single person’ advocates are essentially saying.
Examine another passage in Hebrews that specifically deals with the nature of the atonement:
12But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. –Heb 10:12-14
It’s as plain as day. Are all ‘being sanctified’? Because it says here that Christ died for those who are being sanctified. So unless you believe Christ’s death sanctified everybody in the world, then Christ did not die for everyone without exception.
P. Allan,
" You say, 'It does not say, "You are not my sheep because you don’t believe."' But that’s exactly what Jesus is saying."
With all due respect, I disagree. The way you are interpeting it, the scripture would have to read, "You do not believe because you do not believe." The reason they do not believe cannot logically be unbelief. Something can not be both the cause and the result. What if I said, "You do not have any money because you are unemployed"? If we interpret that the way you attempted to interpret the scripture, I would really be saying, "You are unemployed because you don't have any money." Or, "You are unemployed because you are unemployed." Now of course neither of those statements make sense.
If we go back a few Chapters to John 6 we find Jesus saying:
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 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."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Here he is stating that even though the people he is talking to don't believe, all that the father gives him will believe. They will come to him and he will raise them up on the last day because it is the will of the Father who sent him. When they start to grumble about his teaching he tells them again that no one can come to him unless the spirit draws them and that those people WILL be raised up on the last day.
In regard to the foreknowledge in Romans 8:29, the verse says "those he foreknew". In my opinion, this indicates that he foreknew the person, not whether or not that person would believe. Its just like he said, he knew us before he formed us in our mother's womb and chose us in him before the foundation of the world...
I used to feel the way you do, but I think it requires adding something to the scripture that is not there in order to interpret foreknowledge in that way. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion.
Nathan,
I agree with you completely on the works based salvation comment. I believe that Ephesians 2:8-9 is very clear when it says:
8For (U)by grace you have been saved (V)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (W)the gift of God;
9(X)not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.
P. Allan,
The reason I waited to get baptised is two-fold. First, I waited because I had considered becoming Catholic and they only baptize people during the Easter vigil. The other reason is because I wanted to be completely sure that I was committed to Christ. I think that making a public profession of faith is a big deal, much like marriage. It isn't something that a person can enter into lightly.
At the point where I felt that I desperately wanted to proclaim Christ as my savior to the entire world if it were possible, I knew it was time.
You say that baptism is required for salvation. What about the thief on the cross? He was never baptized, yet Jesus said to him: "This day you will be with me in paradise."
Sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors. I am tired. I just started back to school yesterday and I also work 30 hours a week.
You say that baptism is required for salvation. What about the thief on the cross? He was never baptized, yet Jesus said to him: "This day you will be with me in paradise."
There is another...
Cornelius (Acts 10) - the group of people received the Holy Spirit, but were not baptized until verse 48 - "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."
As far as I know, you don't receive the Holy Spirit until after you are saved...if you have to be baptized in order to be saved, how would these people have received the Holy Spirit?
Gina and Nathan, saying baptism is a “work” is a clear lack of understanding as to what “works” are. Moreover, to think that baptism isn’t a requirement of God, and expression of faith, and not a union with Christ in his death burial and resurrection, is a profound ignorance, unexcused due to the fact that we all share the same text. Also, kindness is a fruit of the Spirit, and there is no intent of deceiving anybody. I am simply trying to answer some of Gina’s questions as best as I know how. I appreciate Nathan’s zeal and fervor, and his patience in taking the time to respond to my post. I truly don’t want a battle ground for doctrine because many times these discussions are fruitless. I do not wish to provoke anybody or create an environment of ill will. We will all see what we want to see. We all share the same text, and even have similar experiences, but the truth MUST prevail. I too thought that in order to come into God’s grace, all I would have to do, is accept it (in truth, it was the four spiritual laws and a prayer that I succumbed to). However, making a decision is still an act. It’s a mental and verbal act, but an act none the less. So if baptism is a work, then so is the act of accepting Christ. Do we earn grace by accepting Christ? Absolutely not! There is nothing on this planet, or in heaven we could do to earn grace! However, in Ephesians 2:8, we know that we are saved by grace, through faith. That is a crucial and biblical theme. Grace through faith. Did Noah deserve to be saved from the destruction of the world because he built the ark, or was he saved from the destruction because he obeyed God as an expression of his faith and built the ark (Hebrews 11, truthfully he built it out of holy fear, but fear because he believed God, thus condemning the rest of the world)? What of Joshua and Jericho? He was given specific directions on what to do in order to win over those who were in the city, and he did just that. Did he earn his victory? Or was it given to him by God? But more so, let’s look at Abraham. Or rather, let’s let the bible look at Abraham. In Romans 4 it talks of Abraham being justified by his faith. Vs. 13 – “it was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through righteousness that comes by faith.” Also in Hebrews 11:8-19 is a terrific outline of what Abraham did by faith. But, at anytime did Abraham earn his blessing? NO! But he believed and obeyed God; which equals faith. And the list could go on. So when we look at Matt. 16:13-20 we see that the Kingdom of God will be built on the ROCK (Petra – The truth that Peter confessed as Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God) and the keys go to Peter (petros – small rock to have the keys) and what ever Peter bounds or loosens in building this kingdom is what will happen in heaven. Peter has been given the authority to build the Kingdom of Heaven. We can see what Peter did with this Authority in Acts 2. The Jews required miracles in order to know that what is being taught is from God, and not a deceiving spirit. Jesus was accused of this all the time. So in the beginning of chapter 2 we see a pretty heavy miracles demonstration of the Spirit. Please note that the only ones at this point who had the spirit were the Apostles, and that was without invitation. So Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit starts to preach. In vs. 22 he preaches, “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross….” - Peter starts his sermon, pointing out earlier that this whole event, taking place is a fulfillment of scripture. There are more than several prophetic scriptures that this fulfills. Here were a great deal of Jews, from all over the world, and he is accusing them to be just as guilty as the ones that actually did it. How can that be? Because we are all responsible for the death of Christ (forget not Isaiah 53:4-6, making it clear that it’s everybody’s sin that Jesus dies for.) (Romans 3:21-24 READ – all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God!) (In fact, Romans 3:21-24 is all one would need to understand that there couldn’t be a limited Atonement, more on this yet to come.)
Well, Peter go on, and tells of Jesus, the son of David, and God, and saying it’s your responsibility that Jesus did what he did. Vs. 37, “When the people heard this they were cut to the heart and said to Peter, “Brothers, what shall we do?”” Okay, and this time, the message has been preached, step two, it was heard, step 3 it was believed, step 5 contrition and a lowering of ones self, “what shall we do?”. Peter, who IS the guy who has the Authority to establish the Kingdom on earth, simply replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and all your children, and all who are far off – for all whom the Lord our God will call.” There it is. At that point, the new covenant between man and God had just been established.
The thief on the cross by the way was dead before this ever happened, so he couldn’t have entered the new covenant. Jesus died under the Old Covenant, he had to have had, or else Romans doesn’t make a great deal of sense, nor Hebrews and Galatians and more! Under the old covenant Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins. He forgave the thief his sins, and then they died, went to Hades (the heaven side, not the torment side) and whola! The thief wouldn’t have needed to get baptized at all, because the new covenant had to have been established after the death, burial, and resurrection. It’s purely the mechanics of the thing.
With Cornelius, we have a similar situation than that of Acts 2. Up until Acts 10, Jews were the only ones allowed in the Kingdom. There was no official ushering in the kingdom for the gentiles yet. Let’s look at the players. Cornelius, is a faithful good hearted gentile. He is already worshiping God and serving the poor and praying. The angel comes to him, and tells him to ask for Peter, yada yada yada… Peter shows up, then…
‘25When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man." 27And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered. 28And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. 29So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me." 30And Cornelius said, "Four days ago, about this hour, I was praying in my house at the ninth hour,[a] and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing 31and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your alms have been remembered before God. 32Send therefore to Joppa and ask for Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea.' 33So I sent for you at once, and you have been kind enough to come. Now therefore we are all here in the presence of God to hear all that you have been commanded by the Lord." 34So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47"Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Look at what happened. The Gentiles were just ushered into the kingdom of God, very very similarly to the Jew at Pentecost. Peter, who had the power to what ever he loosed on earth same as in Heaven, and so on. This is what he does. The miraculous occurrences happens the same way it happened to the Jews, and then Peter gives the same response, go get baptized. The “GIFT” of the Holy Spirit is separate from the internal dwelling of the Holy Spirit. The expression of the Gift of the Holy Spirit in the Apostolic age was speaking in tongues, among many other gifts. This tongue speaking was continual evidence that the apostles were accredited by God.
The only two time recorded in the book of acts that this ushering in of the Holy Spirit is in Acts 2 and 10; the Jews first, then the gentiles later. Baptism was required both times. There are more examples of baptism in acts, even Paul was baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16). There are two expressions of the Spirit in the book of Acts. One, the laying on of hands of the apostles for the giving of the spiritual gifts, and two, the Spirit entering a person at baptism. But these two times were a one time deal, setting the foundation for the Kingdom of God in first for the Jews, then for the gentiles.
Technically, let’s look at baptism. Romans 6:1-4 …
1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
We are actually baptized into his death! Under the water, baptized into death, in order that, just like Christ resurrection, we too might walk in newness in life. That’s called being born again. Baptism is the time that we are reborn in Christ! All Fresh and new.
Is it still a work? Well, is repentance a work? You can’t be right with God if you don’t repent of your sins, can you? I know what Luke 13:3 says. Repent or perish. Is repentance a work? If repentance isn’t a work, or the act of acceptance, then why would baptism be a work, especially since you are not doing the work, but it is being done to you? IN FACT, there are requirements from a person to come under Gods grace. They must hear the gospel preached to them, then they need to believe it, then they must put there faith it and express that faith by repenting of ones sin, and being baptized for the forgiveness of sin and the Holy Spirit.
I read John 6:44, and standing alone, that scripture makes an excellent argument for limited atonement. Very often, with false doctrines like these, scriptures are quick to be quoted to suit the needs of the doctrine. But if you continue reading down through vs. 47, it defines what this “draw”ing power that God has. It says, “’they will all be taught by God.’” It’s important one to see that this is a fulfillment of this prophecy, second it is important that we look at the definition of this drawing the father is doing. It continues, “Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.” The drawing power of the Father is Jesus. The scripture continues to define what is “teaching” them, what they need to listen to. “No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth; he who believes has everlasting life.” It is faith in Jesus that is this drawing power; not selective predestination.
If there were selected souls to go to heaven, not each person’s personal responsibility, then why does John 3:16 say that “God so love the WORLD, that he gave his one and only Son.”? Nathan, you ask why God would send his Son to die for all the people in hell? I can use that same humanistic logic and ask you why God created hell for so many people? The logic in that question is reversible, and no conclusion can come of it because it is not spiritual in its thinking.
I know that you have your points to make, and I will read them, but I am a writer, and much of my time has been spent here. I am not a teacher, or theologian, just a simple guy trying to convey the scriptures to the best of my understanding. This is my last comment on this one post. I will pray and hope that a mature view of the scripture will have enlightened eyes of the heart. I love you both and hope you also may pray for my well being also. My blog is www.pfredy.blogspot.com. You are welcome at anytime.
I appreciate all your comments. Unfortunately, I am very busy since I started back to school this week and I don't have time to respond to in-depth lengthy comments. I think we have gotten into too many subjects, that each require more time that I really have to adequately discuss.
I will attempt to comment on what I can later this evening, but I doubt that I will be able to address every point that has been made. If anyone else would like to do so, please feel free.
I hope that everyone will be respectful of one another. I enjoy discussing doctrine. What I don't want is to provide a forum for fruitless arguments.
I think what I might do is post on some of these issues, like baptism, in seperate posts so that we can keep the discussion focused. I think that will be more beneficial than trying to discuss 4 or 5 different things within one thread.
Mr. Frederick,
Unfortunately, I do not have time to address all of your statements. However, I do plan to address some of your major points. I am going to be short and concise with each point, obviously not exhausting the argument. But given the long response to my original comments, this reply will be by nature…long. I will try to organize each point so that readers may easily find each subject. Also, if you or anyone else would like me to clarify or defend a point further, please visit my site were you can find my email address. I will be happy to defend my understanding of the gospel from the scriptures.
I intend to specifically address your errors instead of giving a full defense of the issues at hand.
We have a very different understanding of Gospel. One of us is right, one of us is wrong. We are responsible to God for our error. Truth is determined by exegesis of the scripture and nothing else. Not experience, not feelings, not traditions etc…scripture alone.
Romans 6
Unfortunately, Romans 6 talks nothing of water baptism. Paul is speaking metaphorically here. The word used here is immersion, which does not always mean literal immersion in water. Paul was saying that believers are immersed with the death of Christ. Kind of like someone will say: “he’s immersed in his work”. Paul is simply using the spiritual reality of the believers union with Christ. Water baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality; it has nothing to do with changing that inward reality. If Paul meant water baptism here, then he would contradict the entire gospel presentation he gave in Romans chapters 3-5, which by the way never mentions baptism.
Using metaphorical speech is not uncommon with Paul, or uncommon with this subject. Ephesians 5:26 says we were washed by the word. Titus 3:5 says that we were saved not by works of righteousness, but by the washing of the Holy Spirit.
Mr. Frederick said that: “Baptism is the time that we are reborn in Christ! All Fresh and new.” Yes you are right! But not literal baptism…Spiritual baptism as referenced in Eph 5, Titus 3, Matt 3:11, and in 1 Peter 3:21:
“There is also an antitype which now saves us –baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)…” We are born again when we are baptized by the Spirit! This scripture spells it out very clearly!
This also coincides with the old testament sign of the covenant, circumcision: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” -Romans 2:28-29.
Just as circumcision didn’t matter unless it was of the heart, it’s the same with baptism. The evil nature of the heart as described by Jesus in Mark 7 cannot be cleansed unless it is baptized by the Spirit.
Rhetorical questions to ponder:
• 1 Cor 10:2 says that the Israelites were ‘baptized into Moses’, does this mean that they were literally baptized in water?
• When Paul says believers were “crucified with Christ”, does that mean we all must be crucified in order to be saved? (Please note, Paul is using the exact same metaphorical language here as he did in Romans 6. He is simply saying that believers are immersed in the death of Christ…as evidenced by the cross being a symbol of Christianity.)
Baptism as a work
How Mr. Frederick can label baptism as not a ‘work’ defies all Biblical and logical rational. In fact, if Mr. Frederick insists on labeling this command of God as not a work, there will be no point in any further discussion. There is absolutely no scripture to even hint at baptism not being a work.
Works as used in scripture can be defined as two things:
1. Something that we do that is commanded by God. (Like, you shall not steal).
2. Something we can produce in and of ourselves…by ourselves, without any help from the outside. Anything we can do autonomously.
Water baptism (not spiritual baptism) is a work because it is something we do, in and of ourselves, in order to publicly profess our faith in Christ.
Separating the gift of the Holy Spirit from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is reading into the text and confusing the issues at hand. The verse you supplied simply discusses the gifts of the Holy Spirit that were used during the Pentecost. However, Romans 8:9 says very clearly that without the Holy Spirit there is no salvation.
Therefore, Mr. Frederick would have us believe that the Spirit comes at baptism rather than by faith. But if faith takes place first, baptism later, how does faith save at all? Plain and simple, water baptism is a work that we do in obedience to God.
You keenly noted that repentance and faith in God seems like a work if we determine that baptism is a work. Exactly the point of Calvinism!! And exactly the point of scripture if we are consistent with our exegesis and interpretation of salvation by faith alone. Please read below.
Isn’t faith and repentance a work then?
Mr. Frederick said: “There is nothing on this planet, or in heaven we could do to earn grace!” Then further down he says: “IN FACT, there are requirements from a person to come under Gods grace.”
Taking the logical meanings of words, Mr. Frederick contradicts himself. So we can’t earn grace, but there are steps we must take to get it? Ok….Mr. Frederick, did you carefully read the Eph 2:8-9 passage you quoted before? If not, here it is again:
Eph 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
When Paul says “and that not of yourselves…it is a gift from God”, he is referring to the entire statement: grace, faith and salvation is not of ourselves. This passage describes the beautiful reality of God’s sovereignty in salvation.
Understand this: Like you noted above, repentance and faith seem like works don’t they? You argued that because I said baptism was a work. But don’t you see? WE DO NOT PRODUCE THIS AUTONOMOUSLY, THAT WOULD BE SALVATION BY HUMAN MEANS. That is, Faith is not something we can produce in ourselves! We are dead in sin! We cannot choose to do good. Please note:
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” -1 Cor 2:14
“There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. Romans 3:10-11
7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. -Romans 8:7-8
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil. -Jer 13:23
(More verses can be supplied in addition to these)
Please tell me Mr. Frederick, how a dead man, who is fleshly minded, who is accustomed to doing evil (as all humans are at birth), how can this man do anything pleasing to God?
Man cannot repent, cannot autonomously place faith in Christ unless, as Jesus says in John 6:
“And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”
Which, oddly enough, you quote yourself and then proceed to read it backwards in order to make it say what you want it to say (more on this below).
To sum up whether or not faith and repentance are works: Faith is a gift (Eph 2:8-9), Repentance is a gift (2 Tim 2:25), and belief is a gift (Phil 1:29). Therefore, something that does not come from us is not a work.
See also: John 1:13, Hebrews 12:2, 1 John 5:1, Rom 3:24, Ezekiel 11:19-20; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Romans Chapter 9, ACTS 13:48!, and a plethora of other passages.
Rhetorical questions to ponder:
• Paul says in Eph 2:9 faith and grace don’t come from ourselves in order that we cannot boast in ourselves. But you are boasting when you say you chose Christ out of your own free will. Let me explain: Are you better than those who have not decided to repent? Did you repent because you are more spiritually sensitive, better at recognizing truth, or just plain good on the inside unlike those other people? If you believe you chose your faith, then you must also affirm that because of your smart choice, you are better than those who didn’t chose.
• 1 Thess 1:4 is Paul exclaiming his thanks to God for the salvation of the Thessalonians. Why did Paul do this? Why thank God if God treated them no different than any other person on earth? Why not thank the Thessalonians for joining the right team? After all, according to you, they made the decision themselves?
Thief on the Cross
This is very simple: The thief on the cross was saved. The Thief on the cross was not baptized. The thief on the cross died under the new covenant. That is the end of that.
Heb 9:16 – 17 points to the fact that the new covenant took effect at the DEATH of Jesus (this is also seen by the fact that the temple veil was torn in two upon His death, therefore giving everybody access to the Throne of Grace). And Jesus died before the other two thieves –See John 19:32-33 to verify this.
John 6:37-45
Mr. Frederick, you interpret John 6 by reading it backwards. But here is some basic Exegesis on this verse:
6:37 Action: Given by Father Result: All come to Christ
6:39 Action: Given by Father Result: None lost, all raised up
6:44 Action: Drawn by the Father Result: Come to Christ, raised up
6:45 Action: Hear from and Taught by Father: Result: Come to Christ
There is a strong, clear, irrefutable line of thought that flows from 6:37 through 6:45.
'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD' is not discussing something different, but expressing the same truths in different words. The Lord is using hearing and teaching as another way of speaking of the divine work of God whereby He draws His elect unto the Son. Who is Jesus referring to? All who are given by the Father to the Son, of course, and all who are drawn by the Father to the Son. The ability to hear (or the lack of ability to do so) is a common theme in John’s gospel. Note the same theme in John 8:43, 47:
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.
Bottom line. John 6:65 says: ““Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” But Mr. Frederick is saying that what this verse actually means is EVERYBODY can come instead of NO ONE can come.
Limited Atonement
I am not going to address this issue because there are much deeper issues present. If we cannot agree that salvation comes through faith alone, separate and apart from the obedient act of water baptism, then there is no point in discussing anything further. For we believe two different gospels. However, I find it troubling that Mr. Frederick refused to even mention the text I above referenced in Hebrews. I also find it troubling that Mr. Frederick tries to get around my other question by stating it is humanistic logic, which is a common debate tactic when one doesn’t have an answer. The only defense he chooses to give are passages like Isaiah, Romans 3, and John 3 which discuss the nature of the atonement in no way, but rather state that all men have sinned therefore unless Christ dies then no one will be saved. In fact, Hebrews is the only place in scripture that specifically discusses Christ’s death, why it was necessary, who it cleansed etc, but Mr. Frederick prefers to go elsewhere to discuss this topic.
The bottom line is that there is no answer to the question: “If Christ died for all, and paid for their sins, how can God punish anyone?”
I will be glad to show from scripture exactly what limited atonement is, and how it is the rock-solid teaching of Jesus Christ Himself.
Conclusion on Baptism
Baptism is commanded in scripture. Any believer who is not baptized is living in disobedience. However, like any law of God, salvation is based on Faith and not on deeds of righteousness. “for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” -Gal 2:21. Therefore, it is perfectly possible to posses faith in Christ and not be baptized literally in water.
If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in Acts 3:12-26) Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way necessary for salvation. He then left others for the minimal tasks of baptizing.
Mr. Frederick, I pray that you will take these matters to heart, and strive towards ‘accurately dividing the Word of truth’. Although this is a long reply, the defense on my part is far from being exhausted. I would encourage you to read the book of Galatians and insert ‘baptism’ in every place of ‘circumcision’. They are one in the same, and a proper understanding of both comes from the study of both.
Mr. Frederick, please be careful in your use of the term 'false doctrines'. For many great men of God have stood firm on the doctrine of faith alone from what you would call the 'Calvinist' perspective. Great men like Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, G Whitefield, C Spurgeon etc... the list is never ending.
Scripture alone is truth. Tradition however, is not. May we all remember Mark 7:1-13 in regards the the evil entrapping nature of traditions.
SDG
Hi Nathan, As I mentioned in email, I would like to get back to the original topic of this post, which is do the passages of scripture that I cited from Hebrews contradict the doctrine of limited atonement?
Lets start with the phrase, "sanctified by the blood." Would you mind explaining to me how you believe an unbeliever is sanctified by the blood? And, how does a person who is not elect "insult the spirit of grace"?
Thanks.
I know you cited another scripture that speaks of an unbelieving spouse being sanctified by the believing spouse. I guess what I am trying to understand is this: In what way are they sanctified?
Hey Gina,
Well there are a number of views on this passage. My view on this passage comes from reading the Old Testament and also Hebrew 9:13.
Hebrew 9:13 says: “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh…”
And like I said before, the writer of Hebrews said “sanctified” rather loosely as referring to these people being in the church and under the blessing of God. The writer is obviously familiar with Hebrew customs and OT law, and outward ceremonial sanctification is also referenced in Heb 9:13. (See also Matt 23:17, 19).
The sacrifices of the OT were commonly spoken of as sanctifying all of the OT Israelites. Does this mean all of the Israelites were saved? No, for Paul says in Romans 9 that not all of Israel was ‘of Israel’, but only those who were chosen (Rom 9:6-13). Therefore, the entire nation of Israel was often referred to as being ‘sanctified’ because sacrifices were made to God by the Hebrew Priests. But of course, sacrifices of goats and bulls do not bring salvation.
The writer of Hebrews was simply using sanctification in a way that the Hebrew readers were familiar with, using it to describe the external sanctification of those who had an outward connection with God’s people.
Let’s compare this to the verse I quoted before, out of Hebrews 10:
“For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.” –Heb 10:14
See the difference? The writer says: “perfected forever…sanctified”, which of course is referring to the redeemed. He is saying that every person Christ died for is being sanctified…but not just sanctified like all within the church are sanctified…but perfected forever. Christ did not die for any one person who is not perfected forever. Therefore, if Christ died for all men, then all men must go to heaven. For God cannot punish sin twice –once on Christ, and once when the sinner is sent to Hell.
How is an unbeliever sanctified? Commenting on the 1 Cor 7 passage, John MacArthur has said:
7:14 sanctified. This does not refer to salvation; otherwise the spouse would not be spoken of as unbelieving. The sanctification is matrimonial and familial, not personal or spiritual, and means that the unsaved partner is set apart for temporal blessing because the other belongs to God. One Christian in a marriage brings grace that spills over on the spouse—even possibly leading them to salvation.
How does a person who is not elect "insult the spirit of grace"?
Well, believing that this passage is speaking of people who are saved but then lose their salvation is believing salvation by works. For one cannot lose salvation, since God chooses from eternity pass and they are also ‘perfected forever’. (There are a plethora of verses which speak this truth. John 6:37-39 being one of them).
But this writer is referring to those who are in the church and then renounce the church. Thereby insulting the spirit of grace that was clearly changing the lives of those within the church.
Want some additional passages on limited atonement?
See John 10:11; 10:15; Acts 20:28; Rom 8:32; Eph 5:25; Rom 5:8; Rom 5:10; Gal 3:13.
I would be glad to show you how each one of these speaks of Christ dieing for believers.
Thanks for your response. That helps me understand your position a little better. I will also check out the other passages you listed.
But, I do have a question. What is "the truth" that the apostate, unregenerate person is rejecting? In other words, what are they being asked to believe that they reject? It can't be that Jesus died for them if he didn't.
The truth is the gospel of course. All men everywhere are commanded to repent. Just because God commands something doesn’t mean all men have to capability to do so. Jesus also commanded humans to be ‘holy for I am holy’, and to be ‘perfect just as your Heavenly Father is perfect.’ And also:
"Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them (Galatians 3:10)."
Does that mean we can obtain perfection while here on earth? Certainly not. We are to strive for perfection, but no human will ever come close to obeying that command.
God is never changing. After Adam sinned, He did not change His perfection so that Adam could again obtain it. His law has never changed, even after Adam rendered himself unable to obey it by sinning and passing along a sinful nature to all humans. Therefore, God commands all men to repent, but without God giving us that repentance (2 Tim 2:25), we are unable to repent on our own.
Also keep in mind that nobody knows who the elect are. Only the Father knows. Nobody knows whether or not one person will inherit the righteousness of Christ (Christ dieing for them), even the man who wrote Hebrews. Therefore, we command all men to repent, all men to obey the gospel, and we leave the results to God (see 1 Cor 3:5-9).
So, they are asked to believe a gospel that doesn't apply to them in the first place?
We are commanded to be perfect aren’t we? That command is given to us even though it doesn’t really apply to us. It doesn’t apply because it is impossible! How can it apply to us when we can’t do it? It does because God is holy and never changing. We are still commanded to be perfect, even though we can’t even if we wanted to with all of our being.
All humans are commanded to believe the gospel, repent, and place their faith in Jesus Christ alone. Obviously Hell will be full of people who do not. That means that the gospel doesn’t apply to them, that Christ did not die for them! If Christ does not pay for their sin then they have to pay for it themselves in Hell! So whether or not you look at the predestination part, you have to face the facts that the gospel does not apply to all men. If it did, then all men would be saved. (When I say gospel, I mean the good news…For those who do not repent, the news will be anything but good).
So in a way yes, a gospel is preached to all men, that without the grace of God that brings salvation, then no man would repent…therefore it doesn’t apply to all men. God’s absolute holiness demands that only perfect obedience will do.
Jesus recognized that He was preaching the gospel to those who were not ‘His Sheep’, which in other words…it didn’t apply to them. That’s why Jesus spoke in Parables. So that in “hearing they would hear and not understand”. His speaking in parables was a gracious act of mercy. Because the better one understands and here’s the gospel, the greater their punishment is if they don’t repent. Since the gospel didn’t apply to them, then He spoke in parables so they wouldn’t hear it clearly.
Again, this sounds terrible to our ears. In fact, Spurgeon has said many times that the sovereignty of God is the most difficult doctrine to believe because it strips us of all our pride! We can’t boast in our choice, we have nothing to bring to the table! We are left without any pride left at all, we owe everything to Christ…not just everything minus our one good, smart, and wise decision.
(Sorry if I ramble, its late)
"We are commanded to be perfect aren’t we? That command is given to us even though it doesn’t really apply to us. It doesn’t apply because it is impossible! How can it apply to us when we can’t do it? It does because God is holy and never changing. We are still commanded to be perfect, even though we can’t even if we wanted to with all of our being.
You're right, we are called to be perfect and holy, which we can't do, YET. But, we are being daily transformed into the likeness of Christ. We will never be perfect on this earth, but one day, when the Lord returns, we shall all be changed. At that time, the bible says that the perishable will take on the imperishable. Hebrews 10:14 says: "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." So, while we can't be perfect on this earth, one day will be the way God intended for us to be. Therefore, the command to be perfect and holy does apply to us, just not right now.
"All humans are commanded to believe the gospel, repent, and place their faith in Jesus Christ alone. Obviously Hell will be full of people who do not. That means that the gospel doesn’t apply to them, that Christ did not die for them! If Christ does not pay for their sin then they have to pay for it themselves in Hell! So whether or not you look at the predestination part, you have to face the facts that the gospel does not apply to all men. If it did, then all men would be saved. (When I say gospel, I mean the good news…For those who do not repent, the news will be anything but good).
The good news is that Jesus Christ is the savior, the son of God, who came to earth to atone for sin and provide a way for fallen human beings to be reconciled to God, and thus saved from his judgement and wrath when time has reached its fulfillment. Now, you are saying that unbelievers are expected to believe this. If they reject it, then they will not inherit eternal life. That much I can agree with. But, I can't accept that they are asked to believe that when its not true that Jesus died for them. If I ask you to believe the earth is flat and you reject that, how can I punish you if the earth is in fact, not flat? It makes no sense whatsoever in my mind that they are punished for rejecting something that wasn't true for them. According to the doctrine of limited atonement, if they deny that Jesus died for their sins, then they would be right. Yet, in Hebrews Ch. 6, it says that if someone rejects the truth, they can't be renewed again to repentance because they have rejected the only means of salvation and no other sacrifice for sin is left. To me, this implies that the rejected the one who sacrificed for them.
"Again, this sounds terrible to our ears.
Yes, it hurts me deeply to even think about the idea that God created some people for the sole purpose of sending them to hell. My heart aches for the lost people in the world. I can't fathom the idea that I could love anyone more than God does.
Let me ask you this, Are we not required to repent before the benefits of the atonement are actually applied to us? Otherwise, we would not need to repent because we would already be forgiven when we are born. Yet, we are not right with God until we repent. So, theoretically, Jesus could have died for my sins, but if I never repent, I will not receive the benefits of that. Isn't it the same with those who end up in hell? The reason that they are paying for their sins again in hell, is because they rejected the sacrifice Jesus made for them. For example, If you and I go to a ballgame and I say, "Nathan, I have already bought your ticket." Yet, you say, "No thanks. I can't let you do that. I would rather buy my own ticket." Now, I have a ticket, that was originally intended for you, but you didn't want it. Therefore, it no longer applies to you, even though I had originally intended it for you. (Regardless of whether or not I knew that you wouldn't accept it when I offered it)
Yes WE will all be changed. But the non-elect will not be changed, but rather punished for their sin. In addition, we will not be perfect on our own doing. We will have the “righteousness of Christ”, not our own righteousness. This righteousness must be given to us, it doesn’t come autonomously. So again, sinners will be judged and punished by a law that was impossible to keep in the first place.
“I can't accept that they are asked to believe that when its not true that Jesus died for them.”
Nobody knows who Jesus’ death will atone for in the end. Nobody knows for sure who Jesus did or did not die for. The only thing in eternity that will reveal this is who repents and believes. I know you find this hard to believe; after all, this runs contrary to what most American evangelicals proclaim. But I’m not asking you to believe it, Jesus said it clear enough:
John 10:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. …14 I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and I am known by My own. 15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.…. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
Its as clear as day. Jesus lays His life down for His sheep, not for everyone.
“It makes no sense whatsoever in my mind that they are punished for rejecting something that wasn't true for them.”
Well, they are punished first and foremost for their sin (Rom 5). That must be the focal point. Every man is a God hater, and God would be just to send every single human to hell forever immediately upon their first sin.
As far as these apostates rejecting something that doesn’t apply to them, that’s not a distinction scripture makes. Again, the fact that God foreknew who would be saved (because He ordained it), and that He accepted Christ’s death as payment for their sins only, does not inhibit the free offer of the Gospel to all men, for who will respond to it is hidden in the secret counsel of God. Since it is hidden in the counsel of God, it is open to every single human being without distinction. So when the writer of Hebrew says they rejected the truth, he is correct in saying that they rejected a sacrifice that Jesus offered to all men for salvation. When he dies an unrepentant, only then will it be clear that Christ did not atone for his sins.
There are many people who get hung up on this point of doctrine. I personally think it’s the easiest one of the 5 points of Calvinism, because we obviously know that the meaning of words like “atonement” or “propitiation” means that sin is paid for, and sin cant be punished if it’s atoned for. Nevertheless, without first embracing the other 4 Biblical doctrines that make up what we call ‘Calvinism’, then this one will definitely not come. The Bible never stresses limited atonement. In fact, there is way to much time wasted discussing this point. However, once we understand how God chooses from the foundation of the world who will be saved, then we can easily deduce from scripture the sureness of the atonement. Did Christ’s death actually save anyone? Or did He just make salvation possible? No, He came to save perfectly, not save potentially. Scripture is crystal clear on that.
“Yes, it hurts me deeply to even think about the idea that God created some people for the sole purpose of sending them to hell. My heart aches for the lost people in the world. I can't fathom the idea that I could love anyone more than God does.”
No matter which side of the fence you stand on, you have to deal with this fact. God has perfect knowledge of all things. So even if you believe in the popular, but unscriptural foreknowledge argument (God bases His election on the free acts of His creatures choices in the future), you still have to deal with God knowing who will not come to Christ and therefore creating them anyway. I suggest you read Romans chapter 9. Have you ever read it? How do you interpret this passage?
“Now, I have a ticket, that was originally intended for you, but you didn't want it.”
That certainly cheapens the value of Christ’s death huh? What kind of weak Savior dies for a people who He doesn’t even know will accept Him?
Let me just leave you with this. The Bible teaches us to proclaim Jesus’ sacrifice for sins to all men. We should do that. The Bible never stresses limited atonement, we should not get hung up on it either. The Bible does however give a solid defense of this doctrine, but it does not answer all of the questions surrounding it. Therefore I cannot from scripture answer some of your concerns.
But you need to consider these things:
If Jesus died for every single human that every existed, and then gives humanity a ‘free will’ choice to receive that sacrifice, then the cross was a huge failure! For common man can reject the eternal God! Salvation is then just ‘possible’ instead of “It is finished”? The vast majority will reject this sacrifice, therefore the weakness of this potential atonement is magnified. Does Jesus really try His best but most of the time fail?
Just think on some of those things. And like I said, without embracing what the Bible teaches in the other 4 points, you will never fully understand this point. So I would recommend that you leave this one alone for the time being, and study the issue of God’s sovereignty first.
Fair enough. Where would you recommend someone who wishes to undertake a thorough study of God's sovereignty begin?
Oh, and I have read Romans 9. It is a tough chapter. That is where my initial doubts of the validity of Arminianism began.
"The problem with a works vs. grace stance on things is that it draws a line around everything and makes those who focus on grace alone think they can do ANYTHING they want."
I disagree. I believe a true Christian understands that liberty does not mean license. Paul dealt with this very issue when he talked about grace. In Romans 6:1 he addresses the question: "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" His response in vs. 2 is: "By no means!"
In my opinion, anyone who looks at grace as a license to sin is guilty of "insulting the sprit of grace" and "treating as an unholy thing the grace that sanctified them."
Oops, I meant to say the blood that sanctified them... not grace.
I’d recommend a few things:
I would read “The Pelagian Captivity of the Church” by R.C> Sproul. It is very short and to the point. Found Here.
I would also read “Are there two wills in God?” by John Piper. Found Here
If you’re interested in Limited Atonement, the “Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen is one of the best ever. It is long and hard to read, but it is found Here
Overall, for short, concise and modern articles, visit www. Monergism.org. It will give you background, history, arguments for and against, etc.
In the end however, just look to the scriptures. There are many people out there who attack Calvinism as an ideology, or a man made system. In fact, there seems to be an uprising as of late concerning these truths. The issue has always been a debate, but now there seems to be more arminians on the offense than ever before. But the truth is, all points are based on the clear teaching of scripture. It takes some effort of studying, but it is clearly all there. Arminians just cant deal with passages like Romans 9 and John 6, Acts 13:48 and 2 Thess 2:13. They always have to jump around and explain away the text at hand by quoting other passages that seem to contradict. But the truth remains, you cant stay in Romans 9, read it for what it clearly says, and come to any other conclusion other than the 5 points of Calvinism. As John MacArthur has said: “Calvinism is just another word for Christianity”.
Anyway, read the scriptures, lay aside all of you previous presuppositions, and the Spirit will lead you to the truth. And don’t forget to ask yourself if all these great men in history really got this stuff wrong. Martin Luther, Jonathon Edwards, AW Tozer, Arthur Pink, Martin Loyd Jones, CH Spurgeon, G Whitefield, Augustine, Calvin, J Owen, all of the Puritans, J MacArthur, RC Sproul, John Piper, Al Mohler, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, John Gill, James White, JI Packer, JC Ryle, etc…The list goes on forever. Are all of these great men of God wrong?
Thanks Nathan! I read the article by R.C. Sproul and the one by John Piper. They make some interesting points.
I posted my last entry without seeing the other posts by John and Gina. I agree with you John, there’s not much point in discussing this much further. However, I did want to respond to a few things you said. I by no means am trying to have the ‘last word’.
Thanks for your kind words John, I agree that we can discuss this is a cordial manner without resorting to arguing etc.
As far as you saying that one side is right and only God knows for sure, I think the scriptures disagree with that. Truth is knowable. Doctrine is knowable as well, certainly on this issue. Jesus said: “you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”. It takes study, it takes throwing out what you hear from all around, and throwing out all presuppositions, but the truth in this matter is certainly knowable through the exegesis of scripture.
You pointed out very well how Jesus laying His life down for those who reject Him is an act of love! In a way, I agree completely. Without going into detail, I think the scriptures clearly teach that the death of Jesus has benefits to all men. This is particularly mentioned in 2 Tim 4:10 which says:
“…because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”
Christ’s death has temporal benefits to those who He did not specifically die for. His death temporarily satisfied God’s wrath against mankind, enabling the reprobate to live an enjoyable life here on earth. (As opposed to another Flood or something, where God’s wrath is poured out on man –God’s wrath was poured out on Christ instead). However, Christ’s death specifically paid for the sins (atoned) of those whom the Father chose before the foundation of the world. So yes, in a general way, Christ did lay down His life for all men as an act of selfish love. But the notion that Christ died for all men specifically without exception, and is waiting in the corner for common man to exercise autonomous free will and accept that sacrifice is something that scripture clearly refutes. As I mentioned before, how a man being punished in Hell can cry out “I’ve been crucified with Christ” is both scripturally and mentally illogical.
As far as the baptism goes, I have already stated what the Bible says in that regard. The fact alone that it is never stressed by Paul or that it is not always stressed by Peter shows its insignificance in the matter of saving faith. Is it commanded? Yes; and not being baptized is disobedient. But teaching that it is necessary for salvation clearly runs contrary to salvation by faith alone.
As for the foreknowledge argument goes, besides it being kind of irrational (why would God ‘elect’ or even use the word ‘elect’ if we elected ourselves), I do not see scripture as agreeing with this point. Yes the word foreknowledge is used a few times when talking about predestination, but all it takes is defining the Greek word for what it actually means = choosing to know intimately beforehand. Nevertheless, I have supplied scriptures beforehand that identify our fallen will before salvation and man’s inability to choose what is right.
I think enough has been said on this subject. I will leave it at this: John 6:44 says that: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day”.
You are rejecting the plain meaning of the words of our Lord Jesus when you teach that God gives an opportunity to all. No one does not mean everyone. And the popular argument that God draws everyone is illogical as well (unless you’re a Universalist), for this verse goes on to say that all who are draw are raised in the end. I beg you guys one last time: please do not reject the clear teaching of the Holy Word of God.
John, as far as you mentioning JW and LDS as being men of God, that is clearly in error. Mormonism runs completely contrary to the teaching of scripture, and by no means are they part of the body of Christ. The great men I listed all stood on the most important doctrine of all: Scripture alone. Nothing else has authority.
One last thing, a discussion similar to this is going on at my site. And my friend Andrew posted a wonderful argument on the will of man. I will now post it below and pray that you guys will look over it very carefully.
I agree with John, enough has been said on this subject, we should both consider each other’s arguments and leave it at that. But if you have more questions, feel free to ask.
SDG
My Friend Andrew’s post:
That natural Man’s will is in bondage rather than ‘free’ is demonstrated by the following five bible doctrines, as outlined by Martin Luther:
•The foreknowledge and foreordinance of God. (Is. 46:10; 48:3-5; Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:4-5; II Tim. 2:19; Tit. 1:2)
•The rule of Satan over all that is outside the kingdom of Christ. (Matt. 12:29-30; Mk. 3:27; Lk. 11:21-22; Acts 26:17-18; Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 1:13; II Cor. 4:4)
•The ruination of mankind by Original Sin. (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Is. 64:6; Rom. 3:10-20; Eph. 2:1; Col. 1:21)
•The salvation of the Gentiles who did not hope for grace, while the Jews, in their striving for God’s favor, did not gain it. (Rom. 9:30-31; Rom. 10:20)
•The redemption of Christ, which must save all of a man, including his will. (Jn. 8:34-36; II Cor. 5:17)
Luther uses the following argument to explain the importance of holding to the Bible doctrine of the bondage of the will:
"If [natural] Man does possess a ‘free-will,’ and this will can freely choose to follow the commands of God, “repent,” and “come to faith in Christ,” then this will is the most important part of Man, as it is decisive in his eternal salvation. If the most important part of Man is sound, then it does not need Christ as its Redeemer. If it does not need Christ, then Man triumphs above Christ in a glory greater than His; for Man takes care of his most valuable part, whereas Christ only cares for his less valuable part. And then the sovereignty of Satan will prove nothing, for Satan will rule Man’s less valuable part only, and Man will rule Satan instead in respect to his better part! So, those who believe in ‘free-will’ exalt Man above both God and Satan, making Man to be god of god and lord of lords!"
Stated another way: Does Man’s will stand in need of redemption by Christ? If not, then the best part of Man is not fallen, but rather good and sound. This conclusion leads to the argument above. But if Man’s will is fallen and in need of redemption, then how can that which is fallen choose that which is godly? As Jesus said, “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit” (Matt. 7:18b).
And so those who would make salvation dependent upon Man’s will would rob the biblical phrases “election,” “predestination,” “called,” and “God’s chosen people” of any rational meaning. The effect of ‘free-will’ doctrine exalts Man and belittles God. Martin Luther saw where the logic of ‘free-will’ doctrine would lead when he made the statement: “Eventually, we shall come to this: that men may be saved and damned without God’s knowledge!” And this is just where we are today as we see the rise of ‘Open Theism’- the logical extension of ‘free-will’ doctrine.
Looks like I owe apologies all around. I look back at my post and realize a couple of things. The first is that I took an unloving tone towards Nathan, and I owe you an apology. I AM truly sorry. There is no excuse to not be loving, regardless of any disagreement. For Paul writes in 1Corinthians 13:2, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” I also thank you Gina for hosting these long debates on your home turf, and thank you JohnE for the rebuke. I can also see by these lengthy post that the arrogance of an argumentative spirit is harmful, and can bear no good fruit. The essentiality of the scripture is that of ones love for his fellow brother and sister, and his neighbor. Whether we choose to obey the scripture or not, we all have the debt of love to each other. I am also grateful that we live in a free society where we can freely express our own “insights” whether they be perfect or not; knowing that if there is an error, it lies in us, and not the scripture. How magnificent it is to know that we can share the gospel, regardless of “which one we read”, and continue in the fruits of the Spirit. God willing, we will all stand before the Father on Judgment day sanctified in the blood and sacrifice of Christ, being the bride to our Master. May God bless you all
P. Allan,
Thank you for your apologies. I truly don't want this blog to be a forum for arguing or fruitless debates. I enjoy discussing doctrine because I am deeply passionate about theology and I do desire to learn and grow in my faith. I am open to hearing and considering different points of view as long as the discussions remain respectful. I hope you will continue to share your perspective with us in the future.
Lots of love...
Thank you Mr. Frederick for you kind words. I did not take personally offense to anything that you said, but I appreciate your humble spirit in the matter.
Your reference to 1 Cor 13 is something that I myself need to strive to obey as well. If I offended you or anyone else on this site, please let me know so I may examine myself to ensure that graceful words are spoken "according to the need of the moment".
SDG
I have enjoyed everyone's contributions to this discussion. Trust me, they were a lot nicer than many discussions I have witnessed on the subject.
I hope everyone is doing well.
Nathan,
I have a few questions for you when you have time. My mom told me yesterday that I think too much and overanalyze things. HA
Post a Comment