Lets talk about ‘evangelism’ for a second. Have you ever thought out of the lense that says: Jesus died for a, b, and c; but not x, y, and z? What practical effect does this have upon the way you approach people in your daily life (if you think this much, that is π )? Do you walk by people on the street and think: hmm, I know Jesus’ death was sufficient for every person I pass; but in fact unfortunately, I’m sure that I’m walking by people who it’s not efficient for (or do you think this much π ).
My questions are honest here. One time I tried to appropriate the distinctions I mention above, and I actually tried to look at all the people I worked with through this lense. From a psychological perspective, the effect this had on me was seriously problematic. It zapped any confidence in sharing the Gospel with people in a free way. It made me think that the person I was sharing the Gospel with may only be one for whom the Gospel was only ‘sufficient’ for. Clearly, we would never know how this breaks down (which is the typical response to my queries); nevertheless, I think the emotional effect can be one that detracts from fulfilling the ‘Great Commision’. I wonder what you think . . .
I did street evangelism every week for three years with some federal calvinists. It took me about a year to figure out why they prayed what they prayed (I’m a bit slow!). Every week they would pray “Lord, may we meet some of your sheep this afternoon.” And I’d think – “Hm, it’d be encouraging to meet other Christians, but frankly I’m out here to meet non-Christians.”
It was only later I realised they were praying to meet those who were elect before actually belonging to Jesus by faith. The way these guys saw it, sprinkled throughout those London crowds were Christ’s sheep for whom he died and once or twice we might even bump into one of them! And the rest? Well, Jesus isn’t really for them is He? Not *really*.
!
Glen,
Thanks for sharing that, I think, that’s a sad and wrong thing.
You said:
And Iβd think β βHm, itβd be encouraging to meet other Christians, but frankly Iβm out here to meet non-Christians.β
That’s golden!
To be fair to those using that language though, they are trying to hold the two big motivations to evangelism togther:
1. God has provided a sacrifice for sins for everyone.
2. What he has acheived in Christ he will powerfully bring to completion in effectively calling people to himself.
If it is not sufficient for everyone then you can’t offer Chris to them.
If it is not so efficient that it without fail brings dead people opposed to God to life in loving God then we would be doing evangelism in our own strength and despair.
It may not be great language, and psychologically may cause problems, but it is good-hearted attempt to hold together two things we know to be true, and need to be true, to do evangelism.
This is one of the big reasons why I am not a 5 point Calvinist: limited atonement. It simply is not scriptural, and its affects on ministry can be devastating. There is a reason why the majority of missions organizations were founded by Arminian-leaning Christians.
One of the places where this is most noticeable today is in the reaction of the church to the Arab people. There is a mindset that they are all godless and lost to Satan when this is far from the truth. The Church is growing in the Middle East in spite of us to the praise and glory of God.
We have fallen victim to the worldly philosophy of such a thing as a life not worth living. Allow me to go a bit off topic, but I believe this is one of the reasons why abortion continues to exist in our nation. Our church no longer has a culture of life — placing value and importance on every single human life whether born, unborn, friend, enemy, rich, poor, liberal, conservative, healthy or disabled. When you start to divide humanity into distinct groups, you start to cut off love to some of those groups.
Biblically, there are two groups: the saved and the lost. But Biblically even the lost, until their physical death, all have the potential, by the power of God, to become saved. This is why I believe the church, in general, should lean pacifist, be against torture, even be careful in regard to capital punishment. We need to look at every single individual, even the most vile criminal or oppressive dictator, as a man or woman who was precious enough for Jesus Christ’s shed blood to atone for their sin. We need to remember that all men are created in the image of God and that Jesus died for all men. Only with this mindset can we love our enemies and bless those that curse us in the hope that they too will come to embrace the love that God has demonstrated for them just as He did for us.
Dave K,
Thanks for the reply. I’m not trying to be unfair π . . . instead I’m trying to alert us to a problem that this theological paradigm presents. You’re right there are two poles here, this is what this paradigm fails to hold together at all, in my mind. This is what, I think EC, helps to remedy. It doesn’t think through a determinist/Stoic logico/causal lense; it doesn’t think that God’s sovereignty is somehow frustrated if He died for all and some of those all don’t come to Him (for reasons unknown to us). EC grounds the two poles (the objective/subjective — God’s sovereignty/man’s ability) in the hypostatic union of Christ. The sufficiency of the atonement is tied directly to the ‘person’ of the sacrifice. Questions of efficiency are not under consideration (it’s not a mathematical equation). To relativize that using ‘that’ language, Jesus’ death is both sufficient and efficient — because He is the object and subject of the atonement, and all of humanity is therefore ‘in Him’. We know why those who respond to the Gospel, do; because of the Holy Spirit. Why folks don’t should be relegated to the category of inextricable.
I understand your point, but your point is exactly what I’m trying to draw attention to and reverse.
Matthew,
Yes, we agree. Jesus’ death as the ‘supreme’ or ‘prime’ over all of creation as the ‘recreation’ (cf. Col. 1:15ff) orients all of humanity to God in Christ.
And then yes, this has all kinds of implications to it: the one I note here on evangelism, on ethical concerns like abortion and wars, etc.
Good point and further application.
Hi Bobby,
Thanks for your response. I know you’re working at a level above me, and so I’m not sure I 100% understand, but it’s helpful for me to think about.
I liked your sentence “Jesusβ death is both sufficient and efficient β because He is the object and subject of the atonement, and all of humanity is therefore βin Himβ”, but wondered a little about the last clause. Two questions related to that:
Q1: Richard Gaffin says there are three aspects or dimensions of union with Christ:
1. The predestinarian ‘in Christ’ (e.g. Eph 1:3-4);
2. The redemptive-historical ‘in Christ’ (e.g. Rom 6:8); and
3. The actual ‘in Christ’, or applied union with Christ (e.g. Rom 16:7).
The choice of terms is pretty rubbish, but I would say that he is correct to say that in the Bible there are 3 different ways of saying we are (or are not) “in Him”, and a universal union doesn’t seem to apply to all of them. Do you think there are ways in which we can say we are both “in Him” and “not in Him”? If so, how is that different materially different from the sufficient/efficient distinction?
Q2: Christ died as the new Adam, and in that represented all humanity. However, he also died as the new Israel, and in that represented the chosen/called-out people of God. The first is the major note in most discussions of incarnation I feel, and it is incarnation on which TF Torrance (for instance) returns to so often. Do you think there is some way in which Christ died for “the some” as well as “the all”, and any fruit in this discussion by looking at the Jesus as the God-Jew as well as the God-man?
Incidentally, I’d love to see you compare and contrast the EC approach to these things with the Lutheran one. You may have already done that in which do point me in that direction.
Good discussion.
I am not a 5-pointer, however, their view of preaching to all so that the elect among them may hear and believe is actually psychologically encouraging and far from depressing… at least for me. It actually takes the pressure off.
God is in control of salvation. No one unilaterally decides to get saved. I preach, he makes alive. I dont have to wonder if I did/said everything right. I am called to be faithful to preach the good news – “Christ died for sin. Yours. Turn towards God and put faith in Christ.”
CC’ers dont cant say that Christ died for all even though scripture does. But since I believe it, I say it every week (almost) and then I simply rest. Since God is sovereign over each persons salvation, the pressure is off of me.
Because I am as equally convinced of both the disease (sin has spead to all) AND the cure (the message of the cross is the power of God), I am highly motivated to preach the gospel “in the power of the HS and leave the result to God.”
Peace
W
Glen:
Tragically I found your story funny. If they are already His sheep why bother Baaa ha ha.
Kind of like the boxing ring: “ok, we paid the other guy to take the fall in the 8th round, so you can wear the champion’s belt home”. or “Ok, I put a sheep on the corner 4 blocks up so that you can wear the evangelism crown for witnessing to him”. Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, we’re so glad you could attend, produced by The Unmoved Mover. Baaa Ha ha.
Dave,
I doubt I’m working at a “level” above, you, whatever that means π .
In re.:
Q1. See this post on carnal and spiritual union: http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/10/carnal-and-spiritual-union/ . Myk Habets identifes three unions at work in Calvin (the unio mystica being one of them), let me dig up what he has to say there.
But to answer your question, directly: The EC ‘carnal’ and ‘spiritual’ union is helpful here. “Carnally” all humanity is united to God (objectively) through Christ’s humanity; “spiritually” only the ‘elect’ are united to Christ by the grace of the Spirit. Why all of humanity who is objectively united to God through Christ is not also spiritually united to Christ, according to Torrance needs to be relegated to the inexplicability of sin. This presupposes a certain asymmetry between those who are elect and reprobate. We don’t know why anyone would deny what is their’s objectively in Christ (just like we don’t know why or what caused Adam and Eve to originally sin).
As far as the sufficient/efficient. For the Classic Calvinist they mean that there is some sort of quantitative ratio between the blood that Christ shed juxtaposed with whom it has ‘actually’ or ‘efficiently’ been shed for. EC is just saying that that kind of “divine math” is not applicable. To say that the atonement is sufficient and then delimit it by efficient seems to present a disjunction between these two that almost makes it non-sensical. If Christ’s death was really only efficient for the elect, then in what sense was it sufficient for the non-elect or reprobate. To me this dichotomy plays with universals and particulars in ways that aren’t really helpful — or saying anything meaningful (theologically).
Q2. That’s an interesting question. I would just say though, in re. to TF, that the point of the Cov. with the Jews was to mediate salvation to the nations. So the particularity of the Jews, as Yahweh’s covenant people, is a result of God’s free choice of love to penetrate the skin of humanity through a people who were supposed to be for the all. The Incarnation externalized in the man from Nazareth certainly finds its shape in the Jewish nation and heilsgeschicht (salvation history); but I think that we need to see a supercession of the nation in light of the ‘person’ Jesus Christ. We can’t have Jesus w/o the Jews — which is a result of God’s free choice — but that is not to then say, I don’t think, that the Jewish people then become the ground of salvation (instead that is God’s life).
I don’t know if that makes sense, at all Dave, let me know! π
Will,
You undercover “TULIP”‘r π hehe. You said:
Yeah, but you don’t have to hold to “their view” in order to avoid a Pelagian approach to Evangelism; that’s what EC is all about! Both the objective work of salvation and subjective aspects are taken up and grounded in the person of Christ. This means that you aren’t just throwing out a dragnet created for the ‘elect’; instead it means that the elect are already in the boat of Christ’s life, and that for some mysterious reason (the mystery of sin) they flop out (to be crude) π . EC, which is what you’re implying isn’t forwarding an Arminian or Pelagian notion of grace and salvation; far from it, it is saying that God’s grace is His action in Christ of uniting divinity with humanity (and thus humanity with divinity) and providing the “Way” of salvation through His Person (not through trusting in a created quality called ‘grace’ π ). Youch . . .
Bobby,
I have spent a nearly infinite amount of time thinking through these lenses, mostly in my earlier years of being a Christian, and from different viewpoints. That I’m still alive after all that mental torment is a miracle in itself.
I once took the responsibility of eternity for every single person I came across. If I encountered 38 people at the grocery store, and I only passed out 37 tracts, I was on the hook for the one I missed. Then there were the 30,000 at the ballgame… Every person that ever left a company I worked for was a tortuous infliction of guilt.
I’m a people watcher by nature, so I’ve spent many an hour guessing, is this one of us? Is this person a Christian? Will this person become one? Are these people going to hell? On and on.
Later on, once I thought through limited atonement, it was a great relief to the self-inflicted guilt. It probably had a pendulum swing effect: well, since I missed that person, and they’re elect, somebody else will pick them up at some point.
Then later on still, I came to a point where I saw the compartmentalization of evangelism to be a false proposition. The Great Commission is about making disciples. I’m not comfortable with evangelism without discipleship unto maturity in Christ. I think this is where the Arminians have had such a huge destructive effect on American Christianity.
But honestly, once I realized I’m not an evangelist (as in one that evangelizes that is a gift to the church) I stopped looking at people through these lenses. My immediate family has been enough of a task that if my kids end up half discipled, it’s a major accomplishment. Time with other people has been extremely limited over the last few years. Maybe another time and place will have something different.
Steve,
Thanks for sharing that! I went throug a season like you did as well (I felt guilty for not sharing Christ with every person I walked by . . . then the Lord gave me I Cor. 3 [some plant, some water, some harvest, etc.]). I began to realize that even though I have the “gift” of evangelism, that it’s not plausible to think that I can stop and tell everyone (which just made me realize how sensitive I need to be to the Holy Spirit in this endeavor).
I agree, to a point, on the compartementalization (that’s a big word π ); evangelism is the full-meal deal, the whole enchilada, but there are parts that each one of us fulfill in that process — with some it’s just planting a seed, with others we water, with others still, we harvest and participate in discipleship, etc. I think this is all expressed in various ways, too. Like: we have to actually go outside our comfort zones an proclaim, but then other times we need to be a witness by how we live (which is related to proclaiming). I hear ya, Steve.
My only fear with your “gifting” stuff is that people will often use this as a cop out for not taking the initiative to proclaim (or do anything for that matter), and we don’t want that. Paul makes it clear that evangelism is a gift, but it is also a stewardship (and that wasn’t just particular to him).
I’m working on the early days of a sermon on John 9 (or possibly John 9 and 10 together cos they seem so connected) where there is a polarity between those who have already decided Jesus and his followers are sinners to be cast out, and mocked for Jesus laying his life down etc…. and by contrast those with Jesus receive their sight, his death for them, are never snatched from the hands of him or his Father, and recognise his voice….
Where do I take that in terms of an evangelistic application? Go make Jesus known but expect these responses? Go looking for those who will recognise Jesus when you creatively, warmly, persuasively, lovingly present him to them?
From Glen’s comment I don’t really want to just say “there people out there who will recognise Jesus’ voice…” but where would you take this? My inclination at the moment is to say – “this is Jesus – the one who lays his life down, who gives sight to the blind, who holds onto his sheep… go with him, face mockery and know that there are those who will also recognise him…”
Help appreciated on these early sketchings and ponderings!
Hi Bobby, hope you’re well.
When you say stuff like:
‘We know why those who respond to the Gospel, do; because of the Holy Spirit.’
I can’t help but wonder whether it really just transfers the ‘problem’ (as you see it) of limited atonement from the cross to the work of the Spirit. So, instead of going around viewing people through the efficient/ sufficient lens, you have to now view them through the ‘Spirit’s gonna convert em’/ ‘He’s not gonna do so’ lens. Yeah, or am I completely missing something here?
Also, I really don’t think this statement is really an accurate summary of the classical position:
‘For the Classic Calvinist they mean that there is some sort of quantitative ratio between the blood that Christ shed juxtaposed with whom it has βactuallyβ or βefficientlyβ been shed for.’
Again, I think you learned/ heard your classical calvinism from a different set of dudes to the ones I learned it from.
π
I’d also want to turn the terms around. Limited atonement is such a rubbish term for the classical position, in which Christ’s atonement actually secures salvation. An ‘unlimited atonement’ (whether of the classical arminian type, or even the EC objective/ subjective position you describe) is in actual fact the limited one, since it actually secures nothing for anyone, until and unless they make the opt in/ out decision.
π
First, both Dave and Pete thanks for visiting from the other side of the pond, I always appreciate it when Brits show up, it gives the blog a more sophisticated and international flavor π .
Dave,
Thank you for asking your question through the text — something I don’t often do here at the blog π .
1) Yes, I think it probably is that simple; either someone will be for Christ or against Him. As to explaining the mechanics — which is what I am only barely getting at with the post here — I think that, theologically, it is important to press the point that Jesus died for every single person if only because this is what the Incarnation expressly presupposes (e.g. there is no other humanity available to Jesus).
2) Yeah, I think the witnesses of God have often, if not always, been ridiculed by the “lost” (or even the “disobedient” within the “fold”). Maybe you could do a survey (although it might be outside the bounds of your sermon and time constraints) of the “witnesses” (e.g. prophets) in the Bible.
I don’t know if that helps, but my 2 cents.
Pete,
I like you, because you don’t mess around, you shoot from the hip π . I want to respond to your points and questions, but before I do — since you said that I misrepresent the idea of Limited Atonement with my “divine math” language — I would ask for how you understand the relationship between the unconditionally elect juxtaposed with the extent of the atonement? Do you see a cause/effect logical and causal relationship between the two (and is there a particular number of elect people)?
Your answer will help shape how I respond to you.
Pete,
On your last comment. You completely misconstrue how EC understands the atonement with your opt in/out language. I’ll explain more of that in my response to you later, after you explain to me how you think of limited atonement.
The problem is, though, I can already see it, is that you’re thinking through the terms that I’m trying to up-end; which clearly is going to cause some rub, but it is what it is.
I’ve dumped the classical and Stoic thinking that classicalim operates out of along time ago; which allows me to say things and hold things that could be construed and correlated to the only other soteriological voice in “your” game — Arminian or maybe even Amyrauldian. I just want to say though, Pete, it’s not that simple π .
Dave,
I should also mention II Cor. 2:14ff, that is a favorite passage. Some respond to life from life the other from death to death. This is probably the extent that EC would want to push this discussion. There is an asymmetry in response, though; we know the response to life comes from the Spirit and the response of death from the inexplicable nature of evil and sin (in light of Christ’s objective union with all humanity in the Incarnation and the resultant cross-work which He accomplished for all humanity).
Pete mentions a change in referent here from extent of atonement to the Holy Spirit’s choice. I suppose in that context, the issue is whether Christ actually died for them or not. If not, then the Spirit is actually sidelined by a ‘decree’; the ‘personal’ dynmaic and Trinitarian nature of salvation is lost, and the ‘Who’ of God becomes contingent upon the ‘What’ of the decree.
Pete,
Btw, thank you for inquiring about how I’m feeling! I am cancer-free — praise the Lord — and feeling really pretty strong (I have some issues of neuropathy in my feet, but they are slowly healing). Thanks for praying, brother π !
Hi Bobby,
Glad to hear that your recovery is continuing.
You provoked me to a lot of thought, so I will try and deal with a few things in turn. Forgive me for having so much to offload onto the discussion.
1. I think the two unions of ‘carnal’ and ‘spiritual’ are helpful ways of thinking about it. It draws a distinction between different unions, but doesn’t separate them. But isn’t this exactly what the language of ‘sufficient’ and ‘efficient’ is doing?
2. As Pete has already pointed out the mathematic caracture is not true of all CCs certainly. I’ve heard CCs explicitly criticise mathematic language and explain that particular atonement is actually about the intention of Christ. i.e. for whom he intended his death to be effective.
3. Your explanation of TFT’s understanding of Israel as called-for, and not called-out of the nations is perhaps a good way into the heart of things. Who could disagree that it was Israel’s calling to be a light to the nations, but they also were the means of God judging the nations too (e.g. the Canaanites). It would be fruitful to consider how this plays out in the foundational text of Genesis 12:3:
“I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
In this we can see:
(a) Calling of the seed to mediate blessing to the nations;
(b) God’s determination to curse of those who curse the seed;
(c) the primacy of blessing over cursing in the conclusion.
As you say there are two sides, but they are asymetrical to each other and they are fulfilled in Christ. That has to be true of sufficient and efficient too. Just as God stands asymetrically behind good and evil, life and death, he DOES stand behind them both. As Lutheranism talks about the proper and alien work of God in bringing life and death respectively, could we not also talk the same about unlimited and limited nature of the atonement?
4. You talk about the inexplicability of sin, and there is a right concern there not to make God the author of evil, but he is Lord over hardening of hearts, as he is over softening, although AGAIN ASYMETRICALLY. As Pete has said, you have only shifted the problem down the line. No longer is God’s will inexplicable, as the CCs and Calvin would argue, but it sin that is the ultimate inexplicablity. This does seem to weaken God’s sovereignty to me as it allows an ultimate outside of God.
5. I think you can see that there is a relationship between ‘sufficient’ and ‘efficient’ which parallels other doctrines:
Sufficient – Efficient
Revealed God – Hidden God
Revealed will – Secret will
These parallels are even more important if LA is about Christ’s intention rather than mathematics.
6. TF Torrance doesn’t like his dualities, and as I hear you I understand that sufficient/efficient would be one that he would dislike and like to deal with as a unified whole. I don’t know for sure what he would do with the doctrine of the Hidden God, but would be interested to know. However, I am with Oswald Bayer who argues that ‘unity of God’ (as the hidden/revealed, giver of life/death, law/gospel, known by faith/sight) can only be found in the eschaton, which we grasp by faith in the breaking in of that new reality in the person of Christ. But we live in the already and the not-yet, so we’re destined to live also in the world of duality and unity. So we also live in the world where in our understanding (which will be improved) Christ’s death is both sufficient for all and efficient for only some.
Bayer comments of the hidden God that he “does not allow himself to be addressed directly”, and is only “indirectly” the subject of theology. The same could perhaps be said of reprobation and the limited nature of the atonement. We can address all directly by saying “you are chosen in Christ”, while still saying indirectly of people that God chose some not all. We can say “Christ died for you”, while still saying “Christ didn’t die for all”, but never “Christ didn’t die for you” or even “I don’t know whether Christ died for you”.
On reflection there are two things I feel missing in EC in general, and I see them both missing in this discussion:
1. An real appreciation that God speaking to all of creation, which means he is ruling over all creation – even in it’s sin and death, he is revealing himself to all of creation – if not always in mercy. Here I think I’m leaning on Gustaf Wingren most of all.
2. A lack of appreciation for the duality of now/not-yet (which plays itself out in law/Gospel, faith/sight, one/three and I now have a new one – sufficient/effective!). Here I think I’m leaning on Oswald Bayer most of all.
Hi Dave B,
I don’t think your questions were directed at me but I liked them so much that I thought I would think about it for a bit. So this is my 2p worth:
1. The passage is not about either the ‘extent’ of the atonement, or the eternal decree of election, so why bother going there? Although 10:11 has some pedigree in these debates I don’t think you can say that the passage is about it at all.
2. As for application to evangelism, I think the chapters 9-10 has two things to say about why we should be unashamed about the message:
(a) it is obviously true (because of the miracles)
(b) it is good news (because Jesus is such a loving shepherd)
And the negative reactions we get don’t cause us to doubt the truth or goodness of the Gospel, because actually they are corollaries of that:
(a) the reason people reject the Gospel is because they have already made up their minds;
(b) the reason people reject the Gospel is because they have already made up their hearts. People love sin so (surprising as it is) goodness repels some (c.f. 3:19).
Dave K,
You’ve presented a lot here, not sure I’ll have the time to respond, in detail, to everything you present. But I think that dealing with the dulaity/unity is undergirding everything that you’re concerned with, and rightly so.
I think what you’re failing to identify with TF, is that he’s not arguing against duality in the terms that you have framed it. Instead he is obviously identifying duality, but not in its typical graeco/Roman metaphysically charged form — which I’m sensing, that this is the way you’re still approaching this.
He grounds duality in the ONE PERSON — Jesus Christ (time/eternity; sufficient/efficient; God’s so called absolute/ordained wills [the potientes]; etc). This way the way that we think about these things is framed christocentrically (not through abstract graecoisms), Trinitarianly/dynamically/personally (not qualitatively and substance dualistically). There’s no doubt that TF engages in Chrisitan reification and that he is working through certain lenses, but that’s the challenge of his theological realism (or critical).
I think you need to read, if you haven’t, TF’s “Theological Science and The Ground and Grammar of Theology”. And a really good book, just recently published, by Paul Molnar called: Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian of the Trinity. I think if you’ll spend the time reading these books your objections here will be answered (maybe not to your satisfication, but in re. to what and how TF Torrance thinks).
On evil being an ‘ultimate’ outside of God, and its inexplicability. This is not an ontological ‘ultimate’ for EC, it’s not an ‘ultimate’ at all (in light of the cross). The point to stating that it’s an inexplicability, is to underscore that we don’t understand it (its an epistemological noetic issue). It can be an issue of Deut 29.29.
I think the real struggle for those who tend to think more ‘classically’ is that EC just cannot be filtered through those lenses.
I also realize, as you say, that there are classical folks who denigrate the mathematical stuff; and that is laudable. But, then the question is how those same folks work within a ‘system’ that is in fact historically and currently (if consistent) shaped by a ‘system’ of tought that is deterministic logico/causal and mathematicl (or Aristotelian). I understand why folks would want to soften that, and historically it has been tried; but Aristotelian thought is what it is, it offers certain metaphysical and ontological categories — which present trajectories that are self-referencing and inescaple by way of their intended implications.
Okay, this was just an initial response, Dave K; I’ll be back to more methodocially and thoughtfully answer your points π .
Glad to hear you’re cancer-free. Praise the Lord indeed.
On LA etc., I’ll try to keep it simple (in actual fact, that’s probabaly the only way I can keep it). Yes, I believe scripture teaches that there is a definite number of the elect. How I understand the doctrine of LA is that God intended the atonement to be effective (by which I mean securing eternal salvation) for the elect alone. So it’s not a statement about the worth of Jesus’ death, but rather the intention. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the logical-causal stuff so I can’t really answer that. I just think the bible teaches that God both knew and intended that the cross would fully effect the salvation of those that it does in actual fact effect the salvation of.
(So I don’t think the doctrine necessarily rules out other senses in which Christ’s death gives some kinds of benefits to others, benefits falling short of eternal salvation. That’s by the by though I imagine)
‘You completely misconstrue how EC understands the atonement with your opt in/out language.’
Ok, thanks for the tip off, glad to be told where I’m not reading you correctly. I guess where I was coming from was your objective/ subjective distinction, rather than making assumptions about where you’re coming at with ‘traditional’ arminian stuff on where faith comes from/ semi-pelagianism. You seemed to be saying that the cross is objectively effective for everyone but not subjectively so without faith, am I right? To me that still limits the atonement far more than classical LA does, in that it limits it’s subjective effectiveness. Although I’m very far from understanding where you/ EC comes at these things from (which is partly why I’m engaging in discussion here), I can see where this is not the same as arminianism or amyraldianism and wasn’t really intending to flatten things out. In other words, I realise that there are more ‘voices’ in the ‘game’ – though I’m still trying to figure out what some of these voices are actually saying.
‘Pete mentions a change in referent here from extent of atonement to the Holy Spiritβs choice. I suppose in that context, the issue is whether Christ actually died for them or not. If not, then the Spirit is actually sidelined by a βdecreeβ; the βpersonalβ dynmaic and Trinitarian nature of salvation is lost, and the βWhoβ of God becomes contingent upon the βWhatβ of the decree.’
Here again, I’m not sure I get your categories (I’m trying, honest! π ). However, as far as I think I do get what you’re saying I’d simply disagree that the HS is being sidelined at all. The ‘decree’ to save the elect is after all the personal will of the Father whom the HS loves, and it’s a will that is from the Father through the Son and by the Spirit, like everything that the Triune God does and is.
???
π
Hey Pete,
I’m really glad that you and Dave K and others are pressing this issue; I appreciate that, it’s an important issue.
Let me respond to both your’s and Dave K’s concerns with EC via post — it’s worth a post-like response. I will just tip my hat, and say that the issue here is further back (in the life of God and revolving around election and predestination) than the focus presented by the ‘extent of the atonement’ (which is certainly a related issue, but I think we need to talk about election before we get to the ‘extent’ issues; which then will directly bear upon further discussion of the extent — really, what’s at stake, is a Doctrine of God).
Thanks Bobby. I’m appreciating the interaction too. It’s been a weird few weeks for me. First I found out that I care more about the doctrine of perseverance of the saints more than I thought, and now I find out that I care about limited atonement more than I thought too. Maybe I am a 5-point Calvinist with an identity problem. But as you say they’re important issues.
Funnily enough I’m actually mid way through Incarnation and listening to the MP3s of the Ground and Grammar book at the moment. I can’t pretend to fully grasp what TFT is saying though half the time though.
Briefly on inexplicablity, Deut 29.29 seems to me to support what I was trying to say. The ultimate inexplicablity is not in sin but is found in God himself.
Dave K,
I think that’s great that you’re reading Incarnation and listening to the Ground and Grammar of Theology. He’s not always easy to understand, but press on; I think it’s worth it!
On the Deut 29.29. I’m not even saying, per se, that ‘sin’ can be tied into some secret will of God (or a ‘God behind the back of Jesus’). I’m saying that I really think its inexplicable (there is no frame through which we can understand it). My point on the ‘ontology of sin’ above, is that it has none in lieu of the cross of Christ (everything is tied into Him as the firstborn over all creation). Sin is ‘non-being’ and thus irrational or inexplicable (not somehow hidden in a secret decree oriented volutaristically in God’s ‘absolute’ will).
I’m planning on responding more fully to you and Pete in a post in the days to come. Thanks, Dave K.
Bobby, that explanation of sin suddenly makes the most sense to me, e.g. how could sin in an eternal sense, make any sense at all? It defies all logic. It is confusion, and absense of order. How does one fit sin into the economy of the Trinity other than the fact that He utterly defeated sin?
I have more to say on this, but I’ll dummy up.
Thanks, Duane. I agree.