The book of Hebrews has been posed the most difficulty when dealing with the "L" and "P" in TULIP. The several warning passages, in Hebrews 6 and other places, have seemed to indicate that a true Christian can fall away. When examining the book of Hebrews, I have found that these passages, read in context, do teach that a believer can fall away. I also believe that they teach that Christ is the propitiation and mediator for all men without distinction. I will explain why I think Hebrews teaches both of these points.
First, view all of the falling away passages within the book:
"Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?" (Hebrews 2:1-3)
"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end." (Hebrews 3:12-14)
"Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it." (Hebrews 4:1)
"Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience." (Hebrews 4:11)
"For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned." (Hebrews 6:4-8)
"Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10:23-31)
"See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears." (Hebrews 12:16-17)
These passages are scattered through out the book. In fact, the book is structured around this concept. The author is warning these believers not to fall away. These are most likely Jews considering reverting to Judaism to escape persecution. To counter this, the author seeks to explain, in detail, how the New Covenant is superior to the old. How the reformed have typically dealt with these passages is to say that those who "fall away" are not truly believers. They are external members of the church. They were never regenerated, justified, saved, and Christ never died for these people.
However, to say that Christ was never the advocate for those who fall away is to destroy the argument of the book. He is urging them to remain within the faith precisely because Christ is their mediator. The argument essentially is "Christ is a better sacrifice than those of the old covenant; He is a better priest than those of the old covenant." The premise of the argument assumes that Christ is their mediator. How can they relapse into a worse mediator/priest/sacrifice if they never had a better one in the first place? It makes no sense.
Observe the following passages:
"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:14-16)
The author is assuming, without qualification, that Christ is the high priest of himself and all of his readers. He argues that because Christ is our high priest, let us not fall away from Him.
"We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:19-20)
"For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens." (Hebrews 7:26)
"Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven" (Hebrews 8:1)
"For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." (Hebrews 9:24)
"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)
Observe the following section of Hebrews chapter 10:
"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." (Hebrews 10:19-25)
This section is important for my thesis because it is part of a larger argument. He first reminds these believers of the confidence they can have with Christ as their mediator. He then tells these people to continue encouraging each other and not stop meeting together for worship. He then explains why they should do this:
"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth,there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again,"The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." " (Hebrews 10:26-31)
These two statements are directed toward the same group of people, the "we". He speaks of judgement for those who have been sanctified by the blood of Christ, have Christ as their high priest, are members of the new covenant, and had the Spirit of grace. The parallel the author makes is clear: those who were members of the old covenant who disobeyed were punished, therefore those who are members of the new covenant who disobey will be punished more. This is clearly not an "external membership" as some Presbyterians argue. It is clear that Christ Himself is the advocate, sacrifice, and mediator of these people. How can one "profane the blood" which was never given for him in the first place?
"and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven." (Hebrews 12:24-15)
The author states that it is possible to reject "him who is speaking." Who is speaking? He states that it is "Jesus...and...the sprinkled blood". One can reject the sprinkled blood of Christ which was indeed given for him.
The book of Hebrews in its structure and argument is clear: the blood of Christ was given for all, and those whom he died for will perish without Spirit given and sustained faith in the gospel.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Baptismal regeneration and reformed theology
I have been very frustrated trying to find Reformed arguments against the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration. This is one of the reasons I joined Lutheranism; the arguments for baptismal regeneration were very convincing and I could find no Reformed argument against them. I just recently picked up John Murray's book on baptism which I have been told is the best book from a reformed perspective on the subject. John Murray is certainly a competent scholar, and I learned much from his Redemption Accomplished and Applied, as well as his Romans commentary. However, when he addresses the issue of the efficacy of baptism in the last chapter of his book, he has a footnote stating that he will not address the issue of baptismal regeneration. He points the reader to Charles Hodge's systematic theology Volume III.
I read Hodge on this issue a couple years ago, and recently read it again. Hodge gives a very brief overview of the Lutheran view. He then refutes baptismal regeneration. However, when reading this section, I found that I agree with most of what he says. He only argues against the ex opera operato view of the Roman Catholic church. He does not even address the Lutheran view in his opposing arguments. I suppose that one could attribute this to mere ignorance of the Lutheran position, however, he clearly acknowledges its existence earlier in the volume.
So what is it? Why can the Reformed not even address the Lutheran view? It is as if our theological opinions are not even given a second glance. For the Calvinist, one is either a Calvinist or Arminian, believes in a Roman Catholic view of baptism or a symbolic one, holds to transubstantiation or denies the presence of Christ's human nature. This is why after 500 years leading Reformed theologians claim that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, the local presence of the human nature of Christ in all places, the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, synergism, etc. I have found that even in Reformed treatments of the Theology of Paul, the statements in his epistles on baptism are not even addressed. If they are addressed, the issue of baptismal regeneration is not.
If you are Reformed and reading this blog; there are other theological stances. Being a monergist does not mean you must be a five point Calvinist. Believing in Sola Fide does not mean that the sacraments are not efficacious.
I read Hodge on this issue a couple years ago, and recently read it again. Hodge gives a very brief overview of the Lutheran view. He then refutes baptismal regeneration. However, when reading this section, I found that I agree with most of what he says. He only argues against the ex opera operato view of the Roman Catholic church. He does not even address the Lutheran view in his opposing arguments. I suppose that one could attribute this to mere ignorance of the Lutheran position, however, he clearly acknowledges its existence earlier in the volume.
So what is it? Why can the Reformed not even address the Lutheran view? It is as if our theological opinions are not even given a second glance. For the Calvinist, one is either a Calvinist or Arminian, believes in a Roman Catholic view of baptism or a symbolic one, holds to transubstantiation or denies the presence of Christ's human nature. This is why after 500 years leading Reformed theologians claim that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, the local presence of the human nature of Christ in all places, the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, synergism, etc. I have found that even in Reformed treatments of the Theology of Paul, the statements in his epistles on baptism are not even addressed. If they are addressed, the issue of baptismal regeneration is not.
If you are Reformed and reading this blog; there are other theological stances. Being a monergist does not mean you must be a five point Calvinist. Believing in Sola Fide does not mean that the sacraments are not efficacious.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
1 Timothy 2:4
One of the clearest expressions of the universal grace of God comes from the book if 1 Timothy.
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men (pantas anthropous) to be saved (sothenai)and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all (panton) men—the testimony given in its proper time" (1 Timothy 2:3-6)
The controversy is over what the term "all men" means in this passage. Many interpreters see this as a statement that God wants every single person to be saved, and that Christ was given as a ransom for every single person.
The Calvinistic interpreters however, have interpreted this to mean simply "all kinds of men". The Calvinistic interpretation has some supporting from the previous verse which states, "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." This shows that he is referring to all kinds of men including regular citizens as well as those in authority.
While this interpretation is understandable, it would seem to necessitate that prayers should only be made for the elect. The "everyone" whom we should pray for, is linked to the "all men" whom God desires to be saved. Thus if the "all men" are only the elect among differing kinds of men, then the "everyone" for whom we must pray are only the elect among all kinds of men.
The meaning of this passage seems to be that because Christ died for every man, including those in authority, we should pray for every man, including those in authority.
There is much more evidence to support this view when one observes the rest of the epistle to Timothy. How does Timothy use the term "all" (pas) through out his epistle? There is another passage very similar in the book of Timothy which should be taken into careful consideration.
"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. " (I Timothy 4:9-10)
Paul, once again, uses the concept of salvation (the word used is soter)with the concept of "all men" (panton anthropon).
Clearly in 4:10, the "all men" are distinct from those who are believers. Believers are merely one section of the group "all men". This has often troubled interpreters because it has sounded universalistic. Does this verse mean that every individual will be saved? Well, to explain what Paul means by Christ being the savior of all men we must go to a point within the same writing where the same idea is being discussed. This brings us back to chapter 2:4-6. Here we see that Christ is the savior of "all men" in that he 1. desires them to be saved, and 2. gives Himself as a ransom for them.
To be a consistent exegete, it must be admitted that "all men" in I Timothy 2:4-6 cannot simply refer to "all kinds of men". Unless there is sufficient reason to think otherwise, we must assume that Paul uses the same word in the same way when it appears in a short epistle within the same context (the context being salvation, both instances using words with a sozo root).
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men (pantas anthropous) to be saved (sothenai)and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all (panton) men—the testimony given in its proper time" (1 Timothy 2:3-6)
The controversy is over what the term "all men" means in this passage. Many interpreters see this as a statement that God wants every single person to be saved, and that Christ was given as a ransom for every single person.
The Calvinistic interpreters however, have interpreted this to mean simply "all kinds of men". The Calvinistic interpretation has some supporting from the previous verse which states, "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." This shows that he is referring to all kinds of men including regular citizens as well as those in authority.
While this interpretation is understandable, it would seem to necessitate that prayers should only be made for the elect. The "everyone" whom we should pray for, is linked to the "all men" whom God desires to be saved. Thus if the "all men" are only the elect among differing kinds of men, then the "everyone" for whom we must pray are only the elect among all kinds of men.
The meaning of this passage seems to be that because Christ died for every man, including those in authority, we should pray for every man, including those in authority.
There is much more evidence to support this view when one observes the rest of the epistle to Timothy. How does Timothy use the term "all" (pas) through out his epistle? There is another passage very similar in the book of Timothy which should be taken into careful consideration.
"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. " (I Timothy 4:9-10)
Paul, once again, uses the concept of salvation (the word used is soter)with the concept of "all men" (panton anthropon).
Clearly in 4:10, the "all men" are distinct from those who are believers. Believers are merely one section of the group "all men". This has often troubled interpreters because it has sounded universalistic. Does this verse mean that every individual will be saved? Well, to explain what Paul means by Christ being the savior of all men we must go to a point within the same writing where the same idea is being discussed. This brings us back to chapter 2:4-6. Here we see that Christ is the savior of "all men" in that he 1. desires them to be saved, and 2. gives Himself as a ransom for them.
To be a consistent exegete, it must be admitted that "all men" in I Timothy 2:4-6 cannot simply refer to "all kinds of men". Unless there is sufficient reason to think otherwise, we must assume that Paul uses the same word in the same way when it appears in a short epistle within the same context (the context being salvation, both instances using words with a sozo root).
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Are there non-regenerate believers?
The reformed when debating a Lutheran view of apostasy argue that the "falling away" passages refer to those who only had the appearance of being regenerate. They were never true Christians in the first place. Examine the characteristics of these false Christians.
They can:
be enlightened (Hebrews 6:4)
taste the heavenly gift (Hebrews 6:4)
share the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:4)
taste the goodness of God's word (Hebrews 6:5)
receive eschatological blessings (Hebrews 6:5)
repent (Hebrews 6:6)
understand the truth (James 5:9)
receive grace (Galatians 5:4)
be in fellowship with Christ (Galatians 5:4)
receive the gospel (Matthew 13:20)
have joy in the truth (Matthew 13:20)
have been bought by the Lord (2 Peter 2:1)
escape the evils of the world (2 Peter 2:20)
know Jesus Christ (2 Peter 2:20)
Compare this with what is said in scripture about unbelievers:
they have darkened hearts (Romans 1:21)
their thinking is futile (Romans 1:21)
they have no understanding (Romans 3:11)
they do not seek God (Romans 3:11)
they do no good (Romans 3:12)
they are hostile to God (Romans 8:7)
they cannot submit to God's law (Romans 8:7)
they cannot please God (Romans 8:8)
their minds are defiled (Titus 1:16)
they are slaves to sin (Romans 6:6)
they hate the light (John 3:20)
they are alienated from Christ (Colossians 1:21)
they cannot understand the gospel (I Corinthians 2:14)
they are blinded from seeing Christ (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
they cannot receive the Spirit (John 14:16)
they are unable to come to Christ (John 6:44)
Is it possible that these descriptions can all apply to the same group of people? Can these blessings of the first list be applied to those in the second? This would mean that men can receive the word with joy but be unable to understand the word, share in the Spirit but not be able to receive the Spirit, have no understanding and blinded minds but understand the truth, taste the goodness of God's word yet be unable to understand His word, be alienated from Christ yet be in fellowship with him, be enlightened but have no understanding, be in slavery to sin yet repent and escape the evils of the world, receive grace but not salvation, and know Christ but are unable to come to Him.
The conclusion is unavoidable; these verses cannot be referring to the same group of people. Those who fall away have truly been saved and have been severed from Christ.
They can:
be enlightened (Hebrews 6:4)
taste the heavenly gift (Hebrews 6:4)
share the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 6:4)
taste the goodness of God's word (Hebrews 6:5)
receive eschatological blessings (Hebrews 6:5)
repent (Hebrews 6:6)
understand the truth (James 5:9)
receive grace (Galatians 5:4)
be in fellowship with Christ (Galatians 5:4)
receive the gospel (Matthew 13:20)
have joy in the truth (Matthew 13:20)
have been bought by the Lord (2 Peter 2:1)
escape the evils of the world (2 Peter 2:20)
know Jesus Christ (2 Peter 2:20)
Compare this with what is said in scripture about unbelievers:
they have darkened hearts (Romans 1:21)
their thinking is futile (Romans 1:21)
they have no understanding (Romans 3:11)
they do not seek God (Romans 3:11)
they do no good (Romans 3:12)
they are hostile to God (Romans 8:7)
they cannot submit to God's law (Romans 8:7)
they cannot please God (Romans 8:8)
their minds are defiled (Titus 1:16)
they are slaves to sin (Romans 6:6)
they hate the light (John 3:20)
they are alienated from Christ (Colossians 1:21)
they cannot understand the gospel (I Corinthians 2:14)
they are blinded from seeing Christ (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
they cannot receive the Spirit (John 14:16)
they are unable to come to Christ (John 6:44)
Is it possible that these descriptions can all apply to the same group of people? Can these blessings of the first list be applied to those in the second? This would mean that men can receive the word with joy but be unable to understand the word, share in the Spirit but not be able to receive the Spirit, have no understanding and blinded minds but understand the truth, taste the goodness of God's word yet be unable to understand His word, be alienated from Christ yet be in fellowship with him, be enlightened but have no understanding, be in slavery to sin yet repent and escape the evils of the world, receive grace but not salvation, and know Christ but are unable to come to Him.
The conclusion is unavoidable; these verses cannot be referring to the same group of people. Those who fall away have truly been saved and have been severed from Christ.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Progressive sanctification
Most of the time the Christian life is split up into two categories: justification and sanctification. It often is explained so that justification is the beginning of the Christian life wherein one is declared righteous for Christ's sake, and sanctification is now the Christian life in which we try to follow God's law and gradually get "better". Though I believe the justification/sanctification distinction to be a valid and Biblical one, I worry that this explanation has separated the Christian life from our justification.
I would like to posit that sanctification should not be seen as a process of the Christian gradually becoming better, but of God's work in raising the new justified man and destroying the old Adam. Sanctification in scripture is often described as an objective event as is justification. "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 6:11) In the same way, we are described as already being participants in the resurrection. "Since then you have been raised with Christ..." (Colossians 3:1)In this way, the life of the Christian is one in which he is both totally sinner and totally righteous. According to his old nature man is still totally sinner, but according to his new nature he is totally righteous. This best explains the conflict described in Galatians 5:17, "For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want."
Notice how Paul describes his struggle with sin in Romans 7 (yes I believe this is Paul's Christian life but that will be a discussion for another time). "As it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living within me." (Romans 7:17) Paul, as a new justified regenerated man is claiming that this sin is not his own, but belonging to his sinful nature. This is why the Christian life can be described as a gradual resurrection (Romans 8:11)
This way of looking at sanctification puts a closer connection between the indicative and the imperative. It is not that the indicative is merely a background for the imperative, but the imperative is the working out of the indicative. The change in the Christian life is the eschatological reality of the resurrected justified man breaking in to the present. It is the age of the second Adam breaking in to the age of the first. As Christians, we are in a struggle with the old Adamic reality clinging to us, and the new justified man living in Christ.
Put to death the old Adam and let the eschatological reality of a man righteous in Christ shine forth.
I would like to posit that sanctification should not be seen as a process of the Christian gradually becoming better, but of God's work in raising the new justified man and destroying the old Adam. Sanctification in scripture is often described as an objective event as is justification. "But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God." (1 Corinthians 6:11) In the same way, we are described as already being participants in the resurrection. "Since then you have been raised with Christ..." (Colossians 3:1)In this way, the life of the Christian is one in which he is both totally sinner and totally righteous. According to his old nature man is still totally sinner, but according to his new nature he is totally righteous. This best explains the conflict described in Galatians 5:17, "For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want."
Notice how Paul describes his struggle with sin in Romans 7 (yes I believe this is Paul's Christian life but that will be a discussion for another time). "As it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living within me." (Romans 7:17) Paul, as a new justified regenerated man is claiming that this sin is not his own, but belonging to his sinful nature. This is why the Christian life can be described as a gradual resurrection (Romans 8:11)
This way of looking at sanctification puts a closer connection between the indicative and the imperative. It is not that the indicative is merely a background for the imperative, but the imperative is the working out of the indicative. The change in the Christian life is the eschatological reality of the resurrected justified man breaking in to the present. It is the age of the second Adam breaking in to the age of the first. As Christians, we are in a struggle with the old Adamic reality clinging to us, and the new justified man living in Christ.
Put to death the old Adam and let the eschatological reality of a man righteous in Christ shine forth.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
This has often been a verse used to argue against a Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement and reprobation. Jesus here seems to be saying that he wanted to gather these men to themselves though they, through their own disobedience, rejected his offer.
Unfortunately, this argument has been weakened by Dave Hunt and the like. Arminians have often misquoted this verse saying, "how often I would have gathered you together". This would change the meaning of the verse so that Jesus is telling those whom he is speaking to that he wanted to gather them together.
However, despite this verse being often misquoted, I still think it can be used to argue for a universal saving will in God. Jesus is here talking to the leaders of Jerusalem rather than Jerusalem itself. He is saying that he wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem together, but their corrupt leaders would not allow him.
James White and others have argued that because Jesus is talking to the leaders rather than the people of Jerusalem themselves, this verse cannot be used to support a universal saving will in God. I, however, disagree. The fact still remains that Christ wept because these people were not saved, and longed for them to be saved. The fact that he is talking to their leaders rather than the people themselves makes no difference.
There is a clear instance in this verse of Christ stating that he longed to save those who were not saved, and even wept at their lack of salvation. Though God has from eternity elected specific men unto salvation, he has a will to truly offer salvation to all.
This has often been a verse used to argue against a Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement and reprobation. Jesus here seems to be saying that he wanted to gather these men to themselves though they, through their own disobedience, rejected his offer.
Unfortunately, this argument has been weakened by Dave Hunt and the like. Arminians have often misquoted this verse saying, "how often I would have gathered you together". This would change the meaning of the verse so that Jesus is telling those whom he is speaking to that he wanted to gather them together.
However, despite this verse being often misquoted, I still think it can be used to argue for a universal saving will in God. Jesus is here talking to the leaders of Jerusalem rather than Jerusalem itself. He is saying that he wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem together, but their corrupt leaders would not allow him.
James White and others have argued that because Jesus is talking to the leaders rather than the people of Jerusalem themselves, this verse cannot be used to support a universal saving will in God. I, however, disagree. The fact still remains that Christ wept because these people were not saved, and longed for them to be saved. The fact that he is talking to their leaders rather than the people themselves makes no difference.
There is a clear instance in this verse of Christ stating that he longed to save those who were not saved, and even wept at their lack of salvation. Though God has from eternity elected specific men unto salvation, he has a will to truly offer salvation to all.
Practical implications of limited atonement
I at one time believed in the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. This doctrine states that Christ died solely for his elect. Christ offers the gospel to all yet did not actually die for all. I have struggled through this doctrine for many years now. Despite the fact that this doctrine is exegetically unfounded, it has many negative practical implications.
First of all, with this doctrine one can never be sure if Christ actually died for him. I, for example, have doubted my election at times. How do I know if I am elect? And if I am not elect then Christ did not die for me! Ultimately then, the doctrine pushes me into looking at the eternal decree of God for my assurance. How can I tell if I am among the elect? The answer usually given is that I know by my faith. However, there is true and false faith, and I must test myself to see whether or not my faith is real faith. According to a reformed exegesis of Hebrews chapter 6, a false faith can still cause one to repent, taste the heavenly gift and share in the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, I must look at the quality of my works and see if they are Spirit wrought. My assurance is in my inner transformation, not in the gospel. There is simply no way around it; I ultimately never know if Christ actually died for me except for the amount and quality of my good works. I know that when I look inward, as when reading Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections, I see my sin and simply doubt my faith.
A Calvinist will object that they believe in a "free offer of the gospel" because they are not hyper Calvinists. Thus, I can trust in this universal offer. However, I must ask: Is this really a universal offer? How can God offer something he has not actually paid for? Can he really tell me I can accept the death of Christ while it in fact has never been paid for me?
The other hard issue to deal with is in Evangelism. As a Calvinist I could not freely offer the death of Christ to unbelievers. I would make my way around it by saying "believe on Christ's death because he has died for believers". While this is true I could never look at an unbeliever and say "trust in Christ's work accomplished on your behalf!" If I were to see my brother in despair I cannot look them in the eyes and say "do not despair! His righteousness is yours! He has fulfilled the law and its curse on your behalf!" However, as an adherent of the Book of Concord I can proclaim to all men "believe upon Christ who has paid the penalty for your sin!"
First of all, with this doctrine one can never be sure if Christ actually died for him. I, for example, have doubted my election at times. How do I know if I am elect? And if I am not elect then Christ did not die for me! Ultimately then, the doctrine pushes me into looking at the eternal decree of God for my assurance. How can I tell if I am among the elect? The answer usually given is that I know by my faith. However, there is true and false faith, and I must test myself to see whether or not my faith is real faith. According to a reformed exegesis of Hebrews chapter 6, a false faith can still cause one to repent, taste the heavenly gift and share in the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, I must look at the quality of my works and see if they are Spirit wrought. My assurance is in my inner transformation, not in the gospel. There is simply no way around it; I ultimately never know if Christ actually died for me except for the amount and quality of my good works. I know that when I look inward, as when reading Jonathan Edwards' Religious Affections, I see my sin and simply doubt my faith.
A Calvinist will object that they believe in a "free offer of the gospel" because they are not hyper Calvinists. Thus, I can trust in this universal offer. However, I must ask: Is this really a universal offer? How can God offer something he has not actually paid for? Can he really tell me I can accept the death of Christ while it in fact has never been paid for me?
The other hard issue to deal with is in Evangelism. As a Calvinist I could not freely offer the death of Christ to unbelievers. I would make my way around it by saying "believe on Christ's death because he has died for believers". While this is true I could never look at an unbeliever and say "trust in Christ's work accomplished on your behalf!" If I were to see my brother in despair I cannot look them in the eyes and say "do not despair! His righteousness is yours! He has fulfilled the law and its curse on your behalf!" However, as an adherent of the Book of Concord I can proclaim to all men "believe upon Christ who has paid the penalty for your sin!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)