I checked out a kids book from the church library- baby Noah and the Ark. I checked it out, let my daughter read it, then promptly lost it when I got home. I scoured everywhere, even the garage and it's like that book never existed, except now I owe them their book. Not money, not an equivalent weight in books, not a stack of papers, not even a replacement book, I owe them that book with the sticker which reads "property of First Baptist Church" on it, and the edges of the pages flayed from age and abuse. I am hopelessly unable to deliver on my debt.
But what if someone were to pay that debt? They couldn't come in and throw money at the librarian, since she's under no obligation to accept that. But! But if someone were to come in with the same copy, a working perfect equivalent and that person was able to negotiate (or persuade) the librarian to accept the new book in place of the old and I agreed to it and any other terms the librarian laid down, then, (and only then) would I be absolved of my debt.
And the cross is just this way. Christ pays our debt on a substutionary basis, which does not mean that He paid for my and only my sins, but that He is a qualified substitute for me. The father is pleased to accept the arrangement, and when I accept Him by faith I meet His terms and receive eternal life.
Showing posts with label Moderate Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moderate Calvinism. Show all posts
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The verse that makes you a moderate Calvinist II
Jude 1:5 "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe"
Hyper Calvinists assert that Christ died only to pay the penalty due the elect alone and did nothing for the non-elect. "For if Christ intended to save the non-elect" they argue "then they would no longer be non-elect, they would by definition be elect. Yet they are in hell, so obviously He did not intend to save them, which means His death was of no use to them. He did in no way die for them."
With great difficulty the occasional hyper Calvinist may be argued down to the position where he assents that Christ's death is sufficient to save everyone, theoretically, because Christ's blood is of limitless value, but they would compare it thusly: if I invited George Washington to sleep at my house for the night there is room enough in the house, there is no deficiency in the house, but the corpse is not going to make good on my offer, therefore I never intended to have G.W. over.
While that has a certain appeal in being able to easily understand the mission and motive of Christ (save the elect) we must first ask ourselves, is this Biblical?
The answer is ultimately no, because of the Jude passage which speaks to this point exactly. Jesus saved a people out of Egypt, but then because of their unbelief destroyed them. Christ dying to save mankind and then condemning them for their sins is therefore not only in character for Him, but an action that has historical precedent. Jude felt that this aspect of God's character was so important that He was giving a special note to it. Paul too has this same thought in 1 Corinthians 10:1-6 "For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did."
Moderate Calvinism is then the only one which can successfully make sense of these two passages: Christ's death is for all mankind, but especially for those who believe and are thereby saved fully. For just because the children of Israel didn't make it into the promise land didn't mean they were not delivered from slavery in Egypt.
The hyper Calvinist will attempt to hold fast to his worldview by reading the word saved as separated. Jesus did not save them, but culled them so that He might pour His great fury on them in the wilderness. "Yes God drew them out of Egypt, but since they perished in the wilderness it was His will to destroy them, therefore God drew them out to destroy them." To this, three answers. (Likewise, since Jude established a connection between the desert wanderings and our faith, each of these arguments is directly applicable to the satisfaction provided by Christ on behalf of all mankind.)
If the Bible says that the problem with men not being saved is in their lack of faith, then we should insist that lack of faith not sufficient atonement is the problem. Jude is a warning that the failure mechanism lies with us, not God's intention for us. If people end up in hell it's because of their own lack of faith, not because of a sufficient provision. Not because Christ didn't atone for their sins, but because they didn't accept His offer.
Thus, moderate Calvinism is the only one which allows us to make sense of this passage.
Hyper Calvinists assert that Christ died only to pay the penalty due the elect alone and did nothing for the non-elect. "For if Christ intended to save the non-elect" they argue "then they would no longer be non-elect, they would by definition be elect. Yet they are in hell, so obviously He did not intend to save them, which means His death was of no use to them. He did in no way die for them."
With great difficulty the occasional hyper Calvinist may be argued down to the position where he assents that Christ's death is sufficient to save everyone, theoretically, because Christ's blood is of limitless value, but they would compare it thusly: if I invited George Washington to sleep at my house for the night there is room enough in the house, there is no deficiency in the house, but the corpse is not going to make good on my offer, therefore I never intended to have G.W. over.
While that has a certain appeal in being able to easily understand the mission and motive of Christ (save the elect) we must first ask ourselves, is this Biblical?
The answer is ultimately no, because of the Jude passage which speaks to this point exactly. Jesus saved a people out of Egypt, but then because of their unbelief destroyed them. Christ dying to save mankind and then condemning them for their sins is therefore not only in character for Him, but an action that has historical precedent. Jude felt that this aspect of God's character was so important that He was giving a special note to it. Paul too has this same thought in 1 Corinthians 10:1-6 "For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did."
Moderate Calvinism is then the only one which can successfully make sense of these two passages: Christ's death is for all mankind, but especially for those who believe and are thereby saved fully. For just because the children of Israel didn't make it into the promise land didn't mean they were not delivered from slavery in Egypt.
The hyper Calvinist will attempt to hold fast to his worldview by reading the word saved as separated. Jesus did not save them, but culled them so that He might pour His great fury on them in the wilderness. "Yes God drew them out of Egypt, but since they perished in the wilderness it was His will to destroy them, therefore God drew them out to destroy them." To this, three answers. (Likewise, since Jude established a connection between the desert wanderings and our faith, each of these arguments is directly applicable to the satisfaction provided by Christ on behalf of all mankind.)
- It's expressly and explicitly against Scriptures. Deuteronomy 6:21,23 "then you shall say to your son, 'We were Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt. And the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand....And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers"
- It's against reason. Why should God rescue them and not merely let them perish with the wonders in Egypt when He poured the plagues on them?
- The word saved is the same found in Matthew 1:21.
- It sows confusion into the text. When Moses begged God on behalf of Israel, what did he say? Exodus 32:11 "Why should the Egyptians say, 'With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people." For His glory, and because Moses asked, God relented. Yet if the hypers are right this passage makes no sense, because it was always God's intention to destroy them, certainly not to allow Moses to intercede.
If the Bible says that the problem with men not being saved is in their lack of faith, then we should insist that lack of faith not sufficient atonement is the problem. Jude is a warning that the failure mechanism lies with us, not God's intention for us. If people end up in hell it's because of their own lack of faith, not because of a sufficient provision. Not because Christ didn't atone for their sins, but because they didn't accept His offer.
Thus, moderate Calvinism is the only one which allows us to make sense of this passage.
Friday, March 18, 2011
It takes two to reconcile
Reconciliation is by definition a two person event.
It's hard to understate the force of this statement, or the consequences that must have on our understanding of theology. Moderate Calvinism, which asserts that God has procured salvation for all men upon condition of belief, is the only workable idea given the nature of reconciliation, a process whereby both God and man come together.
Before our relationship can be restored, God, as the injured party, must first be willing (or in this case, able) to forgive. Because He is a just God Ps 111:7, and His justice demands punishment upon sinful men, Is 13:11, His wrath must first be appeased.
The word ἱλασμός rendered propitiation most nearly speaks to this, that the only way God could be finally appeased was by the perfect sacrifice of Christ. It's the word in 1 John 2:2- Jesus has made a propitiation not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.
The hyper-calvinist take this verse to speak exclusively of the elect, that is, Jesus atones for the sins of the elect, and not only the elect, but the elect as well, but it's not conceivable that this sin offering to God would be good for only the elect, because it satisfies the justice of God, and in a sense moves God from unwilling to forgive, to willing. It is not to man, but to God that propitiation speaks. God's wrath is satisfied, not mans sinfulness, for if that were the case we would be saved apart from faith.
That the Bible speaks about the forgiving disposition of God indicates this principle as well, Eze 18:23, Eze 33:11, Jer 27:17, Luke 13:34 speak of God as pleading for men to come back, which indicate that His fierce wrath has been in some way appeased. Therefore God can earnestly desire the salvation of all men, 1 Tim 2:4 not merely the elect, because He invites all, having removed the debt against them as long as they draw breath. The offering Jesus makes on the cross being toward God, as a man, is therefore to the benefit of all men.
For their part men must want to come back before they can be reconciled, which is why God urges men to take freely of the water of life, to come and experience the free gift, Rev 3:20, to turn and be saved. Men demonstrate their return to God by possessing faith, by putting their trust in Christ, by doing what He has demanded of them John 6:29, and since all men have the natural ability to do this, all men may be benefited and saved by the death of Christ. In other words, God invites all to return because all men can return, and when they do both they, and God, have come together for reconciliation.
Once both sides have been brought together, they have between themselves reconciliation, the word in Romans 5:11, or 2 Cor 5:18 καταλλαγή, which speaks to a final, ultimate, peace between God and the saved.
It is here only that we may make the distinction between elect and non-elect, and we can say whether or not Christ's blood is of ultimate benefit or not. The elect are the ones who by God's secret council and power come back because they desire God, the reprobate are the ones who don't.
Which leads me to the bottom line of the post: although there is reconciliation only between the elect and God, we must be careful that we don't assert the atonement, which is part of the equation, is only for the elect.
It's hard to understate the force of this statement, or the consequences that must have on our understanding of theology. Moderate Calvinism, which asserts that God has procured salvation for all men upon condition of belief, is the only workable idea given the nature of reconciliation, a process whereby both God and man come together.
Before our relationship can be restored, God, as the injured party, must first be willing (or in this case, able) to forgive. Because He is a just God Ps 111:7, and His justice demands punishment upon sinful men, Is 13:11, His wrath must first be appeased.
The word ἱλασμός rendered propitiation most nearly speaks to this, that the only way God could be finally appeased was by the perfect sacrifice of Christ. It's the word in 1 John 2:2- Jesus has made a propitiation not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.
The hyper-calvinist take this verse to speak exclusively of the elect, that is, Jesus atones for the sins of the elect, and not only the elect, but the elect as well, but it's not conceivable that this sin offering to God would be good for only the elect, because it satisfies the justice of God, and in a sense moves God from unwilling to forgive, to willing. It is not to man, but to God that propitiation speaks. God's wrath is satisfied, not mans sinfulness, for if that were the case we would be saved apart from faith.
That the Bible speaks about the forgiving disposition of God indicates this principle as well, Eze 18:23, Eze 33:11, Jer 27:17, Luke 13:34 speak of God as pleading for men to come back, which indicate that His fierce wrath has been in some way appeased. Therefore God can earnestly desire the salvation of all men, 1 Tim 2:4 not merely the elect, because He invites all, having removed the debt against them as long as they draw breath. The offering Jesus makes on the cross being toward God, as a man, is therefore to the benefit of all men.
For their part men must want to come back before they can be reconciled, which is why God urges men to take freely of the water of life, to come and experience the free gift, Rev 3:20, to turn and be saved. Men demonstrate their return to God by possessing faith, by putting their trust in Christ, by doing what He has demanded of them John 6:29, and since all men have the natural ability to do this, all men may be benefited and saved by the death of Christ. In other words, God invites all to return because all men can return, and when they do both they, and God, have come together for reconciliation.
Once both sides have been brought together, they have between themselves reconciliation, the word in Romans 5:11, or 2 Cor 5:18 καταλλαγή, which speaks to a final, ultimate, peace between God and the saved.
It is here only that we may make the distinction between elect and non-elect, and we can say whether or not Christ's blood is of ultimate benefit or not. The elect are the ones who by God's secret council and power come back because they desire God, the reprobate are the ones who don't.
Which leads me to the bottom line of the post: although there is reconciliation only between the elect and God, we must be careful that we don't assert the atonement, which is part of the equation, is only for the elect.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
God as the author of sin
How can God be the author of sin and not be the cause of it?
Think of a man writing symphony. He pens the notes for the instruments he wants to hear from, when he wants, as he wants, because he is sovereign over the piece. He pens the duration of each note, the volume, the thematic elements in it. But there is something else is in this symphony that he doesn't write and yet he not only authors but uses: silence.
The man doesn't write the silence in the same way as he writes the notes, yet the silence serves to greatly enhance the beauty (or glory) of the piece. The man is still sovereign over the silence, make no mistake, but it does not flow from his work but arises by the absence of his work.
Think of silence as sin, the notes as God's positive decrees, and the symphony of God's unfolding plan for our universe.
Think of a man writing symphony. He pens the notes for the instruments he wants to hear from, when he wants, as he wants, because he is sovereign over the piece. He pens the duration of each note, the volume, the thematic elements in it. But there is something else is in this symphony that he doesn't write and yet he not only authors but uses: silence.
The man doesn't write the silence in the same way as he writes the notes, yet the silence serves to greatly enhance the beauty (or glory) of the piece. The man is still sovereign over the silence, make no mistake, but it does not flow from his work but arises by the absence of his work.
Think of silence as sin, the notes as God's positive decrees, and the symphony of God's unfolding plan for our universe.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Theology of Moody
Mr. MOODY–For whom, then, did Christ die?
Mr. RAINSFORD-For "THE UNGODLY."
Who is it that judges a man to be unworthy of eternal life?
Himself !! There is a verse in Acts 13 that is worth remembering : "Seeing ye put it [the Word of God] from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." God does not judge us unworthy. He has given His Son for our salvation. When a man puts away the Word of God from him and refuses to receive Christ into his heart, he judges himself unworthy of salvation.
Suppose a man say he is not "elected?
Do you remember the story of the woman of Canaan? Poor soul; she had come a long journey. She asked the Lord to have mercy on her afflicted child. He wanted to try her faith, and He said: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." That looked as if He Himself told her that she was not one of the elect. But she came and worshipped Him, saying, " Lord, help me!" and He helped her there and then. No; there is no election separating between the sinner and Christ.
Say that again.
THERE IS NO ELECTION SEPARATING BETWEEN THE SINNER AND CHRIST.
Has a man the power to believe these things, if he will?
When God gives a command, it means that we are able by His grace to do it.
Mr. MOODY–Have these friends the power to believe?
Mr. RADSTOCK–They are commanded to believe. They can believe it just as well as they can believe any other fact, if they only listen to God's voice. But they must get rid of their own thoughts, and listen to God: Hearing His voice they will believe. "Faith cometh by hearing: and hearing by the Word of God."
What would you say to any one who thinks he has no power to believe?
He has the power to believe. Probably he is trying to believe something about himself, to feel something about himself instead of giving credit to God-He is not asked to realize this or that about himself, but to believe the faithful God.
-This is interesting to me because because of how consumed Moody is with the idea of man as a sinner who needs to repent. The idea of election and reprobation was secondary to the idea of man being sinful before God. Man as a man who owes God, rather than thinking in terms of election.
Mr. RAINSFORD-For "THE UNGODLY."
Who is it that judges a man to be unworthy of eternal life?
Himself !! There is a verse in Acts 13 that is worth remembering : "Seeing ye put it [the Word of God] from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." God does not judge us unworthy. He has given His Son for our salvation. When a man puts away the Word of God from him and refuses to receive Christ into his heart, he judges himself unworthy of salvation.
Suppose a man say he is not "elected?
Do you remember the story of the woman of Canaan? Poor soul; she had come a long journey. She asked the Lord to have mercy on her afflicted child. He wanted to try her faith, and He said: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." That looked as if He Himself told her that she was not one of the elect. But she came and worshipped Him, saying, " Lord, help me!" and He helped her there and then. No; there is no election separating between the sinner and Christ.
Say that again.
THERE IS NO ELECTION SEPARATING BETWEEN THE SINNER AND CHRIST.
Has a man the power to believe these things, if he will?
When God gives a command, it means that we are able by His grace to do it.
Mr. MOODY–Have these friends the power to believe?
Mr. RADSTOCK–They are commanded to believe. They can believe it just as well as they can believe any other fact, if they only listen to God's voice. But they must get rid of their own thoughts, and listen to God: Hearing His voice they will believe. "Faith cometh by hearing: and hearing by the Word of God."
What would you say to any one who thinks he has no power to believe?
He has the power to believe. Probably he is trying to believe something about himself, to feel something about himself instead of giving credit to God-He is not asked to realize this or that about himself, but to believe the faithful God.
-This is interesting to me because because of how consumed Moody is with the idea of man as a sinner who needs to repent. The idea of election and reprobation was secondary to the idea of man being sinful before God. Man as a man who owes God, rather than thinking in terms of election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)