# John Piper on Limited Atonement



## Sonoftheday

I recently listened to John Pipers messages over the TULIP. He presented the L in a way I had never heard it and I was wondering how it aligned with the reformers position on the doctrine.

He basically said that Christ died potentially for every human being, they must only exercise faith to recieve it. However, Christ only purchased irresistible Grace for the elect, therefore they are the only ones who can exercise faith.


----------



## MW

Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.


----------



## toddpedlar

I'd have to hear the message, but if you've presented it accurately I fail to see how it's consistent with the confessions, which present the death of Christ in rather different terms. I don't see any justification for Christ "purchasing" irresistible grace. Christ's death is the atoning sacrifice for the elect, and only for the elect - the irresistible grace of God is something that is applied by God in order to bring forth faith in His elect, for whom Christ died. To say that Christ died "potentially" for each and every individual seems to me to be a kowtowing to those who really don't accept L.


----------



## Barnpreacher

What John Piper believes about the L in Tulip:



> 4. Irresistible Grace
> The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.
> 
> In Acts 7:51 Stephen says to the Jewish leaders, "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did." And Paul speaks of grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). God gives many entreaties and promptings which are resisted. In fact the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament is one protracted story of resistance, as the parable of the wicked tenants shows (Matthew 21:33-43; cf. Romans 10:21).
> 
> The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.
> 
> This is what Paul taught in Romans 9:14-18, which caused his opponent to say, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" To which Paul answers: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (Romans 9:20f).
> 
> More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.
> 
> Someone may say, "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing." Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be "unable to submit to God." If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures.
> 
> In John 6:44 Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." This drawing is the sovereign work of grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. Again some say, "He draws all men, not just some." But this simply evades the clear implication of the context that the Father's "drawing" is why some believe and not others.
> 
> Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, "'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'"
> 
> Notice two things.
> 
> First, notice that coming to Jesus is called a gift. It is not just an opportunity. Coming to Jesus is "given" to some and not to others.
> 
> Second, notice that the reason Jesus says this, is to explain why "there are some who do not believe." We could paraphrase it like this: Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe on him in spite of all the teaching and invitations he received. And because he knew this, he explains it with the words, No one comes to me unless it is given to him by my Father. Judas was not given to Jesus. There were many influences on his life for good. But the decisive, irresistible gift of grace was not given.
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, "The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth."
> 
> Here, as in John 6:65 repentance is called a gift of God. Notice, he is not saying merely that salvation is a gift of God. He is saying that the prerequisites of salvation are also a gift. When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God "irresistible grace".
> 
> NOTE: It should be obvious from this that irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will. That would even be a contradiction in terms. On the contrary, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching and witnessing that tries to persuade people to do what is reasonable and what will accord with their best interests.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 says, "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Notice the two kinds of "calls" implied in this text.
> 
> First, the preaching of Paul goes out to all, both Jews and Greeks. This is the general call of the gospel. It offers salvation to all who will believe on the crucified Christ. But by and large it falls on unreceptive ears and is called foolishness.
> 
> But then, secondly, Paul refers to another kind of call. He says that among those who hear there are some who are "called" in such a way that they no longer regard the cross as foolishness but as the wisdom and power of God. What else can this call be but the irresistible call of God out of darkness into the light of God? If ALL who are called in this sense regard the cross as the power of God, then something in the call must effect the faith. This is irresistible grace.
> 
> It is further explained in 2 Corinthians 4:4-6, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God...It is the God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
> 
> Since men are blinded to the worth of Christ, a miracle is needed in order for them to come to see and believe. Paul compares this miracle with the first day of creation when God said, "Let there be light." It is in fact a new creation, or a new birth. This is what is meant by the effectual call in 1 Corinthians 1:24.
> 
> Those who are called have their eyes opened by the sovereign creative power of God so that they no longer see the cross as foolishness but as the power and the wisdom of God. The effectual call is the miracle of having our blindness removed. This is irresistible grace.
> 
> Another example of it is in Acts 16:14, where Lydia is listening to the preaching of Paul. Luke says, "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul." Unless God opens our hearts, we will not heed the message of the gospel. This heart-opening is what we mean by irresistible grace.
> 
> Another way to describe it is "new birth" or being born again. We believe that new birth is a miraculous creation of God that enables a formerly "dead" person to receive Christ and so be saved. We do not think that faith precedes and causes new birth. Faith is the evidence that God has begotten us anew. "Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1).
> 
> When John says that God gives the right to become the children of God to all who receive Christ (John 1:12), he goes on to say that those who do receive Christ "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." In other words, it is necessary to receive Christ in order to become a child of God, but the birth that brings one into the family of God is not possible by the will of man.
> 
> Man is dead in trespasses and sins. He cannot make himself new, or create new life in himself. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he immediately receives Christ. The two acts (regeneration and faith) are so closely connected that in experience we cannot distinguish them. God begets us anew and the first glimmer of life in the new-born child is faith. Thus new birth is the effect of irresistible grace, because it is an act of sovereign creation—"not of the will of man but of God."



What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

This is poison?


----------



## toddpedlar

Barnpreacher said:


> What John Piper believes about the L in Tulip:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Irresistible Grace
> The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.
Click to expand...


What you noted was his teaching on Irresistible grace (at least, some of it, since
he apparently has taught that irresistible grace is something Christ purchases for the
elect). What about L? His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
already... and *that* is poisonous.


----------



## Barnpreacher

toddpedlar said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What John Piper believes about the L in Tulip:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Irresistible Grace
> The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you noted was his teaching on Irresistible grace (at least, some of it, since
> he apparently has taught that irresistible grace is something Christ purchases for the
> elect). What about L? His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
> already... and *that* is poisonous.
Click to expand...



Oh boy, it's been a long day. I posted the wrong thing.


----------



## Barnpreacher

> 5. Limited Atonement
> The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he canceled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense.
> 
> Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."
> 
> In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.
> 
> The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?
> 
> If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy—IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.
> 
> For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.
> 
> In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.
> 
> Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need—namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.
> 
> On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.
> 
> We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.
> 
> This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
> 
> Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.
> 
> But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."
> 
> There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:
> 
> John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son.
> 
> In John 17:6,9,19 Jesus prays, "I have manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to me...I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom Thou hast given me, for they are thine...And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth." The consecration in view here is the death of Jesus which he is about to undergo. His death and his intercession us uniquely for his disciples, not for the world in general.
> 
> John 11:51-52, "[Caiaphas] being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." There are children of God scattered throughout the world. These are the sheep. These are the ones the Father will draw to the Son. Jesus died to gather these people into one. The point is the same as John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Christ died for his sheep, that is, for the children of God.
> 
> Revelation 5:9, "Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for Thou wast slain and by Thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." In accordance with John 10:16 John does not say that the death of Christ ransomed all men but that it ransomed men from all the tribes of the world.
> 
> This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.
> 
> John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."
> 
> 1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
> 
> The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.
> 
> If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.
> 
> Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.
> 
> Mark 10:45, in accord with Revelation 5:9,does not say that Jesus came to ransom all men. It says, "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
> 
> Similarly in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
> 
> Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (See also 13:20; Isaiah 53:11-12.)
> 
> One of the clearest passages on the intention of the death of Christ is Ephesians 5:25-27. Here Paul not only says that the intended beneficiary of the death of Christ is the Church, but also that the intended effect of the death of Christ is the sanctification and glorification of the church. This is the truth we want very much to preserve: that the cross was not intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves, but was intended to actually save the church.
> 
> Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor."
> 
> Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ's death like this: "He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, "He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself"? But Paul says that the design of the atonement is to purify for Christ a people out from the world. This is just what John said in John 10:15; 11:51f; and Revelation 5:9.
> 
> One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"
> 
> The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.
> 
> If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.
> 
> We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?
> 
> 1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
> 2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
> 3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
> 
> No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.
> 
> The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.



Here is Piper on Limited Atonement.


----------



## Davidius

I don't see anything about universal potentiality in that statement.


----------



## cih1355

I read the article. He is saying that Christ did not die for all people in the same sense. It sounds like he is saying that Christ's death accomplished one thing for the elect and something else for the non-elect.


----------



## DMcFadden

> We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?
> 
> 1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
> 2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
> 3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
> 
> No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.
> 
> The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.


Sounds like a pretty classic John Owen to me. What am I missing?


----------



## natewood3

Piper does say that Christ purchased all graces that are applied to the believer, including irresistible grace...


----------



## JohnOwen007

toddpedlar said:


> His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
> already... and *that* is poisonous.



How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?


----------



## reformedman

JohnOwen007 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
> already... and *that* is poisonous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?
Click to expand...


To say that Christ died for those who are in hell is to say that his death had no power to save them. Further, it is to also infer that something else was the saving factor; something aside from the death of Christ saves: man's will or anything else as an example.

It becomes an heretical position if Christ's death does not garauntee a saving result.

With Piper, it is more like poison than heresy since although he affirms general redemption as his confession, he does not apply it in practice (by his right understanding and position of other soteriological points.)


----------



## Barnpreacher

JohnOwen007 said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
> already... and *that* is poisonous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?
Click to expand...


I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about *brothers* in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.


----------



## MW

Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."

Hugh Martin (The Atonement):



> Others – to make the Atonement indefinite and universal, save as special grace may subsequently apply it to the elect – tell us that Christ’s death, or Christ by His death, removed legal bars. The argument with such as speak thus might be long; but it may be short. I ask them, Was “removing of bars” the immediate and intrinsic action of Christ’s person in dying on the Cross? Was this the action in and by which Emmanuel died? Did He die in and by removing bars? No, they will say: for they must reverse the terms: “He removed legal bars by dying.” Precisely: they are speaking of result – the result of His death. But I demand a scriptural, doctrinal description of the very and immediate act of Christ in His dying, and in His doing the will of God in and by His death. And, with the Scripture in our hands, the demand which a searching theology will never fail thus to make, is met, – the question answered.
> 
> There was immediate action of Christ in His death; and it was official and public action. Private, or personal, or individual it could not be; for in that case His holiness was at once a legal bar to divine justice smiting Him in death, and a moral bar to His unauthorised parting with His life Himself. It was public and official action. He was not merely charged with a cause, but with an office, and with a people in that office to personate; not merely with a cause to maintain, but with the interests of a people whom He should represent, and redeem by representing them. His action was priestly and representative action; representative of persons – of persons definitely, numerically, individually known: “I know my sheep.” And the representative priestly action in itself was simply what Jesus adds: “And I lay down my life for the sheep.” That is not result; result never can in the nature of things express the intrinsic causal action. That is not result: it is Christ’s immediate dying action itself. And it is Redemption – not removal of bars. The very and immediate action of Christ in dying for His people is intrinsically their redemption. He offers Himself to God for them a sacrifice for their sins; and herein He offers them to God with Himself. And it cannot be too emphatically affirmed, or too gratefully believed, or too resolutely contended, that this is their redemption – their redemption, efficacious, complete, and infallible. While mere “removal of bars” is a mockery, and the theory thereof leaves utterly unanswered the question, What did Christ do in dying? It recognises no action, and consequently no priestly action, in the Cross. It overthrows the Priesthood of our Lord.


----------



## MW

John Kennedy (Man’s Relation to God):



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


----------



## JohnOwen007

reformedman said:


> To say that Christ died for those who are in hell is to say that his death had no power to save them.



If the above rendition of Piper in the thread is correct he is saying that Christ died "for" people in two different senses. You are only assuming one sense here, and so your reasoning fails. It's critical we don't accuse someone until we've understood them.



reformedman said:


> Further, it is to also infer that something else was the saving factor; something aside from the death of Christ saves: man's will or anything else as an example.



The above critique also applies. Piper is not saying that Christ died for the non-elect in that sense.

Moreover, (as Richard Muller and Carl Trueman have recently affirmed) the reformed tradition has never seen Amyraldianism as a heresy. It may be on the outskirts of the reformed tradition (although there is much more historical work needed to make this judgment), but it is securely ensconced in the reformed tradition itself.



reformedman said:


> It becomes an heretical position if Christ's death does not garauntee a saving result.



And it would appear that Piper doesn't affirm this.

Do you really believe the above (Arminianism) to be a heresy? I submit that Socinianism is. But I suspect I'll be seeing many Arminians in heaven depsite what I believe to be their errors.

Piper is a towering example of godliness and piety who is to be respected In my humble opinion. I don't want to pick up stones to throw at him. There are plenty of logs in my eyes that need to be examined first.

God bless you.


----------



## Barnpreacher

armourbearer said:


> Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."



So whence does this mercy flow? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?


----------



## toddpedlar

Barnpreacher said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
> already... and *that* is poisonous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about *brothers* in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.
Click to expand...


Whether God has used his life and ministry, and the extent of his humility (neither of which I disagree with in the slightest) have nothing to do with whether the Amyraldian view of the atonement is poisonous or not. Note that I didn't call PIPER poisonous. Rather, I made the statement that IF he teaches Amyraldianism, then he is teaching a poisonous doctrine. Perhaps you think that position is extreme... and if so, so be it - but please don't paint me with such a broad brush as to accuse me of judging a Brother in Christ. I never said a thing about Piper himself.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> His doctrine on L appears to be Amyraldian, as Rev. Winzer has noted
> already... and *that* is poisonous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about *brothers* in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.
Click to expand...


Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.


----------



## toddpedlar

Barnpreacher said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whence does this mercy flow? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?
Click to expand...


God may exercise judgment whenever he so chooses. When he actually undertakes to pronounce judgment isn't a question of justice at all. Furthermore, whether it is a demonstration of mercy and/or grace, in fact, to allow sinners to wallow in their sin for a lifetime, and dig deeper and deeper and deeper into entrenched sin throughout their lives rather than snuff them out early on is a question well worth thinking about.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So whence does this mercy flow? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell?
Click to expand...


God has His purpose of grace to fulfil to the elect. He bears with longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."


----------



## Barnpreacher

Piper was lumped in with Amyraldianism, poison as it was called. Were all the facts known about this? Did anyone bother to check his doctrinal statement on limited atonement?


----------



## Barnpreacher

armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."



Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.


----------



## DMcFadden

armourbearer said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Piper's no idiot, and is a very humble godly man. How is it that his views can be labelled "poisonous"? Isn't this a little extreme?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about *brothers* in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.
Click to expand...


Again with my question: Piper concludes his piece using the famous Owen work and the argument Owen makes about the reason for a limited atonement approvingly. 

If I understand Piper correctly, he is arguing for a universal aspect to the atonement in _some_ sense but fully accepts Owen's argument for the limited atonement as doctrinally necessary. As I read the Reformed tradition, there are legitimate differences between Calvinists over how the admittedly limited atonement applies in ways that do not cross the line into Amyraldianism. Can one even be a four pointer and say . . . 

_1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men. 

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light. _

What am I missing????


----------



## toddpedlar

The comments concerning poisonous doctrine were made not about Piper, but about what he was said to preach about the atonement. Note the caveat in my first response to the OP... "IF you have correctly represented what Piper preaches" (and what was represented as Piper's teaching was quite poisonous). There are, in the quoted statements, VERY problematic things that Rev. Winzer has already pointed out. So... I'm not sure why you ask "Did anyone bother..." etc. Again, it is doctrine that is being tested, and found wanting ; NOT Piper himself, in his person.


----------



## Barnpreacher

DMcFadden said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about *brothers* in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with my question: Piper concludes his piece using the famous Owen work and the argument Owen makes about the reason for a limited atonement approvingly. What am I missing????
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the fact that comments were made without checking all the facts first.


----------



## JohnOwen007

toddpedlar said:


> Whether God has used his life and ministry, and the extent of his humility (neither of which I disagree with in the slightest) have nothing to do with whether the Amyraldian view of the atonement is poisonous or not. Note that I didn't call PIPER poisonous. Rather, I made the statement that IF he teaches Amyraldianism, then he is teaching a poisonous doctrine. Perhaps you think that position is extreme... and if so, so be it - but please don't paint me with such a broad brush as to accuse me of judging a Brother in Christ. I never said a thing about Piper himself.



I'm not so sure we can separate a godly person and poisonous doctrine so easily (although at some level they can be separated). If we believe (with the Puritan tradition following Scotus) that theology entails practice (i.e. theology = head, heart, and hands), it naturally follows that ungodliness and "poisonous" doctrine must have some connection.

I would think that because Piper has so much that is right *doctrinally*, and so much that is laudible in *practice*, these are indicators he's unlikely to be serving "poison"--a strong word that conjours up the idea of great damage.

Every blessing.


----------



## toddpedlar

Barnpreacher said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.
Click to expand...


How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.


----------



## Barnpreacher

toddpedlar said:


> The comments concerning poisonous doctrine were made not about Piper, but about what he was said to preach about the atonement. Note the caveat in my first response to the OP... "IF you have correctly represented what Piper preaches" (and what was represented as Piper's teaching was quite poisonous). There are, in the quoted statements, VERY problematic things that Rev. Winzer has already pointed out. So... I'm not sure why you ask "Did anyone bother..." etc. Again, it is doctrine that is being tested, and found wanting ; NOT Piper himself, in his person.



And do you still hold to this after reading his doctrinal statement on limited atonement?


----------



## Barnpreacher

toddpedlar said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.
Click to expand...


As Matthew Poole notes in I Timothy 4:10, God is the preserver of life for all men. There is no common grace found in that life of a lost man? Like the rain falling on the just and the unjust?


----------



## toddpedlar

DMcFadden said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I think sometimes there are comments that are thrown around on this board about *brothers* in Christ that are unacceptable. At times there is a superior attitude that shows no humility. Like everything Dr. John Piper does and says or not, one cannot argue with the way God has used his life and his ministry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let it be clearly noted that I have not made any statement about any brother. I called the doctrine poison, and Owen's great work as the remedy for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again with my question: Piper concludes his piece using the famous Owen work and the argument Owen makes about the reason for a limited atonement approvingly.
> 
> If I understand Piper correctly, he is arguing for a universal aspect to the atonement in _some_ sense but fully accepts Owen's argument for the limited atonement as doctrinally necessary. As I read the Reformed tradition, there are legitimate differences between Calvinists over how the admittedly limited atonement applies in ways that do not cross the line into Amyraldianism. Can one even be a four pointer and say . . .
> 
> _1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
> 2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
> 3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
> 
> No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.
> 
> The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light. _
> 
> What am I missing????
Click to expand...


I believe part of the difficulty is that Piper in the quoted piece is inconsistent...while including Owen's
summary (a masterful piece!) he also argues for Christ's death as effecting some other things apart from
salvation for the elect. He seems, at this reading, to go beyond what Owen wrote and argue for Christ's 
dying in some sense for all men.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Barnpreacher said:


> Piper was lumped in with Amyraldianism, poison as it was called. Were all the facts known about this? Did anyone bother to check his doctrinal statement on limited atonement?



This was why I said that sometimes unnecessary comments are made about brothers in Christ. Whether it's about the brother himself, what he believes, or his ministry. If I was too harsh in my comment then I ask for forgiveness. I'm not sure of a better way of putting it. It is true - (See the "Piper is down" thread).


----------



## toddpedlar

Barnpreacher said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Matthew Poole notes in I Timothy 4:10, God is the preserver of life for all men. There is no common grace found in that life of a lost man? Like the rain falling on the just and the unjust?
Click to expand...


I gather you're not seeing my point, so I'll stop 

I fail to see how it is merciful of God to keep a man alive who is not elect - to give him further opportunities to condemn himself and stoke the fires of His wrath through his sins. Sin begets sin; it is itself punishment - and the longer a non-elect person lives, the longer he lives in the deadness and darkness of his sin-filled mind. I just cannot see this as in any way mercy to him. My last word on this - it's clearly not sinking in.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did a lost man hear the gospel today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God shine the sun down upon a lost man today? I would call that God being merciful in common grace. Did God allow a lost man's little child to hug his neck and kiss him on the cheek tonight? I would call that God being merciful in common grace.
Click to expand...


The _action_ is a mercy; there is no basis for saying God is "being merciful," or expressing a _disposition_ of mercy. If earthly favours really did flow from a disposition of mercy in God then we should call them blessed who prosper at their will and welcome the prosperity gospel with all its carnal attractiveness. But even if one were to say God shows a disposition of mercy, whence would one derive the idea that this mercy is grounded in the death of Christ? It's fictitious. Any generalisation of the death of Christ serves to undermine the particularity of grace and to throw the believer's assurance into confusion.


----------



## Barnpreacher

toddpedlar said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it mercy when those very words of the gospel will condemn that lost man's soul if he is not of the elect? How is a prolonged life of sin, piling up debt upon debt for sins committed in one's lifetime that will be paid for through eternal torment of that man's soul MERCY? I think we have to be careful when speaking of things as "mercy" and "grace" when in reality (as I read the Scriptures and as I think about the truth of those situations) they are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Matthew Poole notes in I Timothy 4:10, God is the preserver of life for all men. There is no common grace found in that life of a lost man? Like the rain falling on the just and the unjust?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gather you're not seeing my point, so I'll stop
> 
> I fail to see how it is merciful of God to keep a man alive who is not elect - to give him further opportunities to condemn himself and stoke the fires of His wrath through his sins. Sin begets sin; it is itself punishment - and the longer a non-elect person lives, the longer he lives in the deadness and darkness of his sin-filled mind. I just cannot see this as in any way mercy to him. My last word on this - it's clearly not sinking in.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the post, brother. You say it's clearly not sinking in. So, obviously I need to get it right. 

Jesus Christ says the Father, "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." I believe that is a merciful Creator that does so. Not salvific mercy, but mercy nonetheless.


----------



## Barnpreacher

armourbearer said:


> But even if one were to say God shows a disposition of mercy, whence would one derive the idea that this mercy is grounded in the death of Christ? It's fictitious. Any generalisation of the death of Christ serves to undermine the particularity of grace and to throw the believer's assurance into confusion.



Here is where Piper states his case:


> We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.
> 
> This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
> 
> Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.



He _MAY_ very well be wrong. Romans 2:4 makes a pretty strong argument that a lost man despises the goodness and forbearance and longsuffering of God. Piper believes that is based upon the cross of Christ. Perhaps it is fictitious in your thinking, but obviously not in his.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> He _MAY_ very well be wrong. Romans 2:4 makes a pretty strong argument that a lost man despises the goodness and forbearance and longsuffering of God. Piper believes that is based upon the cross of Christ. Perhaps it is fictitious in your thinking, but obviously not in his.



Whether it's fictitious or not should be fairly easy to determine. What evidence is there in holy writ for claiming earthly favours as the fruit of Christ's death? Nil. If there were such evidence it would turn the heavenly orientation of the Christian life on its head.


----------



## BLD

My wife and I have sat under Piper's preaching for the last 4 1/2 years. For three of those years I've occasionally expected that his weird take on the law, which seems to border on New Covenant Theology, would make his preaching on justification and the atonement obviously unorthodox. This has not happened. Piper's preaching on the atonement, as far as I see it, is obviously orthodox. I'm confident that an examination of his sermons in the last ten years would substantiate my claim. The claim my be further strengthened when we consider the fact that the only theologian he's more versed in than Edwards is Owen. 
Regarding the alleged poison of view on the atonement: I can certainly see the validity of what both sides have brought up here. I have no doubt that great harm would come to the person who followed Piper's view of the law to its logical conclusion. I've voiced this to the elders at Bethlehem. But I've never seen it come out in his articulation of justification or the atonement; not in his preaching or his writing. I humbly ask anyone who thinks otherwise to bring forth some better evidence because anything brought forth thus far could have been said by Durham or Boston or the Marrow Men, in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper.


----------



## MW

BLD said:


> I humbly ask anyone who thinks otherwise to bring forth some better evidence because anything brought forth thus far could have been said by Durham or Boston or the Marrow Men, in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper.



Both Durham and Boston upheld a simple design of the atonement. Both men's writings have regrettably been misinterpreted to present a general reference. That misinterpretation is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by saying that Christ died for sinners as a class. Those seeking to find a general reference in this terminology think that what is done for a class must be applicable to every individual which belongs to the class. This is a fallacy, and fails to take into account an important distinction in these theologians' writings between the death of Christ as unconditionally purchasing the benefit of salvation and the death of Christ as conditionally preached to sinners as such.


----------



## BLD

armourbearer said:


> BLD said:
> 
> 
> 
> I humbly ask anyone who thinks otherwise to bring forth some better evidence because anything brought forth thus far could have been said by Durham or Boston or the Marrow Men, in fact, they said much more radical things when discussing the atonement than Piper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Durham and Boston upheld a simple design of the atonement. Both men's writings have regrettably been misinterpreted to present a general reference. That misinterpretation is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by saying that Christ died for sinners as a class. Those seeking to find a general reference in this terminology think that what is done for a class must be applicable to every individual which belongs to the class. This is a fallacy, and fails to take into account an important distinction in these theologians' writings between the death of Christ as unconditionally purchasing the benefit of salvation and the death of Christ as conditionally preached to sinners as such.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I'm almost done reading Lachman's thesis on the subject, which was quite good. I guess I really have no idea how your last posted added anything to the discussion. I mean no disrespect. I'm just left thinking, "well...yeah, of course."


----------



## MW

BLD said:


> I agree completely. I'm almost done reading Lachman's thesis on the subject, which was quite good. I guess I really have no idea how your last posted added anything to the discussion. I mean no disrespect. I'm just left thinking, "well...yeah, of course."



This would be the particular thought I was seeking to correct: "in fact, they said *much more radical things* when discussing the atonement *than Piper*." Obviously they didn't, if you agree with the summation of their position which has been provided. Piper allows for a dual design of the atonement whilst Durham and Boston maintained a single design.


----------



## timmopussycat

I'm writing this late at night, very tired and in some physical pain, so if I seem uncharitable please bear with me.



> Piper on Limited Atonement
> 
> ...
> We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.
> 
> This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
> 
> Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.
> 
> But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially." ...



As I read the above, Piper seems to be arguing that the benefit Christ's death provides for unbelievers is that it allows God to remain just while providing common grace to those who are not Christ's sheep, an action that (if Christ's death had not occured) would make God unjust. A question for those taking issue with Piper on the point: does Owen in "Death of Death" specifically deny that Christ's death is the foundation for common grace and if so, where is his argument found? (Chapter and/or page numbers in the Banner of Truth Edition appreciated).

To say that Christ died to justify God from the otherwise true charge of being unjust when he offered common grace instead of immediate death and hell to those who would ultimately end in hell is not to at all to say that Christ died for those in hell. Piper is saying the former not the latter. 

Nor does Kennedy's argument apply to Piper for Kennedy is not considering Christ's death in relationship to sustainining the righteousness of God. And although Piper's argument is non-Confessional it is not anti-Confessional. I wonder whether Piper's specific argument was known to the Divines of the day; the Divines do not seem to have Confessionally defined how God could remain just without immediately destroying the wicked.

I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners? 

And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?


----------



## BLD

armourbearer said:


> BLD said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely. I'm almost done reading Lachman's thesis on the subject, which was quite good. I guess I really have no idea how your last posted added anything to the discussion. I mean no disrespect. I'm just left thinking, "well...yeah, of course."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be the particular thought I was seeking to correct: "in fact, they said *much more radical things* when discussing the atonement *than Piper*." Obviously they didn't, if you agree with the summation of their position which has been provided. Piper allows for a dual design of the atonement whilst Durham and Boston maintained a single design.
Click to expand...

A single design with respect to who the atonement redeems? If that's what you meant, which is how I read it, then yes. I'm thinking I read you wrong though. I apologize and I think we disagree. I'm now wondering how you would read this paragraph from David Lachman's The Marrow Controversy (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1988), 33:



> Although James Durham admits the infinate worth of the sacrifice, he denies that Christ's death and sufferings were intended as a price and satisfaction to redeem any but the elect [Commentary on Revelation, Edinburgh:Christopher Higgins, 1658, p. 299]. Nor can Christ in any proper sense be called the Redeemer of the reprobate, since no saving or eternal mercy is procured for them. He does acknowledge that the reprobate enjoy many things on earth, including "the glad tidings of the conditional offer of life" in the preaching of the gospel, of which Christ's death is the cause sine qua non. These "cannot be denied to be decreed in the Counsel of God, and contained in the covenant of redemption, largely taken." But they are not of the proper fruits and effects of Christ's death. The gospel is preached to all the visible church for the benefit of the elect. That it is preached to others is an administrative consequence of this and not a proper fruit of Christ's death [ibid., pp. 309-311].



So isn't Durham saying something different than what you're saying? The proper design of the atonement is the redemption of the elect, no one is saying Piper disputes that, right? But in an improper sense, sine qua non, Christ's death can be seen to cause the glad tidings of the gospel preached to all. Piper, and I think Durham, would take issue with you if you deny the second statement. Are you denying it? 
Again, I apologize for not understanding you. I thought, at first, you might have been claiming that Piper denies the sufficient/efficient idea.


----------



## MW

BLD said:


> So isn't Durham saying something different than what you're saying? The proper design of the atonement is the redemption of the elect, no one is saying Piper disputes that, right? But in an improper sense, sine qua non, Christ's death can be seen to cause the glad tidings of the gospel preached to all. Piper, and I think Durham, would take issue with you if you deny the second statement. Are you denying it?



In Durham's view, as with all orthodox divines, there are temporal benefits which _follow_ the death of Christ, but not as the _fruit_ of Christ's death. It is simply that these benefits are given to elect and non-elect alike in the purpose of God, and this purpose as a whole centres upon the death of Christ. It would be more correct to say that the death of Christ is the _occasion_ of these temporal benefits rather than the _cause_ of them. But since Durham denies these benefits are the _fruit_ of Christ's death, his single intention view of the atonement remains intact. Piper, however, has said that Christ's death accomplishes something with relation to all men in general which makes it possible for God to "treat the world with mercy." Hence temporal benefits do not merely _follow_, but are the _fruit_ of Christ's death, thus introducing a dual intention in the atonement.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Nor does Kennedy's argument apply to Piper for Kennedy is not considering Christ's death in relationship to sustainining the righteousness of God.



Kennedy's argument pertains to the double reference theory, which supposes Christ died to make possible the salvation of all as well as to secure the salvation of the elect. Piper maintains Christ's death not only secures the salvation of the elect, but also that it means God can mercifully give unbelievers an _opportunity for salvation_. That is the double reference theory which Kennedy contradicts. Yes, Piper is considering the righteousness of God, but it is in the specific context as to how God can be righteous in making salvation possible for all men, and the answer is to be found in the death of Christ, according to Piper.

As for Owen, he states quite clearly, "To me nothing is more certain than that to whom Christ is *in any sense* a Saviour in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace here and glory hereafter." (Works, 10:192.)


----------



## BlackCalvinist

armourbearer said:


> Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.



His position is NOT *Amyraldianism*. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.

*shaking my head*

When will the Piper-bashing stop ?


----------



## BLD

armourbearer said:


> BLD said:
> 
> 
> 
> So isn't Durham saying something different than what you're saying? The proper design of the atonement is the redemption of the elect, no one is saying Piper disputes that, right? But in an improper sense, sine qua non, Christ's death can be seen to cause the glad tidings of the gospel preached to all. Piper, and I think Durham, would take issue with you if you deny the second statement. Are you denying it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Durham's view, as with all orthodox divines, there are temporal benefits which _follow_ the death of Christ, but not as the _fruit_ of Christ's death. It is simply that these benefits are given to elect and non-elect alike in the purpose of God, and this purpose as a whole centres upon the death of Christ. It would be more correct to say that the death of Christ is the _occasion_ of these temporal benefits rather than the _cause_ of them. But since Durham denies these benefits are the _fruit_ of Christ's death, his single intention view of the atonement remains intact. Piper, however, has said that Christ's death accomplishes something with relation to all men in general which makes it possible for God to "treat the world with mercy." Hence temporal benefits do not merely _follow_, but are the _fruit_ of Christ's death, thus introducing a dual intention in the atonement.
Click to expand...

So...I suppose then you're not saying anything different than Durham, but you still want to say something different than Piper, though I don't think you are. I guess I'll leave it at that. But it does seem like things cause things in different ways and we should have no problem throwing the word "cause" in there, we just need to be careful. Perhaps Piper has not been as careful as we would have liked here. Either way, an "occasion" is still a cause, if even an improper one.


----------



## BLD

BlackCalvinist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is NOT *Amyraldianism*. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.
> 
> *shaking my head*
> 
> When will the Piper-bashing stop ?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is certainly shoddy historical scholarship to call it Amyraldianism, just like it would be to call it Arminianism or Socinianism. These were real errors (in the case of the former) and real heresies (in the case of the latter) that sharpened the position of the orthodox. If someone is willing to throw any of those labels on Piper's view of the atonement it calls into question, I believe, their own understanding of it, simply because it appears they don't know what it is not. It would help if we keep history in mind when we use historical terms.


----------



## JM

When it comes to soteriology I go with Gill not Piper.


----------



## Davidius

timmopussycat said:


> And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?



I think Rev. Winzer's earlier answer was that God is not doing the non-elect any favors by keeping them alive and letting them heap more and more judgment on themselves. It could be considered a form of punishment in itself.


----------



## Amazing Grace

BlackCalvinist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is NOT *Amyraldianism*. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.
> 
> *shaking my head*
> 
> When will the Piper-bashing stop ?
Click to expand...


I doubt Piper holds the same position as Dort, but that's besides the point. What we need to do then is define Amyrauldism. I define it as "hypothetical universalism" "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" "COnditional salvation upon faith" Perhaps I am incorrect in the definition I use. We are constantly seeing this word thrown around, accusing some of adhering to it, then they are defended as not saying the same thing. It is very confusing. Now some may say,"It cannot be narrowly defined" Well it can. So let's not get into 50 diferent understandings of Amyraulidism. Anything that speaks of universal benefits for all head for head is unscriptural, no matter what you call it. If Piper says this, well he is unscriptural..PERIOD. ANyone who attaches the death of the elect's savior, the one who would not even pray for the world head for head, yet say in some sophist, mysterious way, He died for them is wrong. It could be Piper, Calvin, Witisius, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc etc etc.


----------



## Sonoftheday

http://www.desiringgod.org/download.php?file=/media/audio/seminars/tulip_l_lecture.mp3

This is the link to the message he delivered. If I somehow miss represented the argument he delivers here please correct my understanding. I love John Piper and regardless of his posistion on this one doctrine he is godly servant of our Lord Jesus Christ. My intentions in starting this thread were in no way to bash Piper or even Amyraldianism (whatever that is), but to see how his position (as I understand it) aligned with that of the reformers.

The whole TULIP series can be found here.
Seminars :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners?
> 
> And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?



No it cannot achieve 2 results. Just as Adam did not immediately die, the reprobate do not either. The rain and sun shining on all is not tied to the cross.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does Kennedy's argument apply to Piper for Kennedy is not considering Christ's death in relationship to sustainining the righteousness of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy's argument pertains to the double reference theory, which supposes Christ died to make possible the salvation of all as well as to secure the salvation of the elect. Piper maintains Christ's death not only secures the salvation of the elect, but also that it means God can mercifully give unbelievers an _opportunity for salvation_. That is the double reference theory which Kennedy contradicts. Yes, Piper is considering the righteousness of God, but it is in the specific context as to how God can be righteous in making salvation possible for all men, and the answer is to be found in the death of Christ, according to Piper.
Click to expand...


This argument fails to distinguish between things that differ. Piper is not saying that the opportunity for salvation that is given to reprobate men is a potential salvation of those men as the double reference theory argues. Instead, as the rest of his message makes clear, Piper is explicit that the saving benefits of the cross are for the elect and no one else. His use of preaching that offers salvation to reprobate sinners is just one of several illustrations of God's kindness toward reprobates.



armourbearer said:


> As for Owen, he states quite clearly, "To me nothing is more certain than that to whom Christ is *in any sense* a Saviour in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace here and glory hereafter." (Works, 10:192.)



Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> This argument fails to distinguish between things that differ. Piper is not saying that the opportunity for salvation that is given to reprobate men is a potential salvation of those men as the double reference theory argues. Instead, as the rest of his message makes clear, Piper is explicit that the saving benefits of the cross are for the elect and no one else. His use of preaching that offers salvation to reprobate sinners is just one of several illustrations of God's kindness toward reprobates.



That is good he is not saying that. Man can proclaim Christ to all head for head indiscriminately, yet in no way does God proclaim salvation for the reprobate. The foundation is wrong with this thought. For some reason, those who propose this think that unregenerate men can respond to Christ proclaimed, when scripture is clear they will not nor cannot. It is never the case that a person can respond savingly, and be left out of the kingdom. The preaching of Christ just hardens the reprobate more and more and more.



timmopussycat said:


> Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.



Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.


----------



## timmopussycat

Amazing Grace said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners?
> 
> And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it cannot achieve 2 results. Just as Adam did not immediately die, the reprobate do not either. The rain and sun shining on all is not tied to the cross.
Click to expand...


God, we are told [loves] His enemies... and... is kind to the wicked" ()Luke 6:55,56). If this is not an illustration of the mercy of God to unbelievers, why did Christ adduce it as if it was? And where can such mercy be justified without destroying God's righteousness except by the cross? Is there some other means by which God can justify a delay in punishing the sins of the reprobate and if so what is it? If you can't answer we are left with an unjust God.
Let me explain the problem in more detail. 
God is just, right? I am sure you will say "Right?"
He has announced to mankind that "If you sin, you die" right? "Right"
But he lets moments, days, weeks, years or even decades go by before that that punishment is executed, right? "Right"
And, as the writer of Eccliesiastes realized "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Eccl. 8:11).
OK then why is God not unjust for temporarily passing over the sins of the reprobate?


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't see why it is inconsistent to argue that Christ's death achieved salvific mercy for the elect for the elect and common grace for the non-elect. Cannot the one action achieve the two results especially since it allows God to remain just while postponing or averting the punishment due ungodly sinners?
> 
> And if any deny that common grace for the non-elect is grounded in the mercy of God, I ask, where else can you ground it without making God unjust for not punishing non-elect sinners with immediate death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it cannot achieve 2 results. Just as Adam did not immediately die, the reprobate do not either. The rain and sun shining on all is not tied to the cross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, we are told [loves] His enemies... and... is kind to the wicked" ()Luke 6:55,56). If this is not an illustration of the mercy of God to unbelievers, why did Christ adduce it as if it was? And where can such mercy be justified without destroying God's righteousness except by the cross? Is there some other means by which God can justify a delay in punishing the sins of the reprobate and if so what is it? If you can't answer we are left with an unjust God.
> Let me explain the problem in more detail.
> God is just, right? I am sure you will say "Right?"
> He has announced to mankind that "If you sin, you die" right? "Right"
> But he lets moments, days, weeks, years or even decades go by before that that punishment is executed, right? "Right"
> And, as the writer of Eccliesiastes realized "When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong" (Eccl. 8:11).
> OK then why is God not unjust for temporarily passing over the sins of the reprobate?
Click to expand...


FOr a brief answer becasue I have a metting. Immediate death is NEVER spoken of in scripture as a result of sin. God's sentence of eternal death is prescribed for the reprobate. HE has no forebearance towards them. WHy would it make God unjust to let them live this temporal life? IT makes no sense whatsoever to claim that since God does not immediately destroy the reprobate, there must be some benefit derived from the cross of Christ. God is not bound by anything. He dos as He pleases to whomever and however. In David's imprecatory pslams, throughout the whole writ, people complain on why the wicked are allowed to live and continue in their wickedness. The Holy Spirit had ample time to speak of some benefits from a sacrifice. Yet He does not even implicitly say as such. In John's Revelation, the elect are begging God to vindicate them. Yet God does as He will. In due time it is revealed what happens to the reprobate


----------



## KMK

John Kennedy (Man’s Relation to God):



> It doubtless sprung out of a desire to find a basis for the offer of Christ to all. To search for it, in a universal reference of the atonement, indicated a suspicion that the Calvinistic system did not afford it.



This seems like a broad brush stoke. Have you found this to always be the case? 

John Kennedy (Man’s Relation to God):



> The idea of the call being the offer of a gift, has driven the Scriptural form of it out of the minds of many men altogether.


----------



## timmopussycat

Amazing Grace said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.
Click to expand...


In which Greek dictonary do you find "namely" as a possible tranlsation for _malista_? The possibility is not even mentioned in BAGD and given that the root _mala_ means "very, exceedingly" and the suffix _ista_ makes it a superlative, i.e. "most of all" or "above all" (Liddell Scott), (LS's possibility "precisely" is not a good description of the usages they cite. A better meaning is "exactly" as in "What exactly is the matter." i.e. the samples provided do not require a more narrow and focused stament of the matter than what has already been given). In view of these facts and the problem that your reading makes Paul contradict himself in the same breath, your interpretation is highly unlikely.


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In which Greek dictonary do you find "namely" as a possible tranlsation for _malista_? The possibility is not even mentioned in BAGD and given that the root _mala_ means "very, exceedingly" and the suffix _ista_ makes it a superlative, i.e. "most of all" or "above all" (Liddell Scott), (LS's possibility "precisely" is not a good description of the usages they cite. A better meaning is "exactly" as in "What exactly is the matter." i.e. the samples provided do not require a more narrow and focused stament of the matter than what has already been given). In view of these facts and the problem that your reading makes Paul contradict himself in the same breath, your interpretation is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...


Let us not get involved in a dispute about words. Paul admonishes those who do. To translate it "namely" is proper according to Zodhiates. But just to solidify this thought.

Act 25:26 Of 4012 whom 3739 I have 2192 no 3756 certain 804 thing 5100 to write 1125 unto my lord 2962. Wherefore 1352 I have brought 4254 0 him 846 forth 4254 before 1909 you 5216, and 2532 *specially 3122* before 1909 thee 4675, O king 935 Agrippa 67, that 3704, after examination 351 had 1096 , I might have 2192 somewhat 5100 to write 1125 .


Paul uses the same word here. You, thee, specially are ONLY connected to Agrippa.


----------



## Amazing Grace

Can we once and for all determine how to define Amyrauldism? I do not believe we can continue until we do this.


----------



## MW

BlackCalvinist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is NOT *Amyraldianism*. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.
> 
> *shaking my head*
> 
> When will the Piper-bashing stop ?
Click to expand...


First, there is no bashing here. Nothing has been said to attack his character. As noted earlier, this pertains to teaching. The teaching of ministers is a matter of public record, and there ought to be public accountability for it. In the early church a prophet was to deliver his message and the others were to judge. The idea that a man's teaching cannot be scrutinised is a denial of ministerial accountability.

Secondly, Dort's doctrine of sufficiency doesn't accomplish anything for all men with relation to the justice of God. It is only intrinsic with regard to its own value. Piper claims the death of Christ has made it possible for God to be just in giving all men the opportunity to be saved. Hence it is not mere sufficiency, but is also effective in some way, producing actual results for all men.


----------



## MW

BLD said:


> So...I suppose then you're not saying anything different than Durham, but you still want to say something different than Piper, though I don't think you are. I guess I'll leave it at that. But it does seem like things cause things in different ways and we should have no problem throwing the word "cause" in there, we just need to be careful. Perhaps Piper has not been as careful as we would have liked here. Either way, an "occasion" is still a cause, if even an improper one.



An occasion is not a cause. A cause prooduces something. An occasion is simply the context within which something happens. Durham does not say that Christ's death produced results with regard to all men. Piper does. There is the difference. Durham has a single intention and Piper a dual intention doctrine of the atonement. The orthodox doctrine is single intention, and the Amyraldian doctrine is dual intention.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> This argument fails to distinguish between things that differ. Piper is not saying that the opportunity for salvation that is given to reprobate men is a potential salvation of those men as the double reference theory argues.



"Opportunity for salvation" is explicit and clear. The mercy of God gives this opportunity, and it can do so because of Christ's death. The statement is not complicated. It introduces a second reference into the atonement with relation to all men in general. This is precisely what Kennedy opposes. Besides the fact that Piper introduces the concept of the moral government theory into the nature of the atonement, which the quotation by Hugh Martin effectively combats.



timmopussycat said:


> Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour of that group of men which do not believe.



First, I find it strange that you are defending a view as orthodox and then objecting to the orthodox position in doing so.

Secondly, Jesus Christ the God-man is the Saviour of God's elect alone. God considered in His essential nature is said to be the Saviour of all in the same sense that He says, Isa 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." The only reason this distinction would prove a difficulty is if one thought that the incarnation wasn't necessary.


----------



## MW

Amazing Grace said:


> Can we once and for all determine how to define Amyrauldism? I do not believe we can continue until we do this.



A. A. Hodge (The Atonement, 375, 376):



> Their own system was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man's salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe -- a condition foreknowed to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number, and to grant them all the gifts and graces necessary to that end. "This synthesis of a real particularism with a merely ideal universalism (not really saving a single individual), that is, the addition of a merely ideal universalism to the orthodox acknowledged Calvinistic Dordrecht system of doctrine, is the peculiarity of Amyraldism."* [*Schweizer in Herzog's Encyclopedia.]


----------



## Barnpreacher

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we once and for all determine how to define Amyrauldism? I do not believe we can continue until we do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. A. Hodge (The Atonement, 375, 376):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their own system was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man's salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe -- a condition foreknowed to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number, and to grant them all the gifts and graces necessary to that end. "This synthesis of a real particularism with a merely ideal universalism (not really saving a single individual), that is, the addition of a merely ideal universalism to the orthodox acknowledged Calvinistic Dordrecht system of doctrine, is the peculiarity of Amyraldism."* [*Schweizer in Herzog's Encyclopedia.]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So, what is the proper exegesis of II Peter 3:9?

By the way - I have been considering your arguments all day, and I can see what you are trying to say. I'm still not convinced Piper is teaching Amyraldism though. Hence, my problem with calling what he teaches poison. I don't have a problem with calling a doctrine poison, but when one claims that someone is teaching that doctrine then the claim is that the preacher is a spewer of poison. That's what I took exception with.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> So, what is the proper exegesis of II Peter 3:9?
> 
> By the way - I have been considering your arguments all day, and I can see what you are trying to say. I'm still not convinced Piper is teaching Amyraldism though. Hence, my problem with calling what he teaches poison. I don't have a problem with calling a doctrine poison, but when one claims that someone is teaching that doctrine then the claim is that the preacher is a spewer of poison. That's what I took acceptance with.



For 2 Pet. 3:9, see my review article on Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel at fpcr.org.

I don't think it would be moderate to say that Piper is a "spewer of poison." Men are fallible and it's merely a matter of humility to recognise that we all have the capacity to espouse teachings which seem good to us but we don't really grasp the consequences of them.


----------



## KMK

Barnpreacher said:


> So, what is the proper exegesis of II Peter 3:9?



John Gill:



> *not willing that any should perish*; not any of the us, whom he has loved with an everlasting love, whom he has chosen in his Son, and given to him, and for whom he has died, and who are brought to believe in him.
> 
> *But that all should come to repentance*; not legal, but evangelical, without which all must perish; and which all God's elect stand in need of, as well as others, being equally sinners; and which they cannot come to of themselves, and therefore he not only calls them to it, in his word, and by his spirit and grace, but bestows it upon them



What do you think about Gill's exegesis?


----------



## Barnpreacher

armourbearer said:


> I don't think it would be moderate to say that Piper is a "spewer of poison." Men are fallible and it's merely a matter of humility to recognise that we all have the capacity to espouse teachings which seem good to us but we don't really grasp the consequences of them.



Fair enough. I apologize to both you and Todd Pedlar if I offended you.


----------



## Barnpreacher

KMK said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the proper exegesis of II Peter 3:9?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Gill:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *not willing that any should perish*; not any of the us, whom he has loved with an everlasting love, whom he has chosen in his Son, and given to him, and for whom he has died, and who are brought to believe in him.
> 
> *But that all should come to repentance*; not legal, but evangelical, without which all must perish; and which all God's elect stand in need of, as well as others, being equally sinners; and which they cannot come to of themselves, and therefore he not only calls them to it, in his word, and by his spirit and grace, but bestows it upon them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think about Gill's exegesis?
Click to expand...


Ken,

That is basically how Piper teaches it. I'm not sure about the "two wills" appendix in Desiring God. It's been a while since I read it. I'll have to go back and read it again.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

armourbearer said:


> For 2 Pet. 3:9, see my review article on Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel at fpcr.org.


Murray on the Free Offer: A Review by Matthew Winzer


----------



## MW

NaphtaliPress said:


> Murray on the Free Offer: A Review by Matthew Winzer



Thanks Chris.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it would be moderate to say that Piper is a "spewer of poison." Men are fallible and it's merely a matter of humility to recognise that we all have the capacity to espouse teachings which seem good to us but we don't really grasp the consequences of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I apologize to both you and Todd Pedlar if I offended you.
Click to expand...


 No offence taken; we all need to be careful to observe the apostle's advice -- "not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another," 1 Cor. 4:6.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we once and for all determine how to define Amyrauldism? I do not believe we can continue until we do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. A. Hodge (The Atonement, 375, 376):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their own system was generally styled Universalismus Hypotheticus, an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man's salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without exception if they believe -- a condition foreknowed to be universally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a definite number, and to grant them all the gifts and graces necessary to that end. "This synthesis of a real particularism with a merely ideal universalism (not really saving a single individual), that is, the addition of a merely ideal universalism to the orthodox acknowledged Calvinistic Dordrecht system of doctrine, is the peculiarity of Amyraldism."* [*Schweizer in Herzog's Encyclopedia.]
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Can we agree on this? Or is there someone else besides AA who may speak a tad more plain? 

1) A belief in a schzophrenic God who has 2 conflicting wills?

2) Conflicting wills within the Godhead. 

3) A desire for all to be saved by the Father

4) God decreed the Atonement of Christ for all head for head, but knowing none would believe, He then elects some in Christ.


----------



## Barnpreacher

armourbearer said:


> No offence taken; we all need to be careful to observe the apostle's advice -- "not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another," 1 Cor. 4:6.



Agreed, and very well said. I know I sound like a Piper "lackey", and there is somewhat of a reason for that. He is the one whom God used to bring me out of semi-pelagianism and over to the doctrines of grace. With that said, I do keep in mind the verse you quoted and I can definitely say that I don't agree with everything he teaches.



armourbearer said:


> God has His purpose of grace to fulfil to the elect. He bears with longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. I'm not sure why you would call the holding cell, whereby the criminal is held over until punishment is executed, a "mercy."



I would like to get back to this statement. I understand this covenantally. It makes perfect sense that all a lost man does is reject the gospel and heap coals of fire upon his head. The gospel is a savor of death unto death to the lost man covenantally. He treasures up wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God as Romans 2:5 explains. 

But one verse earlier it says that the man despises the riches of God's goodness. Is that not mercy? If so, from whence does it flow? Piper says it's the cross. After long consideration of this all day I have come to the conclusion that the burden of proof is on him to show where the Scripture teaches this.

But with that said, I would like to know where you think this mercy comes from, if it is indeed mercy? On what grounds can a Holy and Righteous and Just God show any "mercy" or "common grace" to the non-elect?

Thanks.


----------



## MW

Barnpreacher said:


> But with that said, I would like to know where you think this mercy comes from, if it is indeed mercy? On what grounds can a Holy and Righteous and Just God show any "mercy" or "common grace" to the non-elect?



On the grounds of His sovereignty, as Nebuchadnezzar learned in Dan. 4. Temporarily they enjoy certain blessings, but it is also true that from an eternal perspective these blessings are fattening the calf for the slaughter. Most of our problem as we look at subjects like these is our inability to look beyond the scope of a few years to see God working out His purpose over many generations.


----------



## timmopussycat

timmopussycat said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In which Greek dictonary do you find "namely" as a possible tranlsation for _malista_? The possibility is not even mentioned in BAGD and given that the root _mala_ means "very, exceedingly" and the suffix _ista_ makes it a superlative, i.e. "most of all" or "above all" (Liddell Scott), (LS's possibility "precisely" is not a good description of the usages they cite. A better meaning is "exactly" as in "What exactly is the matter." i.e. the samples provided do not require a more narrow and focused stament of the matter than what has already been given). In view of these facts and the problem that your reading makes Paul contradict himself in the same breath, your interpretation is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...




Amazing Grace said:


> Let us not get involved in a dispute about words. Paul admonishes those who do. To translate it "namely" is proper according to Zodhiates.



Not to quibble, but this is not a disagreement about words but about the meaning of a word. And I'll stop pressing the issue once you concede that "world" in John 3:16 must mean "all persons without exception." ;-) And Zodhiates has a very mixed reputation with specialists in the period. Does he give examples and does the meaning "namely" make sense in the context? Is the one you quote from him?



Amazing Grace said:


> But just to solidify this thought.
> 
> Act 25:26 Of 4012 whom 3739 I have 2192 no 3756 certain 804 thing 5100 to write 1125 unto my lord 2962. Wherefore 1352 I have brought 4254 0 him 846 forth 4254 before 1909 you 5216, and 2532 *specially 3122* before 1909 thee 4675, O king 935 Agrippa 67, that 3704, after examination 351 had 1096 , I might have 2192 somewhat 5100 to write 1125 .
> 
> Paul uses the same word here. You, thee, specially are ONLY connected to Agrippa.



You have just made my point for me. "Namely" does not mean the same thing as "specially". If the word means "specially" in 1 Tim 4:10 as well, then "God is the saviour of all men" in one sense and "specially" the saviour of believers in another sense.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This argument fails to distinguish between things that differ. Piper is not saying that the opportunity for salvation that is given to reprobate men is a potential salvation of those men as the double reference theory argues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Opportunity for salvation" is explicit and clear. The mercy of God gives this opportunity, and it can do so because of Christ's death. The statement is not complicated. It introduces a second reference into the atonement with relation to all men in general. This is precisely what Kennedy opposes. (/QUOTE)
> 
> I am reminded of something my Theology prof repeatedly said: "Words are the counters of wise men, who do reckon by them but they are the coinage of fools". You are insisting that "opportunity for salvation must mean what you think it does instead of seeing how Piper is using it in the context of Piper's own argument. I repeat the critical paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper on Limited Atonement said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piper is not saying that the reprobate have an opportunity for salvation. He is simply saying that every time the gospel is preached to unbelivers (not the reprobate) the mercy of God gives an opportunity of salvation. Had Piper said that "every time the gospel is preached to the reprobate" you would be correct. And the Scriptural source for
> a double referent is Rom.3:25 where Christ's propitiation demonstrates "...God's righteousness, [a needed demonstation] "because in the forbearance of God, he passed over the sins previously committed."
> It is that setting forth of God's righteousness that vindicates God from the charge of being unjust not only in passing over the sins of His people but in temporarily not judging those of the reprobate
> 
> Besides the fact that Piper introduces the concept of the moral government theory into the nature of the atonement, which the quotation by Hugh Martin effectively combats.
Click to expand...


Where does Piper introduce the moral govt. theory into the atonement? If you mean that Piper introduces the mg theory in place of substitutionary atonement in e.g. the following...



Piper on Limited Atonement said:


> Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.



... you are again reading Piper's words in a sense he would deny. Piper is as thorough a believer in the substitutionary view of the atonement as you will find anywhere. (see his sermons on Rom 3:21-26 at the Desiring God website or _The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son_ in The Pleasures of God). If he sees any "moral influence" in the atonement it is in addition to and built on the foundation of substitutionary atonement.



timmopussycat said:


> Something is wrong here. Either there is a division in the Godhead at this point (unthinkable) or Owen is contradicting the apostle Paul who in 1 Timothy 4:10 wrote that God is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Their must be a non-salvific sense in which God is the Saviour of all reprobates because all reprobates are included in "all men". Piper is justifying how God can be the saviour [insert for clarity - in the non-salvific sense] of that group of men which do not believe.





armourbearer said:


> First, I find it strange that you are defending a view as orthodox and then objecting to the orthodox position in doing so.



You will have to elucidate, I don't understand your point. 



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, Jesus Christ the God-man is the Saviour of God's elect alone. God considered in His essential nature is said to be the Saviour of all in the same sense that He says, Isa 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." The only reason this distinction would prove a difficulty is if one thought that the incarnation wasn't necessary.



Except that Paul does not say God is not the only Saviour. Instead he says that God is "the Saviour of all men" and that group is greater than believers who are specifically identified "...especially of those who believe."


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If he sees any "moral influence" in the atonement it is in addition to and built on the foundation of substitutionary atonement.



This the very problem of the double reference theory. In addition to a definite atonement made for the elect, it introduces another aspect of the atonement which has reference to all men. You here grasp the nature of the problem; now you just need to call it what it really is.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Piper is not saying that the reprobate have an opportunity for salvation. He is simply saying that every time the gospel is preached to unbelivers (not the reprobate) the mercy of God gives an opportunity of salvation.



Who said anything about the reprobate? The "opportunity for salvation" is given "to all men," and this "opportunity" is made possible by the death of Christ. This is the clear intention of his words.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Except that Paul does not say God is not the only Saviour. Instead he says that God is "the Saviour of all men" and that group is greater than believers who are specifically identified "...especially of those who believe."



God is the Saviour of all men. That is, there is no other Saviour of men but God. The text seems fairly straightforward to me. There is nothing in it about Jesus Christ, the God-man, dying as the Saviour of all men. You seem to be trying to find something in the words that simply isn't there.


----------



## k.seymore

> armourbearer:
> Piper maintains Christ's death not only secures the salvation of the elect, but also that it means God can mercifully give unbelievers an opportunity for salvation.





> amazing grace:
> What we need to do then is define Amyrauldism. I define it as "hypothetical universalism" "Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" "COnditional salvation upon faith" Perhaps I am incorrect in the definition I use.



Great thread. I haven't had time to let everyone's thoughts fully sink in, but I do have a huge collection of quotes on various subjects and just thought I'd post some that might be on topic. I've highlighted areas which I thought related in some ways to the sufficient for all, efficient for the elect concept:

AA Hodge in "The Atonement":
"Christ did and suffered precisely what the law demanded of each man personally and of every man indiscriminately, and it maybe at any time applied to the redemption of one man as well as to another, as far as the satisfaction itself is concerned. Putting these two things together, therefore, the *sufficiency for all* and the exact adaptation to each, it is plain as the sun in the heavens that the death of Christ did remove all legal obstacles out of the way of God s saving any man he pleases. In this sense, if you please, Christ did make the salvation of all men indifferently possible, a parte Dei. *He can apply it to any whomsoever he will*; but since his will never changes, there canbe no distinction between his present will and his eternal design."

Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology:
"The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is, that if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing. Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well as any other scheme. It teaches that God in *effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men*, and therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel. If a ship containing the wife and children of a man standing on the shore is wrecked, he may seize a boat and hasten to their rescue. His motive is love to his family; his purpose is to save them. But the boat which he has provided may be large enough to receive the whole of the ship’s company. Would there be any inconsistency in his offering them the opportunity to escape? ...This is precisely what God, according to the Augustinian doctrine, has actually done. Out of special love to his people, and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent his Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept of it. Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with all this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for 557the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, “No man perishes for want of an atonement.”


"...Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He *was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world.* Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches."

Synod of Dort:

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than *sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.*
...Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.
...However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is *not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.*
...For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving *effectiveness of his Son's costly death* should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should *effectively redeem* from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father...


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> Not to quibble, but this is not a disagreement about words but about the meaning of a word. And I'll stop pressing the issue once you concede that "world" in John 3:16 must mean "all persons without exception." ;-) And Zodhiates has a very mixed reputation with specialists in the period. Does he give examples and does the meaning "namely" make sense in the context? Is the one you quote from him?



Well you must know my take on this passage, so we will not enter that realm. 



Amazing Grace said:


> But just to solidify this thought.
> 
> Act 25:26 Of 4012 whom 3739 I have 2192 no 3756 certain 804 thing 5100 to write 1125 unto my lord 2962. Wherefore 1352 I have brought 4254 0 him 846 forth 4254 before 1909 you 5216, and 2532 *specially 3122* before 1909 thee 4675, O king 935 Agrippa 67, that 3704, after examination 351 had 1096 , I might have 2192 somewhat 5100 to write 1125 .
> 
> Paul uses the same word here. You, thee, specially are ONLY connected to Agrippa.





timmopussycat said:


> You have just made my point for me. "Namely" does not mean the same thing as "specially". If the word means "specially" in 1 Tim 4:10 as well, then "God is the saviour of all men" in one sense and "specially" the saviour of believers in another sense.



How can you conclude this? 'Specially' in the context from the words of Festus shows that Agrippa is 'namely' the one whom Paul is brought before. I neve once disagreed that Christ is the savior of all men. WHat is meant by this is exactly what it says, "There is no other name by which one can be saved" Christ is it. He is the King of the World. But to conclude that this means He died in some mysterious way for the reprobate is in error. He is the Savior of all men head for head, there is no other name by which one can be saved, yet, His design and intent is only to shed His blood for His sheep.


----------



## Amazing Grace

I am afraid that Mr. Piper is one slippery slope away from Arminianism in his explination. WHy dont we just ask him. Will he defend his position clear?


----------



## shackleton

Here is the series that is being referred to. 

TULIP, Part 4 - Limited Atonement :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

John Piper does not say anything like this. The closest thing to it is the belief that Christ's death benefited everyone, sort of like common grace. Piper does belief that Christ died only for the ones the Father gave him and them only. He is not an Amyraldian. He often brags about being a 7-point Calvinist. Anyway, listen for yourself and decide.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he sees any "moral influence" in the atonement it is in addition to and built on the foundation of substitutionary atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This the very problem of the double reference theory. In addition to a definite atonement made for the elect, it introduces another aspect of the atonement which has reference to all men. You here grasp the nature of the problem; now you just need to call it what it really is.
Click to expand...


Actually I could have been stronger. Piper specifically rejects "moral influence" as a theory of the atonement in _The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son_ in great detail and specifically advocates substitutionary atonement.

I was using "moral influence" only in the sense that "beholding the glory of the Lord" transforms us "into the same image", i.e.. as we behold the Lord's goodness we know, approve and love his goodness and want to go and do likewise, even though we will not rely on our attempts nor achieve full Christlikeness in this life. And I don't think Piper or any Christian will disagree with this.

And I have from the beginning grasped your point that you do not like to think that Christ's atonement has benefits for the non-elect. But it is a good and necessary consequence of Rom. 3:25 that it does. If Christ's propitiation was needed to demonstrate God's righteousness because God in forbearance had passed over sins previously committed, the atonement justifies not only God's permanent forgiveness of the elect (the greater result), but also his kindness to "ungrateful and evil men" in not immediately judging their sins with death (the lesser result). 

I cannot help but wonder if you and the other critics of Piper in this thread have read _Bruising_. For if had, you would have seen that Piper defends his exegesis of Rom. 3:25 as follows:

"...God passes over sins...And Romans 3:25 says that _because of this_, God's righteousness is called into question.
The reason God's righteousness is impugned when he passes over sin and does not judge it, is that sin is an attack on the worth of his glory. And God's righteousness is his unswerving commitment to uphold the worth of his glory and promote his fame in all the world (see _The Pleasure of God in his Fame_ in "The Pleasures of God" for the development of these concepts). When sin is treated as though it is inconsequential, then the glory of God is treated as inconsequential. When God passes over sin, it looks as though he is agreeing that his glory is of little value. But if God acts in such a way as to deny the infinite value of his own glory, then he commits the ulimate outrate; he desecrates what is infinitely holy and he blasphemes what is infinitely sacred. He joins the sinners of Romans 1:23 and exchanges the glory of the immortal God for the creature. This prospect is so terrible that if it came to pass, there could be no gospel and no hope, for there would be no righteous God.
...When we look at the wracking pain and death of the perfectly innocent and infinitely worthy Son of God on the cross, and hear that He endured it all so that the glory of his Father, desecrated by sinners, might be restored, then we know that God has _not_ denied the worth of his glory, he has _not_ been untrue to himself; he has _not_ ceased to uphold his honor and display his glory, he is just — _and_ the justifier of the ungodly." ("The Pleasures of God" pp.164-6). 

And if Christ's propitiation justifies God's righteousness in passing over the sins of the elect permanently, it also justifies God's temporary passing over of the sins of the reprobate.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper is not saying that the reprobate have an opportunity for salvation. He is simply saying that every time the gospel is preached to unbelivers (not the reprobate) the mercy of God gives an opportunity of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about the reprobate? The "opportunity for salvation" is given "to all men," and this "opportunity" is made possible by the death of Christ. This is the clear intention of his words.
Click to expand...


So when you go out field preaching you are not giving an opportunity of salvation to unbelievers? Of course you are. For all you know, God may have one or more of his elect in the crowd. Or to put it another way: the class "unbelievers" when seen from eternity is composed of two types. The reprobate is one and the elect who do not yet believe is the other. When the gospel is preached to unbelievers, it is the elect who are presented with the opportunity of salvation.


----------



## timmopussycat

Amazing Grace said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to quibble, but this is not a disagreement about words but about the meaning of a word. And I'll stop pressing the issue once you concede that "world" in John 3:16 must mean "all persons without exception." ;-) And Zodhiates has a very mixed reputation with specialists in the period. Does he give examples and does the meaning "namely" make sense in the context? Is the one you quote from him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you must know my take on this passage, so we will not enter that realm.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just to solidify this thought.
> 
> Act 25:26 Of 4012 whom 3739 I have 2192 no 3756 certain 804 thing 5100 to write 1125 unto my lord 2962. Wherefore 1352 I have brought 4254 0 him 846 forth 4254 before 1909 you 5216, and 2532 *specially 3122* before 1909 thee 4675, O king 935 Agrippa 67, that 3704, after examination 351 had 1096 , I might have 2192 somewhat 5100 to write 1125 .
> 
> Paul uses the same word here. You, thee, specially are ONLY connected to Agrippa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made my point for me. "Namely" does not mean the same thing as "specially". If the word means "specially" in 1 Tim 4:10 as well, then "God is the saviour of all men" in one sense and "specially" the saviour of believers in another sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you conclude this? 'Specially' in the context from the words of Festus shows that Agrippa is 'namely' the one whom Paul is brought before. I neve once disagreed that Christ is the savior of all men. WHat is meant by this is exactly what it says, "There is no other name by which one can be saved" Christ is it. He is the King of the Worlld. But to conclude that this means He died in some mysterious way for the reprobate is in error. He is the Savior of all men head for head, there is no other name by which one can be saved, yet, His design and intent is only to shed His blood for His sheep.
Click to expand...


Actually, I should have taken a closer look at the Acts passage. For Festus literally says "Wherefore I have brought him before you (plural, referring to "King Agrippa and all you gentlemen here present with us" of v. 24) and (_malista_) before you (singular) King Agrippa". Here _malista_ must, in some sense, draw a distinction between the crowd and Agrippa because Festus distinguishes the crowd from Agrippa by his pronouns. To make this point, the NASB translates _malista_ by "especially" not namely. Which is precisely the point in 1 Tim. 4:10. Christ is the Saviour of all men in one sense yet the Saviour of the elect in another.


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he sees any "moral influence" in the atonement it is in addition to and built on the foundation of substitutionary atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This the very problem of the double reference theory. In addition to a definite atonement made for the elect, it introduces another aspect of the atonement which has reference to all men. You here grasp the nature of the problem; now you just need to call it what it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I could have been stronger. Piper specifically rejects "moral influence" as a theory of the atonement in _The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son_ in great detail and specifically advocates substitutionary atonement.
> 
> I was using "moral influence" only in the sense that "beholding the glory of the Lord" transforms us "into the same image", i.e.. as we behold the Lord's goodness we know, approve and love his goodness and want to go and do likewise, even though we will not rely on our attempts nor achieve full Christlikeness in this life. And I don't think Piper or any Christian will disagree with this.
> 
> And I have from the beginning grasped your point that you do not like to think that Christ's atonement has benefits for the non-elect. But it is a good and necessary consequence of Rom. 3:25 that it does. If Christ's propitiation was needed to demonstrate God's righteousness because God in forbearance had passed over sins previously committed, the atonement justifies not only God's permanent forgiveness of the elect (the greater result), but also his kindness to "ungrateful and evil men" in not immediately judging their sins with death (the lesser result).
> 
> 
> And if Christ's propitiation justifies God's righteousness in passing over the sins of the elect permanently, it also justifies God's temporary passing over of the sins of the reprobate.
Click to expand...



Romans 3:25 is specifically referencing the OT elect who look forward to the Cross of Christ for their atonement only. The reprobate were not in mind in the inspired Pauls' usage of this verse. There is no scripural reason to conclude that sin begets immediate death. There is not one example of this. I hope you believe in imputed/original sin, therefore acording to your opinion, God could have reason to have every reprobate be still born. Yet becasue of the blood of Christ, he does not do this. ANd you call this some sort of grace given to the reprobate. Sustained life this side of the grave for the reprobate does not impugn God's righteousness. 


I have asked this question before, and pergemum, a member here has been the only one to offer scriptural evidence of any benefit to the reprobate, that is a bodily resurrection to be thrown into the second death. I disagree that it is a benefit, but it is a result,possibly. Other than that, I hear this thought of being able to live on this earth, fully condemned as another benefit procured. Yet nothing explicit nor implicit scripturally to prove this. I have also asked, and been unanswered, that if this is true for the reprobate, then why not immediately take His elect to Glory with him instead of living in this rotten world? Paul expresses this thought in Phillipians 1. 

Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death." Yet this cannot nor ever has meant immediate phisical death, for we learned that through Adam. Yet, the prolonged life on earth has nothing whatsoever to do with the cross of Christ. 

Why does God allow the wicked
to live and prosper in the world?

(from Edwards sermon, "The Final Judgment")

The infinitely holy and wise Creator and
Governor of the world must necessarily
hate wickedness. Yet we see many wicked
men flourishing. They live with impunity;
things seem to go well with them, and
the world smiles upon them. God allows
so much injustice to take place in the world.

Now it seems a mystery that these things
are tolerated, when he that is rightfully the
Supreme Judge and Governor of the world
is perfectly just. But at the final judgment
all these wrongs shall be righted.

Many who have not been fit to live, who
have held God and religion in the greatest
contempt, who have been open enemies
to all that is good, have by their wickedness
been the pests of mankind.

Many cruel tyrants, whose barbarities have
been such as would even fill one with horror
to hear or read of them; yet have lived in
great wealth and outward glory, have reigned
over great and mighty kingdoms and empires,
and have been honored as a sort of earthly gods.

Now, if we look no further than the present
state, these things appear strange and
unaccountable. But we ought not to confine
our views within such narrow limits.

God sometimes allows some of the holiest
of men to be in great affliction, poverty, and
persecution. The wicked rule, while they are
subject. The wicked are the head, and they
are the tail. The wicked domineer, while they
serve, and are oppressed, yes are trampled
under their feet, as the mire of the streets!
These things are very common, yet they
seem to imply great confusion.

Now, it is very mysterious, that the holy and
righteous Governor of the world, whose eye
beholds all the children of men, should allow
it so to be, unless we look forward to the day
of judgment. And then the mystery is unraveled.
For although God for the present keeps silence,
and seems to let them alone; yet then he will
give suitable manifestations of his displeasure
against their wickedness. They shall then
receive just punishment.

There are many things in the dealings of God
towards men, which appear very mysterious,
if we view them without having an eye to this
last judgment, which yet, if we consider this
judgment, have no difficulty in them.

Though God allows things to be so for the
present, yet they shall not proceed in this
course always. Comparatively speaking, the
present state of things is but for a moment.

When all shall be settled and fixed by a
divine judgment, the righteous shall be
exalted, honored, and rewarded, and the
wicked shall be depressed and put under
their feet.

However the wicked now prevail against
the righteous, yet the righteous shall at
last have the ascendant, shall come off
conquerors, and shall see the just
vengeance of God executed upon those
who now hate and persecute them.


Nothing mentioned about some benefit from Christ. If there is some sort of benefit from Christ, some form of grace from His death, then there must be some sort of intercession for them. ANd this is an impossiblity. 

I pray for them. I* do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me*, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We [are]. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, [are] in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare [it], that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them. (John 17:9-26 NKJV)


Could anyone please tell me how Christ who does not even pray for the reprobate, can shed His blood for them in any way?


----------



## Barnpreacher

shackleton said:


> Here is the series that is being referred to.
> 
> TULIP, Part 4 - Limited Atonement :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> John Piper does not say anything like this. The closest thing to it is the belief that Christ's death benefited everyone, sort of like common grace. Piper does belief that Christ died only for the ones the Father gave him and them only. He is not an Amyraldian. He often brags about being a 7-point Calvinist. Anyway, listen for yourself and decide.



Right. I was actually at that conference, but it's been a few years ago and I can't remember all he said. In my experience of studying Piper I just don't believe he fits the definition of an Amyraldian. I know he is certainly not headed on a slippery slope towards Arminianism. Granted, he alone would confess if not for the grace of God that could happen tomorrow. But it's that grace of our Lord Jesus whereupon he stands from day to day.

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

Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

I wouldn't mind a discussion on this aspect of Piper's teaching ensuing, but it should probably be split off into a new thread.


----------



## shackleton

Here's another good article and MP3 by Piper on the same subject, "For whom did Christ die?"

For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## Amazing Grace

Barnpreacher said:


> shackleton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the series that is being referred to.
> 
> TULIP, Part 4 - Limited Atonement :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> John Piper does not say anything like this. The closest thing to it is the belief that Christ's death benefited everyone, sort of like common grace. Piper does belief that Christ died only for the ones the Father gave him and them only. He is not an Amyraldian. He often brags about being a 7-point Calvinist. Anyway, listen for yourself and decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I was actually at that conference, but it's been a few years ago and I can't remember all he said. In my experience of studying Piper I just don't believe he fits the definition of an Amyraldian. I know he is certainly not headed on a slippery slope towards Arminianism. Granted, he alone would confess if not for the grace of God that could happen tomorrow. But it's that grace of our Lord Jesus whereupon he stands from day to day.
> 
> Piper does teach a "two will" doctrine when it comes to verses like II Peter 3:9, I Timothy 2:4, and Ezekiel 18:23. That's why I wanted to read Rev. Winzer's exegesis on II Peter 3:9, so I could compare it to Piper's. Piper seems to be following in the footsteps of Edwards in this teaching. That doesn't make it right, but you can decide.
> 
> Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> I wouldn't mind a discussion on this aspect of Piper's teaching ensuing, but it should probably be split off into a new thread.
Click to expand...


I forgot to say, "If he is teaching this......" he is on a slippery slope. For a Calminian is one step away... I still do not know if we can all agree on what an Amyralidinian is. I proposed some bullets, We have A A Hodge... What can we decide on? DOes anyone have Amyrauld, or Cameron in their own words?


----------



## Sonoftheday

When I started this thread I said I would summarize his teaching, since so many have said this is not what he teaches yesterday I listened to it again.

This is a quote from http://www.desiringgod.org/download...._l_lecture.mp3
At 27 Mins into it.


> "He [God] really means to purchase, by the atonement, the conversion of a definite limited group of people from all the people who don't deserve salvation. Whereas the Arminian says the atonement simply holds out the oppurtunity to all. Which of course I believe too that it holds out the oppurtunity to all.I believe it is sufficient for all, and that all or any who believe will be forgiven and saved, but I believe it does more than that, it's more powerful and more effective than that in actually accomplishing the saving faith and repentance of those for whom he died, in that sense."


 
This is not a slip of the tongue or isolated statement, the second half of this message deals with the arminian understanding of the seemingly "universal" text he restates that the arminian understanding is not in contradiction to his understanding of LA, but he believes it does more.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Sonoftheday said:


> When I started this thread I said I would summarize his teaching, since so many have said this is not what he teaches yesterday I listened to it again.
> 
> This is a quote from http://www.desiringgod.org/download...._l_lecture.mp3
> At 27 Mins into it.
> 
> 
> 
> "He [God] really means to purchase, by the atonement, the conversion of a definite limited group of people from all the people who don't deserve salvation. Whereas the Arminian says the atonement simply holds out the oppurtunity to all. Which of course I believe too that it holds out the oppurtunity to all.I believe it is sufficient for all, and that all or any who believe will be forgiven and saved, but I believe it does more than that, it's more powerful and more effective than that in actually accomplishing the saving faith and repentance of those for whom he died, in that sense."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a slip of the tongue or isolated statement, the second half of this message deals with the arminian understanding of the seemingly "universal" text he restates that the arminian understanding is not in contradiction to his understanding of LA, but he believes it does more.
Click to expand...


So what? Do we know who the elect are? No. So, when I preach, I preach THE Gospel of Jesus Christ that will save any and all for whom Christ died. I don't pretend to know who that is in my congregation, neither does Piper.


----------



## k.seymore

Sonoftheday said:


> When I started this thread I said I would summarize his teaching, since so many have said this is not what he teaches yesterday I listened to it again.
> 
> This is a quote from http://www.desiringgod.org/download...._l_lecture.mp3
> At 27 Mins into it.
> 
> 
> 
> "He [God] really means to purchase, by the atonement, the conversion of a definite limited group of people from all the people who don't deserve salvation. Whereas the Arminian says the atonement simply holds out the oppurtunity to all. Which of course I believe too that it holds out the oppurtunity to all.I believe it is sufficient for all, and that all or any who believe will be forgiven and saved, but I believe it does more than that, it's more powerful and more effective than that in actually accomplishing the saving faith and repentance of those for whom he died, in that sense."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a slip of the tongue or isolated statement, the second half of this message deals with the arminian understanding of the seemingly "universal" text he restates that the arminian understanding is not in contradiction to his understanding of LA, but he believes it does more.
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm missing something, but even after reading through this entire thread, I still don't see why anyone would have a problem with what he says in your quote above. I've heard it said many times that TULIP is a summary of Dort, and what Piper says above sounds like what the Synod of Dort says. And Charles Hodge says, etc.. I know that other reformed people take different views and understandings of limited atonement than Dort, but it seems that what Piper says in that quote is classic TULIP (that is, if TULIP really is a summary of Dort). I didn't see anyone interact with the quotes in my previous post which point out what Dort and 2 Hodges said:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/john-piper-limited-atonement-27430/index3.html#post334400


----------



## Sonoftheday

I never said I had a problem with it either, Im too ignorant of the subject to have a problem, I just pointed out that Piper taught in this message that the atonement made salvation Potential for all, but only effective for the Elect. People were saying that he does not teach that so I pointed out a quote where he does.


----------



## timmopussycat

Amazing Grace said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> This the very problem of the double reference theory. In addition to a definite atonement made for the elect, it introduces another aspect of the atonement which has reference to all men. You here grasp the nature of the problem; now you just need to call it what it really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I could have been stronger. Piper specifically rejects "moral influence" as a theory of the atonement in _The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son_ in great detail and specifically advocates substitutionary atonement.
> 
> I was using "moral influence" only in the sense that "beholding the glory of the Lord" transforms us "into the same image", i.e.. as we behold the Lord's goodness we know, approve and love his goodness and want to go and do likewise, even though we will not rely on our attempts nor achieve full Christlikeness in this life. And I don't think Piper or any Christian will disagree with this.
> 
> And I have from the beginning grasped your point that you do not like to think that Christ's atonement has benefits for the non-elect. But it is a good and necessary consequence of Rom. 3:25 that it does. If Christ's propitiation was needed to demonstrate God's righteousness because God in forbearance had passed over sins previously committed, the atonement justifies not only God's permanent forgiveness of the elect (the greater result), but also his kindness to "ungrateful and evil men" in not immediately judging their sins with death (the lesser result).
> 
> And if Christ's propitiation justifies God's righteousness in passing over the sins of the elect permanently, it also justifies God's temporary passing over of the sins of the reprobate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3:25 is specifically referencing the OT elect who look forward to the Cross of Christ for their atonement only. The reprobate were not in mind in the inspired Pauls' usage of this verse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fully agree that the reprobate were not in Paul's mind at this point. But the problem that God's forbearance in passing over sins present to God's righteousness is essetially the same problem (varying only in the duration of the forbearance whether those whose sins are forborne are reprobate (temporary forbearance) or elect (permanent forbearance). The same propitiation that demonstrates God's righteousness in forbearing the sins of the elect permanently will, by good and necessary consequence, also demonstrates God's righteousness in forbearing the sins of the reprobate temporarily.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scripural reason to conclude that sin begets immediate death. There is not one example of this. I hope you believe in imputed/original sin, therefore acording to your opinion, God could have reason to have every reprobate be still born. Yet becasue of the blood of Christ, he does not do this. ANd you call this some sort of grace given to the reprobate. Sustained life this side of the grave for the reprobate does not impugn God's righteousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death." Yet this cannot nor ever has meant immediate phisical death, for we learned that through Adam. Yet, the prolonged life on earth has nothing whatsoever to do with the cross of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you don't mention Piper's justification for this position. Sin deserves immediate death, and were it not for Christ's propitiation, sustained life for ANY SINNER WHATSOEVER would impugn God's righteousness for when sin is not immediately punished it creates the appearance of injustice in God. Given Christ's propitiation, however, God remains just even though he lets that appearance of injustice appear by not immediately punishing sin of the reprobate or of the elect.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have asked this question before, and pergemum, a member here has been the only one to offer scriptural evidence of any benefit to the reprobate, that is a bodily resurrection to be thrown into the second death. I disagree that it is a benefit, but it is a result,possibly. Other than that, I hear this thought of being able to live on this earth, fully condemned as another benefit procured. Yet nothing explicit nor implicit scripturally to prove this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouln't call it a benefit myself. Remember God has his purposes for the wicked on earth. All Christ's propitiation does for them is to allow God to allow them to live until his purposes for them are achived without losing his righteousness by temporarily passing over their sins.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have also asked, and been unanswered, that if this is true for the reprobate, then why not immediately take His elect to Glory with him instead of living in this rotten world? Paul expresses this thought in Phillipians 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Easy answer: God has purposes for his elect on earth one of which is to make known to the principalities and powers the manifold wisdom of God through the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could anyone please tell me how Christ who does not even pray for the reprobate, can shed His blood for them in any way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't. He is shedding his blood so that God's forbearance in passing over sins (whether permanently in the case of the elect or temporarily in the case of the reprobate) will not call God's righteousness into question.
Click to expand...


----------



## cih1355

Does Amyraldianism teach that Christ died for all men in the same sense, but Piper teaches that Christ did not die for all men in the same sense?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.



Why? _Malista_ can be translated either way. It is the immediate context that should determine how we translate _malista_. It's actually very difficult to determine which way to go.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> God is the Saviour of all men. That is, there is no other Saviour of men but God.



The second sentence is not necessarily the same as the first. To say that God is the _only_ saviour, is different from saying his the saviour of _all_ men.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially is a bad translation. It should be "Namely" Paul is just emphasizing the intent of Christ towards His sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? _Malista_ can be translated either way. It is the immediate context that should determine how we translate _malista_. It's actually very difficult to determine which way to go.
Click to expand...


Brother Marty: I have been waiting for you to pipe in. You do have a sympathetic nerve towards amyrauldism. Can you give us a definition for it? What is agonizing for me at times, is when I hear one speak as what everyone thinks amyrauldism is, I call them on it, I am told that is not amyrauldism. Can you understand the frustration this presents? I am going to just start calling it unbiblical. As I look back at my dialogue with you and "tim" here, and others on this subject, I have realized that calling it Amyrauldism actually gives it some credence. As if anything that is unbiblical deserves a label. *Amyrauldism is very easy to define. Anyone who proposes a universal "anything" in the death of Christ is unbiblical. Call it hypothetical universalism. 4 point calvie, calminian, sufficient for all efficient for the elect, 2 willed schizophrenic God theory, if one puts a universal decree of salvation in Christ prior to election, offer of salvation conditioned on faith, playing sophist games and saying Christ is dead for you instead of died for you..etc etc etc.. * or any other "flavor is unbiblical. 

I am finding myself wondering now if giving the reprobate life on earth is actually a blessing derived from the cross. If somehow letting them live without a benefit of the cross impugns God;s righteousness as "timcast" quips. Can he be right? Then thank God I am relieved from even entertaining this error once I realize there is only a self conceived "necessary consequence" in their own minds.. And brought to realize it has nothing to do with God's losing His righteousness to let them live... Becasue there is no scriptural teaching that sin is followed by immediate death, and if God does not destroy the sinner on the spot He is unrighteouss. How dare we to even question God.

TO answer your question why, we MUST use the analogy of scripture in this case. I know you know this, so I am probably preaching to the choir. If we take the 3 "troubling verses" in all 66 books, and draw a theology out of them, we wil only end up in error.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the Saviour of all men. That is, there is no other Saviour of men but God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second sentence is not necessarily the same as the first. To say that God is the _only_ saviour, is different from saying his the saviour of _all_ men.
Click to expand...


Marty, it is the same in the end. Just as saying so and so is the King of England, yet not all recognize him as their King. So we can easily draw the same conclusion with Paul. God is the savior of all men.


----------



## DMcFadden

Amazing Grace said:


> *Amyrauldism is very easy to define. Anyone who proposes a universal "anything" in the death of Christ is unbiblical. Call it hypothetical universalism. 4 point calvie, calminian, sufficient for all efficient for the elect, 2 willed schizophrenic God theory, if one puts a universal decree of salvation in Christ prior to election, offer of salvation conditioned on faith, playing sophist games and saying Christ is dead for you instead of died for you..etc etc etc.. * or any other "flavor is unbiblical.



If we are going to insist upon precision in language, then your defintion of Amyrauldianism and description will not quite do. _Sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis_ is not some strange invention of Arminian-infected divines. It was affirmed by many of the our most significant theologians including Calvin, Owen, and Hodge. And, as to the idea that one can hold to a literal, actual, strictly LIMITED ATONEMENT which meets the standard of Owen's famous triple choice (Christ died for ALL of the sins of SOME people) and be dismissed as "unbiblical," a purveyor of "poisoned" principles, etc. is difficult to accept. Everyone on this board may not agree with the writings of Packer, Piper, Grudem, or Carson. Some may even find them insufficiently Reformed. Many will probably consider themselves "reformeder" than Piper. But, for someone like Piper who continually defends the L in TULIP, some of the rhetoric in this thread seems excessive. If you want to take on Amyrauldians, wouldn't it make more sense to go after Amyraut, Saumer, and Davenant first?

Among the many things separating the 4 pt Calvinist, Calminian, etc. from someone like Piper has to do with the reason for finding a universal aspect (in some sense) in the atonement. I get the impression that some are offended by the scandalous "narrowness" and specificity of the doctrine of election. Softening the edges to make the doctrine more acceptable to Arminians and secularists seems to motivate the Calminian. However, Piper boldly declares the full specificity, God-centeredness, and sovereignty in the work of redemption. He does not speak of a universal aspect out of embarrassed self-consciousness. Rather, he was trained as a biblical theologian (PhD in NT) and seeks to do justice to the full panoply of the biblical witness. Instead of trying to fit every verse into a pre-cut dogmatic wardrobe, no matter how awkwardly, he attempts to accommodate the entire corpus of verses relating to redemption and the atonement, even those that would seem to elevate universal implications and themes. This does not weaken his Calvinism, but shows that Dortian Calvinism is compatible with the whole counsel of God. Indeed, one _could_ argue that it strengthens the case for a limited atonement.

As an Edwardsian Calvinist with strong John Owen leanings, Piper would not be my number one example of wishy-washy compromise.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

armourbearer said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Amyraldism, along with his teaching that there are two wills in God for the futurition of events. Those two usually go hand in hand. Owen's Death of Death is a sure antidote to this poison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His position is NOT *Amyraldianism*. It's the same position that the Synod of Dordt held - Christ's sacrifice is of infinite value - enough to purchase the whole world if it were so intended to do, without Christ having to spend one additional second on the cross.
> 
> *shaking my head*
> 
> When will the Piper-bashing stop ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, there is no bashing here. Nothing has been said to attack his character. As noted earlier, this pertains to teaching. The teaching of ministers is a matter of public record, and there ought to be public accountability for it. In the early church a prophet was to deliver his message and the others were to judge. The idea that a man's teaching cannot be scrutinised is a denial of ministerial accountability.
Click to expand...


No issue there. But even with public critique, we have a responsibility to address what someone teaches _truthfully_ or _in full_ and not simply jump to conclusions (unwarranted ones) based off of one or two sentences. I think you make an error in your address of Piper's teachings in the quoted section below:



> Secondly, Dort's doctrine of sufficiency doesn't accomplish anything for all men with relation to the justice of God. It is only intrinsic with regard to its own value. Piper claims the death of Christ has made it possible for God to be just in giving all men the opportunity to be saved. Hence it is not mere sufficiency, but is also effective in some way, producing actual results for all men.



No, you're reading more into it than Piper means by it. All he's saying is:

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value

This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

===========

Infinite value, more than enough to redeem the whole world if so intended, makes it indeed _possible_ for all of the world to be saved - *if God had so intended*. 

You will never hear him say Christ died *redemptively* for the non-elect. He *will* preach to all men and tell them that today is the day of salvation and TODAY they can enter the kingdom of God if they repent and believe.... preaching the gospel indiscriminantly to the elect and non-elect.

Same as the synod.....


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> Brother Marty: I have been waiting for you to pipe in. You do have a sympathetic nerve towards amyrauldism. Can you give us a definition for it?



Dear Nicholas, the difficulty lies in the word "Amyraldian", which is naturally linked to Amyraut himself. Yes, he believed in a universal aspect to the atonement, but he believed a whole host of other things as well (particular a certain ordering of the decrees). Hence, how much of this do we include in a definition of "Amyraldianism"? The order of the decrees *and* the universal aspect to the atonement, or *just* the universal aspect of the atonement?

Perhaps it's better to dump "Amyraldianism" and speak of "hypothetical universalism". However, the problem with this designation is that HU's affirm the unconditional predestination of the elect, and the phrase doesn't do justice to this.

Maybe we should simply speak of a "double-end atonement"? One end for the elect, and another for all.



Amazing Grace said:


> What is agonizing for me at times, is when I hear one speak as what everyone thinks amyrauldism is, I call them on it, I am told that is not amyrauldism. Can you understand the frustration this presents?



Yes and no. *Yes*, because it's likely something close to Amyraldianism that you're identifying. *No*, because Amyraldianism is a legitimate position in the reformed tradition. It may be out on the edge, but nonetheless it is reformed.




Amazing Grace said:


> I am going to just start calling it unbiblical.



The "double-enders" would claim that the Owenian position is not biblical enough in that it doesn't take into account certain tensions in Scripture.

Both sides will throw texts back and forth at each other, but it seems to me that the real issue at stake is this:

*Owenians* see the double-enders as irrational: the 2 ends appear to be incompatible.

*Double-enders* see the Owenians as over-rational, not allowing for a legitimate Scriptural tension, and hence the Owenians are accused of explaining away (rather than explaining) the so-called "universal" texts.

Perhaps this difference may reflect the sorts of personalities we have: some can't bear rational tensions, others see the former as unecessarily pedantic.

Personally, I think we need to have the discussion, but believe both Owenians and double-enders need to join forces and fight other battles that are of greater significance for us at the moment. Our energies need to be directed not against each other, but against issues of greater weight, such as post modernism, secularism, a-doctrinalism, individualism and consumerism that all impact the modern church.

Piper is doing wonderful things, and I don't want to put the finger at him.

God bless you dear brother.


----------



## Amazing Grace

DMcFadden said:


> If we are going to insist upon precision in language, then your defintion of Amyrauldianism and description will not quite do. _Sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis_ is not some strange invention of Arminian-infected divines. It was affirmed by many of the our most significant theologians including Calvin, Owen, and Hodge. And, as to the idea that one can hold to a literal, actual, strictly LIMITED ATONEMENT which meets the standard of Owen's famous triple choice (Christ died for ALL of the sins of SOME people) and be dismissed as "unbiblical," a purveyor of "poisoned" principles, etc. is difficult to accept. Everyone on this board may not agree with the writings of Packer, Piper, Grudem, or Carson. Some may even find them insufficiently Reformed. Many will probably consider themselves "reformeder" than Piper. But, for someone like Piper who continually defends the L in TULIP, some of the rhetoric in this thread seems excessive. If you want to take on Amyrauldians, wouldn't it make more sense to go after Amyraut, Saumer, and Davenant first?



When the cliche' is used ONLY to mean its INTRINSIC value. He would not have had to been beaten or bleed anymore, I agree with that. If ANYONE, including those greats you mentioned, which I dont believe they did, go beyond this strict understanding, they err. If ANY amount of thought, that connects the intrinsic value with universal benefits, it becomes unscriptural Dennis. I do not believe OWen did this, but Calvin did tread the line. I am not sure about Hodge. ANd I whole heartedly agree that the root is Cameron, Amyrault, Saumer and Davenant. I only wish the confessions spoke clear about their position.





DMcFadden said:


> Among the many things separating the 4 pt Calvinist, Calminian, etc. from someone like Piper has to do with the reason for finding a universal aspect (in some sense) in the atonement. I get the impression that some are offended by the scandalous "narrowness" and specificity of the doctrine of election. Softening the edges to make the doctrine more acceptable to Arminians and secularists seems to motivate the Calminian. However, Piper boldly declares the full specificity, God-centeredness, and sovereignty in the work of redemption. He does not speak of a universal aspect out of embarrassed self-consciousness. Rather, he was trained as a biblical theologian (PhD in NT) and seeks to do justice to the full panoply of the biblical witness. Instead of trying to fit every verse into a pre-cut dogmatic wardrobe, no matter how awkwardly, he attempts to accommodate the entire corpus of verses relating to redemption and the atonement, even those that would seem to elevate universal implications and themes. This does not weaken his Calvinism, but shows that Dortian Calvinism is compatible with the whole counsel of God. Indeed, one _could_ argue that it strengthens the case for a limited atonement.
> 
> As an Edwardsian Calvinist with strong John Owen leanings, Piper would not be my number one example of wishy-washy compromise.



My only problem with this approach is at times, is people explain too much. If they would just stay narrow minded and not worry about softening their edges, all would be fine. Dort did not do this. I agree that Piper has not gone as far to compramise the atonement as others, yet their is a vein of going beyond the narrow intrinsic value into a hypothetical atonement that is not needed. Becasue there are no hypothetical's with God. Only certainties of purpose.


----------



## DMcFadden

> My only problem with this approach is at times, is people explain too much. If they would just stay narrow minded and not worry about softening their edges, all would be fine. Dort did not do this. I agree that Piper has not gone as far to compramise the atonement as others, yet their is a vein of going beyond the narrow intrinsic value into a hypothetical atonement that is not needed. Becasue there are no hypothetical's with God. Only certainties of purpose.



I sympathize, Nicholas, with your concerns. American Christianity is littered with formerly faithful denominations, seminaries, colleges, and congregations that slid an inch at a time into error and heresy. The seminary I graduated from 30 years ago this past week has continued its seismic shift leftward even though it is headed by a self-confessing "Calvinist."

I do think, however, that the approach by systematics folks and biblical studies folks sometimes differ for reasons of craft, not craftiness. People like Piper try mightily to do justice to all the verses, handled fairly and exegetically, and then move on to do their systematics. Sometimes systematics folks begin with their system and attempt to fit the verses into it. Can one "innocently" compromise in ways that lead future generations to make further concessions? Absolutely! ( e.g., my seminary). However, I want to be fair to both the confessions and to the phenomena of the text. In the final analysis, my conviction is that there is no conflict between the two. That is why moving to embrace the "L" in TULIP was an important part of my own pilgrimage.

Perhaps I am being defensive. People like Packer and Piper were the instruments a sovereign God used to convince me to move off the fence and embrace 5 pt Calvinism rather than my formerly wussie 4 pt compromise. And, it is more than a little ironic that Packer and Piper keep getting critiqued for softening the L by finding universal apects to the atonement, yet it was Packer who wrote the nearly definitive summary of Calvinism as a preface to *Owen's *_Death of Death_. Did he change his view since penning the preface?


----------



## Amazing Grace

DMcFadden said:


> My only problem with this approach is at times, is people explain too much. If they would just stay narrow minded and not worry about softening their edges, all would be fine. Dort did not do this. I agree that Piper has not gone as far to compramise the atonement as others, yet their is a vein of going beyond the narrow intrinsic value into a hypothetical atonement that is not needed. Becasue there are no hypothetical's with God. Only certainties of purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sympathize, Nicholas, with your concerns. American Christianity is littered with formerly faithful denominations, seminaries, colleges, and congregations that slid an inch at a time into error and heresy. The seminary I graduated from 30 years ago this past week has continued its seismic shift leftward even though it is headed by a self-confessing "Calvinist."
> 
> I do think, however, that the approach by systematics folks and biblical studies folks sometimes differ for reasons of craft, not craftiness. People like Piper try mightily to do justice to all the verses, handled fairly and exegetically, and then move on to do their systematics. Sometimes systematics folks begin with their system and attempt to fit the verses into it. Can one "innocently" compromise in ways that lead future generations to make further concessions? Absolutely! ( e.g., my seminary). However, I want to be fair to both the confessions and to the phenomena of the text. In the final analysis, my conviction is that there is no conflict between the two. That is why moving to embrace the "L" in TULIP was an important part of my own pilgrimage.
> 
> Perhaps I am being defensive. People like Packer and Piper were the instruments a sovereign God used to convince me to move off the fence and embrace 5 pt Calvinism rather than my formerly wussie 4 pt compromise. And, it is more than a little ironic that Packer and Piper keep getting critiqued for softening the L by finding universal apects to the atonement, yet it was Packer who wrote the nearly definitive summary of Calvinism as a preface to *Owen's *_Death of Death_. Did he change his view since penning the preface?
Click to expand...


 I agree Brother Dennis. Very well said.

When I spoke of a 'narrowness' I did not mean to imply that one must look at the whole of the inspired writ with a grid that they force on troubling texts. That is as much a problem, if not more than compramising the truth. By narrowness, i mean one must never avoid troubling texts. But instead face them head on by using the analogy of Scripture. Wrestle with it until the Spirit gives more light and understanding. IF this cannot be done, i would rather say, and I have, "I don't know" how this reconciles, yet I pray God shows me, and if not, all the more Glory to Him for its shows my frailness and weakness compared to him. But I know the weight of scripture concludes the following... I just would not take the road of Amyrault et al and compramise. Calling 2 opposites truth. And universal aspects within the greatest event in the eternal mind of God, and the time of mankind, the Cross, is one area that must not be compramised. The Salvation of His chosen is beyond measure, the grandest truth, if one were to "rate" them, in all of the Written account of all the books.

As for Packer, I do not know much if anything about him if he has changed or not....


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Amazing Grace said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the Saviour of all men. That is, there is no other Saviour of men but God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second sentence is not necessarily the same as the first. To say that God is the _only_ saviour, is different from saying his the saviour of _all_ men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marty, it is the same in the end. Just as saying so and so is the King of England, yet not all recognize him as their King. So we can easily draw the same conclusion with Paul. God is the savior of all men.
Click to expand...



Surely _all men_ in that context refers to all types of men, i.e. men from different races and social classes. If the text can be used to justify universal atonement, then why can it not also be used to justify universal salvation?

Indeed, if one believes in universal atonement, one must also believe in universal salvation, as the Lord makes it clear that he died for His sheep (John 10); therefore, if He died for all men, then all men are his sheep, and so all men will be saved. Since such a theory is clearly unbiblical, then Christ must only have died for the elect, and in no sense died for the reprobate.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Actually I could have been stronger. Piper specifically rejects "moral influence" as a theory of the atonement in _The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son_ in great detail and specifically advocates substitutionary atonement.



The word "double" means twofold. No one has suggested that he denies a definite atonement for the elect alone. That would be Arminianism. If the double reference theory denied a definite atonement for the elect I could understand why you would go to the trouble of showing that Piper doesn't deny it. But the double reference theory accepts this point, so the fact that Piper holds it is irrelevant. The "double reference" theory holds there is a second reference besides that which was made for the elect. It introduces into the atonement a universal bearing. This universal reference Piper quite clearly describes as a moral influence which justifies God in showing mercy to all men. His words are very straightforward and plain.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> So when you go out field preaching you are not giving an opportunity of salvation to unbelievers?



Of course I desire to give every sinner an opportunity of salvation: "My heart's desire for Israel," etc. But the objective of gospel preaching is one thing, and the objective of God in using gospel preaching is another thing. I am not the one who gives salvation -- God is. God has His elect people whom He is saving by means of the foolishness of preaching. It is for those elect people that Christ purchased the blessing of salvation.


----------



## Amazing Grace

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I could have been stronger. Piper specifically rejects "moral influence" as a theory of the atonement in _The Pleasure of God in Bruising the Son_ in great detail and specifically advocates substitutionary atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "double" means twofold. No one has suggested that he denies a definite atonement for the elect alone. That would be Arminianism. If the double reference theory denied a definite atonement for the elect I could understand why you would go to the trouble of showing that Piper doesn't deny it. But the double reference theory accepts this point, so the fact that Piper holds it is irrelevant. The "double reference" theory holds there is a second reference besides that which was made for the elect. It introduces into the atonement a universal bearing. This universal reference Piper quite clearly describes as a moral influence which justifies God in showing mercy to all men. His words are very straightforward and plain.
Click to expand...



Is the 'double ref theory' the same as what Marty called ;"double-end atonement"

Can one lead me to a cliff note version of this? Is this also known as the 'Moral influence Atonement" It sounds more liek the Governmental theory hersy


----------



## MW

k.seymore said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but even after reading through this entire thread, I still don't see why anyone would have a problem with what he says in your quote above. I've heard it said many times that TULIP is a summary of Dort, and what Piper says above sounds like what the Synod of Dort says. And Charles Hodge says, etc.. I know that other reformed people take different views and understandings of limited atonement than Dort, but it seems that what Piper says in that quote is classic TULIP (that is, if TULIP really is a summary of Dort). I didn't see anyone interact with the quotes in my previous post which point out what Dort and 2 Hodges said:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/john-piper-limited-atonement-27430/index3.html#post334400



The point you are missing is that the traditional reformed concept of sufficiency is entirely intrinsic. This is the value of Christ's death in and of itself, so that if God had have intended Christ's death to save all men, Christ would not have needed to have suffered anything more. Piper's idea is not that Christ's death is intrinsically sufficient, but that Christ's death actually accomplished something so far as the justice of God is concerned to make it possible for God to show mercy to all men.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Indeed, if one believes in universal atonement, one must also believe in universal salvation,



That's precisely what double-enders deny. They believe that Christ died for the elect and for all in *different* ways.

Daniel, your comment is a classic manifestation of what I described in my previous post. The issue concerns *methodology*. Double-enders would accuse you of not letting the text speak for itself but squashing a pre-determed dogmatic conclusion into the text--i.e. being over-rationalistic.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

JohnOwen007 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if one believes in universal atonement, one must also believe in universal salvation,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's precisely what double-enders deny. They believe that Christ died for the elect and for all in *different* ways.
> 
> Daniel, your comment is a classic manifestation of what I described in my previous post. The issue concerns *methodology*. Double-enders would accuse you of not letting the text speak for itself but squashing a pre-determed dogmatic conclusion into the text--i.e. being over-rationalistic.
Click to expand...



Yes I had a Federal Visionist tell me this on my blog a while back. However, Romans 6 is clear that those who died with Christ shall live with Christ - i.e. those for whom Christ died shall have eternal life - so it is not imposing a pre-determined dogmatic conclusion on the text, but simply comparing Scripture with Scripture to properly interpret it.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, if one believes in universal atonement, one must also believe in universal salvation,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's precisely what double-enders deny. They believe that Christ died for the elect and for all in *different* ways.
> 
> Daniel, your comment is a classic manifestation of what I described in my previous post. The issue concerns *methodology*. Double-enders would accuse you of not letting the text speak for itself but squashing a pre-determed dogmatic conclusion into the text--i.e. being over-rationalistic.
Click to expand...


Brother Marty:

I see we have a new label here, of which I am not aware of. I'll ask again, What is a double ender? IS that liek a 'double header" in baseball?


----------



## MW

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Yes I had a Federal Visionist tell me this on my blog a while back. However, Romans 6 is clear that those who died with Christ shall live with Christ - i.e. those for whom Christ died shall have eternal life - so it is not imposing a pre-determined dogmatic conclusion on the text, but simply comparing Scripture with Scripture to properly interpret it.



Very well noted.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I had a Federal Visionist tell me this on my blog a while back. However, Romans 6 is clear that those who died with Christ shall live with Christ - i.e. those for whom Christ died shall have eternal life - so it is not imposing a pre-determined dogmatic conclusion on the text, but simply comparing Scripture with Scripture to properly interpret it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well noted.
Click to expand...


Thanks.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> Brother Marty:
> 
> I see we have a new label here, of which I am not aware of. I'll ask again, What is a double ender? IS that liek a 'double header" in baseball?



Dear Nicholas, being an Australian I know nothing about baseball ... only cricket, so please excuse my ignorance. But I'm always willing to have a double slice of vegemite on toast. 

What I mean by the "double-end" position is that which has a dual purpose: one for the elect, and another for all. Christ's death makes salvation actual for the elect, and possible for the non-elect. This is what most people want to call "Amyraldianism" or "hypothetical universalism", but as I explained in my penultmate post I think both designations are best left alone.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Yes I had a Federal Visionist tell me this on my blog a while back. However, Romans 6 is clear that those who died with Christ shall live with Christ - i.e. those for whom Christ died shall have eternal life - so it is not imposing a pre-determined dogmatic conclusion on the text, but simply comparing Scripture with Scripture to properly interpret it.



Well unfortunately dear brother I'm going to reassert the same point again, because your appeal to Romans 6 indicates to me that there is still a methological problem.

BTW pulling in an FVer who makes the same charge of you is a rhetorical device that distracts from the issue at hand. I am no supporter of the FV.

Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes *after* basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture.

The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).

Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context.

I personally doubt that "saviour" means "benefactor" or "sustainer" because:

[1] The argument of chapter 4 concerns what Timothy is to teach his people so that he and his people will be "saved" (v. 16). Salvation in that verse is definately a reference to eschatological salvation from sin.

[2] Paul never elsewhere in his writings uses the word "saviour" (_soter_) to mean benefactor / sustainer.

I personally doubt that "all" means "all kinds of people" (i.e. not only Jews) because:

[1] There is nothing in the direct context that shows the Jew / Gentile issue is being discussed.

[2] "All kinds of people" fits awkwardly with the following phrase no matter how we take _malista_ ("especially", "namely"):

a. If "especially": "all kinds of people especially those who believe". Especially serves to _narrow_ the former group, hence "all kinds of people" would be a wider group than those who believe.

b. If "namely": "God is the saviour of all kinds of people namely those who believe", that is, "all kinds of people" is identified by "those who believe", which is a meaningless statement. If _malista_ meant "namely" and is to make sense in context, it would probably be something like: "all kinds of people namely Jew and Gentiles".

Even if you don't agree with my exegesis thus far, you can see that there is much work to be done before the work of integration begins.

I'm all for comparing Scripture with Scripture. However, to do this without prior exegesis will actually end up twisting Scripture. This is precisely how Arminians explain away various Calvinistic texts.

God bless you brother.


----------



## Gloria

Sonoftheday said:


> I recently listened to John Pipers messages over the TULIP. He presented the L in a way I had never heard it and I was wondering how it aligned with the reformers position on the doctrine.
> 
> He basically said that *Christ died potentially *for every human being, they must only exercise faith to recieve it. However, Christ only purchased irresistible Grace for the elect, therefore they are the only ones who can exercise faith.



Piper said that??? I haven't read the entire thread but I'd like to have a link to this sermon/teaching. I'll see if you've already posted it.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes *after* basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture.
> 
> The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).
> 
> Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. *Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc.* And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context.



Brother Marty, this is the correct approach, but cannot be the final arbiter. The final arbiter is the full weight of the corpus, 'namely'(no pun intended) the Pauline Corpus. If not we will be pulling verses out of the body, leading us to a wrong conclusion. There is no guessing when it comes to Paul on the matter of atonement. He used no hypothetical's, without giving a clear answer. His rhetorical questions are also answered clearly. Therefore, 1 Tim 4;10 must be answered elsewhere.


----------



## k.seymore

Armourbearer said:


> The point you are missing is that the traditional reformed concept of sufficiency is entirely intrinsic. This is the value of Christ's death in and of itself, so that if God had have intended Christ's death to save all men, Christ would not have needed to have suffered anything more. Piper's idea is not that Christ's death is intrinsically sufficient, but that Christ's death actually accomplished something so far as the justice of God is concerned to make it possible for God to show mercy to all men.



Earlier you gave a quote of what you called "poison" and "Amyraldian":


Armourbearer said:


> Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."



How is that actually different than the quotes I listed (here are excerpts):

AA Hodge: "it is plain as the sun in the heavens that the death of Christ did remove all legal obstacles out of the way of God s saving any man he pleases."

C Hodge: "He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, 'No man perishes for want of an atonement.'"

C.Hodge: "...Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world."

Or for that matter, here are more:

Dabney:
This seems, then, to be the candid conclusion, that there is no passage the Bible which asserts an intention to apply redemption to any others than the elect, on the part of God and Christ, but that *there are passages which imply that Christ died for all sinners in some sense, as Dr. Ch. Hodge has so expressly admitted.* Certainly the expiation made by Christ is so related to all, irrespective of election, that God can sincerely invite all to enjoy its benefits, that every soul in the world who desires salvation is warranted to appropriate it, and that even a Judas, had he come in earnest, would not have been cast out. Dabney, Lectures, 527.

Dabney:
1) There is no safer clue for the student through this perplexed subject, than, to take this proposition; which, to every Calvinist, is nearly as indisputable as a truism; Christ’s design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate, and all that it effectuates, in its subsequent proclamation. This is but saying that Christ’s purpose is unchangeable and omnipotent. *Now, what does it actually effectuate?* “We know only in part,” but so much is certain.

(a.) The purchase of the full and assured redemption of all the elect, or of all believers.

(b.) *A reprieve of doom for every sinner of Adam’s race* who does not die at his birth (For these we believe it has purchased heaven). And this reprieve gains for all, many substantial, though temporal benefits, such as unbelievers, of all men, will be the last to account no benefits. Among these are postponement of death and perdition, secular well being, and the bounties of life.

(c.) A *manifestation of God’s mercy to many of the non elect,* to all those, namely, who live under the Gospel, in sincere offers of a salvation on terms of faith. And a sincere offer is a real and not a delusive benefaction; because it is only the recipients contumacy which disappoints it.

(d.) A justly enhanced condemnation of those who reject the Gospel, and thereby a clearer display of God’s righteousness and reasonableness in condemning, to all the worlds.

(e.) *A disclosure of the infinite tenderness and glory of God’s compassion, with purity, truth and justice, to all rational creatures*.

Dabney:
*"Did Christ die for the elect only, or for all men?"* ...the question will be pressed, “Is Christ’s sacrifice limited by the purpose and design of the Trinity”? The best answer for Presbyterians to make is this: In the purpose and design of the Godhead, Christ’s sacrifice was intended to effect just the results, and all the results, which would be found flowing from it in the history of redemption. I say this is exactly the answer for us Presbyterians to make, because we believe in God’s universal predestination as certain and efficacious so that t_he whole final outcome of his plan must be the exact interpretation of what his plan was at first._ And this statement the Arminian also is bound to adopt, unless he means to charge God with ignorance, weakness, or fickleness. Search and see.
Well, then, the realized results of Christ’s sacrifice are not one, but many and various:
1. *It makes a display of God’s general benevolence and pity toward all lost sinners,* to the glory of his infinite grace. For, blessed be his name, he says, “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth” (Ezek. 18:32).
2. *Christ’s sacrifice has certainly purchased for the whole human race a merciful postponement of the doom incurred by our sins, including all the temporal blessings of our earthly life, all the gospel restraints upon human depravity, and the sincere offer of heaven to all.* For, but for Christ, man’s doom would have followed instantly after his sin, as that of the fallen angels did.
3. Christ’s sacrifice, wilfully rejected by men, sets the stubbornness, wickedness, and guilt of their nature in a much stronger light, to the glory of God’s final justice.
4. *Christ’s sacrifice has purchased and provided for the effectual calling of the elect,* with all the graces which insure their faith, repentance, justification, perseverance, and glorification. Now, since the sacrifice actually results in all these different consequences, they are all included in Gods design. This view satisfies all those texts quoted against us.
*But we cannot admit that Christ died as fully and in the same sense for Judas as he did for Saul of Tarsus.* Here we are bound to assert that, while the expiation is infinite, redemption is particular...
Since their condition is determined intentionally by God’s providence, *it could not be his intention that the expiation should avail for them equally with those who hear and believe.* This view is destructive, particularly of the Arminian scheme...
Hence, it is absolutely impossible for us to retain the dogma that Christ in design died equally for all. *We are compelled to hold that he died for Peter and Paul in some sense in which he did not for Judas.* No consistent mind can hold the Calvinistic creed as to man’s total depravity toward God, his inability of will, God’s decree, God’s immutable attributes of sovereignty and omnipotence over free agents, omniscience and wisdom, and stops short of this conclusion. So much every intelligent opponent admits, and in disputing particular redemption, to this extent at least, he always attacks these connected truths as falling along with the other.
In a word, Christ’s work for the elect does not merely put them in a salvable state, but purchases for them a complete and assured salvation. To him who knows the depravity and bondage of his own heart, any less redemption than this would bring no comfort." R.L. Dabney The Five Points of Calvinism (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1895), 60-66.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I had a Federal Visionist tell me this on my blog a while back. However, Romans 6 is clear that those who died with Christ shall live with Christ - i.e. those for whom Christ died shall have eternal life - so it is not imposing a pre-determined dogmatic conclusion on the text, but simply comparing Scripture with Scripture to properly interpret it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well noted.
Click to expand...


Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.


----------



## MW

k.seymore said:


> Earlier you gave a quote of what you called "poison" and "Amyraldian":
> 
> 
> Armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper: "Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that actually different than the quotes I listed (here are excerpts):
Click to expand...


I explained the difference in the post you are responding to. Please read it and interact with it rather than simply paste more quotations. To prove there are apples in the world you only need to produce one apple, you do not need to multiply a hundred of them. And to prove that a hundred apples are apples and not oranges you only need to examine one of them, and what you prove in that instance applies to the whole class.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.



Then Christ hasn't died for them in any sense. See 2 Cor. 5:14.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> Brother Marty, this is the correct approach, but cannot be the final arbiter. The final arbiter is the full weight of the corpus, 'namely'(no pun intended) the Pauline Corpus. If not we will be pulling verses out of the body, leading us to a wrong conclusion. There is no guessing when it comes to Paul on the matter of atonement. He used no hypothetical's, without giving a clear answer. His rhetorical questions are also answered clearly. Therefore, 1 Tim 4;10 must be answered elsewhere.



Dear Nicholas, thanks for the post. However, call me thick, but I can't understand what you're saying.


----------



## MW

k.seymore said:


> Or for that matter, here are more:
> 
> Dabney:



Dabney is a different kettle of fish. I have provided some account of his views on another thread. The problem with Dabney's presentation is a lack of coherence -- partially voluntaristic within a necessitarian scheme, that is, requiring faith to make it effectual. This means he can adapt language to suit his present purpose. He can introduce different designs into the death of Christ without actually stating Christ made atonement for all men. But William Cunningham has correctly noted that all other advantages of the death of Christ are subordinate to the great design of satisfying God's justice on behalf of the elect. All benefit therefore rests in the election of God -- true voluntarism. Where there is no satisfaction to divine justice on behalf of a particular man there is no real benefit which flows to that man from the death of Christ.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Christ hasn't died for them in any sense. See 2 Cor. 5:14.
Click to expand...


By that kind of illogic an Arminian may prove that God so loved the world [defined as all persons without exception] in John 3:16. The context of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14 is clearly all believers and we know that Christ's those who die with Christ are the elect Rom. 6:1-14. Whether "all men" means "all believers only" or all humanity in 1 Tim 4:10 must be justified from the context. Every immediate exegetical consideration mandates the latter: all is not left alone but is spelled out "all men" and that group is distinguished from "those who believe".


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or for that matter, here are more:
> 
> Dabney:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney is a different kettle of fish. I have provided some account of his views on another thread. The problem with Dabney's presentation is a lack of coherence -- partially voluntaristic within a necessitarian scheme, that is, requiring faith to make it effectual. This means he can adapt language to suit his present purpose. He can introduce different designs into the death of Christ without actually stating Christ made atonement for all men. But William Cunningham has correctly noted that all other advantages of the death of Christ are subordinate to the great design of satisfying God's justice on behalf of the elect. All benefit therefore rests in the election of God -- true voluntarism. Where there is no satisfaction to divine justice on behalf of a particular man there is no real benefit which flows to that man from the death of Christ.
Click to expand...


Where is my [distant] cousin's argument on this point found? Is it available online?


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Marty, this is the correct approach, but cannot be the final arbiter. The final arbiter is the full weight of the corpus, 'namely'(no pun intended) the Pauline Corpus. If not we will be pulling verses out of the body, leading us to a wrong conclusion. There is no guessing when it comes to Paul on the matter of atonement. He used no hypothetical's, without giving a clear answer. His rhetorical questions are also answered clearly. Therefore, 1 Tim 4;10 must be answered elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Nicholas, thanks for the post. However, call me thick, but I can't understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...


You stated:

_Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture._

The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).

_Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context._

If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is *how it fits into Pauline vocabulary**then in the context of the other writings by the same author *

This is the definition of the analogy of scripture. Packer concludes thus: _Every text has its immediate context in the passage from which it comes, its broader context in the book to which it belongs, and its ultimate context in the Bible as a whole; and it needs to be rightly related to each of these contexts if its character, scope and significance is to be adequately understood._

*“The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”*
_
Accordingly, our methods of interpreting Scripture must be such as express faith in its truth and consistency as God’s Word. Our approach must be harmonistic; for we know at the outset that God’s utterance is not self-contradictory. Article XX of the Church of England lays down that it is not lawful for the Church so to “expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”; no more is it lawful for any individual exegete. Not that we should adopt strained and artificial expedients for harmonizing; this will neither glorify God nor edify us. What we cannot harmonize by a natural and plausible hypothesis is best left unharmonized, with a frank admission that in our present state of knowledge we do not see how these apparent discrepancies should be resolved._

James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed well noted but inapplicable. Nobody has suggested that the reprobate die with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Christ hasn't died for them in any sense. See 2 Cor. 5:14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that kind of illogic an Arminian may prove that God so loved the world [defined as all persons without exception] in John 3:16. The context of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14 is clearly all believers and we know that Christ's those who die with Christ are the elect Rom. 6:1-14. Whether "all men" means "all believers only" or all humanity in 1 Tim 4:10 must be justified from the context. Every immediate exegetical consideration mandates the latter: all is not left alone but is spelled out "all men" and that group is distinguished from "those who believe".
Click to expand...


I'm arguing for the particularity of Christ's death, so of course I maintain the contextual intepretation of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14. Your appeal to contextual exegesis buttresses the case for particularism. The "all" for whom Christ died are dead in Christ; every man without exception is not dead in Christ; ergo, Christ did not die for every man without exception. The point is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ died for a particular people. Otherwise you end up with a class of men who can say Christ died for them whilst they continue to live for themselves, which is contrary to the apostle's argument.

I'm not sure why you have reverted back to 1 Tim. 4:10, when it has already been clearly established that there is nothing in that text about Christ dying as the Saviour of men. Let it be granted that the text is speaking universally; the text does not say Christ died as the Saviour for all men, but especially for believers. It simply says that God is the Saviour of all men -- that is, the Saviour of men is God, no one else.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Where is my [distant] cousin's argument on this point found? Is it available online?



Sermons, pp. 410, 411.



> The Scripture affords us sufficient materials to prove that the death of Christ was, in its nature and proper character, the endurance of the penalty we had incurred, or, what is virtually the same thing, of a full equivalent, an adequate compensation for it; and for proving also, that it is only because this was its true character that it was, or could be, a display or manifestation of the principles of the Divine government and law. The inference from all this is clear and certain, that Christ’s death bore upon and effected the pardon and salvation of sinners, not merely or principally through the intervention of its being such a display or manifestation – though this consideration is true, and is not to be overlooked – but still more directly from its own proper nature, as being a penal infliction, in accordance with the provisions of the law, endured in our room and stead; and as thus, by rendering satisfaction to the Divine justice and law, furnishing an adequate ground or reason why those, in whose room it was suffered, should not be called upon to suffer in their own persons the penalty they had deserved and incurred. And indeed it is, we think, impossible to understand how the death of Christ can be a manifestation of the Divine character and law and government, or be fitted to produce those impressions upon men’s minds, for which this manifestation is held to be indispensable, unless it be really regarded in the light in which Scripture represents it, even as the endurance of the penalty of the Law in our room and stead.



Hence the death of Christ serves as a governmental display or moral influence only insofar as it satisfies the penalty which the divine governor requires for the forgiveness of moral transgression -- so far and no farther. We see this clearly in Rom. 8:32, wherein God is said to be willing to freely give us all things because He spared not His own Son but gave Him up for us all. The display is co-extensive with penal substitution, and so extends to the same objects.


----------



## Amazing Grace

AFter giving this more thought and study, I find the root of the error on those who promote universal benefits for all head for head lies in the thought of 'propitiation'

What are the benefits of Christ's death?

1) redemption (paying the price)
2) reconciliation (getting together by removing enmity)
3) justification (declaring righteous)
4) Forgiveness
5) Adpotion
6) Sanctification
7) propitiation(turning away wrath)

It is #7 that lies as the root of universal benefits. That somehow Christ's death turns away God's wrath temporarily towards the reprobate.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a *propitiation* through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

* Only for the elect in Christ

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

*only for the elect

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

* only for the elect once again.

As we see clearly, the wrath of God abides on them(reprobate) continuously.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son (elect) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.(unbelievers/reprobate)


1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,


Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.


----------



## k.seymore

armourbearer said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or for that matter, here are more:
> 
> Dabney:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dabney is a different kettle of fish. I have provided some account of his views on another thread. The problem with Dabney's presentation is a lack of coherence -- partially voluntaristic within a necessitarian scheme, that is, requiring faith to make it effectual. This means he can adapt language to suit his present purpose. He can introduce different designs into the death of Christ without actually stating Christ made atonement for all men. But William Cunningham has correctly noted that all other advantages of the death of Christ are subordinate to the great design of satisfying God's justice on behalf of the elect. All benefit therefore rests in the election of God -- true voluntarism. Where there is no satisfaction to divine justice on behalf of a particular man there is no real benefit which flows to that man from the death of Christ.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that follow up. I was a bit confused at your previous reply because those new quotes I had listed were showing that Dabney included the non-elect in the _effects_ of Christ's death and said that the _effects_ of Christ's death "are not one but many". Although what Dabney is saying makes sense to me, it sounds like you have studied him quite a bit and have come to belive he is incoherent (which may very well be, I know little about him). So I guess I would ask this: Would you consider these aspects of theology which seem to match Piper's to also be poison?


----------



## MW

k.seymore said:


> So I guess I would ask this: Would you consider these aspects of theology which seem to match Piper's to also be poison?



Yes. Any universalising element introduced into the doctrines of grace is poison. In reality it creates two gospels -- one which makes men salvable and another which saves; one in which Christ is preached as the wish and possibility of God, the other in which He is the wisdom and power of God. It should go without saying that the Scriptures only teach one gospel and men are called upon to believe one gospel. The only universal element is the command to preach the gospel to every creature. The gospel itself is the authoritative message of salvation, of particular grace. "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." Anything other than this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## k.seymore

Here are two passages from Acts which seem to me to be saying that _in some sense_ God sent Jesus for each individual, not merely general people groups. Notice in the following passage that it says of the nation of Israel, "God... sent him... to bless you by turning every one of you..." And note that God's intent in sending each individual member of Israel a blessing springs out of the passage of the blessing promised the nations in Abraham. The reasoning appears to me to be: Since God promised to bless all the families of the earth, he must first come and bless Abraham's family. And it also appears that since he interprets God's blessing as being sent through Christ to each member of Abraham's family, then when Christ's message is sent to bless all the families of the earth afterward, it would seem to imply that he understands that to mean each member of all the families of the earth:

"But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and *that he may send the Christ appointed for you*... *every soul* who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people... *You are the sons* of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with *your fathers*, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall* all the families of the earth be blessed.’* God, having raised up his servant, *sent him to you first, to bless you* by turning *every one of you* from your wickedness.”" (Acts 3:18-26)

But, although in some sense it seems to me proper to say God sent Christ to bless each member of the family of Abraham first in order that all the families of the earth may be blessed second, many reject the gift:

"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 13:46-47)


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is *how it fits into Pauline vocabulary**then in the context of the other writings by the same author *



Dear Nicholas, In my humble opinion you've actually gone beyond the analogia Scripturae. If 1 Tim 4:10 did teach (according to the science of exegesis) some sort of universal benefits of Christ's death (let's say for arguments sake), then we would have to explain how it and the other things Paul says about atonement benefits for the elect only to *both* be true.

That's *precisely* why there's a "double-end" position. Christ's death has benefits for all people but of a different type to those of the elect. It's not because one position is following the analogia scripturae and the other position is not.

We can never ever squash the grammatical meaning of Scripture!



Amazing Grace said:


> James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....



Not quite. James uses the word "justification" (according to direct context) differently to that of Paul. If Paul and James had the same meaning of the word "justification" James 2:24 would constitute a *direct contradiction* to Paul. For James justification = "to prove righteous", in Paul = "to declare righteous".

God bless brother Nicholas.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is *how it fits into Pauline vocabulary**then in the context of the other writings by the same author *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Nicholas, In my humble opinion you've actually gone beyond the analogia Scripturae. If 1 Tim 4:10 did teach (according to the science of exegesis) some sort of universal benefits of Christ's death (let's say for arguments sake), then we would have to explain how it and the other things Paul says about atonement benefits for the elect only to *both* be true.
> 
> That's *precisely* why there's a "double-end" position. Christ's death has benefits for all people but of a different type to those of the elect. It's not because one position is following the analogia scripturae and the other position is not.
> 
> We can never ever squash the grammatical meaning of Scripture!
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite. James uses the word "justification" (according to direct context) differently to that of Paul. If Paul and James had the same meaning of the word "justification" James 2:24 would constitute a *direct contradiction* to Paul. For James justification = "to prove righteous", in Paul = "to declare righteous".
> 
> God bless brother Nicholas.
Click to expand...

Brother Marty: Than again I ask what are these benefits other than a bodily resurrection? And please do not say as timcat and Dabney that His wrath is turned away(propitiation) for a time, Scripture shows clearly that this is not the case.

And I agree with you about James. In fact, it proves my point. We must go to all lengths to prove that James does not contradict Paul. Yet in a vaccuum, James is used to prove a works salvation.


----------



## Amazing Grace

AFter giving this more thought and study, I find the root of the error on those who promote universal benefits for all head for head lies in the thought of 'propitiation'

What are the benefits of Christ's death?

1) redemption (paying the price)
2) reconciliation (getting together by removing enmity)
3) justification (declaring righteous)
4) Forgiveness
5) Adpotion
6) Sanctification
7) propitiation(turning away wrath)

It is #7 that lies as the root of universal benefits. That somehow Christ's death turns away God's wrath temporarily towards the reprobate.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a *propitiation* through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

* Only for the elect in Christ

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

*only for the elect

1Jo 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

* only for the elect once again.

As we see clearly, the wrath of God abides on them(reprobate) continuously.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son (elect) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.(unbelievers/reprobate)


1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1Th 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,


Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.


----------



## k.seymore

Oh strange... I thought I posted this earlier today but now I don't see it. Here's my post again:



Amazing Grace said:


> It is #7 that lies as the root of universal benefits. That somehow Christ's death turns away God's wrath temporarily towards the reprobate... As we see clearly, the wrath of God abides on them(reprobate) continuously.... Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son (elect) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (unbelievers/reprobate)



So if your line of reasoning proves that God’s wrath is not turned away or delayed _for a time _for the reprobate, doesn’t it also prove that the regenerate can not ever suffer God’s wrath _in some sense_ for a time? Yet Paul can state in your verse above that God’s wrath doesn’t abide on the regenerate, yet in another sense he can say that God’s wrath can come on the regenerate:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only _to avoid God’s wrath_ but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (Rom 13:1-7)

So if Paul can say that in one sense God’s wrath _doesn’t_ abide on the regenerate, then he says in another sense the regenerate can suffer God’s wrath _for a time_, then how can you say the fact that Paul says God’s wrath _does_ abide on the unregenerate prove that God doesn’t _in another sense_ delay his wrath towards them for a time because of Christ’s death?



Amazing Grace said:


> I ask what are these benefits other than a bodily resurrection?



Wouldn't the _promise_ of blessing through Christ's fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant be a benefit of Christ's death? As I attempted to show in my last post, for this blessing to come on all the families of the Gentiles, Peter understood that it first had to come on the family of Abraham. And Peter interpreted this as meaning God (in some sense) sent Christ to bless each member of the family of Abraham. This seems to me to imply that Peter also would have understood the blessing promised to all the families of the Gentiles to be promised to each member of all the families:

"‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ *God,* having raised up his servant, *sent him to you* first, *to bless you* by turning *every one of you* from your wickedness."


----------



## timmopussycat

Amazing Grace said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to quibble, but this is not a disagreement about words but about the meaning of a word. And I'll stop pressing the issue once you concede that "world" in John 3:16 must mean "all persons without exception." ;-) And Zodhiates has a very mixed reputation with specialists in the period. Does he give examples and does the meaning "namely" make sense in the context? Is the one you quote from him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you must know my take on this passage, so we will not enter that realm.
Click to expand...


I know your take on it but I don't know why as you appear not to give a reference from Zodhiates that supports your point. 



Amazing Grace said:


> But just to solidify this thought.
> 
> Act 25:26 Of 4012 whom 3739 I have 2192 no 3756 certain 804 thing 5100 to write 1125 unto my lord 2962. Wherefore 1352 I have brought 4254 0 him 846 forth 4254 before 1909 you 5216, and 2532 *specially 3122* before 1909 thee 4675, O king 935 Agrippa 67, that 3704, after examination 351 had 1096 , I might have 2192 somewhat 5100 to write 1125 .
> 
> Paul uses the same word here. You, thee, specially are ONLY connected to Agrippa.





timmopussycat said:


> You have just made my point for me. "Namely" does not mean the same thing as "specially". If the word means "specially" in 1 Tim 4:10 as well, then "God is the saviour of all men" in one sense and "specially" the saviour of believers in another sense.





Amazing Grace said:


> How can you conclude this? 'Specially' in the context from the words of Festus shows that Agrippa is 'namely' the one whom Paul is brought before. I neve once disagreed that Christ is the savior of all men. WHat is meant by this is exactly what it says, "There is no other name by which one can be saved" Christ is it. He is the King of the World. But to conclude that this means He died in some mysterious way for the reprobate is in error. He is the Savior of all men head for head, there is no other name by which one can be saved, yet, His design and intent is only to shed His blood for His sheep.



By examining a good dictionary. The only definition that the OED gives for namely that could possibly be relevant here is "1. a. Particularly, especially, above all." And it is certain that the word must be taken in the senses of "especially, above all" in the Acts 25 passage since it was Agrippa, who by asking to hear Paul, precipitated the meeting and it was Agrippa as Festus as well as Paul, would have known well who was expert in the Jewish controversies. Festus therefore introduces Paul to the crowd in general and esspecially or above all to Agrippa.
Now you can say that Paul was being introduced by Festus to Agrippa in particular, but that does not make your needed point in 1 Tim 4:10. For Paul was also introduced to the crowd in general. Which means that even if Paul meant to say Christ was the particular savior of those who believe, his use of the word "particular" will not nullify the force of Paul's earlier claim that Christ is the saviour of all men.


----------



## timmopussycat

Amazing Grace said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture._
> 
> The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And complicating matters even more, sometimes one author uses the same word to mean two different things eg. the word "world" in the Johannine writings.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context._
> 
> If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is *how it fits into Pauline vocabulary**then in the context of the other writings by the same author *
> 
> This is the definition of the analogy of scripture. Packer concludes thus: _Every text has its immediate context in the passage from which it comes, its broader context in the book to which it belongs, and its ultimate context in the Bible as a whole; and it needs to be rightly related to each of these contexts if its character, scope and significance is to be adequately understood._
> 
> *“The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”*
> _
> Accordingly, our methods of interpreting Scripture must be such as express faith in its truth and consistency as God’s Word. Our approach must be harmonistic; for we know at the outset that God’s utterance is not self-contradictory. Article XX of the Church of England lays down that it is not lawful for the Church so to “expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”; no more is it lawful for any individual exegete. Not that we should adopt strained and artificial expedients for harmonizing; this will neither glorify God nor edify us. What we cannot harmonize by a natural and plausible hypothesis is best left unharmonized, with a frank admission that in our present state of knowledge we do not see how these apparent discrepancies should be resolved._
> 
> James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interpreting 1 Tim. 4:10 as Christ being the Saviour of all men in some sense does not contradict Scripture as has been shown from Piper's exegesis of Rom. 3:25 and Dabney's comments.
Click to expand...


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is my [distant] cousin's argument on this point found? Is it available online?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sermons, pp. 410, 411.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scripture affords us sufficient materials to prove that the death of Christ was, in its nature and proper character, the endurance of the penalty we had incurred, or, what is virtually the same thing, of a full equivalent, an adequate compensation for it; and for proving also, that it is only because this was its true character that it was, or could be, a display or manifestation of the principles of the Divine government and law. The inference from all this is clear and certain, that Christ’s death bore upon and effected the pardon and salvation of sinners, not merely or principally through the intervention of its being such a display or manifestation – though this consideration is true, and is not to be overlooked – but still more directly from its own proper nature, as being a penal infliction, in accordance with the provisions of the law, endured in our room and stead; and as thus, by rendering satisfaction to the Divine justice and law, furnishing an adequate ground or reason why those, in whose room it was suffered, should not be called upon to suffer in their own persons the penalty they had deserved and incurred. And indeed it is, we think, impossible to understand how the death of Christ can be a manifestation of the Divine character and law and government, or be fitted to produce those impressions upon men’s minds, for which this manifestation is held to be indispensable, unless it be really regarded in the light in which Scripture represents it, even as the endurance of the penalty of the Law in our room and stead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hence the death of Christ serves as a governmental display or moral influence only insofar as it satisfies the penalty which the divine governor requires for the forgiveness of moral transgression -- so far and no farther. We see this clearly in Rom. 8:32, wherein God is said to be willing to freely give us all things because He spared not His own Son but gave Him up for us all. The display is co-extensive with penal substitution, and so extends to the same objects.
Click to expand...


Thank you. But you are carrying Cunningham's argument forward against a point he does not specifically address.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.



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

Cheers.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Thank you. But you are carrying Cunningham's argument forward against a point he does not specifically address.



Please read the sermon, especially the fourth head. Cunningham gave no ground to anyone who sought to introduce universal elements into the atonement, because he clearly saw that such universalising tendencies necessarily diluted the concepts of substitution and satisfaction.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. But you are carrying Cunningham's argument forward against a point he does not specifically address.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read the sermon, especially the fourth head. Cunningham gave no ground to anyone who sought to introduce universal elements into the atonement, because he clearly saw that such universalising tendencies necessarily diluted the concepts of substitution and satisfaction.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Unfortunately the PB link to that sermon seems to be broken.


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Daniel, comparing Scripture with Scripture (theological integration) comes after basic exegesis (although I grant that a second stage of exegesis can use theological integration). But generally speaking exegesis precedes integration; this ensures that our system of theology keeps getting refined as it must because it is fallible unlike inspired Scripture._
> 
> The text must be first exegeted in its direct context, then in the wider context of the book itself, then in the context of the other writings by the same author (because different authors can, for example, use the same words in different ways: "flesh" is a good example; Paul and John use it in a very different manner).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And complicating matters even more, sometimes one author uses the same word to mean two different things eg. the word "world" in the Johannine writings.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Hence to rightly understand 1 Tim. 4:10 we need to look at the direct context itself, and see what words like "all" and "saviour" are likely to mean. Then we must look at it in the argument of chapter 4, and then chapter 4 in the flow of the letter. Then look at how it fits into Pauline vocabulary etc. And finally we can fit it into the larger canonical context._
> 
> If you follow your own example here of exegesis, then there is no way you can conclude universal benefits by this one verse. The final arbiter is *how it fits into Pauline vocabulary**then in the context of the other writings by the same author *
> 
> This is the definition of the analogy of scripture. Packer concludes thus: _Every text has its immediate context in the passage from which it comes, its broader context in the book to which it belongs, and its ultimate context in the Bible as a whole; and it needs to be rightly related to each of these contexts if its character, scope and significance is to be adequately understood._
> 
> *“The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”*
> _
> Accordingly, our methods of interpreting Scripture must be such as express faith in its truth and consistency as God’s Word. Our approach must be harmonistic; for we know at the outset that God’s utterance is not self-contradictory. Article XX of the Church of England lays down that it is not lawful for the Church so to “expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”; no more is it lawful for any individual exegete. Not that we should adopt strained and artificial expedients for harmonizing; this will neither glorify God nor edify us. What we cannot harmonize by a natural and plausible hypothesis is best left unharmonized, with a frank admission that in our present state of knowledge we do not see how these apparent discrepancies should be resolved._
> 
> James 2:24 is a prime example of this: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”.. Look at how many apostate groups cling to this verse against the 5 solas....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interpreting 1 Tim. 4:10 as Christ being the Saviour of all men in some sense does not contradict Scripture as has been shown from Piper's exegesis of Rom. 3:25 and Dabney's comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please do not use Dabney, he is terrible on the Atonement. There Must be one better for you to shake hands with. And as we agreed before, Romans 3;25 was only speaking of the OT elect.
> 
> Marty gave some of the bove quotes, not me...
Click to expand...


----------



## Amazing Grace

timmopussycat said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to quibble, but this is not a disagreement about words but about the meaning of a word. And I'll stop pressing the issue once you concede that "world" in John 3:16 must mean "all persons without exception." ;-) And Zodhiates has a very mixed reputation with specialists in the period. Does he give examples and does the meaning "namely" make sense in the context? Is the one you quote from him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you must know my take on this passage, so we will not enter that realm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know your take on it but I don't know why as you appear not to give a reference from Zodhiates that supports your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just made my point for me. "Namely" does not mean the same thing as "specially". If the word means "specially" in 1 Tim 4:10 as well, then "God is the saviour of all men" in one sense and "specially" the saviour of believers in another sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you conclude this? 'Specially' in the context from the words of Festus shows that Agrippa is 'namely' the one whom Paul is brought before. I neve once disagreed that Christ is the savior of all men. WHat is meant by this is exactly what it says, "There is no other name by which one can be saved" Christ is it. He is the King of the World. But to conclude that this means He died in some mysterious way for the reprobate is in error. He is the Savior of all men head for head, there is no other name by which one can be saved, yet, His design and intent is only to shed His blood for His sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By examining a good dictionary. The only definition that the OED gives for namely that could possibly be relevant here is "1. a. Particularly, especially, above all." And it is certain that the word must be taken in the senses of "especially, above all" in the Acts 25 passage since it was Agrippa, who by asking to hear Paul, precipitated the meeting and it was Agrippa as Festus as well as Paul, would have known well who was expert in the Jewish controversies. Festus therefore introduces Paul to the crowd in general and esspecially or above all to Agrippa.
> Now you can say that Paul was being introduced by Festus to Agrippa in particular, but that does not make your needed point in 1 Tim 4:10. For Paul was also introduced to the crowd in general. Which means that even if Paul meant to say Christ was the particular savior of those who believe, his use of the word "particular" will not nullify the force of Paul's earlier claim that Christ is the saviour of all men.
Click to expand...


As myself and Matthew Winzer have repeated ad nauseaum, I have no problem saying Christ is the savior of every man head for head in the sense there is no other. But this is a declared statement, not an offer for his blood universally for some imagined benefits


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #107 and you can see that this reasoning is a manifestation of the classic crux in this debate.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


Do you mean the "owenians vs double enders?"


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

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


----------



## Amazing Grace

k.seymore said:


> Oh strange... I thought I posted this earlier today but now I don't see it. Here's my post again:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is #7 that lies as the root of universal benefits. That somehow Christ's death turns away God's wrath temporarily towards the reprobate... As we see clearly, the wrath of God abides on them(reprobate) continuously.... Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son (elect) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (unbelievers/reprobate)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if your line of reasoning proves that God’s wrath is not turned away or delayed _for a time _for the reprobate, doesn’t it also prove that the regenerate can not ever suffer God’s wrath _in some sense_ for a time? Yet Paul can state in your verse above that God’s wrath doesn’t abide on the regenerate, yet in another sense he can say that God’s wrath can come on the regenerate:
> 
> "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only _to avoid God’s wrath_ but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." (Rom 13:1-7)
> 
> So if Paul can say that in one sense God’s wrath _doesn’t_ abide on the regenerate, then he says in another sense the regenerate can suffer God’s wrath _for a time_, then how can you say the fact that Paul says God’s wrath _does_ abide on the unregenerate prove that God doesn’t _in another sense_ delay his wrath towards them for a time because of Christ’s death?
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask what are these benefits other than a bodily resurrection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the _promise_ of blessing through Christ's fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant be a benefit of Christ's death? As I attempted to show in my last post, for this blessing to come on all the families of the Gentiles, Peter understood that it first had to come on the family of Abraham. And Peter interpreted this as meaning God (in some sense) sent Christ to bless each member of the family of Abraham. This seems to me to imply that Peter also would have understood the blessing promised to all the families of the Gentiles to be promised to each member of all the families:
> 
> "‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ *God,* having raised up his servant, *sent him to you* first, *to bless you* by turning *every one of you* from your wickedness."
Click to expand...


TO be honest K., I do not understand Romans 13 at all. I almost wish I could rip it out of my bible. It has been used to pervert so much, that I do not spend time on it. Prematurely, I do not see the connection here. maybe wrath here is not the same as the one in John or Paul's other writings. I would say this is the answer, but like I said, I will have to call in a lifeline to even see if this passage remotely can be used for this discussion. I is clear to me the elect are not under His judicial wrath at all ever. They could be temporarily found under it, but not in a judicial sense.


----------



## Amazing Grace

You know what else came to my mind? How can one have the grace of Christ's atonement for a benefit and not have Christ himself actively or passively doing anything for the reprobate? He neither bled, nor prays nor intercedes on their behalf. You cannot have one without the other. Or are we spiritualizing the book of Ruth and the reprobate glean the edges of the field? (Deserved sarcasm) Perhaps in easy terms it would be like this. I put gas in my car. I get the special benefit. But the emissions junk destroys(benefits) the environement from the same gas. That is exactly what happens in referance to the elect and reprobate from the Cross....

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


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Nicholas, great to hear from you again brother.



Amazing Grace said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore as we can clearly see, there is no sense of propitiation given them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #107 and you can see that this reasoning is a manifestation of the classic crux in this debate.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you mean the "owenians vs double enders?"
Click to expand...


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

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



Amazing Grace said:


> And double enders are wrong!!!!



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



Amazing Grace said:


> We cannot approach scripture without any presumed truths.



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



Amazing Grace said:


> Why look for a middle road or compramising solution?



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



Amazing Grace said:


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



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

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


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Nicholas, great to hear from you again brother.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> See my post #107 and you can see that this reasoning is a manifestation of the classic crux in this debate.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the "owenians vs double enders?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, absolutely. It's ultimately a debate about the emphasis and place of exegesis versus systematics. The issues involved are not simple (as some want to make it), and hence that's why I'm not willing to be completely black and white on it. To do so, only causes an equal and oppostie reaction. It is an intrumural reformed debate, and I don't want to fling anathemas or use strong language at anyone in it.
> 
> As I said before, we in the reformed tradition need to unite together to fight greater battles rather than mutilate each other over this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> I love the frankness--perhaps I should try it some time too.
> 
> 
> 
> Dear brother, therein lies the root of your problem. If you don't approach Scripture without presumed truths at some point, then your systematics (which is errant because humans are errant) will *never* be challenged. Hence, all you find in Scripture is what you already believe. This is a hermeneutical vicious circle, rather than a hermeneutical spiral.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why look for a middle road or compramising solution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as to be faithful to *all* of Scripture, not some of Scripture. When a half-truth becomes a whole-truth, it becomes an untruth. This is precisely how JWs argue. They find all the texts which expound Christ's humanity, and explain away all the texts about Christ's divinity because they supposedly contradict the texts which speak of Christ's humanity. However, we can't logically tie down all that Scripture says about the hypostatic union of Christ's divine and human natures. For example, how is it that Christ's divine nature knows everything, and yet in Christ's person there are things he doesn't know, like his return? I don't know how to harmonize that logically, but I believe it, tension and all, because this is what *all* of Scripture says.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, for some reason we have to hold in tension the 2 or 3 verses pulled out of context and compramise the Atonement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's a very debatable point. The double-enders would say that the Owenians muzzle many texts. Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).
> 
> Thanks for the interaction on this topic brother. Every blessing to you Nicholas.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

Therefore when I see 1 Tim 4;10 or 1 John 1;2 et the 2 others, I have to look at other places to find the weight of truth in its favor. And there is too much evidence that God has ALWAYS had a covenant people that the sacrafice was intended for. Lev 19 shows this clearly. The stranger of the commonwealth was not atoned for in any sense..


----------



## k.seymore

Amazing Grace said:


> TO be honest K., I do not understand Romans 13 at all. I almost wish I could rip it out of my bible. It has been used to pervert so much, that I do not spend time on it. Prematurely, I do not see the connection here. maybe wrath here is not the same as the one in John or Paul's other writings. I would say this is the answer, but like I said, I will have to call in a lifeline to even see if this passage remotely can be used for this discussion. I is clear to me the elect are not under His judicial wrath at all ever. They could be temporarily found under it, but not in a judicial sense.



Yes, that is basically what I was trying to point out, that one can exclude all wrath upon the regenerate in one sense and then use wrath in another temporal sense and say the regenerate can suffer it. So when scripture speaks of the fact that God doesn't remove the eternal anger of wrath from the non-elect, that is not proof that he doesn't, in another sense, treat then in a non-angry way. If Christ's death does in some sense provide benefits to the non-elect, scripture makes it clear that it is not in the eternal sense. So if there are benefits, it would be in the temporal sense. The reason I brought this up is because you were using verses which spoke of the regenerate not having God’s eternal wrath to prove that the unregenerate don’t receive temporal grace from Christ’s death... but your verses don’t even prove that the regenerate don’t suffer temporal wrath, so how can they be used to prove that the non-elect were not intended to enjoy temporal blessings as an effect of Christ’s death?


----------



## k.seymore

I’m curious why no one wants to interact with my post about Peter saying God “sent him to you... to bless you... every one of you.” Oh well, maybe what I was saying didn’t make sense. I do have have some more to add to it... Calvin and Berkhof on Eph 1 and Col 1. I hadn’t thought about what they are saying before, but if correct it would, at the very least, say that Christ’s death does more than just reconcile humans to God:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and *that he may send the Christ appointed for you*... God, having raised up his servant,*sent him to you first, to bless you* by turning *every one of you* from your wickedness.” (Acts 3:18-26)

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


----------



## KMK

JohnOwen007 said:


> Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).



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


----------



## k.seymore

KMK said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never understood why people think this interpretation is 'exegetically unsustainable'. Moses lifted up the serpent on the cross that whosoever in the tiny nation of Israel looked upon it was saved. God lifted up Christ on the cross that whosoever in the world looked upon it was saved. The context seems to point to the 'world' as those all over the world who look upon the cross. Not every single person who ever lived.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## KMK

k.seymore said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Owen's explanation that "world" = "elect" in John 3:16 is a classic example. It is exegetically unsustainable (especially in light of the context, namely the use of "world" in the very next verse).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never understood why people think this interpretation is 'exegetically unsustainable'. Moses lifted up the serpent on the cross that whosoever in the tiny nation of Israel looked upon it was saved. God lifted up Christ on the cross that whosoever in the world looked upon it was saved. The context seems to point to the 'world' as those all over the world who look upon the cross. Not every single person who ever lived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused... you sound like you are disagreeing with him and agreeing with him at the same time. He said "world=elect" is unsustainable. You compare the world to Israel which had elect and non-elect people which seems to prove what he is saying. Yet you preface this by saying you don't know why it is 'exegetically unsustainable' to interpret it as only being the elect. Oh maybe I just haven't had enough sleep and should read your post again later
Click to expand...


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

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

If I am off-base please show me.


----------



## timmopussycat

Amazing Grace said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not use Dabney, he is terrible on the Atonement. There Must be one better for you to shake hands with. And as we agreed before, Romans 3;25 was only speaking of the OT elect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Dabney bang on on the atonement, at least in the passages cited here. While Rom. 3:25 is speaking of the elect, you have ignored the demonstration that if Christ's propitiation justifies God's forbearance when justifying sinners, as Rom 3:25 says it does, the good and necessary consequence that follows is that it it will also serve to justify God's temporary forbearance when postponing punishment of the reprobate. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones has noted:
> 
> 
> 
> D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Paul is telling us that this public act [Christ's crucifixion] has reference also to God's action when he passed over, when he overlooked, when he passed by, the sins of the people [Israel] at that time in His self-restraint and His tolerance. ... [Acts 17:30] The Apostle, working out his great argument says: 'The times of this ignorance (among the Gentiles) God winked at, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (Romans (vol. 3): Atonement and Justification,  pp. 100, 101).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Christ hasn't died for them in any sense. See 2 Cor. 5:14.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that kind of illogic an Arminian may prove that God so loved the world [defined as all persons without exception] in John 3:16. The context of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14 is clearly all believers and we know that Christ's those who die with Christ are the elect Rom. 6:1-14. Whether "all men" means "all believers only" or all humanity in 1 Tim 4:10 must be justified from the context. Every immediate exegetical consideration mandates the latter: all is not left alone but is spelled out "all men" and that group is distinguished from "those who believe".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm arguing for the particularity of Christ's death, so of course I maintain the contextual intepretation of "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14. Your appeal to contextual exegesis buttresses the case for particularism. The "all" for whom Christ died are dead in Christ; every man without exception is not dead in Christ; ergo, Christ did not die for every man without exception.
Click to expand...


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




armourbearer said:


> [The point is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christ died for a particular people. Otherwise you end up with a class of men who can say Christ died for them whilst they continue to live for themselves, which is contrary to the apostle's argument.



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



armourbearer said:


> [I'm not sure why you have reverted back to 1 Tim. 4:10, when it has already been clearly established that there is nothing in that text about Christ dying as the Saviour of men. Let it be granted that the text is speaking universally; the text does not say Christ died as the Saviour for all men, but especially for believers. It simply says that God is the Saviour of all men -- that is, the Saviour of men is God, no one else.



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


----------



## MW

This is my final post on this subject.



timmopussycat said:


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



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



timmopussycat said:


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



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


----------



## k.seymore

KMK said:


> In the account of the serpent on the pole in Numbers 21 we are told that many people died of the serpent bite before the pole was even lifted up.



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## k.seymore

armourbearer said:


> This is my final post on this subject.



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


----------



## KMK

k.seymore said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the account of the serpent on the pole in Numbers 21 we are told that many people died of the serpent bite before the pole was even lifted up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, many did die, but I don't think that necessitates understanding "world" as "elect". The elect are the form in which the world doesn't perish as I understand the passage. As you mentioned, what John or Jesus is saying is paralleling the story in Numbers: "whoever believes in him may have eternal life... whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." and "everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live... anyone... look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num 21:8-9). Here are the whole passages, the similarity of structure is so striking:
> 
> "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
> so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
> that *whoever believes* in him *may have eternal life. *
> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
> that *whoever believes* in him
> should not perish but have *eternal life.*"
> 
> "'Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole,
> and *everyone who is bitten, when he sees* it, *shall live.*'
> So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole.
> And if a serpent bit anyone,
> *he would look* at the bronze serpent *and live.*"
> 
> The nation was saved though threatened by snakes even though all those in it were not. God loved the nation and saved it in fulfilment of his oath to Abraham, as he told them: "because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers" (Deut 7:8). As Paul interpreted this: "As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers." (Rom 11:28). The quoting of numbers would seem to interpret the nation as being used in a general sense. The nation would perish if all died by the snakes, God loved the nation and didn’t desire the nation to perish, therefore if some of the members of the nation don’t perish the nation survives. Likewise, the world (humankind) would perish if all died because of the sting of sin, God loved the world and didn’t desire that it should perish, therefore if some of the members of the world don’t perish the world survives. Think about it like this: humankind wouldn't perish as long as some humans existed.
> 
> So John 3:14-16 is paralleling the earlier story like this:
> 
> "As God lifted up Christ on the cross, so was the snake on the pole lifted up, that whoever would look at it would have life. For God so loved the nation, that he gave them the serpent on the pole, that whoever would look at it should not perish but have life."
Click to expand...


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

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

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



k.seymore said:


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


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


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Nicholas,

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



Amazing Grace said:


> What I should have said is exactly like the quote from LB above;
> 
> Since the Bible is the Word of God it is self-consistent.
> Consequently if we find a passage which in itself is capable of two
> interpretations, one of which harmonizes with the rest of the Scriptures
> while the other does not, we are duty bound to accept the former.
> (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination)



There are two issues this quotation raises:

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

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



Amazing Grace said:


> Therefore when I see 1 Tim 4;10 or 1 John 1;2 et the 2 others, I have to look at other places to find the weight of truth in its favor.
> 
> And there is too much evidence that God has ALWAYS had a covenant people that the sacrafice was intended for. Lev 19 shows this clearly. The stranger of the commonwealth was not atoned for in any sense..



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

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

God bless Nicholas.


----------



## Amazing Grace

JohnOwen007 said:


> The Piper position and double-enders believe that, far from being poison, the universal reading of texts like 1 Tim. 4:10 and 1 John 2:2 actually *guard* another crucial teaching of Scripture: the fact that anyone can be told that if they repent and believe they will be saved. The single-end view of the atonement can't accommodate that message. All a single-ender can say is this: "if *a person *repents and believes". They cannot say, "if *you* repent and believe", because that person might not be one for whom Christ died, and hence that person can't be forgiven because Christ didn't die for them.
> 
> However, as Piper and the double-enders argue, Scripture is full of statements of the type, "if *you* (definite person) repent and believe" (Acts 17:30; John 12:36 etc.), and not just "if a person (indefinite) repent and believe ...".
> 
> God bless Nicholas.



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

Luke 8;10 sums it up well:

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

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


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


As an aside, I think more discussion and study has to be done on the OT sacrafice. The shadow of Christ has answers in it, yet I must pass this to one who is more gifted in that area and can speak more clear on the subject bringing more light to the truth.. Prematurely, those outside the Covenant did not receive any benefits from the High Priest offering.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Amazing Grace said:


> Brother Marty: please remember one thing I am certain about. The commands to repent and believe in all of scripture are not a one time event. They are correctly translated, begin repenting/believeing. Therefore telling anyone to repent/believe, as a one time event is wrong for either elect or reprobate.



Amen brother! I'm with you here.



Amazing Grace said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless Nicholas.


----------



## moral necessity

Marty,

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

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

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

Blessings!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Charles,

Thanks for your thoughts brother, I appreciate them.



moral necessity said:


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



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

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

Every blessing dear brother.


----------



## danmpem

Amazing Grace said:


> WHy dont we just ask him. Will he defend his position clear?



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

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



Barnpreacher said:


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



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


----------



## dwayne

armourbearer said:


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


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


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

By the way, _Man’s Relations to God_ by John Kennedy (quoted above by Matthew) may be found online at Google books:
Man's relations to God traced in the ... - Google Book Search

The quoted passage begins on page 104.


----------



## danmpem

Piper's coming to my town next month. Does the PB want me to ask him anything?


----------



## heartoflesh

Piper's TULIP seminar is next month here in Minneapolis. I will ask him then.


----------



## larryjf

Sonoftheday said:


> He basically said that Christ died potentially for every human being, they must only exercise faith to recieve it. However, Christ only purchased irresistible Grace for the elect, therefore they are the only ones who can exercise faith.



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

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

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


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


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

armourbearer said:


> . . . The point you are missing is that the traditional *reformed concept of sufficiency is entirely intrinsic*. This is the value of Christ's death in and of itself, so that if God had have intended Christ's death to save all men, Christ would not have needed to have suffered anything more. Piper's idea is not that Christ's death is intrinsically sufficient, but that Christ's death actually accomplished something so far as the justice of God is concerned to make it possible for God to show mercy to all men.



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

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

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


----------



## holyfool33

Sonoftheday said:


> I recently listened to John Pipers messages over the TULIP. He presented the L in a way I had never heard it and I was wondering how it aligned with the reformers position on the doctrine.
> 
> He basically said that Christ died potentially for every human being, they must only exercise faith to recieve it. However, Christ only purchased irresistible Grace for the elect, therefore they are the only ones who can exercise faith.



Well untill somebody said it that just didnt seem right to me but i could see how one would think it could be four point calvinism I would have to hear the sereis to decide for myself.


----------

