This is a difficult passage for those who believe that Christ redeemed or atoned the sins of every human being. Paul says that the sacrifice of Christ, his atoning and redeeming death, canceled the sins of people who lived and died before the death of Christ, who died under the first covenant. Did Christ redeem all the sins of all men who lived before his death, both those who died believers and those who died unbelievers? Did he cancel the sin debt of all OT sinners? Universal atonement advocates are forced to say yes. Thus, when Christ redeemed the transgressions of those of OT times, he redeemed all sinners, believers and unbelievers alike. But, why would Christ die for and redeem the sins of those who died in unbelief and were in Hell at the time of Christ's death? If there is no salvation after death, then why would Christ be dying for them? Obviously, those of the OT time period, whose transgressions were redeemed by the death of Christ, were only believers. The text says this redemption of transgressions of OT folks was in order that "they which are called (from either testament period) might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." To me the text says that the ones Christ died for, and who lived under the OT, were the believers, were they who had been "called." Christ did not die, for instance, for Pharoah, Ahab, Jezebel, etc. Why would he die for them if they were already in Hell?
13 comments:
Interesting that you see this verse in that way. First we must consider 1 Cor. 15:22 "in Adam all die, but in Christ all are made alive"....the Calvinist must explain how the word "all" has a different meaning in the first part than it does the second. The Arminian must explain, that if "all" has the same meaning in both, then why are "all" not saved? This must be part of the answer, because 1 Cor 15:22 stretches all the way back to Adam, and all the way forward to include all who will be saved. The answer is "faith". What made Adam die? lack of faith (not believing God). What makes "all" alive"? Faith (believing God). So the answer is whoever "believes God" whether before or after Christ died, then they are saved. Also, some would say "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament" would include all persons because the verse implies such by saying "trangressions" rather that "transgressors". So anyone before Christ had the same obligation of faith as those who come after. So to ask the question another way, one could ask how it is that anyone at all could have their sins forgiven before Christ if atonement had not been made yet? Whatever it is that "saved" anyone before the atonement,all who ever lived would be responsible before God to believe that "whatever"....and believing in that "whatever" would be equally available to all, just as the Noahide laws applied to the whole of the human race.It was the Pharisees that required the Jewish law for salvation, even requiring Gentiles to convert to Judaism, when God never required it. Another way to look at the question would be to consider Jesus own words when he said to the Canaanite woman “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” He was clearly saying he came for the chosen (Jews) only....and yet here we are believing what he said and on our way to heaven
Dear Brother Ken:
I believe Paul is saying "all who are in Adam die and all who are in Christ will be raised." "All" is not the same as you say for that would mean universal salvation. All that Adam represented die and all that Christ the second Adam represents will live.
Yes, faith is the key. Without faith no salvation.
But, the argument still stands. Christ did not die on the cross for any person who was in Hell at the time of his death. Anyone who wants to believe that can do so, of course, but it has absurd consequences in my view.
It implies that Christ was dying for their salvation, and if true would imply that people can be saved after they have gone to Hell.
Some might say that Christ died for them for God to be just in sending them to Hell (being obligated to give them a chance to be saved for his sentence to be just). But, that is another absurd consequence, in my view.
Thanks for the comment.
Stephen
reread my comment. I never said "all" meant universal salvation, only that both Calvinists and Arminians have questions to answer regarding it. I absolutely agree with you that Paul is saying what you said he did. No problem with that whatsoever. The only difference (maybe) is that I believe the "all" does have the same meaning in both sections of the verse. But what does "all" refer to? I believe it is this. Adam's sin was believing Satan, and those who are in Christ believed Jesus. So as I see it, "all who are in Adam die (because they believe Satan) and all who are in Christ live (because they believe Jesus). Thus for me at at least, there is no issue with the atonement, because ALL of us have believed Satan, but SOME of us have believed Christ, so ALL who believe Him have life. I make no distinction between the saved and the lost under the old covenant because those that were saved "believed Christ" (the one that would come, the promised one), and those that are in hell did not believe Him (rejected the promise of the coming one). Just like the hyper calvinist can says its absurd to believe any of the elect will be lost if they dont hear the gospel, yet at the same time you are most correct in your absurdity, and maybe i am correct in mine, but no matter what all of this is "foolishness" to those who dont believe. the foolishness of the Gospel is that we believe it, even if we cant always see the total picture, or understand how supposed "contradictions" can both be true/ Jesus 100% God AND 100% man...now thats absurd...but true...and I believe it. As you always say, "we'll understand it better by and by" :-)
Well, well, well - amen, Brother Garrett!
Dear Brother:
It is so nice to hear from you. We have wondered about you. I hope things are well with you. Keep in touch.
Blessings,
Stephen
I have been well - married life and other things have kept me from blogging, but I am still around. Thanks for your interest.
As I recall, your view of the extent of the atonement seemed to extend in some hypothetical degree to every son of Adam in terms of a hypothetical atonement for their personal sin. I’m open, of course, to ways in which Christ’s atonement could be the grounds of aspects of the redemption of the created order other that the atonement of the elect’s personal sin such as providing the grounds of the general resurrection of even the non-elect or the Christus Victor emphasis of the defeat of the demonic dominion over the earth. I agree that the 1 Timothy 4:10 text proves a providential salvation (deliverances in time of earthly men such as Nineveh or the men on the boat with Jonah) outcome of the atonement to even the non-elect, but would you agree that it is dangerous to interpret the benevolent will of God in such a way as to suggest that He has not decreed to leave some men under the headship of Adam?
In hope of Christ,
Jason
Dear Jason:
My views on the atonement are fully laid out in a series titled "Definite Atonement" and can be see in The Baptist Gadfly blog (see link) for Sept-Oct. 2012. I believe the atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.
Are you still a denier of means? Are you still Hardshell?
Welcome back. I look forward to more of your comments.
Blessings,
Stephen
Even John Owen embraced the Lombardian formula - not exactly differentiating. All Primitive Baptist’s that I have visited with agree that the death of Christ was of infinite value - the point is what was the intent of the atonement, was it intended by the Father salvifically to the non-elect, which John 6 clearly seems to deny in its context to the unbelieving.
I have never denied that God uses means in bringing about faith and repentance in His people. I have stated that it is nonsense to claim that there is any means to the giving of life, and that the Word of God is only a means, at best, immediately after man is given life. What I have denied is that there is any Scriptural support to say that God always uses means or that the lack of means is only in exceptional cases. The most fundamental passage on the new birth is John 3 - this passage is the didactic teaching of our Lord on this very topic and, in my reading, it does not clearly represent an instrumental cause of the new birth in any way. Evidently, the framers of the LCF agreed that John 3:8 is a proof-text of this very point in the footnotes to that document.
This passage is the clearest exposition of this doctrine in the New Testament, and I still believe the Primitive Baptists have the truth of it. Nevertheless, there is still among the PBs, an under-emphasis, shall we say, on the purpose of the new birth in its relation to the revealed truth of God. It seems to me that there is a correlation between being born from above and entering the kingdom of God, even in John 3. It is not as though we should expect to find those who can see the kingdom of God, after being given sight, still bumbling about at the entrance - the whole point of regeneration is the entry into the kingdom, after all.
-Jason
"I have never denied that God uses means in bringing about faith and repentance in His people. I have stated that it is nonsense to claim that there is any means to the giving of life, and that the Word of God is only a means, at best, immediately after man is given life."
No, the gospel is a means to give spiritual life. We believe that we might have life through his name. (John 20: 31) Faith and repentance are the essence of "life" and are absolute essentials to it. No faith and repentance, no life. This is Old Baptist doctrine.
"The most fundamental passage on the new birth is John 3 - this passage is the didactic teaching of our Lord on this very topic and, in my reading, it does not clearly represent an instrumental cause of the new birth in any way."
I have shown how wrong you are on this. Have you forgotten? John 3: 13-21 is part of the context! Jesus explained what the essence of the new birth is in those verses and he connected it with a faith union with himself.
"Evidently, the framers of the LCF agreed that John 3:8 is a proof-text of this very point in the footnotes to that document."
False! The LCF signatories did not believe that the new birth of John 3 was not by the word preached. This is typical Hardshell obfuscation.
"This passage is the clearest exposition of this doctrine in the New Testament, and I still believe the Primitive Baptists have the truth of it."
But, your forefathers did not believe as do your modern PBs do (with few exceptions). So, it is really not "primitive" is it?
“False! The LCF signatories did not believe that the new birth of John 3 was not by the word preached. This is typical Hardshell obfuscation.”
Section 3 of chapter 10 of the LCF directly contradicts that the outward ministry of the Word reaches all of the elect and this section clearly applies John 3 specifically to those that are not outwardly called - thereby drawing the same exegetical support from this text as I am drawing. They would not have, therefore, agreed with your conclusions that this passage establishes that the outward proclamation of the word is an instrumental cause of the new birth.
Now, they would have admitted, clearly, that this is only in cases where the elect are incapable of being outwardly called, but I find no rational reason to qualify the text in this manner because the context is of a man - Nicodemus - quite capable of being outwardly called. Rather, what they and you likely take to be references to the outward call of the ministry in relationship to the new birth is the direct teaching of the truth of God in the new birth a la Jeremiah 31 in which the law of God is placed in the inward parts so that the new birth is literally “by the word of truth” in the engrafting of the truth of God by His Spirit. (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23).
-Jason
3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8)
If you are referring to this verse, yes, they did allow for "exceptional cases" of regeneration in the case of those who are not capable (humanly speaking) of understanding, such as infants and severe mentally ill adults. So, how does the exception nullify the rule? Clearly the signatories of the confession believed that all those who are not infants and idiots are called "by his word and Spirit."
You make the writers of the confession to contradict themselves, saying in one part that the call to life and salvation is by the outward call, by the word AND Spirit, and turn around and deny it in another part.
"Rather, what they and you likely take to be references to the outward call of the ministry in relationship to the new birth direct teaching of the truth of God in the new birth a la Jeremiah 31 in which the law of God is placed in the inward parts so that the new birth is literally “by the word of truth” in the engrafting of the truth of God by His Spirit. (James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23)."
If this is true, where is the problem? We agree (like your forefathers) that the Holy Spirit preaches the gospel directly in some cases. You believe that the regenerated infant or idiot has been directly taught by the Spirit and therefore has the truth concerning Christ and salvation. You believe they are gospel believers. They must therefore have been able, in a supernatural way, to learn if God is teaching them. Regeneration makes gospel believers! I am glad you admit that. What you need to see is that those who are capable of being called by the preached word (cognitive adults) received the word of truth in this manner. That is what the confession affirms. If the men who signed it were here today they would be perplexed how you get hardshellism out of what they plainly say.
Do you agree with item #4? It says:
"much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess."
How do men become Christians according to the confession? The same way as infants and idiots?
John Spilsbury was a signer to both the 1644 and the 1689 confession and he debated the Presbyterian Bakewell on this very article of the confession! He denied your interpretation! You take the Presbyterian view! I have postings on this debate either in this blog or the Baptist Gadfly.
For my analysis of the debate between Spilsbury and Bakewell see
http://baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/2007/05/chapter-41-infant-regeneration.html
Spilsbury died before 1689. I was wrong on that. However, the article on infants is in the first confession and so the point is still valid that he denied what you are reading into it as his debate with Bakewell shows.
Post a Comment