"Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25)." (source)The reader responded:
The above quote lists John 17 in support of Christ dying only for those "whom God gave Him to save", however this is not the context of the entire verse. In this section Jesus is talking to His disciples. He prays specifically for these men that they be "one" and that "they also may be sanctified". Jesus then also prays for those who will believe because of the witness of these men, "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." The most glaring verse however is 12, "While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." If this section is talking about salvation then Christ was not able to keep one.I respond:
What think you?
The Judas Exception
Unless you understand Jesus' comment as excluding Judas from the given group, you have Jesus failing in whatever it is that the passage is discussing. Thus, I think most people who study the passage will come to the conclusion that Jesus mentions Judas here to make it clear that it was always God's plan that Judas would be lost. After all, it would be strange for Scripture to prophesy that Judas would be lost, and for Jesus to try to fight that prophecy. We actually have examples where Jesus specifically acted so that Scripture would be fulfilled. To put it simply the Trinity is one God.
In other words, the Father did not send Jesus to save the son of perdition, whom the Spirit had declared would be lost. Judas was one of the given outwardly, but not inwardly.
Thus, no matter what the passage means, Judas cannot be an objection to Christ's efficacy, unless you think that God sent Jesus for the purpose of contradicting Scripture. If you think that, you have a "house divided against itself" problem.
Salvation is under Discussion in the Text
As to whether Jesus is talking about eternal life (salvation), see verses 2-3.
John 17:2-3
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Although the current Disciples are the Primary Focus all Disciples are Envisioned
I agree that Jesus mentioned the disciples he made during his earthly ministry primarily, but then extended the reference to "them also that shall believe on me through their word."
John 17:20-21
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Furthermore, that extension was not merely an afterthought:
John 17:2-3
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Let me ask you, dear reader, whether you believe that Christ has "power" (εξουσιαν) over all flesh to save those given Him by the Father, or whether all Jesus can do is hope to be asked? Does Jesus have the right, authority, and privilege to save those given him by the Father, or is it up to the individual?
Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory (δοξα) and majesty (μεγαλωσυνη), dominion (κρατος) and power (εξουσια), both now and ever. Amen.
-Turretinfan
6 comments:
"After all, it would be strange for Scripture to prophesy that Judas would be lost, and for Jesus to try to fight that prophesy."
Jesus often was preaching to people who would ultimately be lost. And he seems to have known that they would be. Yet he still preached. You're assuming that giving people every opportunity is not also part of his plan. Surely the interesting thing about Judas is all the opportunity he had but threw away. If Jesus was given up on Judas from the beginning, then there's nothing interesting here. Jesus gave up on him, and fulfilled what was expected of him. He didn't need a Judas to betray him to do that, any Roman soldier or random bad guy would do.
It's like Pharoah. God kept giving him chances to do the right thing. If all God wanted to do was throw calamity on Egypt, he could have just done it without the intervening opportunity to repent.
Orthodox:
You noticed I wrote: "After all, it would be strange for Scripture to prophesy that Judas would be lost, and for Jesus to try to fight that prophesy."
Your response (your comments following that quotation) had very little to do with my quotation.
Before I post your comments, and to see if they are relevant, let me ask you the pointed question (and it is really a "yes" or "no" kind of question):
Is it your position that Jesus tried to fight that prophecy?
With this follow-up:
If your answer is "yes," then explain why Jesus claims "that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
-Turretinfan
I went ahead and posted your response, though your answer would still be welcome.
Your response misses the point: the question is whether Jesus tried to defeat the prophecy or not. Which will it be?
-Turretinfan
Orthodox,
You wrote: "The question you ask is a false conundrum, as if Jesus doing everything possible to save Judas would or could make God's knowledge of the future wrong."
That was not the conundrum, Orthodox.
The conundrum was Jesus being assigned a futile task by the Father - a task the success of which would require the denial the omniscience of the Spirit.
In short, the Father would never create a paradox between the Son's omnipotence and the Spirit's omniscience.
God is simple. There is no division, no contradiction, in Him.
-Turretinfan
Had Jesus set himself a futile task in wanting to gather the children of Jerusalem in Mt 23:37, but was prevented by the unwillingness of their leaders?
Jesus never "set himself a futile task."
I have a discussion of Matt. 23:37 already posted, if you want to debate interpretation of that verse, take the discussion here.
I find assertions that Jesus, my God, is a failure offensive. I think that somewhere deep down, all Christians do too. Outwardly at least, it seems you do not mind making such claims.
Would you care to explain yourself?
-Turretinfan
Post a Comment