What Watson and I believe about the Atonement

Thomas Watson writes:

*** Quotation from Body of Divinity ***

Use one: Of instruction. (I.) See into what a wretched deplorable condition we had brought ourselves by sin; we had sinned ourselves into slavery, so that we needed Christ to purchase our redemption. Nihil durius servitute, says Cicero, 'Slavery is the worst condition.’ Such as are now prisoners in Algiers think it so. But by sin we are in a worse slavery, slaves to Satan, a merciless tyrant, who sports in the damnation of souls. In this condition we were when Christ came to redeem us.

(2.) See in this, as in a transparent glass, the love of Christ to the elect. He came to redeem them; and died intentionally for them. Were it not great love for a king's son to pay a great sum of money to redeem a captive? But that he should be content to be a prisoner in his stead, and die for his ransom; this were matter of wonder. Jesus Christ has done all this, he has written his love in characters of blood. It had been much for Christ to speak a good word to his Father for us, but he knew that was not enough to redeem us. Though a word speaking made a world, yet it would not redeem a sinner. 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission.' Heb 9: 22.

Use two: Of trial. If Christ came to purchase our redemption, then let us try whether we are the persons whom Christ has redeemed from the guilt and curse due to sin. This is a needful trial; for let me tell you, there is but a certain number whom Christ has redeemed. Oh, say sinners, Christ is a redeemer, and we shall be saved by him! Beloved, Christ came not to redeem all, for that would overthrow the decrees of God. Redemption is not as large as creation. I grant there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ's blood to save all; but there is a difference between sufficiency and efficiency. Christ's blood is a sufficient price for all, but it is effectual only to them that believe. A plaster may have a sovereign virtue in it to heal any wound, but it does not heal unless applied to the wound. And if it be so, that all have not the benefit of Christ's redemption, but some only, then it is a necessary question to ask our own souls, Are we in the number of those that are redeemed by Christ or not?

*** End of Quotation ***

(source, with context)

Praise be to our Redeemer!

-Turretinfan

Shorter Catechism Explained - 1

Q. What is the chief end of man?

By "chief end" we refer to the highest goal or purpose. When we speak of "man," of course, we speak of human beings generally.

A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Two answers are provided, one objective and one subjective. Objectively man's principle goal is to glorify God. Man will do this. Man will achieve this end, whether man so intends and designs, or not. God sees to it that He himself is glorified. This is the same chief end of all of creation: to glorify God.

But there is something that sets man apart from the lower creation, and that is the subjective goal of man: namely to enjoy God forever. That is the best end for a man, to enjoy God forever. Unlike the objective purpose of man, this subjective purpose is not achieved by all men. No all men will enjoy God forever, even though all will glorify God one way or another.

Before we leave this question, we should note that subjectively as well as objectively, man ought first to seek the glorify of God, even without regard to the end of enjoying God forever. In other words, man ought consciously to seek the glory of God. The glory of God should be behind what we do.

Keeping the glory of God in mind as our principle objective (our "mission statement" to borrow from modern management terminology) can help steer us away from sin. Before we act we ought to think whether our action will glorify God. It's easy to say (or to write) such instructions, but it is much harder to live them.

God is Great, let us worship Him, forever and ever,

-Turretinfan

Dangers in trying to Discern Providence

God determines everything that will come to pass. If you pray that your dog will live, and your dog dies, God has answered your prayer in the negative.

Sometimes it is not that cut and dried.

1. Ambiguities as to what Ought to be Done

To take one example, a young person may pray for a long time to find a suitable spouse, but no spouse may appear. This may be God answering in the negative, or simply God encouraging the young person to pray harder! It's really impossible to determine the answer to that question simply by looking at the results.

Lesson: we should not try to look to Providence alone to determine how we should proceed for the future. If a young person came to me asking for advice about whether to continue the quest for marriage or to give up and remain single, I'd need to know a lot more than, "I've been praying about this for a long time now."

2. Ambiguities as to Bad Things Happening

a. Job's Friend's Syndrome
Sometimes God sends bad things into our lives to chastise us for wrongs that we have done, so that we may learn to do what is right. It's unpleasant at the time, but good for us in the long run (just like corporal discipline of children). When bad things happen, we should seriously consider whether God is disciplining us, and examine our lives for ways to improve.

On the other hand, that is not always the case. So, we should be careful not to be Job's judgmental friends to others. This is not an excuse to avoid self-examination, this is an admonition to avoid a judgmental spirit. We cannot and should not assume that the twin towers disaster killed the 3,000 least holy people in Manhattan a half decade ago. We cannot and should not assume that their widows and orphans were the most wicked wives and children of the greater NYC region. All have sinned, and unless we repent we will also perish.

b. Satan did it Syndrome
There is a reverse problem to the Job's friend's syndrome, which I call the "Satan did it" syndrome. When bad things happen, sometimes it can be persecution from wicked men or even wicked angels. It's a bit presumptuous to think that the Prince of darkness has personally found time to mess with one's life (after all, he is not omnipresent, omnipotent, etc.), but nevertheless sometimes the forces of evil stand opposed to us and cause bad things to happen to us.

On the other hand, when something we thought was a good idea doesn't happen, simply asserting that Satan interfered can lead to a dangerously egotistical mindset. "We tried to plant a church in Boise, ID, but Satan snuffed it out," the person might say. Maybe it wasn't Satan! Maybe God simply decided that Boise has enough of a witness, and God was closing the door there. Blaming Satan, you see, is often simply a way of reinforcing one's notion that one knows best.

Such a person will have trouble learning from God's corrections. If they lose their health, they simply say that Satan is messing with them. If they lose their money, it's Satan trying to stop them. If their car breaks down on the way to some activity, it is proof how good that activity was to which they were headed!

And it's doubly foolish. First of all, it can result in blasphemously attributing the chastisements of God to Satanic interference. But on top of that, God can use Satan to chastise God's people. Job's losses were not primarily discipline for Job, but Job was not sinless. Job was a god-fearing man, but he was not perfect. Read to the end of the book of Job and you'll see.

But Job is not even the best example here. Recall:

1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

You see, God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick. Even though Satan did not afflict Jim and Alex out of love of God, God used Satan's affliction for their good. If they simply said to themselves, I must be doing something good, since Satan's persecuting me, they'd be stuck in the "Satan did it" syndrome, and unable to learn not to blaspheme.

3. Ambiguities as to when Good Things Happen
The good things are easier to handle. It's great when the silos are full of corn, the wine cellars are full of wine, the bank account is full of cash, and the table is full of children. Thank God when you receive such blessings.

But still be careful to examine yourself. Recall that you are just a visitor here. This life is not all there is. You may receive the good things of this life from God, but there is a life to come. Do not be like the rich man, who put off his concern for the afterlife until he was already in the pit. Be like Job: hold what good things God has given you loosely enough that you can be ready to say, "the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." That's not easy.

More than that, don't assume that because everything is going well, God is happy with you. Recall those who robbed David:

1 Samuel 30:16 And when he had brought him down, behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines, and out of the land of Judah.

They were feasting and rejoicing. But destruction was looming.

1 Samuel 30:17-19
17And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled. 18And David recovered all that the Amalekites had carried away: and David rescued his two wives. 19And there was nothing lacking to them, neither small nor great, neither sons nor daughters, neither spoil, nor any thing that they had taken to them: David recovered all.

Conclusion
What is the bottom line? We should be cautious about reading Providence. God deals in ways that are often obscure. Joseph may have seen only his brother's jealousy during his trip to Egypt, or he may have seen correction to his own pride. But even that was not the big picture. The big picture was that God was working out the good of his chosen people, showing his love for them.

Whatever adversities may find you, whatever circumstances may happen to you, if you do not trust in Christ alone for salvation you should tremble with fear, but if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation take comfort in God's assurance that:

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Praise be to our Glorious King!
-Turretinfan

UPDATE: S. Todd Young has something similar to say, especially about Joseph (link).

Holy Water Debate - Audience Questions to be Accepted

PhatCatholic has agreed to open the floor to audience questions after the Holy Water Debate conclusions are posted.

There are some restrictions:

1) Question must be 100 words or less;

2) Each side will have 500 words per question to answer;

3) Only a maximum of five questions will be accepted; and

4) If we get more than five, I will select two, and he will select three questions.

Please feel free to submit comments/questions either here or in the comment boxes at the Holy Water debate.

-Turretinfan

Response to Atonement Challenge from Non-Calvinist

One Non-Calvinist challenged me with a number of verses that he claimed prove that Christ died for each and every human being (except, presumably, for Christ himself) (This is a repost of several "classic" posts from a while back. The original pages will perish in due time, but here are the links for now 1 2 3 4)

He provided this list, which I republish below:

• Mathew 13:44


• Luke 22:20


• John 1:7-9


• John 1:29


• John 3:14-17


• John 4:42


• John 6:33


• John 6:51


• John 8:12


• John 9:5


• John 11:9


• John 12:32


• John 12:46-47


• John 16:8-11


• John 17:21


• John 17:23


• Romans 5:18


• 1 Corinthians 15:22


• 2 Corinthians 5:14-15


• 2 Corinthians 5:19


• Colossians 1:20


• 1 Timothy 2:4-6


• 1 Timothy 4:10


• Titus 2:11


• Hebrews 2:9


• Hebrews 6:4-6


• Hebrews 10:26


• 2Peter 2:1


• 1 John 2:1-2


• 1 John 4:14

As you can see, the list is heavy on John, and light on Paul. I’ll just jump in, and go through the verses in order.

1) Matthew 13:44
Matthew 13:44 is a parable. It describes the kingdom of heaven as a treasure hid in a field, when someone finds it, they sell everything they have to buy the field.

I think that my non-Calvinist friend mistakes the meaning of the verse. The verse is about the value of salvation, and the effect that it has on the saved person, namely that it is the most important thing. There is nothing there about Christ's death being for each and every person, not even remotely. The only way I can think to justify it that way, is that anyone could find the treasure and buy the field. But that's just a subset of the general theme that anyone who turns to Christ will be saved.

From this I deduce my first ecumenical principle:

Anyone who turns to Christ, believes on him, repents of their sins, and loves God will be saved.

2) Luke 22:20
Luke 22:20, my non-Calvinist friend asserts, calls the cup in the Lord's Supper, Christ's blood spilled for you, but then the next verse points out that Judas was among the "you." This, I presume, is intended to establish that Christ's blood was spilled for Judas. I think its not clear that such is intended. The mention that Judas is to betray him comes as an exception. The verse starts with "but."

Perhaps it should be understood from the context that Judas was excepted.

3) John 1:7-9
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Quite simply, this passage says nothing about Christ's death. That every man is lighted by the true Light speaks to the scope of illumination of the truth.

4) John 1:29
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

This passage does not explicitly mention HOW Christ takes away the sin of the world. Nevertheless, if we are to understand this passage universally, then Christ takes away the sin of all, and we are left with Universalism. Instead, we should just understand this "the world" to mean both Jews and Greeks.

5) John 3:14-17
John 3:14-17
14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

This passage is interesting because it compares Christ to the serpent in the Old Testament. That serpent was raised up generally. It cannot really be said though that it was raised up for every particular person. That idea is nonsense. Moreover, the comment that "the world" be saved by Christ again requires either Universalism or a general understanding, i.e. "Jews and Greeks" as above.

6) John 4:42
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Again, no particular mention of death, and "the world" here means "Jews and non-Jews" - in this case Samaritans.

7) John 6:33
John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

As with the above - again no mention of death, and "giveth life unto the world" must either imply Universalism or be understood as "Jews and non-Jews."

8) John 6:51
John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Same as above.

9) John 8:12
John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Same as above.

10) John 9:5
John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Same as above, and an odd view could result from understanding being the light = atonement when combined with the "as long as I am in the world ..."

11) John 11:9
John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

This is clearly a parable. The light of this world is contrasted with divine illumination. No mention of the death of Christ.

12) John 12:32
John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

This verse speaks of "all men" generally, not exhaustive. This difference can be determined contextually and analytically. Contextually, Jesus' comment is in response to the arrival of the Greeks in verse 20. Analytically, there is no sense in which Jesus draws all men universally in any theological system - except, perhaps, Universalism. In any event, "drawing" and dieing are different, although connected.

13) John 12:46-47
John 12:46-47
46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

This is an odd selection, because verse 46 clarifies that Jesus came to save believers - yet there seems to be an attempt to understand "world" in verse 47 exhaustively. In point of fact, this is just another general statement in the same context as verse 20 and 32 (discussed above), and the context is that Greek showed up, and Jesus is explaining that his work will not be limited to Jews.

14) John 16:8-11
John 16:8-11
8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

It's unclear why this verse was chosen. The atonement is not mentioned, and there is no direct discussion of salvation, or even of the work of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the one discussed in this passage.

15) John 17:21-23
John 17:21-23
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. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

This is an odd choice. The world here is a reference to unbelievers. We know this from context:

John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

And it is also an odd choice, because John 17 is so incredibly Reformed:

John 17:1-26 (the whole chapter)
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 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. 4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20Neither 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. 22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

The chapter is a powerful message of Christ's love of the elect.

It's also a great example of Biblical foreknowledge explained.

As Christ says in verses 23-24, God the Father particularly loved "them" as He loved Christ: before the foundation of the world.

16) Romans 5:18
Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

This verse says that the righteousness of one justifies all, even as the sin of one condemns all.

The "all" is those for whom Christ stands. Identifying this as a Universal Atonement verse (a) begs the question of those for whom Christ stands, and (b) suggests that all mankind is justified, which we know to be wrong. So we can see that this is simply a verse that supports the Reformed position that Christ died for the elect.

17) 1 Corinthians 15:22
1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Again, this does not support Universal Atonement, unless one adopts Universalism, because it say "in Christ" which identifies the "all." So also does the next verse:

1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

So, we can easily say that this is just another verse that show's Christ work is for his elect.

18) 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19
2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19
14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. ... 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

It says Christ died for all, and that Christ was reconciling the world to himself. However, the astute reader will ask himself - what has been omitted, and - as it turns out - what has been omitted will answer the question regarding what "all" and "the world" was referring to:

2 Corinthians 5:17-18
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

It is, as noted above, those "in Christ" and "us" as Paul says - referring to the believers to whom Paul was writing.

20) Colossians 1:20
Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

This verse actually does address atonement (surprisingly after so many that do not). It says that he has made peace through the blood of his cross. It does not say that he has made peace possible, but that he has actually made peace. And he says that the purpose of this making peace is to reconcile "all things" to himself. Therefore, the question is what those "all things" refer to.

As usual, we look to the context and find the answer:

Colossians 1:18-19, 21-22
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; ... [verse 20 shown above] ... 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

Paul identifies Christ work as being upon "the church" and "you" (the believers to whom Paul was writing). Moreover, Paul indicates that the purpose was specifically directed toward those people "to present you holy ...." Thus the intent of Christ's death was specific and - we see again - that the object of Christ's death was the salvation of the elect.

21) 1 Timothy 2:4-6
1 Timothy 2:4-6
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Although this relates to redemption (ransom), not atonement, it does use the word "all" twice. But look at the context: the "all" are to be testified in due time. Furthermore, from the previous three verses, we can see that "all men" is being used in the sense of "all kinds of men":

22) I Timothy 2:1-3
I Timothy 2:1-3
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Does the universal atonement advocate think that this "all men" in context means that we must prepare for each and every human being? Surely not. It means all kinds - even politicians.

23) 1 Timothy 4:10
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

It is unclear what the Universal Atonement advocate would like us to do with this verse. Such a person does not believe that all men are saved from their sins. How then is the living God the Saviour of all men?

Ephesians 5:23 provides the needed insight, there the husband is called the "saviour" (same Greek word) of the wife's body:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Does it mean that he saves the woman's body from sin? Of course not. It means that he preserves it. It is in that sense that God is the Saviour of all men (by his powerful Divine Providence) but he is more particularly the saviour of those who believe in that he saves them from their sins.

24) 2 Timothy 4:18
2 Timothy 4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Luke 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

So then, God is the Saviour of all men by his preservation of them, and the Saviour of believers by his rescue of them.

Jude 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

25) Titus 2:11
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

This verse just says that the grace of God is visible to everyone (in general - not exhaustively).

26) Hebrews 2:9
Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

At first glance, this appears to be the missing support for universal atonement. But does the context explain who "every man" refers to? It sure does:

Hebrews 2:10-18
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Indeed, the "every man" is a reference to the elect:

• "many sons"


• "they who are sanctified"


• "brethren"


• "the church"


• "the children which God hath given me"


• "the seed of Abraham"


• "the people [of Israel]"

Each of whom is simply the elect.

27) Hebrews 6:4-6
Hebrews 6:4-6
4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Quite simply, this does not say who it is that Christ died for, and does not really address the Atonement at all. It is a verse more often misapplied against the perseverance of the elect.

28) Hebrews 10:26
Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

This is just like the previous verse.

29) 2Peter 2:1
2Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

The typical claim of the Universal Atonement advocate is that this verse shows that Christ died for at least some unsaved people. First, the verse refers to purchase, which is more closely related to redemption. However, if they were purchased, in a saving sense, with the blood of Christ, then he would be their master. But the context explains that they are not his servant:

2 Peter 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

And indeed, the better way to understand this text is that they merely claimed that the Lord bought them. For - after all - they are described as "false" teachers and it is said that they are stupid and deceivers:

2 Peter 2:12-13
12But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;

30) 1 John 2:1-2
1 John 2:1-2
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The question is whether this "whole world" means everyone in the world, or just the whole world in general. John contrasts it with "us"- which suggests the general sense is what he has in mind. There is not, however, any ready and immediate way to resolve the issue from context. The major theme of I John is for us to do righteousness, love the brethren, and believe on the Son.

31) 1 John 4:14
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Again, the issue is whether "world" is to mean every single person or just a general designation.

Here the context provides the clarification (and presumably this applies as well to the verse above from earlier in I John):

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

The love of God is toward US and the reason for his doing so is that WE might live.

Well, that ends the list of verses presented in the challenge. So far, the for the last year, the challenger has not come forward with any additional verses, and neither has the reading public of this humble blog. Nevertheless, if further verses come to mind, I'd gladly add an exegesis of them to the list.

Gene Stirs the Pot

Gene, over at Triablogue, has stirred the Holy Water pot with a recent post (link) that addresses some of the issues he sees with the post presented by Dave Armstrong (link provided via this earlier post), generally approving (and minorly editing) PhatCatholic's opening argument in the Holy Water Debate. Carrie adds (at least) a few ripples with her quotation on the power of priests (link).

UPDATE: Dave Armstrong has replied (link) in not perhaps the nicest of tones, which included (at the time of writing this, a concluding paragraph threatening Gene's soul).

UPDATE: Gene has responded (link) to Dave's reply.

Reformation in Brazil

Here's a link to folks who are working to spread the light of the gospel in a nation that badly needs it. It is, of course, in the local language Portuguese (link).

-Turretinfan

What Dabney and I Believe about the Atonement

R. L. Dabney writes:

If you were a soldier and had not deserted the colors of your country, an accepted substitute would free you from all service and punishment. You are guilty of desertion toward God, and are also bound to pay a service to which sin utterly disables you through your own folly and fault. From these obligations Christ frees you, but it is only to bind you to His service more firmly by love. Now you should follow the Captain of your salvation with all your might, longing to follow Him better, not from fear of being shot for desertion (that danger is gone if Christ died for us), nor from fear of losing emoluments (they are already earned for us by our Substitute, and paid in advance to true believers), but because He asks us to follow Him. And now, if we love Him, we would die for Him were it necessary, because He died for us. If we do not love Him, it is proof that He never became our Substitute. “Now are ye My friends, if ye do what-soever I command you.” John xv.14.

(see the entire tract here)

-Turretinfan

More Nepalese darkness and a Disappointing Response

I was saddened to read this report of Nepalese darkness in the form of animal sacrifices to non-existent gods. Here's the link (link). Almost equally upsetting was the response I read at the Catholic blog to which this next link points (link). It's not the right thing to do, it's not a good thing to do, and we should be very sorry for those poor Nepalese people who lie yet in darkness.

May God's evangelists to the Nepalese be blessed so that the light of the Truth of God's word may be shed abundantly upon them.

-Turretinfan

Whosoever Will

Whosoever Will

Recently (i.e. about the beginning of May, 2007), an Anonymous commenter on this blog asked about the Bible's "Whosoever Will" verses.

These are the verses that, in the KJV, use the phrase: "whosoever will." They generally fall into two main categories (categories 1 and 3) while a few fall in a hybrid category (2):

1. Whosoever will do X, will receive Y

Deuteronomy 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Ezra 7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Luke 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

2. Whosoever wishes/wants/decides to do X, will receive Y

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Mark 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

3. Whoever wishes/wants/decides to do X, should do Y

Matthew 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Matthew 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

Luke 9:24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Discussion

There are really two main topics, one directed to the category 1 items (to which we could also add "whosoever shall" verses), and one directed to the category 3 items. The person who originally raised the question is interested in the category 1 items.

1. Whosoever will do X, will receive Y

Some of these verses are simply maxim-like in character. They state a general principle, like "what goes up, must comes down" or "if you curse the king, a little birdie will tell him." Likewise, they can be viewed positively as promises.

Matthew 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Essentially this is a promise, that if we sacrifice our lives for Christ, we will receive life from him. The bottom line is that what we can conclude from such promises is that God will keep his word. If anyone loses his life for Christ, he will receive life again.

2. Whosoever wishes/wants/decides to do X, should do Y

Other readers are interested in the verses that speak to how to go about obtaining a desired end. One popular verse from this category is:

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

This verse is usually dramatically quoted with an enormous emphasis on the word "who-so-ever!" as a way of arguing that the elect is an open ended set of people. The verse, of course, does not say that. It just says that if someone wishes to come and drink, he should come and drink. It does not say that men develop a thirst for the water of life on their own, or that our lack of knowledge about who it is that will come should somehow be attributed to God.

In short, to answer the original question that sparked this post, I don't think the "whosoever will" verses are all that significant to most of the apologetic matters, once we take a closer look at them.

May God, who will show mercy on whomsoever he will show mercy, give us wisdom to accept both his Providence and our own ignorance,

-Turretinfan

Meta-Fan Mail - Not Really

I recently received this comment on my blog:

"First of all, let me say that it is so inspiring and encouraging to see your passion for the Bible and your desire to help others discover a deeper relationship with Christ. Your blog is thought provoking and your passion for the Word of God is contagious! "

While those are certainly kind words, I cannot help but think that the writer did not bother to read my blog in any real depth. In fact, I suspect it was more or less marketing spam, since it seems to be the kind of thing that virtually any theoblogger would like to receive, and was followed by a message to check out the commenter's web site.

Of course, my apologies to the writer if it was actually specifically written as a compliment to my blog. Nevertheless, I offer this as an example of a well-written generic compliment. I wonder whether any of my fellow bloggers will admit to having received the same exact compliment?

-Turretinfan

Just for the Record on Reformed Catholicism

As this Catholic blogger (Mark Shea, apparently) points out, "Reformed Catholicism," is not Catholic, but for the record, it's also not Reformed - it's simply out there. It seems highly sympathetic to the Federal Vision and the CREC, which are, as at least one writer pointed out, not Reformed at all.

Also, this means that maybe I should update my stepping stone illustration to:

TR -> FV -> RfC -> RmC

However, unlike the Catholic commenter above, I do not lump Kepha in as a "Reformed Catholic," I think he's become a traditionalist or s/v Catholic. Nevertheless, I welcome his comments on his own position, if he likes, since his opinions may have changed since we last communicated, and I may be mistaken.

-Turretinfan

UPDATE: (this is the closest to an attempted explanation that I've seen from the site in response)

Thoughts on Progress in the Atonement Debate

As some of my readers may be aware, there is an ongoing - fairly informal - debate on the atonement in progress at Contend Earnestly. I've posted the following comment there, and I'm reposting the comment here (with minor revisions):

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

I had made a prima facie case for the limited atonement by suggesting that "he hath perfected for ever" is a reference to ensuring the salvation of "them that are sanctified," and by suggesting that "them that are sanctified" is a reference to those for whom Christ died.

The first leg of the argument seems to be agreed by both sides, but the second leg is (apparently) denied.

Now, there are really only two options:
"them that are sanctified" refers to
a) "all those for whom the one offering was made" or
b) "less than all those for whom the one offering was made."

I've provided four reasons to adopt (a), and no one has provided any reasons to adopt (b). Thus, even if my reasons were not particularly strong reasons, they would still carry the day, because there is nothing to counterbalance them. That is how burdens of proof work: once a prima facie case has been set forward by the affirmative, the negative needs to rebut.

In other words, for the "unlimited/limited" side to prevail on this point, they could:
a) demonstrate that not one of my four explanations has any weight at all (i.e. that they are all utterly incredible); or
b) demonstrate that a "less than all" interpretation (i.e. a "subset" interpretation) has more weight than the "all" interpretation.

So, to the pending outstanding questions, I append this additional one for my opponent(s) in that debate:

Can you say with a straight face that my explantions linked to above are utterly incredible, and consequently entitled to zero weight, or alternatively can you provide a reason to suppose from the context that "them that are sanctified" refers to anything less than "all those for whom the one offering is made"?

If the answer is"no" (and I'll accept refusing to answer the question as a "no") then I think any unbiased observer would have to conclude that as to this particular verse, I've carried the day.

If the answer is "yes" (based on the first alternative), then we should just move on to another verse, because I don't think a more detailed explanation would help if the short explanation provided at the link above is really utterly incredible.

If the answer is "yes" (based on the first alternative), then it would be helpful for the readers to see that alternative explanation, so that the weight of the arguments could be compared.

-Turretinfan

Man Behind Curtain of Holy Water Emerges

Apparently, PhatCatholic, my current opponent over at the debate blog, has been getting help in the Holy Water debate from popular Catholic blogger Dave Armstrong (link).

-Turretinfan

Holy Water Debate - Negative Constructive Argument Posted

Now that the Sola Scriptura Debate is complete, I've posted a Negative Constructive opening statement in the Holy Water Debate over at the debate blog, taking the position that Holy Water as it is used by modern Roman Catholicism is simply a hangover (or should that be hand-me-down/left-over ...) from medieval superstition, rather than something having Scriptural, Apostolic, or even Patriarchal (of or pertaining to the early church fathers) authority.

-Turretinfan

Federal Vision - Status Report

According to this report, the Louisiana Presbytery of the PCA has been formally indicted for its failure to bring appropriate action against Steve Wilkins, a teaching elder subject to the jurisdiction of the LA presbytery. That's good news and sad news at the same time. It's good news because it means progress is being made by the PCA to root out the Federal Vision heresy, and sad news because no one likes to see presbyties disciplined, even when they are tiny presbyteries, like the LA presbytery.

There are basically three ways the matter can go:

1. The LA presbytery can repent, and address the heresy taught by Mr. Wilkins;
2. The LA presbytery can dissolve its relation with the PCA, and those elders/congregations of the LA presbytery that wish to be part of the PCA can become members of suitable adjacent presbyteries; or
3. The matter can proceed to trial.

Not a few folks are waiting on seat's edge to see what will transpire. I think we nearly all hope that course (1) will be taken and that it, in turn, will result in Mr. Wilkins repenting of his errant views and submitting to whatever discipline is appropriate.

Thanks to Green Baggins(es) for bringing this to my attention (link).

-Turretinfan

Shiny New Anti-Calvinist Web Site

Here is the latest anti-Calvinist propaganda site put forth by Dan Corner (link), aptly titled "No Calvinism". The web site's opening page is very professional looking. While some of the other pages are far more amateurish. The web site includes a link to Dan Corner's deceptively edited audio recording of a private telephone call between him and James White. Here's a challenge for Dan Corner.

Release the entire, unedited telephone conversation!

Here's James White's comments (web post) (including helpful audio discussion here).

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the web site is the effort made to conceal the fact that the web site is, in fact, a Dan Corner creation. As can be seen in the P.S. below, the web site tries to suggest that Evangelical Outreach is simply a "favorite" of the authors of the web page. Of course it's a favorite, because its from the same organization. The evidence?

In the contact information, NoCalvinism.org's address is the very same P.O. Box in Washington, PA that is used by Dan Corner and Evangelical Outreach. This kind of fake alliance makes sense in view of Dan Corner's deceptive use of audio editing to try to put words in James White's mouth.

By their works, know them.

-Turretinfan

P.S. Special note to "anti-" misusers Hidden One and Dave Armstrong: lest you think I'm misusing the term, note that the web address is "No Calvinism" and that in the "audio" page of the website, the website states: "Visit our favorite anti-Calvinism site." (with that link being to Dan Corner's main web page, "Evangelical Outreach").

FV a Stepping Stone to Rome?

This former FVist is claiming that the Federal Vision was a stepping stone to Rome (link). The big "yeah, but," is that obviously the step before the Federal Vision was a Reformed Church. In any event, stones should not be blamed for those who step on them, and it seems somewhat unfair to blame Doug Wilson for the path of any given former member. It's fair to say that a person becomes Roman Catholic not because they follow DW too much, but because they are attracted only by a part of what DW has to say.

Still, that is really the only way for the logical progression to work:

Reformed -> Federal Visionist -> Catholic

Of course, that said, many people bounce around alot before settling on letting the Vatican make their doctrinal decisions for them. So I wouldn't be surprised in time to see some poor fellow make a hop from FV to TR to RC.

Thanks to the Trinity Foundation (this one not the other one) for bringing the post to my attention.

-Turretinfan

Practical Morality: Curse not the Rich

Ecclesiastes 10:20 Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.

All of Scripture is variously profitable instruction in righteousness, but Ecclesiastes 10:20 is emminantly practical, particularly in the Internet age. As demonstrated in my previous post (and quite humorously illustrated in Michael's comment, see "Nebo" to the right), secrecy is often an illusion, or - at best - ephemeral. If you say something bad about those in power, you can reasonably expect they will find out.

You may think what you say will remain a secret, but information secrecy is often easily, even accidentally compromised, even when everyone involved is serious about guarding the secret.

The verse above provides the solution: don't think evil thoughts to begin with. Don't think things that you will be ashamed to see in print as a Newspaper headline. That way you will not type them in an email or blog comment that gets republished, or write them in your journal that gets read by the target of your hate. That way you will not whisper an evil word that gets repeated by the mockingbird, or carries on the wind, or is overheard by a child playing hide and seek.

The solution to hateful, evil thoughts is not to hide them well, but not to create them.

I don't write this to condemn the Federal Visionists for their mistakes. That was last post. Nor am I writing to anyone else specifically (you'll have to take my word on that). I myself am convicted by the words of Ecclesiastes 10:20, just as anyone should be. There have been times I have had thoughts that were not fit to print, and the same is true of everyone but Christ.

That's why Christ's righteousness is so necessary. That's why I was so eager to appropriate it by faith, to have His righteousness to my account. His thoughts were all fit to print. Even his angry thoughts were without sin.

"Christ is angry with the moneychangers!" reads the headline.

"They should be ashamed," is the appropriate reaction.

But

"Turretinfan is angry with ________," may have a different reaction - it may be Turretinfan that needs to be ashamed. Maybe someone has sinned against God, but am I zealous for His honor or my own? Is Turretinfan angry because God has been dishonored, or because Turretinfan has been embarassed?

Recall Ephesians 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: There is a time for anger, but that is not instant justification for thinking ill of another man. Turretinfan cannot sieze Ephesians 4:26 to justify every temper tantrum.

Turretinfan is just a pseudonym. You be Turretinfan ... put your name in place of my nom de plume. We must consider our thoughts, and repent when we recognize that they do not measure up to the standard of divine perfection set forth in the moral law.

But we ought not despair. If we have faith in Christ, God imputes our sin to Jesus, and His rigteousness to us. There is a double imputation. We are considered righteous, just as he was considered guilty. And in it all, God is glorified.

Praise His Glorious Name!

-Turretinfan

(and, of course, this verse is the source for our "a little birdie told me" euphemism)

The Blessing/Curse of Anonymity

Doug Wilson is peeved at Mark T., a blogger who hosts a blog that is (to put it mildly) frequently critical of Doug. Now, MT has located some private emails from 2003, which seem to put some of the Federal Vision folks in a bad light. One of the participants (not Doug) even uses some rather unbecoming language. I had expected this to simply be ignored. However, it is being publicized by Doug Wilson himself in one of his recent blog articles (link).

Doug criticizes Mark T. (perhaps validly) for disclosing something that was clearly supposed to be secret, but also criticizes Mark T. for his anonymity. He makes goading comments like, "I am not ashamed of my baptized Christian name," which are simply not helpful.

But it is the last ditch attempt of those who seek to apply ad hominem to anonymous people.

So, that's the blessing/curse of Anonymity. You remove all the other ad hominems, but you leave yourself open to the "if you were a real man, you'd name your name" silliness. Shame on Doug for stooping to that level.

The divulging secrets argument was tenuous at best - it could have been the postscript to a "So what? Everything in those emails, taken in context, is perfectly harmless," defense. Frankly, if that's the best smoking gun evidence from the Biblical Horizon's list, there's not much dirt to be dug.

Finally, while it seems unlikely that this occurred, there are other ways than someone breaking their word that the emails could have been leaked. Suppose that one of the participants carelessly neglected to wipe his computer harddrive before a yard sale? Suppose someone's child happened to stumble upon printouts of the emails? I can think of plenty of ways that the information could leak without a direct divulging taking place. But, possibly one of the participants leaked the information, and - in doing so - broke his word (assuming he did not get permission from the participants, which - of course - we have no way of knowing). Oh well, given that the allegedly foul-mouthed participant has apparently threatened legal action, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

-Turretinfan