Ahhh, it's been so long.
So a few days ago I was at my Bible study group. We're going through John, and began John 8. At some point we got to talking about evangelism, and it ended up taking the rest of the evening.
As we discussed these matters, it grew more and more apparent that evangelism means different things to different people. To some it would essentially mean living, with our actions being from a Christian worldview and that being out there for the world to see. For others, more emphasis is placed on proclaiming, actually declaring things verbally, such as Christ's death, resurrection, sin, etc. I've heard frequently the term 'lifestyle evangelism', mostly to describe the way in which we let our actions speak for us. The whole 'preach the gospel, if necessary use words' type thing. This seems to be the most common, well, mode of evangelism, for lack of a better term. I wonder, though, if this is the best way to do it.
I acknowledged this type of evangelism for a long while, unquestioningly, and it seemed to me to be the only, or at least best, way to evangelize. People were always stressing 'not cramming it down people's throats', 'not driving people away', all that stuff. It seemed as though we were almost discouraged from using many words if any at all, because unlike Christian actions words could potentially drive people away. As I matured in my faith and understanding of Scripture, I began to question this line of thinking, especially after reading the gospels. Then I came across the passage that was, for me, the sort of turning point in how I saw evangelism.
"...and (Jesus) said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:46-47)."
When I saw the words 'repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations', it immediately dumped all over my 'no words necessary' approach to evangelism. Christ told His disciples to proclaim. What's more, he told them to proclaim repentance and forgiveness of sins! None of this health and wealth better you crap. Repentance and forgiveness.
The thing is, it's not easy to proclaim things, especially not things that will guarantee to offend some people. I frequently prefer to stay in my lifestyle evangelism mode, because it's safer than actually proclaiming anything. Not saying that lifestyle evangelism is bad; if we're regenerate then our lifestyles should reflect Christ as a general rule. However, I thing that often times this can be a cop-out and an excuse, to let ourselves stay in the comfort of not having to actually say anything. Something to think about...
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Heart of Evangelism
Sorry it's been a while.
I've been thinking a lot lately about evangelism, especially when seen from a Biblical perspective, ie. believing that salvation is all God's work. It seems to me that when I talk to people who believe this, it is used either in ignorance or as an excuse. By that I mean that people say that we don't need to think to hard on our evangelistic strategies because 'God does the saving'. This idea embraces God's sovereignty (right on!), however it stops short. It forgets that God not only orchestrates the ends, ie. the salvation of an individual, but He also ordains the means. And that means is us, the Church. We have been given the opportunity to be part of God's redemptive plan--an amazing thing! Faith comes by hearing (see Romans 10:17), and God has chosen to use us, the 'low and despised in the world' (see 1 Cor. 1:28) to be the messenger for the message He created. Faith unto salvation is a gift, given from God alone, and we have no part in creating faith. However, we have the gospel, which God uses to save, and our job is to declare it as accurately and fully as we can. Therefore, I would say that the details of what our evangelism is is indeed important, because what we say is important. We can't save anybody. God saves. Thus our goal is evangelism can't be to save people, because that is something outside of our control. What should our goal be, then? I would say it is to be faithful to God and His Word. To proclaim and magnify Him as He has revealed Himself in scripture. Now obviously this is a large undertaking, and won't generally be done in one sitting. My point, however, is that what we say in the time when we are first able to legitimately show Christ is important. In that time when we can share the gospel we should preach repentance and remission of sin, as Jesus commanded us to preach in His name (see Luke 24:47). We proclaim unashamedly man's separation from God, his state of sin and God's hatred of it, and then we proclaim the hope and the joy found in the cross, where God pours out His wrath on the Son to atone for the sins of the lost and draw them to Himself. That is the heart of the gospel; that is the heart of evangelism.
I've been thinking a lot lately about evangelism, especially when seen from a Biblical perspective, ie. believing that salvation is all God's work. It seems to me that when I talk to people who believe this, it is used either in ignorance or as an excuse. By that I mean that people say that we don't need to think to hard on our evangelistic strategies because 'God does the saving'. This idea embraces God's sovereignty (right on!), however it stops short. It forgets that God not only orchestrates the ends, ie. the salvation of an individual, but He also ordains the means. And that means is us, the Church. We have been given the opportunity to be part of God's redemptive plan--an amazing thing! Faith comes by hearing (see Romans 10:17), and God has chosen to use us, the 'low and despised in the world' (see 1 Cor. 1:28) to be the messenger for the message He created. Faith unto salvation is a gift, given from God alone, and we have no part in creating faith. However, we have the gospel, which God uses to save, and our job is to declare it as accurately and fully as we can. Therefore, I would say that the details of what our evangelism is is indeed important, because what we say is important. We can't save anybody. God saves. Thus our goal is evangelism can't be to save people, because that is something outside of our control. What should our goal be, then? I would say it is to be faithful to God and His Word. To proclaim and magnify Him as He has revealed Himself in scripture. Now obviously this is a large undertaking, and won't generally be done in one sitting. My point, however, is that what we say in the time when we are first able to legitimately show Christ is important. In that time when we can share the gospel we should preach repentance and remission of sin, as Jesus commanded us to preach in His name (see Luke 24:47). We proclaim unashamedly man's separation from God, his state of sin and God's hatred of it, and then we proclaim the hope and the joy found in the cross, where God pours out His wrath on the Son to atone for the sins of the lost and draw them to Himself. That is the heart of the gospel; that is the heart of evangelism.
Friday, July 2, 2010
A God-Centered Ministry
I've been thinking a lot lately about church ministries. Youth groups, college outreach ministries, small groups, etc. Most of my experience comes from serving in a youth group (or Student Ministry as we preferred to call it), but it seems to me that there are certain things that one must consider when contemplating ministries. I was emailing a friend the other day who is currently struggling to determine whether or not she should stick with her current ministry. Now there are obviously a lot of variables in such a situation, and specific advice isn't always universal, however I think (I hope!) that my advice to her was good and Christ-honoring. As I said, every such situation is different, with different people and leaders, different teaching styles, etc. However there are some things that we should think on regardless, which I attempt to touch on. Here's what I wrote:
As far as the church, I guess look at the full picture of God the Bible gives us, the God who is just as just and wrathful and sin-hating as He is loving and gracious and compassionate, and think about if your ministry or any other is proclaiming the full and complete gospel and complete God. Are we being as direct and complete as we should be? Are we limiting our portrayal of Jesus to the aspects which will make Him more pleasing to people, even though His cross is foolish to the perishing and none will come unless elected apart from human initiative? Are we showing Jesus as the cosmic cure-all, the prescription meds for loneliness or hate or disobedience or discontent, or are we showing Jesus as He is, and always pointing back to the cross that was the climax of all His earthly ministry? More than curing things like loneliness or feelings of worthlessness or discontentedness, more than conquering bad self-image, Jesus came to revive DEAD sinners, and if we do not stress man's hopelessness and Christ's atoning sacrifice then we are being faithful neither to the Word nor God, and are merely catering to human's desires...
...this is to some extent just my opinion, and although I personally feel very strongly it is indeed possible that God may not want you to leave. I can only tell you what I think and what I see the Bible say. ANd I see that in Luke when Jesus is around before the Ascension, He tells us what we are to preach: 'repentance and forgiveness of sins', in His name (see Luke 24:47). That in and of itself shows what: mans state of emnity with God and God;s hatred of sin (as seen by the need to repent), and Christ's atoning sacrifice as covering over sin. That is the gospel and that is what any legitimate ministry must strive to preach, to the best of its ability and as fully and accurately as possible.
I hope that my advice to her was sound. I truly believe what I said, and I believe it to be in line with the Scriptures. God desires faithfulness from His children. He is the one who saves, sanctifies and safeguards; we are merely messengers and envoys. He has given us His word, from which we learn of Him and of ourselves, and all of our evangelistic efforts must be rooted in, nay, engulfed by what Scripture says. The minute we start caring more about 'making converts' than being faithful to God, we need to sit down and examine ourselves. If we truly believe that salvation is of the Lord, then this cannot help but shape our evangelism. God elects and redeems people, but He has chosen us to bring His gospel into the world, making us His messengers. And that's what we must remember, that we merely deliver the mail. If we remember this, then our focus in evangelism must be getting the message right. Not likeable, not condensed, but the way the Author wrote it. Now obviously one must use tact and discernment, and at times our approach may be different from person to person, but God never changes and neither does His gospel.
I am now putting my soapbox away and going to bed.
As far as the church, I guess look at the full picture of God the Bible gives us, the God who is just as just and wrathful and sin-hating as He is loving and gracious and compassionate, and think about if your ministry or any other is proclaiming the full and complete gospel and complete God. Are we being as direct and complete as we should be? Are we limiting our portrayal of Jesus to the aspects which will make Him more pleasing to people, even though His cross is foolish to the perishing and none will come unless elected apart from human initiative? Are we showing Jesus as the cosmic cure-all, the prescription meds for loneliness or hate or disobedience or discontent, or are we showing Jesus as He is, and always pointing back to the cross that was the climax of all His earthly ministry? More than curing things like loneliness or feelings of worthlessness or discontentedness, more than conquering bad self-image, Jesus came to revive DEAD sinners, and if we do not stress man's hopelessness and Christ's atoning sacrifice then we are being faithful neither to the Word nor God, and are merely catering to human's desires...
...this is to some extent just my opinion, and although I personally feel very strongly it is indeed possible that God may not want you to leave. I can only tell you what I think and what I see the Bible say. ANd I see that in Luke when Jesus is around before the Ascension, He tells us what we are to preach: 'repentance and forgiveness of sins', in His name (see Luke 24:47). That in and of itself shows what: mans state of emnity with God and God;s hatred of sin (as seen by the need to repent), and Christ's atoning sacrifice as covering over sin. That is the gospel and that is what any legitimate ministry must strive to preach, to the best of its ability and as fully and accurately as possible.
I hope that my advice to her was sound. I truly believe what I said, and I believe it to be in line with the Scriptures. God desires faithfulness from His children. He is the one who saves, sanctifies and safeguards; we are merely messengers and envoys. He has given us His word, from which we learn of Him and of ourselves, and all of our evangelistic efforts must be rooted in, nay, engulfed by what Scripture says. The minute we start caring more about 'making converts' than being faithful to God, we need to sit down and examine ourselves. If we truly believe that salvation is of the Lord, then this cannot help but shape our evangelism. God elects and redeems people, but He has chosen us to bring His gospel into the world, making us His messengers. And that's what we must remember, that we merely deliver the mail. If we remember this, then our focus in evangelism must be getting the message right. Not likeable, not condensed, but the way the Author wrote it. Now obviously one must use tact and discernment, and at times our approach may be different from person to person, but God never changes and neither does His gospel.
I am now putting my soapbox away and going to bed.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Whatever Happened To Sin?
I figure it's about time I put up another Steve Taylor song. This one falls into the brutally-honest-call-it-like-you-see-it category. He says what he wants to say, and he does it unashamedly. And the message, of course, is dead on. What's more he managed to find a rhyme for 'Gamorrah'. Wow.
A Christian counselor wrote, quote,
"It's the only humane choice ahead
If you can't support it
Why don't you abort it instead?"
You say you pray to the sky
Why? when you're afraid to take a stand down here
'Cause while the holy talk reads like a bad ad-lib
Silence screams you were robbing the crib
Say it ain't none of my business, huh?
A woman's got a right to choose
Now a grave-digger
Next you pull the trigger
What then?
Whatever happened to sin?
I heard the reverend say
"Gay is probably normal in the good Lord's sight
What's to be debated?
Jesus never stated what's right"
I'm no theology nut, but
The reverend may be a little confused
For if the Lord don't care
And he chooses to ignore-ah
Tell it to the people
Of Sodom and Gomorrah
Call it just an alternate lifestyle, huh?
Morality lies within
Consciences are restin'
Please repeat the question again
Whatever happened to sin?
When the closets are empty
And the clinics are full
When your eyes have been blinded
By society's wool
When the streets erupt
In your own backyard
You'll be on your knees
Praying for the national guard
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message
'Cause your mind's on hold
A politician next door
Swore he'd set the Washington arena on fire
Thinks he'll gladiate them
But they're gonna make him a liar
Well he's a good ol' boy
Who was born and raised
In the buckle of the Bible Belt
But remember when you step
Into your voting booth
He'll never lie
He'll just embellish the truth
Promises were made to be broken, right?
You've gotta play the game to win
When you need supporting
Tell them that you're born again
Whatever happened to sin?
A Christian counselor wrote, quote,
"It's the only humane choice ahead
If you can't support it
Why don't you abort it instead?"
You say you pray to the sky
Why? when you're afraid to take a stand down here
'Cause while the holy talk reads like a bad ad-lib
Silence screams you were robbing the crib
Say it ain't none of my business, huh?
A woman's got a right to choose
Now a grave-digger
Next you pull the trigger
What then?
Whatever happened to sin?
I heard the reverend say
"Gay is probably normal in the good Lord's sight
What's to be debated?
Jesus never stated what's right"
I'm no theology nut, but
The reverend may be a little confused
For if the Lord don't care
And he chooses to ignore-ah
Tell it to the people
Of Sodom and Gomorrah
Call it just an alternate lifestyle, huh?
Morality lies within
Consciences are restin'
Please repeat the question again
Whatever happened to sin?
When the closets are empty
And the clinics are full
When your eyes have been blinded
By society's wool
When the streets erupt
In your own backyard
You'll be on your knees
Praying for the national guard
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message
'Cause your mind's on hold
A politician next door
Swore he'd set the Washington arena on fire
Thinks he'll gladiate them
But they're gonna make him a liar
Well he's a good ol' boy
Who was born and raised
In the buckle of the Bible Belt
But remember when you step
Into your voting booth
He'll never lie
He'll just embellish the truth
Promises were made to be broken, right?
You've gotta play the game to win
When you need supporting
Tell them that you're born again
Whatever happened to sin?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
God Is Big, I Am Small
I've spent a lot of time today simply trying to look at myself honestly. I do this occasionally, but probably not as often as I should, and today I again found out why. When I take an honest look inside, I find a lot I don't like.
One thing in particular stood out to me today though. I realized that I have started to believe that all that God is has been put out there for me to get. That God has made it possible for man to understand him completely. As I think about this from an objective standpoint, I realize just how stupid it is. God is far, far too great for a mere mortal brain to understand, too big for a sinful heart to contain. I have at times been willing to embrace 'mystery' on some issues, and yet I see that I have unwittingly embraced the idea that if I try hard enough, if I study Scripture long enough, I could eventually have God figured out.
What I seem to have forgotten, however, that His judgements are unsearchable and His ways unscrutable (see Romans 11:33)! God is far too great to ever be 'figured out', and my existence far too small to fully grasp all that He is. It is folly of me to think otherwise.
At the same time, however, this 'unsearchable' God has made Himself known to us in Jesus. This does not mean that we will have Him figured out, 'for now we only see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12).' However, God has made 'known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ...(see Eph. 1:9)', and thus we pursue Christ, in doing so pursue the Father, since Christ and the Father are one (see John 10:30). We have, in Scripture, all the vision of God we can have this side of heaven. That being the case, we must strive to better know and understand Him through the testimony of the sacred Scriptures, as fully as completely as we can. To know Him is to love Him. We must pursue a knowledge of God that is full and accurate. Oprah was wrong with her whole elephant example of religion. Every religion doesn't see the same God but in a different way. There is one way, and that way of seeing God is revealed in the Word that Christ has made powerful in us.
So what does this mean for me, in regard to the error I've fallen into? It means I embrace the God of the Bible as the only God, and devote all my time to knowing and loving Him. It also means that I embrace the fact that I cannot fully comprehend God as long as I am in this flesh, and instead pursue the knowledge of Him I find in Scripture. This is enough for me, because it is a testimony of His grace, and His grace is sufficient for me and for all of us.
One thing in particular stood out to me today though. I realized that I have started to believe that all that God is has been put out there for me to get. That God has made it possible for man to understand him completely. As I think about this from an objective standpoint, I realize just how stupid it is. God is far, far too great for a mere mortal brain to understand, too big for a sinful heart to contain. I have at times been willing to embrace 'mystery' on some issues, and yet I see that I have unwittingly embraced the idea that if I try hard enough, if I study Scripture long enough, I could eventually have God figured out.
What I seem to have forgotten, however, that His judgements are unsearchable and His ways unscrutable (see Romans 11:33)! God is far too great to ever be 'figured out', and my existence far too small to fully grasp all that He is. It is folly of me to think otherwise.
At the same time, however, this 'unsearchable' God has made Himself known to us in Jesus. This does not mean that we will have Him figured out, 'for now we only see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12).' However, God has made 'known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ...(see Eph. 1:9)', and thus we pursue Christ, in doing so pursue the Father, since Christ and the Father are one (see John 10:30). We have, in Scripture, all the vision of God we can have this side of heaven. That being the case, we must strive to better know and understand Him through the testimony of the sacred Scriptures, as fully as completely as we can. To know Him is to love Him. We must pursue a knowledge of God that is full and accurate. Oprah was wrong with her whole elephant example of religion. Every religion doesn't see the same God but in a different way. There is one way, and that way of seeing God is revealed in the Word that Christ has made powerful in us.
So what does this mean for me, in regard to the error I've fallen into? It means I embrace the God of the Bible as the only God, and devote all my time to knowing and loving Him. It also means that I embrace the fact that I cannot fully comprehend God as long as I am in this flesh, and instead pursue the knowledge of Him I find in Scripture. This is enough for me, because it is a testimony of His grace, and His grace is sufficient for me and for all of us.
Jesus Is For Losers
Here's the lyrics to Steve Taylor's song 'Jesus is For Losers'. If you don't know who Steve is, he is (in my view) one of the best Christian lyricists of all time. He's written numerous albums of solo work in the '80's and early '90's, and what's more he's written or co-written most of Newsboys' songs as well. 'Shine'? That's all Steve. So are other hits such as 'Take Me To Your Leader', 'Adoration' and even the infamous 'Breakfast'. Steve is known for his witty sarcasm and biting satire, as well as unashamedly calling things the way they are and being brutally honest with his lyrics. This one song in particular that's lyrics have been a blessing to me. I'll probably post more eventually. Check it out:
If I was driven
Driven ahead by some noble ideal
Who took the wheel?
If I was given
Given a glimpse of some glorious road
When was it sold?
So caught up in the chase
I keep forgetting my place
Just as I am
I am stiff-necked and proud
Jesus is for losers
Why do I still play to the crowd?
Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees
If I was groping
Groping around for some ladder to fame
I am ashamed
If I was hoping
Hoping respect would make a sturdy footstool
I am a fool
Bone-weary every climb
Blindsided every time
Just as I am
I am needy and dry
Jesus is for losers
The self-made need not apply
Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall
And if you're certain
Certain your life is some cosmic mistake
Why do you shake?
And if you're certain
Certain that faith is some know-nothing mask
Why do you still ask?
They don't grade here on the curve
We both know what we deserve
Just as you are
Just a wretch like me
Jesus is for losers
Grace from the blood of a tree
Just as we are
At a total loss
Jesus is for losers
Broken at the foot of the cross
Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees
Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall
"But when He heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." Matt. 9:12
If I was driven
Driven ahead by some noble ideal
Who took the wheel?
If I was given
Given a glimpse of some glorious road
When was it sold?
So caught up in the chase
I keep forgetting my place
Just as I am
I am stiff-necked and proud
Jesus is for losers
Why do I still play to the crowd?
Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees
If I was groping
Groping around for some ladder to fame
I am ashamed
If I was hoping
Hoping respect would make a sturdy footstool
I am a fool
Bone-weary every climb
Blindsided every time
Just as I am
I am needy and dry
Jesus is for losers
The self-made need not apply
Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall
And if you're certain
Certain your life is some cosmic mistake
Why do you shake?
And if you're certain
Certain that faith is some know-nothing mask
Why do you still ask?
They don't grade here on the curve
We both know what we deserve
Just as you are
Just a wretch like me
Jesus is for losers
Grace from the blood of a tree
Just as we are
At a total loss
Jesus is for losers
Broken at the foot of the cross
Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees
Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall
"But when He heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." Matt. 9:12
On Limited/Definite Atonement
Here's some helpful info on the doctrine of Limited Atonement, or Definite Atonement as some prefer to call it. Thanx to Justin Taylor who posted this originally, and to Piper, Owen, Sproul, Calvin, and my father, who all helped me shape my understanding of this Biblical doctrine. And since I think it's biblical...thanx to Paul, Peter, John, etc. too...
In his classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ John Owen explained the dilemma of those who deny definite atonement:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, “Because of unbelief.”
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!
In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the proposition “Christ paid the punishment for all the sins of all people” with the idea that “Some people will pay the punishment for their sin in hell.”
Secondly, Lorraine Boettner showed in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination that both Calvinists and Arminians “limit” the atonement.
The Calvinist limits the extent of [the atonement] in that he says it does not apply to all persons . . . ; while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.
The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.
For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across.
I think these are valid arguments.
But it was John Piper who helped me see the issue from another angle. In effect, Piper argues that Calvinists essentially affirm the biblical truth that Arminians insist upon. But the Calvinist affirms something some more—something biblical that Arminians deny.
If you want to think this through, then I’d encourage you to read the following carefully. I’ve added some headings and italics to help process the argument a bit.
What Arminians Believe
Arminians take all the passages which say the death of Christ is “for us” (Romans 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:10) or for “his own sheep” (John 10:11, 15) or for “the church” (Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28) or for “the children of God” (John 11:52) or for “those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14) and say that the meaning is that God designs and intends the atonement for all people in the same way, but that God applies it as effective and saving only for those who believe and become part of “us” and “the sheep” and “the church” and “the children of God.”
In this view, then, the sentence, “Christ died for you,” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.
Now, as far as it goes, this seems to me to be acceptable teaching.
What Arminians Deny
But then Arminians deny something that I think the Bible teaches.
They deny that the texts about Christ’s dying for “us” or “his sheep” or his “church” or “the children of God” were intended by God to obtain something more for his people than the benefits they get after they believe.
They deny, specifically, that the death of Christ was not only intended by God to obtain benefits for people after they believe (which is true), but even more, Christ’s death was intended by God to obtain the very willingness to believe.
In other words, the divine grace that it takes to overcome our hardness of heart and become a believer was also obtained by the blood of Jesus.
Where Arminians and Calvinists Agree
There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe.
Moreover, there is no dispute that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you may have eternal life.”
Where Arminians and Calvinists Disagree
The dispute is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things: (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide invitation that can be made to any person to believe on Christ for salvation.
Clarifying Questions
Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and repentance (2 Timothy 2:25)?
Did the blood of Jesus obtain both the benefits after faith, and the benefit of faith itself?
Here’s the Rub
Does the historic Arminian interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contradict this “more” that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ? (Texts like: 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19; John 1:29; 2 Peter 2:1.)
I don’t think so. Arminians historically are just as eager as Calvinists to avoid saying that these texts teach “universal salvation.” So they do not teach that the death of Christ “for all” saves all. Rather, they say, in the words of Millard Erickson, “God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but this atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.” Erickson then says, “This is the view of all Arminians” (Christian Theology, p. 829, emphasis added).
What has come clearer to me as I have pondered these things is that Arminians do not say that in the death of Christ God intends to effectively save all for whom Christ died. They only say that God intends to make possible the salvation of all for whom Christ died. But this interpretation of these “universal” texts does not contradict the Calvinist assertion that God does intend to obtain the grace of faith and repentance for a definite group by the death of Christ.
Arminians may deny this assertion, but they cannot deny it on the basis of their interpretation of the “universal” texts of the atonement. That interpretation simply affirms that all may have salvation if they believe. Calvinists do not dispute that. They only go beyond it.
Here’s the rub: if he did this “more,” he didn’t do it for everyone. So at this level the atonement becomes “limited.” And this is what Arminians stumble over: is there anything that God would do to get some unbelievers saved that he would not do for all? This “limitation” implies a choice on God’s part to save some and not all.
In his classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ John Owen explained the dilemma of those who deny definite atonement:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, “Because of unbelief.”
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!
In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the proposition “Christ paid the punishment for all the sins of all people” with the idea that “Some people will pay the punishment for their sin in hell.”
Secondly, Lorraine Boettner showed in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination that both Calvinists and Arminians “limit” the atonement.
The Calvinist limits the extent of [the atonement] in that he says it does not apply to all persons . . . ; while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.
The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.
For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across.
I think these are valid arguments.
But it was John Piper who helped me see the issue from another angle. In effect, Piper argues that Calvinists essentially affirm the biblical truth that Arminians insist upon. But the Calvinist affirms something some more—something biblical that Arminians deny.
If you want to think this through, then I’d encourage you to read the following carefully. I’ve added some headings and italics to help process the argument a bit.
What Arminians Believe
Arminians take all the passages which say the death of Christ is “for us” (Romans 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:10) or for “his own sheep” (John 10:11, 15) or for “the church” (Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28) or for “the children of God” (John 11:52) or for “those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14) and say that the meaning is that God designs and intends the atonement for all people in the same way, but that God applies it as effective and saving only for those who believe and become part of “us” and “the sheep” and “the church” and “the children of God.”
In this view, then, the sentence, “Christ died for you,” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.
Now, as far as it goes, this seems to me to be acceptable teaching.
What Arminians Deny
But then Arminians deny something that I think the Bible teaches.
They deny that the texts about Christ’s dying for “us” or “his sheep” or his “church” or “the children of God” were intended by God to obtain something more for his people than the benefits they get after they believe.
They deny, specifically, that the death of Christ was not only intended by God to obtain benefits for people after they believe (which is true), but even more, Christ’s death was intended by God to obtain the very willingness to believe.
In other words, the divine grace that it takes to overcome our hardness of heart and become a believer was also obtained by the blood of Jesus.
Where Arminians and Calvinists Agree
There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe.
Moreover, there is no dispute that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you may have eternal life.”
Where Arminians and Calvinists Disagree
The dispute is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things: (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide invitation that can be made to any person to believe on Christ for salvation.
Clarifying Questions
Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and repentance (2 Timothy 2:25)?
Did the blood of Jesus obtain both the benefits after faith, and the benefit of faith itself?
Here’s the Rub
Does the historic Arminian interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contradict this “more” that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ? (Texts like: 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19; John 1:29; 2 Peter 2:1.)
I don’t think so. Arminians historically are just as eager as Calvinists to avoid saying that these texts teach “universal salvation.” So they do not teach that the death of Christ “for all” saves all. Rather, they say, in the words of Millard Erickson, “God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but this atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.” Erickson then says, “This is the view of all Arminians” (Christian Theology, p. 829, emphasis added).
What has come clearer to me as I have pondered these things is that Arminians do not say that in the death of Christ God intends to effectively save all for whom Christ died. They only say that God intends to make possible the salvation of all for whom Christ died. But this interpretation of these “universal” texts does not contradict the Calvinist assertion that God does intend to obtain the grace of faith and repentance for a definite group by the death of Christ.
Arminians may deny this assertion, but they cannot deny it on the basis of their interpretation of the “universal” texts of the atonement. That interpretation simply affirms that all may have salvation if they believe. Calvinists do not dispute that. They only go beyond it.
Here’s the rub: if he did this “more,” he didn’t do it for everyone. So at this level the atonement becomes “limited.” And this is what Arminians stumble over: is there anything that God would do to get some unbelievers saved that he would not do for all? This “limitation” implies a choice on God’s part to save some and not all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)