Richardson Hosts Free Kindle Book Giveaway at Amazon from April 18th-22nd

It is a blessing to be able to return to The Center for Theological Studies (CTS) to make yet another announcement.

I have partnered with Amazon to offer a free Kindle book giveaway on three of my four published books. The titles are as follows:

1) Lydia's Heart: The Case for Prevenient Grace (an informal Arminian theology that argues for resistible grace)

2) Doctrinal Deception: Responding to Carlton Pearson's The Gospel of Inclusion
3) More Doctrinal Deception: Bishop Carlton Pearson's Inclusion, Further Examined

Remember, as I said above, only Kindle Books on the above three titles are free. As for paperback versions of these books, I have discounted the books to "at cost" -- meaning I'll make next to nothing on the sales. Amazon will get the profit. I get the satisfaction of seeing folks pick up copies of books to aid them on their Christian journey. Lydia's Heart: The Case for Prevenient Grace, a book I published on December 15, 2018, has been discounted from $22.50 to $14.50. Of the new discounted cost on the book, I'll only see a profit of 50 cents. Literally. I'm THAT determined to get books into the hands of those who've been wanting the titles but are paralyzed financially right now and have bigger financial problems to worry about.

The Amazon free book giveaway starts today, April 18th, and goes through SonRise Sunday (April 21st, known to many as Easter) to Monday, April 22nd. The giveaway lasts only 5 days, so don't put off tomorrow what you can pick up today.

Write back and let me know if you've picked up any of these three books, and the titles you downloaded on Kindle. If you decide to purchase the paperbacks, let me know which titles.

I look forward to hearing about your purchased titles. If I can be of service, please feel free to let me know.

In Him, Deidre

Essential Church Pastor makes the case for Prevenient Grace in New Book

Prevenient grace is a topic that seems to be relegated to the field of scholastics with regard to theology. It isn’t taught, preached, or pondered much these days in typical bible studies and church discussions, but that could soon change.

Pastor D.M. Richardson, the shepherd of internet-connected The Essential Church and author of books Short-Sighted Faith: Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS) and the Doctrine of Perseverance, Doctrinal Deception: Responding to Carlton Pearson’s The Gospel of Inclusion, and More Doctrinal Deception: Bishop Carlton Pearson’s Inclusion, Further Examined, is back with a book regarding prevenient grace. Titled Lydia’s Heart: The Case for Prevenient Grace, the book uses well-known biblical doctrines to assert that the grace of God that goes before faith (as taught in Ephesians 2:8-9) is resistible in nature, not irresistible. While prevenient grace isn’t a term one finds in the Scriptures, it can be inferred. For example, the word Trinity isn’t found in Scripture either, but it is inferred based upon Scripture’s mention of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.” Grace is mentioned, but “prevenient” is an inference (“prevenient” means that it goes before something; grace goes before faith).

Richardson draws from a number of well-known biblical doctrines that Baptists, in particular, would find encouraging, such as the idea of infant grace (that is, every infant is born in a state of grace). Infants have “angels in Heaven,” Jesus says in the Gospels, a statement that doesn’t set aside some infants for salvation and others for damnation (a statement John Calvin held in high regard). A chapter titled “The Good News About Hell” shows that Hell is a choice for humans, who were not created for Hell. Hell exists only for the Devil and his angels, though humans can choose to enter this dreadful place through rebellion against God and sheer unbelief. Hell wasn’t created for a single human person, meaning that Calvin’s Doctrine of Reprobation is not only distasteful but also highly unbiblical. Richardson also tackles the Doctrine of Atonement regarding God’s universal love for the world as a whole, not just some in it.

The main heroine of the book happens to be Lydia, the God-fearer and worshipper whose heart and mind was opened to the revelation of Jesus Christ in the gospel message, preached by the apostle Paul. This is the center of the book, and Richardson saves the best for last — with the title chapter as the last chapter (chapter 7).

Richardson says that she has written such a book because of Calvinism claims that prevenient grace doesn’t exist but is an Arminian concoction to bolster the Arminian view of human depravity. “There aren’t different views of human depravity in Calvinism and Arminianism,” Richardson says. “All depravity is the same. Calvinists and Arminians led by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, both believe that man can do nothing meritorious of himself and is incapable to do any good apart from the aid of divine grace. The notion of prevenient grace within Arminianism is an acknowledgment, not a denial, that man needs God’s grace to respond in faith. It’s grace-enabled responsibility at its finest.”

Pastor D.M. Richardson, apart from being Founder and Pastor of The Essential Church, is also an undergraduate of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, having received baccalaureate degrees in History (Modern Europe) and Music (Performance) in 2006. Since then, Richardson has gone on to graduate with a Master of Divinity degree in Christian Apologetics from Southeastern Seminary in 2011. She entered the seminary’s postgraduate, Master of Theology (ThM) program for four years after receiving her MDiv, studying under the Seminary’s Dean of the Faculty and Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach author, Dr. Kenneth Keathley.

You can pick up your copy of Lydia’s Heart over at Amazon.com. Both Kindle (digital) and Paperback versions are currently selling at the low price of $15 through January 15, 2018. You can preview the book at the link below.

Richardson has more work in store for 2019: among it, a groundwork theology and an introduction to theological systems in salvation (soteriology).

https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=B07JYV9F43&preview=newtab&linkCode=kpe&ref_=cm_sw_r_kb_dp_FdMlCbBFV0BC6

The Parallel

“Seventh, particular intent maintains the parallel between our solidarity with Adam and our solidarity with Christ. As Neal Punt puts it, Romans 5:15-17 ‘[does] not say that one of the differences between Adam’s transgression and Christ’s obedience is that the transgression resulted in actual death while the obedience merely established a potential or possibility for life. Instead of making such a distinction, Paul, using the identical grammatical construction, makes a parallel application of actual death and actual life in verse 18. Calvinists are unmistakably correct in noting that Romans 5:12 through 21 says‘acquittal and life’ actually come to all those represented by Christ just as certainly as it declares that‘sin and death’ actually came upon all those represented by Adam’” (Dr. Terrance L. Tiessen, “Who Can Be Saved? ReAssessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004, page 98).

In recent posts, I have discussed in great detail the Calvinist notion that God’s sovereignty involves the necessity of salvation for all those God intends to save. Since the Scriptures and experience teach that every individual does not come to faith, Calvinists reason that this is evidence in favor of the Calvinist position of limited atonement. God did not die for every person; therefore, every person cannot be saved. As a result of Calvinist logic, the phrase “all men” in Romans 5:18 has been twisted to mean “all men that Christ intends to save.”

But today, I wanna examine this concept in the text of Romans 5 itself to see if the Calvinist interpretation plays itself out. Did Christ’s atonement not only purchase but THROW the gift of salvation into the laps of certain individuals? Or did Christ’s atonement purchase salvation while allowing individuals to receive or reject it? For the answers to these questions, we now turn to the Scriptures themselves.

Tiessen (and Neal Punt, in the quote above) argues that Romans 5 details the parallel unions between Adam and Christ (the “second Adam,” 1 Cor. 15). In order to keep the parallel (according to Neal Punt, whom Tiessen quotes), we have to argue for efficacious grace; that is, that “all” that Christ intended to save were made alive and justified because of Christ’s obedience. If we don’t argue the Calvinist logic, we lose the parallelism of Romans 5.

But why is this the case? I will get into that momentarily. If one reads Romans 5, one will quickly notice that Neal Punt (and Dr. Tiessen) quickly skirt over verses that seem to undermine their interpretation of the passage. For example, they point to verse 18 (in the above quote) but what about verse 17? Verse 17 states that “those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ” (NKJV). So here, the gift is given to those who “receive” it, not just given to a select few. The gift is not automatically given without reception. The condition for possessing the gift is reception of the gift. One must reach out and grab it, otherwise, salvation becomes of no use.

But what about the parallelism of the passage? Doesn’t Romans 5 loses the parallelism if we interpret the text the way I did above, that “all men” are those who “receive abundance of grace of the gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17)? Actually, no. Dr. Tiessen and Neal Punt err when they make such a statement. Why? Because, if you look at the text, you’ll notice that Romans 5:12 states that Adam sinned, death spread to all, and that “all sinned”. Every single human being sinned in Adam. When Adam chose to disobey God, every human being (by virtue of mortal union with Adam) disobeyed God as well. Paul tells us in the text that “all sinned,” asserting that it was a deliberate choice on the part of humanity to sin against God.

So, if “all sinned,” then what does the text mean by “all will be made alive”? As I aforementioned, the “all” of the text in verse 18 refers to “those who receive” the grace and gift in verse 17. “All will be made alive” means “all those who receive the grace and gift of salvation” will be justified. The parallelism of Romans 5 has not been lost. Every single person CHOSE to sin in Adam; there must be a choice if someone is to be made alive in Christ. The mortal union involved a deliberate choice to sin; the spiritual union with Christ involves a deliberate choice to receive God’s grace and His gift of salvation. Where has the parallelism been lost in this interpretation?

But what about Ephesians 1? This is the classic text used by Calvinists to claim that humans don’t make choices...rather, God picks and chooses. “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” they say (Ephesians 1:4). The problem with the Calvinist interpretation is that they don’t see the phrase “in Him.” How is one united to Christ? Romans 5 tells us: we are united to Christ “by faith.” The spiritual union with Christ comes to those who “receive abundance and the gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17). God chose humans before the foundation of the world to be His own...but He did not choose individuals without regard to Christ. Rather, He set faith as the condition for salvation and, on that basis, chose believers to be His own.

To end the post, I’d like to talk more on Ephesians 1. I just stated here that God “chose believers to be His own.” This is a significant statement indeed: God could not choose individuals without regard to grace and faith because, prior to this, we were all “children of wrath.” Calvinists often read Ephesians 1 but fail to read Ephesians 2; yet, it is in Ephesians 2 that we realize we were under the wrath and condemnation of God prior to faith. So if God chooses us without regard to faith, God chooses to smile on sinners and their sin---which is something that the Bible states God cannot do. Whenever a Calvinist says, “God chose us to be in Christ,” what he is really saying is “God was delighted to smile on us while we were yet sinners.” If God favored us as sinners, why then, did He require Jesus to go the cross? Why was Christ the penalty for our sins, if God smiled on us as sinners? Paul states that the reason Jesus was sent to Calvary was because

“in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, TO DEMONSTRATE AT THE PRESENT TIME HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, THAT HE MIGHT BE JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER OF THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS” (Rom. 3:25-26).

Part of the purpose of Calvary (aside from purchasing the salvation of every person) was to deal with sin. “The wages of sin is death,” Paul writes (Rom. 6:23). Christ came not only to purchase our salvation, but to suffer the penalty for our sin (1 John 2:1-2; 4:10). If this be the case, then God must first have dealt with sin in the eternal decrees before granting salvation. This is why Classic Arminians hold to the idea of conditional election. When it says that God “chose us in Him,” we understand that only by the divine gifts of Christ, grace, and faith, are we chosen for salvation.

An Addendum to Calvary

“There is no contradiction here, ‘as if God should will the damnation and salvation of Judas both at one time,’ for Preston is adamant that ‘it is most possible for a man to will and nill one and the same thing upon the same object if it be in different respects’” [Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 133; John Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” page 422. A Note from Jonathan Moore: “Preston has implicitly adopted Harsnett’s interpretation (Arminian) of 1 Timothy 2:4 over against that of Perkins (particularist, Calvinist].

I do not like contradictions. The word “contradiction” itself comes from two words, “contra” (against) and “diction” (speaking). To “contradict” something is to “speak against” it, whatever the thing may be. For example, to say that “I DO like chocolate” and then turn around and say “I DO NOT like chocolate” is to speak against the previous statement, “I do like chocolate.”

Contradictions, then, are illogical; and the only thing that can resolve paradoxes (or contradictions) is to qualify the opposites. For example, let’s look at the example from above:

“I do like chocolate”

AND

“I do not like chocolate”

How do we resolve the contradiction here? We qualify the terms:

“I do like chocolate IN THE SUMMERTIME”

And

“I do not like chocolate IN THE WINTER”

The resolution is not the best one, but it is a good idea of how to resolve the contradiction (by stating seasons in which chocolate is favorable and seasons in which chocolate is not favorable).

Taking this concept into John Preston’s theology, we can see that he is right when he says that “it is most possible for a man to will and nill ONE AND THE SAME THING upon the same object IF IT BE IN DIFFERENT RESPECTS.” What Preston is saying here is, “Qualify the contradictory phrases”!

Preston then provides an example for us:

“A father will not have his son drunk, if he tie him up in a chamber he will not be drunk, yet he will not take such a course, though he hath a will his son should not be drunk, so God though HE DO WILL THAT MEN SHOULD BELIEVE AND REPENT AND BE SAVED, yet HE WILL NOT BE SAID TO USE ALL MEANS FOR THE EFFECTING OF IT IN ALL MEN, because He will glorify his justice as well as his mercy” (Moore, 133; Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” page 422).

There are problems with Preston’s statement here. First, the example never tells us why the father does not lock the son up in a chamber to prevent his drunkenness. Preston gives us no reason why; but when it gets to God not saving everyone, Preston provides an answer: “He will glorify his justice as well as his mercy.”

Next, in his statement on God, we see that, although God is responsible for making men and women come to faith, He will not effectually draw all to faith. And why?
“Because he will glorify his justice as well as mercy.”
In short, God has a “greater good” to which He has committed Himself, apart from the salvation of the world: that is, to display His justice.
But if God “must” display His justice with the damnation of many lives only God could have saved, then what about Calvary? Wasn’t the Atonement the ULTIMATE display of God’s justice and mercy? Didn’t God fully pour out His wrath on Christ on the Cross?

What does John tell us about Christ’s atonement?

“For God DID NOT SEND HIS SON INTO THE WORLD THAT HE MIGHT CONDEMN THE WORLD, but that THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED THROUGH HIM” (John 3:17, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

So God sent the Son into the world with the intention of saving every creature. John is clear when he says that the purpose for Christ’s coming was not “that He might condemn the world.” God had no purpose of condemning anyone in Christ; therefore, the reason why anyone is condemned is because they do not believe in Christ (John 3:18).

And what about Paul’s words in Romans, which state that because of Christ’s righteousness “there is life-giving justification FOR EVERYONE” (Rom. 5:18, HCSB)? Or Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians that the message of reconciliation states that “in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, NOT COUNTING THEIR TRESPASSES AGAINST THEM” (2 Cor. 5:17)? If God sent Christ so that He could forgive the world of its trespasses, then doesn’t this mean that God has provided a way for every single soul to be saved, should he or she believe on Christ’s name?

The Scriptures portray a different God than does John Preston’s theology; rather, Preston’s theology doesn’t accurately portray the God of the Bible. If God has provided a way for the world to be saved, and His desire in sending Christ was to purchase the salvation of every single person, then how could God turn around and decide not to save every person? The problem with Preston’s theology is that he refuses to give up his Calvinism, with its doctrines of irresistible grace and unconditional election. As a result, he now has to come up with an answer for why the atonement “was not enough” to save the world---why, instead, the world now needs to see the damnation of souls to comfort the elect in their salvation. But doesn’t this provide “an addendum to Calvary?”

I shudder to think that the work of Christ on the cross was not enough to save every single person in the world. The Lord makes it very clear in His Word that He never created hell for any human, but the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). If this is true, then God has never outright intended to damn anyone apart from their rejection of Christ’s atonement and saving grace. God didn’t do a half-job at the Cross; rather, He completely purchased the redemption of the world. He has already judged the world for its sin in Adam; now, He need only judge the world for its rejection of the purchased salvation in Christ.

The Revealed and Secret Wills in John Preston's Theology

For the last several posts, I have been covering John Preston and his theology, called “English Hypothetical Universalism.” Preston held to four-point Calvinism, the exception to the points being that he held to “Unlimited” instead of “Limited” atonement.

As a result of Preston’s view of unlimited atonement, his theology has been labeled that of “hypothetical universalism”: Jesus “could have” died for every person, but in actuality, He only died for the elect few.

Before I get started, I just wanna announce that I’ve added a link to a biography of John Preston as well as his works (free in the public domain) to the right hand side of the main blog page. For those who desire to do further study of Preston, please click on the link “Works of John Preston” to find all and more that you desire to know.

In this post, I wanna take a look at Preston’s view of the revealed and secret wills and how it ties in with his hypothetical universalism. Moore writes:

“Preston is well aware that he is getting himself into deep water at this point. Yet he is confident that he can make ‘stand together’ the fact that on the one hand ‘God desires that men should believe and live’ and ‘expresseth in...Scripture such an earnest desire to have men live and not die,’ while on the other hand, although ‘he hath it in his power to make them to believe...yet will not’” (Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 132).

Here’s how Preston resolves the seeming paradox in his theology:

“The parable of the prodigal son ‘expresseth how willing God is to receive Sinners.’ Secondly, ‘there is a double consideration of the will of God.’ Considered ‘simply,’ ‘God being Holy and pure must needs be delighted in the faith and repentance and obedience of his creature.’...yet THIS IS OVERRULED BY ‘A SECRET WILL OF GOD,’ WHEREBY ‘FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF’ HE HAS MERCY ON SOME AND HARDENS OTHERS. Nevertheless God does pursue the salvation of the reprobate in the free offer” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 132; John Preston, “Sermons preached before His Majestie,” page 149 and “Riches of Mercy,” page 4).

So let me get this straight: In Preston’s theology, God has both a revealed will and a secret will. The revealed will shows that God desires the salvation of every human being, but the secret will shows that God only desires the salvation of some (since He only chooses some and not all). But if this is the case, then shouldn’t the “secret” will be the “revealed” one? I mean, If God reveals truth about Himself, and He only saves some, then doesn’t that mean (in Preston’s theology) that God should sincerely reveal His desire to save some? But what about His revealed desire in the Scriptures to save “every creature” (Mk. 16:15)? If God has revealed His desire to save every person, then why is this will “hidden” and the secret will of limited atonement revealed? This seems to make the words “revealed” and “hidden” mere psychobabble, since “revealed” can mean “hidden” and “hidden” can mean “revealed” at any time.

Secondly, it seems that Preston is at a crossroads in his theology: either give up the idea of universal atonement, or give up the idea of “irresistible grace.” If Preston strongly holds to irresistible grace and God “effectually” drawing the elect, then he needs to reinterpret certain passages he held as referring to “universal atonement” as showing "limited atonement" in order to show consistency in his theology.

There are special problems I have with the secret will itself. The one main problem I have with it is tied to what I wrote above about “revealed” and “hidden”: if these two words are synonyms and are interchangeable at any time, then how can we know that what is revealed is not deceiving us? Take the Incarnation, for example. If what is “revealed” is truly that which is “hidden,” then when Jesus states “The one who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 11:9, Holman Christian Standard Bible), how can we believe Him? If Preston’s theology is right, Jesus does not reveal who the Father is; rather, the Father has a “hidden” identity. Jesus’ identity and claims to Godhood are nothing more than a “divine distraction” from the actual state of affairs. Jesus then, served as one whose identity “keeps us from finding out” the Father’s true identity. I don’t know about you, but I just refuse to believe that the Scriptures teach falsehood. I believe they teach truth in everything they report. The thought of God saying one thing but meaning something “hidden” is unsatisfactory if not downright heretical.

Preston has more to say about the salvation of some and the damnation of others...but I’ll reserve that for another post.

"The Pot and the Kettle," Pt. II: John Preston's Somewhat "Hypocritical" Stance

“For according to Arminius, though God did heartily desire the conversion of such a man, and offered him al the meanes of Grace that could be, yet it is stil in the free choise of his wil to convert, or not to convert; Their onely answer here is, that seeing God hath made a Decree, that man shal be a free Agent, though he doe most earnestly desire the conversion of such and such men, yet because he cannot disannul his Decree, he doth, and must leave it to the liberty of the Creature to doe contrary to even that himselfe desires. BUT WHAT IS THIS ELSSE BUT TO PUT GOD INTO SUCH STREIGHTS AS DARIUS WAS IN, WHO WOULD FAINE HAVE SAVED DANIEL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS DECREE HE COULD NOT?...[W]hat is this else but to attribute griefe unto God, and so to detract from his Blessednesse?” (John Preston, “Plenitudo Fontis,” pp. 9-10; quoted by Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 129).

In my last post, I focused a great deal on what Preston had to say regarding Arminius’s theology. He accuses Arminius of “limiting” God’s power and ability to achieve His purposes. I denied that this is what Arminius’s theology is actually doing and stated that God refusing to do contradictions is rather a good thing---the fact that “He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13) shows how dependable and trustworthy our God really is. The fact that He never changes is reassuring for us believers who live in an uncertain world where everything changes around us all the time. Even the psalmist wrote, “Therefore we will not be afraid, though the earth trembles and the mountains topple into the depths of the seas” (Psalm 46:2, Holman Christian Standard Bible). And why would the writer not fear? Because “God is our refuge and strength, a helper WHO IS ALWAYS FOUND in times of trouble” (Ps. 46:1). Because God is always a refuge for His own, His children know what to do when trouble hits---that is, run to the Lord, whose name is a strong tower.

In today’s post, I wanna focus on Preston’s theological hypocrisy---that is, I wanna spend time looking at Preston’s own words to show that his theology places God in as “unpopular” a light as he believed Arminius’s theology does. Truth be told, he also “limits” God in his theology as well.

Jonathan Moore writes:

“Although he [Preston] attacks Arminius for detracting from God’s blessedness by implying a frustrated will in God, Preston, INCONSISTENTLY or otherwise, IS FOUND DOING THE VERY SAME THING. He states that ‘Christ offers himselfe, we make offer of him, when we preach the Gospell, in the Sacrament he is offered, he is made like a common dole, all may come that will, and certainly all that hunger doe come.’ However, some do not respond to this offer, and to such Preston says, referring to Matthew 23:37, ‘thou art one of them, whom he would gather, and THOU WILT NOT.’...the reprobate within the visible church who reject the free offer ‘take the grace of God in vain’ by ‘FRUSTRATING THE END of’ the ‘manifestion’ of God’s riches” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 134).

Look at Preston’s words. The reprobate in the church who rejects Christ is guilty of “frustrating the end” or frustrating the goal of God’s riches of mercy. But, didn’t he say, “What is this else but to PUT GOD INTO SUCH STREIGHTS AS DARIUS WAS IN, WHO WOULD FAINE HAVE SAVED DANIEL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS DECREE HE COULD NOT?” (quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, page 129) Didn’t he say in the quote from page 134 above that “thou art one of them, whom HE WOULD GATHER, and THOU WILT NOT”? In the Arminian system, God cannot “force” a person to be saved; but isn’t God limited as well in that sense in Preston’s theology (“he would gather, and thou wilt not”)?

In either the Arminian system or Preston’s, God still cannot coerce a person into receiving Christ. While He can certainly draw them and compel them to come to Him, He can do nothing more. Preston’s theology, in some way, becomes an indirectly “Arminian” theology, whether he realized it or not.

Preston continues:

“When we preach the Gospell, and offer Christ, we are friends of the Bridegroom: our businesse is, to present you as a pure Virgin of Christ...Christ comes and tels a man, I will have thee...I am willing to marry thee. When this is done on the holy Ghosts part, & WE ON OUR PART COME TO RESOLVE TO TAKE HIM, now the match is made betweene us, and this is faith indeed’” (quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, page 135; John Preston, “The Breast-plate,” I:197-198).

According to Preston, the Holy Ghost woos men and women, and then “we on our part” make a decision to come to Christ. Wait a minute, though! Doesn’t the Lord “irresistibly” draw some to Himself? According to Moore,

“Despite his hypothetical universalism...Preston describes the gospel promise in STRICTLY PARTICULAR TERMS. This is because PRESTON IS STILL DESIROUS TO DEFEND THE ‘IRRESISTIBLE WORKING’ OF ‘quickning Grace.’ Indeed, in the face of a rising Arminianism, Preston, in his treatise ‘Irresistiblenesse of converting Grace,’ goes so far as to say that in one sense ‘QUICKNING GRACE’ IS NOT EVEN ‘OFFERED TO ANY, BUT THOSE IN WHOM IT IS EFFECTUALL’” (Moore, 128; John Preston, “Irresistiblenesse of Converting Grace,” page 14).

The question for you, the readership, is this: how can man be responsible for failing to come to Christ if Christ draws people to Himself by “irresistible” grace?

Here’s a syllogism:

Premise #1: God draws people by irresistible grace.

Premise #2: Irresistible grace is grace that cannot be resisted.

Premise #3: No human is able to fight against such magnetic grace.

Conclusion: Those who come to Christ are “made willing” by irresistible grace.

If no human can fight irresistible grace, and God only draws some with this kind of grace, then how could the others be responsible for a grace that was never extended to them? There is only responsibility for such stubborn persons IF grace itself can be resisted, and is only “enabling” grace, not “enforcing” grace. Once again, Preston’s theology is inconsistent.

Before I continue, let me just state that no proper theology can have a grace that is BOTH irresistible and resistible at the same time. This is why believers once resisted the grace of God before salvation, and in many ways, continue to resist the grace of God in our moments of temptation and sin. While we are being daily conformed to the image of God’s Son, we still battle our human depravity, like it or not; and our human depravity influences us at times to resist God’s work in our lives. If grace were truly irresistible, sin would not be sin (rather, it would be annihilated).

In another place, Preston uses the imagery of Christ knocking on the door in Revelation 3:20---

“God awakens sinners, but what kinde of awakening is it? With such awakening that they fall asleep againe. God may send many messengers of wrath to knocke at the doore of their hearts, which perhaps disquiets and troubles them a little, but they returne to their rest againe. And this God may not onely doe outwardly, but he may cast many sparkes of his displeasure into their hearts, which may there lye glowing for a time, but they last not, they goe out in the end. And this is the condition of most men” (Moore, 136-137; John Preston, “Saints Qualification,” I:22).

But notice what he says about God and the work of the Spirit:

“But when ‘wee cannot deny his knocking at our doores, and yet wee will not come in,’ then in his wrath he will destroy such, saying ‘I WOULD HAVE PURGED THEE, and THOU WOULDEST NOT BE PURGED, therefore thou shalt never be purged till my wrath light on thee.’ It is then that ‘GOD WITH-DRAWES FROM A MAN HIS SPIRIT AND SPECIALL PROVIDENCE, BECAUSE HE LOATHES HIM’” (Moore, 137; John Preston, “Saints Qualification, I:21; this is Preston’s own translation of Ezekiel 24:13).

In Preston’s own words, God knocks at the door of every human heart; but when the person refuses to open up their heart and accept Christ, God “withdraws His Spirit...because He loathes him.” Preston makes God sound here as if He gets very angry and hurt when someone does not receive Him. Jonathan Moore says it best when he writes:

“While loathing the god of the Arminians, therefore, Preston was not afraid of almost giving THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION OF A FRUSTRATED WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” (Moore, pp. 137-138).

To sum up John Preston: on one hand he could say “the heart of every man by nature is so shut up against Christ...unless God himselfe shake off the bolts, and open the gates...we will not admit him, but keepe him out” (Moore, 138; Preston, “The Breast-plate,” I:160); but then, he could turn around and say, “open thy heart and let him in” and think nothing of it (Preston, “Riches of Mercy, pg. 177; Moore, 138).

I think Preston has shown us contradictory theology at its best. When one examines his theology, he seems to be an English Arminian who wanted to hang on to Calvinism in any form. What is most appalling about Preston’s theology is that it still exists today in four-point Calvinist and Molinist systems. Take Molinism, for example: it desires to have a genuine universal atonement, but it also includes a predetermined “unconditional” election. How there can be a genuine atonement with a cold hard predetermined election is anyone’s guess...

There is more on John Preston to come.

Hypothetical Universal Atonement

Before I start this post, I’d just like to take a moment to talk about some of the changes made around here at the site. The major change made recently involved the addition of an “I’m Currently Reading” section and a "Just Finished Reading" section here at the Center for Theological Studies. From now on, all my readers will now stay informed regarding my reading material. I want you all to know books on which I’m reading so that you may be able to know what good literature on theology is out there online and in bookstores alike. This way, you will not have to waste time reading through material that will be of no spiritual benefit. That’s right: I wanna save you the frustration of “weeding through” bad material.

I’ve been doing some work for the last few days on the Doctrine of the Atonement here at CTS. Surprisingly, the book that I’ve been reading on in the last few weeks involves John Preston and his view of “Hypothetical Universalism.” Now, in this respect, Preston stands in the ranks of the French theologian Moises Amyraut (known for his theological system of “Amyraldianism”). Amyraut, like Preston, held to four points of Calvinism but argued that there was some universality (although hypothetical, meaning “possible”) to the atonement for all humans. In this respect, such “four-point Calvinists” stand out to us all by showing us that inconsistencies have always existed within the Calvinist system. Calvinists just “cannot take the plunge” when it comes to affirming “Limited Atonement” (Jesus died for some). And that was no different with John Preston in seventeenth-century England.

First, just what is “hypothetical universalism”? It is a doctrine that teaches that, while it is possible that everyone could have been saved, Jesus only died for a few. In reality, then, only the special elect whom Jesus chose to be saved will actually receive the benefits of the atonement.

Let’s look at the words of John Preston to see this definition at play. In his sermons and writings, Preston noted that Jesus died for only a few, as Jonathan Moore notes:

“In his ‘opera’ Preston never explicitly states that Christ died ‘for the elect.’ Nowhere is there a ‘Perkinsian’ treatment of classic universalist texts involving ‘all’ or the ‘world.’ However, Preston does not hesitate to take up scriptural imagery of particular grace with regard to the death of Christ, and he does sometimes employ terminology associated with particular redemptionist formulations. Christ came ‘to take away the sinnes of his people; hee came to take away sinnes of all sorts.’ Christ ‘hath purchased his Wife with his owne bloud,’ and ‘such a relation there is between Christ and us,’ as ‘between the Shepherd and the Sheep; the Shepherd that gives his life for the sheep, and the sheep that are redeemed.’ Preston also taught that

‘as in the time of the Law, the Priest was to offer up sacrifices for the people in all humilitie, so Christ in the Gospell on the Crosse with a broken and a contrite spirit, offered a sacrifice FOR ALL HIS CHILDREN, and makes them acceptable unto God’” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, pages 98-99; Moore also quotes from Preston’s “The Breast-plate,” I:248, II:142, and “Remaines,” page 237).

In addition, Preston also argued that the atonement was efficient for believers and that God accomplishes His purposes:

“In broad terms Preston taught that Christ could never fail of his intent. For ‘WHATSOEVER THE LORDS END IS, HE NEVER FAILES OF.’ Because the Father ‘is not willing to have his Sonnes bloud spilt in vain,’ there must be an efficacy to Christ’s satisfaction, at least on one level or for some people...because ‘Christ came to redeem them for this end that they might be zealous,’ and ‘CHRIST WILL NOT LOSE HIS END,’ then ‘they that Christ will save shall be zealous’” (Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” pages 100-101; Preston quotes taken from Preston’s work “Saints Qualification,” II:20; Preston’s “The Golden Scepter,” I:275, and his work “Riches of Mercy,” page 90).

The question then becomes, “How can the atonement be for all if God only permits “some” to come to Him?” In Preston’s thought, Jesus could die for all on the one hand and some on the other hand because of a division between Christ’s work as redeemer (for all) and His work as intercessor (praying on behalf of the elect, see John 17:9). In the words of Jonathan Moore,

“Preston therefore drives a significant wedge between the twofold high-priestly work of Christ as atonement-maker and intercessor. The effectual source of the ‘golden chain’ is not Christ’s satisfaction itself, but an almost separate work of Christ, namely his intercession. The extent of the former can be totally different from that of the latter. Christ as High Priest makes satisfaction for all without exception, but Christ as High Priest makes intercession only for the elect. It would appear that the decree of election can be removed almost altogether from propitiation and lodged solely in the limited and discriminating intercession of Christ” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 102).

In John Preston’s theology, there is a dichotomy between the extent and intent: while the atonement extends to all, it is only intended for the elect. Christ as High Priest only prays for the elect (those He desires to be saved). What happens to the others? “Hypothetically” (for argument’s sake), they could be saved...but Christ will not save them. And somehow, he can still turn around and say that those who are not elect are non-elect because of their own fault:

“so it is in this offer of Christ, all is ready Christ is slain, and his blood is poured out, if you do not come and take it, YOU PUT AWAY FROM YOU THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, and so in as much as in you lieth YOU MAKE THE DEATH OF CHRIST OF NONE EFFECT, and so by consequence you shall be guilty of the blood of Christ...whosoever refuseth Christ is guilty of the spilling of his most precious blood” (Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” pp.427-28; quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 109).

This statement places blame for unbelief on the individual, not Christ.

In another place, Preston said:

“the death of Christ is like a medicine, that hath efficacy enough to heal all mankind, IF THEY WILL APPLY IT, now if men will not take it, and receive it, it is not out of defect in the thing itself, but out of the CONTEMPT AND STUBBORNESS OF THEIR OWN WILL” (Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” p. 423; quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 110).

One moment, Preston is saying that the individuals themselves must apply the medicine; the next, he is saying that only God can apply the medicine needed (that men are unable to do this at all). In short, men are “able” to save and “unable” to save all at the same time, in the same way.

If there is one sentence I could end with in this post, it would be a one-liner from the words of John Preston: “freely given to all, yet God intends him onely to the Elect” (Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 113; Preston, “The Breast-plate," I:9). One of the things that you, my readership, will discover as we plow through Preston is that Preston is speaking contradiction...and will soon come head-to-head with his contradiction and be forced to face himself. When he does, the reading of my posts will be so worth it. How exactly does he respond? Well, for the answer to that, you’ll just have to keep reading.

"The Whole World" in 1 John 2:2

We’ve been studying the Doctrine of Singular Redemption here at the Center for Theological Studies for the last few days. I’ve covered John 3:16-18, 2 Corinthians 5 as well as 2 Peter 3:9.

I’m back to continue the current theological agenda. Today’s text will involve a controversial one: 1 John 2:2. The verse reads as follows:

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, English Standard Version).

Some weeks ago, I was reading a work called “‘That You May Know’: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John” by Christopher D. Bass,” and Bass tackled this verse in his work (since the book itself was all about 1 John). When Bass arrives at the verse in his work (on page 81), he presents the two views of what is meant by “the whole world”:

“Some contend that this passage speaks of God’s redemption with a universal scope in its potential. In this interpretation the ‘whole world’ should be understood as ‘all inclusive,’ thus Jesus is the propitiation for all men without exception...others argue that when John speaks of the ‘whole world,’ he is referring to all the elect of both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, in 2:2b, John is making the point that Jesus’ death did not apply to Jewish believers only (i.e., ‘ours’) but also to the elect Gentiles (i.e., ‘the whole world’)” (“That You May Know: Assurance of Salvation in 1 John.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008, page 82).

How does Bass interpret “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2?

“The ‘whole world’ would include all believers everywhere throughout the world. Therefore, Jesus was not only the propitiation for the sins of one little group of believers in Asia Minor but for the children of God all over the world” (Bass, “‘That You May Know,’ page 84).

For Christopher Bass, “the whole world” refers to believers only, Christians throughout the world.

This would work if it didn’t conflict with textual evidence within the Epistle of 1 John itself. Robert E. Picirilli gathers information within the letter surrounding “the whole world” to determine its meaning. Here is what Picirilli gathered:

2:2 (our text)--> its first appearance

2:15-17 (6 times)-->The Christian is not to be loving the world or the things in the world. The world, and its lust, IS PASSING AWAY.

3:1-->THE WORLD DOES NOT KNOW US, BECAUSE IT DID NOT KNOW HIM.

3:13--> Do not be annoyed if THE WORLD IS HATING YOU.

3:17--> Whoever has the means of life of the world and does not share with one in need is not demonstrating the love of God.

4:1-5 (6 times)-->Greater is the one in you than THE ONE IN THE WORLD. THEY, BEING OF THE WORLD, SPEAK OF THE WORLD AND THE WORLD HEARS THEM.

4:9--> God sent His Son into the world in order than[sic] we might live through Him

4:14-->The Father sent the Son to be SAVIOR OF THE WORLD.

4:17-->As He is, so are we IN THE WORLD.

5:4, 5 (3 times)-->THE BELIEVER OVERCOMES THE WORLD.

5:19-->We are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIES IN THE EVIL ONE.

(Picirilli’s verses and textual evidence can be found in his work, “Grace, Faith, and Free Will; Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism.” Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002, page 125).

If only one of the verses referenced above grabs you, it should be 1 John 5:19--- “We know that we are from God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIES IN THE POWER OF THE EVIL ONE” (ESV).

What this tells us is that the whole world, controlled by “the evil one,” that is “Satan,” is the same world that Jesus is the propitiation for in 1 John 2:2! If this is the case, then Bass’s interpretation contradicts Scripture’s teaching on the meaning of the phrase. If the whole world refers to only the elect throughout the world, then this means that, to plug Bass’s meaning in 1 John 5:19, “the elect in the world lie in the power of the evil one.” This is a sad thought, indeed. After all, doesn’t this possibility of the elect being under Satan’s control contradict Jesus’ prayer to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane (“I...ask...that you keep them from the evil one”, John 17:15)?

Picirilli noted it in his analysis above...but there is later evidence within 1 John 2 that tells us that the world is opposed to the recipients of John’s epistle:

15(Z) Do not love the world or the things in the world.(AA) If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world—(AB) the desires of the flesh and(AC) the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17And(AD) the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:15-17, English Standard Version)

First, John tells the believers “do not love the world or the things in the world.” I don’t think he is telling the elect in the receiving congregation to not love the other elect brothers and sisters in the world---so we can rule out this portion as referring to “the elect throughout the world.” Next, he states that, “if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” To love the world is to hate the Father. I don’t think the elect are against the Father---so this would refer to the unbelieving mass as well. In verse 16, John tells us what the world offers: lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes, and pride in possessions. Never in Scripture are believers told to lust after the flesh; in fact, Paul tells believers that “those in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:8). Notice as well that “the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” Life everlasting is found in the one who seeks to please the Lord, not drift along with the world. But not only will the material possessions of the world be destroyed and burnt up---so will “those of the world,” “the worldly,” the ungodly.

I’ve examined clues within the text of 1 John 2 itself as well as the meaning of “the world” throughout the First Epistle of John. As has been shown, there is simply no justifiable reason for Bass’s interpretation of “the whole world” as “believers throughout the world.” Such an interpretation stems from historical interpretive tradition...and a particular theological slant.

"Any of You": The Universality of the Atonement in 2 Peter 3:9

In the last few posts, I’ve been going through passage after passage of verses pertaining to what many believe to be the universality (and yet, exclusivity) of the atonement. The atonement has been seen as that which corresponds to the Doctrine of Singular Redemption: this doctrine states that, while the atonement is “sufficient” for every person, the atonement is only “efficient” for those who believe. In other words, while Christ purchased the redemption of every man, only those who believe receive the purchased redemption. Only those who believe are accurately called “the redeemed” (Exodus 15:13).

In this post, I will explore the passage of 2 Peter 3 to see what insight it can provide in regards to the Doctrine of the Atonement (the teaching that Christ died for the sins of the world).

Let’s read the passage together:

“But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:8-9, English Standard Version).

I once saw a video of James White on Youtube where he responded to a sermon by Ergun Caner, delivered at Liberty University, titled “Why I Am Not a Hyper-Calvinist.” Ergun Caner used 2 Peter 3:9 as a prooftext for universal atonement (that Jesus died for every person). James White responded to this prooftext by arguing that the “any” of the verse itself did not refer to any person, but rather, “any of you,” the recipients of Peter’s letter.

This is problematic, however. If Peter is writing to fellow believers, then why would he tell them that the Lord desires “that all should reach repentance”? Haven’t the believers of the letter ALREADY repented?

In 1 Peter 1:1, Peter calls the recipients of his letters “the elect exiles of the dispersion...” This tells us, then, that the Jewish exiles are “elect,” or “saved”. In the same chapter, Peter tells the believers, “he [Christ] has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead...to an inheritance that is...kept in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:3-4, ESV). The believers are “being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed” (1 Peter 1:5). The recipients are referred to as “obedient children” (v.14) who “call on him as Father” (v.17). These Jews have “purified [their] souls by [their] obedience to the truth” (v.22) and “have been born again...of imperishable seed, through the living and abiding word of God” (v.23). These Jews are “now God’s people” and “have received mercy” (2:10). In 2 Peter, the Jews in question are addressed as “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). They are told to “be all the more diligent to make [their] calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10), which tells us that they are “called” and “elect”. In 2 Peter 3, Peter tells the Jews that “according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth” (3:13) and that they are to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation” (3:15).

All of the above language testifies to the Jews as being believers, Jewish Christians. So if these believers are genuine, which it seems they are (according to Peter), then why are they to “ensure their calling and election” and to “count the Lord’s delay as salvation”? If James White’s assessment of the “any of you” phrase is correct (not willing that any of you should perish, 2 Pet. 3:9), then James White has just betrayed his own Calvinist theology; for, how then, will Calvinists handle this verse? If even the elect have to ensure their election, doesn’t this tell us that there is no eternal security? If Peter must write, “take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and LOSE YOUR OWN STABILITY” (2 Pet. 3:17), doesn’t this imply that, by “losing one’s stability,” one’s standing in Christ is not “eternally guaranteed”?

By trying to fight the Arminian view of the atonement, James White finds himself at a checkmate theologically: he has nowhere to go. If one’s election in Christ has to be “ensured” by the person, then doesn’t this imply that one’s salvation is “eternally” ensured by “eternally” persevering in the faith? Doesn’t this imply that the elect have to continue to “work out [their] soul salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)?

Despite my disagreements with James White in regards to his Calvinist theology, I agree with James White on one thing: context must first determine the interpretation of a passage...once context has determined the interpretation of a passage, we can then see how that passage fits with other similar passages of Scripture. Because these hermeneutical principles stand firm, I can agree with White and say that the “any” within 2 Peter 3 refers to the Jews of the Diaspersion who have come to faith (Jewish believers); however, when placed within the canon of the entire Bible (and not just 1 Peter and 2 Peter), the “any” of 2 Peter 3:9 refers to the “every creature” of Mark 16:15 that must hear the gospel and believe in order to be saved.

Once again, the doctrine of singular redemption still holds: the Lord desires the salvation of every person (sufficient for all); however, a person who desires to be saved must come by faith, for “without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him” (Hebrews 11:6). Faith is the condition for salvation (efficient for all who believe, Romans 1:16).

More on the Doctrine of Singular Redemption is to come. Stay tuned...

"Reconciling the World": The Beauty of Universal Atonement (2 Corinthians 5:14-19)

In my last post, I tackled John 3:16-18 and demonstrated that “the world” cannot refer to the elect only...for if it does, then “the world might be saved” implies that the elect “might not” be saved (which is not a belief Reformed theology holds to). “The world,” then, must be more inclusive than the exclusivist view of the Reformed camp (which argues for “Limited” Atonement).

In today’s post, I will tackle the passage of 2 Corinthians 5:14-19, another passage used by David Steele, Curtis Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn in their book, “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented.”

The passage reads as follows:

“For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, IN CHRIST, GOD WAS RECONCILING THE WORLD TO HIMSELF, NOT COUNTING THEIR TRESPASSES AGAINST THEM, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:14-19, English Standard Version).

While verses 14 and 15 reference “all” three times; but we don’t receive clarity on “all” until verse 19: “that is, in Christ God was reconciling THE WORLD to Himself, not counting THEIR trespasses against THEM.”

What do we do with “the world” here? Calvinists could easily say, “this refers to the elect”; but if they do, they are defeated exegetically once more---for the believers are not the only ones whose sins count against them; the unbelievers’ sins count against them as well (which is why unbelievers receive eternal damnation because of unbelief). This can be clearly demonstrated in Peter’s Second Epistle to the scattered Jewish believers:

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, EVEN DENYING THE MASTER WHO BOUGHT THEM, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1).

Who is “denying the Master who bought them”? Those denying their Master, Christ, are the “false teachers.” This implies two things: (1) even those who are redeemed can turn from the righteous way of salvation. Peter writes of these same teachers in 2 Peter 2:15 that they are “forsaking the right way” and “have gone astray.” (2) from 2 Peter 2:1, we see that the Master bought even those who stray, who ultimately reject the grace of God. If God “redeemed” these teachers who would ultimately go astray, then He purchased the redemption of many who will not accept Him. This is an important point to make because it refutes the Calvinistic Doctrine of Limited Atonement. As Steele, Thomas, and Quinn write,

“Historical or mainline Calvinism has consistently maintained that Christ’s redeeming work was DEFINITE IN DESIGN AND ACCOMPLISHMENT---THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO RENDER COMPLETE SATISFACTION FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIED SINNERS, AND THAT IT ACTUALLY SECURED SALVATION FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS AND FOR NO ONE ELSE...Christ did not die simply to make it possible for God to pardon sinners. Neither does God leave it up to sinners to decide whether or not Christ’s work will be effective. ON THE CONTRARY, ALL FOR WHOM CHRIST SACRIFICED HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED INFALLIBLY. REDEMPTION, THEREFORE, WAS DESIGNED TO BRING TO PASS GOD’S PURPOSE OF ELECTION” (“The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented,” Second Edition. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004, pages 39-40).

So, “the world” in 2 Corinthians 5:19 refers to both believers and unbelievers alike.

Now, this makes sense in light of the references that “one has died for ALL,” “ALL have died,” and “he died for ALL.”

But there is a particular redemption, however. Only “those who live” are those who receive the purchased redemption. As Paul told the Ephesians, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were DEAD IN OUR TRESPASSES, MADE US ALIVE together with Christ---BY GRACE YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED...” (Ephesians 2:4-5, ESV)

Those who have been “made alive with Christ” are those who have received the purchased redemption of Christ’s suffering on the cross by faith in Christ Jesus. “Those who live,” then, are those who have received the grace of God in Christ.

The beauty of the atonement has been demonstrated not just in this post, but in the post on John 3: that being, the atonement is offered to all but is only obtained by faith. As a result, while all CAN receive the atonement of Christ, only some WILL take hold of it by faith.

I will cover more on the Doctrine of Singular Redemption in posts to come...

The Application of the Atonement (John 3:16-18)

Timote Afu, one of the followers of this site (Center for Theological Studies or “CTS”), e-mailed me recently about the application and appropriation of the atonement. I promised him that I would begin to blog on this issue, so I decided to start doing that now. For the next few posts, I will work through some simple passages regarding “all” and what “all” means in those specific contexts.

I will begin with comments from “The Five Points of Calvinism”:

“There are two classes of texts that speak of Christ’s saving work in general terms: (a) those containing the word ‘world’ and (b) those containing the word ‘all’...one reason for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone. Such phrases as ‘the world,’ ‘all men,’ ‘all nations,’ and ‘every creature’ were used by the New Testament writers to emphatically correct this mistake. THESE EXPRESSIONS ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION (i.e., He died for Jews and Gentiles alike), BUT THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO INDICATE THAT CHRIST DIED FOR ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION (i.e., He did not die for the purpose of saving each and every lost sinner)” (“The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented, Second Edition” by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004, page 50).

Interestingly enough, the quote above provides “all” (and in this case, I do mean “all) of the explanation of these men regarding universal atonement. They have nothing else to say on these verses, which leaves me wondering if they had nothing else to say because they didn’t know how to explain these passages in their system (which says that Christ died only for some). However, the most interesting thing happens: when they attempt to explain their view, they give one-and-a-half pages worth of Bible verses. I think I smell a rat here...

Let’s tackle one of the Bible references provided that argues for a universal atonement: John 3:16-17. I selected this passage because it seems to be a familiar one that every Christian knows. At least in my experience, it seems to be the case that, no matter how young of a Christian you are, one can always recite John 3:16-17 by heart.

The text reads:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16-17, English Standard Version).

Here’s a question I would pose to Calvinists: explain the use of “world” in this verse. What does “world” mean here? If a Calvinist says, “all the elect in the world,” then I would pose this question next: “So then, does that mean that the elect in the world can be condemned?” They may say, “Yes, the elect were condemned as fallen humanity”; but if they do so, the word “world” must be broadened to include the “non-elect” as well (since the non-elect are also part of the world). If they say “no,” then I would respond, “so God sent His Son into the world so that “the ELECT MIGHT BE SAVED through Him” (substituting "elect" for "the world")?

This last question is one that will make even the Calvinist stumble. If God sent Jesus to die on behalf of the elect, then how is there a way that they “might be saved”? If Jesus died for the elect, then their salvation is certain, right? So if the elect will infallibly be saved, why does the language itself include “possibility” and not “certainty”? Look at the phrase “might be saved”. The word used here in the Greek is “sothe,” which is a Present Passive Subjunctive. The idea of the “subjunctive” indicates potentiality (“might, could, should, would, may”). These words demonstrate possibility, but not certainty. The world “could” be saved (there is the opportunity for universal salvation), but this doesn’t mean that the world “will” be saved (does not provide certainty). And as experience shows, there are those in the world who die everyday without coming to faith in Christ. The subjunctive “might be saved” is more of a potential opportunity (more truth-telling) than most people realize.

If you get a Calvinist to admit that the elect will infallibly be saved, then they will have to deny that “the world” of John 3:16-17 involves just the elect; they will also have to include the non-elect, for fear of making it possible that the elect could fall away or not be saved at all.

A little further into John 3 shows that my interpretation of “world” is correct. Read the next verse:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18, ESV).

Notice there are two types of people mentioned in verse 18, not just “the one who believes.” This supports my argument above about what is meant by “the world” in John 3. In addition to the believer, there is also the non-believer, “whoever does not believe.” Now, notice what Jesus says about the non-believer:

“whoever does not believed is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY SON OF GOD” (Jn. 3:18b).

Is the non-believer guilty for not believing? Yes. And why? “because he has not believed,” because he has refused to exercise his faith in God. The non-believer is not guilty because he has been damned from before the foundations of the world (as many Calvinists seem to say); no, the non-believer is guilty because he is “able to believe” but refuses to do so.

The fact that “the world” includes “the one who believes” and “the one who does not believe” testifies to the universality of the atonement. Christ died for every human creature.

However, while there is universality to the atonement, there is also exclusivity (or restriction). Only those who believe will receive redemption: “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM should...have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). Christ died for both those who believe and those who do not (3:18); but without faith, one will not be saved. The condition for salvation is faith (“the one who believes”).

What about those who do not believe? Ken Keathley writes:

“So what about those for whom the Savior died who yet reject Him? In their case, the atonement testifies against them, and serves as the basis of condemnation. As John declares, ‘Anyone who does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the One and Only Son of God’ (John 3:18b)” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, pages 196-197).

The reason why the unbeliever can be condemned is that he had a genuine opportunity and genuine ability to believe.

I will deal with more passages regarding universal atonement or reference to “the world” in the coming posts.