Posted on 07/26/2007 8:40:59 AM PDT by Sopater
"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever..." - Deuteronomy 29:29
From the beginning of time, thinkers have puzzled over the paradox of fate vs. free will, or predestination vs. free choice. In theological terms, this leads to the struggle between Calvinism and Arminianism. As we explore this paradox, we find that examining the fruit of each position reveals that the River of Life seems to flow between these two extremes, and that once again, truth involves a careful balance.
At the heart of the controversies between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the sovereignty (free will) of man - or human responsibility - by the Arminians. Calvinism emphasizes that God is in total control of everything and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man’s salvation. Arminianism teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, and that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us.
Both doctrinal positions are reasonable and both have extensive Scriptures to back them up. Both are, in our opinion, both partially right and partially overextended. As Philip Schaff has put it, "Calvinism emphasized divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasized human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine that Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them."
Certainly, the Bible does teach that God is sovereign, and that believers are predestined and elected by God to spend eternity with Him. Nowhere, however, does the Bible ever associate election with damnation. Conversely, the Scriptures teach that God elects for salvation, but that unbelievers are in hell by their own choice. Every passage of the Bible that deals with election deals with it in the context of salvation, not damnation. No one is elect for hell. The only support for such a view is human logic, not Biblical revelation (which John Calvin did teach).
The concept of total depravity is consistent with Scripture, but the doctrine of limited atonement, that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, is clearly contrary to Biblical teaching. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus died for everyone’s sins and that everyone is able to be saved if they will repent and turn to Christ. Limited atonement is a non-Biblical doctrine.
Election and predestination are Biblical doctrines. God knows everything and therefore He cannot be surprised by anything. He is beyond the constraints of mass, acceleration and gravity, therefore He is outside time. He knows, and has known from “eternity past,” who will exercise their free will to accept Him and who will reject Him. The former are “the elect” and the latter are the “non-elect.” Everyone who is not saved will have only himself to blame: God will not send anyone to hell, but many people will choose to go there by exercising their free will to reject Christ.
On the other hand, no one who is saved will be able to take any of the credit. Our salvation is entirely God’s work, and is based completely on the finished work of the Cross. We were dead in trespasses and sins, destined for hell, when God in His grace drew us to Himself, convinced us of our sin and our need for a Savior, and gave us the authority to call Jesus Lord. Is this grace, this wooing, this courtship, irresistible? No, we have free will and we can (and do) resist, even to the damnation of our souls, but God does everything short of making us automata (preprogrammed puppets) to draw us into His forever family.
For a more detailed discussion on this topic, listen to our briefing titled The Sovereignty of Man (see special offer above).
but the doctrine of limited atonement, that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, is clearly contrary to Biblical teaching.
That a fact?
John 6:37-40, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
NoeL
No surprises here. Chuck Missler is a well-known member of the anti-Calvinist Calvary Chapel cadre.
but the doctrine of limited atonement, that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world, is clearly contrary to Biblical teaching.That a fact?
Why is it that you read they verse as requiring "whole world" to mean "every last man woman and child that has ever lived or will ever live"?
It just does not say that.
It merely says what we read elsewhere, that Christ was slain and He has "redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation," (Rev. 5:9).
This is the testimony of Scripture on the extent of the atonement.
Cool, it was still in my buffer from the other thread where I posted it.
Of course it means “the whole world”. The burden is on you then to prove that “whole world” was intended by the writer to mean “every last man, woman, and child that ever lived or will ever live”. None of those dictionary definitions use it that way.
That is a leap, indeed.
Christ did die for the sin of the “whole world” and so we find within the gospel church men from every nation, tribe, and tongue. This is in contrast to the common view of that time that God was only interested in saving the Jews.
That is the view that fits with the entire testimony of Scripture, not with a single prooftext.
God was appeased of His anger of all men by Christ's sacrifice on the cross...However, that does not mean that Christ's sacrifice is effective for all men, as it pertains to salvation, or that He died so that all men could be saved (but He definitely died so that all that the Father gives Him shall come to Him and He shall raise them at the last day).
Propitiation
By David M. Williams (davidmwilliams@geocities.com)
This essay is free for distribution in any manner, with the provision
that it remains completely intact, with this notice, the author’s
name and the full text of the essay. Any comments are gratefully
welcomed. Copyright 1997.
INTRODUCTION
Propitiation is the turning away of wrath by an
offering. Jacob appeased Esau with a present in Genesis
32:20, and King Mesha of Moab offered a sacrifice to
Chemosh in II Kings 3:26 thereby turning away wrath from
Moab. From an evangelical view, ‘propitiation’ is
concerned with the turning away of divine wrath towards
man, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY
In the Old Testament, the principal verb rendered
as propitiation is kapher. In the New Testament the idea
is conveyed by the use of hilaskomai (Hebrews 2:17),
hilasterion (Romans 3:25) and hilasmos (I John 2:2 and
4:10). The hilaskesthai word group is that used also in the
Septuagint for kapher (Hebert, 1950, p. 25; Easton, s.v.
‘Propitiation’).
Disagreement exists, however, as to whether the
original Biblical words above do actually mean an atoning
action directed towards God - propitiation - or rather
towards the offence - expiation.
According to Morris (1984, p. 888) the word group
to which the Greek words belong unquestionably has the
significance of averting divine wrath (and hence the
appeasement of God). In contrast, C. H. Dodd suggests
that the word group denotes expiation and not
propitiation denying that “the wrath of God” means
anything other than a process of cause and effect whereby
disaster inevitably follows sin (Morris, 1984, p. 888).
However, Scripture cannot support expiation as the
primary understanding. It is true that the Levitical
atoning actions - the basis for Old Testament atonement -
had a direct effect on sins. It covered them and
‘blotting them out’ (Leviticus 4:20-26) - but the idea of
the wrath of God is firmly rooted in the Old Testament,
with 585 references. Further, the words of the hilaskomai
group do not denote simple forgiveness or cancellation of
sin, but that forgiveness or cancellation of sin, which
includes the turning away of God’s wrath (Thayer, 1981,
p. 2417), for example, as in Lamentations 3:42-43.
Examples of expiation may be found, but to suggest
it is the sole meaning of the original language words
presented is disharmonious with Scripture and
contemporary pagan usage of the words (Morris, 1950, p.
888; Pecota, 1994, p. 345). Such a view is not founded
on a linguistic basis but on predetermined theology.
Pecota (1994, p. 346) presents the simple solution,
If one accepts what the Bible says about God’s wrath,
a possible solution presents itself. We could see the
words as having a vertical and a horizontal reference.
When the context focuses on the Atonement in relation
to God, the words speak of propitiation. But they
mean expiation when the focus is on us and our sin.
This solution is reasonable, and II Kings 24:3-4,
Psalm 78:38 and Romans 3:25 all provide examples of God’s
anger or punishment joined with forgiveness or atoning
sacrifice. Hence, the historical and literary context
determines whether propitiation or expiation is the
appropriate meaning for a given passage.
DIVINE WRATH
Paul explains that man’s sin receives its due
reward, not because of some impersonal retribution but
because God’s wrath is directed against it (Romans 1:18,
24, 26, 28). The whole of his argument in the opening
chapters of Romans is that all men - Gentiles and Jews
alike - are sinners. They have come justly under the
wrath and the condemnation of God.
Ultimately God Himself initiates the removal of
wrath. Of the process of atonement by sacrifice He says,
“I have given it to you” (Leviticus 17:11). Psalm 78:38
says, “Time after time He restrained His anger and did
not stir up His full wrath”. At no point do the
Scriptures refer to reconciliation being required of God,
rather the enmity between man and God is uniquely a
problem relating to man. Sacrifice was given by God to
man as a means whereby He would not remember sins
committed.
North (1950, p. 213) makes the important point that
the only sins for which a sin-offering could make actual
atonement were breaches of ritual committed in ignorance.
In practice a person may well sincerely offer a sacrifice
with the expectation that known sins would thereby be
forgiven but this was an assumption with no justifiable
basis in the law. Forgiveness was certainly a real
concept in the Old Testament, but it was not a quid pro
quid for sacrifice. Rather it was the free gift of God,
dependent only upon repentance and confession (c.f. Psalm
32:5; Psalm 51:1, 16-17; I Samuel 15:22).
When turning to salvation, Paul thinks of Christ’s
death as hilasterion (Romans 3:25) - literally a “mercy
seat” (Zodhiates, 1992, p. 923). Christ is thus the
antitype of the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews
9:5) and is here designated as the actual place where the
sinner deposits sin, as well as the means of removing the
divine wrath itself. As in the Old Testament, God
Himself has provided the means of removing His own wrath.
Again, it is a free gift which can not be earned
(Ephesians 2:8-9).
THE PURPOSE OF CHRIST
The love of the Father is shown in that He “sent
His son to be the propitiation for our sins” (I John
4:10). The purpose of Christ’s coming was “to make
propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17).
His propitiation is adequate for all people (I John 2:2).
It is not right, however, to conceive of God’s
wrath as having been ‘appeased’ by Christ’s sacrifice as
explained by transactional theories of the Atonement. It
is God who in Christ reconciled the world to Himself,
just as He was behind the redemptive action of the
servant in Isaiah 53:10.
Genesis and Exodus provide many biographical
descriptions that have as their turning points the
building of an altar and an act of sacrifice. Similarly,
Israel was delivered from Egypt by a method with a
symbolism attached to the Passover. Two discernible
concepts arise; redemption and the shedding of blood are
connected, and a form of substitution exists. These
concepts are given fuller detail in the book of Leviticus
and are extensively illustrated in the instructions for
the sacrifices and priesthood. Christ’s teaching was
consistent with such Levitical instructions and the
entire New Testament declares that His death was the
consummation and fulfilment of such teaching of
sacrifice.
An essential distinction must be made between the
sacrifices of the Old and New Testaments. Hebrews 10:4
explains that the Levitical priest would repeatedly make
sacrifices for sins - first for himself and then for the
people. This would occur repeatedly because “it is
impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take
away sins”. In contrast, Christ has offered one
sacrifice for sin that is able to deal with the root
problem of indwelling sin (Hebrews 10:11-14) - expiation
of guilt was secured, effected by vicarious
substitutionary punishment.
It is important to realise that Christ’s atonement
is not merely a ‘covering’ of sins whereby they are
treated as non-existent and the sinner as if he had not
committed them. Sin is serious, and confession must
occur for forgiveness (I John 1:8-9). However the
regenerate believer has been reconciled and united with
Christ as a member of His body, and hence shares in the
righteousness of Christ (Galatians 2:20; Colossians
1:21). One is justified, not in the sense of possessing
a righteousness of one’s own (Philippians 3:9) but
because one belongs to Christ.
CONCLUSION
Lean Morris (1950, p. 888) expresses the consensus
of evangelicals in saying that the consistent Biblical
view is that the sin of man has incurred the wrath of
God. Only Christ’s atoning offering averts that wrath.
From this standpoint, His saving work is properly called
propitiation.
“Reconciliation” sets forth the benefit of the
death of Christ for the sinner but propitiation indicates
both this and the manner whereby sinners are made friends
of God. Christ both propitiates and offers Himself as
the propitiation. He is the sacrifice and the High
Priest who sacrifices Himself (John 1:29, 36; I
Corinthians 5:7; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 10:14; I Peter
1:19; Revelation 5:6, 8).
Just as the covering of the Ark in the Tabernacle
was the place where God’s forgiving mercy was shown, so
now the cross of Christ is the place where His saving
mercy has been manifested.
WORKS CITED
Easton. nd. `Propitiation’ in Easton’s Bible Dictionary,
BibleWorks for Windows, Hermeneutika Computer Bible
Research Software, Big Fork, Montana.
Hebert, A. G. 1950. ‘Atone’ in A Theological Word Book of
the Bible, ed. A. Richardson, Collier Books, New
York.
Morris, L. 1984. ‘Propitiation’, in Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, ed. W. A. Elwell, Marshall
Morgan & Scott Publications, Ltd., Avon.
________.1994. The Cross of Jesus, The Paternoster Press,
Carlisle, U.K.
North, C. R. 1950. ‘Sacrifice’, in A Theological Word
Book of the Bible, ed. A. Richardson, Collier Books,
New York.
Pecota, D. 1994. ‘The Saving Work of Christ’, in
Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective, ed.
S. M. Horton, Logion Press, Springfield, Missouri.
Stott, J. R. W. 1989. The Cross of Christ, 2d. ed.,
Inter-Varsity Press.
Thayer, J. H. 1981. The new Thayer’s Greek-English
lexicon of the New Testament, Hendrickson
Publishers, Massachusetts.
Thiessen, H. C. 1979. Lectures in Systematic Theology,
rev. ed., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan.
Vine, W. E. 1981. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and
New Testament Words, World Bible Publishers, Iowa
Falls, Iowa.
Wright, D. F. 1968. In Understanding be Men, 6th. ed,
Inter-Varsity Press.
Zodhiates, S. 1992. The Complete Word Study New
Testament, 2d. ed., AMG Publishers, Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
David M. Williams
Note! The following advertisment is provided by GeoCities, which allows them to provide free Web pages such as this, a service that is appreciated. However, the advertisment is not necessarily harmonious with the values of this Web page
Finally....
To summarize the article in a pithy phrase given to me by a friend:
God is sovereign, we're responsible, and what's in the middle is a mystery.
I think figuring out free will vs. predestination is a doomed cause because each side tacitly assumes that God is somehow bound by His own creation. God chooses salvation from a standpoint outside of time itself, so discussing the when of God’s decisions is pointless. Our choices are at least made to seem consequential within this world, and therefore for practical purposes should be approached as such.
I believe this is the same problem that people have with the Trinity as a concept. Assuming at some level that God is bound by His creation, including with respect to space and time, is the root cause of all kinds of confusion.
If that's all you have going for you, then I can undertstand why you think it's absurd.
Hey Chuck, any response?
The reason being that a little impurity ...
I quit reading at that point.
Chuck Missler is a well-known member of the anti-Calvinist Calvary Chapel cadre.
He's also one who drinks deeply from the Darby/Scofield dispenstaionalist koolaid well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.