Dr. Jerry Vines is Pastor Emeritus of First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida. He holds a Th.D. from Luther Rice University and Seminary. A former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Vines inaugurated the first John 3.16 Conference in 2008. The SBC’s Baptist Press covered the event. (http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=29318)
In the weeks preceding this year’s Conference, SBCToday will post interviews with each person scheduled to speak at the Conference. Our interview with Dr. Vines leads the way.
Interview with Dr. Jerry Vines
Q. What was the genesis of the (2008) conference?
A. The first John 3:16 Conference was held in order to offer a response to the 5 points of Calvinism, expressed by the acronym TULIP. It was done in a scholarly, positive, irenic setting. The Conference was extremely well attended and the lectures later became the best-selling book “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism.”
Q. What is the conference’s purpose?
A. This Conference is part of an ongoing conversation relative to New Calvinism and expands the discussion to include other related subjects.
Q. What is the planned tone and demeanor of the Conference?
A. I have said constantly that there is surely a need for us to discuss these important matters. And, I believe it is important to do so in an irenic, loving, Christ-like manner. The original John 3:16 Conference certainly was that kind of Conference. I am confident the 2013 John 3:16 Conference will be the same. I hope to see people of goodwill, whether Calvinists or non-Calvinists, at the Conference.
Q. What criteria did you employ in selecting the conference speakers?
A. I prayerfully sought to have speakers who are irenic in tone, theologically well versed and evangelistic and missions minded.
Q. A LifeWay survey revealed that almost two-thirds of Southern Baptists have problems with encroaching Calvinism in the SBC. How deeply are you concerned about that, and what, in your opinion, are the ramifications if the encroachment goes unchecked?
A. New Calvinism is a continuing problem in our Southern Baptist Churches. Almost weekly through conversation, phone call, email, etc., I hear of our churches being adversely impacted by New Calvinism. If left unchecked, the result will be what Baptist churches experienced in the 1830s. Those that were 5-point Calvinists in their theology became what we call today Primitive Baptists. The lack of evangelism and the decline in membership of Primitive Baptist Churches is evident.
Q. Do you think the Calvinism debate within the SBC will split our Convention?
A. No. I don’t think it will because I do believe that, as Traditional and Calvinistic views are presented, Southern Baptist churches will solve the problem. One reason I believe that is because Southern Baptists overwhelmingly hold the view that Jesus died for all the sins of all the people of all the world.
Q. What do you hope that pastors, deacons, laypeople and students will gain from the conference?
A. This conference will be extremely helpful to those groups. Local church leadership and membership will be well served if they have an understanding of the essential theological viewpoints of New Calvinism. Students will be helped to see that there are scholarly responses to the views asserted by this theology.
Q. The conference already has gained its detractors — one even calling it “nauseating.” What response, if any, would you have to that?
A. Well, I am saddened anyone would call a gathering where Baptists can freely express their deeply held beliefs “nauseating.” But, it does demonstrate the truthfulness of what I have been saying for sometime now: There is a New Calvinism among us that is aggressive, hostile, and militant.
Q. I note that your topic is “For whose sins did Jesus die?” Would you share your main and subsequent texts for this sermon and give a teaser as well?
A. I’m going to attempt to let Scripture speak for itself in answering that question. I will use a number of Bible texts. And, I am happy to announce that an old friend, “Billy Baptist,” of “A Baptist and His Bible” fame, will be introduced again in the message.
Ed.’s note:
“Billy Baptist” first appeared at the 1987 SBC in St. Louis, preaching a sermon titled: “A Baptist and His Bible.” Among other issues of that day, “Billy” rightly railed against the “higher critical” methodology that still influenced at least three SBC seminaries. With the exception of a small percentage of attendees, that gathering of Southern Baptists responded gleefully and convictionally with sustained applause and hearty amens. The mood in the room was positively electric. If the same spirited “Billy Baptist” who appeared in St. Louis shows up at North Metro Baptist Church, then a second, historic, sermon-of-a-lifetime is in store for those who have the wisdom to come hear “Billy” preach a sermon titled: “For Whose Sins did Jesus Die?”
The editor also recommends you go to
http://www.jerryvines.com/store/dvds/product/a-baptist-and-his-bible-dvd/
to view a video sample of “Billy’s” sermon in St. Louis. You may also wish to order the DVD at the link noted.
“Q. I note that your topic is “For whose sins did Jesus die?”…”
Non-Calvinist have ignored the controversial issues posed by Calvinists on this question.
As Vines says, “Southern Baptists overwhelmingly hold the view that Jesus died for all the sins of all the people of all the world.” Southern Baptists also hold the view that God is omniscient and knew the names of the elect and the non-elect when He created Adam. Further, we know that the number of the elect cannot increase nor the number of the non-elect decrease. Southern Baptists seem to believe contradictory positions. Are they contradictory?? Perhaps Conference speakers will sort this out.
Will conference speakers also help to explain how Christ died for the non-elect in any meaningful way? We shall see.
It would also be interesting to see someone address John Owens unique interpretation of the Greek text in John 3:16 and offer a different analysis of the Greek.
After reading “whosoever Will…” which was careful to skirt the real issues, I tend not to be optimistic that key issues will be addressed, much less resolved, at the 2013 Conference.
RHutchin:
As a non-Calvinist, I have not ignored the interpretation of ‘cosmos’ as ‘elect’ by Piper and his followers. Owens may indeed have a unique take on Jn 3.16. I submit that interpreting ‘cosmos’ as ‘elect’ is off the exegetical chart. In fact, I have noted that hermeneutical impropriety more than once on this blog. However, no one wants to defend the interpretation of ‘cosmos’ as ‘elect.’ Will you?
If you dare, start by answering this question (and “I tend not to be optimistic that” you can do so satisfactorily): Did John the BAPTIST really say: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the elect.”? — Norm
Norm – I agree that your interpretation of ‘cosmos’ as ‘elect’ is shaky at best. However, I am uncomfortable serving a God who does not know who will be saved and who will be condemned. Outside of Open Theism, I am not sure how non-Calvinists, or even Molinists can claim that man plays any role in their own salvation. God bless.
Daniel
If by “plays a role” in their own salvation you mean “do something”, then how can Calvinists claim man does not “play a role” in their own salvation when man repents and believes. God doesn’t repent and believe for them…While Calvinists loathe their own invented polemical phrase out of pettiness without thinking it through, men actually must “do something” to be saved.
Just saying…This whole line of reasoning is wrong-headed from the start. God saves. “God saves” and how God saves are two different issues.
Men can’t save themselves because man has no means of salvation. Only God does.
What this has to do with the mechanics soteriology is beyond me and causes many conversations and debates regarding such mechanics devolve into stupid, trivial, and wrong-headed nonsense, usually because of the caricatures and irrelevant rhetoric brought to it by the Calvinists. .
I never saw the need to interpret cosmos as elect either. I thought Owens’ analysis was interesting and would like to see it addressed (and maybe someone has done it already so why not present that).
But what of John the Baptist’s statement?
Hey Norm. You asked, ““Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the elect.”?”
That of course is not what it says. It says world, and I along with others interpret “world” here in light of other teachings as people of all kinds, etc. i.e. that He did not come to take away the sins of every human that ever existed or will exist.
But question for you: It says He “takes away” the sins of the world. How do you understand “takes away?” “air?n” I think. Did he “take then” away? If so, how did inhabitats of hell get them back? Did they take them back? Or did Jesus give them back? How do you understand that part of the sentence?
Thanks,
Les
Les: Yours and others’ interp of cosmos is predicated upon other Calvinistic/Presbyterian interps and understandings of other verses, so, I would deem those bases as questionable. Cosmos means cosmos. To say it means more or less is eisegesis. Late for a meeting. If I have time, I will answer ‘take away.” For now, I would say, 4 take away 2 equals 2. — Norm
I agree. That needs to be accounted for also and in a way that does not advocate universalism. Hopefully, someone is looking at these comments and will develop a paper that, at the least, begins to explain how all of these issues can be resolved without contradiction. Big job for anyone.
Brother less, I know that I am interupting, & for that I am sorry. but I must say that when the Word says “the sins of the world” that is what it means. The only sin that results in sending anyone to Hell now is the rejection of & the refusal to trust Christ.
Thanks Norm, I look forward to your expansion on the “takes away” interpretation.
As to eisegesis in “world” and “cosmos means cosmos,” also when you come back might you explain how “cosmos” in John 1.29 and “cosmos” in Romans 11.12 can mesh with “cosmos means cosmos?” It seems to me to be used meaning at least two sets of peoples (assuming you mean that 1.29 means all inhabitants of the world).
Thanks.
Brother John, I thank you for addressing me as brother. I should take care to do that more and sincerely. Maybe our conversations will stay more grace filled if we did so.
You say, “but I must say that when the Word says “the sins of the world” that is what it means. The only sin that results in sending anyone to Hell now is the rejection of & the refusal to trust Christ.”
Well that’s the heart of the differences Reformed and non-Reformed have here.
Reformed will say that if Jesus indeed “took away” the sins of everyone, then no one would deserve hell. Their sins would have been “taken away.” That leads to universalism. Now, non-Reformed SB and commenters here do not believe in universalism, No one here does.
You said, “The only sin that results in sending anyone to Hell now is the rejection of & the refusal to trust Christ.”
But in your view did John the Baptist here say that the Lamb of God would take away all sin of the world except the sin of rejecting Christ?
That is the debate brother.
Les
Brother Les, I do not hold with universalism. I simply say that Christ died for all mankind.
Not one person of the human race is left out of the atonement of Christ. His atonement is
universal. It is applied only to those who will accept or believe. This is for me NOT subject
for or of debate. I realize that you may have different ideas, but I will not debate anyone.
I am too old for debate. I am a Biblicistic Traditionalist. I am as far from Calvinism as I can get.
I have been a Christian for over 50 years & a Chaplin in Prisons for a number of years. My
main purpose is as an ambassador of reconciliation for & to our Lord.
BUT I do love all the brothers & sisters regardliss of their stance concerning these issues.
Enough said! God bless,
John G.
With all due respect, Les, and some candor thrown in for good measure, I don’t have time to engage in a debate that originated 400 years ago between two Presbyterians. And, given that you are a Presbyterian, I do wonder what you hope to accomplish here. It is not that you aren’t welcome; rather, I see your efforts here as futile in that we will not change your mind, and you will not change ours.
Note that I am not ducking your questions. However, to answer them will only elicit more responses from you that have a Calvinistic/Presbyterian bent to them, and all of which I would reject based on my Southern Baptist understanding of the Bible.
I trust you see my point and are not taking offense, as no offense is intended. — Norm
Norm,
“I trust you see my point and are not taking offense, as no offense is intended.”
No offense taken brother. I realize I’m a guest here. God’s blessings to you.
Les
John G,
Thank you for your response. God bless you brother.
Les
Hey, I am a Traditionalist, and I can grok with “world” meaning, “all kinds without distinction”. It doesn’t follow then that this excludes “all men without exception”, especially in regards to other passages of Scripture.
So far as I know, no one disputes the sufficient/effectual distinction. The penal substitution atonement is both corporate in nature and conditional upon faith.
While Calvinists loathe their own invented polemical phrase out of pettiness without thinking it through, the cross indeed “made man savable”. Men were not saveable without it. ;) Unless one believes that the Son and the Father made millions and millions of covenants in eternity’s past, one for every elect individual, something that is nowhere stated in Scripture, then the one New Covenant brought by the atonement is by definition corporate in nature. As with the Temple cult,that foreshadowed the cross, the atonement was sufficiently made for the whole nation (since it merely looked ahead to the cross), hence it is corporate, but only effectual for those who “drew near” (i.e. by faith). Hence, conditional.
As such, there is no logical problem with Jesus dying for everybody and His work on the cross not saving everybody. The cross is the ground of salvation, but faith is the means of appropriation. This is Christianity 101 stuff…
rhutchin once again makes much out of little to try to force Calvinism where it doesn’t exist.
That God has always known from eternity who will and won’t be saved has nothing to do with such salvation in how it is applied to persons in the providential unfolding of history. This is a conflation of categories.
In fact, it is disrespectful to God and His providential-temporal creation to do all theology from a perspective of “eternity’s past” when mere humans have NO REAL way of understanding what such a perspective entails. All the logical sequencing posited by the philosopher-theologians amounts to little more than problematic speculation and conjecture any way it is sliced in the supra/infra constructs.
Scripture is quite clear God knows everything. On the other hand, Scripture is quite scarce in regards to what God meticulously pre-determined logically prior to the creation of the temporal universe, and most of that data revolves around purposes in Christ, which is why a strict determinism is found extremely wanting when it comes to Christian theology, and why the notion of determinism, or God’s omniscience being incompatible with libertarian freedom is found extremely wanting in Christian philosophy.
Rhutchin, you can make this belief go away by showing one passage that declares Jesus died for the sins of only the elect. You can not show one. The reason is simple, LA is something that is brought to Scripture and placed over every verse. It is not brought out of Scripture but placed over Scripture. A person who believes in LA is the one who has the explaining to do because they have chosen to ignore what so many verses plainly state e.g. I John 2:2 – Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.
You mention Owen and John 3:16. Pause to consider for a moment John’s use of “world” in his opening chapters. 1:29 “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Look the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Plainly he is not speaking of the church or the elect. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave…” You say the world here means elect. Look at verse 17, “He did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world..” World here means the whole world. Look just 3 verses later, Light has come into the world but men loved darkness instead of light…Clearly He means the whole world in this instance.
In the Bible all does not always mean all but many times it does. John has established in his opening chapters that all mankind has fallen and Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for those sins. LA supporters are trying to change what is PLAINLY stated in the first few chapters of John. For John Owen to translate this passage as God so loved the elect throughout the world says way more about him than it does Jesus.
I agree on your first point. I would just like to see someone address it in the context of God’s omniscience in which God knows the elect when He creates Adam.
Of course, Owens considered that the world was comprised of unregenerate sinners. I think that is pretty standard. Even Vines in “Whosoever will…” made this same point.
rhutchin. I have repeatedly responded to this on many threads over many weeks now, without you responding.
I addressed it above again as well.
You are confusing categories, and compounding your theological errors on many issues because of it.
Everyone but Open Theists affirm God has always known all things. What God knows (in eternity’s past) has little to do with how things like the atonement work and are providentially applied.
“One reason I believe that is because Southern Baptists overwhelmingly hold the view that Jesus died for all the sins of all the people of all the world.”
Well…except for the Southern Baptist Calvinists.
Isn’t this the same Jerry Vines who said this at the last 3:16 convention… “God would not command us to do what we are unable to do.”
You mean like the 10 commandments?
SB Calvinists take the position that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world as stated in 1 John 2:2.
Yes, He turned God’s wrath away through His propitiatory sacrifice for people from every part of the world. Not “every person who ever lived and every person who will ever live in the history of the world.”
At least THIS SB Calvinist takes that position.
Oh, and you never address my question.
Jerry Vines said “God would not command us to do what we are unable to do.”
Like the 10 Commandments?
“Every part of the world?”
Chapter and verse on that, Shane?
Does the word “world”–when used in the New Testament–ALWAYS mean “every person who ever lived and will ever live in the history of the world?”
Thanks.
Shane, the answer is no but I’m not sure anyone else is going to pursue it. I commented above at 3:28pm,
“As to eisegesis in “world” and “cosmos means cosmos,” also when you come back might you explain how “cosmos” in John 1.29 and “cosmos” in Romans 11.12 can mesh with “cosmos means cosmos?” It seems to me to be used meaning at least two sets of peoples (assuming you mean that 1.29 means all inhabitants of the world).”
The obvious answer that even cosmos doesn’t always meant that.
Brother Shane, you believe in limited atonement?
the verse reads the WHOLE WORLD! The
Greek word for whole here is holos, meaning
every whit, all, including every part & every
bit, none left out! THAT is UNLIMITED!
Where do you find limited atonement in this
verse?
Brother John G,
The verse reads “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
(John 1:29 ESV)
… ??? ? ????? ??? ???? ? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ??????.
Les
Well, so much for the Greek. It looked good before I hit submit.
Does it EVER mean elect?
Norm, “does it ever mean elect?”
I’m not sure yet in hermeneutical usage. Does not hermeneutics come into play here?
While I study the matter, Does it ever mean other than every human ever to have lived or ever will live?
My Presbyterian friend:
My question is fair. The verses that Calvinists cite where cosmos means something other than cosmos begs the question: if it truly means the elect, then why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the writers to use eklektos and not cosmos? If God so loved the “elect” then seems to me that the word eklektos would be in that verse and not cosmos. If the Lamb of God takes away the sins of the elect, then why isn’t eklektos used in that verse. If Jesus is the propitiation for us, and not only us but the sins of the elect — ooops, wait a minute — that would be redundant. Now, there’s a sticky wicket for you Calvinists.
Of course, Les, as noted before, you are convictionally a Presbyterian. I don’t expect to convince you. And, though you earlier noted you are a guest here, you haven’t explained what you hope to accomplish on this blog. Would you share what your motives are, here? — Norm
Norm,
“Of course, Les, as noted before, you are convictionally a Presbyterian. I don’t expect to convince you. And, though you earlier noted you are a guest here, you haven’t explained what you hope to accomplish on this blog. Would you share what your motives are, here?”
As I’ve said here and elsewhere I am ordained by a SB church, which I hesitate to to remind of since that may now become the focus of discussion. I am also a ruling elder in a PCA church. I have not had to renounce either one to keep the other.
I recognize I am a guest. I realize I don’t fit in anyone’s idea of a Southern Baptist.
I hope to accomplish here probably what other Reformed folk accomplish…”iron sharpening iron” discussion. I believe I have conducted myself in a Christian gentlemanly manner and would hope that I may continue to be a guest here along with other Reformed guests. I have no other motives.
As to your comments, the word cosmos here or anywhere else need not be defined as “elect” to hermeneutically fit with the other scriptures that indicate particular redemption. I don’t think I have said it needs to mean elect.
My questions on this really are to try to show that “cosmos” does not necessarily mean all individuals who ever lived or ever will live. I’ve offered at least one verse which shows that.
So that brings us back to interpretation which includes understanding the “taking away the sins of the world” in light of other passages as well. That’s all I’m saying.
Blessings brother.
A ‘ruling elder’ eh?
I can offer you many verses where cosmos does not mean the elect, Les. But a debate with a Presby about Calvinism is like trying to convince a horse he is not a member of the equine family. This isn’t iron sharpening iron unless we have a common anvil, hammer and fire. — Norm
BTW Norm, I appreciate you called me friend, though we’ve never met.
And here are a couple other places where cosmos cannot mean all people of all time.
1 john 5.19
john 15.18
Blessings,
Les
You didn’t answer my question, Les. Why are you here?
Norm,
Sorry. I know these threads can get tricky. I said just above,
“I hope to accomplish here probably what other Reformed folk accomplish…”iron sharpening iron” discussion.”
Blessings,
Les
Norm, yep. A Ruling Elder. I know. Scourge of the earth around these parts.
That would be scourge of the cosmos, Les.
Les,
The reason you “don’t fit in anyone’s idea of a Southern Baptist” is because you are not one.
You are a Presbyterian who went to a Baptist seminary, but it didn’t take. The same thing often happens to Pentecostals who go to Baptist seminaries. They are not Baptists either.
cb,
“The same thing often happens to Pentecostals who go to Baptist seminaries. They are not Baptists either.”
Wait. Don’t Pentecostals immerse after POF?
les
Don’t Presbys christen before POF?
“Brother Shane, you believe in limited atonement?
the verse reads the WHOLE WORLD! The
Greek word for whole here is holos, meaning
every whit, all, including every part & every
bit, none left out! THAT is UNLIMITED!
Where do you find limited atonement in this
verse?”
So tell me then…in this text….
For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? – Luke 9:25
Is Jesus asking what will it profit a man if he gains “everybody who ever lived and everybody who will ever live in the history of the world” but loses his soul?
Norm,
“That would be scourge of the cosmos, Les.”
Oooh. That’s cool. You help me make my point, tongue in cheek of course.
“That would be scourge of the cosmos (all the people who ever lived or will live according to NCs), Les.”
:)
Blessings brother.
Back to ruling elder — is that in the magisterial sense?
Norm,
Since the moderator and take us off topic…
“Don’t Presbys christen before POF?”
Which definition of “christen” or you using?
PCA churches don’t use that word. They use baptism.
You raised the matter of Pentecostals baptizing after POF. And, cleverly, you divert attention away from the Presby practice of “baptizing” (is that baptizo, Les, or affusion or sprinkling?) by questioning my use of christen.
Norm, we’re way off course here. But you’re the moderator.
“You raised the matter of Pentecostals baptizing after POF. And, cleverly…”
Too much credit here. I’m not that smart.
“…you divert attention away from the Presby practice of “baptizing” (is that baptizo, Les, or affusion or sprinkling?)”
Both. See Hebrews 6:2
“and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.”
Footnotes
[1] 6:2 Or baptisms (that is, cleansing rites)
Hebrews 9:10
“but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.”
Check cross references.
“…by questioning my use of christen.”
I just needed to know which dictionary definition you meant by the question.
From the online dictionary:
“a. To baptize into a Christian church.
b. To give a name to at baptism.”
Which did you mean?
Les
Again — you raised the topic of baptism. And I simply want to know if the church you attend baptizes (whatever mode you prefer) babies? If so, is it of any salvific value? I read online where PCA considers the rite a sacrament. — Norm
Norm,
“Back to ruling elder — is that in the magisterial sense?”
From the dictionary:
Magisterial: Of, relating to, or characteristic of a master or teacher; authoritative
We don’t use the word. But of that definition, I would ok with “authoritative.”
Mostly we use the word “ruling” in the biblical sense:
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”
1 Thes. 5.12, “We ask you, brothers, mto respect those who labor among you and nare over you in the Lord and admonish you,”
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
Les
(Hebrews 13:17 ESV)
Norm,
“Again — you raised the topic of baptism. And I simply want to know if the church you attend baptizes (whatever mode you prefer) babies? If so, is it of any salvific value? I read online where PCA considers the rite a sacrament.”
Yes, we baptize infants and young children is they have at least one believing parent…along with we also baptize those making a POF.
The PCA does not regard that baptism has any saving power. It is water. Baptism cannot and does not save. The WCF has more and a longer explanation of the PCA view.
Sacrament? Yes. From the WCF:
“Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.”
Les
If it’s only water, then what’s the point? How can a child who has no clue about biblical matters “confirm [his/her] interest in Him”? Seems both utterly pointless and misleading to me. Baptizing babies, Les? You probably should renounce your SB ordination. I can understand why you didn’t have to give up the SB ordination to become a ruling elder in a PCA church. I daresay the reverse would work that way.
Norm,
I’ve enjoyed this short excursis.
“If it’s only water, then what’s the point?”
Well, we both hold to the “it’s only water” thing don’t we?
“How can a child who has no clue about biblical matters “confirm [his/her] interest in Him”? ”
He can’t at that point, any more than Isaac could confirm anything when he was circumcized. The child receives the sign of God’s covenant promise and is considered part of the visible church. Y’all do a post on this and we can expand on it.
“Seems both utterly pointless and misleading to me.”
I understand. Seemed utterly heretical to me one time. So…Catholic I thought. Till I studied it intently.
“Baptizing babies, Les? You probably should renounce your SB ordination. I can understand why you didn’t have to give up the SB ordination to become a ruling elder in a PCA church. I daresay the reverse would work that way.”
Well…
I’ve enjoyed the interaction.
Les
Baptism is a volitional act. What infant asks to be baptized? Of course, no OT infant asked to be circumcised; God commanded it. I’m at a loss to find where God commanded baptism for babies. Here, again, it is seemingly pointless for us to exchange ideas/convictions on doctrinal matters. You are a convictional Presbyterian who believes it is ok to baptize infants. I am a convictional Southern Baptist who believes it is not.
Acts 8:36-37…..
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
Norm,
“Here, again, it is seemingly pointless for us to exchange ideas/convictions on doctrinal matters.”
Well, let’s leave baptism alone. If it is brought up here, I don’t get into that debate with anyone (don’t think I have) anyway. That is not my purpose. Besides, you brought it up (christen) anyway. Not me.I was just responding to your questions.
And, there are lots of doctrines other than baptism. I learn frtom these discussions.
Blessings brother.
Les: YOU first mentioned baptism. I called it christening. In a follow-up, I made it clear that I was wondering if you supported the baptism (in whatever mode) of infants. You do. And now that I have asked for NT support of baptizing infants relative to your parallel of OT circumcision, you want to “leave it alone”?
Amen wingedfooted. Amen. But I have not interest in debating baptism.
Blessings.
Les
Norm, by asking about christening, you brought baptism (at least according to the online dictionary definition I provided above). I simply clarified what you asked and used the word “baptism” in my clarification.
Sorry brother. I missed where you asked me to provide NT support for baptism of infants. This thread is very long now. And, you just said,
“Here, again, it is seemingly pointless for us to exchange ideas/convictions on doctrinal matters.”
I was just trying to respect what you said. I have never intended to come here and debate paedo vs credo alone baptism.
is that what YOU want to do now?
Blessings.
Les
Les: YOU first mentioned baptism w/reference to Pentecostals who are baptized after POF (Profession of Faith). That was YOUR initiating comment to which I replied with the christening word (sorry if I used a Roman Catholic term to describe what Presbys do to babies who are unable to make a volitional decision about their lives and spirits).
Debate baptism? There is no debate. All I want is a NT verse where God commands the baptism of infants, and this is in response to the parallel you drew to the OT practice of circumcision of infants. Can you provide that verse?
Norm,
“”Les: YOU first mentioned baptism w/reference to Pentecostals who are baptized after POF (Profession of Faith). That was YOUR initiating comment to which I replied with the christening word…”
Actually I stayed consistent with this site’s views and used the word “immerse.” That was to cb scott.
“…(sorry if I used a Roman Catholic term to describe what Presbys do to babies who are unable to make a volitional decision about their lives and spirits).”
No worries to me. I’m not RC and I clarified in my answer.
“Debate baptism? There is no debate. All I want is a NT verse where God commands the baptism of infants, and this is in response to the parallel you drew to the OT practice of circumcision of infants. Can you provide that verse?”
I’m getting more confused now. You said above that it’s “seemingly pointless for us to exchange ideas/convictions on doctrinal matters.”
Now you keep wanting to exchange ideas?
There is no verse that commands the baptism of infants.
Again, I have no interest in debating (or exchanging ideas) here on this credo/immersion blog on this post that is not about baptism. We are highly unlikely to sway the other to switch views on the subject.
Come over to my FB page and let’s exchange ideas on baptism there. I’ll connect with you there if you’d like to do that.
Blessings,
Les
My apologies if I confused your comment with another’s. I would ask you to indulge me, Les, and explain here how the Presby rite involving infants is parallel to OT circumcision, esp. since the OT practice was commanded by God, but there is no such command in the NT. On first blush, it would seem that Presbys are trying to attach the law to grace. Jesus fulfilled the OT covenant and offered a New Covenant. If the sign of the OT covenant was circumcision (for infants), then why isn’t it mandated under the New Covenant that babies be baptized?
Les:
If you want to send email to me on this topic, that’s fine. Otherwise, I will respect your wish to move on. — Norm
Norm,
“I would ask you to indulge me, Les, and explain here how the Presby rite involving infants is parallel to OT circumcision, esp. since the OT practice was commanded by God, but there is no such command in the NT.”
If you wish to continue this, I will. But at the bottom of the comments. But, it will be a little later today. I have a deadline to finish something for my website this mornng. So later today I’ll respond at the end of comments if that’s ok.
Blessings,
Les
I’m not sure why Jesus would die for Pharaoh, and Esau and any other person who was already dead and condemned to eternal torment in Hell. Can anyone explain that?
I’m not sure why this question is either relevant or interesting since it misunderstands the nature of the atonement in the first place.
Also, where does the Bible say Esau is in hell?
I know some SB Calvinists who espouse Piper’s position. — Norm
Do you want to tackle this question?
Jerry Vines said “God would not command us to do what we are unable to do.”
Like the 10 Commandments?
Why are you asking me to answer Dr. Vines’ statement? Will you answer whether “cosmos” EVER means “elect”?
Since I never said that “cosmos” MEANS “elect,” I cannot answer that question. Is your next question “when did you stop beating your wife?”
The point is not that “cosmos” means “elect.” The point is that “cosmos” doesn’t always mean “everybody who has ever lived and everybody who will ever live in the history of the world,” as some would have us believe.
What are your thoughts on Jerry Vines’ quote?
Do you believe that God commanded us to do what we are unable to do (obey HIs Law perfectly)?
Thanks!
You “cannot” answer the question, or will not? Check your lexicon. Cosmos does mean what you say it doesn’t. Some say it doesn’t always mean that. OK, if I concede that point, then what does it mean? Those who say that cosmos doesn’t always mean what you say are the ones who want to extrapolate that it must mean the elect. So, that’s the reason for my question: where does cosmos ever mean elect, especially when the NT writers had at their disposal the word eklektos? — Norm
Actually Shane, the whole discussion about what the word cosmos entails is actually irrelevant. It is a non-sequitur to think that because “all men without distinction” excludes all men without exception.
It all depends on the passages and context. I am a Traditionalist and have no problem with saying all doesn’t always mean all all the time, or that world means “all men without distinction” in certain cases, or even if it means that in most cases. The atonement debate doesn’t even hang on that issue.
While I also agree with what Norm is getting at as to what is behind his thinking, I think that the whole discussion is a bit superfluous given that most statements about Christ’s atonement for “the whole world” are magnanimous statements by the Biblical authors trumpeting Christ’s accomplishment in obedience to God for the sake of sinners. Hence, however they are to be read, the notion of “limited” anything relating to the atonement in Scripture is far from the thought of the Biblical authors.
Whoa, Shane…that’s too much logic. How dare you be logical!
Does “Jesus dying for all the sins of all the people of all the world” mean the same thing as Jesus forgiving all the sins of all the people of all the world? If so, then what about the unpardonable sin in Matthew 12 and Mark 3? Did Jesus die for those who are in hell and did not profess faith in Christ?
Wish I could attend that conference.
Brother rhutchin, As all Calvinists you miss the basic truth. Election speaks toward sanctification
NOT salvation.
John G.
Explaining that position would make a nice paper at the conference. I, for one, would appreciate it being addressed.
John H.,
What?
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”
Why is Ben Simpson’s comment gone?
Comments like the following, which impugn others’ motives, will be moderated. — Norm
“I understand why Dr Vines tries to connect New Calvinism to HyperCalvinism, and I’m afraid it doesn’t speak highly of him.”
That’s interesting. Here’s a post by Johnathan a few days ago on the Servetus comment thread;
“Johnathan Pritchett says:
January 19, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Ben, I read your responses, and all I can think is:
Awwwhhh, someone’s tushy hurts.
Seriously man, hang it up.”
How do you allow this kind of comment and delete Ben’s, who brought up a legitimate point? Not cool.
I’m not seeing where Johnathan impugned Ben’s motives. Also, John, please stay on topic, here. — Norm
LOL…hope yours isn’t hurting now too. ;)
Seriously brother, lighten up. Ben’s comments on that thread certainly warranted that comment from me.
I’m afraid that Dr Vines gets it wrong when he connects New Calvinism to HyperCalvinism as espoused by today’s Primitive Baptists. It’s a false connection and has been corrected innumerable times. He said, “If [New Calvinism is] left unchecked, the result will be what Baptist churches experienced in the 1830s. Those that were 5-point Calvinists in their theology became what we call today Primitive Baptists. The lack of evangelism and the decline in membership of Primitive Baptist Churches is evident.”
The part that he is missing is that “New Calvinists” hate HyperCalvinism as much as Dr Vines does. New Calvinists are intensely evangelistic and missions-focused. In fact, the 2006 LifeWay Study found that Calvinist pastors actually baptize at a higher rate than nonCalvinist (now known as “Traditionalist”) pastors–a mean baptism rate of 7.59 baptisms per 100 attenders against a mean baptism rate of 6.71 baptisms per 100 attenders.
Agreed. We must always be vigilant of extremes. There is also the danger of going in the other direction and advocating a humanist/pelagian solution as Laurence Vance in “The other Side of Calvinism.”
Please give me an example of Vance’s “humanist/pelagian solution”.
Let’s see, Ben, the diff between 7.59 and 6.71 is less than one. Impressive!
And also shocking that you, a Calvinist, would point to “numbers” as some sort of proof of what I don’t really know.
If NewCalvinists hate hyper-Calvinism, would NewCalvinists reject Calvin’s assertion that God’s damns some to hell and does so for his good pleasure? — Norm
Norm,
Baptism ratio seems to be the accepted measure of evangelistic zeal and effectiveness in the SBC. The point was not how impressive or unimpressive the difference is. The point was that research has shown that Calvinists are at least as evangelistically zealous as nonCalvinists and maybe more so.
You asked, “If NewCalvinists hate hyper-Calvinism, would NewCalvinists reject Calvin’s assertion that God’s damns some to hell and does so for his good pleasure?” Believing that the Bible teaches that God damns some to hell and does so for His good pleasure is no Hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism poses that evangelism and believing on Christ are unnecessary for salvation. That’s patently false and even heretical!
I believe you cited LifeWay research. I would want to see how the questions were/were not posed before I would embrace the results. As you know, a LW survey asked respondents whether they considered themselves more Calvinistic v. Arminian. Obviously, there needed to be a third choice.
Thanks for clarifying that God condemning some to hell for his good pleasure is not hyperCalvinism. I suppose that was a tacit admission that such a tenet is just plain Calvinism.
Norm,
You were wondering about the methodology of the LifeWay research I cited, particularly the way the “Calvinist/nonCalvinist” question was asked. Apparently from the methodology section of the report, LifeWay posed the question, “Do you consider yourself a 5-point Calvinist?” and then gave the response options of either Yes, No, or Don’t Know. That’s pretty straightforward I think and wouldn’t frustrate anybody who was looking for the “Traditionalist” option.
As for my perceived tacit admission that the assertion that God’s damns some to hell and does so for his good pleasure is just plain Calvinism, some Calvinists very well might frame it that way, but without context and explanation, the way you phrased it makes it sound like God is a sadist, which He is not.
The Scripture makes clear that He does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23, 32). It is also clear that He wishes for none to perish (2 Peter 3:9). But, it also reveals to us that God does take pleasure in the exaltation of truth and righteousness and the vindication of His own honor and glory. If there’s any pleasure for God concerning those in Hell, it’s not because people are perishing but rather because truth and righteousness are being held up and His honor and glory is being avenged.
Ben:
Thx for the explanation and distinctions.
Apparently, the only other question relative to 5-point C’ism in the LW survey asked if one considered him/herself Arminian. Given those choices, the survey is skewed, b/c many SBs consider themselves neither. What about asking this question: “Or, do you consider yourself a Baptist?” I think we know what the answers would have been, and many take exception that LW provided only two options.
Don’t forget that the same survey revealed that 60 percent of SBs have concerns about encroaching C’ism in the SBC.
In Calvin’s own words:
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3:21:5)
As Ron Hale posited, this makes the ‘whosever wills’ of the NT vain.
Worth noting that the Council of Orange, oft mentioned to Traditionalists regarding its condemnation of “Semi-Pelagianism”, which Traditionalists reject anyway, also condemned this view John Calvin espouses here, which many Calvinists affirm.
One wonders who are the real offenders of the Council’s canons?
Norm,
I think we are talking about two separate LifeWay surveys. You’re talking about the one from 2012. I’m talking about the one from 2006, summarized here http://goo.gl/mhMaZ. The only question that was asked was “Do you consider yourself a 5-point Calvinist?” You either responded Yes, No, or Don’t Know. All of the yeses were labeled “Calvinist,” all of the nos were labeled “nonCalvinist,” and all of the don’t-knows were most likely thrown out and told to get a clue. “Traditionalists” would have surely just said “no” and gotten labeled nonCalvinist. I really don’t see anything could have gotten skewed unless it was those 4-point Calvinists dragging down the nonCalvinist baptism ratio.
Thx for the clarity.
The difference in the baptism ratio is probably because many “New Calvinists” serve churches with 10 -12 members.
CB,
:o) You might want to go back and check out how ratios work, brother.
John Barker:
I will not waste our time debating Calvinism with you. Been there & done that.
But I do have a question for you. Will you please explain to me the difference between
Hyper-Calvinism & the New Calvinism relating to the 5 points? If you will,
thank you.
God Bless,
John G.
John H.,
So its a waste of time for you to answer my question, but not for me to answer yours? Mmm.
Brother Barker, I am seeking answers not debate. I ask you a question for the purpose of understanding. If you choose not to give me the information, God bless you anyway!
John G.
John & John: Thank you for your comments. However, if you wish to continue this thread, please do so via private email. — Norm
Norm – I agree that your interpretation of ‘cosmos’ as ‘elect’ is shaky at best. However, I am uncomfortable serving a God who does not know who will be saved and who will be condemned. Outside of Open Theism, I am not sure how non-Calvinists, or even Molinists can claim that man plays any role in their own salvation. God bless.
Daniel
Daniel: To be clear, the “cosmos = elect” interp isn’t mine, but Piper’s, et al. And calling it “shaky” gives it too much credit. It is absolutely unthinkable to allow such eisegesis into one’s theology unless one is trying to build a systematized soteriology.
Further, I think there is not one Baptist/non-Calvinist who would question God’s omniscience. As for me, I am uncomfortable saying that I have figured out what “foreknowledge” means to the point that such foreknowledge mandates the exact numbers of who will (or won’t) believe. I am also uncomfortable with ‘Open Theism’ as the only option you provide. That is about as fair as the recent Lifeway survey that asked whether respondents would say they were more Calvinistic or Arminian — as if there were no other choice, like Baptist. Of course, if an entity is trying to provide a defense for a new curriculum that has Calvinists as advisors and Calvinists as writers and recommended resources (including Piper and his cosmos/elect problem), then skewing the questions to elicit desired responses is the tack to take. — Norm
That’s why I referred to it as shaky at best. I am not a five point calvinist, but I fear that many times we do not realize, by claiming God does not know who/how many will be saved, we open up our theology to the heresy of Open Theism.
Again, I do not question God’s omniscience. Neither do I understand it with my pea-sized, fallen, finite brain. I have reservations about foreknowledge being deterministic of who will/will not believe, as my theology is not built upon Greek fatalism. — Norm
“I have reservations about foreknowledge being deterministic of who will/will not believe….”
Good for you, brother :-)
Neither is mine. I appreciate the back & forth.
Now, a paper sorting that out would really be interesting. So many issues for a John 3:16 Conference to address. Hope the presenters don’t disappoint.
Look above, I sorted this for you (again…as I have again, and again, and again).
Well, we know Paul’s wasn’t either. He was no determinist, and certainly did not agree with the Greek fatalists of the Epicureans, nor the Jewish fatalism of the Essenes, given that they thought God would unilaterally (and unconditionally elect) all Jews and damn all Gentiles. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, certainly saw things differently. :)
Brother Miller, So be it! Debating is not my purpose. I was just asking for information.
You sensor me for doing what you also do?
God bless,
John G.
Norm,
I read Ben’s comment which was relevant and worth talking about and then it was gone. I wanted to know why and you gave me your reasoning. I quoted Johnathan to illustrate the inconsistency of your moderation. No, Johnathan didn’t impugn Ben’s motives, but come on, most of his comments are school yard insults. Very inconsistent. But I won’t talk about it anymore, because it wont’ matter anyway.
John H.,
I suppose the New Calvinist movement would not claim that God is the author of sin or that their theology is at odds with evangelism. Ben Simpson “had” a great comment about the numbers of baptisms in Trad. churches vs. Calvinistic churches.
Anyway, both groups think they are right. The debate is futile I suppose.
Bro John: Censorship isn’t the motive. However, sometimes such threads devolve into a back-and-forth that becomes uncharitible. I am not accusing you or John B. of such, but am trying to avoid such. Thx for your cooperation. — Norm
Luke 22:14-20….
When the hour had come, He sat down, and the TWELVE APOSTLES with Him. Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to THEM, saying, “This is My body WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU.”
Jesus said to Judas, being one of the twelve, “This is My body which is given for you”. Jesus said to Judas, being one of the twelve, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
Calvinistic interpretation……
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks and said… “Take this and divide it among yourselves, but don’t give any to that reprobate Judas, because for him I will not shed one drop of My blood.” And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, sayings “This is My body, which is given for you….well, all of you except for Judas.”
WF1: I’m pretty sure that “you” really means “the elect” in this pssg. ;^> — Norm
“WF1: I’m pretty sure that ‘you’ really means ‘the elect’ in this passage.”
Well of course it does, brother, but I won’t tell anyone if you don’t ;-)
Brother Norm, Thank you & I am sorry. May God bless us all.
John G.
Bro John: Thank you so much for your kind spirit. While I accept your apology, you truly did nothing wrong. Also, thx for the benediction. — Norm
I have seen this poster who posts as “rhutchin” repeatedly bring up his “argument” for calvnism based upon the reality that God foreknows all events, all actual outcomes. rthutchin seems to think that if God foreknows all things then we must not have what is ordinarily referred to as a free will or that Jesus was provided for the whole world.
Rthutchin states:
“Non-Calvinist have ignored the controversial issues posed by Calvinists on this question.”
This is not true at all in fact Johnathan Pritchett gave an answer to this argument in a previous thread, but rhutchin ignored it and just keeps presenting this argument over and over and over again.
Here it is again:
“As Vines says, “Southern Baptists overwhelmingly hold the view that Jesus died for all the sins of all the people of all the world.” Southern Baptists also hold the view that God is omniscient and knew the names of the elect and the non-elect when He created Adam. Further, we know that the number of the elect cannot increase nor the number of the non-elect decrease. Southern Baptists seem to believe contradictory positions. Are they contradictory?? Perhaps Conference speakers will sort this out.”
I am going to answer this argument and hopefully never ever see rhutchin bring it up again. Note my answer will be **based upon non-calvinist beliefs** (i.e. things that non-calvinists believe about God’s foreknowledge and free will and plan of salvation) which should not be shocking! :-)
First note that rhutchin claims that it is a CONTRADICTION for someoene to hold simultaneously that God foreknows all future actual outcomes and that we have free will (cf. “Southern Baptists seem to believe contradictory positions.”). Let’s note that most non-calvinists who are orthodox (excepting open theists who deny that God foreknows all future events) believe BOTH: (1) that God foreknows all future actual outcomes, and (2) that people at least sometimes have what is ordinarily understood to be free will (i.e. I have a choice between two different alternative possibilities, I then make a choice between these possibilities, choosing to actualize one possibility while not actualizing the other possibility and the choice of which option that I choose is up to me and not necessitated by some necessitating factors, which also means that while I choose one possibility I could have done otherwise and chosen the other possibility).
rhutchin brings up the first belief when he writes: “Southern Baptists also hold the view that God is omniscient and knew the names of the elect and the non-elect when He created Adam. Further, we know that the number of the elect cannot increase nor the number of the non-elect decrease.” And this is true, if God is omniscient and knows all future actual outcomes, then before he even created the world he knew the names of all who would be believers/elect and all who would be non-believers/non-elect. This has to be true due to the nature of God’s foreknowledge. God’s foreknowledge involves knowing what will in fact take place. Let’s call an event that will in fact take place, an ACTUAL OUTCOME. Actual because it will in fact occur, an outcome because it is an event produced by some causes. When we speak of God’s foreknowledge we are not talking about events that will not occur, events that may have occurred but did not occur, but only events that will in fact occur.
rhuthchin brings up the second belief when he writes: ““As Vines says, “Southern Baptists overwhelmingly hold the view that Jesus died for all the sins of all the people of all the world.” The majority Southern Baptist belief is that God provides Jesus as an atonement for the whole world (1 John 2:2), that God desires the salvation of everyone (1 Tim. 2:4), and that out of love the Father gave the Son as this atonement for the world (John 3:16).
rthutchin seems to think that holding all of these beliefs simultaneously is a contradiction.
Exactly how so?
How is God’s foreknowledge of all future actual outcomes contradictory to God providing Jesus as an atonement for all people?
Rthutchin seems to think that because God does foreknow who will be saved and who will be lost before he creates Adam, that that somehow contradicts his plan of salvation which involves Him giving Jesus as an atonement for the whole world.
There are four additional beliefs that non-calvinists hold that need to be kept in mind here. First, the non-calvinist believes that people are saved through a freely chosen choice to trust in Christ alone for salvation (so all who are saved are human persons who freely trust the Lord for their salvation). The second belief which is actually closely connected with the first is that non-calvinists, contrary to universalists believe that the Bible teaches that not all at the end will be saved (so some are saved and some are not saved, those who are saved had faith and those who did not freely chose to reject God and his offer of salvation through Christ). Now calvinists may detest our belief that people must freely (and determinists have devised various arguments to ridicule and question that the choice occurs freely) choose to trust in order to be saved, but that is in fact our belief. The third belief is that God is sovereign and so He does as He pleases. This means that He creates the world to be the kind of world that He wants it to be AND that He decides the nature of the plan of salvation. So if HE decides before creating the world that people will be saved through a freely chosen faith in Christ, then that will be the way it is no matter how many calvinists question or reject or mock this reality. And fourth, if He decides beforehand that human beings will have the capacity to have and make their own choices (i.e. free will as ordinarily understood), then that will be the way that it is not matter how many calvinists question or reject or mock the existence of free will.
Now let’s put these beliefs together and compare them with rhutchin’s claim that they are contradictory. So say that God decides before he creates Adam that the plan of salvation will involve the atonement of Christ on the cross. And say that God knows there will be exactly say 1 million believers in history, that precisly 1 million will freely choose to believe in Jesus and be saved (and all the rest who reject Jesus will not be saved). God provided Jesus for everyone but knows that of the whole world 1 million will freely choose to trust in Jesus and be saved. How is that contradictory?
Rhutchin has an unspoken assumption operating here. His assumption is that if God knows everything that will happen before it happens, then everything is fixed, but if everything is fixed, then how can people be freely choosing to trust in Christ for salvation? If this was the Hans Christian Anderson story, right about now the little boy would be pointing out that rhuthchin’s assumption has no clothes! The little boy might ask: Ok, it is true that God knows what every future outcome will be, but the question is HOW are these future actual outcomes brought about??? Are they brought about because of God’s foreknowledge? Does God’s foreknowledge cause all future events? Or are they the result of freely made choices?
Let’s invent two people to show how this works out practically speaking.
Tom is born in Germany. Because Tom is a human person he is part of the whole world for which Jesus was prodided as an atonement. Tom lives much of his life freely living his own way apart from God. Then through a series of circumstances Tom repeatedly hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit reveals things to him including that Jesus is the only way of salvation, that Tom is a sinner that needs to repent of his sin, etc. etc. Over years time Tom is a convert to Christianity, he freely chooses to trust in Christ alone for his salvation. Did God know before creating Tom that Tom would be a believer/elect? Yes. Did God control Tom like a Robot and make him choose to trust? No. Tom freely chose to trust Christ alone for salvation.
John is born in the United States. Because John is a human person he is part of the whole world for which Jesus was provided as an atonement. John lives much of his life freely living his own way apart from God. But John is also born in a Christian home with believing parents and siblings. He is exposed to the gospel from practically the day he was born. He goes to Christian schools, goes to Christian camps; he gets lots of exposure to Christianity. And though all of this the Holy Spirit is revealing things to John. John knows he is a sinner, knows Jesus is the way of salvation; John has many things revealed to him. His parents and siblings are genuine and consistent Christians so he sees the Christian life right in front of him. Unfortunately, John keeps rejecting the work of the Spirit, he keeps rejecting God. He does not want Jesus to be Lord over his life: no one tells him what to think, say or do!. John sadly continues in this way for his whole lifetime. Only after years of freely rejecting God and the gospel does John die. John was never saved. Did God know that John would end up unsaved before God created Adam? Yes. Did God control John like a robot and make him not believe? No, John’s repeated choice to reject was his own freely made choice.
In the case of both Tom and John God knew everything about them before they were ever born. But Tom chose to trust and John did not. Both acted freely, both made free will choices. God knew all the choices they would ever make in their lifetimes. Did God not love John? No, because Jesus died on the cross for John as he did for every person. God through the Spirit revealed things to John. The problem is that John kept freely rejecting God and the offer of salvation.
Where is the contradiction in all of this rhutchin? ? ? ?
God created this world where our choices are real and meaningful and even have eternal consequences. God created this world knowing that some would freely choose to accept Jesus and some would freely choose to reject Jesus. And in this case there were a million people who freely chose to trust. Could it have been otherwise? Yes, if more had believed then more would have been saved. If instead of 1 million freely choosing to trust in the Lord, 100 million freely chose to trust, then that would be the actual outcome, 100 million people would freely choose to trust the Lord. No matter what the numbers end up being, God foreknows exactly what those numbers would be. No matter what the numbers end up being, people freely choose both to accept and to reject Christ.
There are no contradictions in holding noncalvinist beliefs that God provided Jesus for the whole world, that only those who freely choose to trust will be saved, that God knew who would and would not choose to trust before he even created Adam. Now some will not ***like*** this scenario, they will then argue something like: so why didn’t God not create the world if he knew such and such number would freely choose to reject Him? The problem with that question is that the world is the way it is because God is sovereign (i.e. it pleased Him to create human persons with the capacity to freely choose) and God does love everyone because He provided Jesus for everyone and desires for everyone to be saved. It is not like people will be damned because they never had a chance (as is true in calvinism by the way, where God fixes the number of saved and unsaved and if you are unsaved you never had a chance to be saved, you were damned from eternity).
In the Bible people are damned for the willful rejection of the light they have been given. So if anyone is damned it is their own choice and if anyone is damned they had to have continually and repeatedly rejected God and his revelation given to them, over and over and over again.
Now I know determinists/calvinists may hate what I am saying here. But that is not the issue, the issue is that rhutchin thinks that noncalvinist beliefs are contradictory: when in fact they are not. They are not contradictory, they are just beliefs that calvinists/determinists reject.
So then the question becomes if these beliefs held by noncalvinists are true, what are calvinists in fact freely choosing to do? They are rejecting the truth.
Robert
OK, Robert. So many words; so little said. You seem in disagreement saying “(as is true in calvinism by the way, where God fixes the number of saved and unsaved and if you are unsaved you never had a chance to be saved, you were damned from eternity)” but you agree with the Calvinists on this point throughout your comments. What’s your point??
Brother Robert! Praise God & thank You for you truthful statement! I do agree with all that you
have said.
God bless,
John H. Gregory
Hello John,
Glad to see that you appreciated what I shared. From reading your posts it seems we are on the same Biblicist page!
One more thing regarding the atonement.
Determinists try to argue against unlimited atonement (i.e. that Jesus was given for the whole world not just the elect) by saying things like: well if Jesus’ death is for everyone then why won’t everyone be saved?’ Or “why then aren’t all people’s sins covered by Jesus’ atonement then?”
The problem with this kind of argument/thinking is that it neglects or leaves out two crucial principles when it comes to the atonement.
One is that the atonement of Christ must be individuallly appropriated by faith (look at the book of Romans in particular for evidence of this:believers are justified through faith).
And secondly, the atonement must be seen as having two distinct aspects. There is the PROVISON of atonement (which is for all as the biblical texts unequivocally and unambiguously state) and the APPLICATION of the atonement (i.e. it is applied only as a covering for believers).
We see this pattern with the snakes in the wilderness story as well. The Israelites sin, God sends poisonous snakes, they seek deliverance/salvation and God provides a snake on a pole. They are told that if they look up at the snake on the pole they will live. If they do not, they will die. The provision of the snake on the pole was for **every** Israelite, the application of this provision was only for those who looked up in faith. Jesus in John 3 when speaking of his own atonement and Himself as provision for sin brings up this very story and likens his own atonement to that story. And the parallels are clear.
Jesus is lifted up via the cross, and this provision is for all men. But only those who look up and trust Him for salvation, have faith, will be saved via his atonement. So when looking at Bible verses you need to keep this distinction in mind. The provisional element of Christ’s atonement is for all: the applicational element is only for those who believe. This has always been God’s way, he provides deliverance but the deliverance through Christ is only for those who trust Him.
Robert
Thank You Brother Robert for the CLEAN AIR! There is a certain amount of Calvinistic balderdash
fogging up the atmosphere in this area. What you have posted has cleaned, washed away, &
given us the truth. Of course, there will be those who will not agree, but we love ‘em anyway!
God bless you all,
John G.
Robert,
Is it a sin not to believe in Christ and put your faith in him?
What kind of slippery question is this? Believe & faith have the SAME ROOT WORD
1It IS a sin to not believe in Christ! John 3:36, believe & put your faith in Him mean the SAME
thing! Murkey, convoluted reasoning!
John G.
I’m sure the point John Barker is making is that “it IS a sin to not believe in Christ.” And yet you believe Christ died for all of the sins of all people of all time. Therefore, I imagine the question he will ask you next is “Did Jesus die for the sin of unbelief?” You believe he died for all of the sins of all people so did He die for the sin of unbelief? It is a fair question to ask Traditionalists to answer.
I’ll answer it.
It is a silly question built from a goofy misunderstanding of your opponents premise. But I’ll play along anyway.
Sure, Jesus even died for their sin of unbelief. However, His death for that sin only is applied to them if they believe.
Jesus also died for YOUR sin of unbelief as well. I am sure Mary that YOU didn’t always believe in Jesus. When YOU did believe, the application of the cross covered all YOUR sins including YOUR sin of unbelief as well.
Hope that helps.
Johnathan,
I can go one better.
For a select few, according to calvinism, Jesus atoned their sin of unbelief so that they could then believe and have their sins atoned for.
Wait…..what???
Good answer Johnathan Pritchett. Thank you.
LOL…that’s great wingedfooted1!
Brother Johnathan,
I believe Norm shared my email address with you. Please feel free to contact me directly. I would like to bounce a few ideas off of you.
God bless
Sister Mary, as has been stated, YES! Jesus died for the sins of the world! All the sins & all
the whole world! But God’s chosen way to
apply that reconciliation & salvation is by the
individual’s appropriating, applying, & believing.
All sin has been payed for! But until and with
out individual appropriation, the wrath of God
abides upon ALL of them. What is so hard
about accepting this?
God bless,
John G.
John H.,
So it is a sin, I agree. Did Christ not die for the sins of all people? If he did, then he would have died for their sin of unbelief and they would be saved. But not all are saved. It wasn’t meant to be a slippery question. This is one of the many logical problems with universal atonement.
John B. You frame the non-Calvinists’ argument for us fallaciously in saying: “Did Christ not die for the sins of all people? If he did, then he would have died for their sin of unbelief and they would be saved.”
Biblicists do not believe that b/c Christ died for the sins of the world that all will be saved. That is universalism, as you know. — Norm
John B, your argument is old and tired. No Southern Baptist believes that all will be saved. We should stick with Scripture and not try to set traps and debate logic. There are only a couple of options about the atonement.
Christ’s atonement was for all.
Christ’s atonement was for some
You claim because of these statements that either all are going to be saved or Christ died for only the elect. The problem for you is the Bible is explicit that Christ died for the whole world. II Peter 3:9 teaches that God indeed wants everyone to be saved. John teaches in John 3:16 that Christ died for the world. Then in verse 18 states that whosoever does not believe on Christ is condemned. Why are they condemned? Because they would not believe. Christ atonement was provided for all but will only be applied to those that believe. Did God determine this? No Way! They would not believe.They chose death rather than life. They chose darkness rather than light. This does not weaken God in any way. It does not make Him less omniscient or that He is not sovereign.
Actually, it is usually phrased this way by Calvinists:
Our choices are that Christ has died for:
1: Some of the sins of all men
2: All of the sins of some men
3: All of the sins of all men
1 equals: We are cursed
2 equals: elect are saved
3 equals: ineffectual grace (or the sin of unbelief not paid for)
Dean,
May I offer one piece of advice? If you want to convince a Calvinist, please stop using the very unconvincing argument from 2Pet 3:9. There is good reason to believe from the context that Peter was talking to the church, about the church, thus refuting youre whole argument. You would be much better off quoting 1Tim. 2:4 regarding God’s desire to save everyone. There is much less controversy surrounding that verse than there is concerning the text you quoted.
Norm,
So that would mean that there are people in hell who have all of their sins paid for.
Abraham was deemed righteous why?
“And when you believe as you ought to believe, you will discover that your belief — like all other spiritual blessings — was purchased by the death of Christ. The sin of unbelief was covered by the blood in your case, and therefore the power of God’s mercy was released through the cross to subdue your rebellion and bring you to the Son. You did not make the cross effective in your life by faith. The cross became effective in your life by purchasing your faith.” – John Piper
And yet the apostle Paul writes in Romans 3:25………
“God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood…”
And Paul adds in Hebrews 4:2……..
“For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it”.
Because they refused to believe, the gospel didn’t profit or benefit them. The gospel of the cross was ineffective due to their lack of faith. In other words, without exercising our faith, there are no atoning benefits. None. Calvinism would have us believe that at least one of the atoning benefits of the cross (in this case, faith) is applied to UNBELIEVERS. In other words, according to calvinism, for at least some people, the gospel is very profitable when not mixed with faith. This is a complete denial of Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 4:2 which clearly shows that it is thru faith that our sins are atoned for by the blood of Christ. Without faith, the gospel is unprofitable.
John B;
I have a question for you related to the questions you’ve asked Norm. Here’s my question:
Do you believe that the elect, while having had their sins paid for by Jesus, can still be under God’s wrath?
David D.
While I agree that “There is a New Calvinism among us that is aggressive, hostile, and militant” (I have experienced it), I don’t agree that it is characterized by a “decline in membership” of the Primitive Baptist sort. Indeed, some SBC New Calvinist churches have reached mega-church status! While preaching-the-church-empty may have described “old” Calvinism, the rapid proliferation and growth of New Calvinist churches in SBC ranks is cause for concern … particularly since they are spurred forward by non-SBC influences (Piper, Keller, Driscoll, etc.).
Max:
I would agree that NewC’ism cannot be solely characterized by a decline in membership. But the possible eventuality is there if history really is prologue. Also, some among the NewC’ists are splitting churches. And some are interviewing with search committees and hiding their goals to “Reform” churches whose members do not hold to C tenets. — Norm
Norm,
We agree more than we disagree re: “New” Calvinism. I am certainly familiar with the stealth and deception used by some of these folks to takeover and split traditional works. There are SBC churches in my vicinity which have been sadly impacted in this way by “lead” pastors who were not completely honest about their theological leaning during the interview process.
While I am certainly concerned about the misery experienced by such churches, my overriding concern is the influence of certain SBC leaders and non-SBC reformers on a new breed of Southern Baptist pastors, particularly young reformed church planters. New Calvinists entering SBC pulpits have a strong allegiance to such influencers and their closely-connected network of reformed organizations. While most “old” Calvinists may be opposed to the message, method, and mission of their neo-brethren, others in the old guard appear to be putting up with this new brand as long as the essential reformed message moves forward in SBC ranks and elsewhere.
There is no doubt (at least in my area) that the young, restless and reformed are attracting a generation of 20s-30s disillusioned with their parent’s way of doing church … and these churches are growing (at least for awhile). While traditional works were serving our youth pizza, the reformed movement got their attention. A “culturally-relevant” message, methodology, and missiology are packing the house. Encouraged, emboldened, and supported by certain SBC entities, these young pastors have revolution on their mind and are intent on changing the SBC landscape. While the actual theological shift may take a while, these young pastors have a lifetime of ministry ahead of them to accomplish that task. I wouldn’t write their “success” off yet. We can only hope that traditional SBC belief and practice finds some new champions and energy to reverse this trend … on the other side of an outbreak of prayer and repentance in pulpit and pew.
Norm,
I don’t disagree that Abraham was justified by faith. I wasn’t questioning that we are justified by faith. I believe that faith is a gift like Ephesians says. Do you believe that there are people in hell who have all of their sins atoned for? That’s what I want to know.
John,
I know the question was not directed to me, but let me please answer.
There will not be one person in hell whose sins were atonement for. No one who rejects what Jesus did for them (remember, salvation is personal) will have their sins atoned for. Not a single one. Again, as Hebrews 4:2 states, without faith the gospel of the cross of Christ is unprofitable.
However, don’t confuse “died for” or “shed for” with shed blood applied. The scriptures state that without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). However, the scriptures also state that only believers receive the remission of sins (Acts10.43).
If the blood spilt was all that was necessary, then why did the Israelites have to apply the blood of the lamb above and on both sides of the doorway? However our Lord said “And when I see the blood, I will pass over you” (Exodus 12:13). In other words, it wasn’t the blood that was shed that saved the Israelites, it was the shed blood applied above the doorways.
God bless.
WF1,
You bring up some interesting points. The Acts passage says that everyone who believes will have forgiveness of sins, not atonement of sins. The atonement happened at the cross and was either for all the sins of all men or all the sins of some men. I believe that the atonement was for all of the sins of some men. If all mens sins were atoned for then there are in fact people in hell whose sins were paid for by Christ. You would say that they are in hell because of unbelief and I contend that if unbelief is a sin then it should have been paid for.
There are two senses here that must be distinguished.
God condemned sin (singular) in the flesh. Jesus, who knew no sin (singular), became sin (singular) on behalf of sinners. That is one sense.
His accomplishment takes away the sins (plural) of the world. That is another sense. Indeed it does, but it is effectual to those who believe, and not effectual for non-believers. This is the same sense that the Temple cult always foreshadowed. The atonement is a corporate one for the whole nation of Israel, but applied to individuals only under meeting certain conditions. The sacrifice indeed takes away the “sins of the whole world” (or nation in the Old Covenant), but it doesn’t benefit those who either disbelieve or reject it.
Again, the Biblical statements about “taking away the sins of the whole world” and what is meant by world is hardly the deciding factor in the discussion (for both sides). As stated above, those are magnanimous statements trumpeting the accomplishment of Christ, and the discussion of limited anything regarding Christ’s atonement is far from the authors intent with the passages. If anything, those passages would favor an unlimited view. I have no problem with the “all men without distinction” versus “all men without exception” interpretation since the former doesn’t necessarily exclude the latter, and it is not relevant to the discussion of how atonement works as taught in Scripture.
In any case, the singular and plural must be understood properly.
These are the along the lines of the sufficient/effectual, extent/application distinctions even Calvinists (the smart ones anyway) recognize.
Jesus did indeed die for all men, because Jesus died for sinners and all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. However, the benefit is only applied to some men, namely, those who repent and believe.
Romans 3:25 specifically states that “God has presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood.” The NT teaches nothing new regarding the mechanics of atonement than the Temple cult that foreshadowed it.
There is not a single individual on the planet who has ever lived or will live that could not be saved by Christ’s blood, would they repent and believe. Do you think it not so?
What more, other than all else mentioned, do you need?
wingedfooted1 has already made this as clear as can be. You, however, keep bringing up issues irrelevant to the Biblical data and how such issues were understood by the Biblical authors.
John,
Let’s look again at what John Piper wrote.
“And when you believe as you ought to believe, you will discover that your belief — like all other spiritual blessings — was purchased by the death of Christ. The sin of unbelief was covered by the blood in your case, and therefore the power of God’s mercy was released through the cross to subdue your rebellion and bring you to the Son. You did not make the cross effective in your life by faith. The cross became effective in your life by purchasing your faith.”
Of course, I disagree with him completely, but let’s consider this portion of the above…
“The sin of unbelief was covered by the blood in your case, and therefore the power of God’s mercy was released through the cross.”
If that statement is true in that the sin of unbelief was covered and “released through the cross” then just how did everyone prior to the cross believe? Certainly, everyone in Abraham’s bosom was already a believer and yet the power of the cross had not as yet been released??
Also, reconsider what I posted earlier….
Luke 22:14-20….
When the hour had come, He sat down, and the TWELVE APOSTLES with Him. Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to THEM, saying, “This is My body WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU.”
Judas was one of the twelve. Here we have Jesus addressing both the saved (Peter and the others) and the Lost (Judas) telling them “this is my body which is given for you” and this is “my blood which is shed for you.”
God bless
This whole post has degenerated into a quagmire of debate between Calvinists & Biblicistic
Traditionalists. Neither side will ever convince the other side to change their theological stance.
Is this the purpose of this blog? The Calvinist questions (designed to cause debate) have been
answered. Please go forward into an area in which we are able to agree! The Calvinistic
questions are wearisome. They are only for the pupose of debate and to cause turmoil.
Climb up out of the swamp! Go to a subject or area wherein we all may progress.
God bless all,
John G.
John Barker asked:
“Is it a sin not to believe in Christ and put your faith in him?”
First, I note that John did not interact with anything that I had actually written. So he really does not want to discuss anything that I said, he just wants to argue.
Second, he is not asking a sincere question out of a concern for knowing the truth.
When someone is asking a sincere question I always try to make time for such a question.
On the other hand, he is asking a question that he already knows the answer to.
So you ask yourself why is someone asking me a question they already know the answer to?
Often when someone asks this sort of question, they are trying to set you up for something else further down the line. I think I know where he would like to go, since I have seen calvinists ask this question before: they do so when they want to bring in John Owen’s arguments for limited atonement (i.e. the double payment argument, the trilemma argument, the argument that if Jesus died for all sins of unbelief then all must be saved, etc. etc.).
Third, regarding John Owen’s arguments and seeing the problems with them, I suggest that people who want the truth and don’t just want to argue, look carefully at the book WHOSOEVER WILL edited by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (specifically in Chapter 4 written by Dr. Allen “The Atonement Limited or Universal?”, and even more specifically on pages 83-92 where Dr. Allen demonstrates the problems with John Owen’s arguments regarding the atonement).
It should also be noted that Dr. Allen has written multiple posts here as SBC Today in which he (and others) have shown problems with John Owen’s arguments.
Within this section Dr. Allen makes reference to a Masters thesis by N. Chambers (a calvinist written at Reformed Theological Seminary a calvinist seminary) titled “A Critical Examination of John Owen’s Argument for Limited Atonement in the Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. This is an important refutation Owen as it is coming from a calvinist at a calvinist school.
Because others have dealt with these Owenesque arguments sufficiently I am not going to reinvent the wheel here. I notice that others have already responded to this argument by Barker and encourage those who are wanting the truth on this issue to read (or reread) especially Dr. Allen’s section, pages 83-92. And go back and read some of the posts which Dr. Allen has done here in the past regarding the atonement.
Robert
I said in a previous post that when it comes to discussing the atonement that we need to keep in mind the distinction between the PROVISION of the atonement which occurred at the cross and the APPLICATION of the atonement which occurs for each believer when they become believers. It seems to me that much of the calvinist argument in this thread fails to take into account this distinction. It is true that the work of the atonement, its provison occurs when Jesus dies on the cross. But you can’t’ stop there. Apart from its application, the atonement will not cover anyone’s sins. And we know from scripture that only those who are believers have their sins covered by Jesus’ atonement. We also know that the atonement is applied only to those who believe and trust God alone for their salvation. It seems to me that John Barker in particular is ignoring and neglecting this distinction. He seems to be conflating the two, thinking that all aspects of the atonement occurred only at the time when Jesus was crucified.
Barker wrote:
“The atonement happened at the cross and was either for all the sins of all men or all the sins of some men.”
Did the atonement happen in all of its aspects at the time Jesus was crucified on the cross? If so, then that would mean that all believers were saved at that precise moment. But we know that is not true as if it were then all of us who are now believers were born with our sins already atoned for! If both the provision and applicational elements of the atonement occurred at the time Jesus was crucified then the atonement was applied to every believer at that precise time! But is that true? No. While it is true that Jesus died on the cross providing the atonement for our sins at that time, the application of the atonement to us individually happened years later (centuries later in our case).
In light of this reality David D. asked a good question:
“Do you believe that the elect, while having had their sins paid for by Jesus, can still be under God’s wrath?”
Apparently David D. knows that scripture teaches that prior to our conversion to Christ the Bible says the wrath of God was upon us. But if both the provision of the atonement and the application of the atonement happened at the same time, at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus: then how can God’s wrath be upon us before we became believers if the application of the atonement had already happened? That makes no sense at all. On the other hand, if the provision of atonement occurred at the time that Jesus died on the cross, but the application happens only later when the individual becomes a believer, then we can explain how the wrath of God is upon us while we were unbelievers before we had converted to Christ. David D’s question then brings out the importance of seeing the two different frames. The atonement does not just consist in the provision of atonement which occurred through Jesus death on the cross, it also consists in the application of that provided atonement to individual believers when they believe.
Wingfooted1 added:
“There will not be one person in hell whose sins were atonement for. No one who rejects what Jesus did for them (remember, salvation is personal) will have their sins atoned for. Not a single one. Again, as Hebrews 4:2 states, without faith the gospel of the cross of Christ is unprofitable.”
While it is true that the provisional element of the atonement is for every person, including those who never end up believing. The applicational element *****only involves believers*****. Thus as wingfooted1 points out here, there will be no atonement of sins of those who end up in hell. They reject the provision and so it will not be applied to them as it is only applied to believers.
Wingfooted1 then makes reference to the provision/application distinction when he writes:
“However, don’t confuse “died for” or “shed for” with shed blood applied. The scriptures state that without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). However, the scriptures also state that only believers receive the remission of sins (Acts10.43).”
Put simply Jesus died for everyone (i.e. the provisional element) but unless that shed blood is applied to you individually (i.e. the applicational element) you cannot be and won’t be saved.
Unfortunately I have seen calvinists in the past make this same mistake of neglecting this dictinction and so forgetting that while Jesus died on the cross 2,000 years ago, that shed blood is incapable of saving an individual unless it is applied to that individual, the individual who trusts the Lord. Without application that atonement cannot save. The application of the atonement towards believers did not happen 2,000 years ago. Instead it is applied everytime someone chooses to trust in Jesus alone for salvation.
Robert
Good word!
“Without application that atonement cannot save. The application of the atonement towards believers did not happen 2,000 years ago. Instead it is applied every time someone chooses to trust in Jesus alone for salvation.”
Amen Robert!! Print it out and stick on the refrigerator, folks!! When you see this Truth, you can’t un-see it. It’s a shame that teachings and traditions of men have supplanted this essential element of faith. This comment stream is full of “intellect” attempting to refute the good word you provide about provision/application of the cross of Calvary for all men. Proof once again that education does not produce one ounce of revelation.
Norm,
You asked about the NT connection to OT circumcision related to paedobaptism. While I suspect you may have seen this explanation before, I’ll make a brief comment about it. But after that, you have my email and if you want to continue offline we can.
First, remember that paedobaptists (PB) are covenantal. PB believe that there is one covenant of grace demonstrated in Genesis 3.15, made very clear to Abraham in Genesis 17 and fulfilled in Christ. We see one plan of salvation in the OT and NT. There is one promise of salvation, one way of salvation, one church, etc. So, one covenant of grace administered two ways, one in the OT and one in the NT.
PB believe that God’s covenant promise to Abraham has not been repealed. ‘And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”
(Genesis 17:7 ESV)
So children received the sign of God’s promise then and there is no repeal or indication that in the NT times they should also not receive the sign of god’s promise.
N. Wright Erskine write, Erskine writes: “The same principle was again and again announced when the children of Israel, under the Mosaic law, were still more definitely separated from the rest of the world. The law of circumcision was more than a mere civil regulation. The act was a religious transaction belonging to the Church, of which the terms of membership (viz., faith) were the same as under the later dispensation. ‘He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.’ Rom. iv. 11. ‘For the promise….was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.’ Rom. iv. 13.”
John Murray writes,
“The infant seed of those who are believers by confession and profession should be baptized and thus bear the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. This is the divine institution: it is one of the ways by which it has pleased God to administer the covenant of grace in the world; it is one of the ordinances by means of which it pleases God to fulfill His covenant purposes from age to age and from generation to generation. It is this fact of divine institution that constitutes the sufficient ground for administering and receiving the ordinance. When we ask the question: why do we baptise infants or upon what ground do we dispense baptism to them? It is sufficient for us to know and to answer that it is the divine institution. God has ordained it as one of the provisions whereby He administers His grace in the world. When the church practices this institution and complies with the divine command, no further judgment respecting the secret purpose nor respecting God’s secret operations in the heart of those baptised is required as the proper ground upon which the ordinance is administered. To require any further information than the divine institution would go beyond the warrant of Scripture. It is true that in administering this ordinance we plead the promises which God has attached to faith and obedience, and we rest our faith and hope upon God’s faithfulness. But our faith in God’s promises would not appear to be placed in its proper relationship to infant baptism if it were conceived of as the ground for baptising infants. The ground is rather the institution which God has established and revealed, namely, that to the infant seed of believers the sign and seal of the covenant of grace is to be administered. Hence to aver that baptism is dispensed to infants on the ground of presumptive election or presumptive regeneration appears to be without warrant and also introduces perplexity into the question at issue.”
Now where in the NT? Erskine mentioned Romans 4.11. But also,
“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.’
(Colossians 2:9-14 ESV)
As I said, I’m sure you’ve seen all this before. We can talk more offline by email as time allows.
Blessings brother.
“So children received the sign of God’s promise then and there is no repeal or indication that in the NT times they should also not receive the sign of god’s promise.”
As I expected, Les, an argument from NT silence. Hardly the way to do foundational doctrine.
No need for more. I’m done.
Thanks Norm for the gracious exchenge brother.
Les
Johnathan,
“There is not a single individual on the planet who has ever lived or will live that could not be saved by Christ’s blood, would they repent and believe. Do you think it not so?”
If someone repents and believes of course they will be saved. But only certain people will do this. Why? Why do some dead men have new birth and others not?
Robert;
That is precisely where my question to John Barker was meant to lead. Thanks for what you wrote above; couldn’t have said it better myself.
David D.
John Barker;
You asked “Why do some dead men have new birth and others not”
I’d ask, “What reason did Jesus give in John 5:25?”
David D.