Unconditional ElectionIt seems to me, though, that trotting some of these passages (and more like them) will lead you to conclusions that you never intended to achieve. Is it safe to use these as arguments against what they are perceived to argue against?
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
Limited Atonement
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).
Irresistible Grace
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32)
Perseverance of the Saints
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (Heb 6:4-6).
That 2 Peter 3 verse is really popular. It "proves" that it is God's will that every human being come to repentance. There! It's clear! God doesn't simply will to save some. He wills to save all! There is a problem, though. If this verse is saying that God wills to save all ... why are not all saved? What in God's will cannot be accomplished? And if He cannot or will not accomplish His own will, well, we're in serious trouble. He's not Sovereign! Look, clearly, if Man's will overrides God's will in this case, then it is unavoidable that Man is the Sovereign in this case. And that is a problem. Are you sure you want to read it that way?
The 2 Peter 2 passage is just a lone example of a bigger set of passages against "Limited Atonement." These passages say such things as "all" and "the world." There are verses like 1 John 4:14 that say things like "the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world." First Timothy 4:10 says that "we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (Note: Doesn't it bother you that, if this is intended to say that Christ is the one who saves all people, it says "especially of those who believe"? I mean, if "all people" are saved, what is special about "those who believe"? That should be a hint.) There are lots of these passages. So, clearly, Christ's atonement is for all people! And, Houston, we have a problem. You see, if the atonement is for all people (as in "applied to all people"), then it is necessary that all people are actually saved. If Romans 5:18 ("Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.") actually means that Christ provided justification and life to all men, then all men are already justified. The only possible conclusion is that the Universalists are right and everyone is saved. Hallelujah! Of course, that causes other problems ... like the multitude of passages that say it isn't so. "No, no," they counter, "that doesn't mean that all sin is paid for and all people are justified. It simply means that they can be." Okay, that avoids one problem, but steps into another couple of difficulties. First, if you are reading those like they appear to read, then you must void the obvious meaning of "already accomplished justification" to change to a meaning of "potential justification." But if you can change their "plain meaning," haven't you voided your own argument? The other problem, of course, is that if you argue that it is potential justification rather than actual justification, you have just lapsed back into limits on the Atonement. If not all are atoned for, then the Atonement is limited. If all are atoned for, then no one can justly be damned. Hmmm, that is a problem. Are you sure you want to read it that way?
I've started you on the problems that occur with these passages. They argue more than you intend. The John 12 verse, for instance, is specifically cited to argue against the John 6:44 passage where Jesus says, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." "There, see? Jesus says He'll draw everyone." Umm, okay, so why does He fail? If His actual intent is to actually draw "all men" meaning "each and every" and He fails, we have another problem.
The Hebrews 6 passage is really fascinating. It is "proof" that you can lose your salvation. It's right there in black and white! If you have [been saved] (to summarize the first part) and "then have fallen away", it's clear that you lose your salvation! How is there any question? Now, remember, I'm not making arguments here for the Reformed view. I'm pointing out the problems that occur with these passages. So don't try to offer "Well, it's not really talking about saved people" or some such. I'm taking the argument from the Arminian side. If that says that saved people who fall away lose their salvation, then it also affirms something else: "It is impossible ... to restore them again to repentance." If you are going to use this passage to argue that salvation can be lost, then you must necessarily argue that, once lost, it cannot be regained. Anyone who loses their salvation is permanently and irrevocably damned. (And remember, if you try to change the "plain meaning" of the passage at this point, you're simply indulging in that which you accuse those who already disagree with your understanding of the passage.)
There are lots of passages that anti-Calvinists like to trot out to prove that Reformed theology is false and their view is right. I only wish to caution here that you might find yourself proving things you don't actually hold yourself. Beware of the arguments you make in your defense; they may end up shooting you in the foot ... or worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment