Tag: debate

Brotherly Reconciliation: Steve Camp's Humble Embrace of Mark Driscoll

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

I get leery of blog wars. Some are unavoidable. And I’m sure I’ve contributed to some that were.

A figrue who is especially polarizing in the Biblioblogosphere is Mark Driscoll. His edgy comments and modern methods make conservative evangelicals and especially fundamentalists nervous. But for all the hype that flows from Christian keyboards about him, you could think he was the antichrist of Seattle.

I’ve been careful in listening to his messages, and haven’t really done much of that. But the more I listen to him, the more I respect his wisdom and the more I benefit from his messages. That’s not to say I would imitate every expression he uses, but even then, the word on the street doesn’t quite match what actually is heard when you give him an honest hearing. For instance his recent series on the Song of Solomon was beyond excellent: very practical and helpful on the family and marriage (obviously). I listened to all the messages and some of the Q & A which followed them and there were only a couple times where I thought his illustration was a little inappropriate. Most of the time he was very low key and reserved when the opportunity was there for him to score points if he was trying to use sexual humor to his benefit. All in all it was appropriate for church, all the more so when one considers how few pastors even cover this book of the Bible in their ministries.

I say all that to set the stage for a wonderful blog post by Steven Camp, who has often been a critic of Driscoll. Steve humbly admits wrong, apologizes, and gives a positive assessment of Driscoll’s ministry. He models a Christ-like attitude. He doesn’t necessarily dismiss any previous concerns he had about Driscoll’s ministry, but he has a much more informed and appreciative view of Mark now.

I can’t do justice to the article. I just strongly encourage you to read it. Praise Christ that our union with Him is bigger than the occasional blog war. Let’s be sure the world wide webbers watching us Christians see more examples of this Christian humility and gracious deferment! That would be to the praise and glory of our dear Savior.

Why "Limited Atonement" (part 2)

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

I apologize for not picking up my limited atonement series sooner. The holidays plus a couple bouts of illness intervened.

I’m not optimistic enough to think in the next few posts I’ll answer all of everyone’s questions on this topic. I’ll still have more research to do and questions of my own, I’m sure. What I hope to do, however, is to explain where Calvinists are coming from in this whole matter of “Limited Atonement”, and I hope to show that even if you disagree with our conclusions, there are strong Biblical arguments for our position.

Points of Agreement

In this debate, its important to remember where we are on the same page. Most non-Calvinists agree with the 5 point Calvinists in many respects regarding the atonement.

1) We agree that Christ died to secure salvation for all who would believe in Him.

2) We agree that not all people will believe in Jesus; therefore, many will sadly perish ultimately in Hell.

3) We agree that Christ’s death provides the basis for the global mission of preaching the gospel to all. Everyone has a bonafide offer of salvation in the gospel, because of Christ’s death.

4) We also agree that because of Christ’s death, mercy (common grace) is given to all men such that God does not consume those who sin instantly. Rather, he gives them innumerable good things to enjoy in this life. God is freed up to do this because Jesus’ death proves that God is just.

Here we see a great degree of agreement. Without actually saying Christ died for all, Calvinists nevertheless believe all benefit from His death. Setting aside that semantic quibble, Calvinists basically affirm all the main things non-Calvinists affirm about the atonement. (We’ll deal with the non-Calvnist reasons for insisting on death for all, and their logical objections to the Calvinist view in future posts.)

Calvinist’s add one additional point

Calvinists go further, however, and affirm the following.

5) Christ’s death not only makes salvation possible for all who would believe, it actually purchases the very faith by which the elect believe. It does so because by his death, Jesus actually propititated God’s wrath for the elect and suffered in their place.

In short, we believe that the elect were in God’s mind all along with his designs for the atonement. He had called them from the beginning of the world, and it is consistent with Scripture and reason that he would see his death as effecting their salvation particularly. We all believe in a substitutionary atonement, in this view, however, Christ actually substituted for specific people, the elect.

In the next post I hope to provide the Biblical support that Calvinists have for this claim. Then I’ll try to interact with objections to that view and the support for the typical non-Calvinist evangelical position.

Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

Recently, a dear brother in Christ posted a lengthy rebuke of limited atonement as a comment on my blog. I promised him a response and thought I’d share the exchange here for the benefit of my readers. Feel free to read his original comment. This is the first part of my response to his concerns.

A Widespread Concern

Many Christians are very concerned over the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. To them, the very words “limited atonement” imply something totally foreign to Scripture — that Christ’s atonement is limited. Christ’s power isn’t, neither is His love. Worse yet, there are many verses which seem to teach that God loves all and wants all to be saved, and that Jesus suffered and died for all. So Calvinism then, is unscriptural and dangerous in that it teaches Christ’s power is limited.

The motivation behind the above conclusion is commendable. Scripture is more important than any system of belief and Christ’s power is not limited. Such points are important to defend. The problem comes from the basis of the above conclusion. Most Christians who object to Calvinism on this point do not understand what it is that Calvinism is actually teaching by means of the words “limited atonement”.

The Cavlinist Concern

Before I explain what Calvinists affirm by this doctrine, I want to point out something very pertinent to this debate. The very Christians who claim Calvinism limits the atonement, limit the atonement themselves. They admit that not all are saved finally. This admission teaches that the atonement Christ performed did not have complete saving results for all people. And since it was done for all people alike, then it is incomplete in the sense that people must respond and believe to finish the work of the atonement. So, in effect, Christ really didn’t save anyone in particular. He merely made salvation possible for everyone.

The Calvinist View of The Atonement

This is where Calvinists part ways with the idea of unlimited atonement. When we think about atonement, we see men as dead sinners totally in need of a Savior. Every thought of our hearts are vile and we do not even have the ability to please God in any way. Yet God in his mercy chose a people for his sake to glorify his name. He is cleansing and purifying that people and he has given them as a bride to his Son. His Son keeps them and will not lose any the Father has given him. It is for these and these alone that Jesus in his High Priestly role prays (John 17:9, 12). It is this flock that he keeps and guides. And if one is not part of the flock they will not believe (John 10:26). It is for these– his people, the many– that Christ lays down his life (John 10:11; Matt. 1:21; 26:28). He purchased his church with his blood (Acts 20:28), and he died for the purification of his bride (Eph. 5:25-26). He didn’t also purchase the non-church and die to purify the non-bride.

For salvation to occur, sins need to be paid for and the penalty used up. God’s wrath needs to be spent on a substitute, that it might be propitiated. The condemned need someone to die in their place, instead of them. Once such a substitutionary death takes place, there remains no more penalty for sins. Such a sacrifice purchases the sinner and buys him back from death’s domain. That blessed man has been saved.

Faith is still necessary, but such faith is a gift of God. The sinner is an enemy of God and hostile to God. He wants no part of God. What makes his anger towards God cease? How can his dead heart start living by faith? How can his unborn existence become born into new life? The Spirit graciously applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrificial work in the hearts of the elect causing them to awake and instantaneously believe in Christ. To be alive is to have been born, and to be spiritually alive is to have been regenerated. Spiritual life is not possible without faith. And faith is not possible for the non-elect. When the Gospel is preached, the elect ones respond in belief by the working of the Spirit. And the miracle of salvation is seen by all.

Are we co-operators with God in our salvation? He dies for us and just stands at our heart’s door meekly knocking hoping we’ll believe? Or is he the one who comes to the tomb or our hearts shouting “Lazarus come forth!”

The Real Question

So at the end of the day, both groups limit the atonement in some sense. The question in my mind should center on what we mean by “atonement”. After the break here, I’ll provide an excerpt from an earlier post I did on this topic, and offer some other links to help people understand just how Calvinism impacts evangelism, and why I see strong scriptural warrant for the postions of Calvinism.

The following quote is from my post: “Who’s Limiting the Atonement?”

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference””Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

Additional Resources

“Beyond Creation Science” by Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn

~ Bob Hayton ~ 11 Comments

Beyond Creation Science, click to view on Amazon.com
Authors: Timothy P. Martin & Jeffrey L. Vaughn
Format: Softcover
Page Count: 527
Publisher: Apocalyptic Vision Press
Publication Date: 3rd edition, 2007
ISBN: 0979914701
Rating: 2 of 5 stars

I want to thank Timothy Martin for providing me with a complimentary review copy of his book, Beyond Creation Science. It was a pleasure to read and interact with this book.

It’s a rare book that aims to confront its readers thinking and challenge their deep set assumptions and beliefs on an important topic. In Beyond Creation Science, Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn attempt to do this on two fronts, with the young-earth / old-earth creationism debate and end-times theology (eschatology). With such a daunting aim, it would be surprising if the book succeeded in both goals with every reader.

While the book did not overturn my thinking completely on both ends of the Bible, it did stretch my mind and give me cause to evaluate what I believe in light of the Bible’s entire teaching. The authors present their case well in a coherent manner, and they deserve a hearing.

The work is subtitled “New covenant creation from Genesis to Revelation”, and the authors do succeed in convincing the reader that Genesis and Revelation are inextricably linked. How one thinks and interprets Genesis directly impacts how he thinks of eschatology and Revelation.

A strength of the book is its stress on biblical theology–seeing all of Scripture in light of the redemptive story. I also share a suspicion of dispensationalism with its authors. I found their claim–that the same scientifically literal approach, championed by dispensationalists, which results in a full-fledged futuristic approach to Revelation (pre-trib, premillennialism) also leads them to subscribe to young-earth creationism–convincing.

While I am not completely convinced of old-earth creationism, this book certainly gave me more respect for that view. The authors show how young-earth creationism, was in large part advanced after the threat of Darwinism surfaced, and with the benefit of dispensational hermeneutics. I was shocked to learn that the hugely influential book The Genesis Flood (by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris), was based to a large degree on an earlier work by a Seventh Day Adventist (who would certainly be biased toward a literal 24-hour day view of the creation week), one George McCready Price who wrote The New Geology in 1923.

What was especially fascinating for me was the authors defense of a local flood view. I’ve always just assumed the flood was global. The evidence does seem quite compelling when you examine the terminology used and some of the Biblical and scientific questions which arise when one holds to a global flood. In our scientific age we are biased to see global-sounding terms as unequivocally global. In days gone by, that is not how such terms were understood, and this book explains why.

Another interesting element in the book was the discussion of the antediluvian lifespans. The book shows how it was only Seth’s descendants who were said to have long ages. It also points to millennial lifespans mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation and concludes the biblical ideal life is one thousand years old.

I must admit I was wary of this book’s advocacy of full preterism. I had hardly been exposed to partial preterism before reading this, so full preterism was hard to swallow. In one sense I can see the evidence for partial preterism (the view that the Olivet Discourse has largely been fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). But as the arguments were pressed further for a full preterist view that the resurrection is solely spiritual (i.e. regeneration), and the new heaven and new earth are fulfilled in a Christian’s existence today, I had to balk. In Acts, the angels say Jesus will return visibly like the disciples saw him go into heaven, and in John 14, Jesus says he’s building a place for us and will come back to bring us to be with him. These are just two passages which in my mind directly contradict a full preterist view.

To be honest, this book is not attempting a full fledged defense of full preterism. The book focuses more on Genesis than Revelation. And it doesn’t attempt to answer all the counter arguments for both issues. It aims to show how one’s views of prophecy influence one’s views of creation and the flood. It succeeds in that respect.

I found the book fascinating but remain unconvinced. Often I thought the argumentation was somewhat weak. Authors were quoted as if simply providing their quote proved the point. When trying to disprove the notion that death could not exist before the Fall, the book did not adequately deal with some of the key theological and exegetical supports for that view. This being said, I can understand many of the Biblical arguments for these views now. I can appreciate the authors’ desire to follow Scripture wherever it leads. This is what all of us should aim to do. And to that end, studying out the claims of preterism and evaluating them Biblically is no waste of time.

I would recommend Bible students read this book. But I would caution them against the full preterist view. It runs counter to the historic church creeds and seems to deny some important truths. At the least be wary of it and do more research before adopting that view as your own.

Disclaimer: this book was provided by the author for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to provide a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from beyondcreationscience.com.

"A Persuasive to Unity in Things Indifferent" by Thomas Manton

~ fundyreformed ~ 16 Comments

manton.gifIn light of Nine Marks‘ recent e-journal on unity and separation, and in light of recent discussions on my blog over the legitimacy of unifying around fundamentals of the faith, I thought I would share some lengthy excerpts from a sermon by the Puritan Thomas Manton (1620-1677).

I was directed to this sermon in this Sharper Iron thread. I did a quick Google search, and came across links to all of his works available online. And so I found the sermon online in volume 2 of his 22-volume complete works.

Without further comment, let me present these extracts from the sermon (all bolded emphasis is mine).

“A Persuasive to Unity in Things Indifferent”

Phil. 3:15, “As many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”

I now come to the other part of the text [this is his second sermon on this verse]: —

1. As many as be perfect be thus minded: touto froneite, think the same thing with me–that is, forsaking all other confidences, cleave to Christ alone, whatever it cost you. Mind this, take care of this, be thus affected; let us actually perform that to which circumcision was designed; let us worship God in a spiritual manner, trusting Christ as the substance of all these ceremonial shadows, depending upon him for his renewing and reconciling grace, and adhering to pure Christianity, without mingling with it the rudiments of Moses.

2. If in anything ye be otherwise minded, know not the abolition of the ceremonies through weakness of faith, or an affected ignorance; yet having knowledge of so many saving truths, we hope in time God will reclaim you from your error. Well then–

[1.] Here is a difference or dissent supposed: “thus minded,” and “otherwise minded.”

[2.] Lenity [that is, leniency] expressed toward the dissenters: “If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this to you.”

Doct. That when God’s people are divided in opinion, all lenity and mutual forbearance should be used to prevent things from coming to an open rupture.

So sweet and mild was the discipline in the apostle’s days, that he would not compel men to do whatever he or others did conceive to be good, or to forbear what they did conceive to be evil, but, without force, leave them to God’s direction and illumination….

1. What lenity and forbearance should be used. Let us state it in these considerations: —

[1.] There may be, and often are, differences of opinion about lesser things in the church; partly because of different degrees of light. All barks that sail to heaven draw not a like depth of water. And partly because of the remainders of corruption in all. Inordinate self-love is not in all alike broken and mortified, and so their particular interests have an influence upon their opinions. And partly because of the accidental prejudices of education and converse, etc.

[2.] When these differences arise, we should take care they come not to a rupture and open breach. This is the course the apostle taketh here; he doth not by and by despair of the dissenters, and reject them as heretics, but beareth with them, hoping in charity God will at length reveal their error to them by the ministry of his servants, through the powerful operation of his Spirit, and not suffer them to run on in dividing courses from the rest of his people. So should we do in like cases. Partly because when these differences of opinion breed division and separations, the church is destroyed: Gal. 5:15, “For if ye bite and devour one another, take heed ye be not consumed one of another.”… Partly because the whole is scandalised: John 17:21, “That they may all be one, that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” Divisions in the church breed atheism in the world…. And partly because when men give themselves up to separating and narrow principles, the power of godliness is lost, and all their zeal is laid out upon their petty and private opinions, and so religion is turned into a disputacity. That is the reason why the apostle doth so often tell them, Gal. 6:15, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;” and gal. 5:6, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love;” and 1 Cor. 7:19, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments of God.” Observe it where you will, and you shall find that separation and distance from the rest of believers, doth not befriend godliness, but undermine it. A regiment fighting apart from the rest of the army of Christ, is always lost through their own peevishness; at least, they lose great advantages of promoting the kingdom of Christ.

[3.] To prevent this open rupture, there must be all lenity used and mutual forbearance. We must not rigourously obtrude our conceits upon others, either by church-power, or private censure….

…for want of right stating of things, men fight with their friends in the dark; some think all things should be suffered; some nothing wherein to bear with our brethren. The one sort of Christians is for imposing on their brethren all things that have gotten the vogue and the favour of authority, and that not only on their practice, but their judgments too; and this in matters not fundamental or destructive to faith or worship, but in things controversial or doubtful among godly and peaceable men. But if it should not go so high, contending about every difference of opinion, and urging our brethren with everything we conceive to be right, is a breach of Christian love, and destroyeth the use of those differing gifts which Christ hath given to the church, and crosseth his mind in the frame of the scriptures, which are clear in soul-saving matters; in other things, especially matters of discipline and order, more dark and obscure. It is also contrary to the mild and gentle government of the apostles, who press in lesser matters a forbearance; as Paul, Rom. 14:1, “The weak in faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations;” receive him, own him, but do not cast him out of the church, nor trouble him for doubtful things, but let him come to himself, for men will sooner be led than drawn.

The other extreme is of them that will have all things to be tolerated, even blasphemy and fundamental errors, as if the scriptures were uncertain in all things. No; in things absolutely necessary to salvation, it is clear, open, and plain: “The law is a lamp, and a light,” Prov. 6:23 and Ps. 119:105. And in such a case we are not to “bid him God-speed,” 2 Jn. 10. In such cases of damnable heresy, the law of Christian lenity [the state or quality of being lenient] holdeth not; but if we agree in the principal articles of faith, let us embrace one another with mutual love, though we differ from one another in variety of rites and ceremonies and discipline ecclesiastical. If we agree in the substantials of worship, let us go by the same rule, do the same thing: though in circumstantials there be a difference, these are matters of less moment than separation, or the other division of the church….

…If you will not own yourselves weak, do the part of the strong meekly, hold forth your light, produce your reasons to convince others; but if you have nothing to produce but your obstinacy and ignorance, surely you are not only a weak, but a perverse brother. But what are the weak to do? Not to rend and cut off themselves from the rest of Christians, or be strange to them upon every lesser dissent, nor to raise troubles by your censures, but to be humble, teachable, diligent in the use of means, to lay aside obstinate prejudices, to examine how it cometh to pass that the rest of the godly and you differ; to leave room still for the discovery of God’s mind where your grounds are not clear and certain, and to count it no shame to retract that former practice which a future conviction disproveth.…

[After discussing the many ways the church is “one” listed in Eph. 4, he continues:] He is the common Father of all believers, through Jesus Christ. Some are weak, some strong, some rich, some poor, but they have all an equal interest in God. Now, for us, who are so many ways one, to be rent in pieces, how sad is that! All these places, and many more, show how every Christian should, as far as it is possible, be an esteemer and promoter of unity among brethren, and not only make conscience of purity, but of unity also, which, next to purity, is the great badge of Christianity….

…A grounded Christian beareth with the infirmities he seeth in others, and pitieth and helpeth them, and prayeth for them more than the weak, who are usually most censorious and addicted to the interest of their party and faction in the world, and make a bustle about opinions rather than solid godliness; but the grown Christian is most under the power of love and a heavenly mind, and so loveth God and his neighbour, is most sensible of his own frailty, hath a greater zeal for the welfare of his church and interest in the world, and seeth farther than others do….

…Consider how dangerous it is to reject any whom Christ will own for his. Will Christ admit him to heaven, and will you think him unfit for your communion here upon earth? Despise not the weak brother, for god hath received him, Rom. 14:3….

…Our endeavours after unity among the professors of Christianity ought to be earnest and constant: Eph 4:3, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” I add this partly because many make fair pretences of peace and union, which their practice contradicteth; all cry out of the divisions, but every one keepeth them up; and partly, because when it is endeavoured we shall find difficulties and disappointments, but we must not rest in some careless endeavours, nor grow weary though we meet not with present success; and partly because the instruments of so great a good are usually sacrificed to the wrath of both parties. We must be content to digest affronts, reproaches, censures, and injuries, and love them that hate us: 2 Cor. 12:15, “Though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am beloved of you.”

These quote come from this online version of Volume 2 of Thomas Manton’s complete works, edited by Thomas Smith (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), pages 67 – 78. Picture borrowed from this Thomas Manton page.