Tag: defense

“Confronting Old Testament Controversies” by Tremper Longman III

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

Since at least the time of the Enlightenment, it has been fashionable to subject the Bible to criticism and judge it outdated and inferior to the wisdom of the age. In the last several decades, critics have used an increasingly shrill voice that was rare in previous generations. The Bible is denounced as not only inferior but evil. It runs contrary to the sexual ethics of the day. Science has freed us from a savage need for a deity. “God is not good,” the new atheists declare. And within evangelicalism, the Church is giving ground. Evangelicals are for the first time openly siding with the higher critical views espoused by liberal theologians on such matters as denying the historicity of the Exodus, seeing Genesis 1-11 as myth, and disagreeing with the violence condoned by the Old Testament God (who is claimed to be inferior than the New Testament presentation of Jesus). Some evangelical leaders are even pressing for a reinterpretation of Scripture when it comes to homosexuality.

It is against this backdrop that Dr. Tremper Longman III offers his mature reflections in Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence published by Baker Books (2019). In this important book, Longman helps the reader engage with each controversy as he traces out what the Bible says and weighs that against what both those inside and outside evangelicalism are saying. He deals with each question from a confessional standpoint and yet resists an approach that demonizes “opponents” or sees everything as a simple black-and-white matter. He is not afraid to ruffle feathers and take on the errant views of others (even his friends), but he prizes a charitable and irenic discussion that respects those who conclude differently. Personally, Longman has experienced loss of academic positions over his views (as he recounts in chapter 1) and you can tell from reading this that he has thought long and hard over these very challenging questions facing the Church today.

I will be honest, going into this book I wasn’t sure exactly where Longman was going to conclude. I agreed with him that these are the four most pressing questions surrounding the Old Testament today, yet I knew he was friends with Peter Enns who had been dismissed from Westminster Theological Seminary over his questionable views. I had also read Enns’ eye-brow raising The Evolution of Adam and was concerned with his denial of the historicity of the Exodus and dangerous views about how to understand Adam and Eve and the Fall. So when I picked up Longman, I had some reservations.

In an earlier post about this book I said, “The questions are the right questions: I am hoping Longman will give some solid answers.” I can now say that Longman literally blew me away. I appreciated his candor and forth-right treatment of each issue. Having read a lot on the creation/evolution question, and some on the other topics, I greatly benefited from Longman’s approach of unpacking what other evangelical authors are saying and interacting with them. He distanced himself from Enns on both the Fall and the historicity of the Exodus. He discussed John Walton’s views on divine violence (another friend of Longman’s whom I’ve read extensively with both appreciation and some consternation). Walton’s book The Lost World of the Canaanite Conquest presents some novel approaches to viewing violence in the Old Testament, and Longman interacted gracefully and helpfully with that approach (ultimately rejecting it). Longman’s conclusions in some respects are tentative and there are some areas where I may not completely agree with him (or wish he was perhaps more forceful), but the breadth of scope and the path that is taken in handling each issue is unmatched. I am certain his book will be a benefit to those who are being confronted with these questions. He will help you in your own grappling with these issues.

On the evolution question, Longman sides with the BioLogos position on evolution that the Bible is not directly addressing that subject, and that believers can affirm this as a mechanism used by God in creation. After discussing Genesis 1-2 and other creation accounts (Psalm 74, Proverbs 8:22-31, and Job 38:8-11) he concludes:

[W]e have… seen that the most natural reading recognizes the use of figurative language and the interaction with ancient Near Eastern creation accounts. There is no reason we should expect the Bible to provide us with a factual report of the process of creation, and it is a grave mistake to treat the opening chapters of the Bible as such a report. (p. 48)

He goes on to raise a concern over those “in the Christian community who suggest that the theory of evolution is in crisis”. They are “misleading their audiences” (p. 58). He continues:

To try to deny evolution because one is trying to defend the Bible is unnecessary because the Bible is not at odds with evolution. To do so in light of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution is putting an unnecessary obstacle to faith. (p. 59)

The natural questions that evangelicals have concerning original sin, the image of God and the historicity of Adam are carefully addressed and he takes pains to clarify his position:

Interpretations that assert that human beings created in the image of God were never morally innocent, or state that the sinfulness of human beings is an inherent trait of humanity rather than the result of human rebellion against God (thus denying a historical fall), do not take the biblical account seriously, denying an essential theological teaching of the Bible. (p. 64-65 – he sites Enns’ Evolution of Adam as one example of such interpretations).

His discussion on this question is the clearest I’ve read, and yet I still have reservations and questions. He points out the absence of the concept of “original sin” (as an inheriting of a sin nature) in the Old Testament (p. 66) and ultimately rejects the Augustinian “‘inheritance’ model (that we inherit sin from Adam like a genetic disease)” noting that “there are other ways to account for our relationship to Adam’s first sin” (p. 71, 72). He maintains that the Fall is a historical reality (p. 69), however, and affirms that “Adam and Eve’s… sin so disrupted the cosmic and social order that it is not possible for those who come after them… not to sin” (p. 72).

On the evolution question, Longman agrees with the evangelicals who are abandoning the once widely-held view of young-earth creationism (I should point out, however, that he looks to B.B. Warfield and other early evangelicals as supporting his own view). On the next three topics, though, Longman speaks for conservatism and resists a call to abandon the historic evangelical position. He holds to the essential historicity of the Bible’s narrative accounts (such as the Exodus), he upholds the Old Testament’s claim that God uses violence in His dealings with humanity, and he defends the universal witness of Christianity that considers homosexual acts as a perversion of God’s good creation design.

On each of the issues above, Longman interacts with real evangelical authors and their actual positions on these matters. He appreciates the motivations (in some cases) behind said positions, but unpacks the Scriptural witness that compels him to stay where he is. His discussion of divine violence as an important theme in both the Old and New Testaments is helpful and yet he ultimately has no satisfying answer but bows to God’s sovereignty. His thoughts on historicity are encouraging, and his charity with respect to the homosexual problem is exemplary. He does think change is needed in how we think of and interact with homosexuals, but ultimately the Bible forbids homosexual practice.

This book is not the be-all-end-all volume with regard to these matters. Nor is it presented as the “final answer” to all your questions. Instead it stands as a model of charitable Christian dialogue on important matters — and it represents an effective and helpful answer to those who take such controversial points as opportunities to abandon Christianity altogether. I cannot recommend the book highly enough. These are the questions worth asking, and better answers will be hard to find.

Learn more about the book by reading the interview of the author included here, or check out this message where Longman addresses the same themes covered in the book. You can also find more in the book detail pages listed at the end of this post.

Blurbs:
“The Old Testament is full of difficult and controversial passages. These are often read without consideration of their original, ancient cultural contexts. Dr. Tremper Longman has tackled four of the most controversial topics: evolution, history, violence, and sexuality. Rather than settling for simplistic explanations that will not hold up under genuine scrutiny, Longman has brought many years of study and scholarship to bear on these problems. In a truly marvelous way, he explains these very complex issues with a clarity that will enhance readers’ comprehension. Far from being a mere Christian apology, this book wrestles with the real issues and sheds light that brings about a full engagement. It is a pleasure to recommend this very significant volume.”
—K. Lawson Younger Jr., professor of Old Testament, Semitic languages, and ancient Near Eastern history, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread, but Tremper Longman is no fool. This book covers ground on which people can make fools of themselves, but he has been thinking for decades about the questions he discusses here. He has stayed abreast of changing views among evangelicals and knows how to keep reflecting on issues without giving up ground when he knows one needs to stand firm. if you want not-too-conservative and not-too-liberal answers to the questions he raises, you will find them here.”
—John Goldingay, David Allan Hubbard Professor Emeritus of Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary

“In this book Tremper Longman III is courageous, clear, charitable, and confessional. He is courageous in tackling subjects that arouse intense controversy as well as baffled distress. Any time I teach the Old Testament, someone will raise one or another of these issues. Longman writes with pleasurable clarity, making his deep scholarship available with lightness and warmth. His disagreements with other scholars, including evangelical friends, are expressed with respect and without vitriol. Above all he writes out of clear evangelical conviction on the inspiration, trustworthiness, and moral authority of the canon of Scripture. This book will be a blessing and resource for those wrestling with these contentious issues in honesty and faith.”
—Christopher J. H. Wright, Langham Partnership; author of Old Testament Ethics for the People of God and Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament

Where to Buy:
Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: ChristianBook.com, Amazon.com, or direct from Baker Books.

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

Book Briefs: “Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Matters” by D. G. Hart

~ Bob Hayton ~ Leave a comment

500 years ago the Reformation was transforming Europe. Politics and nation-states would be affected, but the relationship of the average Christian to the Church was forever altered. Protestant Evangelical Christians look back on the Reformation with gratitude. The Reformation recovered the Christian Gospel of grace after all. But the contemporary Church has wandered far from the faith of its fathers, and more than ever before calls for denominational unity and even ecumenical togetherness with Rome are hitting home. Secularism is a threat to Catholic and confessing Protestant alike, so why not band together? How big, after all, are the points that separate us? Didn’t the Roman Catholic Church reform in the wake of the Reformation too?

It is these questions and this concern that D. G. Hart addresses head on in his recent book Still Protesting: Why the Reformation Matters (Reformation Heritage, 2018). Hart expertly unfolds the history of the Reformation and evaluates key evangelical truths (including the important “5 Solas”) as compared to the historical Roman Catholicism of that day. He goes on to examine whether the Roman Catholic Church has truly changed in its stance on these points over time. In his case against Rome, Hart also finds liberal Protestantism and lackadaisical evangelicalism at fault as well. He argues that the Reformation is still needed and a return to the faith of our fathers may well help American Christianity as it faces its own cross-roads.

An intriguing feature of the book is his examination of conservative political theory in America in relation to “anti-Catholic” sentiment. Historically, Protestants looked at the “golden age” of America as an advance in the history of the West (almost a postmillennial viewpoint) and lauded the rise of democracy and liberty. However “Roman Catholics saw those same developments negatively, as declension from an ideal time when church, government, society, and culture coexisted harmoniously under the sacred canopy of Christian influence” (p. 152). As progressive politics moved on to promote social change and “progress” in general – Catholicism’s opposition to unfettered equality and freedom became more in-step with conservatism’s resistance to progressive politics. For those who have wanted to “dissent from the logic and momentum of progressive politics” more help is found “for political conservatism in Roman Catholic sources” (p. 159). This leads to the pain-point that Hart is addressing: many political conservatives today claim that to be a true conservative, you must become a Roman Catholic. In response, Hart points to Abraham Kuyper (an evangelical leader and Prime Minister of The Netherlands) and J. Gresham Machen (founder of Westminster Theological Seminary) as examples of Protestant contributions to conservatism.

What sparked my interest in that section of the book was his point that American Protestantism had developed a “form of patriotism that unhealthily equated the faith with democracy and liberty” (p. 159). Protestantism’s fight against Catholicism mirrored democracy’s fight against the Monarchy. The founders of our country very much fit in with this patriotic version of faith. Indeed, this patriotism must have enabled the onset of the “social gospel.” Today’s patriotic, “God and Country” version of evangelical “faith,” which is “unhealthy” and unbiblical, has a long history indeed.

Those well-versed in the Reformation are sure to find new insights and connections in the pages of this book. Readers less familiar with the Reformation will also be helped. Anyone interested in what really separates Protestants from Catholics will find this book useful. I highly recommend it.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers:
Westminster Bookstore, Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from Reformation Heritage.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).

Just Another Sin, or Abuse of the Worst Kind?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

I just read a great post by evangelical leader, Ed Stetzer, on the Jack Schaap incident. He makes a plea that we stop using the word “adultery” and instead use “abuse.” No matter which state the alleged liaison occurred in, or what the “age of consent” is, a 54 year old senior pastor is abusing a girl of 16 years when this kind of thing happens. I encourage you to read Stetzer’s post: “Call it What It Is: It’s Not Adultery. It’s Abuse.” I agree too, that we need to focus on praying for the victim in this matter.

I’m encouraged by the fact that First Baptist Church of Hammond is not defending Schaap, and has turned him over to the authorities (even if they are assuming no charges will be leveled against him). But some are defending him, or refusing to believe he is guilty. I don’t want to rush to condemn a man, as he is innocent until proven guilty. But the church is saying he has confessed to this dalliance with a 16 year old girl.

I am troubled by the fact that the church at Hammond is not bringing in a 3rd party to investigate the matter. They are using a biased party in David Gibbs. I wish they would follow the lead of ABWE in hiring a third party, like GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), which has no horse in this race, so to speak. This brings to mind my post on the lessons to be learned from Joe Paterno’s case and how Penn State handled it. Fundamental Baptists (and everyone else) need to be completely above board in handling these kinds of situations.

Even more troubling is that some are saying that this is just another sin. We should be careful not to throw a stone, we too are sinners at heart. All of that is true, but we are talking about abuse, not adultery. This is a man in a position of power, abusing his position and taking advantage of an impressionable young girl. Shouldn’t there be more outrage and less sympathy? Sure, Schaap is human and has struggles with sin, and so do we all. Schaap however chose to abuse his authority and confessed to committing this most heinous of sins. For some who pride themselves in speaking so harshly against the sins of the world, homosexuality being chief among them, it is troubling that the moral outrage expressed toward those “out there” becomes so quiet when speaking about sin done by one of our own.

In this somewhat rambling post, I wanted to share a comment that literally floored me. This was given under my post sharing the news of Schaap’s dismissal and lamenting the fact that so often there is not enough mutual accountability (it would seem) in big name IFB churches. The comment below is disturbing and troubling, to say the least. And it is the epitome of defending Schaap, or so it would seem. Before I continue, let me share the comment in full.

What amazes me the most about most of these posts is how little of God’s Word is known by the posters. A New testament church is not run by deacons – deacons (Acts 6) under the direction of the pastor. You people sound like Moses’ older bother and younger sister. God leads the leader and if the leader fouls up, it is God that takes care of that and He doesn’t need half-witted self-professed theologians to take His place in taking care of His man – not deacons, elders, you people need to understand the New Testament Church; you Mr. Burton obviously do not. Abraham (and Sarah) fouled up – it was no small thing. The whole middle East problem came from that, but God took care of Abraham and on more than one occasion, It was true with Moses, David, and all the rest of the sinners in the Bible. God took care of it. I am not justifying what Schaap has done whatever it is. However, I find no biblical precedent for a mis-trained deacon board to take it upon themselves to touch God’s anointed. A spiritual (Gal 6) man may have counseled him to resign and take time to heal in the process of restoration. You people want to stone him to death! Call me, I’ll send all of you without sin a bag of rocks to throw at him! Bunch of stinkin’ hypocrites!

[Written by R.S. Brewer.]

This seems to be a version of a concept that Jack Hyles was known to teach from time to time: the idea that we can earn enough “brownie points” with God that we are so valuable to Him, that He needs us. God needs His man, so He’ll excuse this sin and that because He sees the man really has a heart for God, in spite of the sin. This is very dangerous thinking. The New Testament does not condone this mentality. Read the book of Hebrews. We can’t play with fire, and there are very clear qualifications given for leaders in the New Testament. Furthermore, it is a misunderstanding of church government. The church has responsibility collectively to hold their leaders in check. Such a top-down approach is unBiblical when applied to a church. The Church is not a state, and not the equal of the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament.

In conclusion, we must ask ourselves: “Is Jack Schaap’s sin just a run-of-the-mill moral failure? Or is it abuse of the worst kind?” We can’t dance around the bush here, we must call it what it is. If new facts come out which exonerate Schaap, then we will stand corrected, but if we take FBC Hammond’s word (and we have no reason not to), than we have to conclude that Schaap is guilty of the most heinous of sins for any pastor to commit, and whether or not he is convicted in a court of law, and whether his actions were technically legal or not, his abuse disqualifies him from holding the office of a pastor, ever again. If this action doesn’t mar the “good report” of those without that a pastor must have, I don’t know what does.

Schaap can still repent, restore his marriage, and live for Jesus. He can have meaningful ministry service in a church, but he should not be a pastor ever again. Let’s be clear on that.

John Piper on Limited Atonement

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

In reading through Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011), I came across a section where Piper clearly explains his view of “limited atonement”. He says something to this effect elsewhere, I believe, but the section as found in this book is very helpful. I recommend Piper’s booklet length explanation of the five points of Calvinism as perhaps the best introduction to Reformed theology available for a layperson. His booklet was very instrumental in my conversion to a Reformed viewpoint.

Anyway, what follows is most of Piper’s explanation and defense of “limited atonement” from Bloodlines, his latest book:

————————————-

Hand in glove with the doctrine of our disabling depravity is the doc­trine of God’s effective purchase of his people on the cross. The reason it’s like hand and glove is that our inability because of sin calls for a kind of redemption that does more than offer us a forgiveness we don’t have the ability to receive. Rather, it calls for a redemption that effectively purchases not only our forgiveness but also our willingness to receive it. In other words, the unwilling glove of depravity calls for the insertion of a powerful hand of ability-giving redemption.

Sometimes this doctrine is called “limited atonement.” It’s not a helpful term. Better would be the terms definite atonement or particular redemption. The reason limited atonement isn’t helpful is that, in fact, the doctrine affirms more, not less, about Christ’s work in redemption than its rival view called “unlimited atonement.”

The view of unlimited atonement takes all the passages that say the death of Christ is “for us” (Rom. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10), or for his own “sheep” (John 10:11, 15), or for “the church” (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25), or for “the children of God” (John 11:52), or for “those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14) and makes them refer to all human beings. In this “unlimited atonement” view, the sentence “Christ died for you” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.

Now as far as it goes, this seems to me to be biblical teaching— salvation is offered to all because of Christ. But then this view denies something that I think the Bible teaches. It denies that Christ died for his church—his bride (Eph. 5:25)—in any way different from the way he died for unbelievers who never come to faith.

There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe. Moreover, I have no dispute with saying that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you will have eternal life.”

The dispute rather is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things—more than (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide offer of blood-bought salvation to every person on the planet. Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Eph. 2:8) and repentance (2 Tim. 2:25)? Did the blood of Jesus obtain not only the benefits that come after faith but also the gift of faith itself?

We want to be biblical. Does the unlimited atonement interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contra­dict this more that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ—texts like John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; and 1 John 2:1–2?

I don’t think so…

…The fact that God makes salvation possible for all through the blood of Christ does not contradict the view that God does more than that through the death of Christ. I don’t affirm that God does less but that he does more. He actually secures the salvation of his chosen people. He secures all the grace needed for their salvation, including the grace of regeneration and faith.

Paul says in Ephesians 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This was a particular redemption. Christ had his bride in view differently than he had all in view. He knew his bride, and he wanted his bride, and he bought his bride. Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He said, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you [Father] have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). He said, “And for their sake I consecrate myself [to die], that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19). In other words, Christ had a specific design in his death for the sake of his people—the cross would be sufficient for the salvation of the world, but efficient for his sheep, his bride.

And Paul carried through this understanding of Christ’s work when he said in Romans 8:32–33, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” God’s elect in verse 33 are the same as the “us all” in verse 32. This group, he says, will most surely receive “all things.” God will see to it. And the reason Paul gives is that Christ did not spare his own Son but gave him up “for us all.” That means that the giving of the Son guarantees all the blessings of the elect.

This does not limit the extent of what the atonement offers. The benefits of the atonement are offered to everyone. If you believe on Christ, they are all yours. But “the Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). For them, for his bride, he is securing something that can­not fail—their faith and their justification and their glorification. Those for whom he died, in this fullest sense, will most certainly obtain all things—they will finally inherit the kingdom of God. His death is infal­libly effective for the elect.

–pg. 136-138, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011)

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.