John 3:16 Support for Limited Atonement

[rhutchin]

The concept of limited atonement is based on this explicit Biblical truth:

"As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." -- John :10:15.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. . . ." -- John 10:27-28.

For a more exhaustive treatment of limited atonement, one can read Book I of John Owens, Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Probably take about 30 minutes.

Read it here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html

[dacristoy]

God created Adam and then allowed Adam to be tested knowing that Adam would sin thrusting everyone into unbelief. God then sent Christ to save some - those who believe in him. God knew who would believe in Christ and who would not even as He allowed Satan to enter the garden to tempt A/E.

The BIG issue between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is explaining how only some believe and not all and the part that God plays in that outcome.

Closer to the truth is this: God created Adam and chose to allow him to choose between obedience and disobedience...

[rhutchin]

...God created Adam and chose to allow him to choose between obedience and disobedience...

I agree. At the same time, God knew how Adam would choose. When God created the world, history began to play out exactly as God knew it would - God had ordained it all in creating the world.

[37818]

For a more exhaustive treatment of limited atonement, one can read Book I of John Owens, Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Probably take about 30 minutes.

Read it here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.html

That is an importain work on the topic. Nevertheless, I do not come to his conclusion.

I am persuaded that Christ died for all to either secure their salvation or to be their Judge:

". . . For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. . . . for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God." -- Romans 14:9-11 ASV.

". . . Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." -- Philippians 2:9-11 ASV.

"For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, . . ." -- Titus 2:11 ASV.

". . . and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world." -- 1 John 2:2 ASV.

John Owen who stands against the view of general redemption, actually quipped in his TO THE READER, "What purpose does a general ransom serve, except to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for countless souls whom he will not allow to benefit from a single drop of it? And so, in respect to them, his blood is spilt in vain, or it is shed for them only to damn them more deeply."

[dacristoy]

I agree. At the same time, God knew how Adam would choose. When God created the world, history began to play out exactly as God knew it would - God had ordained it all in creating the world.

God knew how Adam would choose, or did God choose for him...
What do you mean, God had ordained it.

[37818]

Here is an interesting explainitory paragraph, page 172,

But now, this being so made known unto them by the Spirit, and that the time was come
wherein the little sister was to be considered, the prodigal brought home, and Japheth persuaded
to dwell in the tents of Shem, they laboured by all means to root it out of the minds
of their brethren according to the flesh, of whom they had a special care; — as also, to leave
no scruple in the mind of the eunuch, that he was a dry tree; or of the Gentile, that he was
cut off from the people of God. To which end they use divers general expressions, carrying
a direct opposition to that former error, which was absolutely destructive to the kingdom
of Jesus Christ. Hence are those terms of the world, all men, all nations, every creature, and
the like, used in the business of redemption and preaching of the gospel; these things being
not restrained, according as they supposed, to one certain nation and family, but extended
to the universality of God’s people scattered abroad in every region under heaven. Especially
are these expressions used by John, who, living to see the first coming of the Lord, in that
fearful judgment and vengeance which he executed upon the Jewish nation some forty years
after his death, is very frequent in the asserting of the benefit of the world by Christ, in opposition,
as I said before, to the Jewish nation, — giving us a rule how to understand such
phrases and locutions: John xi. 51, 52, “He signified that Jesus should die for that nation;
and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of
God that were scattered abroad;” conformably whereunto he tells the believing Jews that
Christ is not a propitiation for them only, “but for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John ii.
2, or the people of God scattered throughout the whole world, not tied to any one nation,
as they sometime vainly imagined. And this may and doth give much light into the sense
and meaning of those places where the words world and all are used in the business of redemption.
They do not hold out a collective universality, but a general distribution into
men of all sorts, in opposition to the before-recounted erroneous persuasion.

The premise being, what was written to Jewish Christians. And the commission to reach the gentile nations with the gospel.

[rhutchin]

...God knew how Adam would choose. When God created the world, history began to play out exactly as God knew it would - God had ordained it all in creating the world.

God knew how Adam would choose, or did God choose for him...
What do you mean, God had ordained it.

As we see in the example of Job, Satan cannot touch Job except God decides (ordains) that he should. Only as God decides can Satan act. Thus, Satan cannot enter the garden to tempt Adam/Eve unless God decides (ordains) that he should do so. When Satan interacts with Adam/Eve, God is standing there watching everything that happens. God is continually dealing with decisions whether to intervene to prevent what He sees happening and force a different conclusion (i.e, to prevent Adam/Eve sinning) or to do nothing and allow natural events to reach their natural conclusion (i.e., that Adam/Eve eat the fruit). It is God who decides (ordains) every event down to the movement of every atom and molecule involved. While God ordains everything that happens, it is not necessary that God cause everything that happens.

[rhutchin]

Here is an interesting explainitory paragraph, page 172,

But now, this being so made known unto them by the Spirit, and that the time was come
wherein the little sister was to be considered, the prodigal brought home, and Japheth persuaded
to dwell in the tents of Shem, they laboured by all means to root it out of the minds
of their brethren according to the flesh, of whom they had a special care; — as also, to leave
no scruple in the mind of the eunuch, that he was a dry tree; or of the Gentile, that he was
cut off from the people of God. To which end they use divers general expressions, carrying
a direct opposition to that former error, which was absolutely destructive to the kingdom
of Jesus Christ. Hence are those terms of the world, all men, all nations, every creature, and
the like, used in the business of redemption and preaching of the gospel; these things being
not restrained, according as they supposed, to one certain nation and family, but extended
to the universality of God’s people scattered abroad in every region under heaven. Especially
are these expressions used by John, who, living to see the first coming of the Lord, in that
fearful judgment and vengeance which he executed upon the Jewish nation some forty years
after his death, is very frequent in the asserting of the benefit of the world by Christ, in opposition,
as I said before, to the Jewish nation, — giving us a rule how to understand such
phrases and locutions: John xi. 51, 52, “He signified that Jesus should die for that nation;
and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of
God that were scattered abroad;” conformably whereunto he tells the believing Jews that
Christ is not a propitiation for them only, “but for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John ii.
2, or the people of God scattered throughout the whole world, not tied to any one nation,
as they sometime vainly imagined. And this may and doth give much light into the sense
and meaning of those places where the words world and all are used in the business of redemption.
They do not hold out a collective universality, but a general distribution into
men of all sorts, in opposition to the before-recounted erroneous persuasion.

The premise being, what was written to Jewish Christians. And the commission to reach the gentile nations with the gospel.

John Owen seemed to enjoy writing complicated sentences. I like his opening to Book IV (of which your citation is included in the argument). I have edited it to make for easier reading)

There being sundry places in holy Scripture wherein the ransom and propitiation made
by the blood of Christ is set forth in general and indefinite expressions;

(as also a fruitlessness or want of success in respect of some, through their own default, for
whom he died, seemingly intimated; with general proffers, promises, and exhortations,
made for the embracing of the fruits of the death of Christ, even to them who do never
actually perform it,)

— whence some have taken occasion to maintain a universality of redemption, equally respecting all and
every one,

(and that with great confidence, affirming that the contrary opinion cannot possibly
be reconciled with those places of Scripture wherein the former things are proposed;) —

these three heads being the only fountains from whence are drawn (but with violence) all
the arguments that are opposed to the peculiar effectual redemption of the elect only,)
I shall,

(before I come to the answering of objections arising from a wrested interpretation of particular
places,)

lay down some such fundamental principles

(as are agreeable to the word, and largely held forth in it, and no way disagreeable to our
judgment in this particular,)

which do and have given occasion to those general and indefinite affirmations as they are
laid down in the word, and upon which they are founded, having their truth in them, and
not in a universal ransom for all and every one;

(with some distinctions conducing to the farther clearing of the thing in question, and
waiving of many false imputations of things and consequences, erroneously or maliciously
imposed on us.)

By "three heads," Owen refers to the three basic arguments advanced against particular redemption-

First, Those places that affirm that Christ died for the world, or that otherwise make
mention of the word world in the business of redemption.

Secondly, Those that mention all and every man, either in the work of Christ’s dying
for them, or where God is said to will their salvation.

Thirdly, Those which affirm Christ bought or died for them that perish.

Hence they draw out three principal arguments or sophisms, on which they much insist.

[phat8594]

Anybody else aware of the New Revised Calvin Translation?....it looks to be a paraphrase...



John 3:16-21 (The New Revised Calvin Translation)
For God so loved His own glory that He sent his only begotten son so that whomever he had chosen before the foundation of the earth with no respect to faith would not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His son into the world to save the world, but to save only the elect. Whoever believes in Him only does so because he was chosen not to be condemned before the foundation of the world; but whoever does not believe is condemned because God's wrath is so great that His wrath could not be satisfied by Christ alone so He chose not to save the reprobate so that they could burn in hell eternally for the glory and satisfaction of His wrath.

This is the verdict; light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because God is glorified more by their evil deeds than by Him saving them. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and they will not come into the light because God chose to keep them in darkness. But whoever is irresistibly chosen by God comes into he light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done because they were predestined to do so by the limited and irresistible grace of God.



I obviously say this tongue in cheek -- However, it does seem to me that this 'paraphrase' represents the way many calvinists interpret the text...

[dacristoy]

Anybody else aware of the New Revised Calvin Translation?....it looks to be a paraphrase...



John 3:16-21 (The New Revised Calvin Translation)
For God so loved His own glory that He sent his only begotten son so that whomever he had chosen before the foundation of the earth with no respect to faith would not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His son into the world to save the world, but to save only the elect. Whoever believes in Him only does so because he was chosen not to be condemned before the foundation of the world; but whoever does not believe is condemned because God's wrath is so great that His wrath could not be satisfied by Christ alone so He chose not to save the reprobate so that they could burn in hell eternally for the glory and satisfaction of His wrath.

This is the verdict; light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because God is glorified more by their evil deeds than by Him saving them. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and they will not come into the light because God chose to keep them in darkness. But whoever is irresistibly chosen by God comes into he light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done because they were predestined to do so by the limited and irresistible grace of God.



I obviously say this tongue in cheek -- However, it does seem to me that this 'paraphrase' represents the way many calvinists interpret the text...

It is one thing to interpret text, it is something awfully different to impose ones belief upon the texts, This is an awful disrespectful way to treat the word of God..

[rhutchin]

It is one thing to interpret text, it is something awfully different to impose ones belief upon the texts, This is an awful disrespectful way to treat the word of God..

When devoid of argument, obfuscate.

[dacristoy]

When devoid of argument, obfuscate.

When wrong, post it anyway.

[phat8594]

It is one thing to interpret text, it is something awfully different to impose ones belief upon the texts, This is an awful disrespectful way to treat the word of God..

I agree -- and yet this seems to be what many Calvinists implicitly must gather from the text to suit their theology.

[rhutchin]

I agree -- and yet this seems to be what many Calvinists implicitly must gather from the text to suit their theology.

Hardly. Take the verse under consideration. It says - "...God gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Christ should not perish,..." That is a statement of fact. It says nothing about those not believing in Christ. It says nothing about how people come to the place where they are believing. God did not give His son for unbelievers and you cannot claim that He did based on this verse.

[phat8594]

Hardly. Take the verse under consideration. It says - "...God gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Christ should not perish,..." That is a statement of fact. It says nothing about those not believing in Christ. It says nothing about how people come to the place where they are believing. God did not give His son for unbelievers and you cannot claim that He did based on this verse.

And what part of the New Calvin Revised version did you disagree with?


After all, the verses clearly said that God loved the world -- and that He sent Christ to save the world through Him. Seems clear to me. Reading Calvinistic limited atonement into these verses is not only unwarranted - but dangerous as it changes the clear meaning of the Word of God.