Well, you did said there were exceptions.... : ) .... that would be me and other reformed guys in this place. I doubt you would get many reformed guys here (maybe even none) to agree that "the atonement is applied by faith." Reformed people see faith as a part of the atonement and not the cause of the atonement being applied. This is actually the crux of the matter. This is the actual issue. Everything else discussed is just bobbles.
Let me explain further. Reformed people would agree that justification is by faith alone... absolutely!!! Justification by faith alone is a hill for reformed people to die on. The doctrine of Justification by faith alone is in every reformed creed. However, Reformed people do not equate the word "atonement" as equal with justification. The atonement, or shed blood of Christ did far more than justify. We see the benefits of the atonement before and after justification. Before the justification there is "prevenient grace" or "regeneration." The reformed community sees faith as the result of regeneration, not the result of sinful and rebellious man, who is in Adam and is "by nature a child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3), and suppresses the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18). Without the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, there would be no faith. Faith is caused by regeneration (1 John 5:1) or being born again and is a the result of the atonement and not the cause of it being applied.
This also has to do with "original sin" or what Calvinists call "total depravity." Since Calvinists or Reformed doctrine states that no man can come to Christ (see John 6:44). Therefore, no one can have faith. Due to original sin, we are born into a rebellion against God and the human race only suppresses the truth about God and redemption (Romans 1:18). Faith is not something that is possible for sinful men to achieve, it is a gift (Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8-9) of the Holy Spirit.
There are different understandings among Calvinists or Reformed people. This might produce some inter-Reformed discussion, but here goes!! There are some who might merely point out that John 3:16 does not actually say that the atonement is for all men, but they would agree that God loves all men. I am not one of them. I do not believe that God loves all men in a redemptive way. I would be OK with the idea God loves all men because they are his creation, because he gives them common grace. I would disagree that this is what John 3:16 is saying. John 3:16 is not speaking of common grace or loving people because the are his creation. The context is about his redemptive love. Another context about Gods redemptive love would be Romans 9:13. In that verse he hated Esau. How can God love the world (each and every person who ever lived) redemptively if he hated Esau? Would you agree that both contexts speak of God's redemptive love? If you do, then do you not have a problem? This is not a problem for me because I see limitations upon the term "world" in John 3:16. The term world can have many many different meanings in scripture. John Owen, in his book "the death of death in the death of Christ" listed quite a large group of different meanings for the term.
Now to the context of John 3:16 itself. First, it is impossible to understand the phrase "that whoever believes in him" in any universal way. It is impossible due to the grammar. When some approach the term "whoever" or "whosoever" they fail to see the limits on the term. In greek, when you have a participle following the word "all" (pas), the participle always limits the term "all." In John 3:16 the term all does not show up because it is translated by the english term "whosoever." The term "whosoever" must be understood in a limited sense. Let me illustrate. If I were to say to a room full of 10 people "whoever wants an ice cream cone come with me," we understand that there is context and a limit to the use of the term "whoever." I am not offering an ice cream cone to everyone in the world that ever lived. I am only offering an ice cream cone to the world inside the room of 10 people. That illustration only shows how the term "whosoever" can have a limited context. The greek grammar in John 3:16 requires a that we understand that the term "whosoever" be limited only to those who believe. So then, God gave his only begotten son (atonement) for the purpose of saving only those who believe.
* Also note that there is a way in greek to express the english term "whosoever" in an indefinite way that could include the whole world in the sense of it being each an every person. That would be if the particle "an" was in the sentence. Such an example is found in John 4:14. In John 4:14 the word "whosoever" is very different from the same english word in John 3:16.
* One might ask why Christ used a limited clause in John 3:16 and used the indefinite particle in John 4:14. Of course the answer is "context." In John 3:16 there is a redemptive context, and in John 4:14 Christ is making a gospel offer, but not speaking of redemption.
The idea of a redemptive world also occurs in verse 17. The world is saved (I recognize it is a conditional clause). Then in verse 18, Christ says that unbelievers are judged already! Why the term "already?" (hdh)? Because they did not believe, and faith is a part of the atonement.
This is confusing. I think you are agreeing with me that Hebrews 9:28 requires a limit to the extent to the atonement?
This gets back to something I wrote about before. You are equating two unequal covenants. In the Old Covenant, the priest had to go into the Holy of Holy's every year. Why? The same sins needed atoned for repeatedly. If the covenants were equal, Christ would need to die every year (Hebrews 9:26). Of course under the New Covenant, the true Christ died once and for all (Hebrews 9:28).
Also, more importantly, I do not think confessing the iniquities results in salvation. I would take the plural (iniquities) as referring to individual sins. While I agree that we should confess our sins (1 John 1:9, I do not see sorrow or the confession of individual sins as the same thing as faith and repentance.
I am guessing you do not see the people under the atonement of Lev 16 as saved anyway since you formerly agreed that not all Israel was saved.
I really have to stay away from this site, I have other things to do. I will be shutting it down. Maybe tomorrow I will come back.
Would hate (does hate really mean hate here?) to see you go before we are done with this discussion. I know it takes time to reply. Hopefully we are learning something from it. I'll be responding soon, probably tomorrow.
Last edited:
Upvote
0