Recap: In the last post we tackled a common question often posed by Calvinists to non-Calvinists: How can a dead person bring himself to life?
We looked at Ephesians 2:1, often cited as a proof-text for the argument that, since the Fall, man is "dead", unable to respond to God in any positive way without an action (irresistible grace) from God to bring him to life. The Calvinists ask, "How can a man who is 'dead like Lazarus' bring himself to life?"
I concluded that of all the ways in which the term "dead" is used in the Bible, the only one that cannot possibly represent Paul's intended meaning in Ephesians 2:1, is the "dead like Lazarus" interpretation. I expressed the opinion that Paul was using the term "dead" to convey that the saints in Ephesus were at one time living in temporary spiritual darkness caused by their sin, separated from Christ ... having no hope and without God in the world (Eph 2:12) - more akin to "dead like the prodigal son" than to "dead like Lazarus."
Vexing Question #3
Today we'll look at one final question often posed by the Calvinist that has befuddled the non-Calvinist for centuries. I'm calling this the "granddaddy" of all such vexing questions because it poses a very challenging dilemma (trilemma, actually) for those who believe that Jesus died for all sins of all people. This will take a bit of thinking to fully grasp the implication posed by the question, so be prepared to put on your thinking cap.
First, a bit of background. This question was originally posed by Dr. John Owen (1616-1683), - Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Vice Chancellor of Oxford University. He was a proponent of the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement/particular redemption - the belief that Jesus' death on the cross was effectual only for the elect - a select group unconditionally chosen by God for salvation from before the foundation of the world. This understanding of the extent of the effectiveness of the cross is in contrast to the belief that Jesus' death on the cross was sufficient for all and that God has enabled all to respond to God's offer of salvation.
Here's the classic question posed by John Owen:
Did Jesus die for:
a) all the sins of all men?
b) all the sins of some men?
c) some of the sins of all men?
Pause for a moment here and think, - which of the three possibilities you would choose?
Here is his argument, in his own words:
- That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and none are saved.
- That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
- But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from punishment due unto their sins? You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!”
Dr. Owen's question is really a clever polemical/philosophical argument using flawed logic to lead the skeptic into agreeing that the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement must be true - that is, that Christ died only for the sins of the elect (option 'b'). There are two issues posed by the question: (1) what was covered by the atonement (some sin, all sin)?, and (2) who was covered by the atonement (some men, all men)? Today, let's focus on the "who" question. In the next post we'll look closely at the "what" question.
“The World” ≠ “the Elect”
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
-Through the Looking Glass - Lewis Carroll
Words don’t get to mean what we choose them to mean. In the twelfth chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus says: ... for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world (John 12:47 ESV). In this verse, Jesus tells us plainly that the purpose for his incarnation, death and resurrection was to “save the world.” Reformed scholars know that the only way their interpretation of the doctrine of election works is if, somehow, “the world” in Jesus’ statement really means “the elect”. In other words, Calvinists must be able to justify their understanding that what Jesus really meant to say in John 12:47 was, “I came to save the elect.” And what Jesus really meant to say in John 3:16 was, “For God so loved the elect that he gave his only begotten Son . . .”, etc.
The minute we begin to interpret a biblical text with "what Jesus really meant to say", we're on pretty thin exegetical ice. If Jesus meant to say "the elect", he could have said it. The conflation of “the world” with “the elect” requires the Calvinist “spin” mechanism to go into overdrive to try to convince us that “the world” can somehow mean just “the elect”. Granted, there are quite a few meanings of the word "world" in Scripture. For example, in John 1:10, He was in the world (temporal vs. heavenly) and the world (the planet Earth) was made through him, yet the world (most people, but not all) did not know him. But never can we substitute the word "elect" for "world" without corrupting the obvious meaning of the text.
When the inspired writers of the New Testament wanted to refer to a special group of individuals chosen by God, they chose to use the word “elect” or “chosen” or even "us/our/we". When they wanted to refer to the general mass of sinful humanity without distinction, they used the word “world”. And when they wanted to emphasize that they were referring to everyone without exception, they often used the phrase "the whole world" (Gr. ho cosmos holos).
In what might be the most difficult verse for the Calvinist to justify with regard to the extent of the atoning work of Jesus on the cross, the apostle John obviously sees the world as a different entity than the elect when he writes,
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:2).
Note that the apostle is writing to his “little children" (1 John 2:1), his elect brothers and sisters in Christ. That's the "our/ours" in the verse. John couldn't be clearer that he understands that Christ died not only for the sins of the elect, but emphatically, for the sins of “the whole world.” This is the exact phrase John uses a bit later in the same letter where he states that ... the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. (1 John 5:19 ESV), and in the Book of Revelation where he refers to Satan as “the deceiver of the whole world” (Rev 12:9). It seems impossible to interpret “the whole world” to exclude anyone in either of those three verses. To be consistent, if Satan is the deceiver of everyone (the whole world) without exception, then Jesus also has also made atonement for everyone (the whole world) without exception.
So, when Jesus says "I came to save the world" (John 12:47), we can be sure that he said exactly what he intended to say, "neither more nor less."
To learn more, please consider picking up my book - God's Elect: The Chosen Generation
(also available on Kindle)
Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Elect-Generation-John- Chipman/dp/1632695723/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1507WZLOS9FHL&keywords=god%27s+elect+chipman&qid=1682632127&sprefix=god%27s+elect+chipman%2Caps%2C293&sr=8-1
(Also available at Barnes & Noble & Christianbook.com)
Next Post: Next time we'll continue with our response to John Owen's trilemma and look at the question of "what" did Jesus die for (all sin, some sin) with particular attention to the sin of unbelief. We'll also explain why all are not saved if, indeed, Jesus made atonement for all. Here's a link to the next post:
Comments