What is unconditional election, and is it biblical?

[Danus]

Unconditional election is a phrase that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches about the predestination—or the election—of people for salvation. It represents the second letter of the acronym TULIP, which is commonly used to enumerate the five points of Calvinism, also known as the Doctrines of Grace. Other terms for the same doctrine include “unmerited favor,†“sovereign election†or “adopted by God.†All these terms are good names for this doctrine because each reveals some aspect of the doctrine of election. However, more important than the term we use to describe the doctrine is how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about election and predestination.

The debate over unconditional election is not whether or not God elects or predestines people to salvation but upon what basis He elects them. Is that election based upon foreknowledge that those individuals will have faith in Christ, or is it based upon God’s sovereign choice to save them? :

As the word “unconditional†implies, this view believes that God’s election of people to salvation is done “with no conditions attached, either foreseen or otherwise.†God elects people to salvation by His own sovereign choice and not because of some future action they will perform or condition they will meet. Those who come to Christ become His children by His will, not by theirs. “They were not God's children by nature or because of any human desires. God himself was the one who made them his children†(John 1:13 CEV).

God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8). These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will (Romans 9:11-13; Romans 9:16; Romans 10:20; 1 Corinthians 1:27-29; 2 Timothy 1:9). God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin (Exodus 33:19; Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Romans 9:10-24; Acts 13:48; 1 Peter 2:8).

There are many verses in both the Old and New Testaments that speak of election, and, when one looks at all the Bible teaches about election and predestination, it becomes obvious that God’s choice was not based on any foreseen act or response, but was based solely on God’s own good pleasure and sovereign will. Properly understood, God’s unconditional election is one link in the unbreakable chain of salvation seen in Romans 8:28-29: “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.†All those who are predestined will be saved (John 6:39; Romans 8:30) because they are the ones that God the Father gives to Jesus Christ (John 6:37) who will raise them up on the last day (John 6:39; John 17:2). They are Christ’s sheep (John 10:1-30) who hear His voice and for whom He died (John 10:15) in order to give them eternal life and make them secure forever in the hand of God (John 10:26-30).

There are several common misconceptions about unconditional election. First, it is important to understand that the doctrine does not teach that God’s choice is capricious or arbitrary. It is not random or made without reason. What it does teach is that God elects someone to salvation not because of something worthy God finds in that individual but because of His inscrutable, mysterious will. He makes the choice as to who will be saved for His own reasons, according to His own perfect will and for His own good pleasure (Ephesians 1:5). And while some object to the doctrine of election as being unfair, it is nevertheless based upon God’s will and it pleases God; therefore, it must be good and perfectly just.

Another misconception is that unconditional election precludes and stifles evangelism, but the reality is just the opposite—it empowers and confirms it. When one correctly understands that God has not only elected certain individuals to salvation but also has ordained the means of salvation—the preaching of the gospel (Romans 1:16; Romans 10:14-17)—it empowers the spreading of the gospel message and the call to evangelism. We see this very thing in Paul’s writing to Timothy in the midst of deep persecution. “I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ…†(2 Timothy 2:10). A proper understanding of the doctrine of election encourages evangelism and guarantees its success. It overcomes the fear of failure when sharing the gospel and empowers people to remain faithful to the message in times of great persecution. They know that the power lies in the gospel message and in God’s sovereign election and not in their own feeble presentation. A biblical understanding of election helps one share the gospel freely with all people, knowing that any one of them could be Christ’s sheep whom He is calling into His fold (John 10:16). It is not up to us to determine if someone is elect or non-elect, and there is always a hope of salvation for anyone who will repent of his sins and believe in Christ. The gospel message should be preached to all people in the knowledge that God will use it to draw His sheep to Himself.

Unconditional election also does not mean that there will be people in heaven who do not want to be there, nor will there be people in hell who wanted to be saved but could not be because they were not elect. Unconditional election properly recognizes that, apart from God’s supernatural work in the life of a sinner, men will always choose to reject God and rebel against Him (see the article on Total Depravity for more information on this subject). What unconditional election does correctly recognize is that God intervenes in the lives of the elect and works in their lives through the Holy Spirit so that they willingly respond in faith to Him. Because they are “his sheep…they hear his voice and follow him†(John 10:1-30). As for the non-elect, God is still gracious to them, but because of their sin they are not thankful for that grace, nor do they acknowledge Him as God (Romans 1:18-20). Consequently, they receive the just punishment due them. Those whom God elects are beneficiaries of His sovereign grace and mercy, and those whom He does not elect receive the justice they have earned. While the elect receive God’s perfect grace, the non-elect receive God’s perfect justice.

Those who argue against unconditional election often use verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16. How can we reconcile election with a verse like I Timothy 2:4, that says that God “desires all men to be saved,†or John 3:16, that says God “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life� The answer lies in correctly understanding the will of God and the love of God. God’s passive will needs to be understood in contrast to His decreed will (those things He foreordains to happen). The passive will of God includes the things He might desire in a sense but does not foreordain or bring to pass. Certainly, if God is sovereign and all-powerful, as the Bible declares Him to be, then He could bring about the salvation of all men, if that was His decreed or pre-determined will. Reconciling this verse and others with the many that teach election is an unconditional choice of God is no more difficult that recognizing that there are things God might desire but does not decree to happen. It could be said that God does not desire men to sin but as part of his predetermined plan He allows them to sin. So while there is a real sense in which God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and desires that all be saved, His pre-determined plan allows for the fact that some will go to hell.

In a similar way, concerning John 3:16 and God’s love, the difference lies in God’s general love for all creation and all humanity versus His specific love for His children, the elect. The difference is that God’s love for His elect is an intensive love that has Him actually doing something about their lost condition instead of simply sitting by wishing that they would in turn love Him, a picture so often conjured up by those who believe themselves to be in control of their own eternal destiny. In a generic sense, God desires all to be saved and He loves all of humanity, but that is completely different from the specific love He has for His elect and His desire and provision for their salvation.

When one examines what the Bible teaches about election and predestination, it becomes clear that the doctrine of unconditional election does accurately represent what the Bible teaches on this important subject. While this—or any of the other Doctrines of Grace—can stand on their own merit, their importance becomes even clearer when they are considered together systematically with all the Bible teaches about salvation. They essentially serve as building blocks, with each one furnishing a necessary part of a biblical understanding of salvation. Total depravity defines man’s need for salvation and reveals his hopelessness when left to his own resources. It leaves man with the question “Who can be saved?†The answer lies in an understanding of unconditional election—God’s sovereign choice to save people despite their depravity and based solely on His redeeming for Himself people from every tribe, tongue and nation. This He accomplishes by predestinating them “to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will†(Ephesians 1:5). A proper understanding of this doctrine should not result in questioning the justice of God, but instead in marveling at His great mercy. The question we really should ask is not why God chooses only some to salvation, but why He would choose any at all.

http://www.gotquestions.org/unconditional-election.html

 

[Cassian]

Danus,

When one examines what the Bible teaches about election and predestination, it becomes clear that the doctrine of unconditional election does accurately represent what the Bible teaches on this important subject.

this is an assertion. Where is your evidence of this teaching.
There are ONLY five uses of election in all of scripture. NOt a single one deals with salvation. And more importantly, none of them deal with salvation of individuals.

The five examples of election in scripture are Christ, and Paul as individuals, and Israel, Apostles, and the Elect(Church) as groups. All of them were selected for specific services as part of the whole plan of salvation. However, not one of them deals with salvation or believing of any individual.

Presdestination has long been shown to be a man made theory imposed upon scripture. Its root is in Augustine's synthesis of Christian thought with pagan Manicheanism/Gnosticism. However, it was Calvin that actually fleshed it out into a systematic theology. The specific points of the ancronym TULIP cannot be found in scripture. They are solely based on the false premise of predestination. The teaching is quite contradictory to scripture. It denies the purpose of God creating man and then saving man from the fall. It also denies the content of the Incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

A proper understanding of this doctrine should not result in questioning the justice of God, but instead in marveling at His great mercy. The question we really should ask is not why God chooses only some to salvation, but why He would choose any at all.

this statement is based on the false supposition of the "satisfaction theory of atonement" as well.

It really misses most of scripture's teachings on the relationship between God and man. It is why there are so many contradictions that "reformed" proponents constantly need to redefine so much of scripture to make it fit.
If one does a study of history and theology of the Church, none of Calvin's theology can be found prior to Himself. Even at that, after 500 years, it is still being changed, redefined, enhanced, further developed. Hardly a Gospel ONCE given to the saints.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

God never chose certain individuals unconditionally for that idea puts blame and fault upon God for the lost for if I am lost it's not my fault God did not choose me.

God foreknew a group (Christians), God foreknew thiis group would be in Christ, holy and without blame, be called sons and God foreknew the works this group would do, Eph 1:4,5; Eph 2:10. God never predetermined what individuals would or would not be in this group for that is the choice of each individual to obey the gospel and be in this group or not obey and not be in this group. Therefore it is not God's fault for those not in this group.


Where one is at in eternity is based upon if that person chose to obey God or not, 2 Thess 1:8; Rom 2:6-11, and is not based upon some capricious, unconditional choice against the will of man.

 

[Tri Unity]

The term "unconditional election" is misleading and even outrageous. It brings so many contentions within the church unnecessarily. Elected damnation follows close on its heals, and it is far from the biblical teaching, regardless of whether or not Calvin believes it is implied or is the logical conclusion. It would be best to get rid of these non-biblical and offensive terms to start with before any true discussion can be entertained. They imply, if anything, agreement with TULIP and Calvinism. This discussion (of predestination) does not start and end with Calvin. Augustine, for instance, was far more sensative to the biblical terminology than was Calvin. Calvin took most of his views from Augustine in the first place; he just added his own bloodthirsty flavor.

 

[Butch5]

Unconditional election is a phrase that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches about the predestination—or the election—of people for salvation. It represents the second letter of the acronym TULIP, which is commonly used to enumerate the five points of Calvinism, also known as the Doctrines of Grace. Other terms for the same doctrine include “unmerited favor,†“sovereign election†or “adopted by God.†All these terms are good names for this doctrine because each reveals some aspect of the doctrine of election. However, more important than the term we use to describe the doctrine is how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about election and predestination.

The debate over unconditional election is not whether or not God elects or predestines people to salvation but upon what basis He elects them. Is that election based upon foreknowledge that those individuals will have faith in Christ, or is it based upon God’s sovereign choice to save them? :

As the word “unconditional†implies, this view believes that God’s election of people to salvation is done “with no conditions attached, either foreseen or otherwise.†God elects people to salvation by His own sovereign choice and not because of some future action they will perform or condition they will meet. Those who come to Christ become His children by His will, not by theirs. “They were not God's children by nature or because of any human desires. God himself was the one who made them his children†(John 1:13 CEV).

God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8). These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will (Romans 9:11-13; Romans 9:16; Romans 10:20; 1 Corinthians 1:27-29; 2 Timothy 1:9). God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin (Exodus 33:19; Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Romans 9:10-24; Acts 13:48; 1 Peter 2:8).

There are many verses in both the Old and New Testaments that speak of election, and, when one looks at all the Bible teaches about election and predestination, it becomes obvious that God’s choice was not based on any foreseen act or response, but was based solely on God’s own good pleasure and sovereign will. Properly understood, God’s unconditional election is one link in the unbreakable chain of salvation seen in Romans 8:28-29: “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.†All those who are predestined will be saved (John 6:39; Romans 8:30) because they are the ones that God the Father gives to Jesus Christ (John 6:37) who will raise them up on the last day (John 6:39; John 17:2). They are Christ’s sheep (John 10:1-30) who hear His voice and for whom He died (John 10:15) in order to give them eternal life and make them secure forever in the hand of God (John 10:26-30).

There are several common misconceptions about unconditional election. First, it is important to understand that the doctrine does not teach that God’s choice is capricious or arbitrary. It is not random or made without reason. What it does teach is that God elects someone to salvation not because of something worthy God finds in that individual but because of His inscrutable, mysterious will. He makes the choice as to who will be saved for His own reasons, according to His own perfect will and for His own good pleasure (Ephesians 1:5). And while some object to the doctrine of election as being unfair, it is nevertheless based upon God’s will and it pleases God; therefore, it must be good and perfectly just.

Another misconception is that unconditional election precludes and stifles evangelism, but the reality is just the opposite—it empowers and confirms it. When one correctly understands that God has not only elected certain individuals to salvation but also has ordained the means of salvation—the preaching of the gospel (Romans 1:16; Romans 10:14-17)—it empowers the spreading of the gospel message and the call to evangelism. We see this very thing in Paul’s writing to Timothy in the midst of deep persecution. “I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ…†(2 Timothy 2:10). A proper understanding of the doctrine of election encourages evangelism and guarantees its success. It overcomes the fear of failure when sharing the gospel and empowers people to remain faithful to the message in times of great persecution. They know that the power lies in the gospel message and in God’s sovereign election and not in their own feeble presentation. A biblical understanding of election helps one share the gospel freely with all people, knowing that any one of them could be Christ’s sheep whom He is calling into His fold (John 10:16). It is not up to us to determine if someone is elect or non-elect, and there is always a hope of salvation for anyone who will repent of his sins and believe in Christ. The gospel message should be preached to all people in the knowledge that God will use it to draw His sheep to Himself.

Unconditional election also does not mean that there will be people in heaven who do not want to be there, nor will there be people in hell who wanted to be saved but could not be because they were not elect. Unconditional election properly recognizes that, apart from God’s supernatural work in the life of a sinner, men will always choose to reject God and rebel against Him (see the article on Total Depravity for more information on this subject). What unconditional election does correctly recognize is that God intervenes in the lives of the elect and works in their lives through the Holy Spirit so that they willingly respond in faith to Him. Because they are “his sheep…they hear his voice and follow him†(John 10:1-30). As for the non-elect, God is still gracious to them, but because of their sin they are not thankful for that grace, nor do they acknowledge Him as God (Romans 1:18-20). Consequently, they receive the just punishment due them. Those whom God elects are beneficiaries of His sovereign grace and mercy, and those whom He does not elect receive the justice they have earned. While the elect receive God’s perfect grace, the non-elect receive God’s perfect justice.

Those who argue against unconditional election often use verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16. How can we reconcile election with a verse like I Timothy 2:4, that says that God “desires all men to be saved,†or John 3:16, that says God “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life� The answer lies in correctly understanding the will of God and the love of God. God’s passive will needs to be understood in contrast to His decreed will (those things He foreordains to happen). The passive will of God includes the things He might desire in a sense but does not foreordain or bring to pass. Certainly, if God is sovereign and all-powerful, as the Bible declares Him to be, then He could bring about the salvation of all men, if that was His decreed or pre-determined will. Reconciling this verse and others with the many that teach election is an unconditional choice of God is no more difficult that recognizing that there are things God might desire but does not decree to happen. It could be said that God does not desire men to sin but as part of his predetermined plan He allows them to sin. So while there is a real sense in which God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and desires that all be saved, His pre-determined plan allows for the fact that some will go to hell.

In a similar way, concerning John 3:16 and God’s love, the difference lies in God’s general love for all creation and all humanity versus His specific love for His children, the elect. The difference is that God’s love for His elect is an intensive love that has Him actually doing something about their lost condition instead of simply sitting by wishing that they would in turn love Him, a picture so often conjured up by those who believe themselves to be in control of their own eternal destiny. In a generic sense, God desires all to be saved and He loves all of humanity, but that is completely different from the specific love He has for His elect and His desire and provision for their salvation.

When one examines what the Bible teaches about election and predestination, it becomes clear that the doctrine of unconditional election does accurately represent what the Bible teaches on this important subject. While this—or any of the other Doctrines of Grace—can stand on their own merit, their importance becomes even clearer when they are considered together systematically with all the Bible teaches about salvation. They essentially serve as building blocks, with each one furnishing a necessary part of a biblical understanding of salvation. Total depravity defines man’s need for salvation and reveals his hopelessness when left to his own resources. It leaves man with the question “Who can be saved?†The answer lies in an understanding of unconditional election—God’s sovereign choice to save people despite their depravity and based solely on His redeeming for Himself people from every tribe, tongue and nation. This He accomplishes by predestinating them “to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will†(Ephesians 1:5). A proper understanding of this doctrine should not result in questioning the justice of God, but instead in marveling at His great mercy. The question we really should ask is not why God chooses only some to salvation, but why He would choose any at all.

http://www.gotquestions.org/unconditional-election.html

The Bible in no way supports unconditional election that doctrine is derived by doing just what you've done here, taking passages out of their context.

 

[Butch5]

Danus,



this is an assertion. Where is your evidence of this teaching.
There are ONLY five uses of election in all of scripture. NOt a single one deals with salvation. And more importantly, none of them deal with salvation of individuals.

The five examples of election in scripture are Christ, and Paul as individuals, and Israel, Apostles, and the Elect(Church) as groups. All of them were selected for specific services as part of the whole plan of salvation. However, not one of them deals with salvation or believing of any individual.

Presdestination has long been shown to be a man made theory imposed upon scripture. Its root is in Augustine's synthesis of Christian thought with pagan Manicheanism/Gnosticism. However, it was Calvin that actually fleshed it out into a systematic theology. The specific points of the ancronym TULIP cannot be found in scripture. They are solely based on the false premise of predestination. The teaching is quite contradictory to scripture. It denies the purpose of God creating man and then saving man from the fall. It also denies the content of the Incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

this statement is based on the false supposition of the "satisfaction theory of atonement" as well.

It really misses most of scripture's teachings on the relationship between God and man. It is why there are so many contradictions that "reformed" proponents constantly need to redefine so much of scripture to make it fit.
If one does a study of history and theology of the Church, none of Calvin's theology can be found prior to Himself. Even at that, after 500 years, it is still being changed, redefined, enhanced, further developed. Hardly a Gospel ONCE given to the saints.

Well said!

 

[Danus]

For Whom Did Christ Die?
& What Did Christ Actually Achieve on the Cross for Those for Whom He Died?
By John Piper


The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he cancelled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense.


Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."
In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.


The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?


If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.


For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.


In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.


Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need -- namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.


On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.


We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross.


This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.


Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.


But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."


There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:
John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son.


In John 17:6,9,19 Jesus prays, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me...I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine...And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth." The consecration in view here is the death of Jesus which he is about to undergo. His death and his intercession us uniquely for his disciples, not for the world in general.


John 11:51-52, "[Caiaphas] being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." There are children of God scattered throughout the world. These are the sheep. These are the ones the Father will draw to the Son. Jesus died to gather these people into one. The point is the same as John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Christ died for his sheep, that is, for the children of God.
Revelation 5:9, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." In accordance with John 10:16 John does not say that the death of Christ ransomed all men but that it ransomed men from all the tribes of the world.


This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.


John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."


1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.


If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.


Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.
Mark 10:45, in accord with Revelation 5:9,does not say that Jesus came to ransom all men. It says, "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."


Similarly in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (See also 13:20; Isaiah 53:11-12.)


One of the clearest passages on the intention of the death of Christ is Ephesians 5:25-27. Here Paul not only says that the intended beneficiary of the death of Christ is the Church, but also that the intended effect of the death of Christ is the sanctification and glorification of the church. This is the truth we want very much to preserve: that the cross was not intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves, but was intended to actually save the church.
Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor."


Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ's death like this: "He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, "He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself"? But Paul says that the design of the atonement is to purify for Christ a people out from the world. This is just what John said in John 10:15; 11:51f; and Revelation 5:9.


One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"


The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.


If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?


1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.


The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/piper_atonement.html

 

[Tri Unity]

Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian...

Calvinist's always try to argue their beliefs by contrasting everyone who disagrees as an Arminiam.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Piper is wrong.

Rom 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life."


The same "all men" to condemnation are the same "all men" unto justification.

Paul's point is this, mankind has received both condemnation and justification of life (grace) Tts 2:11.

Paul is NOT saying "all men" received condemnation and these same "all men"will receive justification of life for that would be Universalism.

Paul is saying all who have been affected by sin entering the world through Adam and condemned can take advantage of Christ's crucifixion to remedy that sin. As one commentator more aptly puts it " Paul asserts that the benefits of the death of Christ are available to as many who are also affected by the fact that sin was introduced into the world."

It was NOT just the supposed Calvinistic elect who have been affected and condemned by sin entering the world but all mankind therefore it is all mankind that the benefit of Christ's death is available to.

Piper mentioned a few verses he thinks proves limited atonement I will touch on a couple for I don't have the time for all.


Piper says "1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world."

John is writing to Christians so Christians is "ours" and "but" is a contrasting word. So Christ did not die just for the sins of those who are Christians BUT for the sins of the whole world which is made up of Christians and non-Christians alike.



Piper says "There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:
John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son."

Here is a post of mine from another forum covering this topic:


John 8:47 "He that is of God (belongs to God) heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God."

This verse is similar to John 10:26 "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." In Jn 8:47 hearing does not mean just hearing an audible noise but carries the idea of an obedient hearing, understanding, perceiving, it carries the same idea as believing. One that hears Christ believes Christ. So the same argument I make for Jn 8:47 is the same for Jn 10:26.


In the context leading up to verse 47 in John chapter 8, there are two issues: 1) belief and 2) belonging to God that are being presented. To understand verse 47 in its context, one needs to understand that Jesus and the Jews are not dealing with these two issues on the same level, not with the same perspective.


(1) the issue of believing

In Jn 8:30,31 we are told the the Jews believed but yet in verse 45 it says the Jews believe not. This is not a contradiction for in verses 30 and 31 the type of belief the Jews had was a superficial, mental assent of the mind belief only that does not make one a disciple. But the belief Jesus speaks of that makes one a 'disciple indeed' in verse 31 is a self-sacrificing, totally obedient, complete commitment to Christ type belief. This type of belief can be possessed only by those who are already disciples. So we have two different levels of belief spoken about in the context; the kind these Jews had and the kind Christ said they should have to be disciples indeed.


(2) the issue of belonging to God

The Jews said they were children of Abraham, verse 33 and ultimately children of God, verse 41. Simply through physical birth, the Jews were the seed of Abraham and therefore born into a covenant relationship with God. In this sense they belong to God by means of being born into a covenant relationship.

On the other hand, Jesus acknowledged that Abraham was the father of these Jews, verse 37, yet at the same time Jesus tells them their father is the devil, verse 44. Again, this is not a contradiction for they were the physical seed of Abraham yet the devil was their spiritual father. So the Jews on one level saw themselves belonging to God by being the physical descendants of Abraham while Jesus saw belonging to God on another level not through physical means but spiritual.


So with this background in mind we can look at verse 47.


Verse 47a Jesus says "He that is of/belongeth to God heareth (believeth) God's words:..."


Looking at 47a from the Jews' perspective, the Jews saw themselves being of God because they were the physical descendants of Abraham and therefore born into a covenant relationship with God. We were told the Jews believed in verse 30 and 31 but this was not the type of belief that makes them disciples of Christ.


Looking at 47a from Christ's perspective, the Jews did not spiritually belong to God but to the devil and the Jews did not have the kind of belief (hearing) that would make them disciples indeed.

So to paraphrase this verse from Christ's perspective:

"He that is spiritually of God is My disciple indeed: you Jews are not My disciples for you are of your spiritual father the devil."


So we have Christ's perspective that one belongs to God in the spiritual sense not simply belonging to God by being physically born as the Jews saw it. Jesus saw that the type of belief that makes one a disciple is one of total obedience and commitment and not a simple mental acknowledgment as the Jews had.

So the context has nothing at all to do with the Calvinistic idea of predestination in that one cannot believe or belong to God unless God first chose you before the beginning of the world. That idea puts blame and culpability upon God. The context has to do with the different perspectives between Christ and those Jews as to what it means to believe and belong to God.

 

[Danus]

Thanks Ernest. That's the best counter argument yet. The Piper piece is a little off the OP, but I think you countered it very well from the opposition so far.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Thanks Ernest. That's the best counter argument yet. The Piper piece is a little off the OP, but I think you countered it very well from the opposition so far.

Hi,

When it comes to Rom 5:18,19 Calvinists will either have to admit Paul is talking about universalism or admit that "all men" who have been affected by sin entering the world through Adam, that same all men" can benefit from Christ's death.

 

[Tri Unity]

When it comes to Rom 5:18,19 Calvinists will either have to admit Paul is talking about universalism or admit that "all men" who have been affected by sin entering the world through Adam, that same all men" can benefit from Christ's death.

Good point. Calvinism is a very restrictive light source. It can see one end of the spectrum, but it is blind to the other. Predestination and election need to be seen outside of Calvin's eyepiece.

 

[Danus]

Hi,

When it comes to Rom 5:18,19 Calvinists will either have to admit Paul is talking about universalism or admit that "all men" who have been affected by sin entering the world through Adam, that same all men" can benefit from Christ's death.

What does that have to do with disproving election or predestination? Where did Piper even mention Romans 5 18:19???

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

What does that have to do with disproving election or predestination? Where did Piper even mention Romans 5 18:19???

Piper was using "limited atonement' to prove his point. Rom 5:18 is what I use to counter the idea of limited atonement.

 

[Danus]

Piper was using "limited atonement' to prove his point. Rom 5:18 is what I use to counter the idea of limited atonement.

I see. So Romans 5 18 proves that Unconditional election, which says God chooses whom he will save basically, is false because Romans 5:18 says 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. correct?

We still have a problem to solve. Because, just because " the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." unlike the offence of one condemned all, not all are saved by the righteousness of one. Correct? That is to say some are not saved. would you agree?

 

[Tri Unity]

The word 'saved' has different meanings; depending on the context. Are all the "saved" to be in heaven, ruling with Christ? Are all the "saved" part of the 'Bride of Christ'? Are all of the "saved" part of the 144,000? Are there some saved for heaven, and others saved for earth? What is the difference of the word "saved" in each occurrence?

"I have other sheep not of this fold; them also I must bring". (John 10:16)

"And I saw a great crowd come out of the tribulation". (Rev 7:13)

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

 

[Danus]

The word 'saved' has different meanings; depending on the context. Are all the "saved" to be in heaven, ruling with Christ? Are all the "saved" part of the 'Bride of Christ'? Are all of the "saved" part of the 144,000? Are there some saved for heaven, and others saved for earth? What is the difference of the word "saved" in each occurrence?

"I have other sheep not of this fold; them also I must bring". (John 10:16)

"And I saw a great crowd come out of the tribulation". (Rev 7:13)

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

Tri Unity, can you help me out here? Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

 

[farouk]

I think it's good to remember that part of the meaning of Greek SOTERIA is 'deliverance'.

 

[Tri Unity]

Tri Unity, can you help me out here? Are you a Jehovah's Witness?

No! Are you a Mennonite?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I see. So Romans 5 18 proves that Unconditional election, which says God chooses whom he will save basically, is false because Romans 5:18 says 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. correct?

We still have a problem to solve. Because, just because " the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." unlike the offence of one condemned all, not all are saved by the righteousness of one. Correct? That is to say some are not saved. would you agree?

Rom 5:18,19 does not teach unconditional election.

Rom 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. "

Rom 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

We saw from v18 that the benefit of Christ' death is available to 'all men' affected by sin entering the world and does not just benefit certain individuals God supposedly unconditionally, randomly elected.

Note in v19 Paul said many were made sinners and many were made righteous.

Nowhere does Paul say they were made sinners or made righteous by some random, unconditional choice of God against their will. In Rom 5:12 Paul says "for all have sinned". Men chose to sin that is why he was made a sinner. In Rom 5;1,2 men choose to have faith, so men who choose to have faith are made righteous. So men are not made sinners or made righteous against their will and without their choice by some random, unconditional choice of God.