Unlimited Limited Atonement? | (a discussion)

art by Patrick Benbow

A new articulation of an old idea: a Facebook exchange on the single most controversial tenet of traditional Calvinism.

_______________

This was a facebook message/discussion between a few friends and me on the topic of “Limited Atonement” (the “L” in Calvinism’s acronomical existence). I’m thinking about letting this be the first of a new type of article I’m calling “Orthodoxological”. I’m thinking about trying to write some articles on some of the deepest and seemingly arbitrary and useless doctrines of the Christian faith, and showing how they do in fact necessarily lead to a greater worship of God. Let me know what you think!

_______________

FACEBOOK MESSAGE

SUBJ: this is probably a poor decision

screen-capture

Drew

- So i was reading Death By Love today, and the chapter was on Atonement.
- - Limited?
- - Unlimited?
- - Unlimited limited?
- I figure with the three of you I dont need to give a whole lot more of a spark to get conversation going…

____________________

Raymond

We just talked about this last night with the gang from University of Richmond.

Atonement IS Limited. That’s not up for debate. As Peter says, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell…” (2 Peter 2:4). Some fallen beings have been permanently excluded from the class of those who have a chance to benefit from Christ’s redemptive work. Therefore, atonement IS Limited.

The only question that remains is “To what extent has God limited that atonement provided by Christ?” Is it so limited that there are some human beings who don’t even have a chance? Now, THAT we can debate.

Personally, I like Paul Burkhart’s term “particular redemption.” It more accurately reflects the fact that God has been generous with the atonement provided by Christ’s blood as opposed to the idea that he has been unnecessarily and unjustly stingy (limited…).

____________________

Monica

- hahahaha this is great! I had this mini convo in my class with my professor and he was like, “you believe jesus came and died for all right monica? … and then he thought i got all “shy” and answered for me- but i didnt get all shy, its just I had been thinking about it for a while and I forgot the term for it (limited atonement)- of which, I’ve been leaning toward.

____________________

Paul

Piper’s been the greatest help to me on this one. 2 images explain this best for me:

1. We believe in a cross that actually saves, not just makes salvation possible. so, it’s like the cross opened the door for EVERYONE but only was effectual to save SOME.
2. (this image is my favorite) drew, now that you’re married, you’re still called to love all women, but you will love YOUR BRIDE in a special, unique, sacrificial way that you will NOT love other women. just so with Christ. he loves all people enough to come to earth and provide a way for their salvation, but ultimately, he will only love his Bride in that special, unique application of the cross.

i love this stuff.

____________________

Drew

- Paul, what you are describing sounds like what Driscoll calls “Unlimited Limited” atonement – ie all are purchased by Christ, but not all will be saved. He makes a great point, one which i have not heard preached very often – that the cross does in fact benefit all people, as does Christianity.
- He also goes on to say that in this way the best life for non believers is now, and for the Christian the best is still to come.
- Also – the book is GREAT.

____________________

Monica

- ok, so then question- explain to me the difference between limited and unlimited limited atonement.

____________________

Paul

limited – the blood of the cross is only able and intended to cover the sins of the elect. it is absolutely limited in its scope, ability, breadth, and application

unlimited limited – the blood of the cross is not hindered in any way but by Sovereign decree. it is completely unlimited in its scope and ability, but limited in whom it is applied to. the atonement itself is not limited in any way, just its application.

the important distinction: limited atonement means that those not saved never had the chance to be saved, because there was no atoning work of Christ available to them. unlimited limited means that there is unlimited atoning power available to all, hanging above the heads of all people, but they freely reject this available atoning power. but, a limited, pre-ordained number of people, by the power of God’s merciful grace will drink freely from this unlimited ocean of atoning power and taste the goodness of the One for Whom their soul was made. hence my preferred term (which i got somewhere else, can’t remember where, so i guess it’s mine now): “particular redemption.”

selah.

Random Posts:

TrueNC

So God goes about his business to create all the people in the world but only ordains like 2 (exaggeration I know but bear with me) to receive his atonement? That’s kind of a really sick cosmic joke.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

And we all know that Driscoll is the end all be all theological fountain.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

@Raymond: Last time I checked Jesus didn’t die for Angels, so how is putting Angels and humans in the same category viable?

Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

And scratch what I said about Driscoll being the every flowing fountain. I though he was talking about Rob Bell. Two very different people and Driscoll would probably crap an elephant if he read that.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

Andrew Vogel

I’ve waffled through the issues before, but I always get stuck on 2 Peter 2:1. ESV: “even denying the Master who bought them”. I don’t know of any way to understand that except by believing that on the cross God “bought” all mankind – thus resulting in unlimited atonement. There still is total depravity and the inability to save yourself however which requires God to act first though. My 2c…

Jun 10, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

Free

So…Is this true
We do see in the scriptures
both…Gods desiring to save ALL PEOPLE
& also an elect..
its like
what does the scriptures point to?

Jun 10, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

paul

nina, believe me, i totally see where you’re coming from. there’s one thing we definitely agree on: not everyone gets saved. there’s only two possible reasons why people don’t get saved: either (1) they didn’t choose God, or (2) God didn’t choose them. if you think it’s the first one, then i’m sure you think that God would be ABLE to force someone to be saved if he wanted to, but for some reason he doesn’t (some would say it’s out of love, because “love’s free”, but is it more loving to let your child freely run into the street and get killed by a car, or to grab them before they reach destruction?). either way, with both options you end up with the fact that those people ultimately don’t get saved because God chose not to do something he could do. we can’t escape that without creating a God that couldn’t do something even if he wanted, and that’s not God.

so how do i sleep at night? i don’t think God actively chooses certain people for hell. he actively chooses the people he will save out of a group of people who are already on their way to bearing the wrath of God because of their own free will decisions to sin. to stay with our Driscoll theme, as he says, it’s not as if God plays a game of “duck, duck, damn.” we already all deserve hell, and for some reason, God chose to provide a way of salvation that some will take, and some will not. either way, he deserves worship. sorry for the super long comment.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

I see where your coming from for the most part.

God’s salvation is there and is meant for the ordination of those who are meant to be his sons. (In theory and in a perfect world, all humanity) But because of free will and the searing of the conscious, there will be those who will say no to God.

Basic Sunday school 101 right?

Jun 10, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

TrueNC,

I agree with you that Jesus did not die for angels, but I think that’s precisely the point. Human beings have a chance to benefit from the atonement provided by Jesus through his death on the cross. Angels do not.

Therefore, I think it’s fair to say that atonement has been limited. There are created beings, separated from God for all eternity, destined for eternal punishment, with no chance of benefitting from Christ’s work.

God has chosen to be gracious to human beings like us. I think that he would have been well within his rights to treat all of us like the fallen angels. I also think that he is well within his rights if he chooses to extend his mercy only to some human beings and not others.

There are many things about the extent of the application of the atonement that I continue to search out. What I know for sure is this: God’s grace has come to ME, and I praise him for that.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Josh Justice

That’s very helpful. Unlimited limited is the view I’d hold. One way I’d say it is, the atonement is only limited in who God intends in the future to apply it to. So the limit to atonement is really the same thing as election.

John Owen, in “the Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” pointed out that there is no deficiency in the *value* of the death of Christ, such that it was only worth enough to purchase some but not all. Christ’s death was of sufficient worth to purchase any.

Paul, which one do you use “particular redemption” to refer to?

Jun 10, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

particular redemption = unlimited limited

looking forward to that wedding.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

Stephen Hess

I think it is important when speaking about this idea of limited/particular atonement, that we recall the “T” in the calvinist acronym “T.U.L.I.P”–that is “Total Depravity.” What is troublesome to many about the notion of “limited atonement” is that it seems to violate our sense of justice. So, in order to speak against the notion, many argue that God is unjust. Yet, the notion of “total depravity” informs us that everyone is sinful–every inclination of the heart is turned from God. We are all guilty before God. If God’s retributive justice and His righteous wrath was not absorbed by Jesus on the cross, then no one would be saved. The fact that ANY are saved is God’s mercy–not some cosmic joke.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

On another point, I have had friends raise issues with limited/particular atonement because it seems to produce arrogance in those that call themselves “elect.” It is the sin within us that can turn knowledge of limited atonement into pride and arrogance. When in fact, pride and arrogance are the antitheses of these “Doctrines of Grace.” It is important to not only hold to these “Doctrines of Grace,” but to have a “Sociology of Grace.” By that I mean we do an injustice to the notion of grace, if we in fact do not live out that same grace.

Look at Luke 18:9-14. Truly understanding the idea of limited/particular atonement, or rather God’s one-way rescue of mankind should produce in us all the response of the tax-collector. Unfortunately, many that speak about limited/particular atonement are like the Pharisee.

“He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: ‘Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heave, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)

Jun 10, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

APasserBy

Believe me, I love theology. Even more so I love biblical studies. Often I find myself disconnected from reality and have a hard time applying the fruit of my studies for the good of the common man, and so I tend to dislike “practical things.” However, I must err on the “practical side” here. In any sense of the word, what good does nailing this topic down do? We relate to the unsaved as potential believers. Thats it! “Understanding” this “doctrine” does the mission of God no good,either side you might fall (and I guess there are three sides now?).

This is midrash at its finest.

I too once dabbled in Calvinism, but like any other thing, it can be outdated! Sure the vast majority of his insight is good and helpful, yet just like the Catholic Church had extensive debates regarding Mary’s relation to Jesus/the Christ/God, eventually meritting her the status “queen of heaven” so also this debate is going down a purely speculative route. You are angered at super-fundamentals for their ancient theology, what about yourself?

Let me ask you, who like to proof-text and pull Peter, Paul, or the Gospels as if from thin air, what about CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT? Do you really think you can force a verse without even consulting, or worse, ability to consult[!!!], the Greek text, understanding it in its book and proper setting? How many commentaries have you read on these passages (and by commentaries, I mean legit scholars, not pastors who try to act like scholars–I’m not being negative, they have their place, but there is not enough hours in a day for a legit pastor to be authoritative in these matters)?

Please, do not mistake my tone. I must be polemical to be corrective. But, friends, brothers and sisters, we cannot abuse the text like this. Did Peter/Paul really intend to communicate such doctrines? What good will this do? It will not change our attitude for evangelism, except for the worse. All of our questions will not be answered on this side of eternity and it is wrong for us to force the question when no answer is provided.

I urge you all, rather, spend your time and talent on understanding God’s mission to set to right all that is wrong in the world. For indeed, he has commissioned us to ahieve the task.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

@APasserBy:

To clarify, if you are responding out of my recent comment. I do not take Luke 18:9-14 to be a defense of Calvinism in any way.

But more to the point, I want to offer up the question that you yourself raise, “what good does nailing this topic down do [for God's mission]?” Additionally, I want to challenge your conclusion:”[these doctrines] will not change our attitude for evangelism, except for the worse.”

First, off, I agree with you that there can be a vain pursuit of knowledge–even scriptural knowledge. A pursuit where knowing doctrine becomes the end itself, rather than being used for conformity to Christ’s image. I think this a common error–I would not question you on this point.

But, I am much more hesitant to simply accept that these “doctrines” have no value for evangelism. I agree with you that we ought to relate to all the unsaved as potential believers in Christ. Yet, at the same time, I think there is actual fruit that can come from these doctrines. By understanding the total depravity of mankind, I believe that one will be more focused on prayer rather than missional strategies and techniques. By understanding God’s election, one can go out boldly in evangelism, knowing that where one is going, God has already prepared a way.

In saying this, I do not mean to oppose your insights, but to question the common critique of calvinism: that it has no value for evangelism, some go so far to say that it wrecks evangelism. I do not think those are accurate claims.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

@APasserBy

contrary to my previous brother, i do intend to oppose your insights.

1- there is an inseparable link between predestination and “practical” theology. Eph2:10-For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. ; 2Pet1:10-Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. ; et al.

2-The purpose of theology is to increase in the knowledge of the God we are worshipping. we as believers should have the desire to know our God as precisely as he has given us the ability to know him through his word. wrestling through these things is necessary for our spiritual health. “And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. (2Pe 3:15-18)

3-This isn’t Midrash in the least. is there any particular Scripture you are referring to? these doctrines cover nearly every page of Scripture. [even if it was Midrash, apparently Midrash was fine for every Biblical author (both OT and NT) and for every contemporary interpreter of the writings, and we have no express hermeneutical principle in Scripture barring us from doing so, so why would it be so bad, other than the fact that it goes against our Modernist Western presuppositions about "interpretation".]

4-fundamentalism is a modernistic reaction of the church. it has no ancient roots. it’s foundation were laid in the late 1700s. it’s a new idea that has lost its narrow window of viability. the proper set of doctrines called “calvinism” were formed long after calvin himself died and that label was merely applied to the set of doctrines that the vast majority of ancient Christians believed, but were best articulated by Calvin in the face of new oppositions. “Calvinism” is just a label to describe what the Bible says about God, man, and salvation – not the writings of Calvin. example: “Darwinism” is not a belief in the writings of Darwin. it is belief in a natural phenomena that would have existed with or without him, but was just BEST (not even first) articulated by him. [also, the Catholic doctrines you mentioned have only been around for 150 years or so, and the protestant Reformation was a reclaiming of OLDER doctrines the catholic church had abandoned. it was not newer, novel ideas.]

5-i do know Greek. many people do. i’m at Westminster Theological Seminary. last i checked “proginosko” definitely meant “foreknow”, “proorizo” definitely meant predestine, and “ekloge” definitely meant election. i’ve read the commentaries, i’ve read the theologians, i’ve studied the church fathers. throughout history, the stress on the sovereignty of God has been the default position of the majority of the church. only in light of modern, American, fundamentalism has this doctrine taken a brief loss of ground, but it’s coming to the foreground again. but either way, i doubt how many commentaries or theologians by the “qualified” (in your mind) someone has read would actually change your opinion. in the end, it’s not about where i went to school, how much greek someone knows, or who they’ve read. it doesn’t matter. it’s about the Word of God, and IN CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT I feel like it is plain on this point and then tells us to worship God because of these things. See: all of Genesis, Exodus, Job, Song of Solomon, the Psalms, the Major/Minor Prophets, John, Acts, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, and 1 & 2 Peter.

6-historically speaking, Calvinists have actually been the most evangelistic, missions-minded people in history. i know it doesn’t seem to make sense, but the very nature of Christianity is that God will use the foolish to shame the “wise”. Believing God is sovereign in salvation has never on a mass scale restricted evangelism. rather, it has increased the Christian’s confidence in God that they can boldly preach, and God will save. it’s when we feel like we bear the responsibility of “getting people saved” that we are crippled form preaching. preaching is useless and hopeless if God is not in control. and yes, Peter/Paul clearly did intend to communicate the doctrines. read mainly Ephesians 1 & 2, Romans 8-11, and 1 & 2 Peter. You will see this clearly. and, as quoted before, even Peter says that Paul wrote difficult things with the intention of us wrestling through it, not just saying “oh well, i guess i’ll never know”. theology, if proper, will necessarily lead to worship and service, as calvinism has historically done.

7-how God wants to set things right to the world is by bringing people to worship him and both the preachers and the converts need to know what God they are both calling others to worship and they themselves are worshipping. this endeavor is called theology, and he has indeed commissioned us to this task. let us do it well.

i know my tone is harsh, i know it is coming off as arrogant. it’s just that i’ve seen the undue hurt, anger, and lack of worship that this view you are espousing can cause in both the people that hold it and those that are told to stop doing theology and just “do what God has told us to do.” he has told us to know him deeply and love him for it. our service comes as a response to that, not in spite of it.

i pray you take this well.

Jun 10, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

BRGraves

Reading these comments has been a great help to me and I will also say that like Paul, John Piper’s view on the doctrine of Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption has an awesome explanation in referring to “loving all women” versus “loving a wife” and Piper’s series on the doctrines of grace has been a great help .Christ died for all, though not all in the same way. John 3:16 “That whosoever believes in Him ” are those whom the Father draws to His Son and they are the only ones who will have eternal life. At the end of the day…well, when its all said and done…there will be no one in heaven whom God hasn’t chosen to be there from before the foundation of the world, and there will be no one in hell who says “Jesus I believed in you and loved you with my heart, soul, mind and strength….but you didn’t choose me..”

Jun 11, 2009 @ 1:51 am

marusekmi

I agree with both APasserBy and Paul.

For the record, this post is to spark discussion- our (what was private) dialogue over facebook is certainly not indepth, and certainly not intended to be read as an extensive dialogue on the topic. I’m glad Paul’s comment clarifies that, and I’d argue that maybe Paul’s comment should really be turned into a post on the matter- there is where the depth lies.

Jun 11, 2009 @ 2:53 am

To my friend Stephen Hess.

Well put. Perhaps I partly failed in my communication. I do not mean to oppose the whole of Calvinism [or theology for that matter]. Like I said, I love theology [including parts of Calvin] and biblical studies even more. As I said, he has much to offer that is still legit. God IS sovereign. What more do we need for evangelism? What I meant by mastering these doctrines [perhaps I should have used SG here] I meant the “L” in tulip. My point is this: If we have settled on God’s sovereignty, why do we need to force the issue in ALL its ramifications? Do we have the mind of God? By focussing hours/days/weeks of our time “figuring out” the intricacies of limited attonement our evangelism will not be benefitted [and so I mean if it impacts it at all it will not be for the better]. How could it be by this doctrine [SG]? As you submitted that there can be vain pursuits of even scriptual knowledge, I assert this to be one. I hope this response has clarified my statements. My brother, I welcome your response now that I have made my point more exact. Dialogue in love is always edifying.

Jun 11, 2009 @ 3:24 am

Matt Robinett

I just noticed that people were actually commenting on this blog, and not facebook, so I’ll just repost here…

…My thoughts are that of unlimited limited atonement, but here is where I cannot completely subscribe to this camp (Sorry, Mr. Driscoll):

I believe that many times we think that, because God can do whatever He so wills, that (naturally) Christ’s atonement is, in fact, sufficient for all. I do not believe that scripture points to any conclusive point to show us that God has made it this way. If anything, I believe that scripture shows us that God “could” have made it so (Him being sovereign and all), but there is no need for Him to make it sufficient, because it seems like filling the gas tank up all the way knowing you’re only going to use half of it. I believe God has the power to make it sufficient for all mankind in the same way He could make us all be able to fly….

Just because He can, doesn’t mean He has made it so.

Jun 11, 2009 @ 4:11 am

To my friend Paul.

I do take your post well. You have a conviction and you want to guard it. Good. But, woha, I think you are jumping to far out conclusions and are talking way past my position. Let us not use straw men here. I will try to respond to relevant pieces according to your numbering for clarity.

1. It is nice that you cited some passages, but I do not see how it strengthens your point. Perhaps we have differing understandings of “CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT.” But I do agree that knowledge of God’s sovereignty should impact our practical living. Did I ever say otherwise?

2. Again, I agree with your statements of theology’s purpose. Greater knowlege leads to more intimate worship. Did I ever say otherwise?

3a. Aha! our first disagreement! What I mean by midrash is this: to some degree you are “reading in” your idea of limited atonement (however you nuance it)into the passage. You WANT to find it. Sometimes a particular view is there, sometimes not. My point is this: We (and even Calvin, bless his heart!) read in our Western world into the text–western philosophy, western culture, western language, western geography, western predjudices . . . (you get the point) all at a much [MUCH] later time. Were Peter/Paul REALLY concerned with ALL the things we find “important” in our time? Hardly.
3b. Secondly, Paul, I’m afaid you are completely wrong about our license to use midrash in such ways. What you are talking about (if you are understanding me correctly and directly addressing me) is called “reader response.” You should read about it. It advocates that all meaning [yes, all!] lies within the reader. It is impossible to get back to original intent and no meaning can exist in God (if he was the one even communicating through it). Did the OT do this {reinterpret) to itself? Yes. Did Paul reinterpret the OT? Yes. But can we do the same? absolutely not. The OT COULD be reinterpreted b/c it was prophecy and dealt with the “righteousness” of God to act on his covenant with his people. God could accomplish this in various ways. So then, the OT could be reinterpreted by Paul with greater insight, although still hardly to our typical standards. However, the NT largely functions to “close” the OT in Christ Jesus (Gospels, Romans, Galatians . . .) to show God’s righteousness fulfilled and executed in and through Jesus Christ. There’s little to be interpreted! But of course A LOT to understand. It is glorious and applies directly to us, but not in the same way the OT did to its audience. –Please, don’t pick apart this argument, I’m not trying to write a thesis here! You get my point.
Paul you must admit degrees of reader-response is heavily influenced by postmodernism, and I HOPE that we are talking past one another here. I do pray you aren’t that influenced by it.

4. I have no idea how this applies to me.

5. I would be more hesitant before claiming knowlege of Greek. Perhaps you do, but most seminaries don’t teach Greek enough to say that. I do know WTS holds a good reputation, but without studying it for years [and that is PL for certain!] you cannot say you know Greek by merely memorizing a simple modern gloss. Sure those words mean those things, but other languages practice a greater syntatical domaine than English. I am also surprised that you have read “the commentaries.” From the little I know, WTS shun’s these “commentaries” don’t they? Perhaps we are speaking past each other again. And the “CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT,” may I correct, REQUIRES the Greek, culture, time, . . .. I am very curious how you define context. It was kind for you to list the books of the Bible here [btw do you really understand 2 Peter? I surrender if so!]. But yet again, I do not reject God’s sovereignty that you are arguing for here. Again, did I ever say otherwise?

6. I’m not arguing against Calvinism as a whole, just the importance of L.

7. Yet again, did I EVER EVER EVER say otherwise?

FF. Paul, I don’t take you as arrogant. I do think you need to understand yourself as a developing student though.

And regarding “it’s just that i’ve seen the undue hurt, anger, and lack of worship that this view you are espousing. . . stop doing theology and just ‘do what God has told us to do.’” What the hell??? Are you serious? Do you really think I hold this view? Paul I must say your polemical side got the best of you here to build a straw man the size of the statue of liberty. For the sake of integrity you MUST learn how to represent other people’s views. Did I give a 50 page paper regarding my thoughts on theology? No. Indeed, there was a lot left ambigious. But there is no way for you to jump to this conclusion. Shame, shame, shame . I would suggest that I spend more time in study than the majority of seminarians and pastors. I don’t say this to boast, but to clarify a horribly mistaken assumption.

What I DO mean by “understanding God’s mission” is to study things like in the NT when ethnic boundaries could not contain glory of God and how the Spirit was poured out on the nations, and how/why the Jews were baffled at this, how the picture of Jesus gives us glimpses of God’s kingdom in the already/not yet stage and how we are to implement the same, how today the gospel is hindered by barriers and boundaries in ourselves and in others, how we as “learned” saints might affect God’s kingdom, how the ordinary believer who works the 9-5 can still have an legit impact for God’s kingdom, –among many other things. THAT IS WHAT I MEAN PAUL.

I must say that I am a bit upset and it is affecting my tone, but you must admit I do have some warrant. I cannot help but to defend my reputation after the illegitimate charges you leveled against me. But do be aware I’m not THAT upset and not offended. But as I said before, I’m more concerned how you represented someone else in your writing. You are talented Paul, but you must improve here.

May God bless your studies as you lead his people.

Jun 11, 2009 @ 4:40 am

To my friend Matt Robinett,

I like your gist. I think along the same lines. my analogy is an all-american sprinter. Perhaps he can run the 100meters in 8 seconds, but does that mean he has to every time he runs? certainly he has motives for doing otherwise (training, stamina, injury, . . .). On a side note I think this is where many conervatives are confused about inerrancy and the scriptures, i.e. the all-american can run the 100 in 8 sec so he must do it every time he trains (boy am I going to take heat for that one! but lets stay on topic for this blog).

This is what I mean by midrash and speculative theology such as L. It very well may be true (as much as it is untrue), but I don’t think we have warrant to know, or are even supposed to know.

b’shalom

Jun 11, 2009 @ 4:55 am

thank you so much for the clarification. i did indeed grossly misunderstand your position, and from that misunderstanding i equally misrepresented it. i’m so sorry.

even looking over my comment again right now, i was tempted to take it down from sheer embarrassment. it really does seem we’re far more on the same page than i estimated. i made assumptions about what you were saying, and for that, i ask your forgiveness.

it seems like the only real difference we have is that i see the importance of “L”, but admittedly, this importance is more from my own spiritual walk. i have seen my own personal worship of God grow because of it, but that just means that God has used it in MY life to draw me closer to him. i definitely don’t think that it is a necessary tenet of historically orthodox faith, nor do i see it as a pillar or foundation of the primary messages of Jesus, Paul, or Peter.

even now as i write this, i’m still really embarrassed over my comment. over the years, i have watched my tone soften, my tact increase, and my concern become more pastoral. i don’t know where that all went when i responded to you. you didn’t even say anything particularly angering. i don’t know what got into me. we actually seem to REALLY agree on a lot of things (even WTS’s recent abandonment of real Biblical Theological respectability, if that’s what you mean by “those commentaries”).

so, in conclusion, we are very much on the same team here, and once more, i ask your forgiveness for the tone i took and the accusations i made. youthful arrogance got the best of me again. thank you for your patience, your tone, and your careful response to my comment. it was very helpful. may God bless you as well.

Jun 11, 2009 @ 5:01 am

Random Dude

Jesus loves me this I know,
for the Bible tells me so,
little ones to Him belong,
they are weak but He is strong.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
For the Bible tells me so.

Jun 12, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

Seminaries & the Nature of Truth

[...] Church, the Bride of Christ, is able to grow and develop (and yes even change!) in it’s theology (and articulations) over time as it is progressively and corporately sanctified and washed with the water of the Word [...]

Sep 29, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

HOME

donate

Subscribe

Contributors

departments

Reform & Revive

Reforming minds. Reviving hearts.