That’s the verse that a former pastor who turned Calvinist could not answer. He agreed to discuss Calvinism with me until we had discussed all my questions and objections. The very first time we met I asked him about this verse and he said it was one that Calvinists did have problems with. He never came back to discuss Calvinism with me again.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 24, 2012 at 9:18 PM
Jeff,
I have no qualms at all in regard to God’s sovereignty in salvation. But in light of 2Peter2:1, limited atonement can’t be true. At the very least, one can not be dogmatic about limited atonement as the Calvinists are. That dog just won’t hunt.
“When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48
What can this mean but that God appointed only certain people to be saved?
All I’m saying is that if you say that on the basis of one verse, limited atonement can’t be true, I can use one verse to say that unlimited atonement can’t be true. The matter requires much more investigation than choosing two verses that SEEM to be contradictory.
BTW, I’m finding your book on New Calvinism quite interesting.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 25, 2012 at 6:58 AM
Jeff,
And one verse is enough if it states what it does. And I think there are verses that do say that God determines salvation, but by the way, Acts 13:48 is not the best one. There is some question as to whether “appointed” is the right word there. My question is: why is the idea that Christ died for those that he knew would not choose Him impossible?
The appointment to salvation is a fulfillment of Psalms 25:12-14 where all those who fear the Lord will be taught by God and He will shows them His covenant. When the apostles saw those who eagerly accepted God’s Word with joy, they knew that these are the ones who fit the category of God fearers in Psalms 25:12-14. It doesn’t mean that God picked some God haters and left the remaining God haters in their sin. It means that God fulfilled His promises to those who would fear Him.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM
CS,
Ya, I think better verses could be used (the Acts citation) if you want to make that case. Also, on the ELECTION front, Reformed theology dichotomizes Israel and saints. Election means election in regard to the saved, but means something different in regard to Israel. So, they have lost my sympathy on that front as well.
Yes Paul we see clearly that from John 3:16- “for God so loved the world”.
His love was not relegated to just His “elect”. This is what gets me- yes there are verses to defend both an Arminian and Calvinist views on predestination and free will, but that each side will make doctrines to fit what they deem is exact truth. Paul did say in Scripture that the church was a mystery and of course free will and predestination fit into this category because these have to do with salvation and the church. But when one makes predestination a PRIMARY dogma to a doctrine you are bound to run into problems Scripturally. The same can be said for Arminianism, although there seems to be more noise on the Calvinist side. The problem with Calvinists is that they make the TULIP the gospel and this where it becomes heresy. I really do not care if a Christian may have differences with issues of doctrine (as far as the secondary issues, such as in eschatology or predestination); we can debate those things, but I do care when it becomes infused with Justification and Sanctification. The mainstream Calvinists today are doing exactly that.
I could also include The Institutes and Augustine as being herald as gospel too….
For the life me I could never get at the time why Calvinists looked to Augustine based on the fact he was a Catholic…. now I see it clearly.
Thanks Paul for connecting the dots.
Yes, I could have used better verses, such as Eph. 1:3-6, or John 17:6-9, esp. the last verse.
The Greek word for “appointed” in Acts 13:48, is a participle, “were having been appointed.” Other words for it: “assigned, stationed, arrayed, arranged, ordained, established, determined.” All pretty much the same as “appointed.” Got these from sources – I don’t read Greek.
“My question is: why is the idea that Christ died for those that he knew would not choose Him impossible?” I, personally, wouldn’t say it was impossible. My question to you is: Why would He die for those He knew would not choose Him?
Concerning the Reformed view of Israel, I couldn’t agree with you more. They allegorize like crazy to take God’s promises to Israel and give them to the church.
CS
It’s true that many of the devout proselytes, or “God-fearers,” came to faith (Acts 13:42-48). But I don’t see how this fits with Ps. 25:12-14. Yes, it talks about people who “fear” the Lord, but this could apply as well to Jews. Vs. 13 says “He will live a good life and his descendants will inherit the land.” This sounds like a promise to Jews. “…and He reveals His covenant to them.” From Abraham on, all the covenants were made with Jews. Finally, the last verse, 22, says “God, redeem Israel, from all its distresses.”
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 26, 2012 at 6:30 AM
Jeff,
“I, personally, wouldn’t say it was impossible. My question to you is: Why would He die for those He knew would not choose Him?”
The very question is one of my many problems with Reformed theology. You said it: it’s not impossible. So, they answer the question and form a whole theology around their answer. This leads to additional craziness in their endeavor to make Christ’s atonement member specific with such things as “The Scream.” I mean, I guess my biggest problem is the source of the doctrine coming from Barney Fife theologians.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 26, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Jeff,
However, the question is worth pursuing: “Why would He?” Maybe that’s not the point. Did he die for sin in general with a specific application to those who believe? It would be worth a study to find answers. Here is another angle to it: those who don’t believe are judged by the law, and those who believe are NOT judged by the law. His death on the cross abolished the law as a standard for being justified. That’s general and only applies to those who believe. Oh, and by the way, in Reformed theology, the law is still the standard for justification. That’s where you get into the imputation of Christ’s obedience as a substitute for our obedience in sanctification. That’s clearly over the top.
“So, they answer the question and form a whole theology around their answer.” Isn’t it possible that they began with what they thought Scripture said instead of imposing their pov? Exegesis instead of eisegesis?
Not sure how they connected specific atonement with “The Scream.” Do you mean the anti-abortion “The Silent Scream”? If so, I still don’t see the connection.
It seems that most of your second comment deals with two aspects of Unlimited Atonement, dying for sin and abolishing the law as a standard for judgment (maybe two aspects of the same thing). I still think, though, that the question of why Jesus would die for those He knew wouldn’t believe, is a legitimate one.
“That’s where you get into the imputation of Christ’s obedience as a substitute for our obedience in sanctification.” Yes, this is where the NC seem to get weird. However, I wonder what you think of these two verses (sorry if you’ve already discussed them elsewhere):
“But it is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became God-given wisdom for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor 1:30)
“For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:10)
I’m not saying that these verses justify the way NC seem to distort sanctification and justification, but they do seem to imply a very close connection of Christ to our sanctification and obedience.
FWIW, while preparing this comment I looked over Berkhof’s “Systematic Theology.” He seems to be orthodox in his view of sanctification. Ditto R.C. Sproul in “Getting The Gospel Right,” which is a reaction against attempts to reconcile differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. Just giving some credit where it’s due to Calvinists who get it right.
I realize that you’re busy, and may not have the time, or inclination, to discuss all these things. I appreciate any interaction.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 26, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Jeff,
Basically, at the 2009 Resolved Conference, Mahaney and Piper taught that Christ was condemned to hell as part of the atonement. Even kool-Aid drinking Reformed hacks like Steve Camp wrote lengthy articles refuting such an idea. Here is one article, http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/02/12/the-scream-of-the-damned-and-the-last-straw/ but there are many more. I mean, Jeff, I’m just sayin’ that I’m lookin’ at the source for a lot of this stuff.
I have to say one thing : if the so enlightened NC have the whole doctrine thing so figured out why are so many confused? Would not their very soteriology be so clear to their flock that no continual rehashing TULIP, rewording, and rephrasing would be needed to convince them of the truth? If this was Gospel, why the insecurity on the part of NC? They storm on sites refuting Calvinism with such anger and frustration and while the true Gospel is one of peace and love. One really needs to dwell heavy on 1 Corinthians 13 a little while……the greatest of these is love. This was the No. 1 reasoning left….the love of Christ; the friendship of Christ; intimacy in Christ was missing. When that is absent no wonder you can sense a coldness in the Reformed church. I liken it to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2. I was heading that direction; I was becoming cold towards those who were not like me- hmmmm……self-righteous and puffed up with knowledge?
That text produces no problem at all to those who understand both the doctrine of particular redemption and the Scriptures. If one should read the entire chapter, it would become clear the writer describes these according to their profession, not according to reality. Have those who return like sows to the mire and dogs to their own vomit truly escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Have they truly known the way of righteousness? Are we to believe, contrary to the clear teaching of the Scriptures elsewhere, that a person can be truly saved and then finally lost forever? If not, it must be that Peter is speaking of these professors according to their profession, not according to the reality of their case. When we apply this to 2 Pet. 2:1, it becomes clear that Peter is speaking of their confession that the Master bought them, not to the reality of whether Jesus actually bought them in the sense that he secured the eternal salvation of the elect.
Um, is it just me, or does 2Peter 2:1 pose a problem for limited atonement?
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
That’s the verse that a former pastor who turned Calvinist could not answer. He agreed to discuss Calvinism with me until we had discussed all my questions and objections. The very first time we met I asked him about this verse and he said it was one that Calvinists did have problems with. He never came back to discuss Calvinism with me again.
LikeLike
No more than Acts 13:48 poses one for unlimited atonement.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I have no qualms at all in regard to God’s sovereignty in salvation. But in light of 2Peter2:1, limited atonement can’t be true. At the very least, one can not be dogmatic about limited atonement as the Calvinists are. That dog just won’t hunt.
LikeLike
“When the Gentiles heard this, they rejoiced and glorified the message of the Lord, and all who had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Acts 13:48
What can this mean but that God appointed only certain people to be saved?
All I’m saying is that if you say that on the basis of one verse, limited atonement can’t be true, I can use one verse to say that unlimited atonement can’t be true. The matter requires much more investigation than choosing two verses that SEEM to be contradictory.
BTW, I’m finding your book on New Calvinism quite interesting.
LikeLike
Jeff,
And one verse is enough if it states what it does. And I think there are verses that do say that God determines salvation, but by the way, Acts 13:48 is not the best one. There is some question as to whether “appointed” is the right word there. My question is: why is the idea that Christ died for those that he knew would not choose Him impossible?
LikeLike
The appointment to salvation is a fulfillment of Psalms 25:12-14 where all those who fear the Lord will be taught by God and He will shows them His covenant. When the apostles saw those who eagerly accepted God’s Word with joy, they knew that these are the ones who fit the category of God fearers in Psalms 25:12-14. It doesn’t mean that God picked some God haters and left the remaining God haters in their sin. It means that God fulfilled His promises to those who would fear Him.
LikeLike
CS,
Ya, I think better verses could be used (the Acts citation) if you want to make that case. Also, on the ELECTION front, Reformed theology dichotomizes Israel and saints. Election means election in regard to the saved, but means something different in regard to Israel. So, they have lost my sympathy on that front as well.
LikeLike
Yes Paul we see clearly that from John 3:16- “for God so loved the world”.
His love was not relegated to just His “elect”. This is what gets me- yes there are verses to defend both an Arminian and Calvinist views on predestination and free will, but that each side will make doctrines to fit what they deem is exact truth. Paul did say in Scripture that the church was a mystery and of course free will and predestination fit into this category because these have to do with salvation and the church. But when one makes predestination a PRIMARY dogma to a doctrine you are bound to run into problems Scripturally. The same can be said for Arminianism, although there seems to be more noise on the Calvinist side. The problem with Calvinists is that they make the TULIP the gospel and this where it becomes heresy. I really do not care if a Christian may have differences with issues of doctrine (as far as the secondary issues, such as in eschatology or predestination); we can debate those things, but I do care when it becomes infused with Justification and Sanctification. The mainstream Calvinists today are doing exactly that.
LikeLike
I could also include The Institutes and Augustine as being herald as gospel too….
For the life me I could never get at the time why Calvinists looked to Augustine based on the fact he was a Catholic…. now I see it clearly.
Thanks Paul for connecting the dots.
LikeLike
Paul
Yes, I could have used better verses, such as Eph. 1:3-6, or John 17:6-9, esp. the last verse.
The Greek word for “appointed” in Acts 13:48, is a participle, “were having been appointed.” Other words for it: “assigned, stationed, arrayed, arranged, ordained, established, determined.” All pretty much the same as “appointed.” Got these from sources – I don’t read Greek.
“My question is: why is the idea that Christ died for those that he knew would not choose Him impossible?” I, personally, wouldn’t say it was impossible. My question to you is: Why would He die for those He knew would not choose Him?
Concerning the Reformed view of Israel, I couldn’t agree with you more. They allegorize like crazy to take God’s promises to Israel and give them to the church.
CS
It’s true that many of the devout proselytes, or “God-fearers,” came to faith (Acts 13:42-48). But I don’t see how this fits with Ps. 25:12-14. Yes, it talks about people who “fear” the Lord, but this could apply as well to Jews. Vs. 13 says “He will live a good life and his descendants will inherit the land.” This sounds like a promise to Jews. “…and He reveals His covenant to them.” From Abraham on, all the covenants were made with Jews. Finally, the last verse, 22, says “God, redeem Israel, from all its distresses.”
LikeLike
Jeff,
“I, personally, wouldn’t say it was impossible. My question to you is: Why would He die for those He knew would not choose Him?”
The very question is one of my many problems with Reformed theology. You said it: it’s not impossible. So, they answer the question and form a whole theology around their answer. This leads to additional craziness in their endeavor to make Christ’s atonement member specific with such things as “The Scream.” I mean, I guess my biggest problem is the source of the doctrine coming from Barney Fife theologians.
LikeLike
Jeff,
However, the question is worth pursuing: “Why would He?” Maybe that’s not the point. Did he die for sin in general with a specific application to those who believe? It would be worth a study to find answers. Here is another angle to it: those who don’t believe are judged by the law, and those who believe are NOT judged by the law. His death on the cross abolished the law as a standard for being justified. That’s general and only applies to those who believe. Oh, and by the way, in Reformed theology, the law is still the standard for justification. That’s where you get into the imputation of Christ’s obedience as a substitute for our obedience in sanctification. That’s clearly over the top.
LikeLike
“So, they answer the question and form a whole theology around their answer.” Isn’t it possible that they began with what they thought Scripture said instead of imposing their pov? Exegesis instead of eisegesis?
Not sure how they connected specific atonement with “The Scream.” Do you mean the anti-abortion “The Silent Scream”? If so, I still don’t see the connection.
It seems that most of your second comment deals with two aspects of Unlimited Atonement, dying for sin and abolishing the law as a standard for judgment (maybe two aspects of the same thing). I still think, though, that the question of why Jesus would die for those He knew wouldn’t believe, is a legitimate one.
“That’s where you get into the imputation of Christ’s obedience as a substitute for our obedience in sanctification.” Yes, this is where the NC seem to get weird. However, I wonder what you think of these two verses (sorry if you’ve already discussed them elsewhere):
“But it is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became God-given wisdom for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor 1:30)
“For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:10)
I’m not saying that these verses justify the way NC seem to distort sanctification and justification, but they do seem to imply a very close connection of Christ to our sanctification and obedience.
FWIW, while preparing this comment I looked over Berkhof’s “Systematic Theology.” He seems to be orthodox in his view of sanctification. Ditto R.C. Sproul in “Getting The Gospel Right,” which is a reaction against attempts to reconcile differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. Just giving some credit where it’s due to Calvinists who get it right.
I realize that you’re busy, and may not have the time, or inclination, to discuss all these things. I appreciate any interaction.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Basically, at the 2009 Resolved Conference, Mahaney and Piper taught that Christ was condemned to hell as part of the atonement. Even kool-Aid drinking Reformed hacks like Steve Camp wrote lengthy articles refuting such an idea. Here is one article, http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/02/12/the-scream-of-the-damned-and-the-last-straw/ but there are many more. I mean, Jeff, I’m just sayin’ that I’m lookin’ at the source for a lot of this stuff.
LikeLike
I have to say one thing : if the so enlightened NC have the whole doctrine thing so figured out why are so many confused? Would not their very soteriology be so clear to their flock that no continual rehashing TULIP, rewording, and rephrasing would be needed to convince them of the truth? If this was Gospel, why the insecurity on the part of NC? They storm on sites refuting Calvinism with such anger and frustration and while the true Gospel is one of peace and love. One really needs to dwell heavy on 1 Corinthians 13 a little while……the greatest of these is love. This was the No. 1 reasoning left….the love of Christ; the friendship of Christ; intimacy in Christ was missing. When that is absent no wonder you can sense a coldness in the Reformed church. I liken it to the church of Ephesus in Revelation 2. I was heading that direction; I was becoming cold towards those who were not like me- hmmmm……self-righteous and puffed up with knowledge?
LikeLike
Error. ….They storm on sites THAT ARE refuting Calvinism
LikeLike
That text produces no problem at all to those who understand both the doctrine of particular redemption and the Scriptures. If one should read the entire chapter, it would become clear the writer describes these according to their profession, not according to reality. Have those who return like sows to the mire and dogs to their own vomit truly escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Have they truly known the way of righteousness? Are we to believe, contrary to the clear teaching of the Scriptures elsewhere, that a person can be truly saved and then finally lost forever? If not, it must be that Peter is speaking of these professors according to their profession, not according to the reality of their case. When we apply this to 2 Pet. 2:1, it becomes clear that Peter is speaking of their confession that the Master bought them, not to the reality of whether Jesus actually bought them in the sense that he secured the eternal salvation of the elect.
LikeLike