Are you sure that you want to say it like that?
Charles Simeon, a 18th century Calvinist preacher, made this astounding statement.
Of this he [speaking of himself in the third person] is sure, that there is not a decided Calvinist or Arminian in the world who equally approves of the whole of Scripture . . . who, if he had been in the company of St. Paul whilst he was writing his Epistles, would not have recommended him to alter one or other of his expressions.
But the author would not wish one of them altered; he finds as much satisfaction in one class of passages as another; and employs the one, he believes, as freely as the other. Where the inspired Writers speak in unqualified terms, he thinks himself at liberty to do the same; judging that they needed no instruction from him how to propagate the truth. He is content to sit as a learner at the feet of the holy Apostles and has no ambition to teach them how they ought to have spoken.
posted by Daniel | 9:40 PM
23 Comments:
This is a great way of looking at scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
I find statements like this a little irritating. People say things like this when they want to avoid seeking a clear and sytematic understanding of Scriptural teaching.
Charles Simeon was only a very moderate Calvinist.
Every Blessing in Christ
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist,
I used to feel that way, but as of late I find these types of quotes refreshing.
Personally, I'm not really a big fan of systematic theology. The Bible doesn't completely fit anyone's system.
I have read this statement a few times now and don't know where Dyspraxic Fundamentalist is getting that he is avoiding a clear understanding of Scriptural teachings?
Isn't he saying simply that we as men often wish that we could change a few verbs or adjectives here and there in the bible so it fits out doctrine.
Where as the second part shows how we should be content with every part of the truth as it stands and proclaim all of it even the bits which we may feel at oddity with.
Yeah... but here is the problem. Charles Simeon is an interesting person. He does make statements like this from time to time and is known for having good relationships with non-calvinists.
However, he didn't always practice what he preached if I can say that without slander. He might say in this quotation that we should be content with how the Scripture words itself. However, when he comes to exegeting 1John 2:2 (for example) then he does in fact qualify the verse where the Apostle does not.
Simeon says some good things and some bad things, in my opinion. He is right that we ought not dare second guess what the Scripture says or how the Apostle has written it. However, Scripture does not exist inside of a vacuum. Rather, people come to the text with presuppositions, pre-understandings, etc. 1Jn 2:2 is probably a good example. People come to the word "world" with the presupposition that it means every single person in the world. To question our presuppositions and to define what the Apostle is saying is not to second guess the Holy Spirit, but rather to faithfully proclaim the Holy Spirit's words in such a way that it is understood in the way in which it was intended.
In Christ alone,
mike
Mike,
Now we're getting to the heart of the issue. Where lies the meaning of the text? Does the reader determine the meaning? Or does the author determine the meaning?
I believe that the meaning lies with the human author. Since the Holy Spirit inspired these men, we should determine the meaning by seeking to understand what the human author means by his writings.
For me, that's why I can't accept the traditional Calvinist interpretation of passages such as 1 John 2:2.
I can't help but think that "world" means "every single person." That's the mostly likely meaning for the word in that situation. I don't think that we could arrive anywhere else, if it wasn't for a preconceived idea such as limited atonement influencing our interpretation.
The Bible is also a communication between a human author inspired by the Holy Spirit to an original audience. I must also seek to understand how the original audience would have most likely understood the text. That's another reason that I can't accept the standard Calvinist interpretation of 1 John 2:2. In my opinion, the original audience would have understood John as saying that Jesus died for the whole world meaning every single person.
Good questions! -From both sides.
But how can we understand the author's real intent if we cannot get this from each and every word? Maybe all are in agreement on that one.
But Daniel, I somewhat feel your pain on 1 John 2:2. However, when faced with a similar statement from the pen of John I understood it much better:
John 11:49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, “nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad."
In addition, but if we properly understand what the word 'propitiation' means, then we have no choice but to limit 1 John 2:2. But also, I’m not convinced that Christ’s death had absolutely no effect on unbelievers. I actually would take ‘Christ died for the world’ as partially true statement. For the lost do benefit somewhat from Christ’s death, as the Father’s wrath is delayed for a time –but that’s a rabbit trail.
Original audience is important, in fact its extremely important if we consider that original audiences didn’t have cross referencing abilities. However, we must also affirm that the mystery has now been fully revealed, and that all of it wasn’t been to be conveyed in one letter.
SDG
Daniel,
Wonderful quote from Charles Simeon! It is crucial to remember that no theological system can adequately answer all Bible verses in its construct. While I agree that the preponderance of scripture supports the Doctrines of Grace, I do have difficulty with some passages such as I John 2:2, and 2 Peter 2:1. Sometimes it is best to acknowledge the difficulties and appreciate the limitations of finite humans to understand these doctrines completely, even in such works as Schreiner/Wares The Grace of God & The Bondage of the Will it is very difficult (I think) for some of the esteemed teachers (Piper on the Two Wills in God for instance) to conclusively support their arguments. Simeon spoke as an experienced Pastor; it is good to heed his instruction.
Daniel, you make a good point concerning systematic theology. There are flaws in both the extreme Calvinistic and Arminian schools. (Good luck getting those in those positions to admit it, though). I have generally found the truth to be central to extreme positions. I enjoyed both the post and the comments.
Daniel,
I do in fact reject reader-response and any other theories that put meaning in the hands of the reader.
The author's original intent is where meaning flows from.
Thus, to understand meaning, we must consider all of the factors that would help us ascertain what his original intent was.
As for 1John 2:2, I must disagree with your view. However, I do not reject your view on the Basis of me being a Calvinist. Rather, I reject your view because I believe the intent of the author (and Scripture as a whole) rejects your view. Similarly, the reason I am a Calvinist is not for Calvinism's sake. Rather, I believe that the Word of God understood correctly points straight to Reformed Soteriology.
In Christ alone,
P.S. I agree with Nathan that in some sense Jesus did die for every person. I believe that Common Grace is also a result of Jesus' death. However, I don't think that is what 1John 2:2 is talking about (propitiation).
However, if you are convinced that Jesus is the propitiation for every man on the earth then I must ask the Double Jeopardy question. If Jesus already bore the punishment for their sin to appease the wrath of God, is God just in punishing them again? Furthermore, can we believe that he did in fact appease the wrath of God if God's wrath will still be poured out on them?
We must hold to a particular atonement or universalism. Anything in the middle of an outright rejection of the word propitiation and is a matter of clouding the original text with our own theological presuppositions.
Leo,
Good thoughts. I think that Piper's work on two wills is an excellent step in the right direction. If Calvinists want to be faithful to the text, there needs to be more of this. The same thing is also true of Arminians.
Daniel: "Personally, I'm not really a big fan of systematic theology. The Bible doesn't completely fit anyone's system."
Well said. From what I understand of systematic theology, it tends to rip the text from their contexts leaving us with an unbalanced view of God's word.
What about I Timothy 4:10?
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
John 11:49 doesn't harm those of us who believe that Jesus died for the "whole" world. It is true that out of the whole world He will gather His "believers." Believing (i.e., putting faith in God/Jesus) being a prerequisite to salvation.
Dawn:
Are you suggesting that Jesus has saved all men? If so, then the position is called Universalism.
However, you probably are not a universalist and therefore you are going to put a qualification on this verse. That is fine. In fact, that is exactly what you are supposed to do. We use the rest of the bible and the context here to determine the meaning of the passage. If you are able to qualify the verse, then so to can Calvinists. If you are not willing to qualify the verse, then you are a universalist.
Also,
allow me to suggest that a rejection of systematic theology is to not understand systematic theology. ST can and has at times ripped verses out of context and shredded their meaning. But this is not ST done properly, but abused. ST done properly simply answers "What does the entire bible teach about "subjectA" and how then does that affect us".
For example:
If you are evangelizing and you say "The bible teaches that Jesus has become incarnate to live in active obedience to God and then die in passive obedience for the propitiation of sins and the reconciliation of relationships" then you have performed systematic theology.
In fact, if you said "'The bible teaches that Abortion is wrong" then that is ST.
Any Creed, statement of faith, confession, etc is Systematic Theology.
When Jesus summarized the entire law by two commandments He performed systematic theology. When we see the early Christian creed in Col 1:15-20 then Paul is performing systematic theology.
Etc.
Philio:
The 1 John 2:2 comments here are astounding. Another classic example of the Calvinist unnaturally forcing his systematic theology into the text.
As long as you realize that this is not an argument but two logical fallacies then we are okay. However, if you think that the statement has merit then you are going to need to prove your point. The word "world" clearly does not mean "every man ever alive" in many places in the biblen (often used to mean Roman Empire [like when Luke asserts the Gospel had been heard throughout the whole world]; often used to mean gentiles; etc). In order for you to use that rendering here, you would need to argue your case using hermeneutical method. To simply make an asertion does in fact sound bold, but when there is nothing substantive it simply must fall by the wasteside.
In Christ alone,
mike
I think the argument concerning ST is not a backlash against theology in general. I cannot speak for others who are commenting here, but my personal concern is with hard-line Calvinists and Arminians alike (I have debated both) who look at a text, sometimes even with a context, and force upon it an interpretation that is consistent with their "system" of theology.
I realize that we all do this to some degree. But in many cases, a system of theology can force a verse to fit its mold simply by virtue of ignoring other possible interpretations. Understand that I am not speaking of altering or correcting Scripture, (I happen to be an inerrantist), but if I place the authority of my interpretation in a system of theology I run the risk of being just as guilty.
I have talked with too many who, when faced with a challenging text, go running to Reformed writers or to Free-Grace writers to see what their opinion is. There is much to be said for reading the thoughts of other men (it certainly keeps us from being too narrow-minded), but the moment we yield our right of interpretation of Scripture to someone else, we surrender one of the greatest blessings of being a Christian. That is the right to be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
My personal belief is that on most points, the truth is generally found somewhere between two extremes.
Well said Mike.
We have given a brief overview of our position on 1 John 2:2 and why we reject that world somehow means every single man without exception. But instead of a rebuttal, we get another blanket statement completely absent of any argument showing our position to be groundless. Why does this continue to happen? If we are wrong, by all means show us! Judging us to be in error and not seeking reconciliation is a characteristic of the Pharisees.
Again, why do we 'force' our understading into the text and determine that 'world' in 1John 2:2 cannot mean all without exception? Because taking world to mean everyone:
A) Is inconsistent with a plethora of other passages (detailing the nature of the atonement and whether Christ actually accomplished anything in His death).
B) Is inconsistent with basic logic and rational.
C) Is inconsistent with the actual meaning of the word 'propitiation'.
E) Ignores the many other uses of the term -in the same book and by the same author- where world does not mean every man without exception.
F) Is easily reconcilable with John 11:49
G) Affirms what every true Christian believes (but will not always admit): that there is a limit to who Christ died for -otherwise all men would be saved.
I just blogged about this recently and I argued that we must understand the intent of the atonement before we understand the extent. That is, if Christ actually accomplished anything by His death, then we must put a limit on it. So your options are: Christ did not actually save anyone, thus you would agree with the Roman Catholics that 'grace' must be added to by our merit. OR, you must affirm that Christ did accomplish something in His death, thus if He died for all then all will be saved.
Do you guys realize that you are agreeing with the Catholic view of the atonement? That is, Christ did 99% of the work, but our obedience here on earth determines whether you can appropriate that 99%?
Have the Catholics gotten this right?
Furthermore, I thought you held to 'foreknowledge' Daniel? If, as you say, Christ can see in the future who would earn their salvation by their own autonomous works, then why could He not limit His death to those whom He saw? In your position, why does it have to be unlimited?
Gordon,
You hold a position that is very common today. You concluded with:
My personal belief is that on most points, the truth is generally found somewhere between two extremes.
This is a very popular sentiment especially in our increasingly post-modern world. I admit that at times it is probably true. However, we must note that it is not always true. There is no middle ground between monotheists and polytheists. There is no middle ground between worshipping the one true God and committing idolotry. The point is that there may be a time for compromise but that is not always the solution.
Now, the promlem with your view is that it simply is not possible in some discussions. In reality, one of the biggest differences between Reformed Theology and other theologies is going to be Monergism or Syngergism. Mono is the prefix meaning One. That is, there is one active force in the work of regeneration. Syngerism means that there is a cooperation of two or more active forces. There can be no compromise here. 1.5 forces does not exist.
So then, dealing with regeneration, we must ask the question. Is it God alone who is the active force in brining about Spiritual life in a person or is it a cooperation of God and man (including pelagian views, semi-pelagian, Arminian, Weslyan, etc.).
Once we begin to answer this question, then everything else falls into place. Therefore, we can search for some middle ground, but when we really get to the key questions, such a middle ground is literally impossible.
Now, the second problem with the middle ground theory is that the answer is necessarily framed by the question. I would agree that there is a middle ground. However, I would say that it falls between Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism. The firm arminian would say truth is between Open Theology and Calvinism. The person who really wants to go in the middle is to say that it is between mild-calvinism and mild-arminianism. Really, we can get whatever answer we want by simply changing the terms that we are comparing.
So then, what is the correct question to ask, which will yield the correct answer.
The person who wants to say give the middle of the road answer is generally just an Arminian. They want to say there is a middle ground between God's Sovereign Ordination and Human Autonomy. However, this is not the question that scripture poses. Scripture does not teach that humans are purely autonomous. Rather, we are either enslaved to sin or chained to righteousness. The middle ground that Scripture teaches is found between God's Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (guilt). That is, the bible teaches that God does Ordain all that comes to pass but yet He is not responsible for evil (men are). This is the correct tension to maintain.
Lastly, there is a tendency to read verses into a ST. However, ST done properly approaches Scripture and asks what the overwhelming teaching of Scripture is. It then orrganizes this data and we begin too form a Theology. So then, while it is possible that there have been errors done in regard to ST, it is not an error that is essential to ST.
Also, there is a very real hermeneutical practice called the Analogy of Faith the presupposes that God is True, Good, and has inspired Scripture. If we agree with this, then all verses must not contradict. Therefore, if two verses seem to Contradict then our interpretation of 1 (or both) of the verses must be wrong.
That is a lot of information but I hope that it clarifies why I believe what I do.
In Christ alone,
mike
Nathan,
I have never said that "Christ can see in the future who would earn their salvation by their own autonomous works." I fiercely reject the idea that salvation is deserved or merited based on works or even faith for that matter.
Salvation is undeserved. The person who has saving faith does not deserve salvation. He is freely given salvation. Salvation cannot be merited.
I do believe that the atonement is limited in one sense. I also believe that there are passages that insist the atonement is unlimited in another sense. I haven't worked it all out yet.
He is freely given salvation.
Wait a second there Daniel. Who is given Salvation? Everyone? Someone in Particular? If we have everyone then we have universalism. If we have someone in particular then we are venturing into Calvinism.
Are you sure that you want to say that God has given someone salvation? From what I can see, your view would hold that God offers Salvation to everyone and those who reach out and grab it get to keep it.
Just wondering,
mike
Mike,
I think that I already addressed your question. Take another look at my statement.
I said, "Salvation is undeserved. The person who has saving faith does not deserve salvation. He [the person with saving faith] is freely given salvation. Salvation cannot be merited."
Mike, no I'm not a universalist. And yes, I do qualify this scripture (I Tim 4:10) with scripture. To name a few:
Mark 16:15; Luke 2:10,30-32; John 3:16; Romans 11:32; 2 Cor 5:14-15; I Tim 2:1-6; Heb 2:9; Titus 2:11-12.
Nathan: “Judging us to be in error and not seeking reconciliation is a characteristic of the Pharisees.”
Why do you write such caustic words? Can you not just agree to disagree without always charging people of being something they are not or doing things they have not done? First we’re not humbling ourselves and now we’re Pharisees. Can you please lay off the ad hominem? I don’t believe that any one of us who disagrees with you is in ANY way Pharisaical. Please Stop.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe someone just doesn't have the time to pursue a rebuttal, but wants to voice their dissent?
It’s one thing to challenge us, it is completely another to slander or belittle us.
I will attempt to “seek reconciliation.”
Nathan: "If we are wrong, by all means show us!
Mark 16:15; Luke 2:10,30-32; John 3:16; Romans 5:18, 11:32; 2 Cor 5:14-15; I Tim 2:1-6,4:10; Heb 2:9; Titus 2:11-12; II Peter 2:1.
Nathan: “Again, why do we 'force' our understading into the text and determine that 'world' in 1John 2:2 cannot mean all without exception? Because taking world to mean everyone:
A) Is inconsistent with a plethora of other passages (detailing the nature of the atonement and whether Christ actually accomplished anything in His death)."
Jesus accomplished the means of salvation for every man/whosoever will. He was THE passover lamb, right? Just as those who applied the blood on the lintel posts in Egypt were spared physical death, those who are covered in/apply Jesus' blood by believing and receiving Him are spared spiritual death. The passover meal was open to anyone (Jew or Gentile) who would commit to the God of the Israelites and be circumcised. A commitment first and then a circumcision. (Exodus 12)
Please provide the scripture from the OT where it states that those who were saved by looking ahead to the Messiah were given saving grace first.
Jesus died for everyone, but not everyone will accept His gift. So the atonement is limited only insofar as one must believe and receive Him for the atonement to be effective. That doesn’t in any way cause His death to be in vain. If only ONE person accepted Jesus out of all the world, His death would still not be in vain. The only way it would be in vain is if no one ever accepted His death. But please feel free to provide the scripture which states that Jesus' death is in vain if He died for everyone, but not everyone will accept that atonement.
As an aside, Abraham was not circumcised when He “believed” God and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness. Abraham believed and then he was circumcised. Right? And that is how the NT teaches it. Believe/Faith + Receive + Repentance = Saving Grace. God gives us a new heart upon our receiving the Lord’s gift of grace. The word of God by the Spirit of God renews our minds/hearts.
Nathan: "B) Is inconsistent with basic logic and rational."
It is only inconsistent with the logic and rationale of Calvinists. It is perfectly consistent, logical and rational to what the word of God teaches. And that is that salvation is available to every man (i.e., whosoever believes/faiths). Jesus died for all (Heb 2:9), but only those who believe and receive will have their sins atoned.
Nathan: "C) Is inconsistent with the actual meaning of the word 'propitiation'."
Please tell us what propitiation actually means since you think we don't seem to understand it.
Nathan: "E) Ignores the many other uses of the term -in the same book and by the same author- where world does not mean every man without exception."
It depends upon the context.
Nathan "F) Is easily reconcilable with John 11:49"
So. John 11:49 is merely honing in on the fact that the atonement is only effective to those who believe and receive which is something that will happen to men from every part of the world. This scripture doesn't hurt my position, but rather it affirms it.
Nathan "G) Affirms what every true Christian believes (but will not always admit): that there is a limit to who Christ died for -otherwise all men would be saved."
I admit that the atonement is only effectual to those who believe and receive the Lord. But Jesus’ death was the propitiaton that was made available to all men (whosoever will). Calvinists have made up the part that Jesus' death requires all men to be saved if He died for all men.
Hebrews 2:9 “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
1 John 2:2 “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Luke 2:10,14 “And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
1 Timothy 2:1-6 “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
All emphasis added to the scriptures.
Nathan “I just blogged about this recently and I argued that we must understand the intent of the atonement before we understand the extent. That is, if Christ actually accomplished anything by His death, then we must put a limit on it. So your options are: Christ did not actually save anyone, thus you would agree with the Roman Catholics that 'grace' must be added to by our merit. OR, you must affirm that Christ did accomplish something in His death, thus if He died for all then all will be saved.
Or we can go with what the word of God actually states and know that Jesus died for all and only those who believe and receive will have their sins atoned.
Nathan “Do you guys realize that you are agreeing with the Catholic view of the atonement? That is, Christ did 99% of the work, but our obedience here on earth determines whether you can appropriate that 99%?”
Do you realize that we do NOT agree with the Catholic view of atonement? Do you realize that Calvinists have just made up this so-called 99/1 % ratio? Do you realize that faith is not a work? Do you realize that it is 100% of God’s grace that saves us when we believe and receive because we have no power within us to save ourselves and that NONE of us deserves to be saved? Do you realize that God LOVES everyone?
Nathan “Have the Catholics gotten this right?”
No.
Well look who's at it again. Dawn, I've already thoroughly trumped you on this subject (see the 15 page reply I posted on your blog a few weeks ago), why do you continue to beat a dead horse? All you do is keep on coming back with poor, shallow arguments that have already been refuted. How about exegesis? Every thought of that one? Your reply here was so poor that no sound student of the Word would agree with your words -I bet even Daniel wouldn't associate with you after that one (well, he might only because you are fighting the same battle, but I doubt he would agree with these trivial assertions and scripture quotations). Christ's death could have potentially saved no one if no one had chosen to believe??? Wow, your getting desperate as ever. Nevertheless, your arguments were so trivial that I will only respond to the last portion:
Dawn said: Do you realize that we do NOT agree with the Catholic view of atonement?
Uh, yes you do. You just won't admit it. Use your brain not your emotions.
Dawn said:Do you realize that Calvinists have just made up this so-called 99/1 % ratio?
Uh no, simple human logic does! (brain thing again). Like I said before, if Christ didn't actually accomplish anything in His death, as the Catholics affirm, then you agree with them that man must do [fill in the blank with whatever you want] in order to 'appropriate' that death.
Dawn said: Do you realize that faith is not a work?
Of course it's not a work because it comes from God!! However, in your view, man can drum up faith autonomously (either that or you believe God has given saving faith to every man-something that boggles the mind its so ridiculous).
Do you realize that it is 100% of God’s grace that saves us when we believe and receive because we have no power within us to save ourselves and that NONE of us deserves to be saved?
That’s what I’ve trying to tell you but you just don’t listen.
Do you realize that God LOVES everyone?
So answer me this, did God love Pharaoh the exact same as He loved Moses? Did He love Jacob the same as Esau? Point made.
And one last question, please answer: If Christ died for every single man, how can you be sure that you will not incur His wrath in Hell? How do you know you will be saved?
Post a Comment
<< Home