Freedom or Bondage of the Will? Cross Ex

2 Corinthians 5:21 and the Meaning of Reconciliation

Since this was fresh on everybody's minds, Dr. Lakemore, if we could go back to your comments on 2 Corinthians 5 .21. You were just indicating that, it seemed to me you were indicating, well I wasn't exactly sure what you were indicating, so maybe I can ask it this way.

He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteous of God in Him. Who is the our and we in 2 Corinthians 5 .21? Well it's obviously those who believe the gospel and who will be reconciled to God.

Okay, so you would not say that God made him to be sin in behalf of someone who will experience the wrath of God for eternity? No, I would say that. Okay, so we in 2 Corinthians 5 .21 are believers, but unbelievers can say the same thing that believers say in this text?

No. No. Only those who hear the atonement as they are implored by the apostle be reconciled to God. Only they can know themselves reconciled because only they have been reconciled to God by being reconciled to God.

Through their reception of the grace of God in the gospel. So there are people who receive the grace of God in the gospel who do not embrace it who could say that God made him to be sin on their behalf.

Is that what you're saying? So as long as you've heard the message, then you can say these words whether you come to Christ or not. Or is there a particularity in the action of the Father in making him who knew no sin be sin on our behalf?

What I'm trying to find out is whose behalf was Jesus truly made sin on our behalf? If you follow through that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ so as to not count men's sins against them, then Jesus is made sin for all of the world.

For every individual? Yes, every person. Okay, so every person can say that the words of 2 Corinthians 5 .21. Did I mishear you before? I thought you earlier said that no, unbelievers cannot say the words of, they cannot put themselves in this verse.

But now it sounded like you just said that since you understand the world in verse 1. No, excuse me. No, please go ahead. What you asked me was who is Paul talking about? You didn't ask me, your first question was not who could say this about themselves.

Your first question was who is Paul speaking about? My answer was he is speaking to those who know themselves to be reconciled to God. So, going back to 5 .19. So, if you see the word world as a universal term in 2 Corinthians 5 .19, then you would clearly see the following phrase.

The autois there would be everyone in the world. So, everyone's sins will not be imputed to them. Everyone's sins in the sense that the offense that God has against sin. Which is the fundamental block between us and the world.

I mean between the world, all of us and God. In that sense, they are not imputed to us as something that keeps us from being reconciled to God in Christ. The forgiveness of God has been declared in Christ.

Because in Christ the judgment of God upon sin has been meted out. Now, therefore, something must be done about this gift. Someone must respond to this gift. In other words, since God has reconciled himself to us, then the apostle says we implore you be reconciled to God.

By your reading, it seems to me that the apostle's comment to be reconciled to God would be irrelevant. So, the last phrase of verse 21, the Hinnok Laws. In order that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

That is just what God wants to have happen? Or is that the actual result of the divine act of He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf? Is that just what God wants to happen, but it doesn't happen in a large portion of instances?

It's always interesting to have this discussion. It is what happens when by grace, any human being responds to the gift of God in Jesus. But there should be a theological and exegetical subtlety going on here.

That I think it may be easy to miss. That God is doing something for the world. Moving that which would make it impossible for Him to forgive anyone who committed sins against them. Therefore, be reconciled to God.

And when you are reconciled to God, then indeed the full purposes of God are experienced. That we do become the righteousness of God. Let me try to clarify something. Do you believe in the concept of substitutionary atonement?

Indeed. Okay. So Christ has borne the wrath of God for every single person who has ever lived. And yet there will be many people who will likewise bear His wrath for the same sins which Christ substituted.

They will bear the wrath of God for their unwillingness to accept the gift of God in Jesus Christ. So they won't bear the wrath of God against their sin. They'll bear the wrath of God against a single sin of unbelief.

That ultimately is what is the issue in the scripture. So there will be no levels of punishment then. Unbelieving hearts. Time is going really, really fast here and I really wanted to ask you a question.

Romans 8, the Flesh, and Prevenient Grace

In light of this, in my opening statement I presented Romans chapter 8. And I went through the text that says those from the flesh, their mind is hostile toward God. They don't subject themselves to the law of God.

Those from the flesh cannot please God. If I'm understanding your position correctly, and please correct me I'm honestly trying to understand. If I'm understanding your position correctly, you're saying that by the death of Christ this situation has been changed.

So that people do have, by evidently a form of prevenient grace, the ability to do what is pleasing to God. So would it not follow they are no longer in the flesh? Well I'm glad you asked that question.

Because it allows me to clarify. The whole concept of prevenient grace is something like what people in your tradition talk about when they speak of preventing grace. But we see out of the scripture that there is a way to talk about the grace of God.

In which through Christ all of the world has been reconciled to God. And therefore a capacity to respond to God has been given. But prevenient grace does not mean that people are no longer in the flesh.

It means that the flesh does not determine all that there is to be true about us. The question then is in Romans 8 when he talks about the life of God. He says those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh.

But those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit. This whole idea of setting one's mind. Can a person who is in the flesh set their minds on the things of the spirit by preventing grace?

No but then can't you then feel the yearnings of God? Because if you go back to Romans chapter 7 which is the immediate context that makes sense out of Romans chapter 8. As Paul talks about the struggle that goes on within the human person.

He says there are things I want to do that I can't do. And there are things that I don't want to do that I can't help but do. So how do we contend with that? Your turn. Wow this takes up way more energy than I was anticipating.

I have a more broadly theological question and I ask this genuinely. Because ultimately I really am not about scoring points tonight. Those of you who came here on my side you are going to leave here on my side for the most part.

Those of you who came on Dr. White's side you are going to leave on Dr. White's side. I don't want to filibuster anymore. But I wonder what is it about the doctrine of particular redemption that you find is so beautiful.

That could not be just as beautiful understood from an Arminian or Western point of view. Given what I have apparently inarticulately tried to describe about the universality of Christ's atonement. And the engaging work of grace to draw us all to him.

Titus 2: Christ's Finished Work and the Purpose of the Cross

Well I think I would just go to Titus chapter 2. And point out that we are looking for the blessing of hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus. Who gave himself for us.

And then you clearly have laid out here another Pinnock clause, another purpose clause. In order that to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for good deeds.

So from my perspective one of the very essence of the glory of the cross is not that God tried but that God accomplished. That when Christ says the telecite is finished, it's not just as Norman Geisler said, Christ's death saves no one, it just makes all men savable.

I see a huge difference between saying that Christ's death has made men savable and saying that Christ has saved. That's the difference between being a Savior and a potential Savior. So it's the finishness of it which also lies in the doctrine of penal substitution and substitutionary atonement.

That his sacrifice, I am united with him. It is only in him that I have eternal life. And it is personal. We sing the song, my name is written on his hand. It's not that he dies for a nameless faceless group that fills itself up depending upon whether we choose or not.

It is personal, it is substitutionary, it is accomplished and finished. So that's where I see the difference. Okay. Do you then believe that when you talk about, you asked me if I believe in substitutionary atonement.

And you seem to equate penal satisfaction with what all that substitutionary atonement can mean. Yes I do. And why would you say all? I mean, I can't see how they can be substituted. They can't be separated from one another.

I would not say that penal substitution is all that substitutionary atonement means. Because that would leave out union with Christ and all the positive benefits as well. So it's intimately connected and cannot be separated from.

But you see fundamentally that the problem of our sinfulness and the bondage of our will is in the things that we have done against God. The acts, because you kept pushing me on the acts. What has been, what can no longer be imputed?

Well I certainly believe that the punishment that will be borne by an individual under the wrath of God will not simply be for unbelief. Unbelief is a sin. And if it is atoned for by the death of Christ there wouldn't be a basis even for wrath against unbelief.

I sure hope Christ paid for unbelief because I think we all experience it to one level or another. I mean, the disciples themselves said, you know, increase my faith. And he said, no you have little faith.

So I believe that there will be levels of punishment in hell dependent upon the actions of the individual based upon Jesus' own teaching about praising the Satan, the Sodom and Gomorrah and so on and so forth.

Which leads me to believe that the sins of all of mankind have not been taken away by the death of Christ. I don't see how the Amorites, to whom no prophets were sent, who were given time for their iniquity to be fulfilled in the book of Genesis chapter 15.

I don't see how the Amorites are going to be able to be forgiven of their sins on the basis of the death of Christ. I believe that since they made their children to pass through the fire and everything else, they will be punished for those sins.

I don't believe Christ was punished for them. So you then, when John the Baptist points to him and says, behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Can you interpret that to me? Well, since he is the only Lamb that takes away sin at all, anyone, and of course the elect are described as what in Revelation chapter 5?

Men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. That's the world. I mean it would be easy enough to say Jews and Gentiles would be the world, but let's let the Bible itself determine the term. In John's own usage, same text, same writer anyways, what did it say in John 11?

All the children of God gathered together as one. Revelation chapter 5. Men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. There is only one Savior and he saves perfectly anyone and it is for the whole world.

That's why I can go anywhere in the world. I just got back from Lima, Peru and I can proclaim that Jesus Christ would be a perfect Savior to anyone who bows to me in repentance and confesses him as Lord.

In Lima, Peru, just as well as I can, in Sydney, Australia or where I'm going to be in a couple of weeks in Glasgow, Scotland. So you, what you do then is you beg the question that the world has to be the elect because of your other presuppositions about the nature of grace.

I wouldn't agree with that question at all. I think it's very clear that the word world is used in numerous ways. We are not to love the world. Jesus said he did not pray for those who are of the world.

I mean we have to allow a context to define what the term means. Yeah, we are not to love the world because we are not to love the fallen way that humanity has organized itself in rebellion against God.

Is that a question? My point obviously that I think you just made for me is that when we look at these terms, I don't believe that there is a really good basis for reading a universal concept of world into many of these uses.

I don't believe the original authors would have done it. I don't think any of the original writers would have ever included the Amorites who are already dead in this. And I'm not sure if you did. Maybe you just mean everyone from that point forward.

I don't know. All I know is when I look at the text and it uses the term in these ways, I let the context determine whether it is talking about every single individual who has ever lived, ever will live, and was alive at that day.

And it just doesn't make any sense given the context. Here's a question. Will you be willing to continue to talk with me about this so I can understand from your perspective why something that makes absolute sense to me makes no sense to you?

Well, obviously this is a subject. I almost got the sense a few moments ago that when you said I'm going to ask this question honestly, you were sort of implying that I wasn't. And I honestly was asking the questions I was asking because I don't fully understand exactly how your system works either.

So I think that this is a good start to understand some of those things. But the reality is there's a lot of different perspectives on your side of the fence, too. You yourself brought that up. And believe it or not, we do not walk lockstep with one another on every single issue.

There have been a few things that some of the brothers here probably go, well, I'm not sure I agree on something like that. I understand that. But I do think at least the major outlines of where we are, our ships passing the night here, have been laid out.

And I think we see where those areas are. Well, before I can ask this next question, I need to say I was not implying that you were not very genuine. I just wanted you to know that I reciprocate in truly wanting to understand.

Irenaeus, Recapitulation, and Patristic Views of the Atonement

Back to the penal substitution thing, would you then believe that St. Irenaeus got it wrong in his whole doctrine of recapitulation? Yes, sir. He would? Oh, yeah. He also, he also, St. Irenaeus, well, I wouldn't even call him a saint, but Irenaeus also, Irenaeus also informed us that he had a tradition from the apostles that Jesus was more than 50 years old when he died.

So, none of us follow him on that either. I look at all the patristic writers and I judge them on the basis of that. And look, when it comes to the doctrine of atonement, there have been an incredible number of odd views on that subject.

I think personally that's due to the fact that the Old Testament was primarily a closed book to many of them, especially after Origen and the rise of allegorical interpretation. Do you, hey, excuse the callousness of my provider.

Well, God caused us to love all men.