Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Yeah, that's okay.
Welcome to the rap report with your host Andrew Rappaport where we provide biblical interpretation and application. This is a ministry of striving for eternity and the Christian podcast community. For more content or to request a speaker for your church Go to striving for eternity org.
Welcome to another edition of the rap report. I'm your host Andrew Rappaport the executive director of striving for eternity and the Christian podcast community Which this podcast is a proud member. We are here to give you biblical interpretations and applications for the Christian life.
If you want to find out more about what we do just go to striving for eternity org. You can find all about what we do in our week. Maybe you want to have us come out to your church do some weekend seminars things like that today's topic.
We're gonna have some fun. Let's challenge the common view of limited atonement, ooh. Yes, that's what we're gonna do. We're we're going to challenge what many think is limited atonement and they or in Calvinism people sometimes will say well.
You're you know, are you a Calvinist? Are you not a Calvinist? Well, it's gonna depend on how we define things. Therefore I brought in an author here Austin Brown. Welcome to the rap report.
Thank you very much for having me. I'm looking forward to Angry in your audience. No, I'm kidding. I.
Got I got that covered. Don't worry about that at all. When I just mentioning the term Calvinism. Yeah, we've just we've just triggered the audience. The audience that doesn't believe in Calvinism is triggered.
The audience that believes in Calvinism. Saying what do you mean? You're gonna question. Limit atonement was just triggered. So we've we've successfully triggered everybody I think.
So is usually how it goes. Yes.
So, why don't you first introduce yourself? Okay, and then what we want to talk about is is your book that you have written and to discuss that and What it is that is so Frustrating for people on both sides.
Yes, exactly. Yeah. Well, thank you again. My name is Austin Brown. I would describe myself as a Churchman husband father of three. I'm a mailman by profession, but all my life at least all my adult life.
I have made my ambition to serve faithfully in the church whether it was if there's a deacon in the RPC and a or is a ruling elder in the PCA and. Among my hobbies is certainly writing and the latest thing that I have Written is a well this title that is very cheekily titled and that is a boisterously reformed polemic against limited atonement.
Okay, a boisterously reformed polemic against limited atonement. Now if. If those listening are like many people who bump up against this they think now, wait a minute. You cannot be Reformed and deny.
Limited atonement I.
Mean, is that you kind of your experience to Andrew? Is that this is just these. This just doesn't.
People relate people who do not understand history. Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah, and 98 of all people on message boards. It would seem reform message from.
Yes.
Well, this is true and I mean this is the thing that I think we have to recognize with this is when we talk about Calvinism and if folks want to really I don't even usually use the term Calvinism because it that is such a Jaded term because so many people don't have a good definition.
What it is most people that are against Calvinism and I've done this in debates. I debated Calvinism and I had a guy who. When I what I did was I went through the five points of.
Calvinism and.
Asked him one by one whether he believes this and this and this and this and every one of them he agreed with. Just giving him the definition interesting when I Asked him do you believe in?
You know.
Unconditional election and told the proud, you know one by one going through it. He denied it and gave a wrong definition. I'd say what what is it? The irony is I congratulate him at one point said hey, congratulations.
You're a Calvinist. And he was so upset. I've done this several times and what I've what I've noticed is and this guy's want it was looking to debate Calvinism and I said you shouldn't be debating this because you don't even understand the topic and that's an issue.
And right this is what I find with a lot of people is They do not Know the issue that they're debating.
They know.
Some things that are said on the negative about it and right and the characters, right correct and they attack that. Oh big time. But we need to be fair with definitions. Yeah, and and that's why I always refer to it as God's sovereignty and human responsibility because that's where the tension is.
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and just to be yeah and to be clear I suppose in terms of defining our terms When I say limited Atonement what I have in mind is This question for whose sins did Christ suffer.
There's really only two answers to this question and it's either all men or some men. Limited Atonement affirms strenuously that The Christ satisfaction is only for some men. All right. So that is the the limited.
It's not application. It's not who will trust in Christ and have the righteousness of Christ. That's not that's not the issue. The issue is the extent of satisfaction or the extent of propitiation Atonement these kinds of things and I defend the proposition that Christ died for all men.
Okay, so now now that you've successfully triggered a lot of people. Right. Is this a is this the historical view? Is this the view? That we would see say from a John Calvin. I.
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and if we go back I would argue that for the first 1 ,500 years of the church and this really isn't disputed that the vast Vast majority of the church held to universal satisfaction.
Where it really comes in and begins to take a foothold is a guy by name of Theodore Beza. You know one of one of Calvin's students might one might call him a protege. He is the one who I would say overly systematized Calvinism and fell into this reductionistic air whereby he he made a logical leap from election Unconditional election to well, okay.
If God chooses something Christ can only die for some and I would just say that is a non sequitur but from there from from Beza you get into John Owen and. And then you slide, you know Basically down through history to the present where most Calvinist today that you were gonna bump into will affirm limited atonement and.
They think it is monolithic, but the reality is is that it is not.
Yeah, this is son for folks who are regular listeners. Maybe you heard back. Oh about a year ago when I was at the why Calvinism conference and and actually because of my view which is similar to your view of limited atonement the Thing that ended up happening was I was gonna be limited on what I could speak on.
So I was assigned a topic of the history of Calvinism. Which I mean I can I can explain it without having to fully believe a position. I can I can still teach something. Well, you know and not misrepresented and so what I did there is go through and and show.
As we look at a history of Calvin and you mentioned B's of what a lot people don't realize is we might not have had What we think of as Arminian ism if it wasn't for Beezer Beezer was a follower of John Calvin but when John Calvin died and There's a thing people don't realize they think like Jacob Arminius and John Calvin were fighting it out.
When John Calvin died Jacob Arminius was four years old. He may have been a smart man, but he wasn't smart enough to be debating John Calvin at four and so. Really? What happened is that after Calvin died as you mentioned Beezer kind of went further than Calvin did.
Beezer started teaching things like double predestination and that kind of ruffled the feathers of Jacob Arminius and right. You RC Sproul has a chapter in his book about Arminius and and he does a really good job of showing the history and showing how really Jacob Arminius and when I did this talk on the history of Calvinism, I referred to the Calvinism of Arminius and people were like all the guys at the conference like I want to see what you're gonna say about that and really what it is is that people don't realize that Jacob Arminius Early on was reacting to Beezer and trying to pull men like Beezer in back toward what Calvin was teaching.
And the problem is is that as Beezer got harder Against the you know in response to Arminius Arminius got further in hardline response to Beezer. The both kind of started separating their followers start separating.
What most people don't realize is both Calvin and Arminius were were dead. Arminius died several years before the council that Met finally they tried meeting when Arminius was alive but it was like four years after he died that they finally met and were able to come up with the the five points of the remonstrance and then there was the reaction to it the counter Remonstrance that we know of as the five points of Calvinism and I heard you mentioned on different podcasts.
There was actually eight points initially of Calvinism.
Yeah, yeah in 1618. Yeah, I agree with everything you're saying. Well, and there's a psychological element Here too, and and I think we see this in politics. We see this in so many things is When you have a dispute over a matter the followers tend to harden into two, you know polar opposite camps and and begin to distance themselves over things that they probably ought not or they Maybe wouldn't have outside of the context of a polemical engagement.
And I think that's what we've seen and and history has just had this hardened line. With all Calvinism and Arminian ism at as if there isn't a fair bit that they share in common at points. And as if those are the only two camps in the history of the church, right that You could say well what happened to the Augustinians or the Thomists or the you know, whomever's right?
Well, the issue kind of becomes is you you have these camps.
But.
Part of the issue is how do you define everything? So this becomes the real issue is we have people defining things differently and. That's why look when people ask me what you know, they'll sit there and say, okay.
So what what are you? Are you a you you Calvinist? You are an Arminian. I say well, I'm a report Ian. My last name is Rappaport. You have to ask me what I believe now, right? It's that's that's the thing.
Is that you know, there there's a lot of differences that you end up seeing within any camp and. And you bring up a good point with the fact of I mean no one. There's nobody who wakes up and goes. I want to grow up to be a heretic right, I mean Layton flowers didn't start going.
Oh, I want to I want to just totally deny clear teaching of Scripture. No, he it was it's a slow progression. It's the it's Defending a position where I mean now he's more open to open theism right where he used to be stronger against that.
Oh, really? I'm not aware that yeah, that's has he been sliding. He's he's been as he's making friends with more open theists. He's being more open to it and you know I mean it at least that's a more consistent position if you're gonna try it is defend the God's character against God's character like that's dangerous because you end up sliding into error, but.
What happens is is that and I'm not saying that Layton is a heretic. I just think he's got some bad teaching. And he's a personal friend of mine. So it's not that I don't I say this to him. Well, when we talk but the issue is is that?
It's the slow progression of trying to defend a position a view and. You're you're so trying to fight for that that you overlook what might be clear teaching of Scripture. Because you're looking for this everywhere.
Right and and people do that all time whether it's end times the two big ones are end times in soteriology the doctrine of salvation so those are two but you can get in a whole lot of other things where people just start focusing too much on one thing and.
Historically you mentioned B's and I think B's is the one that really started this view of limited atonement that we look at today it didn't I I actually started reading a book many years ago the Calvin the Calvinism of Calvin and looking at the five points because of the very thing you had discovered is Calvin really didn't hold to the same teachings as B's and yet it was really B's that.
For in his followers, I should say that formulated what we know of as the five points of Calvinism today. And the view of limited atonement really came I think solidified under John Owen.
Yes, I agree.
He's he he. And if you haven't read the death of death. That it's a great book. If you haven't read John Owen, hold on to your seats. It's it's some hefty reading.
It is but he makes as you mentioned a logical argument for limited atonement being that Christ could only have died for the elect.
Right and.
This is hard for some, you know to accept and so let me let me challenge you with the arguments that people are gonna have that. That you've had plenty of times. Yeah, so People are gonna say to you well if Christ died for all people then Christ death was not.
You know, he died for people that it wasn't paid to he there's different ways. That somehow Christ's death was Ineffective because he died for people that are in hell. You're you saying that you know Christ would do such a thing.
What what say you?
Yeah, and I guess you know, the simple cheeky answer is Yes, it was ineffectual for them because they did not appropriate it by faith in the same way that you could turn it around. The judo throw with all this stuff is just to go.
Oh, I guess if God shows love.
To the non-elect and.
That love doesn't ultimately save them and I guess it was spurious or somehow wasted or somehow. Reveal some kind of weakness in God. Well, no, it doesn't reveal a weakness in God. In fact, it shows the magnitude of God's love when he loves his enemies and the same as with the cross.
Is.
At the beating center of The limited Assumption is the belief and you've already sketched this out, but I'll say it again. The beating center is that if Christ dies for person X's sins Then person X must be saved.
They must be saved. They have to be. It would be a matter of.
Injustice.
For God to send them to hell since Christ died for the sense. That's that's the key assumption and and now. There are a variety of ways we could explore this and show that it doesn't it just doesn't add it.
But my my usually my starting point is just to ask them what text would you appeal to? And maybe I could ask you this Andrew. Have you heard anyone show a text that demonstrates the logic? that I just like if Christ dies for X and X of Necessity must be saved.
Like is there a text? I'm not aware of a text.
Yeah, I think that.
The.
The appeal is to the nature of the Atonement.
Mm-hmm, and so like a substitutionary.
Mm-hmm.
And it's the idea that well if Christ paid for it, there's a propitiation.
Right.
Therefore if there's a propitiation which that big word that we'll get into I'm sure It means that basically that there's a satisfaction as a the wrath of God Was satisfied and so the argument would be well if the wrath of God is satisfied Then why would anyone go to hell?
That's the logic and it might surprise people to realize that you know, Jacob Arminius believed in a total depravity. Now I will admit he did change some of his views early on he if you look at him early on in the fight he was Very close in line with where where we would be as as some Calvinist today a term I believe I heard from you on a different podcast.
I can't remember which one it was. But you use the term that I started using now called a classical Calvinist and I like that term but Arminius was a classical Calvinist but the more he was fighting with Biza and his followers the more he went awry because he was trying to Argue for something and that's what happens.
And I think Biza and his followers and Owens are you know does the same thing on the opposite side and and arguing that Propitiation must mean that it's paid for and if it's paid for Then people can't pay it a second time.
So that's the argument that's going to be made. How would you be able to counter? such an argument.
Yeah, and there's and I actually did a video if somebody looks up. The jumbled jeopardy argument on I think it's the Protestant perspective. I outlined eight bullets over the course of like an hour and a half.
So obviously this isn't the place to dive into all of them, but here's here's just a couple thoughts. You know because in Ephesians 2 it says. Before we believed we were objects of wrath. Now one has to ask themselves.
If.
Our sins had been forgiven at the cross as per the logic. You're just laying out would suggest. Like if if God's wrath was satisfied at the cross Then upon what basis could we still be an object of wrath before we believe?
In other words, that should be de facto double jeopardy right there. Because let's say Christ dies for Sam. But most people will agree that before Sam believes he's under God's wrath, but then you go.
No, wait a minute. How can he be under God's wrath if as the limited atonement people say God's wrath was satisfied at the cross.
Okay.
This brings us to a crucial element in this entire debate and that is. The limited atonement position as per Owen tends to view the substitution as pecuniary. Rather than penal now, I know he affirms penal, but I'm saying conceptually he he acts like it's like paying off a creditor like and here's a Example to help, you know people like what the heck do you mean by pecuniary and commercial here?
Let me explain imagine you and I are at a restaurant and I forget I don't have my wallet with me. And you know my meals let's say $30 and you graciously pulled out your wallet and you're like, hey, man, I'll take care of this.
You know the waiter comes you set down the $30 at that point. The debt is satisfied in A commercialistic or pecuniary transaction once the thing is paid the focus is on the thing paid once it's paid. It doesn't matter if I'm thankful.
It doesn't matter. There's no conditions. Nothing. It's just the restaurant is satisfied. I can walk away, you know. Thank you very much. But in a penal Substitution we're not we're dealing with a crime committed.
It'd be like a crime committed and if a king had let's say you're in a king a king a kingdom where there's a king. And you commit some kind of act of treason or theft or whatever. The penalty is on you.
It's going to happen. But the king could be gracious and set up some kind of condition. That if you meet the condition. Then you'll be absolved of the crime and not suffer it. But if you don't meet that condition, then you will have to pay reparations or be hung or whatever.
The cross is like that. It's a penal substitution in the sense that God's Majesty has been offended. His law has been broken and sinners cannot demand anything whatsoever however God because he so loved the world sent his son Jesus Christ Into the world so that whoever would believe in him would not perish but have eternal life.
There's a condition there and that condition has to be met so that we'd be united to Christ and forgiven and God is just. If we do not meet that condition to pour out his wrath on the sinner. So that's that's a long, you know, that's a long-winded thing of a point or two about pause there for you know.
I thought it was interesting. Listening to you in a debate because you used an argument of a restaurant and you and I had not talked. But that's the argument that I used for years now because actually it actually happened.
We I was in a restaurant. Me and a friend of mine and we were. We knew the owner of the restaurant. He was a believer. And so he didn't mind us evangelizing everyone in the restaurant. And so we would come in and we got together once a year.
We'd go to his restaurant. And the first thing we did was go to every table. We'd split up.
And.
Depending how many are with us there be two, you know, three four people. We each grab a different table walk around hand out gospel tracts engage with conversation and sit at our table.
We would evangelize now. We had one time where we had a guy.
He.
We had a good conversation. Handed him a tract whatnot. My friend Mark talked to him. We go sit down. The guy gets up and comes over to us and has a dialogue. While he's waiting for his food to come. While he's sitting there.
We're.
You know, we're we're talking with him and he's he is just rejecting the the gospel. Just doesn't you know, that's it. You know don't want to hear it, but he wants to argue with us.
My friend Mark decides To pay his bill. So he walks over to the cashier and says hey, you see a guy. It's that table over there when as that guy's food came. He said I want to pay his bill. So he pays the bill it is now paid Yeah in full.
We sit down we our meal comes this guy gets there to go pay the bill and All of a sudden he comes over to us because he now found out his bill was paid. What did he do? He was so upset with us for paying the bill that he paid the bill a second time.
And he came over to us and said, you know, you can get your money back. I paid my bill. No one is gonna pay for me. I'm gonna do things my way. I'm not gonna let anyone pay for me and I literally I turned to him.
I said well and that is the very reason you'll Spend eternity in a lake of fire. Because you will not allow Any gift even a gift of a meal let alone a gift of eternity. You will not let anyone pay for you and and that pride is the reason you'll spend eternity in a lake of fire.
Now what happened? Well, the restaurant got paid twice, right? This guy even though the the his meal was paid He paid it a second time. Which is exactly what ends up having even though Christ might have paid the the fine as the Puritans would say it was Efficient for all but sufficient or sorry sufficient for all but efficient for few.
So Christ's death was sufficient, but there's some people that said no, I'll pay it my way. Okay, then You'll pay it for all of eternity. Have it your way.
Right, absolutely.
Yeah, and maybe another comment, yeah, that's a beautiful yeah, that's a beautiful illustration. Another another thing to think about it too is double jeopardy is. Trying the same person twice. After acquittal.
Okay, so in the situation of an unbeliever They haven't been acquitted. Double jeopardy cannot occur. I mean double jeopardy could only occur after the great white throne judgment. At that point if God says you're innocent and then he puts you in hell.
That would be double jeopardy because that's the day in court after the acquittal occurs now. We could also talk about justification and how that's pointing, you know, etc, etc. But to keep to stay on, you know to keep things simple.
Once a person is acquitted. Yeah, then you can't try that same person again. But in the case of an unbeliever, I just want to know from my limited atonement friends. Wait a minute. It's the same person being tried for the same crime after acquittal.
But there has been no acquittal unless you're going to affirm as some hyper Calvinists do an eternal Justification. In other words, they really do believe that people were saved at the cross and they just didn't know it like they're forgiven.
They're eternally forgiven and just is this kind of this weird thing, but that's that's a minority weird view.
Okay, there's a difference between being saved at the cross. If you want to say or having, you know, having your debt paid at the cross would be right appropriate not saved at the cross versus save before the foundation of time.
Or or the the world right. Ephesians 4 1 4 we were we were elect before the foundation of the world.
That's right.
But there's a difference between the mind of God that we can't comprehend which is eternal and all-knowing and the mind of man. Which is limited and chronological. Because Colossians 2 14 and 15 are very clear.
Well, you know 13 and 14 I should say it says. When when you were dead in your trespasses and sins and uncircumcised in your flesh He made you alive together with him having forgiven us all our transgressions.
Having canceled out the certificate of debt. Consisting of the decrees against us which were hostility to us. So you say well, when did that happen? Well, it goes on to say and he has taken it out of the way having nailed it to the cross.
So the debt was paid at the cross. That's not when we were saved in time. Right, but in time that's when the debt was paid which then makes an issue with what you know. And a challenge with what you were saying earlier because for people are saying that we're we were saved from eternity past.
Because in the mind of God we were.
Well.
Colossians 1 is an issue because it says that our debt wasn't paid in time until the cross.
Right. Yeah, it's one thing to say that. Yes, we were elected in Christ and that that That eternal choice if you will plays out in History and so there is a real moment in which a person believes and they're actually united to Christ and they're actually declared righteous and they're actually born again, etc, etc, etc, and hyper-Calvinist will tend to conflate or Squeeze all these things into just one almost eternal now without these proper distinctions and it's really just to preserve Some of these doctrines instead of letting the biblical evidence Nuance and flush it out as that that would be my contention anyway.
Well, and I want to look at some biblical evidence.
I also want to look at some of the historical evidence that you have. I mean, but the reality is one thing we realize is some of these things that we're discussing it might just hurt. I mean, you know, there's people whose heads are probably like oh my head hurts.
I just can't take this anymore. I I don't know how to how to address all these issues. Well, if your head is hurting Let me encourage you to maybe consider going to my pillow comm and getting yourself a good pillow.
Because maybe at least if your head is hurting from the theology, you'll get a good sleep. Remember though when you go to my pillow comm use the promo code SFE to get yourself a not only a good discount.
But it lets them know that you heard about them from us. And if you're saying hey Andrew, my sleep is fine I get plenty of sleep. Well, then you could pick yourself up and a nice pair of slippers or robes or towels.
They got a whole bunch of stuff out there great discounts you're you're not only able to support a company that's being canceled because of his support for Christian values and Whether he's a Christian, I don't know but he's at least conservative in there and he's been canceled for that.
So it is, you know If you're gonna get towels or you're gonna get up robes things like that at least get it from someone that's supporting your values more. So go to my pillow comm use the promo code SFE.
So let's get to one of those things. I'd like to spend a little bit of time before we get into some of the historical stuff one key passage. That I think really is the one that people Will debate the most on this is really John 1st John 2 2.
So, let me read that and then ask for your explanation of the passage. It says right and he himself is the propitiation who there's that word. We mentioned earlier, right? Yeah satisfaction for the wrath of God and he himself is the propitiation for our sins and Not for ours only but also for those of the whole world.
Right. Who is the who is this speaking of is I mean the argument we're gonna hear is that whole world does not mean all People everywhere and there are that's a true argument. Is it not? We have other places where world means the the world system.
It doesn't mean every individual, right? So, how would you handle this passage?
Yeah, and so there's there's multiple things that need to be said here and just to be clear. Just to be clear. Like if you look at Calvin's commentary on this one, he he will Follow more the limited atonement exegesis here Though he will say Like he acknowledges that He's happy to hold to the sufficient for all efficient for some Distinction but in this particular instance, he doesn't go that route.
So just to be clear Just somebody could you know, hey you said Calvin if well, yeah, okay Calvin affirms all kinds of different things in different places, but Overall, he clearly holds to universal satisfaction.
Okay that being said There's a couple things that need to be done If a person looks at the word world in first John just look at every occurrence and I can't remember how many there are. There's like I don't know 17.
I can't remember how many they're off the top of my head. But if you look at all those occurrences It's I think abundantly clear and especially in Johannine literature that the world means the mass of rebellious humanity or sinful unbelieving Humanity, that's what it means and hence in chapter 5 It can say that the whole world lies under the sway of the evil one.
Okay, so the first thing would just be to notice the word world It's not like it's a you you cannot make that word. I would submit Mean that the elect Scattered throughout the world. I that that doesn't work Another thing you could point out is that word us?
Okay, not only for us But the sins of the whole world. The advocate of limited home is going to have to Prove or at least demonstrate with a high probability that when John says us he has in mind a believing Jewish Community and therefore Because here's the problem and I know you know this Andrew if if that us is Jews and Gentiles Believing Jews and Gentiles.
Well, then The contrast is between that and the world which would have to include something Greater than the body of the elect.
Right, well, they would say they would most that I hear would argue between the Jewish the Jew Gentile distinction. Mm-hmm. So the argument would go that they this could be speaking. This is speaking of believers Jewish believers and Gentile believers, right?
And so the contrast would be between believing Jewish believers believing Gentiles and the world. Which would didn't have to be as per Johannine. Understanding the mass of sinful unbelieving humanity which would surely mean it's the extent is greater than the Unbelieving elect.
Like that is a very difficult thing to to to read in to this text. I just don't think it works and and I think people will notice. Just to be clear when I'm in when I do a debate I don't appeal. I don't.
I think this text supports my position. But I don't use it in a debate because there is a crack like a slight crack where someone could go. Yeah, but I think it really is referring to just all the unbelieving elect Scattered throughout the world and you're like I look that's not the usage but.
But okay, like if you're really willing to go that far to just keep maintaining your present position so be it. But I Would point to other texts where I can really tighten the screws and show that it is impossible That the all is like somehow restricted to the elect of the unbelieving elect.
Well, when we look at this passage the the issue is Not on who is the whole world? I don't argue from the whole world.
The idea that this is Jewish believers and Gentile believers. I don't think makes sense for for this reason. Nowhere in anywhere in the book of first John. Do you see the Jewish Gentile distinction? In fact by the time you remember this is one of the latest books in the New Testament.
By the time of the writing of any of John's stuff. The church is no longer arguing and fighting over the Jewish Gentile distinction. That's early in the life of the church. So by the time of this and that's not even the distinction that's not even an issue being made.
But put that aside the well the issue that John is dealing with his Gnosticism now if you wanted to make the argument and I actually had one person that made this argument that the The us is he's speaking to the the those that were believers and those that were Gnostics That were believers, but they were still they were still holding to Gnosticism or came out of Gnosticism.
That at least is more consistent with the context of the book. But when we when we look at something the rules of hermeneutics, we start with the immediate context first. And so Because I hate the fact that we have chapter breaks and verses it's easier to find things.
But what it does is has us read in this case the middle of a sentence. And so we got to start back at verse one, what is it what's verse one start with my little children, right? Who are the my little children?
Are you gonna say that my little children are only believers or the whole world? Well, or are they are the my little children only gonna be Jewish people or are they gonna include Gentiles? Is it gonna be of course not Gnostic believers and on the the non Gnostic believers?
You have to answer question who's my little children why. Because once you accept that my little children are believers. Now you come to verse 2 and he says and not for ours only but Right. So whoever the my little children are It's not just for them, but also the others.
Right, right.
Which by the way Would this would be an Extremely natural under I mean John has so many He is soaked in the Old Testament. I mean all you have to do is read through the book of Revelation just for a minute and you'll just like my goodness every Other verse he's he's has illusions to the Old Testament.
The Jewish mind and you know, and I and it's not lost on me who I'm speaking to here.
Propitiation the Day of Atonement for was for the whole all the people and That's that was a picture of a greater reality to come where Christ is Fulfills this Day of Atonement and it's like instead of just cleansing the land or the temple or the people Christ is the light of the world and he's cleansing the whole world.
He is the Propitiation for the whole world. It would be very natural for John to understand this. To speak this way like yes, of course. He's the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. That's That's who he is.
That's what all this stuff pointed to right? So of course when he says world he has a I mean, let's face it a.
Cosmic.
Thing in view. I would submit anyway.
Yeah, and.
The thing is is that. Yeah, you intrigued me. So Sonia said earlier so I went and pulled up Calvin's commentary on this passage. And it's interesting the way Calvin argues with this because he says, you know, he ends up talking about well here.
We have a question made. May be raised. How can the sins of the whole world be expiated? Right? That's the question. But what he goes on to say he says who under the this pretense extends salvation to all the retrobates and therefore to Satan himself and.
Then he so he's saying if if this if whole world is if it's the world then it has to be extended to Satan. So he says such a much monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They seek to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ is sufficient that Christ has suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively for the elect.
This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools, right? So so we see that we see that but there's a problem in the thinking here. Yeah, what in this my little children extends to angels?
Nothing. Right, right. That's it. That's a scope.
Correct. This is scope of his audience. So I see in in Calvin's commentary here a logical fallacy. That he's attributed because he's assuming that the the issue is not the whole world and this is not the way to argue it.
It's not to argue. Who is the whole world? Because his argument is well if its whole world then it's including Satan. But the question is who's the my little children. Because that's the my little children and those who are not my little children.
That's the way to argue this that's the struggle we have to address. You know, so it's it's interesting as I was just reading through as you were talking the fact that Calvin has a logical fallacy that led him to the conclusion that somehow he's gonna he's gonna.
You know, he because he says this solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that which Has been said as true yet deny it as suitable to this to the pet this passage John was Was no other than to make the benefit common to the whole church.
Then under the word all Or were or whole he does not include the reprobate. But designates those who would believe as well as those who were scattered throughout the parts of the world. So so his focus is on the word world.
He recognized that it saying that You know, this is what's commonly taught in schools. It doesn't fit with the passage but yet we got to accept it because.
Otherwise.
You know that it doesn't fit in the in that the retro bait including Satan would Would be forgiven or.
And it is we're just emphasizing again that Calvin affirms the Lombardian formula sufficient for all fish and for the like. He's like he basically says oh, yeah, I affirm that I just don't think I'm gonna bring that to bear on this particular text, correct?
And yes, this is a text that look you you got to deal with you and you got deal with it honestly, and this is the text that really got me to recognize the fact that I can say Christ died for all but I don't know who those all are.
Like I don't know who are the elect and who's not but God does and so in the mind of God God knows who the elect are. I don't have that mind and we don't know until God's regenerates us in time. That we were the elect right, so we're dealing with the chronological timing of man and the.
The mind of God those are two different things. And so there are times in Scripture that it could say that God elected before the foundation of the world. Emphasizing the fact that we have nothing to do with our salvation.
That's the emphasis there. Versus a passage here. That's or better yet in Colossians where it says our sins were paid at the cross. That's in time.
Well and.
Speaking of Colossians in here because because Calvin I think if I remember right correct me if I'm wrong. He raised a concern there about it the including like Satan right or the demons.
Making a reference in first on to yes, say yes.
But but this is interesting because we have to have a category in our minds for the the atonement having an objective element that Accomplishes different things for different groups and I say that because if we look at for our Colossians chapter 1 Verse 20.
So Colossians 1 20 I Guess 19 to start the sentence. So for God was pleased to have all the fullness dwell in him. That is Christ and through him To reconcile to himself all things. Whether things on earth or things in heaven.
By making peace through his blood shed on the cross. So there is this sense in which there's an objective reconciliation. God has reconciled all things to himself. He's purchased it all and hence in 2nd Peter 2 1, you know There's people who would deny even the Sovereign Lord who bought them, right?
There are people who are purchased and I would say the same is even true with the With the angelic realms like Christ is the Sovereign Lord who's overcome all this stuff there has been an objective Reconciliation in the sense that there's an offer of clemency to mankind but a triumph over the principalities and powers of evil.
Such that he is now more than suitable to judge them in every possible way and so I just think we have to have we have to make distinctions here between Objective reconciliation what that means in different contexts and Personal reconciliation With God when we accept Christ by faith.
Look, I mean for some people as we get into because I would like to get into the historical thing and the reality is. You know We need to make sure before we get into some of this if people are we're challenging people's thinking and I'm sure that there are Some people that just you know This is a little bit too early in the morning for them to to really get these things.
And so if that's the case if that's you May I encourage you to consider going to striving for attorney org slash coffee. To get some good coffee from our sponsor at squirrelly Joe's coffee. Not only would you be supporting a good Christian family who is roasting the the beans themselves creating great coffee.
But you will also get yourself Well a great cup of coffee so make sure you are wide awake for the rest of this discussion. Because well if you've been fighting this Maybe you just needed to wake up before go go back and re-listen to some of what you missed you might need to but the issue being is that as we as you go to Striving for turning org slash coffee.
You will also be able to get now. I I was talking with squirrelly Joe and I they've changed things up. So I don't know if you use the promo code SFE I don't know if you get a free bag of coffee or the 20 off I think you get the 20 off with us.
But I think he changed it for others where they only get a free bag. So go to striving for turning org slash coffee. Use the promo code SFE that stands for striving for eternity and remember to go there when you reorder so that they know that.
They you went there from us so that they will continue sponsoring us here at this Podcast we thank squirrelly Joe for his his support of this program. So let's get into some of the history people will argue that and I think we've made the case that Calvin and others didn't hold to this really until John Owen, but can you make a historical case for that?
That this this view that you referred to as classical Calvinism, can you can you support this historically?
Yeah, and obviously this would require one to just then begin to look at Various citations and whatnot and let me just say from the outset that if people go to Calvin and Calvinism calm or theological meditations, right.
Tony Byrne. Those are two websites that are just full of historical citation. Scholarly work done very very well. This really shouldn't be a matter of historical contention and in fact If someone just reads the historical sections out of the book from heaven He came and saw her which is the most I would say Probably the definitive modern work on limited atonement, which is again entitled from heaven.
He came and saw her huge book with a bunch of different able contributors they will admit in there that there were many classical Calvinists, okay, but You know in terms of individuals essentially I think this is fair to say essentially all with the early reformers held To universal satisfaction whether it was or sinus who wrote the Heidelberg Catechism people can look at the Heidelberg Catechism.
It's very clear people can look at you know, if you move into like Anglicanism, the 39 articles are very clear I think actually the Council of Dort and 1618 is very clear. You have figures undoubtedly that held my side of the coin like Richard Baxter because we know He held this view because he actually wrote against John Owen.
He wrote a book called universal redemption and those two battled endlessly over this topic at Dort you had John Davenant and James Usher these delegates from England who were Battling against the high Calvinists holding the line on universal satisfaction.
So it really is if somebody I mean the history is Honestly, not really in dispute. There may be certain individuals that we're not sure of like I would say you take something like Charles Spurgeon I guess I would I would say he holds to limited atonement, but but there are times when he sounds like he doesn't but I think you know for the sake of just Conceding certain points you're like fine.
I give you I give you Spurgeon, right like John Murray clearly held to limited atonement. But you know Charnock Stephen Charnock he falls in my camp. Matthew Henry falls in my camp like it's just obviously if you stepped outside of Calvinism per se Luther.
Obviously, I mean Lutherans obviously hold to universal satisfaction. So the point being then just to maybe dip just to wrap this up here my rambling but almost all of the early reformers held to universal satisfaction.
By John Owen is started to shift by Westminster. There were probably two-thirds of the people held to limited atonement. And today it's probably It's probably upwards of 90 hold to a limited atonement amongst reform people I would say.
Yeah, that's that sounds about right. And and the thing is, you know, it's funny you mentioned be I. Remember a guy that came into a church and he says Andrew, you know, you were mentioning Spurgeon in his view.
He says Andrew you you pray Like a Calvinist, but you share the gospel like an Arminian. And I said, of course because when I pray I talked to God. About what God will do in the heart of man, and when I appeal to an unbeliever I'm appealing to the fact that they need to repent and believe the gospel.
Mm-hmm. That's right. I don't know if he's the elect. I have no control over that. Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, let me say this on divine sovereignty and human responsibility. This is the way I like this is this is my Illustration that I like to use so imagine you're talking to like a four-year-old maybe a five-year-old.
And they're just learning their numbers. That's that's about the age of me. Wait.
My wife tells me.
So this you get this five-year-old other than you who is just learning their letters and their numbers. Now imagine I tell this child X plus 4 equals 7 and I tell this kid Do you know what X is? X is 3 now for this child Who just is learning their letters and the numbers they know what a letter is.
They know what a number is, but if you tell them hey X is 3 their mind cannot. They can't capture it. It can't understand. I mean most five-year-olds, right? I mean there are of course some exceptions, but you get the point.
We are like that. I think with divine sovereignty human responsibility. There's an equation going on here that we do not fully understand and so we dare not Minimize either side. God is completely sovereign and man has true Volition and choice and that both of these we have to hold together with perfect tension.
Yeah, and and that is the issue. It's the it's the tension. And I think the real struggle for this and is the fact that we cannot comprehend the mind of God, right. God can comprehend our minds. We can't comprehend his and so there's times where he speaks to us the way I illustrated in baby talk.
Hmm, he talks down to us in a language. We can understand to explain what we cannot understand it. So he would say you were you were elect before the foundation of the world. Well, we end up thinking of that in time when that isn't the focus and this is the the mistake I think it's sometimes we make is we focus on the wrong thing.
The focus of that passage is to say you had nothing to do with your salvation. How could he how could God present that any better than say it happened before there was even a world? Right in the case of Romans chapter 9 it's a Before you know before Esau was even in the womb before.
It was it was done before Jacob and Esau were out of the womb. Right, so it couldn't have anything to do with what they do. That's the argument has nothing to do with what you do. It has to do with what God does and I mean, this is where and and I'll try to link this in the show notes.
I'll link the the Pat the episode we did on the history of Calvinism and also the bonus episode I did when we're going through the theology on the doctrine of superintending and when you understand the doctrine of superintending which is used in the doctrine of Inspiration when you understand the doctrine of superintending.
I think it really solidifies and solves the tension between God's sovereignty and human responsibility.
It is a beautiful I like that. I love that analogy. It's a very good one like God's Word is written to the word while in entirely using the idiosyncrasies and real life choices of Paul or Peter or whomever?
When when I remember The book hadn't come out and I Phil Johnson written the the forward to it and I was concerned I said Phil, you know, make sure you read My my view on soteriology make sure you're okay with it.
And he when he read I said, you know, you you know, do you have any issues with what I wrote? He goes no, that's the same view. I have he's in fact John MacArthur holds to the same view. I went okay. Hey, you know, can you be wrong if John?
But it's something that really resolves the tension between the human Responsibility and God's sovereignty and the issue is is that I think the limited atonement issue has that same tension. It's how could God die for all people and yet not all people go to heaven.
Well, the issue is to the human being in the mind of man. God can say I've died to all people. I paid that bill. But that bill is not applied to you right. Why. Because in the mind of God He hasn't applied so so in in the tension is both are true.
It's just a question of whose mind. So I can say to a human being Christ died for you. Absolutely, but in the mind of God, he knows exactly who he died for right he died. He knows who he applied it to those.
He elected in those. He he regenerated.
Yeah, you could say yes, and that's where the tension is and if we're gonna try to say that we got all the look. What I do with Muslims. I when I talk with a Muslim when the first questions, I'll ask a Muslim.
I will ask them if Basically the question I'll ask is is God greater than our ability to understand him and. They'll say yes good because later when I start talking about the Trinity or the incarnation of Christ yeah, and they're gonna how could God die and when the Trinity doesn't makes it how could God die.
And I go I just look at me go. Thank you, and then I go silent and they look at me puzzle. What are you thanking me for for admitting that your world that your God doesn't exist in mind does? Thank you, and I never said that.
I said, oh remember earlier. We said the God that exists is greater than our ability to understand him. And you just rejected the God of the Bible because you don't understand him. So the God that I hold to is one that's beyond my ability to understand.
The God you hold to is one you can comprehend. And and then they just go puzzle because like no no no no no. It's like we then you can throw out your view of well. It doesn't make sense to you right now.
We got to go with what is the Bible say? Not the Quran because the Quran actually believes that the Trinity is three separate gods made up of the father the son and the mother.
Yeah, and in the context of Christians, let me say this That's what and there's always a mystery. And so that's why we have to be people of the word if the texts if John 316 1st Timothy 2 1st Timothy 4 10 1st John 2 2 etc, etc if these texts clearly and they do clearly teach a Universal dimension to Christ satisfaction we have to hold that.
And then if we go to John 10 or John 6 or some of the John 17 and we see oh wait, there's this particular Dimension to where Christ says I lay down my life for the sheep or you know Ephesians 5 or these different texts we cannot take one group one idea and Just erase it To hold up one other side.
We have to hold both together as best we can. And I think the best way at least in history so far has been Summarized in this I think beautiful formula. That is Christ died sufficiently for the sins of all men But efficiently for the sins he liked.
I think that captures both dimensions.
Well Austin help folks if they want to get a copy of this extremely pricey Expensive book that is so unaffordable. Obviously, I'm just you know being cheeky with you since you're cheeky in your title let folks know how they can get a copy of this how they can.
And I'm gonna say this is if you are Questioning any of what was said on this episode. I challenge you to read the book and Take a look at it. Take a look at the arguments and and then decide whether it is a good Argument or not.
Don't don't do it just because you does it the book argues against what you think is, right? Let's look at what the book actually says before you get discredit it. And so give folks the title of it. Give folks where they can get a hold of it.
Get a hold of you.
Yeah, the book again isn't is titled a boisterously reformed polemic against laminatoma. It's a cheeky humorous read that most people really do express that they enjoy the tone of it. It's it's a bit Playfully sarcastic, okay, which is why I like it so much.
Yeah, there's there's a certain entertainment value, but Also, it's it's swimming it's bathed in scholarship not not my own but many others that I've just leaned on the shoulders of stood on the shoulder side and obviously if a person wants a hardback or paperback you can go to Amazon and find it there if You don't want a paperback or a hardback.
You can get a free PDF at my website if you google The Sound of Doctrine and then type in Austin Brown that will bring up probably the top search will be This website the Sound of Doctrine and if you go to a tab, which is I called my books You can get many of my books for free as a PDF.
And I will link to that. For those that want I will link to that in the show notes so that they will be able to have that easier. So I encourage you to obviously I encourage you guys to Pay for the book if you can.
And and support the work that he's doing. But if if you're saying hey, I don't want to pay for this because I think this this is just a horrible Argument and you know if well then the challenge there is to please Go and and check it out.
See whether or not this is something that You know look. We need to be challenged in what we believe we're if we're never challenged. We're never going to Know if we're wrong. It is probably the reason most of my friends. I Disagree with theologically in one area or another in some many areas, right?
And so it keeps me sharp. It keeps me having to argue.
For.
What I believe and That is important for us to do. So my challenge to all of us would be if you're if you can if you want to pay for it do that. Please. If not, then let me encourage you to go and buy it.
That's as an author myself. That's always a more appreciated When you support the work, so and and I'm sure Austin they could go to. Let's see, it's sound of doctrine. Wordpress .com. Would they be able to support you from there.
No, really.
I don't have any ways other than just you know on Amazon if somebody wants it Like I said a paperback or hardback. I I I'm just not I'm not the kind of guy looking to Yeah, bring in money with with these kind of things.
It's just a it's a labor of love and I'm just long ago kind of I'll just say this When I was from mailman walking with hours a day with things I'm hungry to listen to there were some people who charged and You know, I'm not I wasn't gonna pay money to listen to theology but then there was people like John Piper and others who Put all their stuff out for free and I got to devour it for hours.
And I was so blessed as a result of that that really just solidified in my heart that hey look if If I can if I can extend that same kind of grace to other people I'm happy to do it. That being said look if you want to buy 10 copies of the book on Amazon, you know, feel free I'm not gonna cry.
The problem is when you're doing it that way Amazon's getting most of the money. That's the issue that is true. Get a lot of the money so awesome. No, thanks for coming on. I appreciate it. Thank you.
I hope this has been educational and Challenging to many in the audience. I know that this is something that will Ruffle the feathers of well, basically probably 99 of the audience. So, I hope that I hope that means you don't tune me out altogether from now on.
But I do like to challenge us we do need to be challenged and I hope that you were challenged so until next week. That's a wrap.
This podcast is part of the striving for eternity ministry. For more content or to request a speaker or seminar to your church Go to Simon for eternity org.