Realism transcends the atonement debate, limiting neither the power nor the scope:
http://biblicalrealist.blogspot.com/2009/07/realism-transcends-atonement-debate.html

Ken Hamrick

I don’t think my statement on God’s lack of intent for all to be saved detracts from saying that God’s wants a people to be redeemed. I declare that there is an intent for salvation, but not for the salvation of all.

And there are obviously textual issues we disagree on. So be it.

Iron sharpens iron…

I guess the only thing that stems from my misunderstanding of your theme was the John 18:8–9 quotation. Everything else that I can think of still stands.

Given John’s normal usage of the word “world” in the epistle, Gill’s remarks are not convincing. It seems like a classic case of eisegesis. I’d rather prioritize internal exegetical evidence rather than bring outside evidence (i.e. the broader usage of kosmos).

“…I do not hold that there is an intent for all to be saved in the atonement.”

Then you can’t say in evangelism, “God *wants* you to be saved by receiving his propitiation.” “Want” would imply an intent. Unless we recognize multiple intents in the atonement, I think we’re paying lip-service to the genuineness of a propitiation-receiving gospel-call.

Your quotation of Acts 3:14–15 comes under the heading, “Christâ??s Death as Assistance or the Primary Causal Agent?” The passage has nothing to do with God being the primary casual agent in monergistic grace.

Just because John 17:1–2, 9 speaks of Christ’s own doesn’t mean it speaks of substitution. There’s absolutely nothing in that particular passage that refers to an atoning sacrifice.

Grace and peace in Christ the High Apostle,

Aaron

Titus 2
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

We talked that I was not analyzing 1 John 2:2 as your rebuttal implied; it was solely for the nature of the Arminian theological conception of God’s will of command. I would suggest reading John Gill’s thoughts on 1 John 2:2.

…“all the world”, or “the whole world”, in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Lu 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1Jo 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world…
John Gill’s Exposition on 1 John 2:2

You can believe in substitutionary atonement and still believe in the new covenant effects of the blood and still believe that the blood was shed to be offered and available to everyone in the world.

While I do say that L.A. does not detract from the genuineness of the gospel call, I do not hold that there is an intent for all to be saved in the atonement (and I know you disagree with me here). But of course you’re right in stating that it can be offered to all (but apart from the regeneration work of the Spirit no one will respond).

His creatorship (creatorhood?) is behind emphasized here [Acts 3:14–15], not his monergistic grace.

Did I not emphasize this?

I believe John 17:1–2, 9 does actually speak of substitution: “…but of those whom You have given Me…” Also, I didn’t use John 18:8–9 in the context of “proofing” the atonement. I like to end my essays with a Scripture not about the majesty of God’s grace. I use that text more-so for Eternal Security.

I personally recommend a more multi-faceted study on the death of Christ, starting with separate studies on the atonement-emphases in each on the gospels.

This essay was in no way intended to be comprehensive. I could, and many have, filled volumes upon volumes on the theoretical doctrines behind the atonement of Christ.

God has graciously ordained to be a failure in some ways. We must admit this, because his kindness is meant to lead the stubborn and unrepentant to repentance (Romans 2), even though many of these are the vessels mysteriously hardened by God (Romans 9 & 11) for greater purposes. To be sure, God’s “failures” are part of his larger, successful eternal purpose, but they are nonetheless ineffectual.

I assume you believe the atonement is to be offered to everyone on the condition of saving faith. You and I must then admit that God has ordained to “fail” largely in that manner too (with regard to the offer), for most reject God’s pleas. “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (Romans 10).

To quote Bruce “I-hit-Open-Theism-with-a-big-stick” Ware on 1 John 2:2:

“Notice that ‘world’ occurs 28 times in 1 John, 26 of which are used either in a comprehensive sense (e.g., 2:17; 3:17; 4:1, 9) or more narrowly as the world of the unsaved (e.g., 2:15–16; 3:1, 13; 5:19). This makes doubtful that 2:2 and 4:14 refer to a world of the elect.”

Also notice the context of John 3:17:

“19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.”

Jesus is meant to be lifted up by the Father, just like Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so that everyone could be offered amnesty, and everyone that received that offer (Romans 3) would be effected that amnesty.

You can believe in substitutionary atonement and still believe in the new covenant effects of the blood and still believe that the blood was shed to be offered and available to everyone in the world. To minimize the offer-aspect of the atonement I think would be unfortunate, given that mosts texts regarding the Jesus’ blood-sacrifice regard that intent/aspect.

Some various notes:

— While I believe the Spirit is the primary causal agent in regeneration, Acts 3:14–15 does not lend itself toward that. “Author of life” is meant to ironically contrast “you killed”, highlighting the Holy and Righteous One’s identity as God. His creatorship (creatorhood?) is behind emphasized here, not his monergistic grace.

— John 17:1–2, 9 does not speak of substitution.

— John 18:8–9 does not speak of the atonement.

I personally recommend a more multi-faceted study on the death of Christ, starting with separate studies on the atonement-emphases in each on the gospels. I also recommend integrating the significant of the ascension as well.

Grace and peace in Christ our common King and Spirit-giver!

Aaron