 |
| The Venerable Jonathan Edwards - revered and respected. |
Simplicity has a strange way of unmasking Sophistry
A rb professor of theology quoted a highly revered theologian/philosopher to bolster the increasingly popular idea, among the RBs, concerning Christ’s atonement as “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.” This idea allows them to declare that since the infinite worth of Christ’s atonement is more than sufficient to atone the sins of many worlds over, then Christ did indeed die for the world, in one sense. Mr Edwards quote below is intended to validate such idea! Earlier, the same professor quoted Andrew Fuller's words, "Christ died for the world" and some eloquently defended that idea.
"Christ's incarnation, his labors and sufferings, his resurrection, etc., were for the salvation of the not elected, in Scripture language, in the same sense as the means of grace are for their salvation; in the same sense as the instruction, counsels, warnings and invitations that are given them, are for their salvation." ~ Jonathan Edwards
"Christ's incarnation, his labors and sufferings, his resurrection, etc., were for the salvation of the not elected, in Scripture language, in the same sense as the means of grace are for their salvation; in the same sense as the instruction, counsels, warnings and invitations that are given them, are for their salvation." ~ Jonathan Edwards
[It took me a while to understand what Mr Edwards was saying. Here's a part of the exchanges...]
Rob: Prof, I need this quote for a paper. Where is it from?
Prof: Rob, you can find it here: http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/
There are actually other, better quotes, on the Calvin and Calvinism website. It has an index w/ names.
Rob: Thanks so much, Prof
Sing F Lau
I'm a common sense lad, village preacher.
The means of life are for those that possess life.
It is obvious that the means of grace for intended for those [that possess grace] whom God has shown grace, THAT IS, those whom God had elected, and for whom Christ has redeemed, and the Spirit has regenerated. The means of graces are irrelevant to others, just as food is irrelevant to the dead.
Sophisticated theologizing is not my province; I'm only a student of the Bible.
Brocker
// Sophisticated theologizing is not my province; I'm only a student of the Bible. //
Jonathan Edwards had a copy of that book too, Sing F Lau.
Sing F Lau
That's obvious, Brocker. In addition to being a student of the Bible, he was also a great theologian capable of sophisticated theologizing. That was my point.
Brocker
Sing F Lau, your point seemed to be that you had a truth that Edwards didn't have, because you were a student of the Bible, and Edwards, for all his sophistication, wasn't.
Sing F Lau
That's what seemed to you, Brocker. Nothing wrong with that.
But my point is that what he said is sophisticated.
Is there anything that you disagree with these simple things?
i. The means of life are for those that possess life.
ii. It is obvious that the means of grace are for intended for those whom God has shown grace, THAT IS, those whom God had elected, and for whom Christ has redeemed, and the Spirit has regenerated. The means of graces are irrelevant to others, just as food is irrelevant to the dead.
 |
| A simple village lad, a country bumpkin. |
Sing F Lau
If theologians would only distinguish that there is a salvation that is freely and unconditionally bestowed unto an elect while dead in trespasses and sins, and there is a salvation that he (the elect whom God has freely bestowed salvation) must work out for himself, conditioned upon "the instruction, counsels, warnings and invitations that are given them" by God their Father, then there won't be such confusions.
A biblical distinction between the eternal salvation - that God had purposed for the elect, and Christ had accomplished for the same, and the Spirit has freely and sovereignly applied to each elect while dead in trespasses and sins - and the salvation that such a one must work out for himself in obedience to the means of graces provided are TWO distinct salvation.
The former concerns our being brought into BEING a child of God, thus completely monergistic; the latter our WELL-BEING as a child of God, thus synergistic, children actively utilizing the means provided for them.
I speak simple things.
Brocker
// I speak simple things. //
Isaiah 55 seems simple enough; it is an example of a clear, well meant, genuine offer to evil sinners without distinction:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055%3A1-7&version=NIV
Sing F Lau
Mr. Brocker, to whom was the LORD addressing in Isaiah?
Read a SIMPLE explanation here:
Isaiah 1
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward....
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Unto whom is the offer/invitation made?
- Children whom the LORD has nourished and brought up
- Children in rebellion against the LORD
- Children who are ignorant of their LORD
- Children who do not consider their LORD
- Children laden with iniquity
- Children who are evildoers
- Children who are corrupters
- Children who have forsaken the LORD
- Children who have provoked the LORD unto anger
- Children who have gone away backward, backslidden
The offer is made to those whom the LORD has saved out of Egypt, delivered into the promised, enjoyed the LORD’s manifold blessings. But they have rebelled.
Be kindly reminded that those whom the LORD nourished and brought up are capable of all these evils! Harsh facts but truthful.
Brocker
// Mr Brocker, to whom was the LORD addressing in Isaiah? //
Well, there is no distinction offered. It does not say only to those whom the Lord saved out of Egypt. It does not say only to men, It does not say only to those who write with their right hand.
It is an unqualified offer.
Sing F Lau
Read these passages that prefaced the book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 1
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward....
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Brocker
// Read these passages that prefaced the book of Isaiah //
Well, ok, where is the explicit qualification or partition of humankind that applies to Isaiah 55:1-7, then? Is the Lord the God of Israel only, or is he God of all the world and humankind (Psalm 24:1)?
Sing F Lau
In the book of Isaiah, prophet Isaiah was sent by the LORD to deal with those described by the LORD as, "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me, and they have rebelled against me.... my people doth not consider.... children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward....”
Read the rest of the book in context, and the imagined difficulties do not exist.
Put Isaiah 55:1-7 alongside the passage from Isaiah 1, do you not see the great parallel?
Put Isaiah 55:1-7 alongside the passage from Isaiah 1, do you not see the great parallel?
Matt
Stop claiming "simplicity" for yourself. It's manipulative and condescending.
Sing F Lau
Matt //Stop claiming "simplicity" for yourself. It's manipulative and condescending.//
===================
Sir, what is so manipulative and condescending about these simple things I have stated at the beginning in respond to the quote from Mr Edwards?
- The means of life are for those that possess life.
- It is obvious that the means of grace for intended for those whom God has shown grace, THAT IS, those whom God had elected, and for whom Christ has redeemed, and the Spirit has regenerated. The means of graces are irrelevant to others, just as food is irrelevant to the dead.
Which of these two simple statements did you feel manipulated or condescended upon?
Simplicity indeed has a strange way of making sophistry feels like that!
(Like the little boy who shouted, "But the pompous Emperor is naked!"
(Like the little boy who shouted, "But the pompous Emperor is naked!"
Brocker
// In the book of Isaiah, prophet Isaiah was sent by the LORD to deal with those described by the LORD as, "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me, and they have rebelled against me //
For sure; but in what context, and for what purpose? Is it that God dealt with Israel solely because it is only them for whom he had any interest? Or was his redemptive purpose for Israel illustrative of his plan for the whole of humankind?
Isaiah 49:6 says (explicitly):
"he says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." "
So why impose a limit in Isaiah 55:1-7 that restricts the context more than 49:6 does?
Sing F Lau
In Isaiah 55:1-7, the LORD is dealing with His rebellious and stiff necked children, exactly as in Isaiah 1. Put Isaiah 55:1-7 alongside the passage from Isaiah 1, do you not see the great parallel?
I don't know which translation you quote from.
My reads like this:
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. (49:6)
Your quote has:
"...that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."
Mine reads,
"... that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Question: in what way may the restored Israel be the LORD's salvation unto the end of the earth; in what way may the restored Israel be a light to the Gentiles?
Israel was intended to be a beacon of light to the ends of the earth; there were God's children among the Gentiles in every generation and in every nation. (Another simple thing - beacon is of no use to the dead, but God's children will behold!)
Israel was indeed intended to be a light to the multitude of God's children among the Gentiles - His elect whom He Himself has effectually called to grace and salvation but who had not the same outward privileges that His children among Israel did enjoy.
Sing F Lau
Brocker, Thanks for the exchanges.
I hear someone resorting to denunciation already.
(This reminds me of Mr Pink's words, ""Denunciation is the last resort of a defeated foe" when people attacked and dismissed his book "The Sovereignty of God" as hypercalvinistic! sing
