Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
A Calvinist's Polemic Against Limited Atonement | With Author, Austin Brown.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 апр 2024
- Calvinist and Author, Austin Brown, returns to revisit his polemic against Limited Atonement.
Austin Brown's Book Link
a.co/d/5AmiONp
#calvinism #atonement #reformedtheology #presbyterian
Support by becoming a Patreon member!
patreon.com/Me....
Method Ministries puts out content that is focused on teaching the Biblical Method of God's Word, to spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land, and to teach Scriptural Christianity. If you're looking for an online ministry that can help you with this path then subscribe to the channel!
Also subscribe on Spotify and Rumble!
Follow on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter.
Don't forget to like, hit the notification button, and share!
Great video brother, looking forward to the debate. Hope you consider making some content on the Wesley vs Toplady. God Bless
What a helpful discussion, thanks!!!
Glad it was helpful!
The atonement is exciting and stimulating. Looking forward to more of it.
yes :)
Would Brown have an answer to Jesus drawing all people to himself? If he holds to effectual call, how does he view that in light of all being drawn?
Good question! Perhaps he'll comment in reply.
Good question! John 12:32 is a tricky text that I haven't drawn a firm conclusion on. On the one hand, I am tempted to connect the language to Revelation 20:3, since Christ in context has in view the prince of this world being driven out. In other words, Christus Victor has profound implications for missions and the abolition of Satan's grip (I am Amil, btw).
On the other hand, the language could be connected to John 6 and the "all that are given." In that case, one's understanding of John 6 will inform John 12. Supposing a more Calvinistic reading of John 6, it would be a fairly strong point in favor of the strict particularist's all without distinction strategy; in that it would provide an example where all men doesn't mean all men without exception but rather the elect.
Even granting this, I don't think it proves limited satisfaction since this doesn't work in other contexts. But I could see it as viable here. Another such text might be Hebrews 2:9.
Again, I don't think this works with texts like 1 Timothy 2, 4, etc, however.
And yes, I affirm effectual calling.
If you believe that John 12:32 is saying that Jesus will draw all men individually without exception to Himself... Tell me how does Jesus and the cross draw the hidden tribe of individual people who lived and died without hearing about Jesus or the cross or anything about the God of Israel? What does that drawing look like? Be specific.
Keep in mind, general revelation saves no one. It only condemns! John 12:32 is not about general revelation.
Patrolman: I am sorry, but I don't think you are tracking with what I said. Could you point to the sentence of mine where you think I said that Christ draws all men without exception?
Also, I said I have not come to a firm conclusion on John 12:32. I am still exploring various options- even ones I did not enumerate above.
@@austinbrown6829 In John 12:32, Jesus wasn’t implying that every person without exception would put their faith in Him for salvation. Clearly, many did not. Jesus meant that people of all ethnic groups and from every part of the world would be drawn to Him through His exaltation in death. The “all people” included the Greeks who were seeking Jesus right then and listening to His voice. In John 12 Jesus is addressing a group of Gentiles. The emphasis is that Jesus was doing something new... Up to that time only the Jews were privy to God's revelation ... Gentiles were largely excluded. Now Jesus was grafting the gentiles onto the vine ... so in content of John 12... Jesus is not teaching that he is going to draw all men without exception, but all men without distinction - Jews and Gentiles alike.
The same thing is seen here... John 11:51-52
Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation (His sheep among the Jews; John 10:11), and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God (other sheep; John 10:16, Gentiles) who are scattered abroad (around the World: not only Jews but also Gentiles. World without distinction. People FROM every tribe and language and people and nation. Revelation 5:9.)
You are almost with Matt Pinson, Picarilli, et al.
Rejecting particular redemption leads to a cross that only provided an impersonal potentiality, people in hell covered by the blood of Jesus that they didn't activate/apply, and a Trinity that's in disunity, at odds in their salvific work.
You have a Jesus that POTENTIALLY paid the full ransom price. When Jesus said it is finished, tetelestai, what He really meant was that it is potentially finished. He didn't ACTUALLY take all your sins and pay the full debt you owed. If He had, then your debt would be gone. If Jesus paid the full ransom that was needed to release a captive, and the captive wasn't released, would God be just or unjust? The cross had to only create an impersonal potentiality. In this theology God must have not known who would believe, so He couldn't actually be a personal Substitute. He had to only create an opportunity for a nameless faceless group and hope someone would take advantage.
This is not the what the Bible reveals about the cross. The work of salvation is a work of the Triune God for His glory. Each Person has a role. The Father elects a specific people, not based upon any foreseen merit in them or anything else, solely on the basis of His will (Ephesians 1), to give as a love gift from the Father to the Son, the Son dies for these people by name, providing actual propitiation, and the Holy Spirit regenerates these people in God's appointed time to new life in Christ, persevering them to the end. Definite atonement is simply the recognition that the Son acts in perfect harmony with the Father and the Spirit in bringing about the redemption of God's people. Salvation is the work of the Triune God for His glory. Election, propitiation, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification are all the one work of God, if God elects, then the rest are certain to follow. From God's viewpoint, all of these parts to salvation are just one work because they're certain for His people.
This is the number one reason to believe in a definite atonement : the unity of the Triune God.
Christ died for His sheep by name (John 10:3, 11)
Christ died for those the Father gave Him (John 6:39)
Christ died for His people (Matthew 1:21)
Christ died for His friends (John 15:13)
Christ died for His Church (Acts 20:28)
Christ died for His Bride (Eph. 5:25)
Christ died for those chosen in Him-the elect (Eph. 1:4)
Christ died for the same group He purchased /ransomed. (Rev 5:9)
Christ died for the elect for whom who He makes intercession. (Romans 8:31-34) (Hebrews 7:25)
Jesus is the actual Savior of His people, He is not a potential Savior.
Matthew 1:21
Romans 8:31-34
"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for US, who can be against US? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for US all, how shall He not with Him also freely give US all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s ELECT? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for US."
One of the clearest, most compelling statements of the particular redeeming work of Christ there is.
You have to ask, why would someone want to escape this truth?
Because there's no place for us to shoehorn in our own glory.
There is no one God could not have saved had He chosen to do so.
First Calvinist to post! Fantastic!
@@methodministries @ The second one to post.
It really is very simple. The atonement is limited ( or you are a universalist) and the offer of the gospel is a genuine offer to all men. Calvin also taught this.
No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. John Calvin
Did y’all even read watch the video?
@@kylewilson1022 not yet. However, I have heard all the arguments before.
@@patrolman602 It's no use my friend. When it comes down to it, it's not a good-faith, intellectual disagreement; not a matter of the mind, but of the heart. No matter the clarity or strength with which God's word proves a doctrine, if somebody is committed to a lie, they will find a way to believe it. That is the real reason synergists exist. God will fix them, but we cannot.
While I absolutely agree God in His Sovereignty, does cause/determine some things to happen, He does NOT cause everything, that happens, to happen.
In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind."
My contention is with people like John Piper who says, every single thing that happens on planet earth is caused by God. He gives the example of tiny dust particles in a beam of light. Piper says God controls the very movement of each tiny particle. Or James White who has said, "If a man brutally rapes a young girl, God caused it. If not, then it was a meaningless, random act." Jeff Durbin says, God is not partially sovereign, He is not half-sovereign, He is sovereignly sovereign. Meaning, like Piper and White, every single thing that happens is caused by God. If you follow that logic through, you have God saying to Adam and Eve, "Do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil..." and then He causes them to do that very thing. You have God saying, "Have no other gods before me." AND then He makes countless billions worship Allah, Buddha, or one of the three hundred million Hindu gods. Again, if you carry this through, you have God, who is LOVE, who is Holy and Righteous, causing, murder, rape, child molestation, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, human trafficking, not to mention, the belief in atheism. Allowing something to happen, UNTIL it is dealt with on Judgment Day, is NOT the same as causing it to happen.
You say that you know what Calvinists believe, but you constantly misrepresent our position. Christ died for each and every sin of the elect, and died for every sin that He intended. He did not bear the punishment for sins of the non-elect.
Bruisedbanana: The confidence of the ignorant never ceases to amaze. I genuinely hate writing something as sharp and pointed as I did above, and I sincerely mean no malice to you, but what you have said is completely misinformed. Plenty of respected Calvinists have affirmed universal satisfaction.
If you think there is any doubt as to the veracity of this claim, merely dip your toe into the warm waters of Reformed history. Seriously. This isn't a debatable claim.
I could list countless things for you to read verifying this, but I don't want to spill any more ink unless you really want me to.
@@austinbrown6829 ad hominem? It is funny to me that you use an insult and think that you are in the right. Why call yourself a Calvinist if you do not believe in one of the five points of Calvinism?
@@bruisedbanana1787 The reason I spoke so strongly is because (1) you are claiming I am speaking falsehoods, (2) you are claiming I am misrepresenting Calvinism, and (3) you intimate that I am not a Calvinist (you "constantly" misrepresent "OUR position.").
Tone is a hard thing to convey through writing, and so I want to be careful and sensitive to you as a person. In this vein, please take the time to honestly consider just a handful of data points that plainly counter your claim that Calvinists do not, or cannot hold to universal satisfaction.
See Heidelberg Catechism Q 37: "What do you understand by the word “suffered”? A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race..."
John Calvin: "And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price (Calvin on Jude 4, emphasis added).
Charles Hodge: Out of special love to his people, and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent His Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept it. Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in
perfect consistency with all this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, ‛No man perishes for want of an atonement." Hodge Systematic Theology, Vol 3.
And again, "It may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation of the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance.
These kinds of quotes, along with a treasure trove of respected historians of Reformed theology (like Dr. Michael Lynch, Dr. Muller, Dr. Gatiss, etc.,) make it abundantly clear that there were notable differences amongst Calvinists regarding the extent of satisfaction. Some affirmed universal satisfaction, some did not.
My book will supply many more, if you want to take a look. Otherwise, if you want a link to some primary sources, check out this website:
calvinandcalvinism.com/
And
theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/
@@bruisedbanana1787 The reason I spoke so strongly is because (1) you are claiming I am speaking falsehoods, (2) you are claiming I am misrepresenting Calvinism, and (3) you intimate that I am not a Calvinist (you "constantly" misrepresent "OUR position.").
Tone is a hard thing to convey through writing, and so I want to be careful and sensitive to you as a person. In this vein, please take the time to honestly consider just a handful of data points that plainly counter your claim that Calvinists do not, or cannot hold to universal satisfaction.
See Heidelberg Catechism Q 37: "What do you understand by the word “suffered”? A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race..."
John Calvin: "And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price (Calvin on Jude 4, emphasis added).
Charles Hodge: Out of special love to his people, and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent His Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept it. Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in
perfect consistency with all this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, ‛No man perishes for want of an atonement." Hodge Systematic Theology, Vol 3.
And again, "It may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation of the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance.
These kinds of quotes, along with a treasure trove of respected historians of Reformed theology (like Dr. Michael Lynch, Dr. Muller, Dr. Gatiss, etc.,) make it abundantly clear that there were notable differences amongst Calvinists regarding the extent of satisfaction. Some affirmed universal satisfaction, some did not.
My book will supply many more, if you want to take a look. Otherwise, if you want a link to some primary sources, check out these websites (I think RUclips is blocking my links, so I have to just say the names, apparently:
calvinandcalvinism (add a com)
And
theologicalmeditations (add blogspot and a com)
Bruisedbanana: Curious if you saw my last reply, and if so, what you think of the material I provided.