A friend of mine asked me about my belief in “Partial Redemption”. I responded by asking, “Do you mean Particular Redemption?”He said, “No, because your belief has Jesus only saving part of the world.” Perhaps he sees Calvinists as throwing the lead balloon? Or better, withholding the Life Preserver from men lost at sea who so desperately want to go to heaven but the big mean Calvinist God won't save them.
Of course the objection raised was his usual “Whosoever” argument from John 3:16. I reminded him (since he knows Greek) that John 3:16 does not say in the original language “Whosoever”, but instead says, “Everyone believing” or “all the believing ones”.
He agreed but insisted that the sense still calls for the idea of whosoever, to which I agreed. But I objected to his unspoken Tradition. He assumes an inference from the text that is simply not warranted. He assumes man must have a free-will and ability to believe when he desires.
“You infer from the verse (John 3:16) that does not speak specifically to the nature of man’s will that man has a free will. Then when you read a clear text such as John 6:44 that specifically says man does not have the ability to come to Christ, you turn the text on its head to fit your Tradition.” When I said this, I simply got no response.
The logic of the John 6:35-45 passage is so water tight, I am amazed there are any Arminians left.
There is another obvious point that needs to be challenged though. Unless this person is a Universalist, he must also believe that Jesus does not save people who go to hell. As I expressed to him later, my view is that Jesus may not intend to save everyone equally but does so perfectly, but his view of Jesus is that He intends to save perhaps billions of people and fails miserably.
Now who’s view has the Partial Savior again?
6 comments:
"He intends to save perhaps billions of people and fails miserably."
I don't know of any person on the planet that believs this. I do know many who believe that he desires to save all but intends to save only those who repent.
I guess I must ask why do you not believe this. If you believe Jesus intends to save every person equally and without distinction, if He died upon the cross substitutionarily for their sins, if He prays to the Father as their Intercessor and Mediator and High Priest, if He (with the Father) sends the Spirit to bring that finished work of salvation, if He intended to save all that the Father had given to Him, only to see that He loses perhaps billions upon Billions, how is that not failing?
This is the will of the Father, that Jesus should lose NONE that are given to Him. If He loses one, Jesus fails, does He not?
Of course if you are looking at this via a non-Protestant viewpoint, then what I have said obviously may not even begin to make sense. But if you believe in Substitutionary Atonement, if you believe in Imputation, if you believe Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Christ Alone, then what is it you are not grasping?
Now you make a distinction between desiring and intending, then maybe I am blowing hot air.
:-)
I do not believe Jesus intends to to save every person equally and without distinction, I believe he desires to save every person equally and without distinction. This is not a logical contradiction, and it is inkeeping with scripture in such a way that one does not need to continually explain away either election or John 3: 16.
As I said before, I don;t kbnow a person on the planet who believes He intends to save perhaps billions of people and fails miserably. I do know many who believe he desires to save all, but intends to save only those who repent.
DB
Well DB,
My pastor is one that you could meet and find your one person that does believe this. He believes Jesus intended by His death to save every person ever without distinction.
So although you may make this desire/intention distinction, I have found most people that believe in universal substitutionary atonement (without universal effect) don't.
God Bless
You are answering Dbs point by telling him what others believe and not giving good response to why what he believes is wrong. Even though the difference between the two is a small play on words, intention and desire. I do not think you know anyone that feels Jesus failed miserably. When put to the test I am sure their feelings are the same as Dbs. Either way you need to explain why he is wrong.
Jim
Jim,
Perhaps I am not being clear due to the meaning of words. I think the thought is clear in John 6:35-45, though. The difference is that one group believe Jesus came to make every man savable without distinction at all. The other group believes that Jesus came to actually save men by His own power without the aid of the creature. There is a third group that believes everyone will be saved.
John 6 is plain and simple. The Father has given a people to the Son. We know from other texts that this people will come out of every nation, tribe, laguage ect.. of the earth. It is the WILL of the Father that Jesus save them. Jesus came to do this WILL. Jesus then tells us that He will lose none of those that are given to Him, and those that are given to Him He will raise up on the Last Day.
The Arminian tries to turn this passage on its head by differentiating between those given by the Father and those who come to the Son and those who are raised up on the Last Day. The text does no such thing.
The conclusion based on the text is also quite simple. If one person that the Father gives to the Son does (a) not come to the Son and/or (b) is not raised up on the last day, then Jesus fails to do the WILL of Him who sent Him. The logic is water tight and could not be plainer.
Now all of this boils down to the view we have of ourselves and God. If you do not see yourself as a DEAD sinner then your view is akin to Rome's. If you do not see Jesus as spiritually raising DEAD sinners to Spiritual life by HIS OWN POWER without the assistance of the Creature in any way shape or form, the your view is akin to Rome's.
In other words, Monergism (One power) verses Synergism (Cooperating powers).
Is your view of yourself Biblical or Americanized philosophy?
John Piper (a well known Baptist preacher) once remarked that everyone is a Calvinist at some point. When people deny this, he just asks them to describe their conversion.
He said their response usually is something like, "Oh sir, well, I was in darkness. I was blind and then one day I could see the Gospel."
This is Calvinism. You didn't cooperate to see God. He gave you sight. You didn't have a good cooperating evil heart. You possessed an evil heart. It is God who takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh.
Hope this helps to clarify the muddy waters.
God Bless Brother
Post a Comment