Pages

Monday, March 11, 2013

Can those folks "for whom Christ died" be damned? (1 Corinthians 8:11 & 2 Peter 2:1)

Calvinist believe in a doctrine called Limited Atonement. This doctrine is not so much derived from Scripture, but rather from systematic theology: they reason that if Jesus died for everyone, then everyone would be saved, but since everyone is not saved, then Jesus must only have died for a limited number of men. This false dilemma hinges on a fault understanding of the Cross called Penal Substitution, which I've written about frequently. One way to refute Limited Atonement is to show that Scripture speaks of people whom Jesus died for ended up rejecting him and being damned. 

One text that I like to turn to is 1 Corinthians 8:
10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
The lesson at hand is that there were some Christian converts from paganism who were accustomed to idolatry. While a mature Christian knows that there is no such thing as "unclean meat," to the less mature Christian this reminds them of the time when they used to worship false gods and partake in the sacrifices offered to them. (cf Rom 14:14-15) What Paul is saying is that a mature Christian should not do anything that could cause another person to fall into sin. This is traditionally called "causing scandal." For a more modern day analogy, lets say a Christian brother is a recovering alcoholic. If you flaunt alcohol in front of them, you could easily be playing a role in causing them to fall back into alcoholism. Indeed, this danger was so real in some places that the Magisterium at the Council of Jerusalem had to put a formal ban on eating meat sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:28-29; 16:4).

Looking specifically at 1 Corinthians 8:11, it is saying that a weak Christian brother "for whom Christ died" can be drawn (back) into idolatry, apostatize, and end up damned. The Greek word for "destroyed" is apollymi, a term that means to utterly perish and used often in regards to being damned. Indeed, Paul uses the term to mean spiritually perish in virtually every instance he uses this word. A Calvinist must come up with an alternative to this, otherwise his theology is utterly refuted. 

If the Calvinist says this weak brother was not really a Christian, then that pretty much makes nonsense of the passage. So they must say something to the effect that this "destruction" does not refer to losing salvation, but rather something like physical death. But I see no way of demonstrating this without begging the question. The very language of "for whom Christ died" shows this context is a matter of salvation (cf Rom 14:15, 20, 23). I don't see any warrant for reading this as saying "this weak person is put to death, a brother for whom Christ died" since it's a non sequitor. Paul does speak of God chastising with physical ailments, including death, later in the Epistle (which I discuss here), but not in this instance.

*         *         *

Another text in opposition to Limited Atonement is 2 Peter 2:1, which says:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
The plain reading of this verse says there will be Christians who will turn into false teachers, introduce dangerous heresies, and thus deny their Lord Jesus who ransomed them by His blood, and thus be damned as a result. The Calvinist understands this and the implications, so they propose two alternate interpretations, which I'll now examine. 

The first option they propose is that the Greek term "Master" here refers to God the Father, and thus is not speaking of the ransom for sin attained by Jesus on the Cross. There are a couple of problems with this claim: (a) The Greek term "Master" is used about 10 times in the New Testament, but only in about two instances does it clearly refer to the Father (Lk 2:29; Acts 4:24), with about 5 of the instances referring to human masters of slaves. So there is no consensus by any means. There is somewhat of a parallel to 2 Peter 2:1 in the commonly accepted manuscripts of Jude 1:4, which also speaks of "denying our Master, Jesus Christ," and clearly identifies the "Master" as Jesus. (b) The language of "bought" can only refer to the ransom of Jesus by His blood (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rev 5:9), since the context suggests nothing about buying goods at the market. This is even more clear by the fact the "swift destruction" mentioned is speaking of damnation, so the context is of salvation. (c) Even if it was granted that God the Father did this ransom, it would have to mean He played a role in the Atonement in the broad sense, which wouldn't change anything significant of the argument. 

The second option Calvinists propose is that this verse is only speaking of folks who falsely claim that they were ransomed by Jesus, but in fact were not. This is begging the question and simply projecting ideas onto the text. This option doesn't even flow with the language of the text, which speaks of a redemption as having taken place, not a claimed redemption.

14 comments:

Chris (Longmont, CO) said...

There is one part about this entire set of arguments that has me the most confused.

How can protestants claim to believe that Catholics had some sort of Great Apostasy around the 4th century ... and yet believe that they are incapable of having any sort of apostasy themselves?

Devin Rose said...

Chris,

They would agree that some Protestants have apostatized and that's why their church has broken away from those others. They are the remnant, the faithful ones, and also the "church is always reforming".

God bless,
Devin

Chris (Longmont, CO) said...

Devin,

Then how can this concept be reconciled with the concept of "Limited Atonement" which is what this post began with?

Chris

Devin Rose said...

Chris,

What do you mean exactly?

It is pretty simple. "I'm sure Christ died for me; you, I'm not so sure about." :)

So those Protestants who "left" the Faith or believe in things I think are heterodox were never elect to begin with. Christ never died for them. They only appeared to be elect for a time.

God bless,
Devin

Nick said...

Hello Chris,

I'm not sure if Devin addressed your question, but it might be related to the question answered on an excellent article I read a few months back on an awesome blog:

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/08/perseverance-of-saints-v-great-apostasy.html

Steve Martin said...

Christ died for "the whole world"...but not all that He died for will come to faith.

Why not?

Who knows. God knows.

Anonymous said...

How Are We Free?
Let me say, however, that in one sense we all have free will or free choice. What I mean by that is we all do whatever we want to do. We are free agents in this sense. When it comes to the everyday normal choices we make, we freely make those choices to do what we want to do. Although we are free beings and we freely choose to do what we want to do, we are not free spiritual beings. This is a very important distinction. When it comes to making decisions about God and the things of the Spirit, the unsaved do not have the free will spiritual ability to make those decisions. We are dead spiritually, as mentioned previously, which means we are dead or incapable of making free decisions of any spiritual good toward our Creator or our salvation.

That ability has been totally corrupted by our sin nature. Sin destroyed our freedom of will to do right, and now we serve the lusts of our sinful flesh. At the fall of man, what was it that fell? It was the free will ability to equally choose good or evil with a view to pleasing God. Now we are left with an overwhelming predisposition and desire by our wills to do evil and sin against our Creator.

So here is the truth of Scripture. Since the fall of man, there is no such thing as a free will spiritual ability or power to equally choose good or evil. Man’s inclination is to choose evil. Read again Paul’s comments in Rom. 7:14-25. Man’s will is corrupted and in slavery to sin (John 8:34). The unsaved individual does not understand the things of God and will not seek God with his spiritually dead will. The Scriptures are clear on this point. (Rom. 3:11-12).

Anonymous said...

It was God’s will for Mary to bear Jesus, not hers. Mary said to the angel – Thy will be done. Mankind “is spirtually” dead in sin after the fall of Adam and Eve and is unable to come to God in repentance and faith both of which God grants it. Salvation is of the Lord. Repentance and faith to believe comes from the Lord. Arminianists wrong believe man has a “free will” to make decisions to accept or reject. The scriptures do not support such teaching

The Holy Spirit convicts, kindles, regenerates a man to realize he is a lost sinner and gives him the repentance and faith to believe the gospel. Look to the scriptures of how man can be made “spiritually” made alive. See Jonah 3:1-10, Ephesians 1:13, Acts 19:4. Why do Atheists don’t believe in God? Its because they are “spiritually dead”. Why do some people reject the gospel when they hear it? Because they are “spiritually dead”. See what GOD says in John 6:44, John 6:37, John 15:19, Romans 8:9.

Jasonferns@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

"man’s will is corrupted and in slavery to sin (John 8:34)."

It is stupid for calvinists to use this verse:

34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, geveryone who practices sin is a slave3 to sin.

Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. Since all men practice sin,even those "elected and saved" are slaves to sin.

So obviously, this is a metahpore saying no one can save himself apart from God's Grace. The question is so, does God give Grace to everyone or only to some. So our poster above just begged the issue.

De Maria said...

Steve Martin said...
Christ died for "the whole world"...but not all that He died for will come to faith.

Why not?

Who knows. God knows.


Surprise! We agree. Good answer Steve.

De Maria said...

Hi Jason,

No, you're wrong. Man's nature is fallen. But it is not Total Depravity.

Jesus said of the little children:
Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Souls in heaven are not Totally Depraved. They are not depraved at all. They are souls of men made perfect:
Hebrews 12:22-24
King James Version (KJV)
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

If unregenerate man were unable to choose to do good, Enoch would not have pleased God, Noah would not have been called righteous, Melchizedek would not have been called the Priest of God most high, Abraham would not have been forensically approved, etc. etc. Read Heb 11 and see the many, unregenerate Jews who pleased God by their faith and actions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Nick said...

It seems like Jason was not trying to address the main point of this post but rather trying to pontificate on different issues.

Michael Taylor said...

Nick,

I think you make an interesting point in this article. If you have the time, you might want to consider my full and detailed response to your take on the 1 Corinthians 8:11 part of it. (I'm not sure I'll have time for the 2 Peter part of it.)

http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-does-it-mean-to-destroy-christian.html

Michael Taylor said...

Nick,

I posted another article responding to your misuse of 2 Peter 2:1 to deny Limited Atonement.

http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2013/03/does-2-peter-21-deny-limited-atonement.html

Cheers,

Mike Taylor