The Silent Holocron

Welcome back! I’m feeling good since I just took a test and feel I did well, so tonight I will attempt to finish our series on Limited Atonement. Tonight we will deal with the implications, my view, and conclude the doctrine.

Implications

Now, there are several implications that limited atonement brings, but none more profound than this:

Limited atonement must drive the believer into weeping, grief, sorrow, and prayer for the lost.

Just in case you think you didn’t read that right, I’ll say it again: Limited atonement must drive the believer into weeping, grief, sorrow, and prayer for the lost.

Think about this for a moment. In fact, let’s use a very extreme, though inaccurate, example to drive home my point. If you had an entire school full of children, and armed terrorists came in and told you that because their comrade died, they were only going to allow specific children to live, and that those children were predetermined by them, would you not be driven to grief for the children who would die?

Not to say God is an armed terrorist, but hopefully you see the point. Limited atonement teaches that because of Christ’s death, only certain people chosen by God from before the foundation of the world are going to be allowed into heaven, and that by virtue of the death of Christ securing their entry. Couple this with the indisputable fact that none of us here on earth know who those people are. This means that every lost person is consigned to hell. Even your unsaved children. Limited atonement absolutely MUST give us a heart for the lost. Which leads to the second implication:

Limited atonement must drive the believer to evangelize.

If limited atonement gives us a heart for lost people, the obvious corollary is that we must get off our behinds and start witnessing to the lost! We must preach the gospel. We must witness to our family and friends. We must witness to our neighbors and even people we don’t know from Adam.

Think about this for another moment. If there are a limited number that Jesus has purchased with His blood, and we have no idea who they are, that means failure to evangelize has dire, dire, dire consequences. Do we want to be responsible for disobedience of the Great Commission? Don’t you realize that our witness is the means by which the elect are saved? As it is said in Romans 10:13-17 –

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (emphasis added)

So now we can understand clearly that none of the elect will be saved unless we witness to them in some way.

My View

At the current time, I am not a “full” believer in limited atonement. I am not, as yet, fully convinced that Christ only died for the elect. But I am fully convinced (and have been for quite some time) that the application of the atonement is to the elect only. It is my view that there is a distinction to be made between the extent of the atonement and the application of the atonement.

I think it is fallacious to say that “if Christ died for all men, then all men will be saved.” This argument, in my mind, is a disservice to God’s sovereignty. If God really is sovereign, then He can do whatever the heck He wants, whether we think it’s logical or not. Some may say “it makes God unjust to withhold the benefit from those Christ died for, therefore Christ could only have died for the elect.” That’s malarkey and does the exact thing proponents of unlimited atonement are accused of, namely limiting God’s sovereignty. It says God couldn’t have done it that way, when yes, He could have.

I think it is also fallacious to say “all” means “the elect” in some cases. This is because many of the “all” or “us all” passages were written specifically to believers, and as such we cannot (as I stated in Part 2) infer the general from the specific in these passages. Proponents of limited atonement would be better served to use the distinctively general passages I listed in Part 2.

I won’t get into the whole “meaning of ‘world’” debate because I’m coming to think it’s a silly and wrongheaded debate. Suffice it to say that I find the Greek for “world” to refer to mankind in general in the places debated, with modification brought about by either the specific nature of the passages or due to being interpreted in light of general passages.

I could and probably should go a little deeper, but that would require a post of its own. I can summarize my view of limited atonement as follows: The atonement of Christ is sufficient to pay for the sins of the entire world. However, the atonement is effective only for those elect chosen by God from before the foundations of the world.

This is a position that has been much attacked by those holding the “full” view of limited atonement. I’ve been told that my view is the “majority Calvinist” position as well. Whether this is true or not I do not know, as I am still studying limited atonement as my personal project.

I will say that, as I have no desire to become a “theological curmudgeon,” I am very open to the possibility that I am wrong on this issue. It is not a hill on which I will die. But I am certain that any change will be because the Holy Spirit has so convinced me of its truthfulness. If limited atonement, in its “fuller” sense, is true, then the Spirit has just not yet seen fit to convince me.

Conclusion

I have defined limited atonement as the amends for the sin of specific humans made by the redemptive life and death of Jesus that brings about reconciliation between God and those specific humans.

There is ample biblical support for this argument. The support is convincing for many, and indeed is all but convincing for me, myself. But I feel that there is other biblical evidence to warrant a limitation in application rather than extent. So yes, I believe in a “limited” atonement, just not the fuller understanding.

But nevertheless, limited atonement should never be characterized as “sapping evangelism from our churches.” What a stupid, ignorant, and curmudgeonly thing to believe! Limited atonement, in its fullest form, is one of the greatest spurs to evangelism the Christian can have. Only so many have been redeemed, and we must get out there and get them! Pray that God will give you a heart for the lost, for only so many will be redeemed, no matter which form of limitation you ascribe to!

Okay, a quick recap. limited atonement has been defined as the amends for the sin of specific humans made by the redemptive life and death of Jesus that brings about reconciliation between God and those specific humans. I have also given biblical support for this doctrine. Now let us turn towards a historical background for this doctrine.

Historical Background

At this time, there is dearth of information regarding limited atonement up until the Reformation. I am hoping this deficiency is due to a lack of availability of materials on my part. I would like to put out an open request for anyone who may know of pre-Reformation sources for this doctrine to either email me or note any such sources in the comments section.

However, John Owen, in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (p. 310-312), gives a short listing of early sources for limited atonement, which I will reproduce in part here. Any emphasis in these first five has been added by me.

1. The confession of the church of Smyrna: in it’s letter to the churches of Pontus concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp, they wrote, “Neither can we ever forsake Christ, him who suffered for the salvation of the world of them that are saved, nor worship any other.”

2. Ignatius, in his epistle to Philadelphia, wrote, “…for whom, instead of a dowry, he poured out his own blood, that he might redeem her.” Owen comments by saying, “Surely Jesus Christ gives not a dowry for any but his own spouse.”

3. Cyprian in his epistle to Demetrian writes, “This grace hath Christ communicated, subduing death in the trophy or his cross, redeeming believers with the price of his blood.”

4. Ambrose, writing about 370, states that If thou believe not, Christ did not descend for thee, he did not suffer for thee.”

5. Prosper around 440 says that “He is not crucified with Christ who is not a member of the body of Christ. When, therefore, our Savior is said to be crucified for the redemption of the whole world, because of his true assumption of the human nature, yet may he be said to be crucified only for them unto whom his death was profitable. Diverse from these is their lot who are reckoned amongst them of whom it is said, ‘The world knew him not.’”

And again from Prosper: “The death of Christ is not to be so laid out for human-kind, that they also should belong unto his redemption who were not to be regenerated.”

Owen also quotes Augustine, which ostensibly gives the origin for the Roman Catholic view that there is no salvation outside of the Church: “He often calleth the church itself by the name of the world; as in that, ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself;’ and that, ‘The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.’ And John in his epistle saith, ‘We have an Advocate, and he is the propitiation for [our sins, and not four ours only, but also for] the sins of the whole world.’ The whole world, therefore, is the church, and the world hateth the church. The world, then, hateth the world; that which is at enmity, the reconciled; the condemned, the saved; the poluted, the cleansed world. And that world which God in Christ reconcileth to himself, and which is saved by Christ, is chosen out of the opposite, condemned, defiled world.”

Owen comments that more could be said from Augustine, but that Augustine’s “judgment in these things is known to all.” Hmm. I gotta break out my Augustine stuff. But it seems clear that Augustine, and by extension Roman Catholics, believe in a limited atonement to the effect that only those saved (for the RCC read: baptized and confirmed) in the (Roman Catholic) Church are those for whom Christ died. I invite anyone with a better knowledge than my superficial one on that issue to comment.

There is also the testimony of Theodorette of of Cyrus, who lived in 393 to 466. He wrote this about Hebrews 9:27-28. He said: “It should be noted, of course, that Christ bore the sins of many, not all, and not all came to faith. So He removed the sins of the believers only.”

Jerome, who lived from 347-420, a contemporary of Augustine, wrote about Matthew 20:28: “He does not say that He gave His life for all but for many, that is, for all those who would believe.”

In any event, the doctrine of limited atonement was not really developed (to my woefully incomplete knowledge) until the Reformation; and as such I must plead ignorance and point the reader towards more learned men who may know better than I do.

Let us now briefly examine a statement from John Calvin that I think establishes that he believed and taught this doctrine: “The first thing to be explained is how Christ is present with unbelievers, to be the spiritual food of their souls, and in short the life and salvation of the world. As he [i.e. Hesshusius] adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins? [Calvin: Theological Treatises trans. J. K. S. Reid (1954) p. 285]“

It was not until the Synod of Dort that Calvin’s view was formalized in response to the Remonstrants (Arminians), who held the view of unlimited atonement, that is, the view that Christ died savingly for all and that the benefit was imputed only upon the choice of the individual. As such we see in the Canons of Dort, Second Head, Article 8:

For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever (emphasis added).

The details of this article have been debated within Calvinist theology since, but none whom hold limited atonement reject that the atonement is limited only to the elect.

The Puritans, in general, were staunch Calvinists and produced a large body of work regarding the atonement which is likely unparallelled today.

Skipping ahead from the Puritans, Charles Spurgeon had this to say about limited atonement:

Many divines say that Christ did something when he died that enabled God to be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for he died for them all, they say; and yet so ineffectual was his dying for them, that though he died for them they are damned afterwards. Now, such an atonement I despise — I reject it.I may be called a Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ’s atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself — no not under the gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by good works.

And after all, though men call this a limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be. But do you know the limit of it? Christ hath bought a “multitude that no man can number.” The limit of it is just this: He hath died for sinners; whoever in this congregation inwardly and sorrowfully knows himself to be a sinner, Christ died for him; whoever seeks Christ, shall know Christ died for him; for our sense of need of Christ, and our seeking after Christ, are infallible proofs that Christ died for us.
[Spurgeon, C. H. -- The Death of Christ: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 4: #173]

Thanks to the crazy guys at Fide-O for this quote.

It has been argued by some that once Spurgeon leaves the scene, Calvinism enters its decline with the rise of Methodism and the influence of Arminianism on the churches of the 19th and 20th centuries.

However, the late 20th and early 21st centuries (in which we obviously live, for those aren’t following me clearly) we are seeing a resurgence of Calvinist beliefs, notably within the Southern Baptist Convention and conservative Presbyterian churches. Only time will tell if this is a new Reformation or if it is yet another theological fad.

Well, since this is a bit long, I will hold off on implications, my view, and a conclusion until tomorrow, as it’s late and it’s time to go to work at UPS. Feel free to leave any additional information, thoughts, corrections, etc. in the comments section. Come back tomorrow!

Okay, I have defined limited atonement as the amends for the sin of specific humans made by the redemptive life and death of Jesus that brings about reconciliation between God and those specific humans.

Now, I’m going to change up the order of presentation a bit in this post and start with the biblical support.

Biblical Support

I’m going to take a moment to clarify what I am going to do with this section. It is my view that many of the passages used to support limited atonement (i.e. passages that state things like “us all“) cannot in good conscience be used here because they are written specifically to Christians and as such we cannot infer a universal where Scripture is silent. Instead I want to use such passages that directly speak to a universal principle, in the hope of honoring this doctrine and doing it justice. Also, I am passing over these verses because they are interpreted in light of the universal principle passages, instead of at face value. Some of you will argue (and perhaps rightly so) that I am failing to “consider the whole counsel of Scripture” when presenting biblical support here. To that I ask if it is faithful to authorial intent, which in those cases were directed towards believers, to infer principles about those whom were not addressed. Hmm, that would be great fodder for another post. *note to self*

Anyway, the strongest passage of Scripture dealing with this doctrine, in my estimation, can be found in John chapter 10. As we see in verses 11-15:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

I think this passage is very clear in regards to limited atonement. First of all, Jesus himself explicitly says He dies for the sheep. It is obvious from the context of the entire chapter that the “sheep” spoken of here are the elect, those chosen by God from before the foundation of the world for eternal life. Second of all, we know for certain that “sheep” here refers to the elect because of the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. So it seems that Jesus is explicitly claiming to give up his life solely for the elect.

From this passage I think we can rightly point towards Ephesians 5:25, which states, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her….(emphasis added)” This passage very clearly points specifically towards the elect body of believers as those for whom Christ died.

Other passages that are sound in their support include:

John 6:37 & 39 – implies that only the elect are in union with Christ. By extension, this means that only the elect share in Christ’s death. Very powerful, for only those whom have been given to Christ by the Father are delivered by Christ.

John 11:49-52 – Caiaphas the high priest prophesied that Jesus died not only politically for the nation of Israel, but spiritually to gather together the children of God who are scattered abroad. This is a very specific statement that says Jesus died specifically for the children of God, the elect.

John 17:9-12 – supports John 6 above in that Christ again states that none of those given to him perish. All whom the Father has given to Christ (the elect) are delivered by Christ’s death.

Revelation 5:9-10 – very clearly states that Jesus died for a specific group of people that are taken out of every tribe and language and people and nation in the world.

There are also other verses that support this doctrine in the way that I have attempted to show it here, but I think this is a good sampling. It is a very convincing sampling on its own, I would hope. This is why I wanted to set aside verses such as the “us all” passages which were written specifically to believers, because those verses are interpreted in light of verses such as the ones I have listed above, as I stated in the beginning. I hope that the result of doing things this way is that we have come to an understanding of why those passages are interpreted the way they are.

Also, I want to interject that none of these passages can be understood without first understanding the doctrine of election. No one who holds limited atonement can do so without holding unconditional election (for my posts on this doctrine, click here: Part 1 and here: Part 2).

Now, I think here is a good place for us to pause and digest. Tricia wants to go to a nice dinner and to see Ice Age 2, so I will return after laughing at the squirrel.

Finally. At long last. We have arrived at Limited Atonement. Buckle up!

Introduction
I want to begin by firstly making clear that this post and the post to follow is not an attack upon limited atonement nor its supporters, nor is it the reverse concerning unlimited atonement. As the stated purpose of this series is to present the doctrines of grace clearly and accurately as possible, to the best of my understanding, that is exactly what I am attempting to do in this treatment.

Limited atonement is quite possibly the most controversial of the five points of the TULIP. Some would say unconditional election is the most controversial (though I think to argue about election is barking up the wrong tree), whereas the limited atonement position is just deluded. I say people who would naively and stubbornly argue against any point from any perspective, Arminian or Calvinistic are nothing more than theological curmudgeons. Let us make any assent or dissent from a perspective that is studied and informed, as I am attempting to do so here.

The proper point of dissent for one must be the limited atonement position, as each point treated thus far is clearly and convincingly articulated by the witness of Scripture, as is each point that will be treated subsequently. Limited atonement, in my estimation, is the hub of the Calvinist wheel. One’s position on the atonement is a more accurate estimator of whether one is fully Reformed; each of the other four points of the flower can and have been staunchly held by non-Calvinists.

Now, with these introductory remarks concluded, let us turn to a definition.

Definition
We might wonder why we need to define these words. Don’t we all know what limited means? Don’t we all know what atonement means? I would hope so. But in the interest of clarity and certainty, let us define these words.

Dictionary.com gives several definitions of limited that I think are crucial to our subject matter. The verb means: 1) To confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds; 2) To fix definitely; to specify. The adjective, which I think is the one we want here, means: 1) Confined or restricted within certain limits; 2) small in range or scope; 3) having a specific function or scope.

So limited in our context means something that is definitively fixed within a specified boundary and having a specific function or scope. Something that has been fenced in, so to speak, for a specific purpose.

Now, atonement is defined as: 1) Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; 2) compensation for a wrong. It goes further to define atonement religiously as reconciliation or an instance of reconciliation between God and humans, epsecially as brought about by the redemptive life and death of Jesus.

So atonement in our context means the amends made for our wronging of God that brings about reconciliation between humans and God by virtue of the redemptive life and death of Jesus.

Let me try to put these two definitions together to make an uber-definition. Limited Atonement refers to amends for the sin of humans made by the redemptive life and death of Jesus that brings about reconciliation between God and humans. Further, these amends have been definitively fixed within a specified boundary and scope, for a specific purpose.

Yes, I agree with you–this definition sounds very clunky and cramped. But it is exactly what is meant by limited atonement; namely the atonement has a specific purpose and scope to it. (There, that was simpler.)

Now, before anyone decides to get riled up, notice that there is nothing in my definition that says anything about what that purpose and scope is. That comes later. We have to flesh out exactly what this definition tells us from the witness of Scripture.

An Alternate Definition
However, in the interest of accurately describing this doctrine, I need to say a few words about an alternate label for this doctrine. Many Calvinists prefer, instead of “limited atonement,” the term particular redemption, feeling it to more accurately present what is meant by this doctrine.

Dictionary.com, in the context we are using it here, defines particular with 1) of, belonging to, or associated with a specific person, group, thing, or category; not general or universal; 2) Logic. Encompassing some but not all of the members of a class or group.

So, then, to define it using particular, we find that limited atonement refers to amends for the sin of specific humans made by the redemptive life and death of Jesus that brings about reconciliation between God and those specific humans.

Yes, I think that is much better, clearer, and more accurate.

And with that, I think this is a good place to stop. Tomorrow we will examine the biblical support for this position and the historical background of this doctrine.

Welcome back. It’s been a long time, I know. If you’d like to refresh things, go read Part 1

To recap, I wrote that unconditional election refers to the right, power, or privilege of God to make a choice that is totally free–that is, a completely objective, uninfluenced decision–of some individuals to salvation and others to damnation, and that choice dependent only on the good pleasure of His will and not on anything seen in the individual.

Now, let’s move into the biblical support.

Biblical Support
One of the key texts for the definition I have provided above is Romans 9:6-18:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Okay, that was long but illustrative.

This verse deals with two aspects of election; namely salvation and reprobation. It would seem here that Paul is clearly teaching Augustine’s gemina praedestinatio. But this is not the point of the verse. The point is found in the last paragraph from this passage–election depends not on human will or exertion, but on God.

Jesus himself made it very clear that election was from God and independent of human action in John 15:16–”You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide…” See here? We did not choose Jesus; rather, He chose us! This verse ties very heavily with a later doctrine of grace, which we will discuss later. I’ll let you amuse yourselves by guessing which one.

Other important verses include:

Deuteronomy 7:7-8 – God chose Israel not because of anything in them as a nation, but because of His love and promise to them.

Acts 13:48 – Expresses the idea that there are people who have been chosen to receive salvation.

Romans 11:5-6 – Uses the idea of a remnant to show there is a chosen group, and further underscores that the remnant is not chosen because of anything they have done, but because of God’s grace.

Ephesians 1:4-5 – Underscores that election occurred before the creation of the universe, and was done solely by God’s “good pleasure and will.”

To sum up the Biblical evidence for unconditional election, let’s take a paragraph from Dr. Chad Brand’s systematic theology class:

Election is not dependent on man’s will (Rom. 9:16; John 1:12-13), works (2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 9:11), holiness (Eph. 1:4), or obedience (1 Pet. 1:1-2). Rather, election finds its sole and all-sufficient cause in the sovereign good pleasure and grace of God (Eph. 1:9-11; Rom. 9:11; 11:5; Matt. 11:25-26; 2 Tim. 1:9).

All right, now let’s take a look at what these verses imply.

Implications
James Montgomery Boice, in one of his excellent last works, The Doctrines of Grace, gives an excellent statement that summarizes these verses: Election alone starts with all people at the same point and on the same level, all of them deserving hell. Then it saves some and passes by others, entirely apart from anything in the elect or reprobate persons themselves.

Indeed, all human beings deserve hell, not heaven. As such, if any individual is to be saved, it must be by mercy only, not justice – remember, all human beings deserve hell. So there is nothing you and I could ever do to deserve heaven. Furthermore, even if God should save people on the basis of something in them (faith, good works, or something else) this would actually be an injustice, because individuals and their backgrounds are unequal.(From The Doctrines of Grace, p.107-108)

Boice continues in his book to give four benefits of election, which I find myself coming into stronger and stronger agreement the more I study this doctrine.

First, election is humbling. If election is solely dependent on God’s pleasure, we have absolutely no reason to boast! If salvation is entirely God’s action from start to finish, what right do we have to take away His glory in salvation by ascribing part of it to ourselves? “I think I had a choice. I made the decision. It was up to me to accept Jesus, and then God saved me.” These statements are actually true statements. But the problem is that they are not the entire truth. As such we focus too much on the I part. What about the God saved me part? This also ties in heavily with a later doctrine, and I’ll continue to let you amuse yourselves by guessing which one.

Second, election encourages our love for God. Think about this carefully. “For God so loved me, that He sent His only begotten Son…” God loved you and me so much that He sent Jesus to die for us. And He sent Jesus not because you and I were deserving. We deserved death and hell, and yet God willingly overlooked our sin and the just punishment we deserve to call us His children. Shouldn’t that remarkable act of God motivate us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength? Especially when we realize we didn’t do a thing to seek Him in the first place?

Third, election will enrich our worship. This should be self-explanatory in light of the first two benefits. If we are humbled before Him, then He is rightly praised and glorified in us. If our love for Him is increased, then our praise and glory of Him penetrates us to the core. It shines forth in our prayer and in our singing and in our listening to the preacher. It shines forth in our fellowship with others. Perhaps only those who hold to unconditional election can truly sing with their emotions and know that they truly praise God. Hmm.

Fourth, election encourages us in our evangelism. Most people don’t believe this. Most people won’t even give this idea time of day. They are being foolish. If you really do hold to election, and you strongly believe the Great Commission, then you must realize that God is going to use YOU to bring in the elect! Shouldn’t that motivate all of us to get off our butts and get the Word out that Jesus died to save sinners? Especially since we don’t know who the elect are?

Summary
So, unconditional election, as seen in my definition and in Scripture, is God’s choosing of some individuals to salvation totally apart from anything worthy in them or about them. It is dependent wholly on the will of God, uninfluenced by anything outside of Him.

My View
I don’t think I can add to anything expressed in the Implications section of this post. I have always believed in election, though that view was a long time in developing. Once I understood (at least I think I understand) how God’s foreknowledge and decree worked, I found myself unavoidably embracing unconditional election.

I still think to this day there is something more about the relationship between God’s decree and His foreknowledge that unconditional election misses; namely I think there is something about how they work together that we don’t yet understand (and it could probably more accurately be said that it is I who don’t yet understand that something more). I can’t really explain what I mean without getting into the objections to this doctrine, and that is not the intent of this series. But I am currently taking comfort in the fact that men long dead as well as men older and wiser than me today have wrestled with this and written books on the subject, and to echo something Shane once told me about Calvin’s Institutes, I have to approach the trail they have already blazed as if they are right and I am wrong. This just goes to illustrate the value of being a lifelong student of God.

Thanks for reading! Join us next time as we delve into the most controversial of the doctrines of grace: Limited Atonement!

Welcome to Part 1 of Unconditional Election!

Let’s get right down to business. Today I will seek to give you a brief history of the doctrine and a definition, similar to what I did with Part 1 of Total Depravity.

Okay, let’s start with a definition.

Dictionary.com defines election as the right, power, or privilege of making a choice. Yes, it gives other definitions, but this seems to be the heart of the definitions listed. So election in this case refers to “the right, power, or privilege of divine choice.”

Further, unconditional is defined as 1) Without conditions or limitations; absolute; 2) not contingent; not determined or influenced by someone or something else. In other words, unconditional means “totally free.”

So, to give a basic definition, what we are looking at here in this doctrine is the right, power, or privilege of God to make a choice that is totally free; that is, a completely objective, uninfluenced decision.

Now, let’s look at the history of the doctrine. Thanks to Prof. Chad Brand covering this doctrine in his Systematic Theology III class.

The Apostolic Fathers do not really discuss grace in the formative years after Christ and the apostles. This is because the biggest challenge the church faced at this time was Gnosticism. Any discussion of election and predestination would have encountered this heresy. Gnosticism taught that only by learning the secret knowledge of God could a person attain redemption. It would have been very easy for Gnostics to seize upon the doctrine of election to support their cause (For example, they could have said, “God has chosen certain individuals for salvation. Let us strive to learn this secret knowledge and as such be redeemed.”) So as such election is not given much attention by the early Fathers.

It fell to Augustine in his Anti-Pelagian Writings to begin systematizing election. His work was again in response to the heretic monk Pelagius.

Pelagius, along with Julian of Eclanum apparently believed salvation is by “human monergism.” Monergism means “one energy/action;” thus Pelagius declared salvation is by human ability. Augustine, on the other hand, believed Scripture taught that salvation is indeed through monergism or ability, but that ability is of divine origin, not human. People are saved by God’s action alone from beginning to end. And as such salvation begins with God’s election of those who will be saved.

Augustine believed that the default position for humanity is hell (massa perdita, or the mass of those damned), and God chooses certain ones from this group to be saved. This is why God does not choose to save all–the Bible says clearly that some are going to hell. Further, he also posits the concept of gemina praedestinatio, or “double predestination,” which holds that out of the mass of humanity, God chooses one group for salvation and the rest for hell. But Augustine for whatever reason did not go completely into a double predestination view.

Unfortunately, as noted in Part 1 of Total Depravity, after Augustine the Church fell into semi-Pelagianism. Election became dependent (contingent) on human ability. To summarize, semi-Pelagianism holds the principle of facere quod in se est, or doing your best. If you always do your best despite your sins, God will accept you. This is the source of the popular belief that if we do our best and live good lives, striving to be good people, then God will allow us into Heaven when we die.

When the Reformation dawned, Martin Luther made himself the bane of semi-Pelagianism. This heresy is described as the issue over which the Reformation was fought. Luther wrote a book against Desiderius Erasmus (which unfortunately I do not have the name of) in which he asserted that humans in their natural state do not have free will. Recognize that? That’s total depravity. As such, humans are nothing more than donkeys (though Luther used a less endearing word–think of your gluteus maximus) that are being ridden. Either God is riding the donkey or Satan is. And of course, either God is in control of the donkey’s fate or we’re all heretics. So Luther did hold that God completely controls who will be saved and who will be damned. But election was not Luther’s chief concern.

John Calvin is the one who brings election and predestination to the foreground. In his work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, he taught that election is unconditional, individual, and unto salvation. That means that God objectively chooses individuals for salvation. He also held that God also objectively chooses individuals for damnation–Augustine’s gemina praedestinatio. As such, because God objectively elects, divine election is dependent solely on God’s sovereign good pleasure, not on anything in the individual, including the individual’s sin. God is riding the donkey, and He alone chooses whether the donkey rides into Jerusalem or is cast into the valley of Gehenna to be burned.

The Arminians (especially John Wesley), however, held that election is based on foreseen faith. God in His foreknowledge of things to come saw who would believe in Christ and as such chose those individuals. God is not the arbiter (the one who decides) of salvation, rather the individual is. As such election is not a call to salvaton, but a call to a work, a call to a decision. In a statement, in Arminian election God chooses some people to make a decision to accept Christ or not, based on His foreseeing who would respond affirmatively to the Gospel call. God is completely dependent on individual sinners in election.

The Synod of Dort summarized Calvin’s teaching on election in response to the Remonstrants (Arminians). I have summarized it as such in the Prologue:

God chooses people for salvation solely by His own good pleasure, not because of any condition foreseen in the individual. One could rightly say that this is “Arbitrary Election.” This is not to impugn the doctrine but to underscore that there is nothing that influences God to choose some and damn others but His own purposes and plans. Faith in Christ is not the cause of election but rather the result. As so, those chosen (elected) by God are called the elect.

This is what the Calvinist and Reformed view of election has been ever since. Much thought and writing has been given to the workings of this doctrine since, but Reformed thinkers generally hold to this definition of election.

So, then, unconditional election refers to the right, power, or privilege of God to make a choice that is totally free–that is, a completely objective, uninfluenced decision–of some individuals to salvation and others to damnation, and that choice dependent only on the good pleasure of His will and not on anything seen in the individual.

Whew, this was long. Join us this weekend when we get into the biblical support and implications!

Now, welcome to Part 2 of Total Depravity.

As promised, we will follow the outline given in the Prologue to the series.

To recap, I defined depravity as a depraved (corrupted or degraded) condition of moral perversion in which virtue and moral principles are impaired. Combined with the historical background given, I arrived at this definition for total depravity: the idea that the impairment of man’s will is total, so total that the will is not inclined to do good.

Now, let us move into the biblical support for this doctrine. Again, thanks to Aaron Shafovaloff for the list of Scriptures he provided in Part 1. That’s an amazing list just from the book of Romans alone. Saved me a load of time, he did. Some I’ll use, others I won’t; but it’s a good reference in support. Hey Aaron–send me your blog address so I have the proper link here. If not, that’s okay.

Biblical Support
In the interest of saving space, I’ll give a sampling of some pertinent verses.

Genesis 6:5 – States quite clearly that “every inclination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil all the time.” This is what precipitated the Flood. Every person’s desire of the heart is not God, but evil.

Jeremiah 13:23 – “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”

Jeremiah 17:9 – “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” We are incurably evil. Sin cannot be cured. This is why sinners are punished with Hell.

John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” While this is not explicit in the same way the first two are, it seems clear that no one is willing to go to Jesus of their own volition.

Romans 3:10-12 – The “none are righteous” verses. These are among my favorite verses in the entire Bible, and they quite clearly state that none of us enjoy any state of holiness or righteousness before God. We are sinners and that is that.

1 Corinthians 2:14 – “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” In our natural state (fallen), we cannot understand God. We are so corrupted by sin that we cannot even comprehend our Creator!

Implications
What are the implications of these verses (and many more like them)? Let us turn to Ephesians 2:1-3 to gather a picture of the natural person:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience–among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

What this means is quite simple.

First, we are dead as a doorknob. We are walking corpses. Zombies! As such, we are unable to do anything at all. Think about what zombies look like. They are rotting away. What a horrible picture of our condition–because of sin, we are rotting away.

Second, we practice evil willingly. We willingly seek brains and don’t care what we have to do to get it. We will trample over everyone–including family, friends, and even ourselves–to get what we want. We want brains, and we want it brains…er, now. That pretty accurately describes the human condition–all we care about are our selfish desires.

Third, we are enslaved to sin. We are slaves to our selfish desires. We are enslaved to the brains we are so horribly eating. And we can’t get enough. We can never get enough. As such we will gorge ourselves constantly until we feel satisfied, which unfortunately is never. A side effect of this enslavement (though it can rightly be a primary symptom) is that we have lost all understanding of morality and spirituality. We are so consumed by our sinful needs that it is all we understand. Anything higher simply confuses us.

Fourth, we are the objects of God’s wrath. Think about this for a minute. Do you really allow a zombie to live? Not no, not oh no, but OH MY STARS AND GARTERS NO! You kill that sucker dead. And you burn ‘im for good measure, just so he doesn’t grow any new limbs. That’s hell, my friends. God is burning the zombies for all eternity. Those of you who are horror fans know the only way to effectively kill a zombie is to burn it.

Fifth, a serious meditation of these above four implications leads us to the inescapable conclusion that we need help if we are ever going to get out of this horrible condition. We need someone to come along with the cure for our sin. But sin is incurable. Therefore we need someone to step in and transform us. That’s why Paul writes in Colossians 2:13-14–

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Summary
So, we are rotting zombies who are willingly enslaved to our need for brains, and as such are slated for destruction. That, in a horror-movie nutshell, is what total depravity is about.

Seriously, we are. Sin has turned us into self-seeking automatons, and as such we are unable to do or be any earthly good at all. We need to be transformed if we are to have any hope of escaping our horrible condition. Death will result if someone does not come along and transform us.

My View
There is really not much I can say here except to wholeheartedly affirm that I am a rotting, evil, worthless zombie in need of transformation. I fully deserve to experience the eternal wrath of God for my sins. Furthermore, my inclination towards sin has infected every part of my being, so that there is nothing I do that does not contain some ulterior selfish motive, no matter how miniscule. The Romans 3 passage is what convinced me early in my walk that absolutely no one can claim to be righteous. We are all sinners in need of a Savior.

So, do I believe the doctrine of total depravity? Yes, unashamedly.

Well, that wraps up Total Depravity. Feel free to hash it out in the comments, and if you should see any needed revisions, expansions, etc. let me know and I will either edit the post or take them on in the comments section. Join us next time as we look at the second doctrine, Unconditional Election!

Introduction and Definition
Welcome to the first of the five “doctrines of grace,” total depravity. Before we get into the definition of this doctrine, let’s briefly look at the word depravity. Dictionary.com defines depravity in four ways: “1) moral corruption or degradation; 2) a depraved act or condition; 3) moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles; and 4) a corrupt or depraved or degenerate act or practice.”

What we are concerned with here are the second and third definitions, which I combine thus: “a depraved (corrupted or degraded) condition of moral perversion in which virtue and moral principles are impaired.” Yes, I know I just committed a redundancy but just pretend that it’s emphatic redundance.

Now, for a smidgen of historical background.

This doctrine was first expressed by Augustine in his writings against the Pelagian heresy back in the 400s AD. The monk Pelagius taught that man is created essentially good and that man’s free choice introduces sin, and as a result man only needs to stop sinning, not to be saved.

Augustine, in contrast, insisted that the Scriptures taught that while yes, Adam was created good, Adam’s free choice to sin has consequences that were passed down to each successive generation of humans. That consequence Augustine saw in Scripture is that man became totally incapable of doing any good of any kind at all. After Adam, no one is born “good” in the same way as Adam; they are born under the consequence. Man is unable to stop sinning of his own accord. The only power of doing good was to be found in God’s sovereign grace (the enabling power of God that rules the universe). In other words, God has to do it (stop sin) for you, since you can’t. Thus it is more accurate to describe this doctrine as total inability.

Unfortunately for Augustine (and by association all of Christendom and the rest of the world), the church did not fully embrace his system, and thus invented Semi-Pelagianism, which has plagued Christianity to this very day. While Semi-Pelagianism affirms with Augustine that man is not born good (that can only be true of Adam and Eve), and needs God’s grace to be saved; however (in concession to Pelagianism) man is not so depraved that he has no inclination to do good. He is merely sick (the origin of the term sin-sick) and must be healed by God’s grace. In addition, man must choose to submit to the healing ministrations of God’s grace in order to be saved (a further concession that makes this obviously Pelagian).

It was not until Martin Luther arrived that this doctrine was recovered. Isn’t it interesting how Luther recovered much of what the Bible actually teaches? Luther saw that the church must be cleansed of semi-Pelagianism before believers can ever truly understand God. He made Augustine’s teaching very accessible by stating that man’s will, man’s free choice, is so completely corrupted and perverted that it is in bondage to sin, and as such is not inclined to choose good. He wrote about this in book which sits on my shelf, The Bondage of the Will. It’s a good read, I suggest everyone read it.

John Calvin crystallized this teaching in the way which it has become known to us today. In his greatest work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote: “…everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this [sin or "law of sin"]; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but [sin].” (In the original quotation, Calvin uses the word concupiscence, which means “strong desire” or “lust.” The way Augustine uses it defines it as “the law of sin in our sinful flesh,” and as such says we are “born in concupiscence,” that is, born in sin.)

The Synod of Dort summarized Calvin’s teaching on the matter. Please see the series Introduction for the summary as I have rendered it.

So, in conjunction with my definition of depravity above, total depravity is defined as the idea that the impairment of man’s will is total, so total that the will is not inclined to do good.

It is worth mentioning that an entire genre of thought has sprung up to flesh out why a will that is not inclined to do good does, in fact, do praiseworthy (good) acts. However, that is not within the purpose of this blog series. I will note such a quandary for some future blogpost. We can do systematic theology (ha ha, and I’m doing a series on something systematic, how ironic) later.

Now, since this history will make the treatment a bit longer than I wanted, I’m going to split up this doctrine into two parts. Today will be the introduction. Friday I will post the remainder of the treatment, following my outline in the series Prologue.

EDIT: What you see now is revised from its original posting on Wednesday. I’ve cleared up some ambiguities, made some things a little more specific, and added an explanation of using “sin” to explain the term concupiscence (thanx to: Shane Morgan). Otherwise what you see is exactly how it was presented originally. Also, I wanna thank Aaron Shafovaloff for making that list of Scriptures in the comments. Now I don’t have to list them all on my notepad before I type up the second half of this treatment.

Some of you have also asked where the biblical support is. Please remember that the biblical support of the doctrine lies in the next half, so bear with me. I only sought to get a definition here. I was of the mind that defining terms would make the biblical argument a little easier to grasp for those of us who aren’t seminary students. In the meantime, peruse Aaron’s list in the comments, it’s a good primer for what I’m about to do.

As promised, it is Wednesday, and I am now going to introduce us to the doctrines of grace, widely known as “Calvinism.” Shane Morgan has the companion post to this one on his blog.

What are the “doctrines of grace,” you ask? Briefly, this term refers to a set of five doctrines developed by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) in response to the theological objections of a group known as the Remonstrants, also better known as the Arminians. This stance was set forth in the document Arminian Articles of Remonstrance in 1610, hence the name “Remonstrants.” It is interesting to note that Jacobus Arminius himself (similarly to Calvin) did not develop these points, but rather these points were developed by his followers in summary of his thought. These points were:

1. Free Will with Partial Depravity. This doctrine holds that “freedom of will” is man’s natural state and was not lost in the Fall. However, sin has corrupted it enough that the will cannot do good unless it chooses to agree with God’s grace through faith.
2. Conditional Election. This view teaches that God decrees to save those whom He foreknows will believe in Jesus as Savior. Those who He foresees will not believe are not chosen for salvation.
3. Universal Atonement. In this doctrine which I daresay the majority of Christendom believes today, Arminians hold that Jesus died for all people. However, only those who believe in Christ receive the benefit of His death. Note the connection here with points 1 and 2.
4. Resistible Grace. This means exactly what one would think, that the grace of God unto salvation can be resisted. Yes, God’s grace is necessary for one to be saved, but that grace can be resisted.
5. Uncertain Perseverance or “Defectible Grace.” This is what is commonly known as “it is possible to lose your salvation.” Yes, we humans have been given the ability by God in the power of the Holy Spirit to persevere until the end, but due to sin it is possible to fall from saving grace.

All five of these doctrines lean heavily on each other. Also, all five rest heavily on the notion of human free will or ability. I will not now attempt to examine these points in the same manner as I am examining the Calvinist system. That will remain for a later series (likely after graduation).

Compare these points with the “5 Points of Calvinism,” developed in the aforementioned Synod of Dort as an answer to the Remonstrance. These points have been referred to as “TULIP” simply because the first letters of each point form an acrostic. Similarly to Arminianism, John Calvin did not develop this system but they are the work of his later followers in their summary of Calvin’s thought in response to the attacks of the Remonstrants.

1. Total Depravity. This introductory point holds that nothing an unregenerate person does is ever completely good. This means that every person is so totally corrupted and influenced by sin that there is nothing about us that is not touched by sin. This excludes any notion of free will or ability to choose the good. Our motives are never entirely pure, and to one extent or another all of our actions are corrupted by evil desires. As such we have no inclination to seek God and therefore cannot seek him or even respond to the Gospel when it is presented to us. This is what Scripture calls “the bondage of sin.”
2. Unconditional Election. This doctrine teaches that God chooses people for salvation solely by His own good pleasure, not because of any condition foreseen in the individual. One could rightly say that this is “Arbitrary Election.” This is not to impugn the doctrine but to underscore that there is nothing that influences God to choose some and damn others but His own purposes and plans. Faith in Christ is not the cause of election but rather the result. As so, those chosen (elected) by God are called the elect. This doctrine is what most people think of when they hear the word predestination.
3. Limited Atonement. This doctrine is likely the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement posits that the death of Christ saves the elect (the chosen), and the elect only. As such, Christ’s death atoned for the sins of the elect, but not for the sins of those who never come to faith. There are two main views within Calvinism of this doctrine, both of which will be addressed in the post on this point.
4. Irresistible Grace. This refers to the irresistible call of God to the believer to come to faith in Christ. Grace is given to the elected sinner to believe in Christ, and once given the call of the Gospel through the preaching of the Word and the conviction of the Holy Spirit, that grace cannot permanently or effectively be resisted. The sinner is thus inevitably drawn to faith in Christ as Savior.
5. Perseverance of the Saints. This is widely known (probably crudely) as “once saved, always saved.” This is true, in that the doctrine declares that God will preserve His elect so that they will never finally fall away from saving grace. It has nothing to do with human effort but everything to do with God’s providential strengthening of the elect to endure to the end, no matter how far they fall from so great a salvation.

This system relies heavily on two points.

First, there is a total commitment to the impotence of man. Second, there is a total commitment to the absolute sovereignty of God. One must realize that man is completely unable to do anything apart from the divine enablement or approval of God, who reigns over all the created order. If God had not done it or made it possible (permitted it), then we have no ability to do it apart from His good pleasure. Without this view of man and of God, Calvinism crumbles.

Since I cannot really give biblical support for each (following my post outline in the Prologue), I’ll just skip ahead to My Take.

For starters, both positions make sense. That’s in a logical sense, however. All 5 points of both positions are logically consistent with each other and are coherent. Whether either position is biblical, well, that’s another matter entirely. Since this series focuses on Calvinism, let me tell you my initial take on the 5 points.

From a “first impressions” view, Calvinism makes perfect sense, biblically and “common sense”-ically. Is that even a word? But I, as do many others, balk only at the point of limited atonement, and for a long time I balked somewhat at irresistible grace. Calvinism appears to take a very high and very biblical view of God’s role in salvation. I’m reminded heavily of the verse that states flatly that “no one can be saved without God’s help.” That means that it is impossible to be saved unless God does it for us. I can agree that sin has affected every part of me so that even when I do good things I don’t entirely desire God’s glory but my own. I can agree that God chose me before the foundation of the world simply because He wanted to. I can agree that God made sure I would accept Jesus no matter what, because He had a plan for me that would not be denied. I can agree He will also make sure I will endure until that plan is fulfilled and He calls me home. All of these four points that I agree with here are very biblical concepts, and I am convinced to a compelling degree that they are correct. I obviously am not convinced yet on limited atonement, but I’ll save that for the post on the subject.

Now, to continue to the next portion, or Part 2, of this discussion, I direct you to Shane Morgan and his introductory post to the doctrines of grace. As I announced, we will be co-blogging this series. Shane, however, is going to do it with a twist. I’m just simply going to be outlining each doctrine and what it means, whereas Shane will approach it from an entirely different angle. Go read his blog to see what he’s doing!

Please feel free to comment and offer corrections, clarifications, or questions of the information above. I desire your help!

Join us next time as I move to the first point of the doctrines of grace: Total Depravity!

With this post we will enter into the strange and controversial, yet exhilarating and edifying world of the doctrines of grace, widely known for better or for worse as Calvinism.

Many of us at Southern Seminary have heard this term (Calvinism) bandied about as if it were the Holy of Holies. We’ve also heard it used almost as if it were a swear word. I suspect there are also a lot of us who are like me; we are unsure and desire to study the matter further. What I want to do here is take an uncritical (as in I’m not out to tear it down nor to shamelessly promote it) look at these doctrines and determine what exactly each doctrine teaches. The intent here is to be instructional for myself and for any readers I may have out there in cyberspace.

This series will be structured thus:

• Introduction
• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints
• Implications for Life and Ministry
• Conclusion

If you haven’t already figured it out, yes I am following the TULIP acrostic.

Each post in the series will follow this format:

• The doctrine’s definition, with a brief commentary on the definition
• Biblical support for such a definition
• Implications arising from the definition
• Summary of the doctrine
• My take on the doctrine (where I stand or where I am at in my study)

I will try to do no more than one doctrine per week to allow time for review for the next post on my part and discussion of the currently posted doctrine on our part.

Now, I feel the need here to set some ground rules.

First, this is not the place for “angry Calvinism” nor “angry Arminianism.” Anyone indulging in such shameful behavior will have their comments given the unceremonial boot. You do a disservice to your respective theological systems and to Christianity in general, and you will not be tolerated. Also, I reserve the right to determine who exactly is practicing such behavior, so don’t bother tattling. This isn’t 4th grade. Let’s all be mature Christians and speak the truth as we see it in love. Oh dear Lord, that sounded so pomo.

Second, the comments section is where all discussion will take place. If I see a point that deserves further posting, it will get posted within a day of me reading the comment. I will make a strong effort to be involved in the dialogue, as this series is primarily for my own education and if I don’t participate, I won’t really learn anything. Feel free to email me if you so desire, but be warned that rule number 1 will be practiced in regard to email as well.

Third, I would appreciate people pointing out things that I may have misunderstood or quite simply missed in the discussion. Please understand that I am in no way trying to be definitive or exhaustive; I’m simply trying to come to a place where I can say, if I was asked by someone in the corridor of the church (or in Sunday school or what have you), “this is what that means.”

Fourth, I will not be listing and addressing objections to the doctrine being discussed, unless I am stating my personal position on the doctrine. I would like to work on any objections in the course of dialogue in the comments. Unless, of course, enough of you convince me to include objections to the doctrine (which I may before the end of the week decide to do).

Fifth, it is my exhortationary command as a brother in Christ to you all to have fun reading and participating in this series! Very often we forget the “enjoying God forever” part of glorifying Him.

If all goes well, I will do a sister series on Arminianism. Hey, fair is fair!

See you tomorrow with the introduction!