Response to Turretinfan on Christ’s Death

This post is a continuation of my discussion with Turretinfan. Tfan had asked:

How is purchasing a redemption for both believers and non-believers consistent with decreeing to save only believers? (here)

To which I had responded:

1) the decree to save believers should not be understood as foreknowledge of individual believers (i.e. Sue and John, but not Robbie), but rather the formula that anyone who believes shall be saved

2) that decree was preceded by a decree that Christ, by His death, shall be the basis of salvation (this decree can't be limited to the elect, because is explanatorily prior to the decree of election)

3) the decree regarding Christ's death means salvation is possible for everyone through Christ's death (here)

Turretinfan replied here. I will quote his most relevant portions in italics and provide my responses.

since the first decree [that Christ should die, making men savable] does not include any decree for application of the benefit of Christ's death, it actually does not mean "salvation is possible for everyone through Christ's death." In fact, it does not mean that salvation is possible for anyone at all, since it does not include any way for the benefit of Christ's death to be applied to men.

This actually is somewhat of a fair comment, or at least it provides me the opportunities to clarify. When I say Christ death makes salvation possible, I don’t mean the application of Christ’s blood is unnecessary for salvation. It’s true Christ’s blood also has to be applied. What I mean is now Christ’s blood is available and can be applied.

There is a real question about whether there is any Scriptural basis for an intent to make mankind "savable," as distinct from "saved.

Hum… Intent is tricky. Normally, when we speak of intentions, we talk about the end goal, not an immediate one. Let’s say my family has colds and I go to the store, get them medicine and come back home an offer it to them. What’s my intent for going to the store? Is it getting medicine or that my family feel better? Both. Getting the medicine is an immediate goal and my family feeling better is the final goal. But it is normal to speak of that final goal as my intention. Similarly, God’s final goal in Christ’s death is salvation for everyone, but His immediate goal is provision for salvation.

As for a Scriptural basis, I would point to Christ’s intercession. It’s based on Christ’s death (John 17:4), but not the same as Christ’s death. Both Christ’s death and His intercession are necessary for justification (Romans 8:34). So it seems Christ’s death is an intermediate part of Christ’s overall work in salvation; although it’s the basis for salvation. Hence, God’s intention in decreeing Christ’s death was immediately to provide for salvation and ultimately to save.

the second decree [the decree to save anyone who believes] still seems counter to the first decree by providing a barrier to the savability of men

I don’t think it should be called a barrier. In the medicine example above, would anyone say that my coming home from the store with medicine and calling out to my family, “if you want some, come and get it” a barrier to their feeling better?

Hum… Perhaps you were addressing a difference sense for “savable” than the one I intended. Does my response above help with this as well?

God be with you, Dan

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

John Owen - Death of Death in the Death of Christ

For those who may have suffered through my review of John Owen's classic work the Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I have wonderful news. You get to do it all over again!!! I compiled it into 5 articles available here . I also added a link on the left side of my blog. I also now have a left side of my blog. :-) God be with you, Dan
Read more

The Equivocation of Regeneration

In the order of salvation, which comes first, faith or regeneration? Before we can answer that, don't we first need to understand what regeneration is? In this post I plan on contrasting Hodge's view with Arminius'. Hopefully, in the process we can clarify the issue of monergism vs. synergism. Hodge’s Order of Salvation Common Grace – a “moral suasion” that brings good works, but is insufficient to enable justifying faith Regeneration – God’s supernatural and immediate change of a person’s nature Vocation – same Gospel as the one in common grace, but it’s effectual on the changed man. Conversion – faith and repentance “first conscious exercise of the renewed soul” Justification Two Definitions of Regeneration Hodges provides two alternative definitions of regeneration. Sometimes regeneration means just the imparting of life, other times it means the whole process including the things coming before and after the imparting of life. 1 Hodge says these two difference sense
Read more