[2:1-3] on “Particular Redemption”

“Therefore we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?”

I believe in a doctrine commonly referred to as “Limited Atonement.” In its crassest caricatured terms, it is the idea that Jesus only died for those that would be saved (Biblically referred to as “the elect”). Like I said, this is the exaggerated phrasing and not quite the nuanced truth of the matter. I prefer the term “Particular Redemption.” It doesn’t have the same benefit of playing well into the TULIP acronym, but it is a more focused term. It says that there was nothing “limited” about the atoning blood of Christ. It was only applied particularly. In other words, the cross paved the way and opened the door for all people to have their sins forgiven. It has the ability and power to forgive everyone’s sins, but it only gave the power to some to actually walk through that now open door. All that being said, on to our text:

Though this passage seems at first to actually speak against the doctrine, I don’t think it does. I have several brief reasons why.

• [v. 1:14] Chapter breaks suck. This one especially. 2:1 opens up with a “Therefore”. Moving back you see the context in which this section is written. Our passage today is written in the context of speaking about “those who are to inherit salvation.” Not “everyone”.
• ["we"s] Throughout this whole section over and over again, the author keeps limiting who he’s talking to. He makes it clear that his audience is limited to the “we”, a.k.a. Christians. So, every sin of the believer has received a just retribution.
• ["just retribution"] Technically, God has ordained the payment for sins that will ever happen. God has ordained and brought to pass two places where sin can be fully paid for: the Cross and Hell. The full wrath of God will be poured out on all sin, either in Christ on the cross, or in the individual in Hell. Having ordained those places of judgment, God has brought about the full payment for all sins. For Christians: on the cross; for non-Christians: in Hell. The focus of the passage is the “just” part, not the “retribution” part. Every transgression and disobedience has received something that was “just”.
• ["the message"] The whole centerpiece of this text we’re looking at right now is the “message declared by angels” because that is what ultimately proved to be reliable for this “just retribution”. So what is this message? My first instinct was to say that all of the quotes of Chapter 1, or at least v. 13 was this message, but upon further looking, these quotes are not proclaimed by angels, rather they are proclaimed by God about Jesus. The only mention we get of the angels speaking or doing anything is in 1:14, where these angels are sent out to “serve for the sake of” whom? “Those who are to inherit salvation.” It’s a message proclaimed by angels only to the elect.
• ["this great salvation"] My final and biggest point: this whole passage is written for what purpose? To encourage the “we” to “pay much closer attention to” and not “neglect” “such a great salvation.” This passage was written to Christians, and for Christians, to keep Christians acting like Christians. How does the idea that all people’s sins receiving a just retribution encourage the elect to not neglect their salvation? It doesn’t. The hope of the Christian in their obedience is that the cross of Christ has fully covered all their mess-ups, not just everyone’s indiscriminately.

I’ll end with a song I wrote as part of my album So Tearful Apologies. It’s an album about the doctrine of Salvation, properly known as “Soteriology” (get the name?). The album goes through the different points of Calvinism and writes a song for each one, but does so in the form of a story/narrative. Hopefully this can give you a perspective on this doctrine that will help you see the beauty in it.  This is the song called “Limited Adornment”:

[click here for the audio (very rough recording)]

My left hand rings out against the wine glass

Your reddish-hue still burning upon the edge of yours.

A simple business meal suddenly changes tone. . .

My hand receives a gentle touch;

My ears receive a simple proposition.

You want me to love you and I so indeed do

but not in the way that you wish.

The love that you seek to own is reserved for my Bride alone

whose hand I sealed upon that kiss

But I long for thee with a poet’s heart

but a poet’s words are never enough,

To express on paper, in verse or voice

just what’s going on inside.

So as a soldier will die for his nation alone

and a martyr for his cause.

So will a lover give Himself

just for His Bride . . .

[1:1-2] Sacramental Musings

Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾿ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

“Little by little, at many times, and in many ways, long ago God spoke to the forefathers in the prophets; at the last of these days, he has spoken to us in a son. A son whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he has made the ages and eternities”

Thanks to a great friend here at Westminster, I’ve been thinking a lot recently about sacraments – their institution, necessity, and purpose. What is a sacrament? As I see it, it is a physical means by which God communicates Himself to this world. Now, other people have other definitions (mostly narrower), but nevertheless, this simple and broad definition lends itself to the benefits of seeing all of life “sacramentally.”

A sacrament is one of the ultimate expressions of God’s Sovereignty. It is something He has ordained for Him to reveal Himself or His grace at His own whim. Something my friend said that I’ll never forget: mud is just mud until God chooses it to heal a man’s eyes. Read the verse again. What do you see? Every thing that “God” does towards this world (speaking and making) he does through something else. That’s the ultimate point of this post. God always interacts with this created realm through some sort of use of some sort of mediator – a bush, a voice, a book, or a Son. He never just puts his whole “God-ness” into this world. This is what I mean by looking at life sacramentally – looking at everything in life as a physical means by which God may sovereignly choose to reveal himself and communicate his grace to you.

Did you notice the ambiguity in that last sentence. “God may sovereignly choose”? How do we know what, if, and when God is doing this? Well, in once sense we can’t always know. Jesus, the ultimate sacrament, was walking around with his disciples for years before they ever knew it. But, I have good news. There are three God-ordained things that He has promised to use sacramentally towards His people.

First: baptism. Baptism is an effectual and tangible means of grace for God’s elect that puts them “on reserve” for salvation. Remember, it doesn’t make you elect but it is effectual to bring salvation about for those that already in the mind of God are His elect. If you have been baptized, you can hold fast to and trust in the God of baptism that he visited you there and is with you now.

Second: communion. Oh, communion has become so sweet the past few months. If baptism is an effectual means to bring us to salvation, then communion is an effectual God-ordained means to keep us in that salvation. I’m with Calvin on his view of communion that when we receive it by faith, we are, by the power of the Holy Spirit, “lifted up” in a sense to feast with Christ in heaven. So we really are feasting on Christ and drinking his blood, but in a spiritual, heavenly sense more than a temporal, earthly sense. So receive it by faith that Christ ordained this to give you strength, nourishment, and not just some random “reminder” each month. Think of it as being joined to your spouse physically in a marriage. It doesn’t make you married, but it facilitates the intimacy and oneness within it. This is what Christ is doing with us in communion.

Lastly: the Cross. The ultimate sacramental moment. It is the physical means and expression of God’s intention, wisdom, nature, and grace that transcends all time and all space. That is the ultimate sacrament we can cling to – that while we were at our worst, Christ died in such a physical way that would extend grace to us that we can cling to and return to over and over and over again as we need fresh resources in light of our seemingly never ceasing weaknesses.

So, look for Christ in the ordained sacraments, and actively seek to see Him communicated in all things within this created order as he woos you and draws you to greater affection in Him.

[11:1] Faith, Epistemology, Atheism, and the Heart

This was a facebook note an Atheist acquaintance of mine at my old college wrote, followed by a couple of comments.  Then after that is the response I gave him.  I’ve yet to receive a response from him.

His Note:

Hebrews 11:1

States the following: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”  Imagine if we did science this way. Imagine a doctor with no skill or training telling you this quote as you’re going under for brain surgery. Or imagine a lawyer telling you this as you are being tried for a murder you did not commit but that all evidence points towards you.

Comments:

– Sean Tyranny at 9:50am January 25
Actually, when referring to the fact that my gallbladder isn’t necessary to my survival, the doc who’s performing my surgery next week did happen to say to me, “That’s just how God made us.” I’m hoping he was speaking figuratively.
– Larry M at 11:52am January 25
Cause god’s “intelligent” design, obviously falls short on the “intelligent” part.

My Response:

Paul Burkhart at 5:50pm January 25

larry, hebrews was written to first-century jewish Christians who were walking away from their new faith because of bad teaching. the letter was written to give them a proper understanding of the nature of the Christian religion. the context of that particular verse isn’t trying to, in one verse, describe the whole nature of reality and the functioning of the idea of faith within it. i know fundamentalists have so removed Scripture from its context that they’ll build entire systems under a single verse, but that doesn’t make it right.

but this verse’s context notwithstanding, let me try and give as brief a response as i can to your note. i think the first misunderstanding is the difference between a faculty and principle. reason is a natural faculty that can be trusted to accurately describe the natural world by natural creatures. but still, it’s a faculty that we trust in (i.e. “have faith in”).

reason is still subject to a greater principle of faith that guides all the things we believe. the scientist doing a controlled experiment has faith in the correctness of his observations because he has faith in the idea that his observational faculties have been trustworthy his entire life. you are an atheist because you have faith in yourself that you are an authoritative arbiter in the nature of reality.

though i say this, don’t think i’m just trying to say that reason is guided by faith and that’s it. though it is, faith is also undergirded and supported by reason. read the hebrews verse again. neither you nor i saw the beginning of this universe but we have a certain level of certainty and faith in the evidence that has been provided and left. we trust that it paints an accurate picture of past reality, because we are sure of the hope that our own reasons and observations can be trusted.

but, in the end, your disbelief did not rest on this verse or on any particular set of verses alone that i could explain away to you, but on a predisposition and presupposition that you are hostile to the things of God. this is because He clearly says that though you can trust your faculties for most natural things, this does not at all make you an authority on the whole of reality. but in spite of this, you misdirect the innate principle of faith within you toward only the things that further support your commitment to being the one sole authority in your life that will submit to nothing but what most “resonates” with you as “truth”. any worldview or system of belief that demands you give up one bit of your autonomy suddenly becomes the enemy of all you’ve staked your perception of reality on, thus becoming your greatest enemy and the only topic you will ever write facebook notes on or communicate about or devote thought for passionately.

lastly, i find it very interesting that the substance of almost every discourse i’ve ever seen from you has been defined, dictated, and shaped by your response and reaction to the One you say does not exist. though you may say it’s not a reaction to Him, but to His people, i don’t get that from your writing. i am probably just as well-read, thought-through and passionate as you in my belief as you are in your disbelief, but i don’t spend all (some, but not all) my energies writing or thinking about how to disprove every other thing i don’t agree with. i’m able to experience a freedom, joy, and peace within my worldview that i’m sure you experience at times, but when you communicate most passionately, it doesn’t come out. God certainly seems to exist in your rhetoric, even if it is as an antagonist. in the end, it seems we’re both guided by the same principle: putting all things through the filter of how God says reality is structured and then responding to the implications.

i just like what i see.

i’m so sorry for leaving multiple comments like that. it annoys me when others do it, so i’m sorry for cluttering up this space. nevertheless, i figured you enjoyed food for thought and rigorous discourse.

i hope this finds you well.

A Response from a couple of friends of his:

– Graham Kelly at 6:37pm January 25
I have faith in certain things, yes, but only insofar as logic gives me any reason to do so. I have “faith” that the Sun will rise in the morning, or that the scientific method can accurately depict causal relationships in the Universe, because past experience has shown this to be true. I generally consider myself open-minded, but that doesn’t mean that I take things at face value. When that very rare thing comes along that appears to confirm, at some level, the existence of God or the truth of any religious teachings, I don’t dismiss it out of hand, but I don’t instinctually believe it either. I’m willing to accept that there are some things which science can’t accurately explain at this time, but I don’t see why that should lead to an immediate logical leap toward belief in one religion or another.

When I was a kid, I believed in a God, because my family had a Christian background and it was what I’d grown up hearing about. But after 8 or so years of faith yielded me no evidence for God’s existence – no answered prayers, no otherwise-inexplicable interventions in my life, nothing – I started to realize that what I was doing had no effect, and I stopped. And nothing is different now from what it was 10 years ago. I suppose you could go and say that I never REALLY believed in the first place, but that just takes us into No True Scotsman territory. I’ve used reason to solve problems all my life, and it has worked, so I continue to use it. If that’s faith, then the religious interpretation of the term is a drastic misnomer.

– Sean Tyranny at 7:18pm January 25
I disagree with Mr. Burkhart

[4:14-16] A prayer to our Great High Priest

“Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.  Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in the time of need.”
–Hebrews 4:14-16

Because of who Jesus is, let me persevere.  Not for who I am or what I’ve done, but because of the work He has accomplished on my behalf, let me last, O God.  You could let me go.  Please don’t.  You won’t.  His temptation is the foundation of our confidence in approaching the throne.  Thus if anything tempts me, it must have tempted him, and he must have conquered it, so I must have a confidence (in Him) before the throne.  And it’s at His throne of Grace I get mercy and grace for needy times.  O Lord, these are needy times.  I’m sorry that which tempts me, tempted you, but I praise you for your faithfulness and righteousness and purity that kept you from what I drown in.  Thank you for being God.  Thank you for being pure.  Thank you for loving me, no matter what that looks like.  Thank you for not letting me remain what I was and am.  Thank you for getting dirty.  Thank you for, in fact, wallowing in what I drown in.  (Sorry for the earlier heresy.)  Thank you for your righteousness.  Thank you for your rescue.  Thank you for listening.  Thank you for answering.  Thank you for being.  Thank you.  I love you, my Bridegroom.  Come.  Your Bride awaits.

[1:1] translation and revelation

Okay, I’m really going to do this blog now.  To keep up with my Greek, I’ve started trying to sight-translate Hebrews.  I have found it to be much richer than the English can possibly convey.  Over the next couple of posts I want to give as literal of a translation as possible of the first few verses of the book.  Maybe “literal” isn’t the best word.  I want to give a translation that tries to convey all the nuances in the Greek.  I’ll then add some commentary with things of interest.  First, verse 1.  For all you Greek scholars out there, I’ll give you the Greek so you can follow along and correct me as necessary:

Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ

“Little by little, at many times, and in many ways, long ago God spoke to the forefathers in the prophets; at the last of these days, he has spoken to us in a son.”

There’s a school of thought out there that thinks that the Moseses, Abrahams, and Davids of the world were privy to the same information we now are.  That when Isaiah wrote my favorite and (what i think is) the most explicit Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament, Isaiah 53, he knew he was talking about God incarnating Himself and dwelling among man and ultimately taking his own wrath upon Himself to save humanity.  I think this verse and others like it (1 Peter 1:10-12) show that where there’s a progressive nature to revelation, there are things that are veiled previously that are now revealed.

I have two thoughts in light of this; one for those in the Old Testament, and one for us:

First, what I’m saying is not that something lacked in God’s prior revelation, but that he intended to show himself in a narrative format.  What this means is that his revelation to our forefathers and the prophets was not comprehehsive, but it was sufficient.  The intention of God at each time of speaking was fully accomplished.  Where he wanted to be known as Creator, he was; where he desired to be seen as Lord, he was.  But for one reason or another he disclosed his full plan until Christ.  Heck, even the final prophet of Israel, John the Baptist, had a wrong idea of the person and work of the Messiah (“are you the one who is to come, or should we seek another?”).  I don’t know that he even comprehended it all.  But though I keep stressing what God was not communicating, I do need to stress that we can trust God that what he did reveal was sufficient for salvation.  Galatians 3 says that God was preaching the Gospel to Abraham when he made his covenant for Israel, and Abraham’s subsequent faith in that was “counted to him as righteousness.”  So what is this “Gospel message”?  There are desires God has for us that we cannot accomplish in and of ourselves.  We must then trust that God is good and loving and has therefore provided a way and means to accomplish this in spite of us.  This is the unified message of the Bible.  You get it from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22.  That is what saves, even apart form prior knowledge of the person and work of Christ to come.  So, in summary: Abraham didn’t know the plan, David didn’t know the plan, and Isaiah didn’t know the plan.  But what all of them did know was that Yahweh is Lord, Yahweh is faithful, and Yahweh is able to do what he promises.  So God still spoke salvation to them even within the process and progressive nature of this revelation.

Secondly, and lastly, a word for us on this side of the cross.  Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were the ultimate revelation of God.  It is all we will get apart from his second coming.  All other subsequent revelations are subrodinate to and subject to the cross.  They are only valuable in so much that they point to and testify the sacrifice and salvation of the Elect by our God and Lord.  I don’t know about you, but I have often not believed this was the case.  I have at times begun to daydream about Moses at the burning bush or Isaiah and his vision of the throne room of God or Paul and his witness to miracles and the “third heaven”, thinking that these rivaled the revelation of God today.  This isn’t the case.  According to these verses above, they were all inferior.  Our Bible is the principle and complete witness to this revelation of God at the cross.  Paul never read the books of John, Jude, Revelation, and probably even Hebrews (see my author section of the introduction to this book).  Niether Abraham, Moses, David, nor Solomon had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  None of them praised God for his specific work on the cross, just his general attributes as revealed in this glorious narrative.

So, Christian, rejoice in this story.  Rejoice in this place in history, trusting God has brought us to a glorious place in time and space that we might see him in the fullness of His work.  All things before the cross and all things afterward point back to it.  It is the centerpiece of history and redemption, and this Church exists to revel in and proclaim the glories of this revelation “in a son” that we see in “the last of these days.”  So until the coming our Lord and King, let’s praise and rest in the overabundantly sufficient revelation of God that we might see Him for who He is.

Grace and peace.