Intrepid Lutherans: Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Question:
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2013
Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Question
It becomes increasingly difficult to discuss Biblical doctrine when people are constantly trying to paint others into a corner with the sort of “trap question” that the scribes and Pharisees so often used with Jesus.
A good example of such a question was submitted this morning on another thread by Pastor Peter Prange.
Dear Paul:
Would you say that Christ's vicarious satisfaction is *sufficient* for all the world but not *efficient* apart from faith?
Just trying to get further clarification.
Cordially,
Peter
One of the marks of a “trap question” is the very “cordial” tone of the question. It appears innocent. “Just trying to get further clarification.” “Help me understand this better.” It sounds like the author of the question is trying to engage in honest discussion. Who could have a problem with that?
This cordial tone is intended to disarm the person being questioned. The respondent wants to assume that the one asking the question is being charitable and honest, and so he wishes to respond with charity as well, putting the best construction on the question. It also allows the questioner to feign innocence (and shock) in the end if he is caught in his Pharisaical behavior: “What? I was just asking an innocent question. You didn’t put the best construction on it. That’s your fault. I will pray for you.” How pious!
But there are certain words and phrases that are loaded with meaning in theological discussion. And just as in a chess match when a player attempts to out-maneuver his opponent by hiding his strategy, so a theological “player” will couch his language in innocence while introducing these loaded words, hoping that his opponent isn’t paying attention. Sometimes he may notice the trap and avoid it. Other times, he may not see it coming, and then, “Checkmate.”
I invite out readers to research the source of Pastor Prange’s language. It isn’t the Book of Concord. It isn’t the language of Lutheran orthodoxy or of Scripture. It is straight out of the textbook of Calvinism.
I’ll quote here an example, but if one googles “atonement sufficient efficient,” one comes up with about half a million results.
Dr. Nettles does a wonderful job of summarizing the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” position(s) in his book By His Grace and For His Glory (note pages 302-05). He believes this view represents “a majority view among Calvinists” though as I demonstrated in previous posts, is not the position he himself prefers. From this point on I will refer to the Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect view as the SFA position.
The SFA position basically affirms both the sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to the elect in its divine intent. It is unlimited in extent but limited in its intent. According to the Synod of Dort, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.”
This view would say Jesus Christ bore the sins of the entire world (Isaiah 53:1-6) on his shoulders when he died on the old rugged cross. As the sinless God-man He offered up a perfect sacrifice of infinite value. The extent of the atonement is universal but the intent of the atonement (to save only the elect) is clearly limited. Steele and Thomas explain it this way, the atonement was limited in its original design; not in its worth, value, or scope.
Pastor Prange is a learned, intelligent man. The words he chose in his question were not random, nor were they innocent. If he wanted to ask me if I held to the Calvinist doctrine of “Limited Atonement,” he could have simply asked. If he had been intending to have an honest discussion, he would have been open about the source of his language.
Instead, he used the insidious “trap question.” Unfortunately, this is rather typical in discussions I’ve had concerning UOJ. Perhaps I have been guilty of it on the other end at times, and if so, I apologize. The “trap question” is normally an uncharitable form of dialogue. I say normally, not always, because at times Jesus Himself responded to trap questions with trap questions of His own, (“I will answer your question if you answer mine. John’s baptism—where did it come from?”). Obviously in these cases, our Lord was perfectly justified in turning the trap back on the heads of those who were wickedly persecuting Him.
As for this “trap question” about “sufficient but not efficient” atonement, I will simply answer as I always have, that I reject the Calvinist limited atonement, as well as the Calvinist absolute double decree of election both to salvation and to damnation, together with all the theological baggage that goes along with these Calvinist heresies. And in my discussions, I will not be baited into departing from the language of Scripture and the Book of Concord, and I urge our readers both to watch out for these trap questions, and not to employ them as a general rule.
But this incessant attempt of UOJers to pin the charge of Calvinism on those who hold to the Lutheran doctrine of Justification By Faith Alone is nothing new. Samuel Huber, with his version of universal justification, did the same thing to the orthodox theologians at Wittenberg, because to him, either one has to teach universal election and universal justification, or one must be a Calvinist teaching a limited atonement. Hunnius, of course, demonstrates Huber's folly.
From the Preface to A. Hunnius’ Theses Opposed to Huberianism:
In this book, he not only miserably and ineptly hijacks and most violently twists the apostolic text with his dreams and deliria, but he also, in unbridled fashion, seeks, beyond all rhyme and reason, to rub the scab of Calvinism off of me, most wantonly inventing that which he knows full well to be made up by him in his own study. What does one expect from such propensity for fabrication, by which, perhaps, he tries to outdo his own father by whom he writes and speaks?
…I have also recommended these Theses so that it may be clearly seen how barefaced Huber is, how prodigiously vain, how contrary to his conscience is his testimony to impugn us as heretics guilty of a Calvinistic crime, that this man who has been handed over to a reprobate mind has no fear whatsoever, neither before God nor before the Church.
---
 |
| UOJists read this and say - Everyone is forgiven and saved! |
bruce-church (https://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: Disturbing Tactics: The Trap Q...":
I believe that Peter Prange had no malice in his question simply because his entire family is cordial, and pure talent got them to where they are at, not ambition. That said, most WELS members are not cordial in questions when it comes ot doctrinal disputes, and for them to suddenly be cordial would be a red flag.
Since Calvinists emphasize the sovereignty of God, they must put the onus on God for not saving all men. Thus they say that God designed the atonement to be limited, whereas Lutherans say it is limited only due to the hardness of men's hearts, and has nothing to do with its inherent sufficiency or efficiency.
'via Blog this'
***
GJ - I do not think Rydecki meant it was posed from malice but false curiosity. As a veteran of such exchanges, I get plenty of questions which are simply ways of getting to another defense of UOJ...eventually. They start with UOJ and find it wherever they wish. When blocked by the obvious (Romans 4 being perfectly justification by faith), they move to another inventive seat of doctrine.
It would be more honest of Prange to say, "This is what I believe about UOJ. This is what I reject about justification by faith."
---
More comments from -
http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/02/disturbing-tactics-trap-question.html
Perhaps this is just a little too simple, but doesn't the Apostles' Creed address the issue of justificatin quite clearly? We confess in the Third Article of the Apostles' Creed that we believe in the "forgiveness of sins". The Third Article addresses the Work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier; he creates our faith through the Means of Grace, and he grows our faith through the Means of Grace. And the benefit of faith is the forgiveness of sins. It seems so simple. That was after all, the purpose of the Apostles' Creed, to put the teachings of Scripture in simple terms for a simple confession of the true faith.
Now some WELS pastors are eliminating the Apostles' Creed from the liturgy. Well, that is, if you can still call what they are doing for a service a "liturgy". Are they eliminating the Apostles" Creed from the service because it teaches frogiveness of sins as a gift of the Holy Spirit too clearly? UOJers need ambiguity to support their cause. Eliminate the creeds and you've helped the cause of ambiguity considerably.
Vernon
Now some WELS pastors are eliminating the Apostles' Creed from the liturgy. Well, that is, if you can still call what they are doing for a service a "liturgy". Are they eliminating the Apostles" Creed from the service because it teaches frogiveness of sins as a gift of the Holy Spirit too clearly? UOJers need ambiguity to support their cause. Eliminate the creeds and you've helped the cause of ambiguity considerably.
Vernon
The timing of this is actually rather ironic, Pastor Rydecki. You're actually being accused of Calvinism's Limited Atonement by some at MLC right now (who, evidently, have not read your stance concerning justification). You were pretty explicit in "Dresden Lutherans" by saying "Forgiveness of sins, life and salvation were, indeed, won for all people by Christ on the cross, thought His merit alone." But it's one of those subjects that begs that I safely keep my mouth shut.
Whoops! Looks like I just put my opinion on the internet! There goes keeping my mouth shut!
@Vernon, Interesting how you note the Apostles' Creed. I've been noticing the Apostles' used over the Nicene creed lately, and yes, one church service where the creed was suspiciously missing after the sermon. I guess the message of the cross is "too foolish" for those perishing, therefore we must make it more palatable for evangelism's sake?
Whoops! Looks like I just put my opinion on the internet! There goes keeping my mouth shut!
@Vernon, Interesting how you note the Apostles' Creed. I've been noticing the Apostles' used over the Nicene creed lately, and yes, one church service where the creed was suspiciously missing after the sermon. I guess the message of the cross is "too foolish" for those perishing, therefore we must make it more palatable for evangelism's sake?
Statements copied from your "Why?" article:
• Jesus paid for the sins of the world and made satisfaction for the sins of the world and earned righteousness and forgiveness of sins for all people at the cross.
• God only forgives and justifies sinners by im puting the righteousness of Christ to them.
• He only imputes the righteousness of Christ to faith.
• Faith is only created by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace.
• Therefore, I do not speak of God having already forgiven the sins of the world at the cross, because the Holy Spirit did not apply the merits of Christ to the world at the cross, nor did the world believe in Christ at the time of the cross. We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone—not without grace, not without Christ, and not without faith and the means of grace.
The first bullet point appears to conflict with the other three, particularly in the use of the word, "only." An even better statement of bullet point one is that Christ atoned for our sins as it states in Romans 5:11. Christ did not have to earn anything as is was his plan from eternity.
I can see why Pastor Prange asked for clarification because one could see signs of limited atonement in your last three statements. If forgiveness does not already exist, faith will not save anyone. As stated in Ephesians 2:8, man is saved "through faith" and not by faith which is the means God uses to separate those who reject his pardon at the cross and lose their salvation as stated in John 8:24.
Donald N. Gretel
• Jesus paid for the sins of the world and made satisfaction for the sins of the world and earned righteousness and forgiveness of sins for all people at the cross.
• God only forgives and justifies sinners by im puting the righteousness of Christ to them.
• He only imputes the righteousness of Christ to faith.
• Faith is only created by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace.
• Therefore, I do not speak of God having already forgiven the sins of the world at the cross, because the Holy Spirit did not apply the merits of Christ to the world at the cross, nor did the world believe in Christ at the time of the cross. We are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone—not without grace, not without Christ, and not without faith and the means of grace.
The first bullet point appears to conflict with the other three, particularly in the use of the word, "only." An even better statement of bullet point one is that Christ atoned for our sins as it states in Romans 5:11. Christ did not have to earn anything as is was his plan from eternity.
I can see why Pastor Prange asked for clarification because one could see signs of limited atonement in your last three statements. If forgiveness does not already exist, faith will not save anyone. As stated in Ephesians 2:8, man is saved "through faith" and not by faith which is the means God uses to separate those who reject his pardon at the cross and lose their salvation as stated in John 8:24.
Donald N. Gretel
Scott,
I have a lengthy post brewing, due Monday, probably, that will address aspects of your question alongside related issues. Stay tuned...
- Douglas
I have a lengthy post brewing, due Monday, probably, that will address aspects of your question alongside related issues. Stay tuned...
- Douglas
OK, Peter, I'll take your word for it that you were not trying to suggest that my position is Calvinistic. Thanks for that. If you weren't trying to compare what I have taught with Calvinism, then why did you bring in the language of Calvinism (without mentioning that you were doing so)? I mean, if I hadn't been studying this material in depth for the last several years, I wouldn't have even known where this "sufficient/efficient" terminology came from, in which case, I would have viewed your question differently.
If it's honest dialogue you're seeking, then I'm on board. But then I have to ask, why did you again mischaracterize my position with your question? You asked:
I'm simply attempting to understand the distinction you seem to be making between the fact that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (1 Jn 2:2) but not the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe (1 Tm 4:9,10). I don't understand how the first can be true without the second also being true.
"But not the Savior of all people"? When have I ever said that God is not the Savior of all people? If you will go back to our earlier thread, I certainly agreed and stated that God is the Savior of all people. Those are the very words of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 4. Why would I deny them? When have I denied them?
But you're confusing that confession with the meaning you're adding into those words. As you know, when a Universalist, for example, hears "God is the Savior of all men," he means that God saves all men by bringing them all into heaven. (I know that's not what you mean.)
"God is the Savior of all men" and "God has already saved all men" are not the same thing.
When you say that "God is the Savior of all people," it seems like you mean that God has already saved all people from sin and justified all people.
As I pointed out, that has never been taught in the Church before recently. Luther, Chemnitz and Melanchthon all referred 1 Tim. 4 to temporal salvation (rain, sunshine, harvests, etc.) in the sense that God graciously provides for all people. Or, one can understand it in that God is the Savior of all men, not as though He had already finished saving all men, but that He is the saving God to whom all men should turn in repentance, because He gave His Son to save all men, or because "with Him is forgiveness."
But to interpret it as though God has already justified/saved all men is not consistent with either the context or the rest of Scripture.
If it's honest dialogue you're seeking, then I'm on board. But then I have to ask, why did you again mischaracterize my position with your question? You asked:
I'm simply attempting to understand the distinction you seem to be making between the fact that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (1 Jn 2:2) but not the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe (1 Tm 4:9,10). I don't understand how the first can be true without the second also being true.
"But not the Savior of all people"? When have I ever said that God is not the Savior of all people? If you will go back to our earlier thread, I certainly agreed and stated that God is the Savior of all people. Those are the very words of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 4. Why would I deny them? When have I denied them?
But you're confusing that confession with the meaning you're adding into those words. As you know, when a Universalist, for example, hears "God is the Savior of all men," he means that God saves all men by bringing them all into heaven. (I know that's not what you mean.)
"God is the Savior of all men" and "God has already saved all men" are not the same thing.
When you say that "God is the Savior of all people," it seems like you mean that God has already saved all people from sin and justified all people.
As I pointed out, that has never been taught in the Church before recently. Luther, Chemnitz and Melanchthon all referred 1 Tim. 4 to temporal salvation (rain, sunshine, harvests, etc.) in the sense that God graciously provides for all people. Or, one can understand it in that God is the Savior of all men, not as though He had already finished saving all men, but that He is the saving God to whom all men should turn in repentance, because He gave His Son to save all men, or because "with Him is forgiveness."
But to interpret it as though God has already justified/saved all men is not consistent with either the context or the rest of Scripture.
Benjamin,
Thanks for the heads up on how some are slandering me at MLC. That saddens me greatly. But it is no different than what the entire COP of the WELS is currently doing. By continuing to hurl insults at me behind my back and labeling the Gospel as "false doctrine," they are insulting Christ. May they be brought to repentance.
Thanks for the heads up on how some are slandering me at MLC. That saddens me greatly. But it is no different than what the entire COP of the WELS is currently doing. By continuing to hurl insults at me behind my back and labeling the Gospel as "false doctrine," they are insulting Christ. May they be brought to repentance.
Vernon,
Just a comment on the Apostles Creed. It was not written by the apostles and it is in error. It says Christ descended into hell before he rose. There is scripture evidence that proves that to be wrong. If he did descend, for which I say he did not, it would have been after he rose, not before. The entire teaching of descent is based upon 1 Peter 3:19 and nowhere in scripture does it say Christ descended into hell. Even the Book of Concord does not use that verse. This whole issue raised itself around 1550 and is known as the Hamburg Controversy. My study says Christ did not descend into hell, he went directly to the right hand of his Father. The verses I would use to defend this position are Matt. 12:29-40, Luke 23:43, Hebrews 9:12.924.10:12,John 16:16,16:28,19:30 and 2 Peter 2:5. The verses in 1 Peter are talking about Noah preaching while building the ark, and the spirits in prison are those who rejected Noah's teachings and were lost in the flood. God spoke through the prophets, Hebrews 1:1. You have to go back to Genesis 6 because that is what 1 Peter 3 is related to.
There is also a translation error in some Bibles in 1 Peter 3:18 where it says "quickened by the Spirit" and others say "in spirit in which." The Greek shows the latter to be correct and it makes a significant difference in the translation. WELS also uses Colossians 2:15 with 1 Peter 3:19, but that is also error.
Donald N. Gretel
Just a comment on the Apostles Creed. It was not written by the apostles and it is in error. It says Christ descended into hell before he rose. There is scripture evidence that proves that to be wrong. If he did descend, for which I say he did not, it would have been after he rose, not before. The entire teaching of descent is based upon 1 Peter 3:19 and nowhere in scripture does it say Christ descended into hell. Even the Book of Concord does not use that verse. This whole issue raised itself around 1550 and is known as the Hamburg Controversy. My study says Christ did not descend into hell, he went directly to the right hand of his Father. The verses I would use to defend this position are Matt. 12:29-40, Luke 23:43, Hebrews 9:12.924.10:12,John 16:16,16:28,19:30 and 2 Peter 2:5. The verses in 1 Peter are talking about Noah preaching while building the ark, and the spirits in prison are those who rejected Noah's teachings and were lost in the flood. God spoke through the prophets, Hebrews 1:1. You have to go back to Genesis 6 because that is what 1 Peter 3 is related to.
There is also a translation error in some Bibles in 1 Peter 3:18 where it says "quickened by the Spirit" and others say "in spirit in which." The Greek shows the latter to be correct and it makes a significant difference in the translation. WELS also uses Colossians 2:15 with 1 Peter 3:19, but that is also error.
Donald N. Gretel
2 COMMENTS: