What in the World IS the "The World" ?

In the previous post, I discussed the meaning of the term "world" (Gk kosmos) in John's writings. I suggested we define it as "all humanity" or "all mankind." While that definition was broadly accurate, it was perhaps a little too vague. Tony Byrne provided some helpful thoughts on a more precise definition - including the following chart, which makes a lot of sense.

So we might more precisely define "World" as "All unbelieving humanity" presently living on the earth. These are the ones God loved in John 3:16, the ones whose sin Christ bears in John 1:29, and the ones for whom Christ is an offered propitiation but not an advocate in I John 2:2. These are the ones who receive common grace, and the ones to whom the Gospel is preached in the general call. I believe this fits the Biblical data, and answers some of the objections presented by those who would prefer that "world" be defined as "the elect." For more on this, see the comments on the previous post.

Limited Atonement - A Middle Way

In a recent post on the Theological Meditations blog, Tony Byrne offered an extensive quotation from the esteemed English Puritan, William Lorimer (1640-1722), in which Lorimer traces the history of the debate over the extent of the atonement and concludes that there are not two but three main categories to consider. Two of them are Reformed, and one is Arminian. Here is a little excerpt from the conclusion:

". . . we maintain that Luther and Calvin by holding universal Redemption in the sense explained, did not corrupt the Christian Religion, nor preach a new Gospel. And if they did not, then those amongst us who hold universal Redemption as they held it, do no more corrupt Religion, nor preach a new Gospel than they did; and consequently it is a vile Calumny and Reproach cast upon us (and through us upon our First Reformers,) that by the middle-way aforesaid we corrupt Religion, and preach a new Gospel."

Responding to critics who viewed universal atonement as a distortion of the Gospel, Lorimer carefully distinguished between the Arminian view, the strict Limited Atonement view, and the "Middle Way" of Calvin, Luther, and other early reformers. This is very helpful for those who don't find a sufficient Biblical basis to affirm the strict Limited Atonement view, but also deny the Arminian extreme and wish to articulate a solidly Reformed position that is Biblical and does not distort the clear meaning of numerous Scripture texts.

Click here to read the entire post on Theological Meditations

Mark Driscoll has articulated a similar view, which he confusingly (but paradoxically) calls "unlimited limited atonement." A really cool and creative graphic and web designer named Satchell Drakes has extensively summarized (another paradox) Driscoll's teaching and created the nifty chart below (sorry if you have to squint to see it) . . .

Click here for more from Satchell

Discussion of Moderate Calvinism and Paradoxes

I've been enjoying a conversation with Tony Byrne in the comments on a recent post, Moderate Calvinism Explained. Tony is the author of the Theological Meditations blog, which focuses on historical Reformed theology. The main topic of our discussion has been Tony's outstanding 2005 article on Paradox and Mystery. Readers interested in issues related to the philosophy of paradox and moderate Calvinism will find the article and our conversation very useful. Some of my favorite "virtual" blogging friends have also joined in a parallel discussion about the extent and intent of the atonement . . . 

David - Calvin and Calvinism 
Jeff - Scripture Zealot 
Barry - Who Am I
Reformed Rebel

It's been exciting to see Calvinists of diverse views "agree to disagree" on some of the finer points as we have discussed controversial matters with grace and humility. Only God can produce such things in our hearts.

To read the post and intriguing follow up discussion, click here.