I am reproducing the following, not because I agree with Riccardi, but for Latter-day Saints who may be curious as to how a Five-Point Calvinist approaches Luke 23:34:
But does Luke 23:34
constitute priestly intercession for the reprobate— intercession that must
ultimately be ineffectual? Several lines of response lead to a negative answer.
In the first place, it must be granted that there is limitation in Jesus’ prayer,
for the most that can be said is that he prayed for only those present at his
crucifixion. It cannot even be that Christ was praying for everyone who was
involved in his crucifixion, for that would include Judas Iscariot, who was the
son of perdition (Mark 14:21), destined to perish eternally. Jesus would not
have prayed for the salvation of one whom he knew the Father never intended to
save (cf. 1 John 5:16). Secondly, among those who were present at the
crucifixion, Jesus prayed only for those of his crucifiers who were acting
ignorantly. This is the basis of his petition: “Forgive them; for [γὰρ]
they do not know.” While some of those present certainly acted in ignorance
(Acts 3:17), the text does not say that each one there was ignorant. There is
no reason to deny that those who acted in ignorance and who thus were the
beneficiaries of this prayer did indeed receive God’s forgiveness through
repentance and faith at a later time, demonstrating themselves to have been
among the elect even while yet unbelieving. Third, there is good reason to
believe that his prayer was indeed effectual unto the salvation of those
involved in and present at the crucifixion. The centurion saw all that had
happened and “began praising God, saying, ‘Certainly this man was innocent’”
(Luke 23:47), and, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39; cf.
15:44–45). When Peter preached the gospel on Pentecost, he named as his hearers
those who crucified Jesus (Acts 2:23, 36); Luke tells us that “they were
pierced to the heart” (2:37), and that “those who had received his word were
baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls” (2:41). In
his next sermon, Peter preaches the gospel to those whom he says “put to death
the Prince of life” (3:15), and Luke records that “many of those who had heard
the message believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand”
(4:4). Eventually, even “a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to
the faith” (6:7). There is no reason not to believe that the intercession of
the great high priest, Jesus Christ, was effectual unto the salvation of those
for whom he prayed, especially since there were many thousands who believed the
apostles’ message just a short while later. Finally, it may be that Jesus was
praying not for their forgiveness unto salvation, but simply that the Father
would delay the judgment that their wicked acts immediately deserved. In this
case, “Christ’s prayer is answered by the Father showing his patience and
forgiveness by not bringing full judgment [immediately], thus allowing history
to continue and God’s ultimate purpose to save his elect to be realized.”
Ultimately, there is no
reason to suppose that Luke 23:34 is an instance of Christ interceding unto
salvation for the reprobate, much less all the reprobate, which is the
burden of proof that must be met by those holding to a universal intercession.
The objection from the MIV fails, and thus the argument for particularism from
priestly unity stands. (Michael Riccardi, To Save Sinners: A Critical
Evaluation of the Multiple Intentions View of the Atonement [Eugene, Oreg.:
Wipf and Stock, 2023], 139-40)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
