Why I'm Not a Calvinist . . . or an Arminian, Part 2

Read the series so far.

Canons of Dort on Limited Atonement

The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world (Second Head, Article 3).

For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever (Second Head, Article 8).

That God the Father has ordained His Son to the death of the cross without a certain and definite decree to save any, so that the necessity, profitableness, and worth of what Christ merited by His death might have existed, and might remain in all its parts complete, perfect, and intact, even if the merited redemption had never in fact been applied to any person (Rejection of Errors 2:1).

My Response

Contemporary explanations of limited atonement rest upon a basic syllogism:

  • P1: None of Jesus’ blood was wasted
  • P2: His blood provided a complete satisfaction for sin wherever it is efficacious
  • C: Jesus could only have died for the elect, who would ultimately receive redemption

Interestingly, this syllogism is not found explicitly in Calvin’s writings, the Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Confession. However the Dort statement (Rejection of Errors 2:1) provides the logical basis for it: only the elect can be saved, and Christ’s death would have been wasted if never applied to any person. This Dort statement assumes the necessity of unconditional election, and undergirds the efficacy of the atonement upon that principle. In short, if Jesus paid the price for the sin of those who wouldn’t believe, then His blood was wasted. The Belgic Confession (Article XXII) illustrates the significance of this: “Therefore, for any to assert, that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides him, would be too gross a blasphemy: for hence it would follow that Christ was but half a Savior.” Gross blasphemy.

The logic is not too difficult to follow, and if the premises are correct, then the conclusion is also correct. However, that Jesus did die to pay the penalty for all (elect or not) is clearly stated in 1 John 2:2—“and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” This simply stated passage underscores the fact that the limited atonement view is not accurate. It is better to understand Christ’s sacrifice through the lens of the Passover illustration. The blood shed by the lambs was perfectly efficacious blood, but it had to be applied in a specific manner, otherwise it did not provide benefit for the individual (Ex 12:7,13). The only way to justify the limited atonement view is to change the meaning of the words in 1 John 2:2, and that is not allowed by the literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

Canons of Dort on Irresistible Grace

That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God’s eternal decree.

“For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18 A.V.). “who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation (First Head, Article 6, emphasis mine).

This purpose proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell, so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there may never be wanting a church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ, which may steadfastly love, and faithfully serve him as their Savior, who as a bridegroom for his bride, laid down his life for them upon the cross, and which may celebrate his praises here and through all eternity (Second Head, Article 9, emphasis mine).

My Response

In my estimation, this is probably the best (most biblically) stated of the five points. This point reflects accurately the process described in Romans 8:28-30, that the foreknowledge of God with respect to the ones He predestines and calls and justifies concludes with their glorification. The Dort statements logically presuppose double election, and I have already addressed the exegetical challenge there: while logically possible, it is not exegetically certain. These Dort statements of irresistible grace come close to what is biblically certain, with only the subtle extension beyond what is written.

Dort and Westminster on Perseverance of Saints

And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled, or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished (Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 11).

May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from a state of grace? True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God, and His decree and covenant to give them perseverance, their inseparable union with Christ, His continual intercession for them, and the Spirit and seed of God abiding in them, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 79).

My Response

The Dort statement appeals to election, while the Westminster statement appeals to God’s giving of perseverance. The conclusion that believers are eternally secure is biblically accurate, but the means of arriving at that conclusion is better connected to (1) the present tense possession of eternal life by the believer in Jesus Christ (Jn 6:47), and (2) the protection of God (1 Pet 1:5). In 1 Peter 1:3-5, for example, there are eleven statements affirming the security of the believer, and none of them depend on or are focused on the believer, but all are focused on God’s activity. The issue here is that the phrase perseverance of saints implies some activity on the part of the believer, whereas the biblical data is explicit regarding God as exclusive Protector. If this fifth point was referred to as protection of saints, I think the point would be positioned more biblically, with a theocentric focus.

(To be continued.)

Discussion

[gpinto]

The Day of Atonement was not a “get out of jail free” card for corporate Israel. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). The Day of Atonement did not atone for the sin of unbelieving Israel.

I never said it was. But what the Day of Atonement did was cleanse the nation so that God would be willing to accept their sacrifices for the coming year. The Day of Atonement was for everyone, but only those who availed themselves of its provisions received its benefits.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson]

gpinto wrote:

The Day of Atonement was not a “get out of jail free” card for corporate Israel. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). The Day of Atonement did not atone for the sin of unbelieving Israel.

I never said it was. But what the Day of Atonement did was cleanse the nation so that God would be willing to accept their sacrifices for the coming year. The Day of Atonement was for everyone, but only those who availed themselves of its provisions received its benefits.

Don,

I’m trying to follow the reasoning here, but its not making sense to me yet. If the Day of Atonement cleansed the nation, why was there a need for further sacrifices?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Dr. Cone’s main point was this:

It is better to understand Christ’s sacrifice through the lens of the Passover illustration. The blood shed by the lambs was perfectly efficacious blood, but it had to be applied in a specific manner, otherwise it did not provide benefit for the individual (Ex 12:7,13).

This was also Chafer’s view; “[t] he blood of the passover lamb became efficacious only when applied to the door post,” (3:193). I have no idea whether Dr. Cone would agree with Chafer on the necessity of the effectual call of the Spirit or not.

What do you think about Cone’s basic point, quoted above?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Scriptures overtly stating Christ died for all people:

Who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29
For God so loved the world… For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. -John 3:16-17.
I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. -John 12:47.
Christ died for the ungodly. -Romans 5:6.
If One died for all, then all died; and He died for all…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. -2 Corinthians 5:14-16, 19.
Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Timothy 2:4.
Who gave Himself a ransom for all. -1 Timothy 2:6
Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. -1 Timothy 4:10.
[That Jesus] might taste death for everyone. -Hebrews 2:9.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. -2 Peter 2:1
Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. -2 Peter 3:9.

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. -1 John 2:2.

David R. Brumbelow

David,

You must harmonize Scripture with Scripture. As John has already pointed out, even the non-calvinist limits the atonement. McCune who is not a LA atonement advocate explains carefully what that means in his three-volume systematic. If you don’t limit the benefits of the atonement in its application, then by necessity, you would be a Universalist, which is obviously not the case. I know you well enough. The Calvinist limits the atonement in its intent.

Pastor Mike Harding

Tyler, Chafer’s “For Whom Did Christ Die” was the most helpful for my understanding also. I just re-read it and Hodge’s of the same name. Lightner’s book is excellent as well.

Without getting drawn into this issue, the main question to be answered (and which lies behind much of the reasoning in the comments) is, ‘Is the atonement efficacious when it is accomplished at the Cross, or when it is applied - when a person believes?’

The follow on is the question of whether there is a distinction in time to be drawn between accomplishment and application, and what are the consequences of holding to one or the other view (Scripturally and logically)?

BTW, the same question may be directed to the doctrine of propitiation, but this time it may be phrased as ‘When is God propitiated - when Christ died or when a person believes and the blood is applied?’

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Don Johnson wrote:

gpinto wrote:

The Day of Atonement was not a “get out of jail free” card for corporate Israel. Paul makes it abundantly clear in Romans that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom 9:6). The Day of Atonement did not atone for the sin of unbelieving Israel.

I never said it was. But what the Day of Atonement did was cleanse the nation so that God would be willing to accept their sacrifices for the coming year. The Day of Atonement was for everyone, but only those who availed themselves of its provisions received its benefits.

Don,

I’m trying to follow the reasoning here, but its not making sense to me yet. If the Day of Atonement cleansed the nation, why was there a need for further sacrifices?

You need to do some study on this. For Leviticus, I recommend Gordon Wenham among others. The concluding verses of Lev 16 sum up the effect of the Atonement:

Leviticus 16:32 “So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, 33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 “Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.

The purpose of the Day of Atonement was to propitiate God for the nation, to “open a way” for their prayers to be heard and their sacrifices to be received. It opened the way for everyone, cleansed the land (and especially the temple) of the pollution accumulated by their sins through the previous year. It made God propitious, disposed to hear them. This is part of what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross did in the Atonement.

BTW, as to your question: “why was there a need for further sacrifices?” you might as well ask it for any part of the OT ritual. It is the nature of the OT ritual that it is not sufficient and the whole process must constantly be repeated. And each sacrifice only represented a part of the whole. The sacrifice of Christ was one sacrifice once for all. But it takes a whole system of repeated animal sacrifice (of various kinds) to anticipate all the facets of Christ’s work, and still do so imperfectly.

As I said, though, you need to study this out more. I’ve preached through Leviticus twice, it is a most fascinating book.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[TylerR]

Dr. Cone’s main point was this:

It is better to understand Christ’s sacrifice through the lens of the Passover illustration. The blood shed by the lambs was perfectly efficacious blood, but it had to be applied in a specific manner, otherwise it did not provide benefit for the individual (Ex 12:7,13).

This was also Chafer’s view; “[t] he blood of the passover lamb became efficacious only when applied to the door post,” (3:193). I have no idea whether Dr. Cone would agree with Chafer on the necessity of the effectual call of the Spirit or not.

What do you think about Cone’s basic point, quoted above?

See my reply to Chip as well, just above this comment.

I think that to limit the understanding of Christ’s sacrifice to any one OT sacrifice robs his sacrifice of its full meaning. While I agree with Cone about unlimited atonement, I think his wording here is unfortunate. Perhaps if he were to think about it, he would restate this. Each OT sacrifice prefigured Christ in some way. No one OT sacrifice prefigured everything Christ’s sacrifice accomplished, and none were a perfect representation of even that aspect they point to (because the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin).

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Your point about the Day of Atonement is very well taken. The work of the OT High Priest is a very explicit parallel to Christ’s atoning and intercessory work. If anyone is interested, this very point came up briefly in a debate on atonement between James White and Michael Brown (click here and start at the 50:00 mark).

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Scriptures overtly stating Christ died for all people:

Who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29

Pastor Brumbelow,

This scripture is very helpful in that it demonstrates the word “world” in scripture does not always mean every last person. Thanks for bringing it into this discussion.

Furthermore, notice how few of the verses quoted by Pastor Brumbelow as “overtly stating Christ died for all people” do not actually do so or even necessarily so imply. See them below:

Who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29

For God so loved the world… For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. -John 3:16-17.

I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. -John 12:47.

Christ died for the ungodly. -Romans 5:6.

Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Timothy 2:4.

Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. -1 Timothy 4:10.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. -2 Peter 2:1

Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. -2 Peter 3:9.

[Don Johnson]

You need to do some study on this. For Leviticus, I recommend Gordon Wenham among others. The concluding verses of Lev 16 sum up the effect of the Atonement:

Leviticus 16:32 “So the priest who is anointed and ordained to serve as priest in his father’s place shall make atonement: he shall thus put on the linen garments, the holy garments, 33 and make atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar. He shall also make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 “Now you shall have this as a permanent statute, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year.” And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.

The purpose of the Day of Atonement was to propitiate God for the nation, to “open a way” for their prayers to be heard and their sacrifices to be received. It opened the way for everyone, cleansed the land (and especially the temple) of the pollution accumulated by their sins through the previous year. It made God propitious, disposed to hear them. This is part of what the sacrifice of Christ on the cross did in the Atonement.

What you have expressed in the bolded sentence is actually a limited atonement. The propitiation is “for the nation” not for all mankind, so “their prayers” are heard and “their sacrifices” are received, not the prayers and sacrifices of all mankind.

On the internet I came across what to me was most unusual - a Landmark Baptist, King James Only, Sovereign Grace, Baptist Church. The following quote is from a chapter of the book, Leaves, Worms, Butterflies, & T.U.L.I.P.S., which is posted to their site.

The Old Testament Types Foreshadow a Limited Atonement

What preacher has not spoken on the Old Testament types? The Ark? The offering of Aaron? Yet, the Old Testament types present a definite picture of a limited atonement. Take the Ark for example. It was not intended for all. Nor did God invite all to enter. It was only designed for the family of Noah. It was not intended for any others. As a type of Christ it is a perfect picture of the limited atonement of Christ Jesus the Lord. And what of the offerings of Aaron? Were they ever made for all the world? Or, for the elect nation of Israel? Aaron only made atonement for the people of Israel. Not one of the Jewish atonement days had universal dimensions. Nor did the Aaronic sacrifices have universal efficacy. Nor were they ever proclaimed to have benefit to the heathen.

The passover is the most famous Old Testament sacrifice. Yet it was for the deliverance of the elect nation of Israel only.

ty

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

The NKJV has 3 headings in this chapter:

Jesus Prays for Himself 1-5

Jesus Prays for His Disciples 6-19

Jesus Prays for All Believers 20-26

If his purpose in going to the cross was to make salvation possible for all men everywhere (as opposed to securing salvation for the elect - believers), why are all men everywhere specifically excluded from his prayer?

Verse 9

I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

John, shouldn’t we pray like Jesus? Then should we also limit our prayers by only praying for the elect?

Or should we instead pray for “all men,” because “God our Savior desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4)? So there can be no conflict between the way Jesus prayed and the way we are commanded to pray, correct?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University