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.)
Christopher Cone 2014 Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is former President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, and serves as pastor of Tyndale Bible Church. He is the author and editor of several books and blogs at drcone.com.
- 213 views
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Rev 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
In Gen 12, God promises a blessing to “all the families of the earth” through Abraham. John 3:16 tells of the love of God for the “all the families of the earth (the world). Rev 5:9 tells us that the end result is that “all the families of the earth” will be redeemed. No “family of the earth” is going to be left without a redeemed representation.
(I think there’s a 3pt sermon on missions right there)
p.s. Here’s the video of David Platt, the new IMB President, preaching at TGC 2 years ago. His sermon title was Divine Sovereignty: The Fuel of Death-Defying Missions
You can download the audio by right-clicking the 14mb file here.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
This is from gotquestions.org
Unlimited atonement says that, while Christ does a great deal to bring salvation to His people, His death on the cross did not actually secure that salvation for anyone. Christ’s death is not sufficient in and of itself to save lost people, and, in order for His atoning work to be effective, there is a requirement that sinners themselves must meet. That requirement is faith. For man to be saved, he must add his faith to Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Therefore, the effectiveness of the atonement is limited by man’s faith or lack thereof. On the other hand, limited atonement believes that Christ’s death and resurrection actually secures the salvation of His people. While God does require faith of His people, Christ’s death even paid for the sin of our unbelief, and, therefore, His death meets all requirements for our salvation and provides everything necessary to secure the salvation of God’s people including the faith to believe. That is true unconditional love, a salvation that is by grace alone in Christ alone. Christ plus nothing equals salvation—an atonement so sufficient that it secures everything necessary for salvation, including the faith that God gives us to believe (Ephesians 2:8)
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Greg Long]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?
we should go with the command in the passage!
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
For some reason John 16:8 does not receive much attention in discussions regarding the way John understood the term “world.” Yet, I think it provides crucial insight. In the larger context, Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to his disciples to empower them to preserve, complete, and produce His message. The Paraclete will use this message to “convict” the world. Broadly speaking, there are two interpretations of his convicting work: either Jesus referred to the Spirit’s general call or His effectual call. While I am convinced (please ignore my pun) that Jesus described the latter (based on the use of ἐλέγξει and considerations from the larger context), both interpretations treat τὸν κόσμον in exactly the same way: Jesus spoke of the world without distinction rather than the world without exception. Otherwise, his promise simply has not proved true. If the general call is in view, He limited “world” to those who hear the Spirit’s message produced by the disciples. If the effectual call is in view—you get the point.
I would argue the Paraclete passages should occupy a central role in our interpretation of the argument of John’s Gospel. That being the case, I would afford great weight to the clear meaning of τὸν κόσμον in John 16:8 as a guide in our understanding of its use in other passages. I would have to see strong contextual evidence in other passages to conclude that John used it to refer to the world without exception.
Steven Thomas
[JohnBrian]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
JohnBrian, are you seriously arguing for limited atonement on the basis of publisher supplied chapter headings? :)
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
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.
John, are you saying that every person affected by the Day of Atonement is in heaven? Like, say, Dathan and Abiram, et al, who rose up against Moses and Aaron in Num 16?
I never said that the Day of Atonement atoned for the sins of the whole world, but for the whole nation. I know of no one who advocates that all Israel in the OT was thereby saved. If they were, Caiaphas and Annas would also be saved, as pre-NT Jews, no? Presumably they conducted the rituals. They would have been atoned for. What does that mean?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[JohnBrian]Don Johnson wrote:
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.
But “salvation was of the Jews” in the OT (John 4:22). There WAS no redemption outside of that covenant in the OT. Jesus came to change all that, and said so himself. Hebrews spends a significant amount of time arguing for the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood to that of the OT law.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Jay:
RE yours of 9-10-1:34 PM Would I care to get involved? My forte is not historical theology although I have wished at times to have majored in it. My insights on this general thread of Cone’s are to be found in A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, mainly Vol 2. For further exegesis of my thoughts therein, consult Mike Harding.
Rolland McCune
[Jay] JohnBrian, are you seriously arguing for limited atonement on the basis of publisher supplied chapter headings? :)
I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you, to learn that you don’t believe in the inspiration of “publisher supplied chapter headings”!
But seriously, Jesus specifically says that he is not praying for the world. In other words, His prayer is limited.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
John, are you saying that every person affected by the Day of Atonement is in heaven? Like, say, Dathan and Abiram, et al, who rose up against Moses and Aaron in Num 16?
No, because not all Israel is Israel.
I never said that the Day of Atonement atoned for the sins of the whole world, but for the whole nation. I know of no one who advocates that all Israel in the OT was thereby saved. If they were, Caiaphas and Annas would also be saved, as pre-NT Jews, no? Presumably they conducted the rituals. They would have been atoned for. What does that mean?
So you affirm that this atonement was limited (to a single nation), but you reject that the real atonement (which the OT typified) cannot and must not be limited.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[Jay] But “salvation was of the Jews” in the OT (John 4:22). There WAS no redemption outside of that covenant in the OT. Jesus came to change all that, and said so himself. Hebrews spends a significant amount of time arguing for the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood to that of the OT law.
So for the OT you affirm a non-universal atonement that was limited to a single nation, but for the NT you insist on a universal unlimited atonement. In the OT God provided no redemption for those outside of Noah’s family when the flood came, then later he provided no redemption for those outside of the nation of Israel. In the NT he specifically refuses to pray for those whom the Father has not given to Him, and thus will not believe.
In his post above Steven used the phrase “the world without distinction rather than the world without exception.” In these 3 events we have clear proof that there is no provision for all men without exception.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
So for the OT you affirm a non-universal atonement that was limited to a single nation, but for the NT you insist on a universal unlimited atonement. In the OT God provided no redemption for those outside of Noah’s family when the flood came, then later he provided no redemption for those outside of the nation of Israel.
Yes, that’s right. I’m a dispensationalist, and it’s clear that the coming of Jesus into the world marked a turning point in the dispensations. Are you a covenant theologian?
In the NT he specifically refuses to pray for those whom the Father has not given to Him, and thus will not believe.
Can you provide Scripture for that last bolded part, or is that something that you’re adding into the text to make your point? I think you are referencing John 17, but am not sure.
In his post above Steven used the phrase “the world without distinction rather than the world without exception.” In these 3 events we have clear proof that there is no provision for all men without exception.
Except for all those pesky passages that I and others have already cited from John, Peter’s epistles, John’s epistles, and other places in the NT? The ones that talk about Jesus dying for the “sins of the world” (to use one Johaninne phrase)?
You contrasted John 3 with Revelation 5 earlier, but those passages do not have much to do with each other. In John, Jesus is teaching the woman about salvation and her mistaken doctrine/belief. In Revelation 5, those who are already in heaven are praising Him because He is glorious and worthy for his redemptive work, and yes, they do mention that Jesus has saved some from every nation. The two passages are as similar as baseballs and boomerangs.
I’m not arguing that the atonement is limited in effect. Not everyone will be saved - we know that. But I can’t take the passages that Greg Long, I, Don, and others have used and therefore decree that Jesus died only for some (and it’s kissing cousin, reprobation). Don’s illustrations of both Passover and the sacrificial system point to a salvific work that is limited by application.
In short, I think that Mike Harding nailed it when he said:
Sufficient for all; efficient for those who believe. Does that accurately blend the two ideas without formally holding to a LA position?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Mike Harding]Sufficient for all; efficient for those who believe. Does that accurately blend the two ideas without formally holding to a LA position? If we don’t limit the atonement’s application to non-believers, universalism may not be too far off!
Pastor Harding - you’ve summed up the Cannons of Dort in that statement. It explicitly states that Christ’s death is “sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world”.
[Don Johnson]As far as the atonement is concerned, have any of the Limited Atonement advocates considered that the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) covered believing and unbelieving Israel? Atonement makes God propitious (willing and just to save), but doesn’t by itself save.
Israel was a type of the people of God. An atonement was provided for Israel, God’s elect people. Was this atonement available for the Philistines? No! No atonement was provided for the enemies of God. Your example actually works against you!
[AndrewSuttles]Don Johnson wrote:
As far as the atonement is concerned, have any of the Limited Atonement advocates considered that the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) covered believing and unbelieving Israel? Atonement makes God propitious (willing and just to save), but doesn’t by itself save.
Israel was a type of the people of God. An atonement was provided for Israel, God’s elect people. Was this atonement available for the Philistines? No! No atonement was provided for the enemies of God. Your example actually works against you!
You do know that anyone could become a Jew and receive the blessing of fellowship with God, right?
Anyway, you continue to miss the point. The Atonement on the Day of Atonement provided opportunity for people who were lost to have access to God. It wasn’t merely for “the elect”, unless you want to claim every Israelite was saved.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion