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

Interestingly, this syllogism is not found explicitly in Calvin’s writings, the Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Confession.

Oh no? Then why quote it?

Has anyone ever heard the above quoted syllogism before? I have not. Why not interact with the more robust statements of the doctrine from Westminster or Dort?

I’m also baffled by the quote from the Belgic Confession 22!? Can anyone provide a rational justification for dissent from this statement on faith?

We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, appropriates him, and seeks nothing more besides him. For it must needs follow, either that all things, which are requisite to our salvation, are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith, have complete salvation in him. 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. Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean, that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all his merits and so many holy works which he has done for us, and in our stead, is our Righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with him in all his benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.

[JohnBrian]

Jay wrote:

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.

[Don Johnson]

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.

In what sense was the atonement made for non-Israelites? If a non-Israelite became an Israelite, he was no longer a non-Israelite.

Also, do you believe they had to get ‘re-saved’ every year? I believe the Old Covenant had respect to Israel continued blessing “in the land” and continued fellowship with God. Salvation always is and has been through the merits of Christ.

Well, Andrew, I’m not going to engage the debate. There are clear links between the OT system and what Christ did. You can ignore them if you wish. The Scripture stands.

[gpinto]

“that Jesus did die to pay the penalty for all” (1John 2:2) sounds like the theme song of universalism. Christ’s propitiation was of sufficient value to include both Jew and Gentile and all categories of men, and it is in that sense that He makes atonement for the whole world. The use of the term “world” in the NT often refers to neither the entire world nor all persons living (Lk2:1)

I certainly am not qualified to argue deeply on Calvinism either way (though I would agree with Dr. Cone that limiting the views to two is oversimplifying), but I would dare to point out that any discussion probably has to compare apples with apples. The term used in 1 John 2:2 is kosmos (modified by holos - entire or whole), whereas the Luke 2:1 reference uses the word oikoumene (which has a more restricted sense as determined by the context of the decree of Caesar Augustus. I only suggest that arguing for or against the meaning of the word “world” is further complicated by not using passages that are using the same term. Though they may overlap in meaning, kosmos is not oikoumene, and the meaning and extent of words is determined by their immediate context first. “Whole world” in 1 John 2:2 is hard to argue (in my opinion) anything other than what it appears to be.

[JohnBrian]

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)

I think this quote is an “over argument,” (if there is such a thing) or over-analysis. It is requiring something of the cross that clearly is not taught. Christ’s payment is sufficient and has satisfied God’s wrath - it has been propitiated. One still has to receive it (John 1:12a) by believing on Jesus name (John 1:12b). Romans 4:5 (as an example) does not see faith / belief as a work, but clearly distinguishes it from work, but which is required to be saved. I am simple-minded, but John 3:18 sure seems to lay down the criteria of faith / belief clearly and precisely. The Bible clearly teaches that faith / belief is essential from each individual for having the propitiation count for him/her.

I posted the following in the Part 1 thread, so am re-posting it here where it actually belongs!

[Jay] Are you a covenant theologian?

and thus will not believe.

[Jay] 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.

John 17:9-12
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Only those whom God has given to Christ (v.9) are kept through God’s name and none of them are lost (v.12)

v.8 tells us that those whom God has given to Christ believed that God sent Christ, and in v.20 Jesus adds to His prayer those who will believe because of the testimony of those spoken of in vs 6-19

John 10:26-30
26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.

Here we learn that those who do not believe, do so because they have not been given by God to Christ.

[Jay] 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)?

World can mean all without distinction rather than all without exception. The Rev. 5 passage shows that Christ did die for the “sins of the world” in that all nations are represented in the redeemed.

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 think you are confusing John 3 with John 4. My point is that John 3:16 speaks of God’s love for the world, and Rev 5:9 speaks of a representation of all nations of the world, showing that God does in fact love the whole world.

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).

Yet you affirm that for the OT there are some that God has no intention of saving; in the case of Noah it was all men (and women) everywhere that were not his family, and later on in the OT it was all men everywhere who were not descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, with a very few exceptions. These examples show that there are people God has no intent to save. Yet when you come to the NT, you insist that God desires to save all without exception based on your understanding of the word world.

Here’s where the divide comes. Calvinists affirm that world does not necessarily refer to all without exception but can mean all without distinction. The non-Calvinist affirms that it does mean all without exception. I am quite sure this divide will not be resolved until Jesus comes.

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?

This sufficient/efficient idea comes from Dordt:

The Canons of Dordt - Second Main Point, Article 3

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

In a post on Mark McCulley’s blog titled Sufficient for All, Efficient for Believers? McCulley references Nettles quotation from Abraham Booth’s 1803 book titled Divine justice essential to the divine character (confused yet!) The quotation shows that the sufficient/efficient question has been around for a long time.

While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to Him, we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrine of redemption by our adorable Jesus…

Take a look at this article from DBTS’ blog today on why you can’t deny Arminianism or Calvinism, claiming to be a “biblicist:”:

“And so my thesis in this post is simply this: the principal question in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate is a fundamentally binary one: you have to choose one or the other … The question is this: Do believers play any independent role in their own regeneration? This is the watershed issue and it is absolutely binary.”

I’ve always viewed the line, “I’m not either one - I’m a Biblicist” as a cop-out. You lean one way or the other. Don’t be afraid to say which - just let it go and say it.

Can you define “independent role” for me?

Also then please describe how if we have no “independent role” in our regeneration (again, define regeneration please) that it follows by necessity that all the “points” of Calvinism follow. I am speaking more rhetorically than actually expecting you to write a dissertation. I am simply making that point that one man’s binary is another man’s hexadecimal!

Joke: There are 10 kinds of people in the world…those who know binary and those who don’t.

Whenever I’ve met someone in the “I’m neither” group, I like ask what they actually believe about regeneration and salvation.

Do you believe that man needs Divine help? (I’ve been told no a couple of times.)

Do you believe in election?

Do you believe God saves people apart from any thing they are, acn do, or might do?

Which is stronger, man’s will or God’s grace?

Are there people in hell for whom Christ died?

I think it’s because I’ve always been more interested in what people believe than what label they wear.

And again, I find it interesting that the “I’m neither” group won’t allow people to take that neutral position on dispensationalism, eschatology, polity, baptism, or music.

[Mark_Smith] one man’s binary is another man’s hexadecimal!

First use of hexadecimal on S/I. Hex … something I work with regularly in IT!

[Ron Bean]

And again, I find it interesting that the “I’m neither” group won’t allow people to take that neutral position on dispensationalism, eschatology, polity, baptism, or music.

That’s certainly not true in all cases. I’m a “neither” in the calvinism/arminianism debate (though I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say my position is the “biblicist” one), I’m generally dispensational, in eschatology I’d say I’m pre-millenial, but not particularly decided on pre-trib/mid-trib/whatever (i.e., I know Jesus is coming again and will judge and rule, but I’m not dogmatic on the timing), I’m congregational in polity, though opposed to the “dictatorial pastor” model, I’m believer’s baptism, but agnostic on mode, and on music, I generally want to avoid what’s popular for associational reasons, and I don’t believe music is “neutral,” but I’m not convinced that notes can have morality.

I’m not sure what that makes me, but I doubt I’m unique — each of us has a combination of beliefs that are not something that can just be easily pigeonholed. And Tyler, that’s not dishonest — I just can can’t completely reconcile the passages that talk about God’s election with those that indicate man making a conscious choice (and yes, I’ve read many arguments on both sides). Which direction I might lean is different when I read different passages. Ultimately, I think the important thing is to be a witness and let God sort out whether any who accept him were due to election or a choice on their part.

Every single person I’ve spoken to on this issue knows which way they lean, but wants to avoid labels to avoid the controversy, bad associations, etc. attached to the labels. They don’t want to be pigeonholed. I get that, but I’m just not sure how helpful it really is in defining anything.

[TylerR]

Every single person I’ve spoken to on this issue knows which way they lean, but wants to avoid labels to avoid the controversy, bad associations, etc. attached to the labels. They don’t want to be pigeonholed. I get that, but I’m just not sure how helpful it really is in defining anything.

Tyler, as I just said, at any one time I might lean one way (slightly) or the other. When I hear a good sermon by a Calvinist, I start thinking in that direction, but the opposite is true as well. I’m not saying I’m perfectly balanced, but I will say that so far, I haven’t stayed convinced on one side or the other.

As far as being defined by others, I generally don’t care about that anyway. I’ll stand up for the designation “Christian,” but generally I’m not willing to die on the hill of being cavinist, arminian, dispensational, etc. Politically, I’m the same — I’m registered as “Unaffiliated” in my state. That might frustrate the armies of poll workers who are trying to decide which way I lean for their statistics, but that’s not my problem. When election time comes, I’ll vote my conscience, and that usually results in some candidates from at least 3 parties. If that makes it hard for others to define me, I can live with that.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard a Baptist say he has “No creed but the Bible”, I could retire today!

Whenever I hear seminary-trained men claim they are Biblicists on this issue- either they didn’t learn much in seminary or they are cowards!

See: On Having No Creed but the Bible