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
Though I cannot accept the “no creed but the Bible” statement (which clarifies little or nothing), I don’t think calling oneself a Biblicist is wholly cowardly. I think that doing so might indicate that you hold to the Bible, rather than complying with a denominational or theological view. I hold to more of a quasi-Baptist view of things not because the teachings are Baptistic but because I think they are Biblical. I do think some approach beliefs in just the opposite manner, because they first affirm some creed or denominational doctrinal statement and build upon that. I do not consider myself a Calvinist or Armenian, because I do not thing that the Bible limits a person to one or the other view, or that it teaches that there are just two views. I am not strong on congregational rule (a strong Baptistic teaching) because I do not believe that it is what the Bible clearly teaches. To some, I am then not a Baptist. I think I learned quite a bit from my professors, and I don’t think most would consider me a coward who is unwilling to decide or stand for or verbalize his views. What do I call myself? I can see where we need to build our acceptance of the Bible over and above creeds, denominational statements and expectations, etc. Using Biblicist is not a bad way to say that.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
I never attended seminary so that is likely my problem on this issue…
I can honestly say I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. It it interesting that I personally know no one who says they are Arminian, but I know many Calvinists. Do I think that man can choose salvation by himself? No. Do I think God does it all and I have nothing to say in it? No.
I sometimes call myself, when asked by my many Calvinist friends, as a zero-point Calvinist. Now, before I loose you, I don’t mean that in any snarky way. What I mean is do I believe men are totally sinful? Yes. Do I believe they are depraved in the way that Calvinist books mean it? Not exactly because I do not think that man is so sinful that he does not respond to the Spirit and Word of God, especially after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So I can’t check that box.
Do I believe election? Of course. But what is unconditional election? Do I have NOTHING to say about it? I can’t check that box either. This goes on for me through the list.
This is not proof-texting but considering a passage coupled with the context of the whole of revelation.
Lanchano (2Pet.1.1) it seems is active but should be rendered passive (see notes on the NET bible). If this verse speaks about receiving “a lot” then faith has been given to us and not something that we generate on our own.
Some questions that need to be considered: how was Abram chosen? It is described as “out of love” (therefore: unmerited). When was Jeremiah loved (known)? Before he was born! This is totally unmerited.
A note about “chosen according to foreknowledge”. Per McCune: this is a Hebraism which refers to being chosen out of love, know=love in this sense. It has the idea of intimacy as in the OT sense of: “and he knew her” (of course without any sexual connotation). “Foreknowledge” has too often been seen from a Greek philosophical model instead of an OT cultural-historical context. When the bible speaks about “foreknowledge”, it speaks about ‘foreloving’.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
It is specious to argue that the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism can be reduced to one question. Both views are quite complex, there are aspects of both views that I appreciate and aspects that I disagree with. There are some fancy terms to describe varying degrees of positions between C. and A., but even these seem inadequate to me.
I use the term biblicist myself, not to suggest that I think either Cs or As don’t believe the Bible but to suggest that I believe the method known as Biblical Theology is superior to Systematic Theology, and it is the method by which I come to my theological positions. The term Biblical Theology is unfortunate but it is well established so what are we going to do? We are sort of stuck with it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
a Monergistic or a Synergistic Biblicist
Both the Calvinist and Arminian lay claim to the idea of Biblicism. Both systems of theology believe they are expressing the literal, historical, grammatical meaning of scripture within each system so it is a pejorative when you claim the Calvinist or Arminian is not a Biblicist
You may also read my article and see whether you are closer to Calvinism or to Arminianism.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Exactly, that is the crux of the issue. Dodging, or more politely, avoiding the label, does nothing to answer the question. Is salvation a matter of cooperation between God and man? Or, in the end, is it all due to the grace of God?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
In my own use of the term Biblicist (which I affirm more than I use) I simply mean that I will do my best to develop my understanding of any topic based upon Scripture, not upon someone’s system. It does not mean that I don’t come to similar conclusions. It does mean that my conclusions are based upon the Bible, not based upon conformity to a creed or doctrinal statement. Though I find both creeds and statements helpful, I do so as a result of study, not to curtail it.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Why do people assume that, because you accept a label, you’re obligated to tow the line on every issue?
For example, I’m a dispensationalist. Yet, I don’t believe Scripture teaches that Israel sinned by going down to Egypt prior to the Exodus. I don’t believe the so-called “Dispensation of the Patriarchs” ended in failure. How ridiculous! Yet, Scofield had the nerve to suggest this:
The Fourth Dispensation: Promise. For Abraham, and his descendants it is evident that the Abrahamic Covenant Cmt. on Ge 15:18 made a great change. They became distinctively the heirs of promise. That covenant is wholly gracious and unconditional. The descendants of Abraham had but to abide in their own land to inherit every blessing. In Egypt they lost their blessings, but not their covenant. The Dispensation of Promise ended when Israel rashly accepted the law Ex 19:8. Grace had prepared a deliverer (Moses), provided a sacrifice for the guilty, and by divine power brought them out of bondage Ex 19:4 but at Sinai they exchanged grace for law,” (Note on Gen 12:1).
This is indefensible from Scripture. I was taught a watered-down version of that in Seminary, and read even in Dr. McCune’s work that Israel “failed” by going down into Egypt (Systematic, 1:127). McCune follows Scofield (Systematic, 1:127, fn 58) by saying it was God’s permissive will to go down to Egypt, not His decretive will. Scofield writes, “Jacob’s family, broken, and in part already in Egypt, the tenderness of Jehovah would not forbid the aged patriarch to follow. God will take up His people and, so far as possible, bless them, even when they are out of His best,” (Note on Gen 46:3). I disagree. I think Oswald T. Allis was right to mock that idea back in the day (Prophesy and the Church, 34-35). I’m still a dispensationalist.
So, I wonder - where does this “label-eschewing” philosophy end? Do you have a denominational name on your church sign? Should you remove it? Does your doctrinal statement advocate for a particular polity, flavor of soteriology, eschatology, anthropology, etc? See my point? People are so willing to own labels for most any other branch of theology, but when it comes to soteriology … the “biblicist” phrase is employed. That communicates nothing!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I for one will say that I simply do not know enough to be able to agree with “this is a binary” statement. My reading and studying of the Word indicates that God’s grace is the basis and foundation for anyone’s salvation. No one can be saved apart from God’s provision of a Savior, and through the preaching of the Savior’s finished work. I also see that man must believe the promise(s) of God to be saved which we are mandated to proclaim and apart from which no one can be saved. (I do not see belief as a work but simply as an acknowledgement of God’s work.)
I personally do not believe that God gives us all the necessary information for us to be so “iron clad solid” in every detail of our conclusions. God reveals some information (“dots”), but I believe we can neither understand or fathom all the workings of God (or that He requires me to do so), nor that He has attempted to reveal all His knowledge to us (or for me to fill in any missing gaps in order to connect the existing dots). To take the “dots’ that do exist and connect them with implied information to create a binary “you are or you aren’t” to me just seems to raise our knowledge above what God has revealed and to degrade God for what He has not. I accept what I read, and I find that neither the Calvinistic views nor the Arminian views fully encapsulate what I see in the Word. If that is cowardly, as some would say, or ignorant, as others would say, or evasive, as others would say, so be it. To say that I cannot describe myself in a binary either-or status is being honest in my own understanding to the Word.
I cannot intelligently argue all of the views. I do not have the training to all the views to do so. I just have not been able to, in good conscience, embrace either camp, regardless of the pejoratives people may assign to me or those like me.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Tyler, you voice my point exactly. Assigning a label doesn’t really assign the label anyway. At most, any label is an over-generalization. We have a Baptist label on our church, but there are over 4,000 types of Baptists, many of which deny all Biblical moorings. You cannot make any decisions about the label without more information. To say that anything is “binary” is, to me, oversimplification. How does a label of Calvinist or Armenian do anything to assist, without detailed discussion?
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Regardless of you position, there will always be questions that need to be answered.
Did Christ die to make salvation possible for all IF they will……….?”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron, this is part of the core issue that many fail (or refuse) to see. The reason the “side” you end up on is important is because it impacts how you go about your business for God. I have a number of friends I would call historic Arminians in their soteriology (and I’m not talking about the semi-Pelagianism that is more concerned with being anti-Calvinistic than actually Arminian in so many IFB circles today). We can have wonderful fellowship together, but we would struggle to “do church” (please forgive the short hand) together because of the differences in our soteriology.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Discussion