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

The biblical concept is the preservation of the saints by God and the resulting perseverance of the saints. One without the other often leads to antinomianism (i.e. Zayne Hodges). Paul uses this tension throughout his writings, particularly in Philippians. Paul exercises a wholesome self-distrust and a simultaneous unreserved trust in God. This explains that while upholding security he would also affirm, “If I might attain unto the resurrection” or “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that God is working in you to will and to do” or “I keep under my body lest having preached to others I myself would be ‘adokimos’ (rejected, reprobate, disqualified)”.

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!

[Mike Harding] If we don’t limit the atonement’s application to non-believers, universalism may not be too far off!

“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)

The biblical concept is the preservation of the saints by God and the resulting perseverance of the saints. One without the other often leads to antinomianism (i.e. Zayne Hodges). Paul uses this tension throughout his writings, particularly in Philippians. Paul exercises a wholesome self-distrust and a simultaneous unreserved trust in God. This explains that while upholding security he would also affirm, “If I might attain unto the resurrection” or “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that God is working in you to will and to do” or “I keep under my body lest having preached to others I myself would be ‘adokimos’ (rejected, reprobate, disqualified)”.

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!

In his first post Christopher informed us that he was neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian but rather was a Biblicist. Unfortunately that term doesn’t mean much in the discussion he is engaged in. It’s not enough to use the phrase “clearly stated” and determine that a “simply stated passage” proves a view inaccurate, without engaging the opposing arguments.

[Christopher] 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.

A simple google search on “calvinism 1 john 2 2” brings up a number or responses, showing that the issue is not as clear as the author insists.

In Understanding 1 John 2:2, John Samson notes that

John writes of Jesus Christ being “the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (Hebrews), but also for the whole world (the Gentiles).”

He also shows the similarity between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2

John Piper sees the same parallels and comes to the same conclusion as Samson

This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the “sheep,” “the children of God” scattered throughout the whole world, “from every tongue and tribe and people and nation” are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.

With regard to perseverance, Christopher writes:

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.

The problem with the TULIP acronym is that it is very easy to misunderstand (or misrepresent) the meaning of each phrase. Since it was not established by Dort and it’s first documented use was in 1913, it’s not helpful to argue against Calvinism by arguing against the wording of the acronym.

No Calvinist has ever taught or believed that perseverance is based on “activity on the part of the believer.” All (can I use that word) Calvinist’s affirm “God as exclusive Protector.”

p.s. some people prefer 5 strips of BACON over the TULIP (there’s even an FB group)

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.

In fact, the biblical data explicitly teach both—and there is no contradiction so long as we properly frame the relationship between the two. We give priority to God’s preserving power as the cause of the believer’s security, but the believer’s ongoing faith and obedience are the essential effect. I think the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Divines would be in complete agreement on this point for neither group would deny the essential union of perseverance and preservation grounded in God’s sovereign election.

Selectivity of Scriptural texts and binary analysis enters the discussion the first article in this series, as well. For example,

In short, depravity seems to include representation in Adam, but extends beyond that to an ontological depravity due to our own individual natures: we are born from a sinner—in the image and likeness of that sinner—therefore, we are by nature, sinners.

Representation in Adam is inseparable from the reality of our depraved nature; it explains the origin of that nature. And, I would argue, depravity not only “seems to include representation in Adam,” but this representation is essential to our understanding of the gospel itself, according Romans 5.

Full disclosure: I am a 4.5ish Calvinist. LA makes sense logically, but I have never been able to reconcile it with the clear biblical statements that say otherwise. I realize this issue has been debated ad infinitum here on SI, but I just want to make two points.

1. If we’re going to examine John’s writings by comparing 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51-52, why wouldn’t we rather compare 1 John 2:2 with 1 John 5:19, where he uses the same phrase in the very same letter. Talk about context! Is anyone prepared to argue that “whole world” in 1 John 5:19 does not refer to the evil, fallen world system as a whole? Wouldn’t it mean the same in 1 John 2:2?
2. Regardless of where we come down on this, I hope we can all agree with Wayne Grudem (who believes in LA), who writes:

Finally, we may ask why this matter is so important at all. Although Reformed people have sometimes made belief in particular redemption a test of doctrinal orthodoxy, it would be healthy to realize that Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it once make it the subject of any explicit theological discussion. Our knowledge of the issue comes only from incidental references to it in passages whose concern is with other doctrinal or practical matters. In fact, this is really a question that probes into the inner counsels of the Trinity and does so in an area in which there is very little direct scriptural testimony—a fact that should cause us to be cautious. A balanced pastoral perspective would seem to say that this teaching of particular redemption seems to us to be true, that it gives logical consistency to our theological system, and that it can be helpful in assuring people of Christ’s love for them individually and of the completeness of his redemptive work for them; but that it also is a subject that almost inevitably leads to some confusion, some misunderstanding, and often some wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God’s people—all of which are negative pastoral considerations. Perhaps that is why the apostles such as John and Peter and Paul, in their wisdom, placed almost no emphasis on this question at all. And perhaps we would do well to ponder their example (Systematic Theology, 603).

Greg,

I am with you that this is more semantics than anything else where the rubber meets the road. Historic Arminianism does not teach universalism, so we both come to the place where only certain people, the elect, are redeemed. That said, I am curious how you understand the rest of I John 2:2 if you accept the “whole world” as meaning all humanity? How is it that propitiation is provided for the non-elect who still suffer eternal damnation?

Chip, the Bible neither asks nor answers that question. Just like with divine sovereignty and human responsibility, there is a tension there that is beyond human comprehension. The Calvinist explanations of 1 John 2:2 and other passages just seem like forcing a theological system upon the text. But of course we are all probably guilty of doing that at some point or another. :)

I feel that the author does himself disservice by just glossing over 1 John 2:2. It is not as easy as he states. There are solid arguments otherwise from some very solid theologians, which I won’t rehash. I know Greg that you state that it seems like forcing a theological system onto the text, but I think that we must also question our interpretation if a significant amount of Scripture points one way, and a single verse is interpreted a different way, whether we should look at our assumptions on this verse? For me, I became very convinced after reading John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” along with Packer’s intro. I think a broader amount of Scripture supports the framework. While I feel that there are tensions in Scripture, I don’t feel that 1 John 2:2 presents that kind of tension for a Calvinist, and I think there are solid interpretations that maintain the framework, without doing disservice to Scripture.

We’ve all heard them before.

In my opinion, the reason many Calvinists hold so tenaciously to Limited Atonement is that the whole system really breaks down without it. If the Atonement is not Limited, then grace is available to a whole whack of people who aren’t appropriating it. So much for “Irresistable”…

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.

[dgszweda]

I feel that the author does himself disservice by just glossing over 1 John 2:2. It is not as easy as he states. There are solid arguments otherwise from some very solid theologians, which I won’t rehash. I know Greg that you state that it seems like forcing a theological system onto the text, but I think that we must also question our interpretation if a significant amount of Scripture points one way, and a single verse is interpreted a different way, whether we should look at our assumptions on this verse? For me, I became very convinced after reading John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” along with Packer’s intro. I think a broader amount of Scripture supports the framework. While I feel that there are tensions in Scripture, I don’t feel that 1 John 2:2 presents that kind of tension for a Calvinist, and I think there are solid interpretations that maintain the framework, without doing disservice to Scripture.

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.

[Don Johnson]

We’ve all heard them before.

In my opinion, the reason many Calvinists hold so tenaciously to Limited Atonement is that the whole system really breaks down without it. If the Atonement is not Limited, then grace is available to a whole whack of people who aren’t appropriating it. So much for “Irresistable”…

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.

I wouldn’t put it that simple. To me it is a framework to understand Scriptures. It doesn’t fall or die on a single verse, nor does it rise on a single verse. It is the grand story that is told. Maybe it can be said the grand exposition of the entirety of the Bible. I also wouldn’t be so quick to call them tired. There is no framework that is free of any holes. This is the great mystery and the depth of salvation, that is not fully revealed in Scripture.

[Greg Long]

Full disclosure: I am a 4.5ish Calvinist. LA makes sense logically, but I have never been able to reconcile it with the clear biblical statements that say otherwise. I realize this issue has been debated ad infinitum here on SI, but I just want to make two points.

1. If we’re going to examine John’s writings by comparing 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51-52, why wouldn’t we rather compare 1 John 2:2 with 1 John 5:19, where he uses the same phrase in the very same letter. Talk about context! Is anyone prepared to argue that “whole world” in 1 John 5:19 does not refer to the evil, fallen world system as a whole? Wouldn’t it mean the same in 1 John 2:2?

Game, set, match.

There’s also John 3:

Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

[Don Johnson]

In my opinion, the reason many Calvinists hold so tenaciously to Limited Atonement is that the whole system really breaks down without it. If the Atonement is not Limited, then grace is available to a whole whack of people who aren’t appropriating it. So much for “Irresistable”…

This has been my experience as well, and the thing that scares me the most about the Calvinist system is that more than a few people I’ve talked to about Calvinism are far more concerned with the system than they are in anything else, and they will break fellowship - or treat you as a lesser Christian - if you do not agree with them. When I worked at BJU, we had to explicitly ask one student to stop bringing the subject up, because it became a staff morale issue. There is another guy in my church who looked at me like I didn’t believe in the Trinity when I told him I wasn’t a five pointer. It’s sad.