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.
- 177 views
[Jay] Game, set, match.
Yes, in his single paragraph Greg undoes all the defenders of definite/limited atonement because they never ever deal with those verses.
:eyeroll:
Dr. McCune who was not a LA advocate argued that the atonement enabled God to justly give common grace to all men and the offer of the gospel to all men. At the same time, he believed that the atonement was applied personally to a man’s sin only when that man became a believer in Christ. McCune clearly limited the atonement in its application to believers. He says, “The atonement of Christ has certain benefits that are limited to those who receive them–i.e., believers or the elect. These benefits are saving or redemptive in nature. Election limits the atonement in its application. Thus, the atonement is both universal (1 Jn 2:2) and in some respects, limited (Jn 15:13; Matt 1:21; Jn 10:15; Eph 5:23—26; Titus 2:14). Clearly, there is something in the design of the atonement of Christ that is for believers that does not obtain for one who ends up in perdition. That factor is in the application of the atonement’s accomplishments and benefits… . There is an internal redemptive value of Christ’s atonement that is infinite, but the application, and thus the limitation, is based on external considerations, either the will of man of the absolute will of God. The latter is the obvious biblical teaching.”
Pastor Mike Harding
“I’ve never been able to understand how the Calvinists, some of them, believe in a “limited atonement.” That is, the sacrifice of Christ applied only to those who are the elect, but there is no sacrifice of Christ for the whole world—when John expressly says He is the sacrifice, the atoning, dedicated gift of God in our lives for the whole world [1 John 2:2]. And it is just according to whether we accept it or not as to whether the life of our Lord is efficacious for us in His atoning death.”
-W. A. Criswell; wacriswell.com
There is not one single statement in Scripture that overtly states Christ died only for the sins of the elect. There are easily a dozen New Testament Scriptures overtly stating Christ died for all people.
-Dr. David Allen, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
David R. Brumbelow
[Mike] McCune clearly limited the atonement in its application to believers.
Every believer affirms a Limited Atonement! The non-Calvinist affirms that it is limited in its application, the Calvinist affirms that it is limited in its intent.
Since the Calvinist affirms that the Trinity is unified in its purpose, we insist that it is the intent that is limited. God elected persons; Christ atoned for those persons; the Holy Spirit regenerates those persons.
The question for the non-Calvinist who affirms conditional election is “why does God require Christ to atone for those persons whom God knows will not believe?”
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
Again, John, a question the Bible never asks nor answers.
These questions are along the lines of the same questions asked of Calvinists:
- “Why would God command us to believe if He’s already decided who will be saved and who won’t be?”
- “Why should we pray if God has already decided everything that will come to pass?”
- “If the elect can never fall away, why are there commands to persevere in the faith and warnings against falling away?”
Of course every theological system is required to reconcile seemingly paradoxical or even contradictory teachings of Scripture, but there is a point at which we say, “I don’t know. I guess God didn’t think it necessary to explain that to us. We just hold these paradoxical (or better put, complementary) truths in tension, and believe God at His Word.”
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Criswell’s quote has been responded to above
Allen’s first statement may be right that there is no overt statement that “Christ died only for the sins of the elect.”
His second statement though is debatable. Calvinists would object that there are NT passages that “overtly” state that Christ died for all people.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian]Allen’s first statement may be right that there is no overt statement that “Christ died only for the sins of the elect.”
If his statement is right - and no one I’ve seen disputes that - then why is there a whole theological system built upon it? And why do we tolerate that?
Hello? Do we not believe in the perspicuity of Scripture? Did we all skip Hermeneutics class in college or seminary?
"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
Because even a total lack of such statements does not necessarily falsify the thesis.
[Jay]Perhaps we tolerate it on the same grounds we tolerate teaching on the Trinity, about which there are no overt biblical statements either despite being considered a fundamental issue of the faith.JohnBrian wrote:
Allen’s first statement may be right that there is no overt statement that “Christ died only for the sins of the elect.”
If his statement is right - and no one I’ve seen disputes that - then why is there a whole theological system built upon it? And why do we tolerate that?
Hello? Do we not believe in the perspicuity of Scripture? Did we all skip Hermeneutics class in college or seminary?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Dr. McCune’s explanation of the atonement from his systematic is excellent, and was very helpful to me personally. The excerpt that Mike Harding quoted above is one that hit me right between the eyes when I read McCune’s systematic. I also benefited enormously from Chafer’s discussion (3:193-194; 210-224), who isn’t as succinct as McCune but rightly emphasizes the Spirit’s role in the salvation of the elect. I think we sometimes get tunnel vision on Christ and ignore the work of the Spirit when we have these discussions.
I believe that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, but the benefits of that atonement are only applied to the elect by the sovereign work of the Spirit - which is the only reason why men repent and believe.
I personally think James White’s The Potter’s Freedom is an excellent book if anyone hasn’t read it.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Surely James White believes in definite atonement.
[Chip Van Emmerik]Perhaps we tolerate it on the same grounds we tolerate teaching on the Trinity, about which there are no overt biblical statements either despite being considered a fundamental issue of the faith.
But we have formulations for the Trinity as early as, what, 50-60 AD? Calvinism popped up in the fifteenth century, if I remember correctly, although it wasn’t formulated as such until the 16th. There’s a massive difference between something formulated twenty years after Jesus and 1540 years after Jesus. Not to mention that there are hints of the Trinitarian formula in the OT.
Wikipedia:
Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine. Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around 110, exhorting obedience to “Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit”. Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”. The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word “Trinity” was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late 2nd century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early 3rd century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the “Praxean” heresy.
Another early, and already more philosophic, formulation of the Trinity (again without usage of that term) is attributed to the Gnostic teacher Valentinus (lived c.100 – c.160), who according to the fourth century theologian Marcellus of Ancyra, was “the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures”. The highly allegorical exegesis of the Valentinian school inclined it to interpret the relevant scriptural passages as affirming a Divinity that, in some manner, is threefold. The Valentinian Gospel of Phillip, which dates to approximately the time of Tertullian, upholds the Trinitarian formula. Whatever his influence on the later fully formed doctrine may have been, however, Valentinus’ school is rejected as heretical by orthodox Christians.
Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.
Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism.
Dr. McCune - care to weigh in on this if you are reading?
"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]Chip Van Emmerik wrote:
Perhaps we tolerate it on the same grounds we tolerate teaching on the Trinity, about which there are no overt biblical statements either despite being considered a fundamental issue of the faith.
But we have formulations for the Trinity as early as, what, 50-60 AD? Calvinism popped up in the fifteenth century, if I remember correctly, although it wasn’t formulated as such until the 16th. There’s a massive difference between something formulated twenty years after Jesus and 1540 years after Jesus. Not to mention that there are hints of the Trinitarian formula in the OT.
Lets skip the term Calvinism, because most Calvinist don’t call it that. Calvin didn’t even espouse it, as others have said. Definite Atonement is much better. The book “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her”, outlines in the first few chapters on how Definite Atonement was found in the earliest days of the church and was much more widespread than only beginning with Calvin or at Dort.
You wrote:
Surely James White believes in definite atonement
He does, but he is arguing against a synergistic view of redemption. He doesn’t address the Amyraldian arrangement (which I hold to) at all - he was responding to Geisler’s book. If you are looking for a book that, in my opinion, effectively destroys a synergistic approach to salvation, White’s book is one to get.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I have Lightner’s The Death Christ Died and need to read it again. I also have From Heaven He Came and Sought Her and I look forward to getting into it sometime down the road. If I ever write anything on this topic, they’ll be two books I consult. Owen’s writing is just too tedious and impenetrable for me. My sympathies to folks who have managed to read him. Andy Naselli has written a summary of Owen’s views and also laments Owen’s writing!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion