Culinary Calvinism: Considering Jay Adams’ TULIPburger

“A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.” So stated Charles Spurgeon in a sermon on Particular Redemption, delivered February 28, 1858. The entire sermon is well worth reading.

Maybe that’s what Jay Adams was saying when he made particular redemption the meat that is the foundation of the whole sandwich.

[Larry]

There’s no argument to be made from Jesus’ own teaching—when gathering His kingdom he paid the price for the whole of the field.

You have conflated parables there. The “field is the world” line comes from the parable of the tares. The “buying the whole field” line comes from the parable of the hidden treasure. They are not referring to the same thing. The guy buying the whole field is not Jesus, and he is not buying the world. That parable is indicating the value of the kingdom—that the man “sells all that he has” in order to be part of the Kingdom.

So everywhere that Jesus mentions “field” in the Gospels that is not referencing a literal field “the field is the world”. Yet in this one parable in the midst of a number of parables of similar themes presented under inspiration (both text and context [Matthew is not so much chronological order as it is logical order] ) Jesus chooses to mix illustrations and make the field represent something entirely different? That would be very akin to going to some of the apocalyptic texts and defining “sea” as illustrating several different concepts.

I think I grasp the purpose of the ambiguity of parables, but confusing everybody as to its meaning is not likely that purpose. The field has always been the world, even in those parables where the term is implied and not specifically used (sower and the soil, for example). “The field is the world….”

“William G. T. Shedd (AD 1820-1894) completes the American triumvirate of nineteenth-century Reformed theologians (Charles Hodge and Robert Dabney being the other two) who rejected limited atonement…Shedd believed there was no contradiction between an unlimited satisfaction for sin by Christ on the cross, predestination, and the universal offer of the gospel to all. Shedd clearly affirmed that the death of Christ is not merely hypothetically sufficient as high Calvinists affirmed, but it is actually sufficient because it expiated all sins.”

-David L. Allen, SWBTS, “The Extent of the Atonement.”

Allen devotes a couple of pages to Shedd, and refers to him a number of other times in his book.

David R. Brumbelow

If so, nobody goes to hell.

G. N. Barkman,

No. Atonement has been made (1 John 2:2). But, it must be accepted.

1 Timothy 4:10

For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

John 1:12

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

David R. Brumbelow

Was doing research for a journal article today and came across this observation in Richard Muller’s Unaccommodated Calvin (Oxford University Press, 2000):

A superb example of the problem [of reading modern theological categories and discussion into Calvin’s Institutes] is the fairly large number of essays devoted to the theological question of whether Calvin held to a doctrine of “limited atonement.” The worst of these studies utterly ignore the fact that the term “limited atonement” is not accurately descriptive of the themes of sixteenth- or even seventeenth-century theology . Others, of a slightly more historical cast, recognize this first problem but then attempt either to wedge Calvin into the thought-world of the Synod of Dort or to extract him from it without fully acknowledging that the problem of the limited application of Christ’s all-sufficient satisfaction to the elect alone was not a problem debated by Calvin. Virtually all of these studies exist primarily for the sake of enlisting Calvin’s support in the establishment or justification of a contemporary theological program—and their method consists in the gathering of comments from various of Calvin’s works for the sake of reframing them into a full-scale doctrine either of limited, or universal, or, indeed, hypothetically universal atonement. (p. 6)

Somehow John Calvin, the systematic theologian of the Reformation and the figure upon which this system of theology is based, forgot to discuss in his comprehensive systematic theology this essential question that is the “meat” of TULIP.

John 1:13

I already answered Aaron’s main question to non-LA/PA about “what benefits of Christ’s death are applied to to all people” in my previous comments in this thread (resurrection), so I won’t fully rehash that here (but will get back to a summary of that in relation to my whole soteriological scheme).

If you read David Allen’s The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (which has already been noted a couple of times in this comment thread), you will find that a number of LA/PA held to an infinite payment. But they will vary on whether that was merely hypothetical (it could have paid for everyone if that was God’s intention, because Christ’s death is inherently of infinite value) or actual (as Shedd, all sins were actually paid for as David noted the quote from Allen’s work in his post).

Depending upon how one frames the nature of atonement, chiefly if one looks at atonement from only the ultimate intention of full and final salvation (which I argued against that view above) instead of a step in the process toward that ultimate salvation (which I clarified here), then Shedd’s view ends up with the issue that Mr. Barkman has pointed out, that “nobody goes to hell” (or at least should not, based off the ultimate intention focus on atonement).

It is logic errors like Shedd’s that were part of what led me on my path of not being able to accept either of the primary views on atonement. In fact, the following are some of the primary points that forced me back to the Bible to rethink what Scripture was saying about the extent of the atonement, to break me out of the same-old same-old back and forth arguments that each side made to the issues, of which I found both flaws and truth in all sides:

1. Particularists erred exegetically in forcing universal language used in atonement passages (all men, whole world, etc.) to be strained and squeezed into only referring to the elect, primarily by attempting to make them refer to “all kinds of men” (which still doesn’t work with the “whole world” passages like 1 Jn 2:2, nor those where the two kinds being contrasted are clearly believer and others like 1 Tim 4:10, where clearly if you are to believe all refers to kinds, then the two “kinds” are believer and unbeliever). They also erred exegetically in making faith a purchased effect of atonement, for Scripture no where says faith is something purchased (but see * below).
2. Provisionalists erred logically in trying to claim a penal substitutionary atonement was merely provided, but not applied accept by faith, as being able to be counted as any kind of actual payment. If Christ made a penal substitution, which is the payment He made for sin, then the it cannot help but be applied (a substitution must have an actual effect, for one is substituting for the other), and if applied, it cannot be merely a provision. (This point on penal substitution is, by the way, what I consider a valid critique that Particularists make of the Provisionalists’ view on atonement.)
3. Partialists erred logically in trying to claim atonement had an actual effect in making it possible to believe (i.e. purchased prevenient grace), but suffers from both the issue that sin’s penalty is death, not darkness (darkness is an effect, but not the legal penalty of sin), and the issue that a substitution makes a full effect once the substitution is finalized (it fully replaces one with another), so IF (and I’m not saying it did) atonement had any effect related to making it possible to believe, it was not from the penal substitutionary aspect of the atonement, else the effect would have been full.
4. Plenarists (my term used in my dissertation for full blown Universalists; yes, since the other terms were coming out with “P’s” that was my way of making this final category have a P too) erred exegetically in ignoring all the clear passages of Scripture that indicate everyone does not end up ultimately and finally saved.

So the simple Occam’s Razor truth that hit me from Scripture that led me on the path to my Pananastasist (all-resurrected) solution to the thorny atonement debate was this thought:

If God’s declared penalty for sin was death, why does He resurrect unbelievers from that; why does He reverse the penalty, and how does He do so righteously?

When pursuing that answer, then all the Scriptures for atonement started falling into place, removing all the exegetical and logical errors of the other views. Just like there was both a corporate, general atonement for Israel once a year, and yet also particular, individual atonement requirements for sins needed at other times, these pictures show the complexity of Christ’s atonement in how it has purposes to both for humanity.

1. Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement is corporate, general, and universal to all mankind to cover Adam’s introduction of sin into the race of man. This reverses the legal penalty of death, and so all people (believers and unbelievers) get resurrected. He has bought them all, redeeming them from that death, as God promised. For this, all people should be thankful, and have faith in God to save them from His wrath, a relational, not legal penal, expression.
2. Those who are thankful, having faith, accept Christ’s atonement as their own personal atonement offering, particular and individual to each one. This individual identification with the sacrifice of Christ washes them of the uncleanness of sin by His blood (a different effect than penal substitution), and because God accounts their faith as equal to His righteousness, they stand spotless in God’s sight. So when God goes to judge the worthiness of people, they are seen as clean and righteous and are given eternal life in that resurrected, immortal body He purchased for all mankind; but the unbelievers do not have that cleansing nor that righteousness, and so they are given a second death, cast into the lake of fire in the immortal body purchased for them for all mankind, and hence experience an eternal burning as they face God’s eternal wrath against their unworthiness.

My dissertation focused primarily on part 1, for my intention in that was to resolve the errors I felt were in the other views about the nature of penal substitutionary atonement.

* Notice how faith is the hinge point between the effects of 1 and 2 (which is what distinguishes the ultimately saved that inherit eternal life from those merely saved from death by resurrection). Faith is not a purchased item by the atonement. Atonement does not relate directly to faith in that way, but only relates to how the atonement is applied (merely generally, or also particularly). What that means is, while I personally feel pananastasism resolves the nature and extent of the atonement best in accordance with Scripture’s revelation, it does not resolve the related soteriological debate of how election functions, that is whether or not faith is a granted thing by God (unconditional election) or a purely human response to God’s word (conditional election). But a pananastastic view of atonement can be fit to either election view, as the hinge point of salvation is still on that faith being present (however it arises).

If I’m understand you right, you believe Christ’s atonement has two applications, (1) a corporate application which removes the legal penalty of death for everybody and provides the basis for the resurrection of the just and unjust, and (2) a relational application which provides atonement for sin.

If this is correct, then you see a two-stage application of different aspects of the atonement. First, removal of the legal penalty of death. Second, if the subject responds in repentance and faith, a true transfer of penalty from the sinner to Christ because of the substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrifice. But, you mention the second stage is not penal substitution. What is it?

I can say more, but I want to understand this.

comment to receive e-mail notifications on this thread only…

WIth all these degrees opining on the topic I feel like I’m at Masonic Lodge or a thermometer store.

The closet I’ve heard to the two application theory is that Christ’s death provides common grace for all men and saving grace for the elect (those who believe).

You almost understand me correctly. Both aspects actually provide “atonement for sin,” one legally reconciles, the other relationally reconciles.

But this is not correct:

Second, if the subject responds in repentance and faith, a true transfer of penalty from the sinner to Christ because of the substitutionary nature of Christ’s sacrifice.

However, this is:

But, you mention the second stage is not penal substitution.

The second stage is cleansing of sin with respect to the individual who desires Christ’s atonement to be applied for that (i.e. has faith), and then with that faith also is the accounting of righteousness.

The cleansing is more directly related to atonement, for it relates to the blood application (Heb 9:14, 1 Jn 1:7, Rev 1:5), which is distinct from the death itself.

The accounting of righteousness is not tied directly to atonement from the human side (a believers righteousness does not come directly by atonement, but rather through faith, for it is God’s own righteousness that is accounted [Rom 3:22; 2 Cor 5:21] , not just the righteousness of the act of atonement itself). Yet from the divine side, Christ’s payment is what reconciles the world to God (2 Cor 5:19), giving a justification for God to remove the penalty of death and give life (resurrection) back to all men (Rom 5:18 [see * below] ), while those who choose to accept that reconciliation (believe) gain righteousness (2 Cor 5:20-21), which is a free gift by God’s grace (Rom 5:15-17), but only free to righteously give anyone based upon Christ’s atonement (Rom 3:24-26, 5:19), and determined by God to be freely given only through faith.

* Clarification on Romans 5:18

My dissertation spends pages 288-322 on a discussion/exegesis of Romans 5 (and that is just one piece of the whole argument), which I obviously cannot repeat here. But it should be noted that many English translations include additional text within Romans 5:18 to try to get a sense of what the elided (in Greek) parallel idea is, as the verse offers a number of interpretive challenges (that verse alone is covered on pages 303-317). A flat out literal translation of the Greek would be (note, there are no Greek variants between the Majority and Critical texts):

Ἄρα οὖν ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα,
οὕτως καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς

Therefore as through one transgression to all men unto condemnation,
even also through one righteous deed to all men unto justification of life.

What is elided in the Greek is what is it exactly that comes “to all men” in the two statements that brings them “unto” these two things. So you end up with various translations of the verse in the English versions. I think the KJV/NKJV had the right idea of trying to find the elided parallel in the previous context, but failed to get correct the second parallel. So NKJV says (added words bracketed):

Therefore, as through one [man’s] offense [judgment came] to all men, [resulting] in condemnation,
even so through one [Man’s] righteous [act the free gift came] to all men, [resulting] in justification of life.

So they parallel from Rom 5:16 only, the judgment vs. free gift (which is righteousness, as Rom 5:17 shows). But righteousness does not come to all men, only believers. I argue in those various pages that the parallel should be back to Rom 5:15, where it mentions the offense that brings judgment, but then mentions two things coming by Christ, the grace of God and the gift by grace. The latter is specifically righteousness, but the former, the expression of God’s grace, is more encompassing than just that, and can function on many levels. So rather than Rom 5:18 being a parallel of only Rom 5:16 concepts, it is rather the first part of expanding on two notions in v.15. The second part, the gift of righteousness, is expanded on in Rom 5:19 (given only to “many,” not “all”). The first part, God’s grace more generally in salvation, is being expanded upon in Rom 5:18, where by God’s grace in His work through Christ, He has made for “all men” that “justification of life” needed for Him to remove death by resurrection for any person.

So an aspect of God’s saving grace is given/expressed tangibly to every person, He has justified making them alive from the first death by resurrection. But the abundance of saving grace is received by believers (Rom 5:17), for the gift of righteousness is part of that (along with all the other glories received by the inheritance of the saints), so that in this way, grace abounds much more than the offense (Rom 5:20), for it overcomes the penalty of death to all (that makes it equal to the offense in effect), while also giving above and beyond to those who believe (Rom 5:21, making it greater than what the offense caused by bringing death).

Do you see warrant for a two-stage application of different aspects of atonement in Leviticus, or in Hebrews? Where, in your opinion, is the most didactic passage(s) that informs your understanding of atonement? Is it Romans 5?

[TylerR]

Do you see warrant for a two-stage application of different aspects of atonement in Leviticus, or in Hebrews? Where, in your opinion, is the most didactic passage(s) that informs your understanding of atonement? Is it Romans 5?

Warrant

Leviticus, and indeed the whole Pentateuch, has so many different and varied references to atonement and redemption precisely because no single picture was able to capture what Christ’s work would accomplish in total. I spend pages 161-185 of my dissertation covering OT pictures. Some pictures the payment was of a life, some monetary, a few neither. It took many pictures. But even so, out of those pictures one sees two primary purposes:

1. Death of one (or payment) to keep life of another (substitutionary): Sacrifice of Isaac (=Ram, Genesis ch. 22), Passover (Exodus ch. 11-13), Death of perpetrator for atonement of nation/land (Num 25:6-12, 35:33), Day of Atonement (killing of goat is for sin of the people, Lev 16:15), redemption of lives (Exo 13:13-15, 21:29-30); there is also a picture of a living sacrifice making atonement in the Levites for Israel (Num ch. 8), paralleling Christ ultimately being alive Himself after effecting atonement.
2. Blood application for cleansing/consecration: Passover (also), Covenant formation (Exo 24:3-8), Priestly consecration (Exo 29:20-21; Lev 8:23-24, 30), Leper cleansing (Lev 14:14), Day of Atonement (also; cleansing of God’s place, Lev 16:18-19; cleansing for those of Israel that participate in affliction of soul [though no direct blood application is made to them here, rather by affliction, they seem to participate in the application of the instruments] , Lev 16:29-30)

There are also distinctions between corporate atonement (Lev 16:1ff) and individual atonement (Lev 1:1ff), both found discussed in Leviticus ch. 4.

Hebrews, mentions atonement to remove sin (Heb 7:27, 9:26, 10:11-12) and blood for cleansing (Heb 9:13-14).

Most Didactic

The most directly didactic passages, not counting what was noted about the Pentateuch and Hebrews, showing two-stages are (especially the 1st three):

• Romans 5 (as already noted in a prior comment above)
• 2 Cor 5:18-22 speaks of the two needed reconciliations (world to God, individual to God).
• 1 Tim 4:10 speaks of two levels of salvation, one that includes unbelievers (by contrast) to a lesser extent, one that especially happens for believers.
• 1 Jn 2:2 has it implied by the contrast that mentions the propitiation has application to the whole world, not just believers (who John is addressing), yet from 1 John, one is not left wondering if the benefits are equal to all, for believers are clearly more benefited (as 1 Tim 4:10 states).
• 2 Pet 2:1 states there are those who face destruction who were bought by the Lord, which implies their purchase is a stage that occurs, but one that does not yet involve salvation from ultimate destruction.

Besides the fact that all the “universally” stated passages in the New Testament begin to make better sense (in my opinion) of what is happening, that Christ is actually doing something of benefit for all sinners, for which they should be thankful for.

Thanks. I’ll read your dissertation for sure, now! I appreciate it. I really won’t have too much more to say until I read it.