Culinary Calvinism: Considering Jay Adams’ TULIPburger

I appreciate this analysis… and I do see some problems with Adams’ TULIP burger.

A couple things, though, about this:

Does that mean that all are saved? No. Notice the distinction between “all” in Romans 5:18, and “many” in Romans 5:19. To all were brought justification of life through Christ’s death, but the result is that many will be made righteous, not all. Those that are not made righteous still had their sins paid for (just like any Israelite who had slain the lamb at Passover), but they simply have not applied the death of Christ to their own account (just like any Israelite who had not put the blood on the doorposts).

First, by the reasoning here about Rom. 5:18-19, this would mean that Adam’s sin only made “many” to be sinners rather than all. But this is not Paul’s point. In the passage he is making a point about asymmetry: the actions of one affect more than one. So his “manys” here mean simply “more than one.” (Why didn’t he say “more than one?” because he’s being concise and assuming readers have been following along with what he’s already said in Rom. 1-5).

So there’s no evidence in Rom. 5:18-19 that “all” are atoned for but only “many” made righteous.

Second, as for the idea of particular atonement (a.k.a. “limited atonement”) as a whole, there’s really alot of saying the same thing different ways in the debate… or at least implying the same thing in different ways. Any view that rejects universalism necessarily implies that Jesus only effectively atoned for those who believe. At best, His sacrifice was only potential for the rest. But for those who accept the other four points of the TULIP, there was never really any potential for those who ultimately do not believe. So why choke on the L in TULIP?

I get that there are a couple of passages that don’t fit it well, but this is true of all the other options as well. Unless we’re prepared to deny that God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), we really can’t say Jesus atoned, even potentially, for everybody.

So what about, for example, 1 John 2:2? “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world”?

Well, some kind of nonuniversalist understanding of that verse is required, in light of the abundance of NT witness elsewhere. The verse is just about equally problematic for all non-universalists. In what sense is He “propitiation” for those who do not believe?

Doesn’t the interpretation any non-universalist, non-particular-atonement position gives to this verse ultimately work just as well for a non-universalist, particular atonement position?

Romans 5:18 follows the same pattern. In light of the many passages that make eternal life, etc., contingent on personal faith, the “gift” there cannot be coming to “all” in the fullest sense of “coming” and “all.” A non-universalist interpretation is required by the context of Scripture as a whole (or even just by Paul as a whole). And the non-univ. views of the passage are also pretty amenable to the particular atonement position.

Maybe I’m remembering wrong, but I can’t recall any non-universalist view of 1 John 2:2 or Rom. 5:18 that doesn’t ultimately serve just as well in the defense of particular atonement. The debate between particular non-universalists and non-particular non-universalists comes down to what sort of language we want to use to basically say the same thing: that only those who believe are actually atoned for in the fullest sense (that is, in any sense that matters much in eternity)—that only those who believe can claim that Jesus died for them in the fullest sense (again, in any sense that matters much in eternity).

“The key theological argument used to support limited atonement is the Double Payment argument, which says justice does not allow the same sin to be punished twice. This argument faces several problems:
* it is not found in Scripture
* it confuses a commercial debt and penal satisfaction for sin
* the elect are still under the wrath of God until they believe (Ephesians 2:3)
* it negates the principle of grace in the application of the atonement (nobody is owed the application).”

-David L. Allen, SWBTS

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/11/limited-or-universal-atonem…

David R. Brumbelow

To die for those who would reject him would be unnecessary.

This statement assumes that the only purpose for His death was to accomplish salvation. However, His death demonstrated also His worthiness to receive glory (Rev 5:12), it served as an opportunity for Him to be submissive to the Father, and ultimately receive glory (Php 2:5-9). While His death was necessary for more than just the salvation of those who would receive it, whether necessary or necessary is not the issue. Whether or not Jesus died for all is. John explains that Jesus is the propitiation (satisfaction, hilasmos) for the sins not only of “us,” but also of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2).

I appreciated this section by Dr. Cone.

I think that we usually misunderstand the concept of ‘getting glory’ as being inexorably tied to salvation. That’s not correct, because God clearly uses the obstinacy and hardness of people’s hearts, especially in the rejection of a salvific offer, as an opportunity to demonstrate His wrath against sin - which still glorifies Him and His righteousness and justice. See Exodus 14:4,17 and John 12:21-28. God also receives glory for His perfect and righteous judgment of sin as well in Rev. 18.

Agree about His glory being served both in those He saves and those He does not.

My initial comment was pretty long so it might help to repeat the central question: Is there any non-universalist interpretation of 1 John 2:2 or Rom. 5:18 that doesn’t work just as well as a defense of particular atonement?

As for the “double payment” argument, I don’t doubt that some defenders of particular atonement have relied heavily on that argument, but I don’t really see why it’s especially important. I mean, I believe non-double-payment is an unavoidable inference from the whole idea of substitution (etc.), but I don’t think particular atonement needs that argument.

To me, it’s evident from the timelessness of God’s relationship to His creation (Rom. 8:29ff, for example, as well as the “chose us in him before the foundation of the world” and similar passages… “from eternity to eternity I am God,” if I’m remembering the wording correctly) that “until” and “before” and “after” and so forth are expressions with limited (no pun intended) relevance to the whole question.

There is also no question at all that God owes salvation to everyone He has promised it to. He obligates himself. And so He does indeed owe it to those who believe… but I’m not sure how that specific point argues one way or the other though.

Let me just say, if I haven’t already, that I respect the best of both sides on these questions. Wherever believers are striving to take a position that properly conforms to all that is revealed, and not being lazy in that effort, I’m encouraged and blessed to see that.

I have just finished studying Galatians 1, and verse 15, states “But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me,”. Everywhere I look, it continues to drive home that Scripture is soaked with God choosing us, and nothing about us choosing God. I am compelled to lean toward TULIP. It had nothing to do with a “double payment” argument. It has to do with the insight we glean from what Christ reveals to us in the process, whether it is something like the priestly prayer, or Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. The entire construct of Scripture for me is all about God choosing and God limiting. Besides General Grace and General Revelation, I struggle to find anywhere else it is not about choosing and limiting. When Christ said, “It is finished”, it truly was. It accomplished something, not just create a “possibility for all”. The cross is central and it accomplished it’s task 100% completely at that moment. I struggle to say that it covered the sins of the world, when I know It did not cover the sins of Judas.

“Are there souls in hell for whom Christ died?”

Is there a simple (and I stress SIMPLE) answer that doesn’t raise more questions?

Personally I’m thankful for a seminary professor who told me to quit asking pastors and reading books the question and spend my summer studying Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians in a Bible with no footnotes or commentary. It worked.

Yes. I agree with that prescription!

Some of you know that my view of universal atonement is a bit distinct, so let me answer some of the points from my perspective, as I have some agreement and some disagreement with both Dr. Adams and Dr. Cone, as well as some of the posts here. My view came about, as all the major views would contend they do, from studying Scripture, but doing so with the mindset that something must be getting missed by both sides, since I believed there are some major flaws in each side of the fence’s arguments (and hence, I could not whole-heartedly jump on board with either position).

Let me give my view as an answer to Ron Bean’s challenge:

“Are there souls in hell for whom Christ died?” Is there a simple (and I stress SIMPLE) answer that doesn’t raise more questions?

Of course, “simple” is relative, but my answer to Ron’s core question is this:

Yes, souls are in hell (hades) for whom Christ died (2 Pet 2:1-2, 12, 17), but because of His penal substitutionary death for all the unjust (Mt 20:28 [Mk 10:45]; 1 Tim 2:6; 1 Pet 3:18), propitiating not only for believers, but for the whole world’s sins (1 Jn 2:2) and reconciling that world to God by not imputing their sins to them (2 Cor 5:19), they all will be resurrected (Jn 5:29, Acts 24:15; 1 Cor 15:22) out of the penalty of the first death that was imposed on them for sin (Gen 2:17, Rom 5:12-14, 6:23), because the substitutionary payment now serves “to all men unto justification of life” (Rom 5:18); and so the good news to be preached to all people (Lk 2:10-11; Mk 16:15) when presenting the gospel to unbelievers is that through Christ’s death for each person’s sins and His resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-4), He truly becomes the “Savior of all men” (1 Tim 4:10 [a] ), just as God desires (1 Tim 2:4), from that original penalty of death, for he will abolish that death by the resurrection (1 Cor 15:54-57; 2 Tim 1:10; Heb 2:14).

But He also serves as a Savior “especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10 [b] ). Especially how? Because resurrection is only one aspect needed to save a person. Resurrection is the universal salvific act done by God based on Christ’s atonement, necessary to save any sinner (thus, any person), but also the specific consummation of the redemptive act that is the fulfillment point of adoption for believers (Rom 8:23); without payment of the penalty and thus without resurrection, not even believers could be saved from the first death that God had decreed for our faith would be in vain (1 Cor 15:14-19). Resurrection saves from the first death. But not only believers are given that saving grace of resurrection, all people are.

The question then is whether, in that new life granted by the resurrected state, will a person remain eternally in it, growing in relation to God and Jesus (John 17:3) or face the second death at his or her resurrection (Rev 20:5-6)? What, double jeopardy?! Well, yes and no; I’ll let you decide, but I say “not really.” Though the fact that there are two deaths does show a scripturally based double payment potential related to sin, I believe the payments are for two distinctly different aspects of sin. The first death is the penal result of sin, the penalty due for disobedience, paid for and fixed by Christ’s obedience and death. The second death comes through a judgment of a person’s character, nature, and status in the sight of God; it is a relational judgment upon mankind’s nature.

Believers are deemed righteous, not because of works (Rom 4:2; Titus 3:5), but because their “faith is accounted for righteousness” (Rom 4:5-6, 4:23-25). They only have believed in, or “received the reconciliation” (Rom 5:10) that God made for the world and that preachers are to proclaim (2 Cor 5:19), calling on unbelievers to receive it (2 Cor 5:20), so that one might have righteousness (2 Cor 5:21). And so believers are granted not only “the grace of God” (Rom 5:15 [b] ) that brought the resurrection for “all men” through the “justification of life” (Rom 5:18 [b] ), but from faith they also partake in “the free gift … the gift by the grace” (Rom 5:15 [a] , [c] ), which is “justification” (Rom 5:16), “the gift of righteousness” (Rom 5:17), which comes not to “all,” but to “many” (believers) who are made so (Rom 5:19). Believers only are cleansed from their sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; 1 Jn 1:7; Heb 9:14; Rev 1:5), through regeneration (Titus 3:5), and not just released from the penalty of it by resurrection.

But those who have chosen to stand in their own works (Rom 4:4), remaining unclean in their sins (Jn 1:24), God judges their worthiness by their own works (Rev 20:12-13) against the design He originally intended for mankind, to be in His likeness (Gen 1:26), which would include reflecting His perfect holiness and righteousness (1 Pet 1:16). Unbelievers’ works fall short of His glory (Rom 3:23) and appear as filthy rags to Him (Isa 64:6). The person who stands upon his or her own works for judgment of their ‘righteous’ nature fails and experiences the second death, the lake of fire (Rev 20:14; 21:8), because they were not accounted equal to God’s righteousness. Yet because they have an immortal, resurrected body (due to their salvation from the first death), they are not consumed by the fire, but burn eternally as their own sacrifice to God in this place of fire (ghenna; Mt 25:41; Mk 9:43-48; 2 Thes 1:8; Rev 14:10-11).

So the resurrection, in my opinion, is given far too little thought and credit about its relation to atonement by both sides of the debate. Both the universal provisionalist and the non-universal particularist often forget that resurrection is an actual (not just something potential), salvific act (not just some general act) that relates to the penalty for sin, death, and that resurrection is something God will do for all people.

Whether one chooses to hold to unconditional election or conditional election, that is irrelevant to the extent of the atonement in its universal saving aspect of providing for the resurrection. Election deals with faith’s relationship to the greater, “especially” saved aspect of the believers salvation that requires the receiving of regeneration, cleansing, and righteousness. Faith may be viewed as granted by God (unconditional election) or as a human response to God (conditional election), but in either case, faith has no relationship to freedom from the first, physical death. Believers and unbelievers alike are shown grace by God to be raised from the penalty of death. That is the good news of the gospel to all; one’s faith in God’s work through Christ for that then determines one’s fate with respect to the second death, or in the case of believers, the continuation of eternal life such that they will “never die” (Jn 11:26).

“Are there souls in hell for whom Christ died?”

Yes.

Jesus died for all, tasted death for every man, is the Savior of the world, died for the ungodly. Therefore, any in Hell today had Salvation purchased for them.

Jesus died for false prophets in Hell:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. -2 Peter 2:1

Jesus died for all. Salvation is honestly offered to all. Those who reject His salvation, go to Hell.

David R. Brumbelow

Did Jesus die for all potentially or effectively? Does “for” mean “on behalf of all” or “for the benefit of all”?

Does “all” mean everyone without exception, or all kinds of people without distinction? (Such as all kinds of people, Gentiles as well as Jews.)

One needs do answer these questions, and thereby define precisely what one means before postulating an answer to the question,​”Did Jesus die for all”?

Berkhof redirected the question to intent, in an effort to get to the point. He asked whether Christ died with the deliberate intent to save all, or save some. That, I believe, is the right way to frame the question and begin moving forward. Intent matters. If you frame it that way, the question can seem very simple.

But, could Christ’s atoning work have a deliberate intention and purpose for unbelievers? Many Reformed folks would answer “No.” I’m not so sure. John 15:22ff has always been very determinative for me.

I need to read Scott’s dissertation. I haven’t done it yet. In a recent “three views” book, edited by (I believe ) Naselli and Snoeberger, I completely agreed with Hammett’s multiple-intention view of the atonement. I’d already reached that decision before I read the book, but it confirmed my own position. There’s always more to learn, of course, but that’s where I’m at now.

Intent is indeed the heart of the question. So now we need to ask, does the word “for” mean “for the saving benefit of” or can it include other benefits that apply to the non-elect? I would argue the latter. The death of Christ is for “all without exception” in some sense, but for “all without distinction” as to saving purpose.

[Aaron Blumer]

At any rate, it looks to me like this view only moves the particular/comprehensive atonement question back a step rather than solving it. That is, in this view, it looks to me like we still have the problem of in what sense Christ’s death atoned or didn’t atone—(in reference to eternal judgment)—for those who never believe, and whether the ultimate state of both the unbelieving and the believing was planned by God in advance.

Did not God plan for, “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”? If the maker prepares the end state of the vessel that he created before, was it not planned by God in advance. Some vessels he prepares for mercy and some for destruction. Even though Esau had done nothing good or bad, as he was not even born yet, God hated him.

In “Divine Intention and Cosmic Implications,” I spend pages 56-72 of my dissertation discussing the role of intent in the discussion on the extent of atonement, and how the improper focus on intent has been part of the issue with moving the discussion forward. To summarize, the main issue is that particularists point to the ultimate salvific intent (i.e. God only intends to save a subset of people) as sort of a pat “answer” to the extent question. Yet all but a staunch universalist (i.e. ALL people are ultimately saved) agree on that ultimate intention. God does not ultimately intended to save the unbeliever. A non-particularist acknowledges God only plans to (eternally) save believers, even if He may desire or have provided for the salvation of everyone.

Instead, the discussion needs to focus not on the ultimate intended goal, but the nature of the process God chose to use to bring about that goal. Atonement is a step in the process, it is not the sum total of the process. I prefer Wayne Grudem’s statement of the question of extent (though there are some other issues also):

Did he pay for the sins of the entire human race or only for the sins of those who he knew would ultimately be saved? (Systematic Theology, 594)

That frames the extent question on the process/nature of the payment (the atoning act) and does not automatically exclude “the entire human race” (any non-particularist view) from the discussion with a wrong focus on only those who would “ultimately be saved.”

Before answering Aaron’s questions to me, let me make a couple of comments to some related comments of his. Then I’ll directly answer the questions. First, he stated:

I’m pretty sure those who hold to a “yes” answer to this question [Souls in Hell for whom Christ died?] would admit to needing to qualify it. That is, they would not say Christ’s death was applied to/accepted by/effective for those in Hell. This means “for” (in the phrase “for whom Christ died” has a technical meaning for them.

My answer above did qualify it, but notice that my answer did advocate two fo the three points, “Christ’s death was applied to/accepted by/effective for those in Hell.” It pays for their resurrection. Regarding the term “for,” if “in the place of” (i.e. penal subsitution) is considered a “technical meaning,” then yes, I have a technical meaning (but I think every view, even of particularists, have a “technical meaning” if that is the case).

Then regarding my own view, Aaron commented:

There are probably good reasons why this view isn’t widely represented in the historical theology.

I actually cover that in my dissertation. There are historical evidences as far back as some of the Church Fathers (Athanasius of Alexandria being a chief one) who tie Christ’s atonement to the resurrection of all people. And then, modern provisionalists will sometimes note that as an effect, but then they are making the illogical step of not admitting that there was something actual, effectual, and salvific to that (so not merely provisional). Additionally, I also note that the focus on intent distracted from the real discussion of extent, as summarized above, but that has been a big factor in misdirecting the discussion at least since Theodore Beza’s “Table of Predestination”—Briefe Declaration of the Chief Poyntes of Christian Religion set forth in a Table (published 1575). At least the more recent multi-intentioned views have begun to challenge any singular or ultimate intent ideas regarding atonement.

Now to answer the questions:

1. “Is there any biblical evidence that unbelievers would not have been resurrected apart from the death and resurrection of Christ?” The biblical evidence follows two lines. First is a logical/philosophical point that interrelates various points from Scripture. Succinctly, if death was God’s penalty for sin, how can He remain righteous by freeing people from that penalty by the resurrection? Once God had decided to put someone to death (i.e. enact the penalty), they should remain dead forever. To moved from the state of life to a state of death was the penalty. Second is the exegetical points, for various scriptures I note above in my first comment above (and my dissertation) show the relationship of Christ’s necessary death to defeat death, and to be able to bring about the resurrection.
2. “What would [you] say is the purpose of providing all of humanity with a release from the ‘first death’ via resurrection, only to condemn most of them in the ‘second death’ later?” Various purposes. First, the corporate need in order to save particular individuals. All people die due to Adam’s sin, it is a corporate issue with mankind. For Christ to save believers (the ultimate purpose), He had to resurrect them from death, but to do that, He had to pay the penalty of death (this corporate issue), but to do that, He had to take on the human nature (a corporate connection to the race of Adam), and by taking on the human nature, He became the last Adam (1 Cor 15:45), the effect of which corporately is that His death pays for the resurrection of any human person (1 Cor 15:22). So the corporate work of atonement so that anyone could be raised from the dead was for the ultimate purpose of being able to save any believer. Abraham was considered righteous in his time by faith, but he died, so to save him, God needed to have cause to resurrect him from the penalty of sin. Second, the corporate expression of God’s grace. God actually does something toward the salvation of all people, just as He promised. He made the provision (Gen 3:15). This is the good news to all people; the resurrected Christ has defeated death. The fact upon which they should trust God (i.e. have faith) that He will give His promise of eternal life to those who believe. Third, it places final judgment on the individual’s, not corporate humanity’s, nature. Because the atonement paying for the resurrection was corporate, unbelievers were going to be raised as well (Jn 5:29, Acts 24:15). But God’s ultimate intent is not to keep unbelievers in a state of eternal life, so the second death handles that. Because humanity was designed to be like God, God judges unbelievers against that standard on what they wanted to be judged on, their own ‘good’ works. It is an evaluation against the infinite positive righteousness they should have manifested, but of course, they fail, and God’s wrath for their not being what He designed them to be is manifest. Believers never face this judgment, because once faith comes, they are already accounted as having God’s righteousness.
3. “You seem to say that everybody is basically saved until they decided not to be. Do I have that wrong?” Partially wrong. I am saying that everybody will be saved from the penalty of sin, the first death. What happens as they face God, who saved them from that, after that fact of their resurrection is determined on their having a proper relationship to Him (however one may conceive of that relationship coming about via faith, election, etc.). All people are saved from death (the “lesser” or corporate salvation), only believers are saved from God’s wrath (the “greater” or individual salvation), for “we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10).

So then Aaron’s final comment about my view I beg to differ with:

At any rate, it looks to me like this view only moves the particular/comprehensive atonement question back a step rather than solving it. That is, in this view, it looks to me like we still have the problem of in what sense Christ’s death atoned or didn’t atone—(in reference to eternal judgment)—for those who never believe, and whether the ultimate state of both the unbelieving and the believing was planned by God in advance.

What my view does is answer “in what sense Christ’s death atoned or didn’t atone—(in reference to eternal judgment)—for those who never believe,” the answer being that Christ’s death freed them from an eternal state in the first death. And yes, it is true that “the ultimate state of both the unbelieving and the believing was planned by God in advance,” but that does not address the question of the extent of the atonement, but rather the ultimate intent. The process God used to get to that ultimate intent goes through the universal atoning work to handle the corporate issues and thereby pay for the resurrection.