Tag: Calvinism

Clarifying Calvinism

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

5pointPhil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs fame), just finished a superb series of posts entitled Clarifying Calvinism. The series is posted over at Grace To You’s blogizine Pulpit Magazine.

He starts out by exhorting younger, web-savvy Calvinists to get their theology from books not blogs (a wise piece of advice, I’d admit). Then he discusses hyper-Calvinism and gives a balanced treatment of Arminianism.

The best part of the series are his last three or four posts which center on one little verse which encapsulates Calvinism’s doctrines: 1 John 4:19 “We love him, because he first loved us.” If you have some time, I’d encourage you to give the series a quick read.

Why "Limited Atonement" (part 2)

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

I apologize for not picking up my limited atonement series sooner. The holidays plus a couple bouts of illness intervened.

I’m not optimistic enough to think in the next few posts I’ll answer all of everyone’s questions on this topic. I’ll still have more research to do and questions of my own, I’m sure. What I hope to do, however, is to explain where Calvinists are coming from in this whole matter of “Limited Atonement”, and I hope to show that even if you disagree with our conclusions, there are strong Biblical arguments for our position.

Points of Agreement

In this debate, its important to remember where we are on the same page. Most non-Calvinists agree with the 5 point Calvinists in many respects regarding the atonement.

1) We agree that Christ died to secure salvation for all who would believe in Him.

2) We agree that not all people will believe in Jesus; therefore, many will sadly perish ultimately in Hell.

3) We agree that Christ’s death provides the basis for the global mission of preaching the gospel to all. Everyone has a bonafide offer of salvation in the gospel, because of Christ’s death.

4) We also agree that because of Christ’s death, mercy (common grace) is given to all men such that God does not consume those who sin instantly. Rather, he gives them innumerable good things to enjoy in this life. God is freed up to do this because Jesus’ death proves that God is just.

Here we see a great degree of agreement. Without actually saying Christ died for all, Calvinists nevertheless believe all benefit from His death. Setting aside that semantic quibble, Calvinists basically affirm all the main things non-Calvinists affirm about the atonement. (We’ll deal with the non-Calvnist reasons for insisting on death for all, and their logical objections to the Calvinist view in future posts.)

Calvinist’s add one additional point

Calvinists go further, however, and affirm the following.

5) Christ’s death not only makes salvation possible for all who would believe, it actually purchases the very faith by which the elect believe. It does so because by his death, Jesus actually propititated God’s wrath for the elect and suffered in their place.

In short, we believe that the elect were in God’s mind all along with his designs for the atonement. He had called them from the beginning of the world, and it is consistent with Scripture and reason that he would see his death as effecting their salvation particularly. We all believe in a substitutionary atonement, in this view, however, Christ actually substituted for specific people, the elect.

In the next post I hope to provide the Biblical support that Calvinists have for this claim. Then I’ll try to interact with objections to that view and the support for the typical non-Calvinist evangelical position.

God Working in Us: Philippians 2:13 And the Will

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

I’m getting ready to start up my series on the Calvinist view of the atonement soon. One of the objections which has already arisen in the comments on part 1, is the idea that Calvinists believe God somehow forces unbelievers to believe the Gospel. Faith is not a gift from God, it is claimed, but rather something the lost must do. They are offered life upon the condition of faith, and while God may help them believe, He will not “force” them.

What I find amusing in this objection is how the same people who hold that view find no problems with the following verse.

Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

This verse teaches clearly that in the lives of believers, God works in them both providing the will and doing the works in and through them. This is why Paul says:

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Cor. 15:10)

Christians have no problem affirming that God works in the very hearts and minds of believers. God empowers them for every good work (1 Cor. 12:6, 1 Pet. 4:11). He equips us with everything we need to do what is right. But He does more than that, He works in us the very things that please Him:

Heb 13:20-21 Now may the God of peace… equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

In doing all of this, is God forcing believers to please Him? Doesn’t God’s work negate the goodness of the works we believers produce? On the one hand, the good works of believers testify to them and others that we are truly justified and actually regenerate. They provide assurance that we are God’s children. But God is the one producing these works. God requires this of us, but then He works in us to do what He requires.

I think most of us agree with this and find no problems. What is the difference then when it comes to unbelievers? Do they have to give God the key to their hearts before He’ll work in them to believe? Is God’s work in believers okay because we sanctioned it, but not okay in unbelievers because they haven’t? If God works in unbelievers to will to receive Christ as Lord, is this forcing them to do something against their will?

For my part, I don’t see how we can draw a line between believers and unbelievers which limits God’s ability or right to work in hearts. I see the teaching of Scripture that God works in us to will as fitting nicely with the passages which teach that faith and repentance are gifts (see Acts 11:18, 15:9, 18:27; Rom. 12:3; Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:14; Acts 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:21).

I have further support in this idea of there being no hard and fast line which limits God from working in unbelievers like He does in believers. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul starts out by thanking God for the believers growing faith. He doesn’t point to the believers as the source of the growth in faith, but thanks God (1:3). Then later in the epistle, Paul goes on in the same vein:

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:13)

Paul thanks God for choosing them to be saved. God accomplished that through His Spirit’s work, and by providing belief in them.

So I conlude we should praise God for working in us to trust Him, and to grow in His grace to the degree that we have. Praise God for mercifully energizing my heart and giving me a desire to live for Him!

Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

Recently, a dear brother in Christ posted a lengthy rebuke of limited atonement as a comment on my blog. I promised him a response and thought I’d share the exchange here for the benefit of my readers. Feel free to read his original comment. This is the first part of my response to his concerns.

A Widespread Concern

Many Christians are very concerned over the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. To them, the very words “limited atonement” imply something totally foreign to Scripture — that Christ’s atonement is limited. Christ’s power isn’t, neither is His love. Worse yet, there are many verses which seem to teach that God loves all and wants all to be saved, and that Jesus suffered and died for all. So Calvinism then, is unscriptural and dangerous in that it teaches Christ’s power is limited.

The motivation behind the above conclusion is commendable. Scripture is more important than any system of belief and Christ’s power is not limited. Such points are important to defend. The problem comes from the basis of the above conclusion. Most Christians who object to Calvinism on this point do not understand what it is that Calvinism is actually teaching by means of the words “limited atonement”.

The Cavlinist Concern

Before I explain what Calvinists affirm by this doctrine, I want to point out something very pertinent to this debate. The very Christians who claim Calvinism limits the atonement, limit the atonement themselves. They admit that not all are saved finally. This admission teaches that the atonement Christ performed did not have complete saving results for all people. And since it was done for all people alike, then it is incomplete in the sense that people must respond and believe to finish the work of the atonement. So, in effect, Christ really didn’t save anyone in particular. He merely made salvation possible for everyone.

The Calvinist View of The Atonement

This is where Calvinists part ways with the idea of unlimited atonement. When we think about atonement, we see men as dead sinners totally in need of a Savior. Every thought of our hearts are vile and we do not even have the ability to please God in any way. Yet God in his mercy chose a people for his sake to glorify his name. He is cleansing and purifying that people and he has given them as a bride to his Son. His Son keeps them and will not lose any the Father has given him. It is for these and these alone that Jesus in his High Priestly role prays (John 17:9, 12). It is this flock that he keeps and guides. And if one is not part of the flock they will not believe (John 10:26). It is for these– his people, the many– that Christ lays down his life (John 10:11; Matt. 1:21; 26:28). He purchased his church with his blood (Acts 20:28), and he died for the purification of his bride (Eph. 5:25-26). He didn’t also purchase the non-church and die to purify the non-bride.

For salvation to occur, sins need to be paid for and the penalty used up. God’s wrath needs to be spent on a substitute, that it might be propitiated. The condemned need someone to die in their place, instead of them. Once such a substitutionary death takes place, there remains no more penalty for sins. Such a sacrifice purchases the sinner and buys him back from death’s domain. That blessed man has been saved.

Faith is still necessary, but such faith is a gift of God. The sinner is an enemy of God and hostile to God. He wants no part of God. What makes his anger towards God cease? How can his dead heart start living by faith? How can his unborn existence become born into new life? The Spirit graciously applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrificial work in the hearts of the elect causing them to awake and instantaneously believe in Christ. To be alive is to have been born, and to be spiritually alive is to have been regenerated. Spiritual life is not possible without faith. And faith is not possible for the non-elect. When the Gospel is preached, the elect ones respond in belief by the working of the Spirit. And the miracle of salvation is seen by all.

Are we co-operators with God in our salvation? He dies for us and just stands at our heart’s door meekly knocking hoping we’ll believe? Or is he the one who comes to the tomb or our hearts shouting “Lazarus come forth!”

The Real Question

So at the end of the day, both groups limit the atonement in some sense. The question in my mind should center on what we mean by “atonement”. After the break here, I’ll provide an excerpt from an earlier post I did on this topic, and offer some other links to help people understand just how Calvinism impacts evangelism, and why I see strong scriptural warrant for the postions of Calvinism.

The following quote is from my post: “Who’s Limiting the Atonement?”

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference””Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

Additional Resources

Calvinism: A Man-Made Philosophy??

~ fundyreformed ~ 36 Comments

Recently in the comments of an earlier post of mine “Regeneration, Reception, and Faith“, the charge has again been made that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy.

Many of the Calvinist faithful are rolling their eyes and muttering “not again!” Yes, again.

I’m sure we’ll continue to hear this charge, and so I think it is worth addressing in a post. Hence I’m breaking my blog-silence and giving you a substantive post for a change!

Before I begin, let me say I have nothing against C. Hartline. She levied the charge (you can see the relevant exchange by clicking here and scrolling all the way down until you see comments from October 2007–about the last 4 or 5 comments) and I do plan on addressing many of her specific comments. But I will keep that in the comments of the post in question.

Here I hope to address the larger issue: the common claim that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy. So let’s begin.

The Anatomy of the Charge

Now I will attempt to be fair to the non-Calvinist side in this post. But it should be obvious that saying Calvinism is a “man-made philosophy” is designed to be a pretty strong blow to our side. The charge insinuates that we don’t follow the Bible, but man. And to be frank, the charge is often hollow: there is little or no proof. It’s just thrown out there as fact, and it is designed to predispose people to not trust Calvinism. That is called “poisoning the well”.

When a proof is given for this assertion, often it is given “pit bull style“. I’m referring to “verse pitting“. I suppose a whole post could be devoted to this one thought, but let me try to explain. “Verse pitting” involves throwing proof texts at someone in a debate. I’m not saying whether context is considered or not, quantity is the issue. Rather than dealing with each text brought up for either side, one side just dodges the bullets and keeps firing yet another proof text. If one text gets explained away, fine, they reach for another. And they feel no compulsion to deal with texts which might contradict their side, because after all their verses need answering too. Jehovah’s Witnesses are master of this technique, by the way.

What’s wrong with this approach is that Scripture is belittled. Based on Scripture’s testimony to itself, we would expect all of Scripture to harmonize and agree. Rather than compiling a list of texts that prove our side and contradict the opposing side’s texts, we should seek to harmonize all the texts and really do honest exegesis.

The Myth of Neutrality

Moving beyond the logic of the charge itself, we must consider the claim to neutrality. Non-Calvinists who levy this charge turn around and set up their own man-made philosophy in the place of Calvinism. You can say “it’s just plain Bible” until you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make your interpretation obviously neutral. All of us are men, and all of us are trying to fit together verses and passages from all over the Bible into an intelligent system of thought.

We all are trying to follow what the Bible says. Just because you think you are right and I’m not, doesn’t let you impugn motives on me, or assume that I am just resisting the plain teaching of the Bible. We all come to the Bible with different assumptions and with holes in our thinking. I know what I’m saying here won’t really make sense until I move on to the next point. So let’s do that.

The Evidence to Explore

It’s time to back up what I’m saying with some evidence. Let me do it this way. Non-Calvinists will unfurl their list of proof texts that they claim Calvinists “explain away” in favor of their man-made philosophy/system. Then they point to the Calvinists’ explanation of these texts as proof that Calvinists really are all about “logic”, “intellect”, or whatever. And they very neatly conclude that Calvinism is just a man-made philosophy that doesn’t come from Scripture.

With this background, let me marshal some of the non-Calvinist texts for you. Then I’ll show what Calvinists do in explaining them that seems so “man-made” to the other side. Next I’ll turn around and marshal some Calvinist texts for you, and show that non-Calvinists do a similar job of explaining away texts in a “man-made” fashion. Finally, I will list some texts that both sides of this debate “philosophize” together on. You be the judge!

Calvinist “Philosophizing”

John 3:16 — Calvinists explain away “whosoever will”, claiming only the elect can believe and be saved. In this verse, and others, Calvinists redefine “whosoever” to mean “the elect”.

2 Pet 3:9 & 1 Tim 2:4 — Calvinists explain away “[God is] not willing/wishing that any should perish” and “[God] desires all (people) to be saved”, claiming that God only wants the elect to be saved. In these verses Calvinists either redefine “all” or “wish/desire”.

1 Jn 2:2 — Calvinists explain away the truth that Christ is a propitiation for “the sins of the whole world”, claiming that Christ died only for the elect. Here Calvinists twist “whole world” into “world of the elect”.

1 Pet 1:1-2 — Calvinists explain away the qualification that people are elected “according to the foreknowledge of God”, claiming people are elected apart from God’s knowing beforehand that they will choose to believe. Here Calvinists ignore the above phrase altogether.

Heb. 2:9 — Calvinist’s explain away the assertion that Jesus died to “taste death for everyone”, claiming instead that Jesus only tasted death for the elect. In this verse Calvinists redefine “every”.

Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Acts 13:48 — Non-Calvinists explain away “as many as were appointed/ordained to eternal life believed”, claiming instead that because people believe they are elected/ordained. In this verse they redefine “appointed/ordained” to mean “predisposed to”.

Jn1:13 & 1 Jn 5:1 — Non-Calvinists explain away both that the new birth is “not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God” and that belief in Jesus indicates one “has been born of God” (rather than resulting in a subsequent new birth), claiming that the new birth results from human-originated faith. In these verses, non-Calvinists seem to ignore the above phrases altogether.

Jn 10:26 — Non-Calvinists explain away Jesus statement that people “do not believe because [they] are not part of [Jesus’] flock”, claiming instead that it is belief which makes people members of his flock. Here, non-Calvinists ignore the cause relationship between being of Jesus’ flock (which comes first) and believing. [Cf. Jn. 8:47]
2 Pet 2:8b — Non-Calvinists explain away the statement “they disobey the word, as they were destined to do”, claiming rejection of the Gospel and disobedience in general does not result from any choice on God’s part or any outside force at all. In this verse, non-Calvinists either redefine “destined (or appointed)” or explain this as referring only to national Israel.

Rom. 9:11,15-16, 22-23 — Non-Calvinists explain away such clear statements as “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy….So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”, and “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction…vessels of mercy, which [God] has prepared beforehand to glory”, claiming instead that the passage does not touch on individual election or salvation at all. For these verses non-Calvinists claim that only national Israel and national election is in view, not individual salvation.

Calvinist & Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Rom. 5:18 — Both groups explain away the statement “one act of justification leads to justification and life for all men”, claiming instead that only some men receive justification and new life. In this verse, both groups redefine “all” to be referring to a specific segment of humanity: “the saved/elect”.

1 Cor. 15:22 — Both groups explain away the truth that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”, claiming that only some men will be made alive in Christ. Here both groups claim the first “all” refers to all people and the second “all” only refers to “the saved/elect”.

Jn. 14:28b — Both groups explain away Jesus’ statement that His “Father is greater than [He]”, claiming instead that Jesus is co-equal in essence with God the Father in the Trinity. In this verse, both groups look at the larger context of the phrase and define it in light of Jesus’ subjecting Himself as a man under the authority of God the Father.

Rom. 2:7 — Both groups explain away the assertion that those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, [God] will give eternal life”, claiming rather that eternal life is given on the basis of faith alone not as a reward for “well-doing”. Both groups interpret the verse in light of the whole teaching of Romans and harmonize it with other clear verses which say salvation is given on the basis of faith in Christ alone.

A Final Appeal to Non-Calvinists

Now we come to the conclusion. From the above list of texts let us make a couple points. First notice that both sides do some “philosophizing”. We cannot escape the need to fit the various texts into our heads and try to harmonize them. So no side can truly claim neutrality. There isn’t just a completely simple “Biblical” interpretation that can be taken for granted.

Secondly, I hope you would agree that we can’t just “keep score”. We don’t give the prize to the group with the longest list. Each and every text on both lists must be brought into harmony with one another. We can’t ignore Acts 13:48 if we don’t have an answer for it, simply because we can find 20 verses that have “whosoever will” in them.

Finally, let me encourage any non-Calvinists to do some homework. Don’t lash out against the imagined evils of Calvinism. Seek to truly understand our position. Many of us, myself included, used to dwell in your ranks. It was Scripture which caused us to change our thinking in this area. It is so easy to just attack the opposite position and claim they’re just plain wrong, and go on to imply they’re unBiblical. I have to guard against the temptation to be lazy in my debating myself, as well.

If you really want to understand Calvinism, please do yourself a favor and read one or two articles written by Calvinists. Get the scoop from the horse’s mouth himself! I recommend this short booklet written by my pastor John Piper. In the comment thread linked to at the top of this post, there is evidence of a non-Calvinist reading that booklet and coming to understand he was much closer to being a Calvinist than he thought. At the least he gained an appreciation for Calvinism and understood us better.

So please, before you claim we’re just a man-made philosophy, check out the evidence for yourself. Try to understand how we arrive at our conclusions. If you stop and listen, at the least you will have to see we are moved by many many texts to come to the conclusions we arrive at.