Tag: Reformed

Considering the "Multiple Intentions View" of the Atonement

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

In my last post I introduced the debate on the atonement that Seth McBee is hosting over at Contend Earnestly. Seth calls himself a 6 Point Calvinist, and dubs his view the “Unlimited/Limited Atonement” position. Yet Bruce Ware also calls that same view “4 Point Calvinism”, and I read an article which claims Benjamin Warfield interacted with what we would call “4 Point Calvinism” today, when he took on “Post-Redemptionism”. To confuse matters even more, Eric Svendsen posits a similar view which he calls “4.5 Point Calvinism”. Then there is the historical variety of this position called Amyraldianism, which seems to be specifically what Warfield was opposing.

In light of the confusion of determining whether we are really discussing 4, 4.5, or 6 point Calvinism, and to simplify things somewhat, I’m going to simply go by another name Bruce Ware has for this position: “The Multiple Intentions View”.

Now if someone else can straighten me out on how the various positions listed above differ from each other, by all means make an attempt! But for now, let me update where I’m at in evaluating the “Multiple Intentions View”.

1) I recently read an excellent article by Dr Roger Nicole entitled “John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement“. Nicole explains why it is that both sides of the debate can claim Calvin for support. He makes a good case for Calvin actually supporting limited atonement, and does an excellent job tracing the history of this particular debate surrounding Calvin. Of special note was this quote from Calvin: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

So all that is to say, quoting Calvin one way or another isn’t going to really win the debate. And ultimately Scripture matters much more than the opinion of Calvin or Spurgeon or anyone else.

2) Next, I should point out a convincing exegesis of John 3:16 which does not demand a universal atonement and does not do violence to the term “world”. In this open letter to Dave Hunt, James White gives a good exegesis of the passage (scroll about half-way down and look for the heading “John 3:16”). [So far only John 3:16 has been discussed in the debate at Contend Earnestly.]

3) While I do see how this “multiple intentions view” would be easier to hold to, when it comes to explaining some seemingly universal passages, I have to wonder how different it actually is to the normal limited atonement position anyway.

a) In both systems a bona fide offer of the gospel is made. There is no necessary connection between such an offer and an actual payment/provision for sins having been made. It is enough that God knows who will respond to the offer and has secured the payment for those as part of his intent in Christ’s death.

b) And isn’t it doublespeak to talk of a propitiation and atonement for all, yet actual redemption only for the elect? What does “save the world” in John 3:17 really mean if “world” is “every person”? What kind of saving is a mere potential salvation?

c) Basically, I see no reason to have to hold to a universal atonement for sins in order to legitimately hold to a universal preaching of the gospel to all people.

4) Another problem area concerns the bearing of God’s wrath which Christ accomplished in His death. His death satisfied God’s wrath in a substitutionary way for a certain people. I don’t see how the “multiple intentions view” adequately owns up to a substitutionary idea of the atonement. Is not an intentional substitution for certain, specific people inherent in the idea of substitutionary atonement?

5) Along the lines of point 4 (which someone did email me about to caution me in this debate), I also came across an excellent excerpt from Benjamin Warfield opposing Amyraldianism. That brief post is well worth your time, in considering this debate.

6) I also found the following summary by Bruce Ware to be helpful in explaining and distinguishing the three main positions.

7) Finally I should admit there is much more that can be studied with regard to this position. David of Calvin and Calvinism has compiled tons of info and quotes from various theologians which touch on this topic. Browse his “For Whom Did Christ Die?” category for many pertinent articles. Personally, I want to review my blogging pal Bnonn’s articles on the issue as well [here, here & here]. And I think it would also be worthwhile to explore Eric Svendsen’s posts on his “4.5 Point Calvinism”.

Now if there were just more time for all this reasearch!……

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.

We Believe (#5): Man's Sin and Fall

~ fundyreformed

Part 5 in a series of Sunday posts celebrating the glorious Truth we believe as Christians. The readings are quoted from the Elder Affirmation of Faith, of my church, Bethlehem Baptist (Pastor John Piper). I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document, and every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

Man’s Sin and Fall from Fellowship with God

We believe that, although God created man morally upright, he was led astray from God’s Word and wisdom by the subtlety of Satan’s deceit, and chose to take what was forbidden, and thus declare his independence from, distrust for, and disobedience toward his all-good and gracious Creator. Thus, our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original innocence and communion with God.

We believe that, as the head of the human race, Adam’s fall became the fall of all his posterity, in such a way that corruption, guilt, death, and condemnation belong properly to every person. All persons are thus corrupt by nature, enslaved to sin, and morally unable to delight in God and overcome their own proud preference for the fleeting pleasures of self-rule.

We believe God has subjected the creation to futility, and the entire human family is made justly liable to untold miseries of sickness, decay, calamity, and loss. Thus all the adversity and suffering in the world is an echo and a witness of the exceedingly great evil of moral depravity in the heart of mankind; and every new day of life is a God-given, merciful reprieve from imminent judgment, pointing to repentance.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 5.1 – 5.3. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

Reformed Hermeneutics: Christ-centered not Naturalistic

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

My friend Nathan Pitchford was recently made a contributor to Monergism.Com‘s Reformation Theology Blog! In his first post, he dealt with an issue concerning which he has written a book (he is currently seeking to get it published). It is an issue which is very important to our understanding of Scripture–the topic of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Everyone has a hermeneutic, whether or not they can spell the word, or know what it means.

Evangelicalism today largely favors the use of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. This approach takes each word in its normal sense unless the context or grammar demands otherwise. It also takes into account the historical setting of the author, book, and audience, in making interpretative decisions.

Nathan argues that this was the approach of the Reformer’s, yet with one important extra feature. The Reformer’s interpretive approach focused on finding how every passage of Scripture centered on Jesus Christ. They viewed the Bible as a unified whole, presenting one story–God’s redemption of fallen man.

Nathan points out that the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic has been used due to the influence of the Enlightenment and subsequent liberal theology, to stress a naturalistic approach to the text. Nathan contrasts the two approaches to Scripture prominent today as follows:

“What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate ‘a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament’? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, ‘How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage,’ in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther’s grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses’ striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.”

The approach Nathan advocates, is called a “redemptive historical approach” by Reformation Theology Blog, and others. Nathan gives six reasons why an approach which “does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.” They are:

1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God’s ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.

2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).

3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul’s assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible — that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).

4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, Paul’s interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James’ citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).

5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading “on its own terms” .

6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ’s own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.

Be sure to read his entire article!