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.
I would point out that the term “Limited Atonement” was assigned to our belief system by Arminius. It carries some baggage, and really should not be used by Calvinists. The term I prefer is “definite atonement.” The word “limited” seems to imply limits on the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, when actually, that’s not what we mean at all. If not for the TULIP acronym, I think this term would not be used.
Jason,
I prefer Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption too. We all in one sense or another limit the atonement, unless we are universalists. I’m using the term because it’s more widely used and known.
Blessings,
Bob Hayton
I am becoming convinced of the Particular Redemption by what I see and hear all around me. Why is it that some people come to church and hear, but never become anything else? Why do some people go through terrible experiences only to come to faith as a result and those who have blessings and safety often become ungrateful agnostics? Why do some people just never, ever learn?
My biggest problem with the Calvinist view is:
1. Why would God create sentient beings only to destroy them?
2. What is the point of deceiving people who are not the Elect?
Great discussion Bob!
“… What is the point of deceiving people who are not the Elect?”
It’s not so much deceiving them as leaving them to their own devices as mentioned in the first chapter of Romans.
Prodigal,
The questions you raise are common questions from those who misunderstand the Calvinist view. God absolutely does not deceive anyone. As Paul points out in the first three chapters of Romans, the truth of God is written all around us. Those who face God’s judgment apart from Christ will absolutely not have God to blame, because they chose to live eternity apart from God, of their own free will.
Jason and Nancy,
I apologize for not being clear. I meant “Why does Satan bother deceiving people who are not the Elect? They are already his.”
Prodigal,
Sorry for not responding over here sooner. On this point that you clarify further, the answer is easy. He doesn’t know who the elect are. Satan’s not omniscient. But the elect are encouraged by God’s promise, “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). God knows, but Satan doesn’t. So he accuses, he tempts and he deceives.
Your first question is a little harder. We have to be careful of a couple things when considering it. 1) we can’t speak more directly about the matter than God reveals in His Word. God doesn’t share everything to us, some things are indeed mysterious to us His creatures. 2) we can’t judge God based on our own ideas of what we think fairness is and what we think God should have done. God is the one making the rules.
Now, in God’s word, we see that everyone is without excuse for their sin. But we don’t see that everyone has equal opportunity or chance to get saved. This is very apparent from the warnings given to Capernaum and the other cities Jesus ministered in during his time on earth. Jesus chides them because if the miracles that were done in their midst had been done for Sodom and Gomorrah, these later cities would have repented. Since Capernaum hasn’t repented yet, they are held responsible for sinning against greater revelation. They will have a worse condemnation than Sodom.
What is striking in that story is that God knew what it would take to make Sodom and Gomorrah repent, but God did not supply those miracles. Worse, God knew he would be giving his pearls to swine in doing so many miracles for Capernaum, yet He did that anyway. I suspect something bigger than “doing whatever He could to rescue” these people is in view. God has a bigger plan than just Capernaum or Sodom. God is revealing His glory to the world and the depth of His glorious character. God is also effecting a marvelous redemption plan that will win a host of people to His name and for His fame.
We read statements that God saved the Israelites, not because they were a better people than others, but to honor His promises and to display His glory among the heathen. God told Pharaoh that He had raised him up for the purpose of displaying God’s power.
Romans 9 is very relevant to this discussion as God says that He has the prerogative to give mercy to whomever He wants and to harden whomever He wants. 1 Pet. 2 speaks of those destined to stumble (vs. 8] and those chosen to proclaim God’s excellencies (vs. 9-10). Jesus spoke of those who disobey and disbelieve because they are not Jesus’ sheep and not “of him”. 2 Tim. 2:24-26 views the lost as bound by Satan and held captive by Him. The creative act of God to bring light to a chaotic world is compared to the act of God whereby he brings the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ to the minds of the lost (2 Cor. 4:4-6).
There are vessels of honor and dishonor, fitted for glory or destruction. And we have no right to tell the Potter how and for what purpose He should have done this.
I try to grapple with some of this, explaining how God’s many glorious attributes would not be fully revealed in a world without rebellion and sinners in this post, and I share a relevant post from R.C. Sproul’s work here.
These aren’t easy questions, but they remain to be grappled with by all Christians no matter what their position in this matter to. If God gave a libertarian free will to so many, surely He would have known the wholly disastrous and detestable consequences. If he foreknew who would believe, and how many they would be, doesn’t he then have some responsibility for letting the whole matter pan out despite His knowledge of millions perishing in hell?
Fundy,
I realize this post has probably gone stale, but I’ll take a shot anyway.
You mention Romans 9 and discuss how, as Christians, we still have a good deal of grappling to do. I appreciate that.
I must say that the most astounding verse in Romans 9 (which was not fully mentioned) is:
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
I do not think that any man can properly understand or interpret the meaning of this verse. In fact, Paul says as much 2 verses earlier (which you quoted): “who are you, O man, who answers back to God?”.
I do not think that Calvinism properly addresses vss. 14-24.
There are strong threads in scripture that support both sides of the debate here. I have a hard time understanding why theologians on both sides cannot acknowledge Biblical paradoxes and mystery. There are some things in Scripture that are not for us to understand (on this side of Glory), and we should be just as diligent about reverenty acknowledging these mysteries as we are about properly intepreting Scripture that is meant for us (on this side of Glory).
Scooter,
Thanks for adding your thoughts. I do think we need to properly give due to the mystery of it all. I think Calvinists try to take what is revealed and be consistent with it all. Generally I think they are. That said, I am not of the die-hard, 5-point, dyed-in-the-wool variety of Calvinists. Coming at this from a Scriptural standpoint, I still think other passages beyond Rom. 9 lead us to advocate that God does have mercy on those He chooses. If you say it’s all based on foreknowledge, then you’re left with “election” being a meaningless term that’s just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
Thanks for dropping by,
Bob
Well said!
Bob,
I commend you on the analogy of Sodom and Gomorrah with the doctrine of Election. I have never heard this scripture (Matthew 11:23) expounded in this fashion. It makes so much sense, though. The same can be said for Nazareth where I always read “He could not do many miracles there because of their unbelief” as a statement of free will refusing God. Rather, I now see it may possibly mean that Jesus refused to do miracles there, not that He could not, being prevented by the people. How could anyone prevent Jesus from accomplishing what He determined to do?
As for the last question, it did occur to me that just as Satan did not know what Jesus was really intending to do through His death, Satan might not know who the elect were. But, still, it perplexes me that Satan would have to deceive anyone if the Elect are immune. He could simply “sit on his hands” and let the chips fall where they will.
Jason,
Thanks for your input, but the reference you make to “free will” doesn’t sound like Calvinism to me. Would you care to explain how a non-Elect person could willfully choose anything?
Prodigal,
The Devil does not act as a fatalist. The reason is God has ordained that means accomplish ends. No one just gets saved magically. The gospel must be preached, prayers must be prayed, and when their heart is changed, faith must be exercised.
No one is just a robot in God’s world. We all act according to our natures. We have the ability to choose, but we have predispositions due to implanted (original) sin. In the fallen world, our hearts are fallen. We love sin and do it in the manner our individual hearts like to do. Adam made the decision for us in one sense, but God knows what choice we would have made had it been us. Our whole race has madly rushed away from God. We all act independently of God and do not give Him thanks. This is what makes even the good works of the lost, unacceptable to God. They are not done with honor to God or for the glory of God or in dependence on God. So we are indeed captives, yet we are willing captives. So God opens our eyes to see the glory of Christ and we’re compelled to choose Him. He is beautiful to us.
If God is the creator, then all ultimate reality rests in Him. We only understand a little bit how that works. But just as computers or robots are infinitely beneath us. We have made them and control them, but they don’t exhibit the qualities of personhood and true emotion like humans do. Even so, we can’t fathom what it is to be a total creator. We are infinitely beneath him.
This is probably not answering your question exactly. But think of this, even in heaven, there is no super independence of God. We will never sin in heaven, ever. But we have free will and free choice there. So in some sense there is no free choice or free will right? I mean we are compelled to obey we have no choice and that makes us less than human right? NO! We will never have been more human and more fulfilled than in heaven.
This doesn’t answer everything, but its a start in seeing how I think on this one. One question, have you read Pastor John Piper’s booklet on Calvinism? It’s available online for free and is quite short. It is very helpful and argues from a Biblical perspective rather than a historical or dogmatic perspective. I found it very helpful in my journey as I tried to grapple with what Calvinism teaches. You can find it here: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html
Blessings brother,
Bob
Bob,
Thanks for your patient and sincere answers. I’ll be checking out the link to Piper’s stuff (although I have reservations about his nodding approval of Marc Driscoll) and Phil’s articles.
I must admit, I have been adverse to Calvin’s teachings because I have never been able to come to terms with “the man”. Calvin was, as best I can tell, a secularist, being referred to by ana-baptists as “the pope of Geneva”. Calvin regarded Geneva as his parish, and ran a virtual theocracy there. This being very Romanish, has long colored my view of the man.
On the other hand, I greatly admire John Knox and John Bunyan, not to mention later proponents of Calvinism, C.H. Spurgeon and A.W. Pink.
But, I am coming to believe many of the things Calvin put forth are largely a matter of believing the Word in a more childish and accepting way than trying to figure everything out with human logic. In fact, while it defies logic in some ways, it validates what Christ said plainly without trying to answer all the “but”s and “what if”s. Which may be what God expects of us.
I’m not completely persuaded, but I am leaning with the wind on this.
Prodigal,
That is a caricature of Calvin at best. If you read some of his writings you will be shocked to find how pastoral and spiritually sensitive he is. I’d encourage you to check out John Piper’s biographical sketch of his life. I attend Piper’s church so I know of his resources easier, go to monergism.com and search on Calvin and you’ll find excellent resources on his life.
He was a pastor not a dictator. He was kicked out of Geneva several times. He preferred weekly communion but the city council wouldn’t let him implement it. He saw himself as a pastor and preached several times a week. He also sent out missionaries throughout the area. John Knox came to Geneva as did many of the persecuted Reformers and he studied there and was encouaged and sent back out more equipped to bring the Reformation to Scotland. The Geneva Bible which impacted England for good was produced in Geneva. It was influenced by Calvin. Tyndale was influenced by him. All who knew him testified to his godly character.
He was no secularist. He was well educated and he disputed Roman Catholic teachings. He had to flee for his life away from France. Some of the ana-baptists were political insurrectionists who taught Chist had already returned or that they had perfect revelations of what Scripture really meant and they were the special prophets of God today. Ana-baptists were a mixed bag.
Sure Calvin wasn’t perfect, and he was influenced by his times, as all were in that day. But modern caricatures of Calvin are based on a predisposition against him largely because his theology is so scary to people. And the whole Servetus affair which also gets wrongly reported of.
Anyway, I encourage you to keep studying. On the Mark Driscoll issue, I don’t agree with everything he does. Neither does Piper. Piper is trying to influence him for good and it is having an effect. But again most people only hear second hand of how bad Driscoll is and haven’t listened to him preach for themselves.
Jonathan Edwards, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, and George Whitfield are a few more worthy men of God of time past who subscribed to Calvinism’s teachings.
Blessings in Christ, brother.
Bob
1) We agree that Christ died to secure salvation for all who would believe in Him.
What about those who falsely believe? Think of the guest without the wedding clothing in Mat. 22. Or the professors in Mat. 7. And the crowd in John 6
1 JOHN 2: 19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
tHEY WERE NOT HIS.
GOD BLESS RANDY
I still need to finish this post, but I’m totally with the last two comments here. Point number 1 refers to all who truly, savingly believe.