Limited Atonement

Clint Archer from Cripplegate offers some thoughts on Limited Atonement. I admit I am more comfortable with God doing the saving to the full versus Him going halfway hoping that I make the decision, all on my own, to follow. And I am confident that, because of what the Bible teaches, He will save to the full. Here you go:

The next installment of our little TULIP series on Calvinism is the big L.

This is the boogieman doctrine of Limited Atonement. What is the debate? The issues is usually phrased this way:  “For whom did Christ die, the whole world, or specifically for those who would believe?”

If option A, the whole world, then why are some people in Hell? if option B, only believers, what about the verses that talk about Jesus loving the world? You can see what even some Calvinists disavow this letter, leaving them as diminutive “four-pointers” whose gardens bloom with tu_ips.

Put another way, “Did Jesus die to potentially save everyone or did he die to actually save some?”

John Calvin articulated that the Bible teaches clearly that Christ’s death effectually accomplishes salvation for those he chose to save. His sparring partner Jacobus Arminius said Christ’s death potentially provides salvation for everyone, but not effectually for anyone. If you were to illustrate this on a napkin for someone you might try this…

CALVINISTS say: Salvation is a NARROW bridge to Heaven that gets only the elect there.

ARMINIANS say: Salvation is a WIDE bridge with everyone on it, but it goes only half way.

The Substitutionary Atonement refers to when the innocent Jesus bore on the cross the punishment for guilty sinners. The question is which guilty sinners and how did he pay for them? If it’s all, then his payment wasn’t sufficient to get them all to Heaven.

If you get caught speeding and get a $100 fine, and your uncle pays it for you, his check atones for your fine. But how was that fine paid? Did $16 trillion (to pick a relevant number right in the news these days) get paid into an account and everyone in the world got a check covering all their speeding fines, but it’s up to them to cash it? Or did the fines get paid fully in court for some, so they are now pardoned, with nothing left to do themselves?

Arminius taught that Jesus did not actually pay for anyone’s sins, and his death didn’t save anyone. The atonement merely provided the potential for people to be saved, if they choose God. I.e. Jesus picked the lock of the door to Heaven, but he left it up to us to squeeze in. Am I oversimplifying their view? You judge…

Dr J. K. Grider, President of the seminary of the Church of the Nazarene:

Many say Christ paid the penalty for our sins. But [we] Arminians teach that what Christ did he did [equally] for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty for sin, since then no one would ever go to [Hell].’

That is to say, Arminians do not believe Jesus’ death paid for your sins. He did not purchase you with his blood. Believer, let that sink in. What Jesus did purchase for you was the permission for you to be saved, but you have got to get cranking on your salvation, as it is in part up to you to get saved and stay saved.

Don’t be put off by the term ‘Limited Atonement.’ Everyone limits the atonement except Universalists who say everyone goes to Heaven no matter what. Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement (it covers only the elect). Arminians limit the power of the atonement, saying it extends to the whole world but is not powerful enough to effectively save anyone.

As usual, the only test is what does the Bible say?

John 10:11  I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.  12  He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.  13  He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.  14  I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,  15  just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. … [They react by calling him demon possessed, then...] …25  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me,  26  butyou do not believe because you are not part of my flock.  27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.  28  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 17:2 since you have given him [God’s Son] authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him….6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. … 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me,

So, what did Jesus accomplish on the cross?  A potential salvation for all, or a actual salvation for those who believe…

Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, … by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. [Not “making it possible”].

Christ’s death secured redemption for someone. “Securing an eternal redemption.” Why did Jesus die?

1 Pet 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Let’s see the other side of the coin…   

1 Tim 2:3  This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,  4  who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  5  For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,  6  who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

So, does God want all people to be saved? Yes.  Does God love the whole world and everyone in it? Yes. Does everyone believe and get saved and go to heaven? No.

So, are you telling me God doesn’t always get what he wants? …Yes, I am.

This is a mistake people make when they say, “I don’t believe in God because if there is a God why is there evil in the world, and hurricanes, and deformed babies, and murders?” They are assuming God always gets what he wants in this world.

Well, doesn’t he? He is God!

Let me ask you this: God wants you to love your wife, obey your parents, stop your lust, and greed. He wants you to be content with your wages, never worry, and give sacrificially to the ministry. Does God always, consistently, get exactly what he wants from you? Sadly, no, me neither. 

There is a difference between God’s prescriptive will (what he declares he wants) and God’s decreed will (what he wills), what he desires and what he ordains will happen. [For a clear explanation, here is an article by John Piper, "Are there two wills in God?"]

I had trouble with this doctrine too at first. My understanding was ‘limited.’ But then I realized how love works in my life. I love every person in my flock. But I love my wife differently. I love her in a special way. I love my neighbor as myself. I love my church, my friends, and hopefully, even my enemies. I love my wife and sons and daughters. But not all in the same way.

And my love for my wife finds expression in ways that my love for my church will not. Romantic expression, for example. In a similar way we can say that Jesus loves the world. He loves his enemies. But he loves his followers, his flock, his believers in a unique way.

1 Tim 4:10  For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

“Especially” [malista in Greek] denotes a favored subset within the whole. (Honor your elders, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; provide for your family, especially those in your own household, to borrow two examples from the same epistle).

That is what Calvinists believe: God loves the world, but he has a special relationship with his chosen ones that includes something unique to them, namely salvation.

Most people who reject this doctrine do so because they don’t understand it. They think we are saying Christ’s blood wasn’t enough for the whole world. But that is not what most Calvinists have taught over the centuries. I concur with David Steele, who explains,

Christ’s obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race. It would have required no more obedience, nor any greater suffering to save [everyone].’

I.e. if one additional person asked to be saved, Christ would not need to have spent an additional second on the cross or sustained one more lash. His suffering and death was infinite, and able to save an infinite number of souls. That is why anyone at any time can repent, believe, and be saved.

That is why We proclaim Him, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ (Col 1:28).

So, it may sound like Calvinists would preach to fewer people because they don’t believe everyone goes to heaven. That just isn’t true. No one knows who will believe. And God ordains the means to save people—preaching, and that he commands us to preach to every person or die trying.

But when someone believes, who gets the credit? Us, for our missionary endeavors? No, Jesus the Savior because it was his work that accomplished the salvation; all we did was deliver the good news.

And that is the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Please be gentle in the comments section- I only wrote this for those who believe in it. (Get it?)

Monday Two-fer

Re: AOMIN | Christians: You Must Deny the Lordship of Christ. It is the Price of Citizenship in this Secular Nation.

As a photographer (no, my best work is not posted on this website =) ), I personally would have welcomed the opportunity to be paid to shoot the “wedding” in question after first asking that these women selflessly go elsewhere to find a photographer for the sake of my conscience and sense of moral duty.  Because I can think of one hundred ways to do poorly done photography and I would have had plenty of fun in the process of putting it all together.  It’s like the fun you had as a child when you would draw mustaches and funny eyebrows over photos of people: good stuff.

---

Over at http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/bible-verse-of-the-day/ this was the verse of the day:

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50.20, ESV)

I wonder how many Arminians, post-Arminians, Pelagians and semi-Pelagians would deny that the events of 9/11 or the death of Trayvon Martin, for two instances, are events that God meant for good, to bring about that many people be blessed.  After all, people were saying right after those events that the events were not of God, yet what good reason would Joseph have for saying that his ordeal was meant for good if his statement here--which Christians accept as being true--is not believed to be a prophetic utterance?  In Joseph’s mind was it a given fact that all events are things which God means for good, to bring about that many people be blessed?

Slick’s Apostasy: Various Angles of the Issue

I heard about this first via Alpha & Omega Ministries: Yesterday on the Dividing Line.  I have not yet heard what Dr. White had to say about it, but other people have chimed in in written format, which I can access more easily.

Analysis from the redoubtable Steve Hays: Triablogue: Born to fail.

 

Another from Glenn Peoples (HT: Jason Engwer): How to exploit a family falling out for the sake of ideology.

 

Personally, in my reflections on the whole matter I was thinking more about the specifics of the stated reason for abandoning Christianity.  Without daring to put myself in the company of those commentators I will post those thoughts below, FWIW and as a possible indication of what others might be thinking

 

**************

 

From http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/15/the-atheist-daughter-of-a-notable-christian-apologist-shares-her-story/:

This changed one day during a conversation with my friend Alex. I had a habit of bouncing theological questions off him, and one particular day, I asked him this: If God was absolutely moral, because morality was absolute, and if the nature of “right” and “wrong” surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Four thoughts:

1) She was trained by Matt Slick.  Slick is cool, his ministry has stood the test of time, and he is probably one reason that I am a Calvinist today.  However, frankly his work has always been half-baked and over-reaching in some instances, and I fear that when it came to meta-ethics he may have trained his daughter poorly on account of possibly his own not having a solid grasp of certain issues.

2) Do the words “consequentialism” and “context” mean anything to either of the Slicks?  (Of course, I know that at least one of those matters to one of them.)  Or when did the Scriptures ever indicate that virtue ethics, or deontology, or divine command theory were the only possible correct paradigms by which to make sense of God’s law and God’s nature as revealed in the Scriptures?

Yes, Christians are sophisticated enough to reject divine command theory for reasons which are reflected in Euthyphro’s Dilemma.  Yet the Scriptures apparently never rule out consequentialism in toto and never rule out what we might call (gasp) situational ethics of a sort, and the whole of biblical ethics is best understood in considering both virtue ethics and these other ethical paradigms.

When and where is it appropriate in this country to walk around buck naked?  In a classroom at school?  No.  In worship services at church?  No.  At home?  Sure.

When and where is it appropriate to drive on the right side of the road?  In the U.S.?  Yes, but even then not if the driver is drunk and doing 100 mph on a crowded freeway.  In the U.K.?  No, unless suddenly it is good to cause needless head-on collisions with other vehicles.

Are circmstances or possible consequences relevant in the examples listed immediately above?  Yes, and that is exactly why there are exceptions to rules such as those to which we just alluded.

And is the range of permissible moral options dependent on the situation?  Yes, it is.  That is precisely how sex within the bond of marriage is permissible while your spouse’s cheating on you is not, or why harsh punishments are appropriate only for offenders who are culpable of the worst crimes, to cite two examples.

3) At some point the elder Slick may have got tripped up on issues of postmodern ethics or moral TAGs and passed a muddled, incomprehensible message down to his daughter--either that or the younger Slick just failed to grasp what she was being taught.  Similar language or similar terms appear in discussions of each, and this probably was a source of conflation or confusion at some point.

In any case, God is just (even essentially or transcendently so); in translation this means that God’s actions are just, for this is what the word “just” ultimately points to in terms of meaning and function.  Meanwhile, the words “just” and “moral” are more or less synonymous (though I  prefer “just” over the younger Slick’s “moral”), and those words ultimately mean either in accord with some ethical principle or in accord with what is good; and despite that the word “good” has many meanings--all of them dependent on what the metric or standard of measurement is--and despite anyone’s and everyone’s being capable of finding evil things to be favorable--i.e. “good”--or of prescribing evil conduct as though it were something just, God’s actions are just.

God has issued a body of ethical prescriptions and proscriptions of human behavior; each of these commandments are in accordance with both themselves and objective goodness: by definition, they are just.

Moreover, these commandments are “absolute” in the sense--and this is what people mean when they speak of moral rules which are “absolute”--that they are just regardless of whether Smith over here says, “Adultery?  Meh, that’s okay with me; there’s nothing wrong with it” or whether a society over there on the other side of the planet says, “Why not bow down before Baal?  Who else gives us rain for our crops or puts food on our table?”  That is the sense in which they are absolute.

However, this is not to be confused with the issues of divine command theory vs. rival meta-ethical theories.  There aren’t too many Christians who claim that if God suddenly decided one day to proscribe the consumption of turkey dinners then it would be evil to be turkey dinners in virtue of the proscription itself.  No, the claim would more or less be that if a divine proscription of turkey dinners came down the pike tomorrow then: a) it would be because the proscription did not have a favorable timing before then; and b) the proscription is done for a reason which is objectively good; c) rebellion against the Creator is not in accordance with what is objectively good; and d) guess what: God’s nature happens to be one of objective goodness, all such that it was never possible that an intuitively bad thing such as idolatry or sadistic torture or babies would have been prescribed at some point.

“...Why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?” she asks.  Answer: if you can find an instance of such things, then stop to reconsider the matter and to ask yourself whether such things promoted the well-being of someone or something at one point in the past but later outlived their ability to do so.  Why is it a sin to issue orders to a someone of the rank of Sergeant First Class in one year whereas ten years later it is not a sin to do so?  Hmm, could it be that someone there in the Army got promoted such that legal and moral privileges which formerly were not theirs later rightly became theirs?  This is one example off the top of my head; you should be capable of doing the same.

4) How old is Rachael Slick again?  Oh yeah, that makes sense.

Regarding Rick Warren's Son

This is probably the best web page on the subject: Triablogue: Perseverance and suicide.

Notice that in the comments section someone mentions the Scripture that I would also mention in discussions where it is denied that suicide is an “unpardonable sin”: 1 John 3.15.  With that said, my thinking is that a person would have to work to prove that any Christian who has considered suicide was in fact regenerate when he died; any Christian who has died in this way would have done mental and logical gymnastics to work around the problem of ending his life without intentionally killing himself: something which can be done though presumably no one commits himself to such a project before he puts himself to death.

Job

We were all raised to think that the suffering of Job was entirely Satan’s doing, right? God is not the one who brought about this suffering, right? After all, what do we find in the following two passages?

Job 1.9-12

Job 2.3-6

And yet guess what we find near the conclusion of the book of Job--Job 42.11a, specifically:

Then all his brothers, all his sisters, and all those who had been his acquaintances before, came to him and ate food with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversity that the LORD had brought upon him.

So it’s taken me decades to finally notice this today, but the book of Job always had a providential and theodical outlook that jibes with Calvinism. Interestingly enough, maybe an hour after I noticed this I happened upon this older post from the redoubtable Steve Hays: Triablogue: Rosemary's Baby.

Finally, and in switching gears a bit, it bears noting that Job apparently held the belief right from the outset that God was in some way actively involved with the troubles he had encountered. In chapter one Job says “The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away” and in chapter two he says “Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” So Job was wise to see God’s involvement where many other people would see no such involvement. Yet in the closing chapters of the book of Job (38-42) the man Job is made out to be a creature that, ultimately, really isn’t that wise or knowledgeable after all. This is one thing to keep in mind the next time things in life start going wrong and you ask, “Why me?”

Wrath is Love's Response to Sin

I just read this blog post. It is a great characterization of God's wrath and His love and how we must reconcile them. We cannot separate them.

Read an outside view on Calvinists or Calvinism, and you are sure to read something about God’s wrath. Every time. The God of Calvinism is a wrathful, vengeful God, boiling over in anger against any part of creation that has turned against him. He is no God of love, this. Sure, he may have some love for his elect, but to the rest of the world he is this angry, brooding presence eagerly awaiting the day of judgment in which he will cast the rest of humanity into the flames of hell.

I suppose Calvinists have sometimes given others reason to think that this is what we believe to be true of God. Perhaps Calvinists have at times erred by over-emphasizing God’s wrath and have done so at the expense of his love. But this angry, vengeful God is not the true God of the Calvinist.

It is good and useful to consider the relationship of God’s love to his wrath. Are they equal characteristics or is one greater than the other? How can God both love and hate? Michael Wittmer’s book Don’t Stop Believing is a very good, popular-level look at some of the hard questions facing Christians today and it offers a powerful response. One of those questions concerns the cross and whether, as some have suggested, a traditional Christian understanding of the cross is tantamount to cosmic child abuse.

In this chapter Wittmer explains how we can (and must) reconcile God’s wrath with his love. “Scripture says that God is love and that he has wrath. This means that love lies deeper than wrath in the character of God. Love is his essential perfection, without which he would not be who he is. Wrath is love’s response to sin. It is God’s voluntary gag reflex at anything that destroys his good creation. God is against sin because he is for us, and he will vent his fury on everything that damages us.”

Love is at God’s very core. 1 John 4:8 says, “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Through all of eternity, God has been love; he has existed in a state of love of Father to Son, Son to Spirit, Spirit to Father. There has never been a time that God has not been expressing love; nor will there ever be. But God’s wrath is far different. God has not always been wrathful. He has not always had to express anger. His anger is a reaction to a lack of love—a lack of love for him or a lack of love to others. Wrath is a response to sin. Therefore wrath did not exist until sin began to exist. And as sin came to be, God had to respond to it in a way that is consistent with his holy character. God’s response to sin is wrath. How could it be otherwise? Sin is cosmic treason against the Creator of the universe. He must respond.

At the cross, God’s love met God’s wrath. Wittmer says, “Jesus endured God’s wrath when he bore the curse of sin, but he also experienced God’s love, for the cross was a necessary step in crowning Jesus as Redeemer and Ruler of the world, the Lord whose exalted name forces every knee to the ground. Similarly, though we receive unmerited grace from Jesus’ passion, our old self of sin must die in order to rise to his new life of love.” And so wrath is closely tied to love. If God did not love, God would not be wrathful. It is because of his love that God has to feel and express his wrath. We cannot neatly separate the two. “Every act of God flows from his love, even—and especially—those that demonstrate his wrath.”

Is he a God of love or of wrath? God expresses both love and wrath, but where wrath is demonstrated, love is personified. God is love.

Clarifying Calvinism- Part 3

Welcome back. Here is the next part of the series that Phil Johnson had done a couple years ago. In this part Johnson gives a couple resources that he considers to be fairly outlining the Arminian position. As well as a few good ones dealing with the Calvinist theology.

Clarifying Calvinism (Part 3)
January 15th, 2009

(By Phil Johnson)

Part III: Some book recommendations

Before we go further in this series, let me recommend a handful of books. The first book I want to recommend is a new book by Roger Olson, who is himself an Arminian, and he has written a defense of Arminianism titled Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. You might be surprised to hear me recommend this book because I published a review of it on my weblog a few months ago, and the review wasn’t altogether positive. The review was written by my friend Gary Johnson, who is pastor of The Church Of The Redeemer in Mesa, Arizona. Gary’s mentor, by the way, was S. Lewis Johnson. And even though we are all three named Johnson, none of us are related. (Though I would be very happy to be related to either S. Lewis Johnson or Gary Johnson.) Anyway, Gary’s review was in several parts, and he titled it “Calvinists in the Hands of an Angry Arminian.” So it wasn’t a completely positive review, and I agree with practically all of Gary’s complaints about the book.
But I have to say that Olson’s book is the best book in defense of Arminianism I’ve ever read. Some readers might be aware that I didn’t have a very high opinion of Dave Hunt’s anti-Calvinistic screed. When I reviewed Hunt’s book in a Shepherds’ Conference seminar a few years ago, someone told me the only reason I hated the book was because I’m a Calvinist and Hunt stepped on my toes.

And I said, “No, it’s just a really bad book, written by a guy who has no clue what he is talking about.”

My friend challenged that: “Name one well-written book, written after 1950, either defending Arminianism or attacking Calvinism, written by someone who does know what he is talking about.”

I admit it; I was stumped. But now Roger Olson has bailed me out. If anyone ever asks me that question again, I can point to Olson’s book. It’s a good defense of Arminianism, and although I disagree with virtually all his conclusions, he pretty much knows what he is talking about, and he explains the differences between Arminianism, Pelagianism, and semi-pelagianism pretty well.

If you read that book, you’ll need to read at least three or four good Calvinist books to get the taste out of your mouth. So I’ll recommend three. Two are standard works that I routinely recommend every year. The first is a massive syllabus, written by Curt Daniel, called The History and Theology of Calvinism. These are notes Dr. Daniel wrote when he taught this material, and the tapes of his teaching are downloadable for free from the internet. Dr. Daniel is currently working on developing that material in book form, to be published by P&R. My guess is you’ll have to wait 2-3 years for that, so buy the syllabus; download the sound files for free download.

The other standard work you must have is the book by David Steele, Curtis Thomas, Lance Quinn, titled The Five Points of Calvinism (also by P&R). It is an encyclopedic collection of key Scripture references and some wonderful essays explaining and defending Calvinism from the Bible.

And then one of my favorite books — hard to find for a long time but recently published in a quality edition by Audobon Press, The Great Invitation, by Erroll Hulse, subtitled “Examining the use of the altar call in evangelism.” The book deals with the question of altar calls, as the subtitle suggests, but it’s greatest value, I think, is that this is a classic example of the kind of warm-hearted, evangelistic, classic Calvinism that I appreciate, and it’s a great antidote to the ugly Calvinism I spoke about that you find in Internet forums. Erroll Hulse is a greatly respected British Reformed Baptist leader, and this is one of my all-time favorite books.

Clarifying Calvinism-Part 2:Spurgeon: “Calvinism IS the Gospel”

Here is the second part to the Clarifying Calvinism series by Phil Johnson from the Pyrpmaniacs blog. I'll be keeping my comments to a minimum since I think Johnson (and Spurgeon) does a good job of explaining.

If you missed the first one: Clarifying Calvinism-Part I: Is Arminianism damnable heresy?

Part II: Spurgeon: “Calvinism IS the Gospel”

There are, these days, quite a few self-styled Calvinists who disagree with my assessment of Arminianism and insist that Arminianism entails an absolute denial of certain fundamental gospel truths. Those wishing to make that argument will invariably quote a famous statement by Spurgeon, taken from the chapter in his autobiography titled “A Defence of Calvinism” in which Spurgeon said this:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

I absolutely agree with what Spurgeon says there, in the sense that he meant it. And the context of that statement explains clearly what he meant. He was pointing out that the principle at the heart of all gospel truth is the same principle that drives Calvinism: “Salvation is of the Lord.” Salvation is God’s work; it’s not something we do for ourselves. That’s the truth he was defending. [Part of this has been a tough thing to move away from since I've "grown up" with the alter call, 'make a decision for Christ', you have to meet God half way type of theology...I don't think those hold up nearly as much, Biblically, but I am still working through them]

Spurgeon was not saying that we ought to use the five points of Calvinism the way Campus crusade people use the “Four Spiritual Laws.” He wasn’t saying that all you ever talk about is the doctrines of election and reprobation you are faithfully preaching the gospel and the whole counsel of God. Unfortunately, I think that’s what a lot of careless Calvinists think Spurgeon meant when he said “Calvinism is the gospel.”

But if you read Spurgeon’s whole article on Calvinism, he makes very clear what he meant. In fact at the beginning of that very same paragraph—as his preface to remarking that “Calvinism is the gospel”—he wrote this:

“Salvation is of the Lord.” [Jonah 2:9.] That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.”

Did Spurgeon believe Arminianism was in error? Absolutely. So do I.

Did he believe it was damnable error? Absolutely not, and he made that clear, too.

At the peak of the Downgrade Controversy, some of Spurgeon’s critics accused him of being driven by a doctrinaire Calvinist agenda. It’s not really Modernism that Spurgeon hates, they said. It’s anything that departs from his old fashioned Calvinism. This whole controversy is a furtive campaign against Arminianism. That’s what really has Spurgeon bugged. He thinks modern Christians aren’t Calvinistic enough.

Spurgeon replied in The Sword and the Trowel with a paragraph that said this:

Certain antagonists have tried to represent the Down Grade controversy as a revival of the old feud between Calvinists and Arminians. It is nothing of the kind. Many evangelical Arminians are as earnestly on our side as men can be. We do not conceal our own Calvinism in the least; but this conflict is for truths which are common to all believers.

In another place, he was even more explicit:

We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system; but we believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to the vital truth, and therefore we are sorry to see any quitting it who have once accepted it.

So he had a bone to pick with people who once affirmed the doctrines of grace and had now abandoned Calvinism in favor of new ideas that smacked of Socinianism. But he regarded evangelical Arminians as his true brethren and fellow soldiers—as long as they affirmed the doctrine of justification by faith, the principle of sola fide, the absolute authority of Scripture, the penal aspect of Christ’s atonement, and other essential gospel truths.

Speaking of Arminians in particular, he said:

Those who hold the eternal verities of salvation, and yet do not see all that we believe and embrace, are by no means the objects of our opposition: our warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith. The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that “modern thought” which is its deadly enemy.

So Spurgeon did not regard Arminians as hell bound heretics. He regarded them as brethren. Did he think they were in error? Yes? Were they guilty of gross inconsistency in their own theology? He would have answered emphatically, yes. Was their main error significant? Spurgeon did not shrink from referring to it as “heresy”—meaning unorthodox doctrine, heterodoxy, serious error. But he was very careful to make clear that he did not regard Arminianism per se as damnable heresy or utter apostasy from essential Christianity. Virtually all mainstream Calvinists from the time of the Synod of Dort until now would agree with him on every count.

For example, Gordon Clark, one of the highest of high Calvinists, said this with regard to whether Arminians are authentic Christians or not:

An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian; in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation. The places in which his creed differs from our Confession confuse the mind, dilute the Gospel, and impair its proclamation.”

Which is to say that Arminianism is inherently inconsistent. Arminians technically affirm the fundamental, essential truths of the gospel. Then they try to build a theology on top of that which is totally inconsistent with the solid foundation they have affirmed.

I agree with that assessment of Arminianism. It’s an attempt to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human responsibility—and the Arminian method of reconciling those two truths involves a view of human free will that is inherently inconsistent with certain gospel truths every Arminian actually affirms.

In some posts yet to come, I will explain further why I believe that is the case.

[So, it seems that it is not a good idea to label the Arminian outside the bounds of Christianity even while considering the theological positions they hold to be inconsistant, Biblically. What do you think?--D.]

Clarifying Calvinism-Part I: Is Arminianism damnable heresy?

Sorry it has been a while since I have posted. Thank you Kwame for holding down the fort.

I recently came across a series of articles by Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs Blog. Actually these are transcripts from a conference where Johnson spoke on his journey to Calvinism as well as some of the points of Calvinism, or as he suggests, the more Biblical way of understanding God, salvation, our role in it.

This is on a fairly basic level, so it is accessible to the non-scholar, which is nice because some of the discussions can get a bit overwhelming. I was partly drawn because my journey has been a little similar, taking place over a period of many years as my thinking and understanding has changed and grown.

I will be posting the first one today and the subsequent ones in the near future (hopefully). I will try and add a few comments, but I think that the content is good on its own, so I will keep my thoughts to a minimum. Be sure to comment as I think the benefit of discussion can be very helpful in working through these issues. Without further ado:

Part I: Is Arminianism damnable heresy?

I love the doctrines of grace and don’t shy away from the label “Calvinist.” I believe in the sovereignty of God. I’m convinced Scripture teaches that God is completely sovereign not only in salvation (effectually calling and granting faith to those whom He chooses); but also in every detail of the outworking of Providence. “Whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Romans 8:30). And He makes “all things work together for good to those who love God, [i.e.,] to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). Quite simply, He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).

[D. here: This has been one area that has changed over the years for me, too. The sovereignty of God. I have found He is much more in control and powerful than I used to think.]

That’s what people commonly mean when they speak of “Calvinism.” When I accept that label, I am not pledging allegiance to the man John Calvin. I am not affirming everything he taught, and I’m not condoning everything he did. [I think this is a common misunderstanding] I’m convinced Calvin was a godly man and one of the finest biblical expositors and theological minds ever, but he wasn’t always right. As a matter of fact, my own convictions are baptistic, so I am by no means one of Calvin’s devoted followers. In other words, when I accept the label “Calvinist,” it’s only for convenience’s sake. I’m not saying “I am of Calvin” in the Corinthian sense.

Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)

[I like his feisty-ness-I relate. :-) ]

But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.

Now, don’t get the wrong idea. I do think the truth of God’s sovereignty is clear and ultimately inescapable in Scripture. But it is a difficult truth to come to grips with, so I am sympathetic with those who struggle with it. I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.

[Now, I am still working with God's help, of course, on my own response with the much graciousness Johnson shows. If you think I am spicy now, you should have seen me before. :-)]

Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians. That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.

That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.

Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”

But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do. I’m talking about historic, evangelical Arminianism, of the classic and Wesleyan varieties — Arminianism, not Pelagianism, or open theism, or whatever heresy Clark Pinnock has invented this week — but true evangelical Arminianism. Arminianism is certainly wrong; and I would argue that it’s inconsistent with itself. But in my judgment, standard, garden variety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.

If you think I’m beginning to sound like an apologist for Arminianism, I’m definitely not that. I do think Arminianism is a profound error. Its tendencies can be truly sinister, and when it is allowed to go to seed, it does lead people into rank heresy. But what I’m saying here is that mere Arminianism itself isn’t damnable heresy. It’s just grossly inconsistent with the core gospel doctrines that Arminians themselves believe and affirm.

But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let also me say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.

[I have too often myself in this position as I am working through the process. But I also know for me that I must start to attempt to defend the new position to see if it is worth keeping or not. It would be easy enough to just accept and internally believe a particular thing, but quite another to get into the marketplace of ideas and see how it holds up. When the ultimate goal is truth, there should be less fear that a particular 'pet doctrine' is challenged. There is more that could be said on this issue, but I won't for now.]

Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet. And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all. They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.

That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance. A couple of years ago, when I started my weblog, I mentioned that tendency in the first entry I posted, which was titled “Quick and Dirty Calvinism.” At the end of that post, I said this: My advice to young Calvinists is to learn theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.

Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.

Wandering, Apostasy, and Ananias

Concerning the account of Ananias in Acts, chapter five:

1) Fear of death is a natural and instinctive thing. Death is also not merely a release from the tribulations and evils of this world in which we live; death remains a tragic thing in God’s providence, and this is why we mourn even when Christians pass away.

Death also brings us face to face with our own shortcomings in life, as when someone’s life flashes before his eyes in a near-death experience. This is not a thing to be taken lightly, and any believer who should notice believers falling dead around him would do well to seriously contemplate his own moral conduct and his own heart vis-à-vis the events happening around him.

2) None of us actually knows that Ananias and his wife were not false brethren or false converts. Remember those Scriptures which tell us that these sorts of individuals were real?

Matthew 7.21-23
Matthew 25.1-13
John 6.61-66
John 17.12
2 Corinthians 11.26
Galatians 2.4
2 Peter 2.20-22 (cf. 2 Corinthians 5.17, Hebrews 10.14-17)
1 John 2.19
Jude 1.4,19

3a) However, let’s assume for a moment that Ananias and his wife were some of those who have come to Christ. Why should anyone expect them to be absolutely exempt from consequences of their actions? The prophet David committed adultery and killed Uriah the Hittite. The prophet Nathan later told David that God had taken away his sin (2 Samuel 12.13-14)--but he also told him that David’s son would surely die. So if people reap bitter fruit of their transgressions even in cases where we know that their sin is taken away, should the case of Ananias be very different?

3b) Likewise, the prophet Moses sinned against God; Moses’ sin, as with other sins of the Israelites, was later and in some sense taken away through the ministry of the Levites (Lev 16). But once the Israelites later reached the Promised Land, Moses still had to face a consequence of his action. For one will recall that Moses was not allowed to enter Canaan as a result of his failure to speak to the rock. So why should the case of Ananias be any different?

3c) Likewise, vis-à-vis 1 Peter 3.7, why should believers in general be expected to face absolutely no tough consequences of some moral error of theirs?

--------------

As a general response to concerns of 1 Timothy 4.1, 1 Timothy 5.14-15 and 1 Timothy 6.10: what exactly should leave anyone with the impression that only those who believe in Christ are capable of departing from “the faith”?

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7.21-23)

You won’t have people following Christ unless they are first by definition affiliated with “the faith” in one way or another. Yet we can glean from the passage above that not all of such individuals can rightly be deemed as believers at first glance. For if these individuals were people who had “come to Christ” in the sense of John, chapter six at any point in the past, then Christ would have known them (Jn 10.26-29, 2 Tim 2.19); yet it is said that he never knew them.

Such is the case in John 6.61-66 also. Anyone who physically follows and associates with someone who continually offers various teachings is someone who is necessarily affiliated with the sum of these teachings, regardless of whether such a follower believes each and every one of these teachings. This affiliation exists in John 6.61-66:

61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

The presense of associates or affiliates who were also unbelievers is likewise evidenced in the passage. So not everyone who will have turned away from Christ was a believer to begin with. Futhermore, if they turn away from Christ, then you can rest assured that they will also leave behind some aggregate of right teachings about or from Christ: they will have turned away from “the faith.”

Now let’s take things a step further with Galatians 2.3-4:

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Make no mistake about it: as an unbeliever you don’t get to infiltrate the ranks of believers and to cause trouble among them unless you first create the false image and impression that you are a believer. Such a false brother necessarily pays lip service to “the faith” or appears to honor the gospel and theological truths which immediately pertain to the gospel, or else his mission of espionage is finished before it begins.

Finally, two more passages:

Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 10:14-17)

If anyone who is in Christ is a new creature and is someone whose sins will not be remembered, then how would the apostle Peter refer to any of such creatures as dogs or swine that stay true to their nature as dogs and swine? For it is written:

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Peter 2:20-22)

So we have just seen that there are or have been false brethren and people who have turned from Christ and teachings of Christ without having ever believed in Christ to begin with. This means that 1 Timothy 4.1, 5.14-15, and 6.10 don’t make for good proof texts against the teachings that Arminian and sub-Arminian apologists tend to vilify.

Fun and Contingency with Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints

2 Thessalonians 2.1-12:

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There are a number of futurate propositions in the passage above, including the true statement that Christ will come. Now, question number one: Is it plausible that coming of Christ will not occur? No, it is not plausible that the coming of Christ will not occur, for whatever the Scriptures say is true and they have stated that Christ will come. Now, question number two: What would happen if God were to have no intention of sending Christ or if Christ were to have no intention of a second coming? Answer: There would be no coming of Christ as predicted or prophesied in the likes of 2 Thessalonians 2.8--no one goes anywhere unless they first get up and go or unless something forces them there.

What follows from all this? Remember that we said that it was not plausible that the coming of Christ would not occur: there’s no question that Christ will come as it is certain that he will come. However, we also just saw that this certain event, which is the coming of Christ, is something which is contingent. Therefore, it is possible for an event to be both certain and contingent.

Likewise, it is certain that an apostasy (!) will have occured, for the apostle Paul has told us in the passage above that there would be such an apostasy. However, this certain event, which is apostasy, is also contingent upon something; specifically, one cannot fall away from anything unless he is first near it.

Again, an event’s being both certain and conditional are not mutually exclusive: they are compatible in some instances. Therefore, if Arminian and sub-Arminian apologists should produce evidence of Scriptures which present remission of sins, or justification, or sanctification, or glorification, or salvation, etc. as being contingent upon something, then so what? This does not categorically rule out the possibility that either eternal security or the Perseverance of the Saints are real. In fact, this jibes with the conclusions that we eariler reached by way of a different inquiry or line of reasoning in the previous post on this subject. It was there that we were reminded that God is a god of means (e.g., Isa. 10.5-19) and that the God who keeps and preserves his people is not on record as having said that he would not use various means of establishing character, perseverance, maturity, good works within and through those whom are shielded by faith.

---------------------

Suppose you lived back in the early 1600s and knew René Descartes when he was young. Then suppose that during the formative years of the philosophy of Descartes, Aristotle was resurrected and brought to Descartes’ town so the two could sit and chat about all the enduring questions in the field of philosophy. The two would sit and converse, and part of their conversation might go as follows:

Descartes: “Aristotle, how can I know that I exist?”

Aristotle: “If you just asked a question, then you exist. For non-existent things cannot ask questions or do anything: they don’t exist. If you now breathe, then you exist. For non-existing things do not and cannot breathe.”

Is existence contingent upon the asking of questions? No, it is not contingent upon the asking of questions, for we know that things such as rocks, boulders, and infants exist without their having ever asked any questions. What follows from this? Notice that sentences carrying if-then phrases are used in perfectly grammatical/conventional ways by Aristotle above, yet existence is not contingent upon questions and existence is not contingent upon breathing. Therefore, what follows is that not all supposed biblical warnings of apostasy and damnation can automatically rightly be interpreted as warnings, in the case of biblical proof texts which contain if-then phrases and which are cited by Arminian and sub-Arminian apologists.

Some of these apologists naively assume that such phrases always and only carry a conditional function, yet there is ample evidence to the contrary. Such phrases are sometimes used, to the contrary, with a descriptive function where the only conditionality expressed is one of epistemic or heuristic inquiry and not conditionality of cause/effect relationships. Example: above we saw that existence was not a consequence of the antecedent which is the act of asking a question.

So, how about a biblical example of this overlooked principle of vernacular speech? Compare this with a close look into Colossians 1.21-23:

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Does anyone really want to argue the case that some past action of Christ’s--namely, his having already reconciled believers in the body of his flesh through death--is a consequence of whether or not believers later on and down the road continue in the faith? Presumably, no one will go this far in his zeal to uphold the idea that all if-then phrases express a relation of cause and effect. What follows, therefore, is that we have just now seen one verse of the Bible which proves not to be a warning of apostasy though some might initially suppose otherwise.

---------------------

So there just is no question that certainty and contingency are compatible just as there is no question that if-then phrases are not expressive of cause/effect relationships in every instance. If people are going to argue that Christians can in every sense become unbelievers or can in every sense cease to be forgiven by God or something along these lines, then different means must be used to argue this case: because the arguments from contingency don’t work. Of course, different means are certainly used, and if God wills then we will have more to say about these means in the near future.

Atonement with a Different Kind of Limits

What is a necessary means of divine forgiveness of sins? Consider Isaiah 53.5:

But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. {wounded: or, tormented} {stripes: Heb. bruise}

How many times will Christ have suffered for sins? The answer is one, for it is written:

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, [which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hebrews 9.24-28)

Also consider Hebrews 10.9-18:

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.

What follows from this? What follows is that any sins committed, for example, by the apostles Paul or Peter before the death of Christ and after the death of Christ were blotted out when Christ died. That is, Christ died for sins of the past, present and future.

Any sins that you as a modern-day person have committed are sins for which Christ died two thousand years ago in the past. The sufferings, death and resurrection of Christ are events which have already come and gone: they’re done deals. Therefore, Christ suffered for definite and particular acts of transgressions against God’s law.

Now, let it be that at the beginning of the world God ordained that the apostle Paul commit sins s₁, s₂,...s_n (and let’s call this set of sins S) and ordained that Paul not be allowed to commit any sins other than S. (Or alternatively, let it be that God knew that Paul would commit S and ordained that Paul not be allowed to commit any sins other than S.) With respect to the sins of the apostle Paul, Christ accordingly would later die for S, but not for any sin s_n+1, s_n+2,...s_n′ since God had already foreordained that Paul not be allowed to commit any sins beyond the set S. What this means is that if for some reason Paul does go on to commit a sin s_n+1, then he will have committed a sin for which Christ did not die and won’t have died. So if there is a first-order possibility* that Paul will commit s_n+1 and if Paul is predestined to everlasting life, then it is necessary to prevent Paul’s committing s_n+1.

Now, the prevention of this event either can be direct or can be an act which involves means. As it turns out, it would be entirely consistent with the paradigm of Reformed theology that any divine warning that Paul not sin can be one divinely-appointed means to the end of preventing this event. For example, a meteorologist might warn people about an approaching hurricane, lest any or every person within a certain area be killed by the storm; and sure enough, these warnings often save lives.

At some point, rudimentary teachings of eternal security have to give way to concepts of God’s preserving his people or of God’s ensuring that his people persevere. Arminian and sub-Arminian apologists like to focus attention on supposed biblical warnings and semi-warnings of apostasy in New Testament texts (e.g., Heb 10.26-31), yet we have just seen perhaps one reason that such texts exist and how they do not necessarily serve as counterexamples to Perseverance of the Saints.
_______
* And I define first-order possibility as follows: the possibility of Paul’s sinning if this sinning is not later prevented by something. Presumably, foreordination does not directly prevent his sinning any more than foreordination of the salvation of believers directly causes this salvation in precluding means of the gospel, the preaching of the gospel, knowledge and belief of the gospel, etc.

Beyond the Five Points of Calvinism

Desiring God Blog had this post recently.

Don’t limit your understanding of God’s absolute sovereignty to five points in a mnemonic device (TULIP). Do start there, or at least cover that terrain in due course, but know that there is so much more to the full biblical worldview sometimes called Calvinism.

In the introductory essay that I referred to yesterday, J. I. Packer says, “it would not be correct to simply equate Calvinism with the ‘five points.’” He continues, (paragraphing added)

Calvinism is something much broader than the “five points” indicate.

Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King.

Calvinism is the consistent endeavour to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of His will.

Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own Word.

Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible—the God-centred outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace.

Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form.

And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of His great preordained plan for His creatures and His church.

The five points assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that He is sovereign everywhere.

For those of you more enthusiastic and with more time, you can read J.I. Packer's full article below.
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/deathofdeath.html

The Permanent Value of TULIP

Happy 600th Post!!

Here are a couple interesting thoughts from J.I. Packer. Check out the link if you want to read some of the interesting discussion going on. To be honest, I am not entirely clear on some of the distinctions of what I consider an "in-house" discussion. At present, I am leaning more toward the Calvinist understanding, some have called it Classical Christianity, or Reformed.

I can't say I am completely committed to either side (the other side being Arminian), but I have gradually started heading toward the Reformed idea, particularly because I think that the sovereignty of God is far stronger than I grew up thinking In any case, I am not speaking with a great convinction of this position as I am still working through some of the details. Anyway: Here goes:

In his introductory essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, J. I. Packer writes that Calvinism and Arminianism are “two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content.”

Packer continues, (paragraphing added)

One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.

One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly.

The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them.

The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms.

One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it.

Plainly these differences are important, and the permanent value of the “five points,” as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.