Hello Guys/(Gals?)!
Yelsew
Can one be a Calvinist who believes in or agrees with only one of the five points?
He may call himself a Calvinist, but he does not understand the consequences of even the one point he embraces.
Kiffin
Thank you for your post. I agree with your assessment. I believe Pastor Larry is doing the same thing you speak of. He understands “atonement” in a different sense than what Calvinism teaches. This is normally what is taking place when someone claims to be a Calvinist short of being a 5-point Calvinist. See my response to Pastor Larry.
Pastor Larry
I mean only that we resign ourselves to incomplete understanding and therefore the appearance of inconsistencies.
I am with you. It is interesting to observe how difficult communication can sometimes be. It seems you and I have been in agreement on this point, but we have been talking past one another. However, these kinds of clarifications are good and necessary.
My point deals with the ultimate presupposition that God is and that he has spoken. In dealing with his revelation we move to the presupposition that language is used normally. On that basis we come to the text and enter the hermeneutical spiral where our presuppositions determine our view of the text, but then the text adjusts our presuppositions and so on and so on.
In an ideal setting this is what is suppose to happen. But it is naive to think we do not bring in extra-biblical presuppositions to the text. (Note: when I say extra-biblical, I also mean unbiblical.) We may justify our position by utilizing scripture, but sometimes we do so incorrectly. Also, you have to acknowledge that the noetic effects of sin impact our exegesis. Pastor Larry, this is all a response to your claim that dispensationalism is a…
…result of the hermeneutic applied to Scripture. It is not a precommitment brought to the text. It is outgrowth of the exegesis of the text. Consistent exegetes are always dispenationalists.
I find you to be very reasonable and gracious. To me the above statement smacks of extreme bias, and as such is uncharacteristic of you. I do not know of one world-class exegete who does not acknowledge that our presuppositions get in the way of our exegesis.
Some say perseverance is merely in believing; other say actions. I lean towards actions/behavior, but I have a very good friend with whom I have worked with in Brazil who believes faith. I am not sure either, to be honest.
I would say perseverance is a necessary consequence of faith, or even of election. Perseverance is not merely believing. Perseverance has more to do with God’s faithfulness in bringing the elect’s salvation to complete fruition, than it does with what the elect themselves do. Perseverance is captured in the scripture that God will complete the work started in you.
Atonement is used loosely. I believe God provided an atonement sufficient for all the sins of the world. However that atonement is actually applied only to the elect. Most five pointers believe that, and most four pointers believe that. In my experience, they simply talk past each other.
I don't believe Christ actually atoned for the sins of those in hell, for the very reason of God's justice. I believe the atonement had the intent of saving the elect. That does not mean that its merit or value was limited only to the sins of hte elect.
This is interesting. First off, to say God only provided “an atonement sufficient for all sins of the world” is to redefine the Biblical teaching of atonement, and frankly is to emasculate it. I would argue that the very nature of atonement limits its effect to the elect. I agree that the quality of the work done at Calvary was enough for the sins of every creature (Devil, angels, mankind). However, when Calvinists speak of Limited Atonement they are speaking in terms of the end in mind, and the work Christ did in His life and death to earn our salvation. When Jesus was on the cross, who was He there for? Was it to atone for all the sins of creation, for mankind, or for only the elect? Limited Atonement is the doctrine of actual atonement. Now, if you want to argue against this please do so. Also, I understand the difficulties. There are scriptures that speak of Jesus atoning for the sins of the world, etc…We can discuss this, but the discussion is two-fold.
#1. How does a Calvinist explain such passages?
#2. How does your understanding of atonement deal with its Biblical inconsistencies? For instance, was propitiation part of atonement? Yes or no? If yes, then why does anyone go to hell? If no, then why is propitiation not part of it? And even deeper yet, then what is the nature of the atonement.
Here is an interesting analogy. Every last human being is in debt to God to the total tune of $10,000,000. Of that $10,000,000 the elect are responsible for $4,000,000. Now, Christ atones for the elect to the tune of $15,000,000. (Actually, it would be more accurate to speak of an inifnite sum, but this clarifies things a little better. Please indulge me.) It is $11,000,000 more than needed, but that is the quality of the work. Also, it is sufficient to atone for the debt of every last human being. In a crude sense, this is the Calvinist position. However, in no way did Christ atone for every last human being. Just because the quality of the work is sufficient does not mean the intent was there. If Christ did not intent to atone for the sins of the whole world, then universal atonement is a misuse of language.
I agree with the position you reference as Owen's though I did not know that was his position. I haven't read Owen on this (one of those I haven't gotten around to yet).
I have read his
The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It is arguably the best defense of the doctrine of Limited Atonement written. It is not an easy read, but certainly is worthwhile. Frankly, the introductory essay by J.I. Packer is brilliant, and is worth the price of the book.
However, I don't see the necessity of your conclusion that ”Nevertheless, to assert universal atonement is to deny unconditional election.”
If atonement is universal, then no one is sent to hell. If no one is sent to hell, then Unconditional Election is false. My point is that an understanding of atonement separate from its purpose is not Biblical atonement. Atonement is never understood apart from its purpose.
However, I think we have to admit that Scripture does teach unlimited sufficiency with limited efficiency. Would you disagree with that?
I think we assume unlimited sufficiency because of the quality of the sacrifice. I do not think it is explicitly taught in scripture. I could be wrong. Nevertheless, when the Bible speaks of atonement, then end in mind is an intricate part. I assume you would refer to that as efficiency. When atonement is used, it necessarily assumes efficiency. You cannot speak of atonement apart from the end in mind.
Sincerely,
Brian