Question About Cals/Non Cals

[glfredrick]

I’m going to ask this quickly because we’re here and both jbh28 and glfredrick have utalized Sprugeon in their posts.

In your link, Spurgeon states “I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures.”

“I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy…The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.”
(I know it was Calvin’s view, but he lived quite a bit prior to the synod of Dort and the development of the “five points”).


Would you say that this explanation is “five point” Calvinism (viewing limited atonement in terms of limited or definite redemption) or is it Amyraldianism (sufficiency or atonement without application constituting universal atonement)?

I would have to say that Spurgeon was a true 5-point Calvinist and that he well understood what he was saying. He was involved with the downgrade controversy and represented the Doctrines of Grace well in that issue.

What throws most people off on this issue is that they have heard the strawman stereotype of Calvinism so often that they now hold that as the truth of the position -- which may indeed be the desire of those who, even after hearing a correction 100 times still go to the stereotype -- but the stereotype is not the TRUTH of the position. It CAN and it DOES incorporate ALL of the Scriptures, including those that mention free human moral agency, choice (more rare than those in favor of the position might think) and both the universal nature of the atonement, but the limited and sufficent application therof. When the Scriptures say that Christ died for the world, the potential exists for the world. But the same Scriptures also say that Christ died for the elect, and when we compare Scripture to Scripture and use Scripture to explain Scripture we must then understand that "the world" means in fact an effecatious realization for the elect.

 

[JonC]

Quote from the Canons of Dordt.

"While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."

"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

"And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves."

The 5 points of Calvinism do not limit the sufficiency of the atonement, but the intent and efficiency.

Thanks. I've heard it argued various ways, but I take it that the debate within Calvinism regarding atonement centers around the "intent"?

 

[JonC]

What throws most people off on this issue is that they have heard the strawman stereotype of Calvinism so often that they now hold that as the truth of the position -- which may indeed be the desire of those who, even after hearing a correction 100 times still go to the stereotype -- but the stereotype is not the TRUTH of the position. It CAN and it DOES incorporate ALL of the Scriptures, including those that mention free human moral agency, choice (more rare than those in favor of the position might think) and both the universal nature of the atonement, but the limited and sufficent application therof. When the Scriptures say that Christ died for the world, the potential exists for the world. But the same Scriptures also say that Christ died for the elect, and when we compare Scripture to Scripture and use Scripture to explain Scripture we must then understand that "the world" means in fact an effecatious realization for the elect.

Yes, stereotypes are rampant, on both sides of debate. Unfortunately, you often hear these stereotypes echoed from within the position that should be objecting. That was my problem understanding exactly how Calvinism applied “limited atonement” (of course, there will always be variants in belief within any understanding).

I actually don’t agree with the interpretation of 1 John 2:2 of “whole world” (ὅλος κόσμος) meaning “the elect in the whole world,” but rather that this verse points to the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ as the propitiation for all human sin. Likewise, in John 3, I prefer Calvin’s interpretation that the term “world” is used by God as a “general term, both to invite indiscriminately ... he calls all without exception to the faith of Christ.” But both of these are different from an effectual call or actual atonement. As you present the doctrine I would agree with limited atonement (although I like limited redemption better - it seems clearer to me somehow).

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I really didn’t know how my view of atonement would fit because it has been presented in several ways.

(I didn't know how many points I would scoreJ).

 

[Iconoclast]

JON C

I actually don’t agree with the interpretation of 1 John 2:2 of “whole world” (ὅλος κόσμος) meaning “the elect in the whole world,” but rather that this verse points to the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ as the propitiation for all human sin.

The verse does not say he is sufficient......it says he is the propitiation......

So in what sense does Jesus actually turn away the wrath from the unsaved in the world???

Calvinists focus on the elect who are scattered worldwide because it is an actual propitiation that is made...not potential...or sufficent.

Everything Jesus does is perfect,and more than sufficient.That is not the issue. The issue is who is it applied to.....Israel only...or all who are saved worldwide.

 

[JonC]

JON C



The verse does not say he is sufficient......it says he is the propitiation......

So in what sense does Jesus actually turn away the wrath from the unsaved in the world???

Calvinists focus on the elect who are scattered worldwide because it is an actual propitiation that is made...not potential...or sufficent.

Everything Jesus does is perfect,and more than sufficient.That is not the issue. The issue is who is it applied to.....Israel only...or all who are saved worldwide.

I say sufficiency not because of "propitiation," but because of the last clause of the verse.

I don't understand this verse to be saying that Jesus turned away the wrath, it says that “He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” I do not see “propitiation” as having “sins” as its subject, but the verse as having “Christ” as its subject. That’s all. I interpret the verse as describing Christ, not the sins towards which God will be appeased or to whom atonment will be applied.

So I do agree that in no sense Jesus actually turns away the wrath from the unsaved world. We may differ in interpretation on these passages, but not in our conclusions.

My interpretation would be the same if someone claimed that this verse spoke of universal atonement -in my opinion, it doesn't say that either (although many claim otherwise).

 

[glfredrick]

JonC, we have to remember that all the TERMS of the TULIP are translated from another language and stylized. Like the KJV not all the words have the identical useage TODAY that they did when first translated.

That is part of the confusion and yes, we SHOULD clarify the terms in today's language. But like all words used in theology, once implimented they tend to stick in a technical sense whereby those who use them often "get it" and the rest of the world looks on and wonders how they can support such nonesense. Pure word usage issue!

Total Depravity, for instance, does NOT mean that we are as bad or as sinful as we could be, nor even as often as we might. In fact, it really has nothing at all to do with when or how we sin, but rather, that THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL WE CAN DO TO GAIN ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD TOWARD SALVATION. In other words, no work of man will earn us any points in God's eyes.

Limited Atonement, for instance, doesn't mean that the effects of the cross are limited and not available to whomever comes to recieve them. That would be, in effect, numbering the elect. Rather, we rightly understand that whomever DOES come forward to recieve Him based on the effectual call, IS of the elect for there is no other way they can come and the atonement is for those who DO come. It might better be called "effecatious atonement" for all whom Christ died CAN be atoned for and God is sufficient in and of Himself with no syncretistic assistance to complete that act which He began in Christ on our behalf.

So on for the other points.

 

[Aaron]

Thus, the SCRIPTURES are what drive the doctrine, as we have all agreed.

And Jon may remember, when he was asking of the Calvinist view of the Atonement, I cited neither Augustine nor Calvin, but directed him to the law of the offerings.

Calvinism is the Gospel. It is the truth about Jesus Christ. And as Spurgeon stated, unless one preaches what has been nicknamed Calvinism, he is not preaching the Gospel.

I for one am privileged to be known as a Calvinist. I accept the label gladly, and consider myself unworthy of it. To be called a Calvinist is to be called a Christian.

 

[JonC]

And Jon may remember, when he was asking of the Calvinist view of the Atonement, I cited neither Augustine nor Calvin, but directed him to the law of the offerings.

... unless one preaches what has been nicknamed Calvinism, he is not preaching the Gospel.

I said that I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I do have a good memory.

You think anything other than Calvinism is not the Gospel because Calvinism is absolute truth and anything else is false
I believe Calvinism is derived from the Gospel and presents the Gospel, but within a theological understanding.

- I think the medicine is in the kool-aid and you think the medicine is the kool-aid. We disagree - but we both drank the kool-aid

We’ll never agree on this, but that’s fine. I’ve learned from 23 years of marriage that people do not always agree and sometimes you just have to decide if you want to be happy or you want to be right.

We’ll just disagree and leave it at that because neither of us are going to change ours or the others mind.

 

[Aaron]

Changing your mind was never my objective. My objective was and is to present the truth of Christ in a straightforward and unambiguous manner, and to remove any occasion that one might have to legitimize any thought contrary to the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God in salvation.

 

[Aaron]

I've been told I do that well.

 

[Don]

To be called a Calvinist is to be called a Christian.

To be called an arminian is to be called a Christian.

Or, if not, please tell us what it should be called.

 

[JonC]

Personally, I think to be called a Christian is to be called a Christian. I'd prefer to be numbered among all in Christ regardless of their theological persuasion.

 

[JonC]

My objective was and is to present the truth of Christ in a straightforward and unambiguous manner, and to remove any occasion that one might have to legitimize any thought contrary to the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God in salvation.

Aaron,
Before you became a Calvinist, what were you?

(if you don't mind the question)

 

[JonC]

Calvinism by nature carries a certain amount of ambiguousness. First, it is an amalgamation of Church doctrine that has developed over time. Second, it is a culmination of theological presentations of these doctrines refined to ameliorate misconceptions or variants from orthodoxy that arose within the Church. My point is that it is not absent from human reasoning. Even within Calvinism there are variants, places where Calvinists disagree. Apart from this, mutual acceptance of specific doctrine does not constitute mutually identical understanding. Granted, it is only through reasoning that we comprehend Scripture – but it is also through this same reasoning that we should realize the limitations of these inferences.


My understanding of God's work in salvation is Reformed, not because I have accepted Calvinism, but because Scripture has led me to affirm many of the reformed soteriological perspectives. My soteriological understanding is in line with Reformed Theology, but there are aspects of Calvinism that I do not accept. Although the Calvinistic view of Covenant theology logically supports paedobaptism, I do not view it as biblical. I am also a premillennialist and lean towards pre-rapture theory. The “five-points of Calvinism” identify Calvinistic soteriology; it does not summarize the system as a whole. (I have a few round pegs that don’t fit into the square holes). I realize that many have modified Calvinism as some accept only the soteriological implications and some even modify these aspects. The problem is that “Calvinism” is not the same for every Calvinist, much less for those outside looking in.


I have absolutely no doubt that when I can use my theology as a nickname for the Gospel and accept that understanding as absolute truth I am standing on my own understanding and am personally far from Truth, regardless of how accurate my theology may be. To me, passages like 2 Cor 5:20-21 and John 3:16-18 more adequately conveys the Gospel because it constitutes what saves. Calvinism, Arminianism, Baptist Theology, Methodist Theology, etc. are peripheral to salvation - although each should have a presentation of the Gospel.

 

[glfredrick]

As I have said before in several instances, I would greatly prefer to utterly disavow the use of the terminologies currently in use, for they are no longer of value other than for the sake of discussion.

I am solidly "Calvinistic" in that my doctrine of soteriology matches the tenets of Calvinism, including the TULIP (and of course more, for that is only a snapshot of a larger picture). BUT a couple words that NEVER come out of my mouth while preaching are Calvinism and Arminianism. Simply no place for them in the preaching of the WORD.

In a teaching session that is not a sermon, the terms come up and we examine them for what they are -- a set of doctrines that lie along a continuum of possible theological perspectives, each with their own distinctives as to the ordo salutis. I OFTEN find that people diasvow what they are ignorant of because "they once heard..." or "it sounds evil..." or "a loving God could not..." or some other such emotional appeal. Yet, when I lay out the actual tenets of the doctrines and explain that they are all respective of the actual component parts of soteriology, "salvation" not being AN event, but the culmination of multiple events all with a "logical" order of fulfillment (not temporal nor physical) the people often have the light come on and begin to realize that a simple catch phrase cannot adequately describe ALL of the actions of God in the salvific process, nor can a "fight" between "whosoever wills" or "God elects" solve any of the issues, for BOTH are true.

 

[DaChaser1]

To the OP:

I would say the primary difference is between what ULTIMATELY determines whether someone comes to Christ or not. Cals will say that no one seeks God, and so God chooses some unconditionally and grants them the faith they need to trust him. Non-cals will say that God gave each man & woman the ability to choose, and the ultimate decision is up to each person.

Cals, because of their beliefs about election, will always be questioned as to why our choices matter, even though most cals will say that they really do.

Non-cals, because of their committment to individual free-will, will always be questioned as to how God is soverignly in control, even though most will say that he is.

The very basis of just WHY gets saved by God!

We are either spiritually deadin sins and our own natures, and cannot come to God and place faith inJesus, just NOT is us to do such!
OR

WE were spiritually damaged by fall, and still have enough faith abiding in us to chose/reject jesus in order to get saved!

 

[JonC]

I Know Whom I Have Believed (Whittle)

"I know not why God's wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.

I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.

I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him.

But 'I know Whom I have believed,
And am presuaded that He is able
To keep that which I've committed
Unto Him against that day.'"


I miss these hymns. They seem to get at the heart of the matter.

 

[glfredrick]

To be called an arminian is to be called a Christian.

Or, if not, please tell us what it should be called.

A humanist? :smilewinkgrin:

How do you deal with this Scripture?

Hbr 2:6-13 (ESV) It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7 You made him [Jesus] for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, 8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." 13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me."

Seems to fly in the face of all things other than the Calvinist interpretation...

 

[DaChaser1]

A humanist? :smilewinkgrin:

How do you deal with this Scripture?

Hbr 2:6-13 (ESV) It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7 You made him [Jesus] for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, 8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." 13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me."

Seems to fly in the face of all things other than the Calvinist interpretation...

How about a Christian who has a hard time with sovereignty of God ?

 

[Amy.G]

How about a Christian who has a hard time with sovereignty of God ?

Yes. That seems to be the issue. I know it was for me.