The following is the first part of an email that one of my best friends sent to me in regards to his move towards a five point Calvinism. You will notice that he says that the response he got from his interlocutor (which is what he shares below), comes in two levels. I will allow that to provide the structure of my response, then. So there will be three posts responding to my friend’s one email. Each dealing with each level of his response (I say three, because the email actually leaves off with the most important level to answering this whole question, and that is hermeneutics, and the LGH methodology my friend and I both were trained under … I have moved further away from this [not totally] than my friend has I think – it might be smarter to start with my friends level first [the LGH], but I am going to follow the flow of his email as the structure of my response. There will be overlap in each of my responses, necessarily).
Let me give a quick history of my relationship to my friend, and who he is (without sharing his name). We were roommates in undergrad at Multnomah Bible College, and our friendship took shape through spending time together fellowshipping around God’s Word, ministry, and evangelism. My friend, a few years after undergrad, went on for further study at Dallas Theological Seminary, and earned his ThM. He is currently Senior Pastor of a Bible church with his wife and cute kids.
The following is the first chunk of the email my friend sent to me:
As for scriptural evidence for limited atonement:
When I asked my friend for scriptural evidence for L a few weeks ago, I was given some. (Keep in mind that I asked without any expectation of getting some. I asked, “show me from scripture where it says or teaches, Christ died only for the elect.”)
Here is what I got. It came in two levels:
1. Verses that spoke about Christ’s death being for a specific/limit group
e.g., You will call his name Jesus for his [sic] will save HIS People from their sins; The Good shepherd lays his life down for HIS Sheep; He lays his life down for HIS Friends; (and the most compelling for me) was Eph 5: Eph. 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. Eph. 5:24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Eph. 5:25 ¶ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, Eph. 5:26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, Eph. 5:27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.
These were unexpected answers to my challenge. Do these preclude his death applying to a wider group? Of course not. But his death sure seems to be intended to benefit a specific group. Additionally, his death seems to have a specific purpose in mind which WILL be accomplished for those for whom he died. Which brings me to the second area of scriptural evidence – the meaning of specific biblical words in their context.
You know what I am going to do. I think I will just post this as an opening post this short little series I am going to do, and allow any of you (readers) to respond to this if you would like, first. [I don’t want this to be too long of a post, and it is already heading that way … so just read this, let it stew, provide a response if you would like; and know that my next post will be responding to the points raised by my friend here.]
I can’t wait to see your reply, but in a nutshell, mine is simply this…the whole question is a Divine mystery, and either side takes only a portion of the total revelation on the subject.
That said, there are plenty of verses that suggest (more specifically than the theological constructs your friend’s friend references) that the atonement is offered to all.
For example, Rom 6:10 “The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.”
Hebrews 7:27 ” He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.”
Hebrews 9:12 “He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.”
Romans 10:13 (quoting Joel 2:32): “Anyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved.”
Etc. Etc. Etc.
I like to say that the Calvinist’s Bible ends at Romans 9, and the Arminian’s Bible starts with Romans 10. But the actual Bible teaches that all are able to be saved, only some will be, and there are those predestined and elect. The way this all plays out is a mystery. I have theories, but that is what they are. Theories. What I do know, dogmatically, is that Calvinism and Arminianism in their pure forms are both inadequate to explain the whole of God’s revelation.
Hey Marc,
Great to hear from you! There is always going to be mystery, no doubt, when pushed up against our God. But I think you’ve pulled the mystery card too quickly. There are ways to think of this in constructive ways that your education (at least insofar as I know what that is in your undergrad) will not allow for. It’s is possible to reframe the questions, methodologically, that we start with (or formally); so that the concepts that we work through are changed materially in more fruitful ways. Until I get to my other posts you should check out a synopsis of what I worked on for so long at my other blog here:
http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/the-themes-of-evangelical-calvinism/
PS. Marc, my ref. to your undergrad studies is just recognizing that I left there with the same beliefs about this stuff that you just voiced in your comment. It wasn’t until seminary, and my exposure to historical theology with Ron Frost, that my horizons were expanded, and the reality that the Reformed heritage is long and much deeper than popularly portrayed. And then even since then I’ve spent many more hours studying the history, that makes it even more clear that there are different strands of Calvinism (and even Arminianism) available, conceptually, in the history and into the present.
For anyone reading, Marc isn’t the “friend” I’m responding to through these posts. Marc is a friend, and someone who I attended undergrad with at Multnomah.
Oh Bobby…these verses are very persuasive at first glance. I believed the Calvinistic interpretation wholeheartedly, but eventually, after closer examination, I was persuaded otherwise.To begin with, though, the verse from Matthew’s Gospel has direct reference to national Israel; they are “His people”. Therefore, that verse has nothing to say about the Jew/Gentile church per say, nor does it necessarily insinuate that all of national Israel will inevitably be saved in a “going to heaven when the die” sort of sense.
In the verse from John’s Gospel, I believe that the issue (in that particular context) is one of kingdom authority, who possesses it, and what it looks like. Jesus is claiming authority over Israel, and His authority is manifested by the fact that He is willing to lay His life down for the sheep (that is, you guessed it, national Israel once again), in order that they might posses life. He was simultaneously rejecting the Pharisaic claim to authority; insinuating that their agenda was self serving, and that by declaring that they were not willing to lay down their lives for the sake of the sheep. The question that John is giving an answer to is not, “did Jesus die for the church, or for everyone”, but rather, “who is Israel’s true authority (Jesus or the Pharisees), and who is the true Israel (the Jesus followers or those who followed the Pharisees”. To ask the former question of the text, I believe, skews the point that John was getting at, and I think that the answer we get to that question, from the text, is extraordinarily misleading, and I think that it actually distorts the text.
The Ephesians verse, without question, is spoken with regard to the Jew/Gentile church; and so, we might conclude that the Calvinistic reading is correct…if, and only if, we abstract the verses from the contextual thrust of the epistle. The letter was written to the elect and predestined church, and speaks of promises and blessings (like the love of God, His giving of Himself, and sanctification) that they receive, at first glance, exclusively. But..the letter also speaks of the church’s mission in the world. The reconciled Jew/Gentile community was to bear witness to, and be the means through which, God was intending to “sum up all things, whether in heaven or on earth, in Him”. The promises and blessing which, in Ephesians, seem to have been granted exclusively to the church, were actually granted to the church so that they might manifest, in themselves, these same blessings of love, mercy, forgiveness, service, and even self sacrifice, as they interacted with one another, as well as with those outside of the church.
That is my take at least…hope it helps 🙂
Brian,
Thank you. I think your points on the Gospels are well taken. I think that this is really the reframe that needs to be provided for all of Classic Calvinist exegesis. That is that we need to attend to what the actual context is referencing versus presuming that these passages are intended to answer dogmatic questions that have bubbled up through medieval metaphysical questions. I am certainly not trying to down dogmatic theology, but just press biblical exegesis in the way that Calvinist exegesis claim they are doing when they come to their exegetical conclusions. The reality is is that they’ve collapsed their dogmatic categories into the scriptures as if they are scriptural categories.
As far as your points on Ephesians, I think that’s right; Suzanne McDonald really develops this theme of election as representation in her good book “Re-imaging Election.” I’m not sure I am going to have anything else to say for the next post now 😉 .
Sorry 😉
I think that its good that you are doing this…I’m sure you can figure out more to say 😉
Brian,
Thanks. I like what you offered here. I think we definitely need to get the context right, and what you said helped us to do that! I’m thinking about what to say. I have the benefit of talking directly to my friend by phone, which I just did, so that always helps 🙂 !
Pingback: §2. Letters To My Friend: Just Say No To Calvinism, A Trinitarian Way To Think Hermeneutically « Mirifica Commutatio
In a strict theological sense, I like the Amyraldian position. I say this not for just preference, but because of the Covenant nature of the Bible, and Atonement seen therein. The key here is its notion of a hypothetical universal covenant, which sometimes Amyraldianism is called. We simply can see the covenantal nature in a universal sense with the Atonement, (Heb.10:29, etc.). In fact the dictum that Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently only for the elect is an Amyraldian idea, though certainly scholatic in nature. But one I think that Calvin would have agreed upon. But perhaps not the application used by the Amyraldians. Indeed in the end we are pressed into the biblical tension and mystery of God. But we should allow this “Calvinistic” pressure, as Calvin did. Thus for me anyway, its always pressed to the mystery of the doctrine of God Himself, and in His sovereignty! Note some of the theological issues seen here with the Federal Vision. And finally to me anyway (as others), Calvin held to a universal atonement while at the same time having an affirmation to predestination. One can see this in his sermons especially. But if we can say it, God’s Sovereign nature is always the top stone for Calvin!
Fr Robert,
Yes, indeed, there are many threads available for developing Calvin as you note. I think most Christian theologians would advocate for God’s sovereignty; of course the next question would be, what does that mean? And of course that’s the really important question here. What shapes God’s sovereignty, and what shapes our understanding of God’s sovereignty? Is God a God who is defined by a metaphysical Law, or Grace and triune Love? This certainly gets to the divide.
Amyrauldianism is definitely better, but it is still just as scholastic in orientation as the scholastics are.
Bobby,
Christian theology simply cannot escape a certain kind of biblical scholastic thought! This is also a certain Pauline and Protestant thought certainly (Paul the Greek and Hebrew Roman, etc.- Gal. 4:4-7), as well of course with Catholic thinking. At least this is part of that Reformed presuppositionalism. Note Beza here also. So once again we disagree. 🙂 I follow (somewhat) the historical Calvin and Calvinism of a Richard Muller!
No surprise, Fr. Robert.
Yeah, I am closer to the old school, or I hope a Calvin’s Calvinism! 😉 Note Theodore Beza here, a real link with the real Calvin I feel. Though I have and like parts of Partee’s book.
And note too, even Luther is/was an “Augustinian”! But Barth, Torrance, etc.? No, not hardly! I am speaking historically here, as much as theologically also.
Fr Robert,
I don’t really care about that issue anymore; i.e. who’s more faithful to Calvin, Luther et al. I’m more concerned about the actual conceptual matter relative to the Bible itself. Insofar as each of the various teachers have provided grammar that helps forward the dynamic interpretive process of understanding Scripture, so understanding the living Word, then that’s what’s important to me. I’m not going to argue about who gets Calvin or Luther et al.
Bobby,
This is something also that I cannot escape, i.e. historical theology! Even J.N. Darby was somewhat bound here! Yeah, I will always be seeking the man Calvin, but I hope in his writings! 🙂 He’s one of the main Reformer’s, and here I simply will stand close. Btw, I just recently got Calvin’s whole personal Letters (7 vol. from Banner).
Bobby,
We both know we cannot escape “ministry”, or so-called from our ‘Brethren’, past and present. You are in love with T.F.T. for example, and too somewhat Barth. So in looking back at Calvin, I am looking also to one of God’s servants. We just cannot escape this, unless we would violate God’s method of the “Church” and “ministry”. So we cannot escape this “issue” really! 🙂
Fr Robert,
We can escape, though, the burden of trying to prove whether or not Calvin was a Calvinist. I don’t think he would’ve been, but either way that doesn’t really matter to me. Like I said, what matters is how far or close did some of Calvin’s grammar provide fruitful trajectory for understanding scripture and God’s life in Christ? He is another important voice in the history of the church, a teacher, one who should be paid attention to; and so I do 🙂 .
Bobby,
I have been reading Calvin’s published books for well over 30 years, and have quite a lot of other Calvin material by mostly British, Dutch and American people, with others also. And as you know I am a great fan of Richard Muller’s work! Btw, if you can find a copy (now op I’m sure), of one of Ronald Wallace’s books, called: Calvin’s Doctrine Of The Christian Life (printed in Great Britain, by Oliver & Boyd Ltd, and in America by Eerdman’s, 1959. I have both copies in hardback.) I am sure you would enjoy it! This is a dense book somewhat (349 pages), but very spiritual, biblical and scholarly. If you are familar with any of Wallace’s other books? (Like his classic: Calvin’s Doctrine of The Word and Sacrament, etc.) You will know his depth and work!
And Bobby, you know I have always maintained that Calvin was an Augustinian, supremely! As in fact he/Calvin presented his own view here…Calvinism? Surely! Yes, he certainly was the first “Calvinist”! This lack of an Augustinian doctrine has always been problematic to my mind for both Barth and Torrance! Note here too was Luther to some degree. This is where a Beza also needs to be read also! He too was an Augustinian!
And let me recommend Bernard Lohse’s book: Martin Luther’s Theology; Its Historical and Systematic Development. It is a Luther gem for sure!
As Luther wrote in his: The Bondage of the Will, he stated against Erasmus: “For what still sublimer thing can remain hidden from the Scriptures, now that the seals have been broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulcher (Matt. 27:66; 28:2), that the supreme mystery brought to light, namely, that Christ the Son of Godhas been made man, that God is three and one, that Christ has suffered for us and is to reign eternally? Are not these things known and sung even in the highways and byways? Take Christ out of the Scriptures, and what do you find left in them?” Indeed “doctrine” has such considerable weight with Luther. And Luther never saw the doctrine of God apart from God’s sovereignty! And this was always in the tradition of Augustine and the simple lines of Holy Scripture for him.
Fr Robert,
Let’s not polarize this. This is a blog, and I simply note what “some” of my thoughts are. I wouldn’t dispute that Calvin was Augustinian, who wasn’t in the medieval era? I love Luther still. It’s just that for this season I have spent some time reading and reporting on TF Torrance, Barth, et al. Before you started reading my blogs, I used to spend most of my time reading and reporting either on Luther and/or Calvin; and then also quite a bit on Thomas Aquinas as well as Augustine, and then the English Puritans. You don’t have to convince me of the import of Augustine on Luther or Calvin. I have heard of Wallace’s work, maybe someday I’ll get to it.
Bobby,
I am not trying to quote: “polarize” this! Just seeking to be historical. Note, I can be well within historical theology, when I want and need to be. In fact, this is where I can really only be with “theology”, outside of seeking a “biblical” theology. And Calvin, as too Luther help to put me into both!
Yes, Ronald Wallace’s works are both pastoral and biblical-theological!