Evangelical Calvinism on the "Extent/Intent of the Atonement"

Posted on by

13 thoughts on “Evangelical Calvinism on the "Extent/Intent of the Atonement"”

  1. Hi Bobby, thanks for posting the video. I gotta coupla questions, hope you don’t mind.

    1. What does it mean for election to be not grounded in specific individuals? I.e. is it more than saying ‘the bible teaches that election is in Christ’ etc., and does it actually amount to a denial that God has decisive control over who gets saved, i.e. who comes to faith in Christ?

    I’m asking partly because if that is the case then the problem I have with EC is not to do with Aristotelian logic but rather to do with what I think the scripture’s are clear on in several places (I know you’ll want to argue that this is because Aristotelian logic is the backdrop to my reading of scripture, but I’m not sure how I’d go about disproving that, other than by agreeing with you/ EC, which makes the whole thing a little circular).

    I’m asking also because if your answer is ‘no, God still does in the final analysis have decisive control over who is saved or not’ could it not be the case that in actual fact one could grant much of what you’re saying about Christ and about election and yet still believe that when it comes to the question of whether or not God ultimately decides who will be saved and who won’t be something almost entirely equivalent to the trad. Calvinist (TC) doctrine of election is required by scripture? In others words, could it be that EC and TC are ‘answering different questions’ and therefore not entirely incompatible?

    2. In EC, does the Spirit act upon/ towards those who perish in exactly the same way/ with the same power as he does upon/ towards those who believe? If no, how does this not eventually amount to the same thing as a TC doctrine of election? If yes, does this not mean therefore that in EC the difference between a saved and an unsaved person lies within them (even if we ‘don’t know’ what that is or we feel we can’t and shouldn’t try to explain it)?

  2. I’m reading the above comment and I think that there are some good questions that I would like to hear you answer, Bobby…it would be helpful I think.

    I’m not at all sure what you’ll say to answer these things, but I have been wondering why we think that it would be such a bad thing to believe that “the difference between a saved and unsaved person lies within them” (not that this is necessarily what EC believes).

    As long as God is the willing initiator, bringing light into darkness through the gospel, I’m not sure why our contribution of faith is such a problem. Even FC believes that this is necessary…

    Since both FC and EC believe the same thing about how people come to faith in Christ, and why others don’t (sin) the difference seems to be in how each group chooses to reconcile these things.

    While EC leaves it a mystery at a point “within” the person, FC just takes it back a step, making the decision God’s, but is faced with the same “mystery”, only it is in why God chooses to love some and condemn others on the basis of His own soverign will.

    It seems like FC has to take a giant leap beyond scripture in order to keep salvation “monergistic”, while EC is willing to embrace the tension in the scripture as is.

    If I am misunderstanding…help me to understand! 🙂

  3. Hey Pete,

    Good, I’m glad you came across this post of mine; I was thinking about both you and Dave K, as well, when I did this.

    Before I answer your excellent, and penetrating questions, let me sketch a little more context for perspective — at least from my vantage point (e.g. hopefully this will help clarify further, in re. to why I think EC is much more ‘scriptural’).

    There is a bigger concern to deal with before we ever get to soteriology (even though this post has to do with that, in particular); and that is our ‘Doctrine of God’. EC wants to make sure that the way we theologize honors and articulates who God is, through the categories and emphases that HIS life demands (e.g. thus a “scientific theology”). We want to make sure that we honor the fact that God is truly free, non-contingent, and determinative of all that is (esp. His own life). We also want to honor the idea that God is triune (de deo uno/trino), and that His life is defined by other-centered perichoretic union which is love.

    With all of these provisos in place we are then ready to talk about how a God like this can relate to His creation w/o collapsing His being into His creation (even as He ‘becomes’ His creation in the Incarnation) — which is the error of both the Arians and Docetists (from one side or the other).

    Getting to your questions, now:

    1)The only way I can imagine that we can faithfully honor these realities about God is if we work through “categories” that His life imposes upon our hearts and minds. Conversely, the way we can dishonor this, is if we bring “our experiences” or “philsophical” frameworks and categories to God; and then try to fit Him into those “negative” categories. So why do I see a problem with particular election/atonement (when it’s grounded in humanity/creation)? Because, if this is so, when Jesus becomes human He becomes shaped and determined to be who He is in His humanity by creation (or He is no longer supreme over His creation cf. Col. 1). Further, His incarnating work, following the trad. Calv. approach, is determined to be what it is by voluntaristic decrees (that is they are arbitrary decrees that may or may not be reflective of God’s inner-life [they are impersonal concepts that have a nature/creation based ontology of their own]). In short, if we follow the “Trad.”, then who God is in ‘salvation history’ is not necessarily tied to who God is in his ‘secret will’. So we end up with a “God behind the back of Jesus” (as TF Torrance would say).

    Do you see what I’m doing, I’m really trying to avoid your questions, insofar as your questions have certain expectations tied to them that I think are problematic at a level behind the level we are trying to discuss. I.e. that questions on salvation first need to be redressed by questions on how we understand God’s being in relation to Himself — and then in relation to us. And the only way we penetrate to that level is by working our way through a stratified knowledge of God provided by the “Revelation of Jesus Christ.”

    So before we talk about these other issues, we really need to nail down how it is that we think about God in His relation to us. That’s why I want to ground election/reprobation in the humanity of Christ’s vicarious life. This is the only way forward, that I can see, that does not collapse God’s being/life into His creation (this is exactly what happens if we make God submit to the “absolute decrees,” of which “limited to certain people election” actually is).

    2) So on this question, I would just say that once we have dealt with a God who is not “bound” by His decrees, that the way we think out this question (vis-a-vis, expectations) will be much different. The “limiting” idea (on either side) won’t be the issue we are trying to fit into a God who decrees. Instead we will ground our thinking in the freedom of God that we see externalized in Jesus Christ.

    I don’t know if that helps clarify where I’m coming from. But I think we need to have a talk about God and the decrees before we really can talk meaningfully about the specifics and execution of said decrees in soteriology.

  4. Brian,

    EC wants to ground “humanality” 😉 in the vicarious humanity of Christ. If we understand this properly (which it looks like I’ll be doing my PhD diss on), then the freedom of human choice is necessarily tied to the freedom that we see in Jesus’ choice as the hypostatic God-man. See this post on vicariousness:

    http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/01/08/stronger-than-super-glue-what-a-christ-centred-life-really-looks-like-galatians-2/

    http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2010/01/06/some-greek-the-faith-of-christ-in-galatians-220/

    http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/17/how-evangelical-calvinism-thinks-out-the-atonement/

    http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/09/12/sola-grace-arminians-scholastic-calvinists-and-ragamuffins-beware/

    http://evangelicalcalvinist.com/2009/08/30/the-order-of-salvation-christs-life-for-us/

    Read these posts to see what I’m getting at on vicariousness.

    I don’t think we can really parallel EC and FC in easy ways. As I just described to Pete, their points of departure on a Doctrine of God are substantial and significant.

  5. It seems that for TC the overarching attribute of God is His absolute power and control, so that no part of creation moves Him in anyway. For me, unimpeachable fairness, and caring are His hallmarks. Molloch (sp?) ate little babies, and yet, if he is the sovereign god, then he is justified, because as creator, he will choose whom he will choose among his creatures. All are sinners, if he chooses to cook some and accept others, how dare his subjects question him? (This is exactly the way I heard the question fielded on a Moody radio program today, of all places, only the names were changed.) So, not Molloch, but our Sovereign cooks some babies, not for time, but for eternity, and accepts others seemingly at random, certainly not by merit.
    He wrote extensive laws, to teach us to be fair, and to care about others. He came to Bethlehem and then Nazareth, then Jerusalem to teach us to care about our neigbors according to their need, not their merit, and then in Romans 9:18-23 (don’t bother me with context) God says: “oh those laws? They’re for you little people. You can’t hold great gods to such trifles. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE GREAT AND POWERFUL SOVEREIGN!

    Much of TC recognizes a need to be sure “I am of the elect” even though I have absolutely no control over that. We who abhor “decreeism” do so, not so much because we fear for our own salvation, but because we fear for our parents, our children, our friends and neigbors. What’s infinitely more fearful (if it were possible), is if there is a god who from a point in eternity past decided to eternally cook some, and save others, simply for his glory, and he is The Sovereign God, then my Jesus who walked in Galilee and said “Suffer the little children to come unto me”, is dead.

  6. Duane,

    I agree with you on your observation about Trad Calv and sovereignty. Again, the problem with making that the core of God’s being is that it makes it contingent upon creation (something/one to be sovereign over). This is what happens when we think of God as Creator before we think of Him as Father/Son first . . . we collapse God into His creation (see my point to Pete). Father/Son (Holy Spirit) is what defines the ‘who’ of God. Creator and Incarnation are something “new” for God — i.e. things that spring from his free choice of love for the other (so they are things or events that are totally consonant with ‘who’ He is as Father/Son [Holy Spirit]).

  7. Hi Bobby,

    I am really struggling to understand, but I am making the effort to struggle.

    I can’t watch the video on this computer but will watch tomorrow. But I’m dying to ask a quick question:

    > Do you think the language of hidden/secret should be totally dropped?

  8. Hey Dave K.,

    Yes, in short. God is on full display in Jesus. I.e. “No God behind the back of Jesus”. 🙂 Maybe I’ll just write another post communicating what tried to in the vid.

  9. Thanks Bobby, and thanks for the effort you go to to explain these things.

    I get the feeling that you and TFT are carrying around an (understandable) assumption that when people talk of the ‘hidden God’, or his ‘secret will’ that they mean that is more fundamental to who he is than what he ‘appears’ to be in Christ. However, I don’t think that is necessarily the case.

    But I’ll throw out some more questions first:

    1. Do you agree that God is the God who kills as well as makes alive?

    2. If so, do you see him behind each asymetrically, so that one is his ‘proper’ work and the other his ‘alien’ work?

    3. What do you do with those passages in the Bible where the Psalmists, and Jesus himself, appeals to God against God? I.e. they appeal to the revealed will of God (to bless and be faithful) against the experienced secret will of God (which stands behind death, suffering and reprobation)? e.g. ‘My God why have you forsaken me?’

    4. In what way will the eschaton bring a difference in our knowledge of God, and of his will towards us?

    5. You say: “if we follow the “Trad.”, then who God is in ‘salvation history’ is not necessarily tied to who God is in his ‘secret will’”, but is the only alternative to do away with the ‘secret will’ altogether? Compare Luther: “if you accept the God who is revealed, the hidden God will be given to you at the same time…If you wish to know what God’s secret intention is, his dear Son will show it to you. We must have a God who is hidden from us, but we should not investigate into him, else we shall break our necks”, and Bayer: “the dark, terrifying hidden God is not to be treated in any way as parallel to the one who reveals himself; the former is much more the subject matter for the lament, which I can direct to only to the God who has been revealed in Christ and can be addressed.”

    6. You say: “questions on salvation first need to be redressed by questions on how we understand God’s being in relation to Himself — and then in relation to us”… how is it is possible for us to work from a ‘doctrine of God’ to our experience of him in salvation (and in suffering)?

    7. Is there any way in which you would say that God is inexplicable in his dealings with us? If so, how is that different to his being hidden from us?

  10. Hi Bobby,

    Thanks for your patient, careful responses.

    I guess I wouldn’t want to think of ‘the decrees’ (for want of a better way of talking about them) as impersonal, or arbitrary, or as somehow detached from God’s inner life of Triune love. The Father loves the Son, and the Father elects in order to make the son the firstborn among many brothers. The Son loves the Father and therefore wants to do the Father’s will. Etc.

    I’d also include ‘obedience to the Father’ or something analogous to it in God’s inner life, so that when the Son becomes incarnate and says ‘Behold, I come to do your will, O God!’ this is a revelation and not a denial of the intra-trinitarian relations. In the same way therefore I don’t see a problem with the Son becoming man in order to enact the Father’s decree – that’s what he does/ who he is from eternity, yeah? Or am I missing something here (highly likely)?

    [I also have a feeling that a basically ‘supra’ outlook on things answers some of your problems re. the incarnation in TC, though I’d be very tentative in asserting that]

    Also, methodologically there’s a lot of truth in what you say here …

    “The only way I can imagine that we can faithfully honor these realities about God is if we work through “categories” that His life imposes upon our hearts and minds. Conversely, the way we can dishonor this, is if we bring “our experiences” or “philsophical” frameworks and categories to God; and then try to fit Him into those “negative” categories.”

    … we do also have to work out the ‘categories’ of God’s life from the revelation he’s given us (which I know you agree with, and I know in many ways is your whole point about the revelation of God in Jesus Christ) and the whole of that revelation at that. In the which case I think I’m brought back to the simplicity of texts which speak of God having ultimate control over who does and who doesn’t come to Christ for salvation, and indeed his control over all things.There are texts which seem to plainly teach this and therefore that has to factor in our doctrine of God’s inner life. These texts must feature in our doctrine of God’s inner life.

    So, I’d far rather talk texts than decrees, since I think any system ultimately has to stand or fall on that basis.

  11. Hi Bobby it has been quite some time since I have replied to any of your posts but I have been following along with them. I have managed to get a hold of Incarnation and Atonement but it has been a struggle reading either of them. I have also been able to get a hold of Scottish Theology and have read a little bit of it. I have a basic understanding of EC thanks to your posts. So I just want to thank you once again for this blog. Thank you for taking the time to post I do have some questions for you. Do you believe that the deterministic implications of FT hinders the freedom of God within that framework? How can God be completely free but yet at the same time be obligated to save some? Would God not then be bound by His own decrees? Would His freedom then be determined and limited to His own decrees? Wouldn’t His freedom be fashioned and formed by His own decrees? I really see the importance of grounding election in Christ and having a proper understanding of atonement.It really affects the whole scope of your theology and your relationship with the Lord of glory. Thanks, Chris

  12. Hi Bobby it has been quite some time since I have replied to any of your posts but I have been following along with them. I have managed to get a hold of Incarnation and Atonement but it has been a struggle reading either of them. I have also been able to get a hold of Scottish Theology and have read a little bit of it. I have a basic understanding of EC thanks to your posts. So I just want to thank you once again for this blog. Thank you for taking the time to post. I do have some questions for you. Do you believe that the deterministic implications of FT hinders the freedom of God within that framework? How can God be completely free but yet at the same time be obligated to save some? Would God not then be bound by His own decrees? Would His freedom then be determined and limited to His own decrees? Wouldn’t His freedom be fashioned and formed by His own decrees? I really see the importance of grounding election in Christ and having a proper understanding of atonement.It really affects the whole scope of your theology and your relationship with the Lord of glory. Thanks, Chris

  13. Hi Chris,

    Great to hear from you again.

    You’re absolutely right! Federal Calv says that God is different in His inner life than He is in His economic works in salvation history. The decrees, and the way they are framed, are the problem for them. Yes, and the trad calv decrees then shape God; and take on an ontology and absoluteness of their own.

    I’m glad you have those books by TFT, press on, I understand the difficulty of getting through some of these works (Atonement is a long one).

    Thanks for reading and commenting again 🙂 !

Comments are closed.