Limited Atonement is a Calvinist/Reformed doctrine that claims Jesus only died for the elect (salvation is not open to the whole world). Learn more about it from this Wiki article here.
A conversation with Calvinist friends recently brought this subject up in my mind. While there was much I admired, Limited Atonement was a deal-breaker for me, in the days when I was beeing wooed by (and personally persuing) the Reformed world.
The way I see things in the Bible, atonement is not limited, in that God opened wide the doors for all men—but, like the father of the Prodigal son in the parable, the Father wanted to leave it up to the child to decide if he wanted to come Home or not.
He would be at the end of the road waiting in hope, and yet He would also refuse to abuse His position of power by controlling the child’s decisions, even if that cost Him (ie, the pain of seeing a son choose to die in a pigsty).
Though I’m not in agreement with Arminian theology on some fronts, in this particular area I agree with them. The Calvinists say that if we say men limit the atonement by not choosing God, then we make God limited (by men’s choices). They claim they are taking the high road—that they are letting God do the limiting.
But I do not think God, in allowing humanity a choice, is at all being construed as “limited,” unless allowing others to the freedom to choose is mischaractarized as weakness instead of strength. Personally, I think it takes greater strength to allow freedom than it does to tightly control.
I am emphatically NOT saying that God must submit to the will of man. I personally believe that God chose to let men choose (just as He chooses to let us have breath). He’s still completely sovereign…He was the One who sovereignly decided choice would be allowed, that’s all. If God, in His sovereignty, chooses to allow mankind a choice, how is He any less Sovereign (or are we saying that Sovereignty limits God)?
From a human perspective, it seems sad but fair if the prodigal son chooses to die in the pigsty. It is just, if you understand what I’m saying, even though it’s wistfully sad that the child would choose to wreck his life in such a way.
The thought of the Father at the end of the road, waiting in hopeful love (and losing serious status by openly admitting his longing for a son who so astoundingly and flippantly disrespected his father by asking for his money before his father even died), fills me with a sense of…profound awe. What an amazing Father. I do not view His roadside stand as an act of weakness (or as a lack of sovereignty or lack of power), but proof of a great (self-less!) Love.
Whereas (these will be strong words, I know, but I can’t figure another way to express where I’m coming from) the Calvinist version of the parable seems to me to be more one of a Father who, while sacrificing the fatted calf for His favorites, personally delivers some of His kids to the pigsty to starve and die.
He doesn’t wait at the end of the road.
He’s got His kids under control, so He doesn’t need to do that.
Dad can’t go to the end of the road and wait with hope, because that would make it look like His Sovereignty is bested by His kid’s free will. In fact, letting one of the kids take his portion of the family treasures and go to the big city and party with them isn’t going to work either. In the Calvinist version of the parable, it seems to me that Dad puts His robe on one son and brings in the fatted calf for the feast, but not before He packs the other son up in the pick-up truck and drives him to the neighboring country’s pigsty to hand-deliver him to a fate of slowly starving to death.
The feast is only available to the kids Dad chooses. Oh, and there’s no waiting at the end of the road for this Dad. That would show weakness—that would show an allowance for the choices of others. No giving the family’s riches away and letting someone squander them. Nope. This Dad has everything under control.
Okay, now you can kill me. My friends think I’m horrifically harsh for saying I see the above as horrific. They also say that I’ve terribly misunderstood Calvinism. Maybe I have. But taking all the flowery words off of who I’ve read (Grudem, Piper, Sproul, etc), that’s what I see. Feel free to correct my errors.
Posted by Jemila on January 17, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Wonderful and passionately expressed thoughts. I guess what I wonder is, what is entailed in “coming home.” Is it intellectual agreement that Jesus died for your sins?” Or is it a posture of humility, desperation and openness to the vast, unplummable grace of the Parent who waits (wait, doesn’t wait…runs out to meet) the son taking his first little steps in the direction of home…
Posted by pauseforamoment on January 17, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Yes, completely agree.
Posted by tonia on January 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm
that’s pretty much where i get stuck with calvinism too. i just can’t bring myself to buy the whole package.
.
no stones from my corner!
Posted by Maureen E on January 17, 2008 at 5:21 pm
No stones at all. In fact, I may get a few thrown at me when I say that I disagree with every single aspect of TULIP. *hides*
Posted by Lindsey @ enjoythejourney on January 17, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Can I ask a question? Are all people who define themselves (sometimes quite proudly) as REFORMED, all calvinists too?
.
Because I could swear I have some “reformed” homeschool cohorts who are NOT calvinists?
.
But I am probably not clear. I get really messed up with stuff like this. I suffer from CTTS: Can’t Talk Theology Syndrome. It’s real!
Posted by Cassandra on January 17, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Right on Molly. Totally agree. I am most definately not a Calvinist, but I am most definately not an Armenian, either. I hate it when Calvinists call me that term. ‘Cause I am neither. I agree with some poins of TULIP, but not all. I am, shockingly, right in the middle on this one.
Posted by Cassandra on January 17, 2008 at 6:15 pm
um, that’s *points*.. not poins. he, he…
Posted by jacob on January 17, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Why I Am Not A Calvinist
Why I Am Not An Arminian
I haven’t read either of these, but they might be relevant to the discussion.
Posted by Beth on January 17, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Molly,
I totally agree with your conclusion about Calvinsim, and that God’s sovereignty is intact even when He gives us the freedom to choose. I’ve always wondered how it would feel to know that someone loved me because I made them love me. By definition that is not love. And it is in this manner that I understand darkly why God has allowed us the choice.
For those who are not put off by the Harry Potter books, there is perfect example of this with the villian’s mother. She had charmed the love of her life to love her back. But eventually she couldn’t stand the fact that his love was not of his own free will. So she set her husband free of the charm, hoping he would love her of his own volition. She discovered that this was the only love she wanted, one freely given.
But I did want to make a point about your use of the prodigal son. I have always viewed the prodigal son as just that…a son. A child of God who is trying to run away. I don’t see understand this parable as someone who has lost his salvation or someone who was never saved. I guess this is where my Calvinist tendencies show up. Anwhoo, to me the prodigal is a discussion of God’s pining and waiting for His errant children. And a discussion of the reaction of the faithful son who remained in the fields.
Whichever way you “translate” the prodigal, there is much meat there for us to savor. And I, like you, balk at Limited Atonement.
Thanks for the great thoughts!
Posted by Leah on January 17, 2008 at 7:41 pm
CTTS: Can’t Talk Theology Syndrome!
THAT’S ME! THAT’S ME!!!
Posted by Leigh Ann on January 17, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Along the lines of what Beth said, if you take the stance that God “elected” those who would be saved then the son in the story who ran away is just that–a son who ran away. The Father is waiting in hope (confident expectation) that the son will come home. He knows it is just a matter of time because He is irresistable to the son–who wouldn’t choose a hot meal and warm bed and fellowship over the husks and mud and swine (only those who don’t know the Father). But the Father still waits because this is the amazing love that he has for every lost sheep of his fold for every son. If you look at all those parables together it is all in the context of parts of a group (the coin part of the necklace, the sheep part of the flock and the son part of the family). In the prodigal son you have those (the elder brother) who have never strayed. They have never known a day when they did not believe, but then their are those who have to be wooed back to the Father.
Well, sorry about those ramblings.
I found this quote in the Wiki definition.
“On a practical level, this doctrine is not emphasized in Calvinist churches except in comparison to other salvific schemes, and when it is taught, the primary use of this and the other doctrines of predestination is the assurance of believers. To that end, they apply this doctrine especially to try to strengthen the belief that “Christ died for me,” as in the words of St. Paul, “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, emphasis added). In fact, contrary to what one might expect on the basis of this doctrine, Calvinists believe they can freely and sincerely offer salvation to everyone on God’s behalf since they themselves do not know which people are counted among the elect and since they see themselves as God’s instruments in bringing about the salvation of other members of the elect.”
This paragraph sums things up for me. I don’t think I have ever heard a sermon on LA. And I have been in reformed circles for a while. I’ve always maintained that LA is something after the fact of the coming home. Realizing that you are one of the many choosen before the foundation of the world. But before you came, you came because He said “Come unto me” and “whosoever will may come”. I think Spurgeon said something to that effect but much more skillfully that I ever could.
But just a question if you don’t mind. If God leaves the choice up to man than does God know what choice the man will make? Is he waiting at the end of the road wondering?
Posted by Keer on January 17, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Yup. Right there with ya. We actually left an otherwise great church when this was preached from the pulpit. *sigh* We found out they were Reformed after we started attending (it was NOWHERE on their website), but up until that point they had never “gone there.” Then one Sunday they did. Boo hoo.
Posted by Acceptance-with-Joy on January 18, 2008 at 5:06 am
Molly,
I have this on my reading list (which is a sham list of more books than I can read in a lifetime Getting the Gospel Right
A Balanced View of Salvation Truth by Gordon Olson. You can get on overview of his theory on Mediate Salvation on the Home Page of the same website.
.
Has anyone read this book?
Posted by hippiechyck on January 18, 2008 at 5:18 am
Molly, you should read “Israel My Beloved” by Kay Arthur…a beautiful picture of God’s love
Posted by Greg on January 18, 2008 at 5:28 am
Hey Molly – long time no speak, but I’ve been lurking for a while now just to see if you’ve killed any moose lately.
This probably makes me a troll. If so, just tell me and I’ll go back under my bridge, but I can restrain myself no longer. I think I had an extra twinkie for breakfast this morning or something.
Anyway, let me ask this to approach from a different angle. When we are finally face to face with our Savior after the resurrection, will it be possible for us to sin? If so, then I’ll just go away. If not, why not?
Sincerely,
Your favorite Floridian troublemaker
Posted by pistolpete on January 18, 2008 at 5:31 am
No doubt “Limited Atonement” become one of the pillars of Calvinist thinking. But Calvin was much more nuanced in his theology. Take, for example, this quote -
“No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief.”
I count myself a Calvinist and understand “Limited Atonement” not so much as a limit on Christ’s sacrificial love as a description of what actually happens (not all are saved). Perhaps I’m a pseudo-Calvinist.
Posted by paisley3 on January 18, 2008 at 5:57 am
Yep, that pretty much sums it up: preference, exclusion, shunning…class system, caste system…feudal system where they have incorporated the hierarchy of their culture into their faith—the haves in the good ole boy club determining on one given day who gets to be cool and who doesn’t.
To me it is just as much socio-economic as it is a feigned theological stand. Most of “calvinism” of America is set up to uphold the existing structures of the society in the hands of those who hold power. Oh, and grace? Not so much.
Paisley
Posted by jacob on January 18, 2008 at 5:57 am
Olson peddles (I don’t mean that negatively) his books at the annual Evangelical Theological Society conventions. In November 2005, I bought a signed copy of BEYOND CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM from him after hearing him talk about his via media position. In November 2006 he was giving away free copies of GETTING THE GOSPEL RIGHT (the abridged and revised version of the other book). I skimmed them both, read some of them, but don’t remember much. I think they’re probably worth reading (and I don’t think knowing Greek is required, but probably helpful).
.
I think an easier way to break down the Calvinism/Arminian impasse is to remove Romans 9-11 from your New Testament.
.
I no longer have a dog in the fight, and from reading Olson’s comparison chart, I suspect that the EO view on this does not fit any of the columns very well – though it’s more Arminian, the EO view of the atonement is more influenced by Christus Victor than by substitionary and penal atonement (though that’s not denied).
.
Maybe I’ll dig out my books and glance at them again, esp. re: how he handles Romans 9-11. Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by jacob on January 18, 2008 at 6:04 am
I wonder, though, how many “Calvinists” (and Reformed Christians) have actually read and studied Calvin’s Institutes, versus how many have a 4-Spiritual-Laws (i.e., tract-sized) knowledge or understanding (in other words, no real indepth knowledge or understanding) of his theology? Conversely, I wonder how many who reject Calvinism are reacting to (against) or rejecting a simplistic understanding of what Calvin believed, taught and wrote?
.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have only read parts of his Institutes, though the McNeill & Battles 2-volume set is on my bookshelf. (I’ve been told by a great respecter of Calvin that the public domain 1-volume edition that one can cheaply buy in paperback or get for free on the Internet is NOT the one to read, as it’s not Calvin’s final edition.)
Posted by Barb on January 18, 2008 at 6:05 am
I’m not a theologian (just play one at home with my kids sometimes) but what I understand about Calvinism and election is pretty much what you’ve said: God limits Himself by our choices (look at the Genesis Adam/Eve story) but His salvation reaches the world. If everyone in the world turned to Him, He would receive them. But He’s given us the choice – so we love out of love rather than because we are made to. I think only strict, dare I say, fanatical Calvinists would hold to what you are against. And at the same time I believe He knows who will make a choice for him and who will turn away, but we believe it’s still a choice, free-will. That’s more a question in my mind than election – is free-will really free? Am I really choosing since God already knows the outcome? Can we say mystery?
Posted by Jeannine on January 18, 2008 at 8:11 am
Hey Molly, it’s been a long time! I’m glad you’re blogging here again
.
Limited Atonement is one of the five points I’m still struggling to understand. Especially after reading somewhere (sorry, I cannot remember where) that God predestined some to be safed, but He did not predestine anyone to eternal damnation. Can anyone shed light on this?
.
And a question on freedom of choice: if man is under the dominion of sin and completely sinful, how can he freely choose to believe in God?
So, lots of questions here too
Posted by chewymom on January 18, 2008 at 8:11 am
Hey Molly,
Wow–I kinda don’t want to get into this discussion. I’ve been reformed for most of my adult life. I’ve also been opposed to women in leadership of any kind (fearing even to speak up in Sunday school), a Rush Limbaugh listener, Republican voter, and strict disciplinarian. I have thought through a lot of those issues and realized they just don’t line up with ME any more. Calvinsim is an issue I haven’t gotten to yet on my list of things to rethink!
Still, let me give you my take on it. We absolutely have free will. But our flesh will always choose that which is not God. I mean, how often does my heart run after idols? How often do I try to save myself through right theology, well-behaved children, or whatever. How often to I take my pain and turn to…whatever–alcohol, girlfriends, hiding, shopping? All. the. time. My heart doesn’t think to run to God on my own.
My only hope is that God will remove my heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh that yearns for Him and Him alone. I screw up, he draws me back. Over and over. On my own, I’d continue after the idols–and often I do. But Jesus can draw me back. And when he does, the sweetness of him is irresistible to my thirsty soul.
And that’s Calvinism in a grace-filled (I hope) nutshell. At least that’s Calvinism-according-to-Chewymom. I want less than the best because I don’t know better. Jesus shows me how much better he is, and I can’t help but be drawn to him.
Might I also add that this view also takes the pressure WAY off of me in terms of sharing my faith. It isn’t up to me and my brilliance, my eloquence or wittiness, or how good I need to make God look to an unbeliever. It is God, using my stumbling, fumbling, bumbling self as he ignites a fire in the heart of the unbeliever–a fire and a desire that they cannot deny is there, because the Holy Spirit is THAT GOOD at showing Jesus to be irresistible!
Posted by Mike Swalm on January 18, 2008 at 8:55 am
I hate people like me on public forums, but i needed to make a comment. Some people get all made when you point out bad spelling, but this one is necessary.
ArmEnians are people from the Republic of Armenia, a country in the Southern Caucasus, Eurasia.
ArmInianism is is a school of soteriological thought in Protestant Christian theology founded by the Dutch theologian Jacobus Hermanszoon, who was best known by his Latinized name, Jacobus Arminius.
Both from wikipedia. Thanks.
On the actual theological front, since i’m a full-fledged armInian (not armenian at all…irish-german, in fact) I’ve had problems with limited atonement for a long time. Sure, the actual results of the atonement are limited (there are some who WILL NOT respond to Christ), I can’t help but believe that the scope of the atonement is not. Christ died for all, and anyone who believes will be saved. Of course, since this has been argued for centuries, i doubt my firm proclamation stands to sway very many
Posted by jacob on January 18, 2008 at 9:07 am
And Armeanians are Arminians who are hateful in their discussions with Calvinists – who should properly be called Cauvinists or Chauvinists – Jean Cauvin’s real name in French.
Posted by jacob on January 18, 2008 at 9:08 am
Typo – And Armeanians are Arminians who are hateful in their discussions with Calvinists – who should properly be called Cauvinists or Chauvinists (John Calvin’s real French name).
Posted by Bethany on January 18, 2008 at 9:35 am
My understanding of limited atonement is that Christ’s work on the cross is efficacious only for the elect – e.g., His death on the cross only saves Christians. There is still room for choice, if you allow that God knows all things, and knows who will come to Him. If you say Christ’s death was efficacious for all people, then you are also saying that it wasn’t good enough to cover those who reject Him; that the will of man can overcome the saving work of Christ.
At least that’s my understanding of it. To me, it seems like it’s basically saying, “not everyone will be saved,” but in a much more confusing, semantics-mincing way.
Posted by jacob on January 18, 2008 at 9:43 am
But … what was/is John Calvin’s understanding of “Limited Atonement”? How did he develop and explicate the doctrine in his Institutes (or in his sermons)? Can a person’s opinion of “limited atonement” be said to be correct or valid if it does not line up with what Calvin actually taught and what Calvinism does indeed teach/assert? (And I am ignorant of all the above.)
Posted by Barb on January 18, 2008 at 10:50 am
Bethany said: If you say Christ’s death was efficacious for all people, then you are also saying that it wasn’t good enough to cover those who reject Him; that the will of man can overcome the saving work of Christ.
In my limited understanding – Christ’s victory on the cross is good enough to cover those who reject him, but they have rejected him and hence are not “saved”.
Posted by Nathan Bubna on January 18, 2008 at 11:22 am
I’ve always had the impression that Calvin wasn’t all that much of a Calvinist. Aren’t the 5 pricks..er..points of Calvinism derived from his work and not actually something he put together? So i’ve been told, though i can’t verify it myself.
Anyway… Love is risk. Putting your heart in the hands of another and letting them choose to cherish or drop it. If putting oneself under another is limiting, then such is love. As you say very well, Molly, how can we claim human choice undermines God’s sovereignty if He chose to give us choice? Let’s not limit His sovereignty with our definitions of it.
I’ve been very influenced by my old pastor in Salem who once spoke on free will and God’s sovereignty. He said both were very clearly taught in the Bible (and i would add, seem fairly evident in the world around us), so he believes they’re both true and can’t understand it. I loved that humility. I have since come to love philosophy and theology for a similar reason: in no other pursuit is it so easy to find the limits of human understanding. They remind me i am small and limited for they regularly demonstrate clear truths in apparent conflict (and humanly unresolvable, at least in any way as convincing as the truths themselves). This is much better than my evil reasons for enjoying philosophy and theology (largely the joy of showing myself smarter than others), and i’m thankful to have it.
Posted by jacob on January 18, 2008 at 11:26 am
Synod of Dort => TULIP
Posted by molleth on January 18, 2008 at 12:04 pm
There’s more here to answer than I have time, but I wanted to say HI to Greg the Floridian Troll (harhar) and request that, if you have the time, would you mind posting a comment on what LA is, in your mind? I thought about you (and my friend chewy) as I posted this, which is precisely why I honestly ask for clarification if I’ve totally missed the boat.
Oh, and in answer to your question: I don’t know for certain. I don’t think so, though.
.
Mike, the sweet Chewy also pointed that out in a private email, too! (Note: I am a habitual and horrible mis-speller…feel free to point that out at anytime-lol). I read her email, laughed at my error, and then promptly went off and forgot to correct it. HA! SO, sorry to confuse your theological position with someone else’s ethnicity, and vice versa. *grins*
.
Also, to anyone and all, I know I’m mixing Limited Atonement in with some of the other points(which are fairly connected, making it difficult to fully split them up) and I also fully agree that one can take parables too far (and/or allegorize them waaay beyond their actual intent), and that the above post is emphatically not an entirely accurate way of looking at the parable.
.
I am only using the parable that way to make a point, not because I think it actually is a treatise against Calvinism—-I’m trying to show what Limited Atonement makes the Father into, in my mind, and that parable seemed to be an excellent vehicle for trying to express what I, so far, have not had the words to explain. One person says LA is beautiful, and I say I find it repugnant…Well, that doesn’t really help the conversation much…HA!
.
So the above post is my first stab at finding words for what makes me reject LA. I am familiar with many of the arguments *for* LA. But my problem is what it makes God into…to me, it takes a beautiful picture of a Father and turns Him into something else.
.
Posted by molleth on January 18, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Greg,
Do you still have a blog? If so, and if you have the time (and the inclination) to write and correct what you see as error in the above post, please come back and share the link here.
.
From everything I’ve read, I think I will disagree with LA no matter how it’s explained. I just don’t see a clear Biblical case for it. I’d prefer to hold Romans 9-11 in tension with verses like John 3:16 and the “whosoever-will’s”, etc, as opposed to using one to interpret the other.
.
That said, I really don’t want to totally misprepresent the Calvinist position here. That’s not my intention, and I know too many God-loving Calvinists to believe that they all run around praising a God who is horrific. Which is a way of saying something to the effect of,
.
“I am fallible and could be wrong in my conclusion and/or comprehension of LA. HOWEVER, from what I’ve read thus far, which was actually quite a bit (though it was a while back), the above post is my summation of what I saw lurking under the rhetoric. But I’m fallible. Meaning, my interpretation may not be accurate. Then again, Calvinists are equally human therefore equally fallible.”
.
Which is sort of another way of saying, uh, I don’t really know what I’m saying. Just processing. Verbally/typewriterically.
Posted by Ed Eubanks on January 18, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Your thoughts are well-ordered and well-articulated, Molly. Thanks for sharing them.
One of the sticky parts of following the line of thought you articulate, though is this: if limited atonement is not biblical– that is, if the redeemed are not “elect” by God– then only those who choose to come before the cross are redeemed, right? In that case, it was possible– free will is truly free, after all– that NO ONE would have chosen to do so? If you don’t believe this is possible, then it seems to me that you either embrace a form of closet-limited atonement, or you disagree with the doctrine of depravity as well.
Another point to consider: why pray to God for the salvation of others, if it is actually their choice? Why not pray to them? This seems to be the more reasonable position; they are, in fact, the ones who hold all of the cards when the moment of decision comes.
By the way: as one who IS a Calvinist, I appreciate your tone and approach, Molly. I cannot say that I feel the same way about the many commenters who seem to believe that your disagreement with a particular doctrine is an invitation to vilify and smear the beliefs of others with straw-men, ad hominems, and hyperbole. Would you ask your readers to tone it down? I’d appreciate a bit more gracious tone from folks that tout themselves as holding the more gracious position.
Posted by Re4mdmom on January 18, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I think the Prodigal Son is a great testimony to the truth of the Doctrines of Grace (what some have termed, Calvinism). The son starts out is in his father’s favor. His is going to get his birthright, but because he is dissatisfied with the how and when his father gives it out, he rejects it and goes out to live on his own. Finally, he sees his folly and returns to his father with a contrite heart.
A perfect example of “perseverance of the Saints.” The whole point of the parable is to show believers that, even when we sin and break God’s Law, He is there, waiting to welcome us with his Grace. That the son is a prodigal would indicate that he starts out in his father’s favor.
It is not about an unregenerate person choosing to return to the home of his father. Its about someone who is already saved going out, doing his own thing, and then, in seeing his folly, returns to his father.
The bottom line is that, unless you’re a universalist, you limit the atonement. Its either limited by man’s choice or God’s choice. As a Calvinist, I believe that the atonement only effects salvation for the elect. It is the blood of Christ that saves. If it is applied to everyone, then everyone is saved.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. I’d like to echo Ed’s opinion about your tone, Molly. It is respectful and fair and even though I disagree with you, I appreciate that you don’t muddy up the waters with feelings… I’d also like to second Ed’s request to your fellow commenters as well. Many thanks.
Posted by Kievas Fargo on January 18, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Too tired to write much, but I enjoyed your post. For the record, I tend to favor the Arminian angle as well.
Posted by Wes.. on January 19, 2008 at 1:20 pm
…would easily recommend “The Shack” by William P. Young…excellent follow-up to this excellent post.
Posted by Bryan Riley on January 19, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I tend to be pan-Sovereignty, like pan-Millenialists, in that I think it will all pan out in the end, when we can see clearly. It strikes me that we simply have no abiliity to articulate the mind and Sovereignty of God, yet we try to in spite of our current condition. If we truly understood the mind of God, we probably wouldn’t need God. I think it is sad that we argue with family over these types of issues, even dividing over them, in spite of God’s desire that have unity in Jesus Christ. So, when we get all up in arms over issues like these we are being disobedient. We can have opinions, but we need to be honest about our inability to KNOW FOR CERTAIN and submit to one another’s opinions, for that is all they are.
Good post. Good discussion. Let’s all be more real about our understanding before an amazing and awesome God.
Posted by jacob on January 19, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Perhaps the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is similar to the wave vs. particle debate about light. Apparently it was resolved by, or subsumed under, the wave-particle duality concept.
Posted by jacob on January 19, 2008 at 4:24 pm
The God of The Shack
Posted by Deena on January 19, 2008 at 9:09 pm
I think that both you are right and John Calvin is right. Only he looks at salvation from outside the perspective of time and you look at it from within the perspective of time.
Posted by jacob on January 20, 2008 at 6:24 am
But can one speak of salvation “outside the perspective of time”? If there is no time (and hence no space, either – that’s why it’s called the space-time continuum), then one simply is. And unless one is like Schrödinger’s proverbial cat, i.e., simultaneously both “saved” and “lost,” from that perspective there never was a “time” (since there is no time) when one was not what one is, so one could not go from “lost” to “saved” when looked at from a timeless perspective.
.
Was Calvin smoking something?
Posted by Barb on January 20, 2008 at 6:59 am
I think you have to be Dr. Spock to understand that one – it’s a little freaky since I just read the chapter in A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson last night talking Schrodinger’s cat and I just shook my head in bewilderment and read on (sorry no umlauts on my keyboard)
Posted by Atlantic on January 20, 2008 at 7:29 am
The same stuff as C.S. Lewis at the end of The Great Divorce.
Actually, I would seriously hesitate to say that Calvin has the outside-of-time perspective, and because that’s pretty nearly equivalent to saying that he had God’s perspective on it, whereas Arminians are just limited humans.
Personally, from my knowledge of the parallel debate in Catholic history (Thomism = near-Calvinism; Molinism = Arminianism AFAICS; there was a huge debate that was settled when both systems and one other were approved until further notice), I strongly suspect that both sides are correct in different limited-human ways, whereas in God’s perspective (and possibly ours when we enter eternity), they are not contradictory.
Posted by Atlantic on January 20, 2008 at 8:55 am
Aha! Found a portion of The Great Divorce quote online:
.
.
It goes on, but my own copy is in one of about a hundred boxes at home…
Posted by jacob on January 20, 2008 at 10:31 am
Umlaut is Alt + 148 = ö
Posted by jacob on January 20, 2008 at 10:35 am
Umlaut “o” is Alt + 148 = ö
See Extended ASCII Characters
Hold down the Alt key and use the numeric keypad to type the Dec(imal) number.
Posted by molleth on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 pm
My life is too…busy…but I’m reading this conversation and enjoying it.
Thanks, all.
Posted by Paul on January 21, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“The way I see things in the Bible, atonement is not limited, in that God opened wide the doors for all men…”
to quote monty python “or women”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFEmQ6ujOrU
Posted by Greg on January 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Hey Molly,
Just wanted to pop in and say that I am not ignoring you – we’ve just been at the beach so much that I haven’t had time to give a thoughtful response. (Yes, the kids were swimming in the pool last week – how’s the weather in AK?). So instead, you get this smart alek one.
But hey, what did you expect?
Posted by Greg on January 29, 2008 at 9:00 am
OK, I think I finally found a few minutes to spill out a few thoughts.
No, I don’t have a blog anymore – six kids and everything else seem to prohibit that exercise, which never really was much anyway.
Anyway, just some thoughts. You are right, we are all fallible – but that does not mean we are all equally right or equally wrong on everything, nor does it preclude certain knowledge. I don’t think that any of us has it all figured out, but that does not mean that we have to languish in continual doubt. It also does not mean that it is impossible for some folks among us to have gotten things pretty close to dead on.
The definition of LA at the head of your post is a little insufficient, in my mind. I would disagree with the parenthetical. The 5 points stand or fall together; it is a coherent summation of soteriology that falls apart without everything in place. Thus, the statement that “salvation is not open to the whole world” is a bad paraphrase for LA because it ignores the total inability of a dead person to make themselves alive again. We should actually talk about particular atonement rather than LA. That is to say that Jesus died for His own in particular, to secure their salvation through the imputation of His righteousness by His perfect obedience to God’s law and through His propitiation by His complete consumption of God’s righteous wrath poured out. Atonement is not limited in any way, it is just applied particularly to his elect. He did not die to provide the possibility of salvation, he died to secure it. If Jesus died to provide merely the possibility of salvation for any who call on Him, then is there any guarantee that any will be saved? If there is no guarantee that any will be saved, how can Jesus make some of the promises and claims that he does?
I asked the question about heaven because I think the answer (if your answer is no, it is not possible to sin in heaven) helps in understanding what the Bible says about election/predestination/etc. We all do what we most want to do, all of the time, based on various motivations. In short, we act according to the way that God wired us, or to be more Biblical, according to the way He the potter shaped us on His wheel.
Here is what Edwards says about this:
“Objectors may say, God cannot always prevent men’s sins, unless he act contrary to the free nature of the subject, or without destroying men’s liberty. But will they deny, that an omnipotent and infinitely wise God could not possibly invent, and set before men, such strong motives to obedience, and have kept them before them in such a manner, as should have influenced all mankind to continue in their obedience, as the elect angels have done, without destroying their liberty? God will order it so, that the saints and angels in heaven never will sin: and does it therefore follow, that their liberty is destroyed, and that they are not free, but forced in their actions? Does it follow, that they are turned into blocks, as the Arminians say the Calvinist doctrine turn men?”
Anyway, we could go on about this for sure, but this format frustrates me a little. I am a much more comfortable in speaking and clarifying rather than writing and I just don’t get the time to write things the way I would like to. I submit these thoughts in all humility with apologies for any offense of oversimplification, misrepresentation, or presumed arrogance. In fact, as a recipient of God’s sovereign grace, I am most humbled in knowing all that I have received as a gift and am well aware of where I would be apart from his sovereign intervention in my life.
So I conclude by saying that while I think God’s glory is most manifest in a correct understanding of what I see the Bible says about God’s sovereignty, you think that His glory is most manifest in what you see the Bible says about God’s staying out of an individual’s decision to believe in Jesus. One of us is more right than the other because both approaches cannot be equally faithful to reality. But, despite these differences in non-essential doctrines, I think we agree that salvation is found in Jesus Christ, however that comes about. So we seek to spread the gospel and to make disciples. And along the way we wrestle with these sometimes difficult and sticky finer points of doctrine, in love, as we seek to be faithful to Him.
Posted by Julie in Ohio on February 1, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Amen! Well said all around