Dedicated to the devotional, exegetical and philosophical study of theological paradox in Conservative, Thoroughly Biblical, Historically Orthodox, Essentially Reformed theology . . . to the glory of God alone!

Friday, January 29, 2010

Moderate Calvinism Explained

Jack Brooks is the Pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Georgetown, Kentucky, which happens to be about an hour south of where I used to live, in the rolling hills of the Bluegrass State. Although I've never met him, I enjoy Jack's thoughtful blog articles, which occasionally hit on hot button issues. One of his recent posts offers a near perfect explanation of what it means to be a "moderate" Calvinist. Or, as Steve Costley puts it,  to be an advocate of  Controversial Calvinism.

Moderate Calvinism strives for the Biblical balance in all things. It does not seek a mid-point between Arminianism and Calvinism (I doubt there is such a thing), but a balance of all the key components in Reformed soteriology. In terminology, moderate Calvinists range from total rejection of limited atonement (sometimes called "4-point Calvinism") to full acceptance of limited atonement with the addition of other balancing factors. Well-known Calvinists who reject limited atonement would include Bruce Ware and Randy Alcorn (a historical representative would be Donald Grey Barnhouse).

In my study, most  Calvinists (including quite a few high Calvinists) take a position somewhere between the view that strictly limits every benefit of the atonement to the elect and an outright denial of limited atonement. There are lots of ways to articulate a middle position on the extent of the atonement, and this seems to be the course followed by most Reformed thinkers, whether they are classified as moderate or high, 4-point or 5-point,  4.25, 4.5, 4.75, or whatever. There can be a lot of needless hair splitting, mislabeling and debating about this, but I respect any position that is orthodox, sincerely held, and thoroughly grounded in Scripture. Folks who are just toeing the party line and repeating the philosophical conclusions logically demanded by their systematic theology aren't adding anything to the discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

I find that moderate Calvinists whose church polity requires allegiance to all 5 points (e.g., Presbyterians) tend to qualify "limited atonement" as being both limited and unlimited, but in different senses. The classic formulation is "sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect only." I observe that moderate Calvinists whose church polity does not require allegiance to all 5 points tend to call themselves 4-point Calvinists and reject limited atonement altogether (at least in their terminology). There are, of course, many exceptions, but the point is this: approaches to the atonement that are very nearly the same can be called 4-point or 5-point Calvinism interchangeably - depending on the context.

John Piper describes the moderate position well when he says this:

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers—from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross. (SOURCE)

Jack Brooks describes it in a slightly different way, but with his characteristic candor and wisdom, here:

CLICK HERE for the article


Excerpt:



I was recently asked why I described myself as a moderate Calvinist. The "moderate" part reflects the fact that I understand the Scripture to teach that, in some sense, Christ died for everyone without exception. Christ provided the possibility of redemption for everyone, and an actual redemption is applied only to the elect -- those who are given the gift of faith. The logic problems that my five-point Calvinist brethren immediately raise don't sway me, since the only concern I choose to have is over what specific verses actually say in the original languages -- not how many logic syllogisms my view might seem to contradict, or how one escapes "double jeopardy", and so on. Those philosophical objections don't matter to the question, "what does this verse mean?" because, in the end, they are philosophical objections, not exegetical questions. Only exegetical principles matter when one is asking the question, "What does this verse mean?" The question, "How can I reconcile this with these other ideas over here" is a secondary, or even a tertiary, concern. Not a primary concern. Limited atonement does not survive consistent, thorough-going exegetical analysis. It's our job to iron out any wrinkles that the exegesis might create in the over-all fabric of our systematic theology.

33 comments:

  1. I'm a little confused.
    1. Is 'regular' or classic Calvinism between middle and high or is high classic and then hyper beyond that?
    2. So is Piper a middle?
    3. Would Calvin be 'high'?

    I know what I believe but I'm not up on all the labels. I believe I would not be moderate but def not hyper.
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jeff,

    These are good questions. I'm not sure I can definitively answer them, but I'll share a few observations.

    High Calvinism is generally defined as a belief in all 5 points plus supralapsarianism. Don't get me started about the uselessness of lapsarian debates - I'll write a post on that someday. High Calvinists generally hold to a more strictly limited atonement than moderates do. Many hold that the atonement purchased nothing at all for the non-elect (i.e., the atonement was STRICTLY limited to the elect).

    All hyper Calvinists are supralapsarian (though not all supralapsarians are hyper). To be classified as hyper, one must also deny human responsibility and/or deny the free offer of the Gospel. You may want to check out Phil Johnson's excellent article called "A Primer on Hyper Calvinism" for a better explanation.

    We have to be careful with these labels because there are many other aspects to consider. Some extremely high Calvinists are almost hyper in some regards, but manage to stay balanced one way or another - they just don't like the terminology used by moderates. Being a hyper Calvinist doesn't make one's theology entirely worthless. Many consider John Gill to have been a hyper Calvinist, but his writings are nonetheless theologically useful. I've personally enjoyed reading the sermons of J.C. Philpot, but he was undeniably hyper. As with everything, one must use discernment and try not to throw the baby out with the bath water. That said, hyper Calvinism IS a pernicious misrepresentation of God and the Gospel. It's dangerous and unscriptural, to be avoided like the plague.

    I would classify Piper as a moderate, but definitely a "5-point" moderate. Piper may be one of the most balanced Calvinists in history.

    As for Calvin, there is much debate over his actual position on the atonement. Both moderate and high Calvinists claim him as their own, and both groups seem to have some evidence. I've seen a lot of quotes that would seem to prove Calvin believed the atonement was intended for all people.

    Many who believe in unlimited atonement also believe in particular redemption, and the hair splitting goes on.

    For me, there is a very exciting paradox in all of this. The old joke is that any 10 Calvinists will represent 11 different views of the atonement.

    I believe the worst mistake we can make here is to turn the atonement into a mere controversy and then divide with godly people over slight-to-moderate disagreements. I don't agree perfectly with anyone I've read on this subject, yet I agree with almost all Reformed thinkers on some aspects. Ultimately, I prefer the moderate 5-point position (both limited and unlimited, but in different senses) because it seems most faithful to all of the Scriptural data. At the same time, I have some high Calvinist friends whom I respect highly - though I believe they have gone too far in limiting the atonement. I also agree with some of the arguments presented by "4-pointers" like Bruce Ware.

    That's my best answer to your questions. Perhaps I've only added to the confusion . . . but I hope not.

    Blessings,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks that was indeed helpful. I'm going to just stay away from the supra stuff.

    I'm probably a medium high Calvinist. I didn't know Piper is moderate because he says jokingly he's a '7 point Calvinist' but he's obviously far from hyper.

    You're one of the most similar people to me I've known from what I know so far except your a lot farther along.

    Thanks again,
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, Jeff can stay away from "the supra stuff" but I'm looking forward to that post on the lapsarian debates (mainly because I consider them useless too). :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Barry,

    Some day I'll write that post. There's a good reason why Calvin called God's decrees "secret" and "hidden."

    Blessings,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  7. hey the SZ,

    You say:

    1. Is 'regular' or classic Calvinism between middle and high or is high classic and then hyper beyond that?
    2. So is Piper a middle?
    3. Would Calvin be 'high'?

    David says:
    1) I think Derek nailed it. Here is a good visual resource which may help: Conference Chart

    2) I think Piper is properly high, but wants to pay proper attention to the universal passages in Scripture, while still retaining the ideas of limited expiation and sin-bearing.

    3) Calvin was clearly a moderate. See here: John Calvin (1509-1564) on Unlimited Expiation, Sin-Bearing, Redemption

    Good post Derek.

    David

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you David. I saw that chart a long time ago but it's more understandable to me now.

    I'll look at the other link. I think it's good know Calvin may have been a moderate by today's standards (except for maybe capitol punishment!).

    Next year I want to finally read his Institutes. I think it's strange for someone to say they're a Calvinist before reading them but I've read a few books and so much stuff online I think I have a good idea but Biblically I'm very confident in what I believe (for now).
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Jeff,

    You may also find this post [An Explanation of a Few Calvinistic Labels] helpful. Then, when you compare it with the categories in my conference chart, you can see why there is both supralapsarian and infralapsarian names in the "High" category. There are higher high's [supra's] and lower high's [infra]. What makes them "high" is their strictly limited atonement view, or the view that Christ only substituted for the elect. Many of them, historically, have affirmed that certain universal aspects overflow to all men as a result of Christ's work [such as the bounties of common grace], but they all [high's] concur with a limited imputation of sin to Christ. This view is the most popular today among those calling themselves "5 pointers," and very few of them have sufficiently studied the moderate view historically, so they hastily and erroneously lump it all together as "Amyraldism."

    The moderate or classical position maintains more than the fact that common grace flows to all by virtue of Christ's work. They believe that Christ substituted for every man, and thus satisfied what the law demans of every given sinner in the world. However, they distinguish his motives in doing so, just as they distinguish between senses of God's salvific will. There is a sense in which God desires the salvation of all men, and a sense in which God has only purposed the salvation of the elect. Christ gives expression to *both* of these aspects of God's will in the death he died. So, while he suffers for all and expresses God's wish for all to be saved thereby, He still suffers with a special motive/will/intent/purpose to save all those unconditionally appointed to eternal life.

    Grace to you,
    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tanks Tony. Nice blog. I'm trying to cut back but all of a sudden I'm finding all these great Calvinist blogs.
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jeff,

    There are so many good blogs, it's hard to find time to read them all. In fact, for me, it's hard to find (or to justify) time to blog. You've definitely discovered some great resources in David's, Tony's, and Derek's blogs. Blessings!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tony,

    Thanks for the link. I've referred to your excellent article about paradox and mystery on many occasions. I take an approach that is just slightly different, but very similar in practice (I posit that some paradoxes are grounded in mystery, i.e., unrevealed information leading to the appearance of contradiction where it doesn't actually exist - but as long as the information remains unrevealed, the paradox will still be there at some level - yet that's not to say someone can't "theorize" into the unrevealed information - although sometimes this "theorizing" does more harm than good - e.g. speculations about the secret decree of election - so we should just accept what's written, and the fact that we can't know everything, even if our partially illumined minds see the revealed information as contradictory - thus a Biblical Fideist position that elevates Scripture above human reason without in any way denying the value and validity of logic - nowhere close to irrational neo-orthodoxy, but miles away from Scripturalism, too). I've found few that have interacted with the topic in the balanced way you have. One is hard pressed to find anything on the internet, beyond reprints of the typical Scripturalist/Clarkian hyper-rejection of all theological paradox (along with the customary insults and condemnations of those who disagree). Your article makes great points and is a good antidote to their uncharitable and ultimately illogical approach.

    I suppose THEOparadox is an attempt to mitigate some of the hyperizing effect of over-emphasizing philosophical theology and downplaying Biblical theology. A little bit of paradox softens philosophical theology enough to bring in all the Biblical data. Without some logical overlap, one is forced to push certain essential things out - and the result is always imbalance (and sometimes heresy).

    I'll stop preaching now! :)

    Blessings,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  13. hey Derek,

    No dont stop preaching. While I know your blog has broader concerns which are all totally valid, its completely needed that folk speak out against the rationalist assertions of the Clarkian epistemologists and Clarkian hypercalvinists.

    Hey SJ,

    I would encourage you to consider reading some of Calvin's sermons. They balance out the overall perception of his theology.

    Thanks and take care,
    David

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've found Calvin's commentaries to be extremely useful. There's also a handy little book called "A Calvin Reader," which contains topically organized quotes from Calvin's sermons, commentaries, Institutes, etc. It seems to provide a balanced sampling of his thoughts on various subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Derek,

    Thanks for your references to my post on paradox and mystery and for your several compliments.

    Like you, I think rationalism is quite dangerous and should be warned against, particularly when it comes in the Clarkian varieties. There is always the danger of starting from theological assumptions based on our mere speculations about things not revealed and reasoning downward to what is exegetically permissible and consistent. The theological a priori becomes authoritative in place of the scriptures, while the person subjected to the dictates of the system blindly think they're authority is the scripture, or that they are exegetically driven rather than system driven.

    On the other hand, I am also concerned about people who discourage the pursuit of coherence by hastily placing difficulties in the "paradox" category, not realizing [I would argue] that "paradoxes" are person relative. Something may "seem" like a contradiction to one person when it "seems" not to another person. And, if a person knows that it is only a "seeming" contradiction rather than a real contradiction, it "seems" to me that they're no longer experiencing a charlie horse between the ears. They have moved on to cognitively relax God's incomprehensibility, knowing that His words violate no law of logic, but they do leave room for mystery and the occasional experience of paradox by someone who doesn't yet know if two or more truths are in fact incompatible with each other.

    There are too many Christians who are intellectually lazy and who also want to insulate themselves from charges of inconsistency by quickly chalking up their systematic problems to "paradox." I suspect this is what Chesterton was getting at when he said, "I know nothing so contemptible as a mere paradox; a mere ingenious defense of the indefensible." In my interactions with hyper-Calvnists, you won't find me using the "paradox" defense. Even though I cannot explain the mysteries involved in the complexities of God's will, I do think we can adequately illustrate how a rational being can both will and nil the same thing in different respects. Sometimes my hyper-Calvinist opponents both desire to respond to my arguments but purpose not to respond to them at the same time, because of other considerations they think are wise :-) Their behavior sometimes illustrates the very point they are seeking to refute, i.e. they both will and nil the same thing at the same time but in different senses. I think we can look at the event of Christ's trial and murder and say that God both willed and Nile it at the same time, but in different respects. I use these tools to illustrate the coherence and consistency of my beliefs [rather than seeking refuge in mere "paradox"], but I don't use them to negate the truth of God's incomprehensibility or to dismiss the elements of mystery involved in following the teachings of scripture. I am not alone in this. We've found moderate Calvinists, such as John Preston, doing the same thing in his explanations about God's will. R. L. Dabney exercised his sanctified intellect to rationally explain the same complex matter, with a good deal of success, I would maintain.

    To be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Continued...

    So, whenever the issue of paradox and mystery comes up, I try to identify the concern of the person talking about it. They may be reacting to the dangers of rationalism, or they may be reacting to people holding inconsistent beliefs and dismissing the matter as a mere "seeming" contradiction. In what you say above, you're concerns are primarily with the former [rationalism], and rightly so, as it is quite dangerous and deceiving. Biblical fidelity should be our *primary* concern, not what seems to be philosophically consistent, even though there is virtue in pursuing the latter.

    We've digressed a bit from the moderate Calvinism topic, but the issue of paradox, mystery or rational responsibility is, as you know, inseperately tied to it.

    Grace to you,
    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tony, you bring up the concept of God willing two contrary things at once. Do you think John Piper's article "Are There Two Wills in God?" is helpful in understanding that concept?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Barry,

    Yes, I find that Piper article helpful. I am glad that he's far more open than many Calvinists to think some controversial passages have to do with the revealed will of God, such as 1 Tim. 2:4. If I recall correctly, I believe he views 2 Pet. 3:9 the same way. For some contemporary high Calvinists, about the only verse remaining that teach God's universal saving will is Ezek. 18 and 33, and Matt. 23:37, and those are being undermined by some of them as well. So, there is not only a problem on the part of some today with respect to their lack of understanding about the dual aspect of Christ's will in accomplishing a satisfaction for all, but there is a much deeper problem concerning God's will. They are downplaying the revealed will as a genuine will while stressing the decretal will as the true will. Piper, thankfully, has helped many to maintain a balanced approach on that subject. Polhill, John Howe, Edwards and Dabney are quite good as well, and we've blogged their comments on the will of God.

    Tony

    p.s. I see a lot of errors in my previous two posts. I used Word to correct some things but some errors remain, such as "Nile" instead of "nilled." Let the reader cut me some slack :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tony,

    Thanks, there is much wisdom in what you have said. As noted, your approach to paradox is slightly different than mine, but not too different (perhaps they're the same in different senses? JK).

    It's more a question of what qualifies as a paradox, i.e. what is the definition? You are addressing paradox as something by-definition-not-resolved. My base definition applies the term "paradox" to any contradictory *language* found in a document (such as the Bible or an orthodox creed). The existence of such language is undeniable, as many skeptics have proven time and again. Some of this language is merely rhetorical, some is merely semantic (e.g., the same entity is known by two different names), and some of it is logical paradox in the sense that it requires theoretical speculation to resolve, explain, or describe (e.g., the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.). On the surface of things, from the standpoint of language, something is apparently contradictory and therefore can properly be called a paradox.

    I do not doubt the ability of an ingenious human mind to arrive at some sort of resolution for every language-based logical paradox, but I doubt the reliability of the theories presented. By this I mean that I view them as "possibilities" to be entertained, but certainly not absolute or definitive in the way that Scripture or the orthodox creeds are. Jonathan Edwards offers a marvelous theory about the freedom of the will, and it's probably correct, but it's not as correct as Scripture. In other words, if we take only Scripture (or even the orthodox creeds) as authoritative, we are left with unresolvable paradoxes (on the authoritative level, not the theoretical level). Epistemologically, I'm placing the theoretical resolution of logical paradox on a lower level than Scripture (reflecting my belief in Sola Scriptura). So I think I would strongly agree with you in substance, if not in semantics. For every person, the *resolution* of a logical paradox is progressive and subjective, as you say. But if paradox is viewed as a feature of the *language* it objectifies the concept, allowing us to identify, study and resolve paradoxes without ever eliminating them. This preserves Sola Scriptura and calls us to beware of staking our hope on any human speculation. Clarkians have come to value human speculation so highly that it becomes a necessary corollary to Scripture - as if Clark's philosophical theology is the only valid interpretation.

    You are right that this issue is inseparably tied to moderate Calvinism. The tendency among hyper Calvinists (and Arminians) is to trust their own logic so much that they erroneously create mutually exclusive categories (e.g., EITHER man is responsible OR God is exhaustively sovereign). On many issues, I believe the balance of Scripture places categories upon or within one another, rather than side-by-side with an either/or sign hanging over them.

    Thanks for the discussion - it's rare to find good conversation on this topic.

    Blessings,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  20. Derek and all -

    As a full-on 5-pointer on this question, I would point out that Calvin is notoriously hard to pin down on the Limited / Unlimited Atonement question. There are a number of places in his Institutes where he seems to favor both. As a matter of fact, in my studies at seminary I've seen two different authors quote Calvin constantly to prove that he taught either position.

    The hardest thing in writing a systematic theology is staying consistent, at least according to several of my professors. Unfortunately, Calvin seems to have written in a way that was less than totally clear on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  21. rebel, for some reason I think that may be a good thing.

    I'm a full five pointer but leave room for some of the things moderates might say regarding the 'all' verses.

    I like what Thomas Schreiner says about these things. Does anyone have him pegged?
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rebel,

    You said: Calvin is notoriously hard to pin down on the Limited / Unlimited Atonement question. There are a number of places in his Institutes where he seems to favor both.

    My reply: Exactly. The issue seems to have been a paradox for Calvin. But we have good reason to say that the atonement is both limited and unlimited. Christ died for all men, and especially for the elect.

    Jeff,

    Perhaps Schreiner is similar to Piper on this question?

    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jeff,

    I'm not sure if this answers your question or not, but I heard Schreiner call himself a 5-point Calvinist in the process of distinguishing himself from Bruce Ware, who he described as a 4-point Calvinist. Since Ware espoused the un/limited view of the atonement, I assumed from the comment that Schreiner would subscribe to a more formal limited atonement.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks Barry that's what I was curious about. I know he's def. a Calvinist from his commentary on Romans but he's not super hardline on 2 Peter 3:9 from his commentary on that.
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey there RR,

    You say: "Calvin is notoriously hard to pin down on the Limited / Unlimited Atonement question."

    David: Can you point us to something in the Institutes that indicates that Calvin held to limited atonement?

    Just to be clear, what should count as evidence is not a statement from Calvin that limits the application of the expiation according to election, but something which limits the nature and/or intent of the expiation itself? Eg: For whom the expiation was made, not to whom it was applied. Does that help?

    And again, the link to my Calvin file is:
    John Calvin (1509-1564) on Unlimited Expiation, Sin-Bearing, Redemption

    Thanks,
    David

    ReplyDelete
  26. Derek,

    I appreciate your thoughtful comments above. I think I understand your position better as a result, and you've made several very good points.

    If we have any slight differences, maybe it's like this. You think an objective language-based paradox can still be in scripture for all, even though an individual may have a possible extra-biblical and subjective resolution for it that is not authoritative. I'm fine with that so far, but I think it is vital that we engage in those subjective resolutions so that we can explain the coherence of the Christian system. For example, we find it necessary to do that whenever an advocate of another religion accuses us of tri-theism. We don't just reply and say, "it's a paradox." We go on to explain how Trinitarianism doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction. So, while extra-biblical resolutions are not inspired or authoritative, they are necessary for negative apologetics [i.e. defeating defeaters]. We even find examples of these resolving inferences in the bible itself, as the prophets and apostles sought to silence those who charged them with inconsistency [either with scripture or with themselves].

    However, as you know, there is always a danger in elevating these resolutions to an authoritative level, so that even scripture itself becomes a slave to the systematic explanation.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jeff,

    Schreiner does believe in a limited sin-bearing in Christ's satisfaction, but he does strongly affirm God's universal saving will, using 2 Peter 3:9 to support the latter notion. All non-hyper high Calvinists believe in God's universal saving will, and some are more outspoken about it, even using more biblical texts as evidence of it, such as 2 Peter 3:9 and 2 Tim. 2:4., etc. Piper and Schreiner are of that sort, so they maintain that many of the controversial passages have to do with God's revealed will. However, they have *not* gone so far as to view Christ as suffering for the sin of all men, like moderate Calvinists do.

    There are two kinds of orthodox Calvinists:

    1) Those who think Christ only legally substituted *for the elect* but that God still wills the salvation of every man.

    2) Those who think Christ legally substituted *for every man* and that God wills the salvation of every man.

    Some *within* position #1 differ from the others *in that same position* by maintaining that *more passages* affirm God's universal saving will.

    The same is true of those in position #2. For example, Shedd maintains position #2 but takes a limited/decretal view of 2 Peter 3:9, unlike others within that same unlimited atonement position.

    Nota Bene: There can be theoretical agreement on Christ's death and God's will *within each paradigm*, but exegetical differences when it comes to how they view various controversial passages.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thanks Tony. I tend to be #1 but am open to be a #2 and respect those who are (how couldn't I?).

    I am not one to be making minor distinctions of Shedd or anything like that.

    BTW I was Arminian until I read Schreiner's commentary on Romans. It was shocking at first. That can't be right! It isn't fair. But then I saw it all over Scripture. His treatment of Romans 9 read like a handbook on Calvinism and I was afraid he was pretty hard line until I read his commentary on letters of Peter. I like him a lot. That's all I've read of him other than articles.

    Calvinism doesn't make sense logically. But it's what the Bible teaches. It bothers me when people argue logically only without even mentioning Scripture. I'd rather be accused of prooftexting than arguing with only human logic. But that's another story.

    I appreciate this info. I'm not into the intricacies but I like to know what I believe and make up my mind. I don't want to be an open door as the Hebrew idiom says.

    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tony,

    Both of your comments above are very helpful.

    On the paradox issue, you said: "I think it is vital that we engage in those subjective resolutions so that we can explain the coherence of the Christian system."

    Yes, we should do that as far as we possibly can (yet, as you pointed out, the challenge is not to lose essential Biblical components or exegetical honesty in the quest for coherence). What I like best about paradoxes is that they force us to think deeply. As such, they are used by God to get our attention. But it's unhealthy to be get stuck in them and become continuously confused/mystified. Occasional confusion presses us forward toward coherence, but continuous confusion puts us in the quagmire (Emergent church, anyone?). On the other hand, hyper-certainty about things unrevealed leads to big problems (Hyper-Calvinism, Clarkian rationalism, cold fundamentalism, doctrinal pharisaism, the "austere & joy-free" type of Calvinism, etc.)

    You said: "We even find examples of these resolving inferences in the bible itself, as the prophets and apostles sought to silence those who charged them with inconsistency [either with scripture or with themselves]."

    Paul's development of the theme of God's righteousness in the book of Romans is a great example of this. He goes to great lengths to reconcile God's justice/wrath with His love/grace. The cross, as you know, resolves the tension perfectly - so that God is both righteous AND loving, or "just AND the justifier of those who have faith in Christ." Paradox resolved. But by the time he gets to the end of chapter 11, Paul is deep in the mystery again. So, as you noted in your article, resolving a paradox doesn't necessarily remove the underlying mystery. Very helpful and wise stuff there, even if the terminology is used a little differently.

    In contrast to Paul, our Lord seemed to have not problem with leaving His hearers baffled by things not explained. Perhaps this is why He said to the disciples, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Clearly, His intention was not to leave us completely in the dark, and the New Testament bears witness to this.

    This discussion is helping me to put some pieces together, so again I thank you for sharing your wisdom.

    Blessings,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  30. Derek, your last comment reminded me of something I've thought about before, which is that some of the tension and paradox in Scripture can be accounted for in eschatalogical terms.

    There are many things that are revealed to us "already" (as you said, "God's intention was not to leave us completely in the dark"); and there are things "not yet" revealed, also I think by God's design ("For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." 1 Cor. 13:12).

    ReplyDelete
  31. David - I'll do some digging in the Institutes for you this evening and tomorrow. I'll also look through some of my notebooks as I'm suddenly unsure of whether the quotes in questions were from the Institutes or from his commentaries or sermons.

    Give me a little time, and I'll try to get back to you!

    Reb.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Derek,

    Can John 3:16 be interpreted as God immeasurably loving all men and can it be reconciled with electing love? The reason I ask is because I'm having a struggle with that question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      These are interesting questions. I suppose it depends on how we define "immeasurably." If it means doing everything He possibly can to save everyone He can, it would seem that any position short of universalism would have to answer "no." If it means loving human beings in a manner far too deep and wide for them to comprehend, we can certainly say "yes," and this is compatible with electing love since there is never a contradiction between God's general love for all people and His special electing love for believers. They intertwine neatly.

      Delete

Feel free to respond to anything written in the posts, or to the comments left by others. All comments are reviewed before they are published.

Please be charitable. If you disagree, do so with grace. Keep your words positive, focused, and on-topic. We don't expect everyone to agree, but we do expect everyone to treat everyone else with respect and grace, speaking the truth in love.

Thanks!
Mgmt.