A Few Thoughts on Limited Atonement

You may be aware that a new book on the doctrine of "Limited Atonement" has just been released. You may also know that Calvinists, historically, have taken a variety of positions on the subject. With that in mind, I would like to interact with a few statements made recently on the Gospel Coalition blog (and by the way, just to be clear, I would generally consider myself to be a strong supporter and advocate of TGC and its work). Nevertheless, here are the statements to which I will respond:

Many Amyraldians or "4-point Calvinists," while espousing a particular election (by the Father) and a particular application (by the Spirit), hold to a universal atonement (by the Son). What's problematic about emphasizing particularity at the stage of application but not at the stage of atonement?The Amyraldian view of the atonement leads to disharmony or dissonance in the triune God: the Father elects some, the Son dies for all, but the Spirit only draws some (those whom the Father elected). The same problem attends semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. Hypothetical universalists seek to get around the problem by positing "two levels" in the atonement: a universal intent and a particular intent (see, for example, Curt Daniel and Norman Douty). According to this scheme, the Trinity is united at each level of intent. However, this position lacks scriptural support despite attempts based on a certain (and, we believe, superficial) reading of 1 Timothy 4:10. 

Hypothetical universalism also leads to a confusion within the will of the Son. How can Christ on the cross, in his one act of propitiation, will both to die for the non-elect and not to die for them? This distorts orthodox Christology. Christ is presented in the Bible as King, Shepherd, Bridegroom, Head, Master, Firstborn, Cosmic Savior, and Last Adam. This is who the incarnate Son is, and therefore when he dies for sinners he cannot fail to be for them who he is. The person and work of Christ cannot be separated. In short, both trinitarianism and union with Christ point toward a definite intent in the atonement, as both ensure its efficacy. (Source: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/12/05/did-jesus-die-to-save-everyone/)

I am not an Amyraldian or "4-Pointer," and probably not a "hypothetical universalist," as those terms are usually defined among today's Calvinists. I do not deny that the intent of the atonement was to save a particular people. I do, however, deny that this was the sole intent, and I also deny that the atonement's extent has to be measured by its intent. My theology is Classic/Moderate Calvinism, as opposed to "High Calvinism." Classic/Moderate Calvinism is a prestigious tradition that is often castigated and misrepresented (or perhaps simply misunderstood) by High Calvinists.

It is from this perspective that I will respond to a few of the statements made above, beginning with this one:

The Amyraldian view of the atonement leads to disharmony or dissonance in the triune God: the Father elects some, the Son dies for all, but the Spirit only draws some (those whom the Father elected).

This problem is not relevant to Classic/Moderate Calvinists, as I will now demonstrate. In fact, our position exposes a significant inconsistency in the High Calvinist view. This is how they often frame the discussion:

1. Election is particular
2. Atonement is particular
3. Calling is particular

In other words: "God's work is particular, so why confuse things by generalizing just the atonement?"

On the other hand, this is how we frame it:

1. Election is particular in scope, but this does not limit God's general love and common grace which are extended toward all humanity
2. Atonement is particular in intent, but this does not limit the universal sufficiency of the atonement as potentially salvific for all of humanity
3. Calling is particular, but this does not limit the general call of the Gospel as God's command for all people everywhere to repent and believe.

Most High Calvinists will agree with our views on 1 and 3, but for some reason cannot accept the correlating balance on 2. This is actually in inconsistency on their part, not ours.

In other words, we say: "God's work is general and particular, so why deny the general aspect of just the atonement?" In fact, we might even go a step further, and offer a much more reasonable and Biblical solution, by viewing the General Love of God, Common Grace and the General Call of the Gospel as grounded in and made possible by the general/universal aspects of the atonement. The Cross IS God's Word of love and grace to all mankind. The Cross IS God's call of repentance to all of the world's people. The Cross IS God's extended hand of forgiveness to all humanity. And our Gospel is THE WORD OF THE CROSS.

Hypothetical universalists seek to get around the problem by positing "two levels" in the atonement: a universal intent and a particular intent (see, for example, Curt Daniel and Norman Douty).

A bigger problem is faced by the High Calvinist, as I have shown above. Additionally, I would suggest that few people understand Calvinism as well as Curt Daniel. My High Calvinist friends would be well advised to listen to him.

According to this scheme, the Trinity is united at each level of intent. However, this position lacks scriptural support despite attempts based on a certain (and, we believe, superficial) reading of 1 Timothy 4:10. 

Despite this dismissive comment, 1 Timothy 4:10 presents a strong exegetical case for the atonement's unlimited extent and limited intent, if not a dual intent. Furthermore, in the Classic/Moderate approach the Three Persons of the Trinity are certainly united in expressing a general love, a general atonement and a general call toward all humanity, while also working to achieve a specific end for a particular people in each of those activities. Why don't High Calvinists level the same criticism against General Love, Common Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel (as Hyper Calvinists do)? Again, it is clear that the High Calvinist scheme is inconsistent by overlooking the fact that General Love stands alongside Unconditional Election, and the Free Offer stands alongside the Effectual Call. The next statement demonstrates this oversight well:

Hypothetical universalism also leads to a confusion within the will of the Son. How can Christ on the cross, in his one act of propitiation, will both to die for the non-elect and not to die for them? This distorts orthodox Christology.

This is quite a stretch, and, I might add, a little bit uncharitable. The phrase, "died for," is far too ambiguous to become the basis for judging a person's Christology as "distorted" or less than orthodox. Why can't Christ "die for" all of humanity in one sense, and "die for" a particular people in another sense? Furthermore, is the Father's will confused when He elects some but extends love and grace to all? Is the Holy Spirit's will confused when He tells us to proclaim Good News to everyone but inwardly draws only His chosen ones?

Following the logic of the statement quoted above, the Father cannot love those He did not elect, and the Spirit cannot send the Gospel to those He will not convert, without somehow being "confused." In our view, neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit are ever confused; they each work in both general and particular ways, being in precise harmony with themselves and with One Another.

As a Calvinist and a Bible believer, it makes the most reasonable sense to embrace the universal extent of the atonement while not denying its particular intent. Whatever you call it, the result will be truly CONSISTENT CALVINISM.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 19 - ESV Study Bible on Acts 13:48

The ESV Study Bible's note on Acts 13:48 says it perfectly:

Throughout Acts, Luke affirms the sovereignty of God over all of life while at the same time affirming the significance of human activity, as evidenced by the remarkable human effort and sacrifice involved in proclaiming the gospel. Thus Luke, without contradiction, maintains a dual emphasis on divine election ("appointed") and on human response ("believed") ... The emphasis here in 13:48 is on the way in which divine sovereignty (appointment) results in the belief of the Gentiles, demonstrating that their belief was due to God's grace alone.

That's good stuff. THEOparadox approved!

Do You LIVE the Free Offer of the Gospel?

Tonight I enjoyed seeing the Wissmann Family in concert at my church. Look them up and see them if you have the opportunity! They preached the Gospel. For real.

As I listened to the Wissmann's speak and sing about the Great Commission , I was challenged with a question that suddenly sprang into my mind: you believe in the free offer of the Gospel; but do you LIVE the free offer of the Gospel? Does your life prove it?

The Wissmann's in Concert at Lakeside Community Church in Middleburg, Florida

I'm a 10-Point Calvinist

Reflecting on some previous posts concerning the Three Points of Common Grace and the Purpose and Potency of the Atoning work of Christ, I have concluded that I am a 10-Point Calvinist. I believe it is important to be a 10-point Calvinist (a.k.a. a 5-paradox Calvinist) because this maintains the balance of Biblical teaching concerning God's disposition toward the elect and the reprobate. I believe all 10 points are essential for any soteriology that is based on the Bible.

 
Most Calvinists agree that the ubiquitous "TULIP" is an insufficient summary of our core theology. This is not to say that it is completely inaccurate. It is a brilliant strand of truth (and a handy acronym) . . . but perhaps too narrow a strand.
 

5 Paradoxes of Calvinism: A Deep Vision of Sovereign Grace
 
PARADOX #1 - MAN
Humanity's Condition: Lost - yet Loved
1a. God's Pervasive Love for All of His Creatures (Psalm 145:9)
1b. Humanity's Pervasive Total Depravity and Spiritual Inability (John 6:44)
 
PARADOX #2 - GOD
God's Disposition: Willing to Save All - yet Sovereignly Selecting
2a. God's Saving Desire toward All Mankind (Ezekiel 18:31-32)
2b. God's Unconditional Election of Particular Sinners from Eternity (Ephesians 1:4-5)
 
PARADOX #3 - CROSS
Christ's Saving Work: Sufficient for all - yet Particular to the Elect
3a. Christ's Infinitely Sufficient Atonement for all Sinners (I John 2:2)
3b. God's Particular Redemption of the Elect through the atoning work of Christ (Matthew 1:21)
 
PARADOX #4 - CONVERSION
The Gospel Call: Offered to All - yet Effectual in the Elect
4a. The Free Offer of the Gospel to All Sinners (Matthew 11:28-30)
4b. The Effectual Call of the Elect by Irresistible Grace (Matthew 11:27)
 
PARADOX #5 - SANCTIFICATION
The Christian Life: Sinners by Nature - yet Saints by Grace
5a. The Struggle of the Saved Sinner in Sanctification (Romans 7:18-25)
5b. The Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints (John 10:27-29)

Arminians press the "a" statements to the point of denying God's sovereignty in salvation.
Hyper-Calvinists press the "b" statements to the point of denying God's goodness as expressed in His general love and willingness to save all. Mainstream Calvinists hold the balance. This is beautiful, Biblical Calvinism! 10 points worth of it.
 

A 10-Point Calvinist Faces Off with an Arminian

Putting it another way . . .

1. God loves all people. 
2. Sin has rendered all people pervasively depraved and unable to repent on their own.
3. God desires the salvation of all people.
4. From eternity, God unconditionally elects some sinners to salvation.
5. Christ's shed blood was and is a sufficient atonement for all people.
6. God's special intention in the atonement was to redeem a particular people.
7. In the Gospel, God freely offers His atoning mercy to all people.
8. God effectually calls and irresistibly draws the elect by sovereign, saving grace.
9. The saints are saved sinners.
10. Those who are truly converted will persevere in faith to the end.
 

John Piper considers becoming a 10-pointer

 

Just don't preach a 10-point sermon!

GOD'S FREE AND SINCERE OFFER: Calvin on Isaiah 65:1-6

2. I have stretched out my hands. He accuses the Jews, and complains of their ingratitude and rebellion; and in this manner he proves that there is no reason why they should say that the Lord does them wrong if he bestow his grace on others. The Jews conducted themselves proudly and insolently toward God, as if they had been elected through their own merit. On account of their ingratitude and insolence the Lord rejects them as unworthy, and complains that to no purpose did he "stretch out his hands" to draw and bring them back to him.
 
By "the stretching out of the hands" he means the daily invitation. There are various ways in which the Lord "stretches out his hands to us;" for he draws us to him, either effectually or by the word. In this passage it must relate chiefly to the word. The Lord never speaks to us without at the same time "stretching out his hand" to join us to himself, or without causing us to feel, on the other hand, that he is near to us. He even embraces us, and shews the anxiety of a father, so that, if we do not comply with his invitation, it must be owing entirely to our own fault. The heinousness of the guilt is greatly aggravated by long continuance, that, during a long succession of ages, God did not cease to send one Prophet after another, and even, as he says elsewhere, to rise early in the morning and continue the same care till the evening. (Jer 7:13, 11:7, 35:14).
 
To a rebellious people. First, he calls them "rebellious" or disobedient, but immediately afterwards he declares what is the nature of that rebellion, namely, that the people walk after their own thoughts. Nothing is more displeasing to God than for men to be αὐθάδης "self-willed," (2 Pe 2:10); that is, devoted to their own inclinations; for he commands us to surrender our own judgment, that we may be capable of receiving the true doctrine. The Lord therefore testifies that it was not owing to him that he did not retain and continue to exercise towards them his wonted favor, but that they alienated themselves through their own madness, because they chose to abide by their own natural inclinations rather than to follow God as their leader.
 
Having pointed out the cause of this rejection, we must come to the calling of the Gentiles, who succeeded in the room of the Jews; for that is undoubtedly the subject treated in the first verse. The Lord had long ago foretold it by Moses, so that they ought not to have thought that there was anything new in this prediction.

"They have provoked me by that which is not God; they have moved me to anger by their vanities; and I also will provoke them by that which is not a people, by a foolish nation I will enrage them." (De 32:21).

Finally, the Prophet now threatens the same thing which was afterwards foretold by Christ when that blinding was at hand.

"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation which shall bring forth fruit." (Mt 21:43).

1. To them that asked not. {1} When he says that God manifested himself "to them that asked not," he shews that the Gentiles were anticipated by the grace of God, and that they brought no merit or excellence as an inducement to God to give it to them. This obviously agrees with that passage which we quoted, in which Moses calls them "a foolish nation." (De 32:21). Thus, under a universal type, he describes what is the nature of men before the Lord anticipates them by his mercy; for they neither call on the Lord, nor seek him, nor think about him. And this passage ought to be carefully observed, in order to establish the certainty of our calling, which may be said to be the key that opens to us the kingdom of heaven; for by means of it peace and repose are given to our consciences, which would always be in doubt and uncertainty if they did not rest on such testimonies. We see, therefore, that it did not happen accidentally or suddenly that we were called by God and reckoned to be his people; for it had been predicted long before in many passages. From this passage Paul earnestly contends for the calling of the Gentiles, and says that Isaiah boldly exclaims and affirms that the Gentiles have been called by God, because he spoke more clearly and loudly than the circumstances of his own time required. Here we see, therefore, that we were called by an eternal purpose of God long before the event happened.
 
Behold I, behold I. By repeating these words twice, he confirms still more the declaration that God hath manifested himself in so friendly a manner to foreign and heathen nations, that they do not doubt that he dwells in the midst of them. And, indeed, that sudden change needed to be confirmed, because it was difficult to be believed; although by that very novelty the Prophet intended to magnify the unexpected grace of God. The meaning may be thus summed up: "When the Lord shall have offered himself to the Gentiles, and they shall have been joined to the holy family of Abraham, there will be some Church in the world, after the Jews have been driven out." Now we see that all that is here predicted by the Prophet was fulfilled by the Gospel, by which the Lord actually offered and manifested himself to foreign nations. Whenever, therefore, this voice of the Gospel is sounded in our ears, or when we record the word of the Lord, let us know that the Lord is present, and offers himself, that we may know him familiarly, and may call on him boldly and with assured confidence.
 
[Underlining and bolding added]
______________________________________________________________
 
NOTES:
  
Calvin incorporates Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and the Effectual Call throughout these comments. He places affirmations of those doctrines alongside affirmations of the Gospel Offer, God's love for the reprobate, and His desire to save them. He does not view these truths as contradictory, but places them side by side. Why are so many of today's Calvinists unwilling to do the same?
 
Note how explicitly and emphatically Calvin speaks of God's sincere, desirous offer and invitation. Even when God's call is general and not effectual, Calvin says God's desire is "to join us to himself." Context shows the "us" here is fallen humanity, not just the elect. He even goes so far as to say God "embraces" the ones who reject Him. Calvin clearly believed that God calls the reprobate, loves the reprobate, and desires to save the reprobate (while at the same time not choosing to save them).
 
Calvin reasons that nothing on God's part prevents the reprobate from returning to Him. All the fault lies with the one who rejects God's call. The fact that God did not "decree" or foreordain their repentance in the secret counsel of His will is a separate issue. Calvin has no problem saying "they chose" to abandon God, while at the same time exhorting his readers not to follow their example.

D.A. Carson on God's Love and Hate

"If the love of God refers exclusively to his love for the elect, it is easy to drift toward a simple and absolute  bifurcation: God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Rightly positioned, there is truth in this assertion . . . Stripped of complementary Biblical truths, that same assertion has engendered hyper-Calvinism. I use the term advisedly, as it is used in Church History, referring to groups within the Reformed tradition that have forbidden the free offer of the Gospel. Spurgeon fought them in his day. Their number is not great in America today, but their echoes are found in young Reformed ministers who know it is right to offer the Gospel freely but who have no idea how to do it without contravening some element in their conception of Reformed theology."


http://mediafiles.dts.edu/chapel/mp3/19980105.mp3, emphasis added

Three Good Reads in Reformed Theology

I've been enjoying these and finding them very beneficial.

#1 The first "good read" is this group of extended quotations from some leading theologians regarding the secret and revealed will of God. This is direct source material, so you can get it from the proverbial horse's mouth. I like this bit from Calvin:

"In fine, give up all fondness for your puerile dilemma, for the Scriptures assure me of the secret will of God; asserting what I have learned from them I do speak of an ascertained truth; but because I do not reach so great a height, I reverently adore with fear and trembling what is too sublime for the angels themselves. Often therefore in my writings I admonish my readers, that on this subject nothing is better than a learned ignorance; for those rave like madmen who arrogate to know more about it than is fit."

And this one from Jonathan Edwards caught my attention:

"... all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Apparently Edwards never met an open theist! God alone knows if Edwards will ever meet one in the future (think about it).

_____________________________________________________________

#2 A second "good read" is Paul Manata's Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - A Contemporary Introduction. Lots of deep philosophical stuff here. Manata has a gift, and I am grateful that he uses it to advance good theology! He argues that Reformed Theology is, by definition, both deterministic and compatibilistic, and decidedly unaffirming of libertarian free will. It's all worth reading and considering, and well documented, too.

_____________________________________________________________

#3  The third "good read" is David Ponter's response to James Anderson's attempt to reconcile the Free Offer of the Gospel with a provisionally Limited Atonement using Newcomb's Paradox (see here and here). It's a deeply complicated argument, but worth thinking about. To me, this is a little bit like Gandalf vs. Saruman (I won't say which one is which). Although James Anderson is a personal hero for expounding so brilliantly on theological paradox, in this case I concur with Ponter (also a personal hero for expounding brilliantly on historic Moderate Calvinism) in his closing remarks:

"Anderson wants to argue that if a moderate Calvinist insists that limited atonement precludes a sincere offer, he must accept that election likewise precludes a sincere offer, for the same reasons. However, a proper rebuttal rejects the assumed univocal relationship between limited atonement and election in relation to the sincere offer, such that one can counter that limited atonement is incompatible with the free offer, while election is not. The only avenue Anderson can have, as I see it, is to attempt to claim that we should see election as equally incompatible with a sincere offer (given our assumptions?). But on what grounds could he suggest that? and does he really want to argue that in the first place? Perhaps Anderson might say both election and limited atonement bare a paradoxical relationship to the sincere offer. My reply would be limited atonement and the sincere free offer entail a contradiction (you cannot offer what you are not able to give), while election and the free offer entail a paradox (one offers, by revealed will, what one does not intend to give, by secret will). We would say we are warranted in rejecting the contradiction, while retaining the paradox. Anderson could only claim that one can indeed sincerely offer what one is not able to give."

The issues in these three "good reads" are tied together, and each of them has bearing on both hyper Calvinism and Arminianism (mind you, I'm not saying any of the people mentioned in this post are hyper Calvinists - far from it - only that the issues covered have direct bearing on refuting that error). To be balanced, I believe we must hold to the paradox of God's revealed and secret wills which are united perfectly in the glorious mystery of His eternal wisdom; we must hold to the paradox of compatibilism so that man is responsible for his actions under the total sovereignty of God; and we must hold to the Free Offer of the Gospel backed up by an infinitely powerful atonement, which, paradoxically, is not intended to save all people. Thank God it saves some!

What in the World IS the "The World" ?

In the previous post, I discussed the meaning of the term "world" (Gk kosmos) in John's writings. I suggested we define it as "all humanity" or "all mankind." While that definition was broadly accurate, it was perhaps a little too vague. Tony Byrne provided some helpful thoughts on a more precise definition - including the following chart, which makes a lot of sense.

So we might more precisely define "World" as "All unbelieving humanity" presently living on the earth. These are the ones God loved in John 3:16, the ones whose sin Christ bears in John 1:29, and the ones for whom Christ is an offered propitiation but not an advocate in I John 2:2. These are the ones who receive common grace, and the ones to whom the Gospel is preached in the general call. I believe this fits the Biblical data, and answers some of the objections presented by those who would prefer that "world" be defined as "the elect." For more on this, see the comments on the previous post.

Your Doctrine of the Atonement is Too Small - Part 1

I have observed, among many Calvinists, a great zeal to defend the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Since this doctrine sits at the center of the TULIP, and the TULIP seems to function (for some) as the sole essence of Calvinism, and since the TULIP's validity is said to stand or fall on the veracity of each and every point, it's not surprising that Limited Atonement is defended with such ardor. Perhaps I should have said "Your Calvinism is too small." But that's another article. 


To lay my cards on the table, I do self-identify as a 5-point Calvinist, assuming the points are rightly defined (historically and Biblically), and the 3 points of common grace are equally affirmed. I'm not against limiting the intent or effect of the atonement within Biblical boundaries. I just don't want the doctrine of the atonement to become a dart gun when God intended it to be a howitzer. The problem with over emphasizing the limited aspects is that we have a tendency to shrink the doctrine down to manageable proportions. It's not meant to be manageable, but to induce real amazement, gratitude, and wonder in our hearts. We should marvel not only that God savingly loves the elect, but also that He loves the world. To keep things Biblically balanced, I propose the following expansions to the way we explain the doctrine of limited atonement:

1. We must widen our view of the atonement's PURPOSE to include a universal revelatory purpose as well as a limited redemptive purpose (that's the focus of this article). 

2. We must affirm the atonement's POTENCY as the power and potential to cover all sins and to save all sinners (which will be the focus of part 2).

Without these expanded articulations, we are apt to try to limit the atonement in ways Scripture does not, and we are liable to commit some exegetical atrocities and philosophical fallacies in the process. I have seen otherwise brilliant and respectable exegetes twist a passage of Scripture into an origami figure trying to defend a narrow version of limited atonement which isn't Biblically warranted.

Don't get me wrong. I stand in lock step with other orthodox Calvinists in affirming Particular Redemption against the confused mistake called "Universalism." And I oppose any view of the atonement that portrays God as sacrificing His only Son in some kind of desperate attempt to get our attention, with the vague hope that we just might turn to Him someday if He pleads enough and somehow gets our consent to be saved. I very firmly renounce every whiff of the ideas that the atonement is less than substitutionary, less than vicarious, or less than successful in achieving its ends. "He will save His people from their sins." (Mt. 1:21) And the cross is how He will do it. "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God." (I Peter 3:18)

Without any doubt, the atonement is limited in certain respects - but it is more than just that. Yes, it is God's means of saving the elect, but that is not its only purpose.

The Redemptive and Revelatory Purposes

of the Atonement

The atonement made by Christ is intended as revelation to all the world, yet also as redemption to the elect.

Christ's atoning work is rich and potent, multi-faceted and deep - and part of its power lies in the fact that it is not simply efficacious, but revelatory. It is an emphatically PUBLIC display of God's generosity and grace, His redeeming power, His propitiated wrath, His just character, His call for sinners to believe, His forbearance and His ability to justify the ungodly (Romans 3:24-26). It's all right here in the text:

•  ... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 
• being justified as a gift by His grace 
• through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
• whom God displayed publicly 
• as a propitiation in His blood 
• through faith. 
• This was to demonstrate His righteousness, 
• because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 
• for the demonstration, I say,of His righteousness at the present time, 
• so that He would be just 
• and the justifier 
• of the one who has faith in Jesus.

(See also: Psalm 22:31, Galatians 3:1, Colossians 2:15)

For whom is this public display intended? For the same "all" who sinned and fell short of His glory in verse 23! Have only the elect sinned? Have only the elect fallen short of God's glory? Certainly not. Let us never become so dogmatic in emphasizing the limited effects of the atonement that we forget - or fail to communicate - the wider Biblical scope of its purposes. The cross communicates God's message to all mankind - and especially the elect.

. . . and also of judgment

Consider the revelatory purpose of the atonement. How does it speak to us about the people who will be saved? Does it speak of them definitively - as the elect - or conditionally, as those who believe?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16) 

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:8-9) 

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures . . . ( I Corinthians 15:1-4)

The Gospel addresses sinners with a conditional promise of salvation, even as it definitively demonstrates God's ability to save and reveals His desire to save. By the word of the cross God says to sinners, "I have done everything that is needed for your offenses to be covered. I have given my one and only Son for you. Come to me in faith and you will be saved. Reject me and you will perish." The elect perceive this message and by irresistible grace begin to count Christ's blood as precious. By faith they discover the redeeming, reconciling, propitiating, covenant-making, sin-demolishing power of His blood! The reprobate perceive the very same message and respond by trampling Christ's blood underfoot, spurning the offer of mercy, ignoring the warnings and going on in God-hating unbelief. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

God did not sacrifice His Son in secret, behind a thick curtain or hidden away in the heavens, but out in the open on a Roman cross for all the world to see. This does not save every sinner, but it does tell every sinner he can be saved, and that God loves him and desires to save Him. It promises every sinner he will be saved if he believes, and it warns every sinner that he will remain condemned and perish if he continues in unbelief. We live in the realm of time and the world of the potential, so God speaks to us in potential and conditional terms while reassuring His converted elect that He has a definite plan and sovereign control.

The revelatory purpose of the atonement corresponds to the universal call of the Gospel. Just as the effectual call of the Gospel exists alongside the universal call, the particular redemptive purpose of the atonement stands alongside its universal revelatory purpose.

• God loves all but releases some to eternal judgment
• God desires all but elects some
• God calls all to salvation but effectually calls some
• Christ atones for all but redeems some

In Part 2, we will examine in greater detail the wrath-averting potency of the atonement. We will find that just as the message of the cross is directed to all the world but effectual only for the elect, the power of the cross is sufficient for all the world but efficient only for the elect.

The Three Points of Common Grace (Plus One More)

Psalm 145:8-9 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.

Psalm 145:15-17 The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food in due season. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing. The LORD is  righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works.

The doctrine of Common Grace is an essential, yet often overlooked, facet of Calvinistic theology. Sure, you know the 5 Points of Calvinism, but can you recite (and defend) the three points of Common Grace?

Many Arminians - even informed, studious ones - do not realize that orthodox Reformed thinking includes and incorporates some of their most cherished Biblical convictions. Conversely, some Calvinists mistakenly believe the concept of Common Grace is contradictory to the TULIP and should therefore be opposed. I will now endeavor to demonstrate the falsity of that idea, and then go one step further - showing how Common Grace and the TULIP form essential balancing paradoxes without creating contradictions. Common Grace is the fertile soil in which the TULIP was meant to grow.

Traditionally, the doctrine of Common Grace as been summarized in these 3 points:

1. God loves all people

This means God providentially cares for, patiently forbears, and benevolently extends grace toward each and every living person. He does not merely express His justice by hating the non-elect for their rebellion, but also shows His love for them as His special creation in generously giving them an abundance of undeserved kindnesses.

However, their continued rejection of Him will eventually lead to their separation from His love and a total abandonment to His justice.

PARADOX

Just Condemnation of Sinners   <++++++++++>        Pervasive Love for Sinners

This is the Counterbalance to Total Depravity

2. God desires the salvation of all people

This means God would take pleasure in the salvation of each and every living person, and does not directly oppose it. He does not actively reprobate the non-elect, but allows them to follow their heart's desire to their own destruction.

In His wise counsels He has chosen not to save every person, but to allow the non-elect to follow the path of their own choosing.

PARADOX

Election of Some Sinners    <++++++++++>  Desire to Save All Sinners

This is the Counterbalance to Unconditional Election

3. God freely offers the Gospel to all people

This means God extends mercy to each and every living person by way of the preaching of the Gospel. He does not exclude any sinner from the call to faith.

Yet He allows the non-elect to resist His grace and reject His offer of salvation.

PARADOX

Universal Call of the Gospel   <++++++++++>    Effectual Call of the Gospel

This is the Counterbalance to Irresistible Grace

I would add this fourth point . . .

4. Christ's blood is a sufficient atonement for all the sins of all people

This means the potency of the atonement is infinite, and powerful enough to save each and every living person. God does not limit the sin-bearing nature of Christ's work to the elect alone, but provides limitless expiatory power through an incomprehensibly precious sacrifice.

Still, He applies the redeeming, propitiatory, and reconciling effects of Christ's sacrifice to the elect only.

PARADOX

Sufficient for All             <++++++++++>    Efficient for the Elect

Point Four is the Counterbalance to Particular Redemption (which says the application of the saving effect of the atonement is limited to the elect).

NOTE: Nothing in the 3 Points of Common Grace (or my proposed 4th Point) actually contradicts the 5 Points of Calvinism. Nothing here militates against monergistic regeneration. No mitigation of divine sovereignty is entailed in these tenets. These Four Points are neither antithetical to historic Calvinism, nor are they opposed to Biblical teaching. Rather, they accommodate our minds to the wide range of Biblical teaching. The balancing points are paradoxical because they appear at first to contradict, but they are not inexplicable if we will put ourselves to the task of reasoning with Scripture.

Some Calvinists maintain that the Fourth Point undermines the integrity of the TULIP. They call advocates of the Fourth Point "inconsistent" Calvinists (a more proper term would be "Moderate" Calvinist). But can you see how the 5 Points of Calvinism plus the 3 Points of Common Grace logically lead to the Fourth Point? Far from dismantling the TULIP, the universal sufficiency of the atonement provides a solid basis on which the traditional Three Points of  Common Grace can be integrated with it.

I plan to write more on Particular Redemption and the extent of the atonement in the near future, God willing.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 15 - Brad Bigney

I've Got Questions about Election and Predestination . . .

That was the title of pastor Brad Bigney's recent message about the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. His remarks are insightful and balanced, emphasizing the greatness of our God and the meagerness of our capacity as fallen creatures. For this humble and God-honoring approach, he gets a THEOparadox t-shirt!

Click Here to Listen (MP3)

A few sobering quotes from the message . . .

"You're never going to escape a measure of mystery in the Bible."

"The issue really boils down to: how comfortable are you with a measure of mystery in all that we know about God and what He's doing - including as it relates to salvation?"

"Your human logic will never be fully satisfied."

"There's no way we're going to be able to fully understand the whole scope of God's work."

"When mystery is kept alive humility will characterize you."

You might also like this one about divine incomprehensibility, it is super!

Your God is Wise and Loving yet Unsearchable (MP3)

For 18 pages of faith-building sermons like these - approximately 360 messages - visit this link:

http://www.graceky.org/index.php?c=sermons

It's the single most reliable sermon resource I know of. The style and content are along the lines of John Piper, C.J. Mahaney/Sovereign Grace Ministries, Paul Washer, and Paul Tripp. Messages here are usually topical, but LOADED heavily with insightful Biblical content and great theology. There is a strong emphasis on application, with plenty of encouragement and exhortation. Messages are available in multiple audio formats, and there are downloadable PDF outlines, too.

Calvin on Isaiah 53:1

Calvin's comments on Isaiah 53:1 are instructive in several ways. In them we find hints of Calvin's belief in the free offer of the Gospel and the supra-logical, mysterious nature of the message of Christ (which, according to Calvin, "exceeds all human capacities"). These play alongside unsurprising affirmations of divine election and the necessity of an effectual call. Here's Calvin on Isaiah 53:1 . . .

Here the Prophet pauses, as it were, in the middle of his discourse; for, having formerly said that the name of Christ would be everywhere proclaimed, and would be revealed to unknown nations, and yet would have so mean an aspect that it might appear as if these things were fabulous, he breaks off his discourse, and exclaims that "Nobody will believe those things." At the same time, he describes his grief, that men are so unbelieving as to reject their salvation.

Thus, it is a holy complaint made by one who wished that Christ should be known by all, and who, notwithstanding of this, sees that there are few who believe the Gospel, and therefore groans and cries out, "Who hath believed our report?" Let us therefore groan and complain along with the Prophet, and let us be distressed with grief when we see that our labor is unprofitable, and let us complain before God; for godly ministers must be deeply affected, if they wish to perform their work faithfully. Isaiah declares that there will be few that submit to the Gospel of Christ; for, when he exclaims, "Who will believe the preaching?" he means that of those who hear the Gospel scarcely a hundredth person will be a believer.

Nor does he merely speak of himself alone, but like one who represents all teachers. Although therefore God gives many ministers, few will hold by their doctrine; and what then will happen when there are no ministers? Do we wonder that the greatest blindness reigns there? If cultivated ground is unfruitful, what shall we look for from a soil that is uncultivated and barren? And yet it does not detract anything from the Gospel of Christ, that there are few disciples who receive it; nor does the small number of believers lessen its authority or obscure its infinite glory; but, on the contrary, the loftiness of the mystery is a reason why it scarcely obtains credit in the world. It is reckoned to be folly, because it exceeds all human capacities.

To whom (literally, on whom) is the arm of Jehovah revealed? In this second clause he points out the reason why the number of believers will be so small. It is, because no man can come to God but by an extraordinary revelation of the Spirit. To suppose that by the word "Arm" Christ is meant, is, in my opinion, a mistake. It assigns the cause why there are so few that believe; and that is, that they cannot attain it by the sagacity of their own understanding. This is a remarkable passage, and is quoted by John and Paul for that purpose. . . . Both of them declare that there will be no reason to wonder, if that which was long ago foretold shall happen; and they do so for the purpose of removing offense which might have arisen from the revolt of that nation, which ought to have acknowledged Christ, but obstinately resisted him.

Isaiah does not include merely the men of his own time, but all posterity to the end of the world; for, so long as the reign of Christ shall endure, this must be fulfilled; and therefore believers ought to be fortified by this passage against such a scandal. These words refute the ignorance of those who think that faith is in the power of every person, because preaching is common to all. Though it is sufficiently evident that all are called to salvation, yet the Prophet expressly states that the external voice is of no avail, if it be not accompanied by a special gift of the Spirit. And whence proceeds the difference, but from the secret election of God, the cause of which is hidden in himself?

FREE OFFER - Addendum, Part 2

What follows is deep and undeniable Biblical material in support for the four aspects of the free offer. For more on this, see part 1 of the addendum, and also the original post.

First, the easiest one: "the Gospel is to be proclaimed to every individual."

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and preach the Gospel to every creature . . ."
Mark 16:15 "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation."
Perhaps there's a bit of hyperbole there to emphasize the point, but it only strengthens the argument: PREACH THE GOSPEL TO ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION.


Next: "God invites every individual."

Matthew 11:28-29 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
Isaiah 55:1-3 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance. Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, according to the faithful mercies shown to David."
John 7:37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."
Revelation 22:17 ". . . And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost."

These invitations are given to all, even though the hunger and thirst which move a person to respond are brought about by God's sovereign stirrings of grace. Visibly, the call is universal. Invisibly, the drawing of the Spirit is particular. There's a difference between the general call and the effectual call, but one does not nullify the other.

Next: "God loves every individual."

Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful"

It is objected by some that this refers to God's love for the elect prior to their conversion. I wonder, then, why Christ did not mention this distinction, but commanded His followers to love all enemies? If our heavenly Father does not love the reprobate, and we are admonished to be like Him, why should we love the reprobate? Yet we are commanded to love ALL neighbors and enemies without exception.

Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord God, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"
Ezekiel 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord God. "Therefore, repent and live."

God's pleasure is increased when sinners repent, yet He does not lead all sinners to repentance. His reasons for leaving some in their sins is an unrevealed mystery, but His lack of pleasure in their destruction is directly stated and plainly revealed. Just as God saves some sinners without being unjust, He condemns other sinners without being unloving. Christ's death secured the salvation of the elect, but it also "condemned sin in the flesh." (Romans 8:3) That is a genuine and blessed paradox.

Does God love everyone? My 4-year-old can quote John 3:16, and I think he understands it better than most theologians. What kind of twisted interpretation of "world" does one have to invent in order to deny that "God so loved [every lost person] that He gave His only begotten son . . ."? The violent revisions forced on this text by a petrified theology are bizarre at best, and blasphemous at worst. One of the great benefits of being a paradoxical Calvinist is that we can allow the text to mean exactly what it says. On the downside, explaining things can be tricky, and one's systematic theology may be less than iron clad. But I'd rather be true to the text and scratch all the remaining hair off of my head trying to figure it out than to scratch a single line of truth from God's Bible.

Finally, the tough one: "God wills (i.e. desires) the salvation of every individual."

I Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Many - even among those who agree with all I have said above - will take exception to the use of this verse in this context. However, I am convinced that the verse is a true statement of God's desire for the salvation of all. The best argument against this view is formed by linking "all men" in this verse to "a ransom for all" in verse 6. Based on limited atonement, "all" in verse 6 is thought to mean "all kinds" (which is sometimes an accurate way to interpret the word), and thus the "all" in verse 4 purportedly has to mean "all kinds." It is a powerful argument. However, Christ's death as "a ransom for all" may well fit within the universal aspects of the atonement. The argument can be just as powerful when stated the opposite way: the "all" in verse 6 proves that the "all" in verse 4 really means "all." Christ's ransom payment was infinite and sufficient for all, though it is efficient and effective only for those who believe. Thus, God desires the salvation of all - especially the elect; and Christ paid the ransom for all - especially the elect. Alas, there are probably only a few Calvinists who will agree, but the point is more disputable than some would ever admit. Let's not allow our theology to become too "limited."

Beyond this, God's desire for the salvation of every individual can be explained this way: every universal invitation, and every universal call to repentance, stands as a statement of God's genuine desire - even if it is not His intention to fulfill that desire. God is not, therefore, "eternally bummed out" or frustrated by man's rejection of Him. Rather, He purposefully mourns with a compassionate heart over the well-deserved destruction of His creatures. He suffers for all, even the reprobate. Yet He also rejoices and finds complete satisfaction in all His decrees. Should it then surprise us that He calls us to find "pure joy" in all our trials and sufferings? And that we should "leap for joy" when people hate us?

Conclusion

The Scripture passages listed above provide strong support for the free offer of the Gospel. But is it a "sincere" and "well meant" offer? The answer is obvious: can God do anything without sincerity? Of course not. Is such terminology redundant? Yes, it is. But is it any more redundant than adding the word "holy" or "righteous" or "kind" or "good" or "perfect" to any of God's other acts? Certainly not. Therefore, we should never be ashamed to speak freely and sincerely of the free, sincere, and well meant offer of the Gospel.

The result of the free offer is sure: "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

So the great commission is a guaranteed success! Let every one of us do his (or her) part to fulfill the command (and the prophecy) of Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.
_____________________________________
Further information can be found here:

http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/freeoffer.shtml

Excerpt:

Do you have difficulty reconciling the genuine overtures of the Gospel with the truth of God's sovereign election and predestination? To allow any such difficulty to cause you to reject the plain Biblical testimony to the reality of these gracious overtures is to bow down to the false humanistic god of the finality of human reason and is the very antithesis of true Biblical Calvinism. Whilst all of God's Word is reasonable, our powers of reason are those of a finite and fallen creature. We must lean upon the words that have proceeded out of the mouth of God. It is fallen man's pride in his own reason causing him to heed again the words of the serpent, "Hath God said?" (Gen. 3/1). Let us glorify God and say, "I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right" (Psalm 119/128).