tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354198312012-01-09T14:03:39.591-05:00Romans 5:18: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him." ~ John CalvinStevenoreply@blogger.comBlogger961100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82969563947124865832010-05-03T02:28:00.002-04:002010-05-03T02:30:13.838-04:00

I'm continuing the previous post on Roger Nicole's interpretation of Calvin's language in Institutes 3.1.1. Calvin wrote: And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. Institutes 3.1.1 Nicole's argument Nicole's argument regarding

Stevenoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-79926473945818638442010-01-26T09:48:00.002-05:002010-01-26T09:51:00.717-05:00

Faith is the foundation on which hope rests. ~Calvin, Institutes 3.2.42 This is Part 2 of my answer to a Pyro blogger. You can find part one here: Assurance Must Rest on Universal Atonement." "Hope," in Calvin's language, would be the same as the modern word "assurance." When the modern evangelical speaks of assurance of salvation, he's speaking of the same thing that Calvin called hope.

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-40456671698476357392009-11-09T14:37:00.004-05:002009-11-09T15:52:10.318-05:00

Taking on a Pyro Blogger One of the Pyro bloggers has given what he believes is an unanswerable objection to those who believe that limited atonement (as most commonly held) removes all grounds for assurance. His answer is part of a series of quick answers: short verbal jabs, intended to "checkmate" the theological opponent in fifty words or less. His stated goal in these short posts is to

Stevenoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-41432928654949276822009-09-05T11:54:00.003-04:002009-09-05T12:06:41.840-04:00

I'm continuing my critique of Roger Nicole's treatment of Calvin. I have been focusing most recently on the many universal ("all mankind," "the world," etc.) statements in Calvin's work. Nicole makes an attempt at answering the moderates in the scope of a few pages (see Nicole, at 215-218. Nicole attempts to treat scores (or hundreds) of possible quotations from Calvin that have a universal

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-63536071896508934482009-08-24T13:04:00.004-04:002009-08-24T15:22:50.304-04:00

Sermons on the Deity of Christ Moderate Calvinists have long pointed out Calvin's common use of expressions that denote universal atonement. There are many such statements, as I have mentioned before. Roger Nicole has taken a smattering of statements of that type and proposed some answers from the high Calvinists' perspective. I will attempt to deal with each of the Calvin quotes raised by

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-3543697082443812792009-06-27T02:52:00.007-04:002009-06-28T09:02:18.988-04:00

A critic has written a response to my previous article Impetration v. application. You can find the critique at this link, and I invite you to read the critique and feel free to engage me or the author of the critique on the subject. I note first that the critic has labeled me a "neo-Amyraldian." The critic doesn't know my views of Amyraut; he just wants a handy disapprobatory label. I am

Stevenoreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-20667493607130499732009-06-21T23:36:00.003-04:002009-09-05T12:16:00.258-04:00

In my previous blog post (entitled Did Christ's Sacrifice Actually Save?) about Roger Nicole's 1984 article, I began to treat his fifth argument in rebuttal to the myriad of universalistic (or at least universal sounding) statements produced by moderate Calvinists from Calvin's corpus. Nicole's fifth argument amounts to this: since impetration and application cannot be separated, Calvin's

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-27917817524473589832009-06-14T14:19:00.005-04:002009-06-14T21:38:51.773-04:00

This past February, Paul Helm published a blog post entitled "The Language and Theology of the Free Offer." (HT Tony.) Though I would take exception to significant portions of his discussion of the theology of the free offer of the gospel, I wanted to comment on one statement in particular and how it relates to Calvin's theology. In that blog post, Helm says this: It is not part of the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1545270536019962232009-06-08T16:58:00.005-04:002009-06-21T23:08:56.391-04:00

That's the way the question is put by most advocates of limited atonement. I clearly remember hearing Greg Bahnsen (on tape) say that very thing. Christ's sacrifice actually saves. This is in contrast to the Arminian position (and other non-Calvinistic positions) that says that Christ's sacrifice only potentially saves: it merely makes salvation possible. Roger Nicole's Fifth argument against

Stevenoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-5008761138443126182009-04-19T23:37:00.003-04:002009-06-08T14:27:07.793-04:00

I have been critiquing Roger Nicole's 1985 article defending the view that Calvin taught limited atonement. I have come to Nicole's rebuttal of the fifth argument of those who see Calvin as teaching a form of universal atonement. The fifth argument is the most powerful, and Nicole does little more than make a feeble protest. The fifth argument is this: Calvin, they urge, did repeatedly

Stevenoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-68475998414277779122009-04-03T17:03:00.001-04:002009-04-03T17:07:23.254-04:00

In my previous post on Nicole's rebuttal to the "wasted blood" argument, I omitted one point. In referring to those difficult passages that give reformed theologians pause (i.e., Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 8:11, Hebrews 10:29, and 2Peter 2:1), Nicole says this: The warnings of Hebrews and 2 Peter ... do relate to people who will ultimately be lost. * * * There is no way in which these

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-59271869625339141012009-03-31T10:41:00.005-04:002009-04-03T16:37:10.570-04:00

Sean Gerety posted a comment to my recent paean to R. T. Kendall, in which he blasted my logic (among other things). I admit to admiring Kendall, but I plead innocent of defective logic, which (logic, that is) Gerety and his ilk aspire to honor. (A poor job of it, in my view.) First I must call attention to Gerety's slander against David Ponter. Ponter is neither Amyraldian nor Arminian, and

Stevenoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-49707392986044998642009-03-18T19:20:00.005-04:002009-04-02T11:15:05.682-04:00

Roger Nicole's fourth rebuttal to the moderate Calvinists treats Calvin's "wasted blood" passages. This is an important point, which Nicole skims over. There are many such passages in Calvin's corpus, and there ought to be some thought given to the answer. Nicole hasn't done it. Cause to pause and ponder Nicole refers to four scripture passages as giving the advocate of definite atonement "

Stevenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-6492428939493626072009-03-17T16:17:00.003-04:002009-03-31T11:02:01.521-04:00

Just a quick one today; I'll have another entry in my critique of Roger Nicole shortly (later this week, D.V.). D.V.: it means "God willing." But there are two senses of God's will. This is much disputed by some, who seem unable (or unwilling) to speak of God having a will apart from his decree. (There are some on the other side, of course, who are unwilling to speak of God's decree.)

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-76086755873275957562009-03-11T11:21:00.002-04:002009-03-31T11:03:44.408-04:00

I was talking with a friend of mine recently (the unnamed one), and we discussed the rise of moderate Calvinism among modern evangelical theologians. I'm not speaking of the 4-point Calvinists (who tend to reject limited atonement outright), the dispensationalists, or nearly Arminian fundamentalists, but the Calvinist scholars who actually influence the community of TULIP Calvinists. I asked my

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-62575661878702147842009-02-26T13:13:00.003-05:002009-02-26T13:24:31.311-05:00

Well ... I suppose one must devote a certain amount of energy to a blog if he intends to have one. So, back to the grind. Roger Nicole’s third rebuttal against the moderate (or “historic” or “non-continuity”) Calvinists is this: 3. Calvin, they urge, ["they" referring to the moderate Calvinists, such as R.T. Kendall, Curt Daniel, et. al. - slc] takes at face value certain biblical texts which

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-76079210846804511452009-02-25T22:42:00.003-05:002009-02-25T22:53:27.991-05:00

Interesting reference to my Nicole articles at Arminian Perspectives. I appreciate the link, and while I would take issue with Ben's argumentation and view of scripture, he appears to be a thoughtful person. So why would I point out a link from an Arminian? (Gasp!) Well ... I appreciate the link and it's good to reciprocate. But it also points out a problem with making bad arguments: a bad

Stevenoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-17365175339743880222009-01-01T15:00:00.006-05:002009-01-03T17:43:51.780-05:00

To briefly recapitulate: my first two arguments against Nicole's reading of Calvin on 1Timothy 2:5 consisted of examining the allegedly qualifying language of class vs. individual that Calvin used in his commentary on the verse. Whereas Nicole would have us read Calvin as speaking of some of all kinds of men, this doesn't seem to work when applied to two actual cases that appear in the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-41092363325998824362008-12-31T14:25:00.002-05:002008-12-31T14:36:52.563-05:00

Dominic shows an ability to think these things through and articulate them clearly. His language is forceful and direct. Here is a paragraph from his article: Dominic Bnonn Tennant — On the atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call God simply cannot promise to save someone for whom Christ did not die. Such a promise would be empty; insincere; a lie—and it is impossible for

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-12314374987655262992008-12-23T11:11:00.004-05:002008-12-28T19:14:55.887-05:00

For whom are we to pray? The second argument for not reading Calvin's "all" as "some of all kinds," is Calvin's view of whom we are to pray for. In 1Timothy 2:1, we are commanded to pray for all men. All men? Or all sorts of men? Let's do a comparison of John Gill, a hyper-Calvinist, with Calvin. Here's a snippet of Gill's comment on verse 1: [G]giving of thanks, as well as prayers, are

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-79457562431695481122008-12-22T21:16:00.005-05:002008-12-28T19:20:55.220-05:00

I want to revisit an argument that Roger Nicole made in his rebuttal to the first argument of the non-continuity (I would like to call them the “historic Calvinists” -- the fellows and gals who say that Calvin did not teach limited atonement) guys. All doesn’t mean all Nicole argues that there is a way of understanding Calvin’s use of universalistic language (“all” and such like) that doesn’t

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-40568734121460413122008-12-17T15:01:00.004-05:002008-12-17T15:10:23.350-05:00

A friend of mine (the unnamed one) pointed me to Dominic Bnonn Tennant's blog, "developing the mind of Christ." Dominic has started a really excellent series: "On the atonement." He opens the discussion with "federal headship and forensic imputation." He promises seven parts in the series, and I'm really looking forward to it. (Of course, it helps that he cites yours truly in part 1.) :-)

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-60042985615415378312008-12-15T14:36:00.005-05:002009-11-05T23:16:06.836-05:00

In Roger Nicole’s review of Calvin’s doctrine of limited atonement, Nicole lists several arguments of the non-continuity advocates (R. T. Kendall, Curt Daniel, et al) and offers rebuttals of those arguments. Here is his treatment of the second argument of the discontinuity folks (those who say Calvin did not teach limited atonement). The argument relates to the free offer of the gospel: In

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-3661024355133872572008-12-08T13:07:00.010-05:002008-12-10T13:39:31.777-05:00

I was recently ransacking Tony's blog for a picture I could steal. I happened across this entry on Calvin's commentary on Lamentations 3:33. It's especially appropriate to the question of God's wishes or desires (optative expressions). An oldie but goodie. I also draw your attention to Tony's most recent post, in which he has extracted from his own (and Flynn's ... shhh!) blog the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-39823285613509350242008-12-08T11:24:00.008-05:002008-12-08T15:09:18.300-05:00

Theological One-String Banjos Some of you who regularly read my blog may remember Tony Byrne's self-portrait. (I don't know where he got the photo; but it's good. I stole it from him -- with his tacit consent, of course.) If you want to see a larger version of the picture, click through to his blog and click on the picture there. (I said "self-portrait," but it's actually his view of how

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-62610785923559170842008-12-05T14:04:00.007-05:002008-12-05T14:46:15.850-05:00

New Developments James White has changed the nature of this discussion as it relates to hypercalvinism. He recently posted a response to Tony Byrne on the AOMin blog, and also posted a video, which vitiates much of the discussion about whether James White is a hyper-Calvinist. Having posted a link to the video, I must comment that some of what White says there is simply false and bombastic;

Stevenoreply@blogger.com80tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-42434810181392186482008-12-03T12:56:00.004-05:002008-12-03T13:49:48.968-05:00

James White's problem recapped In the first two articles of this series, (see Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist and Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist, Part 2) I set out Dr. White's problem with the idea that God desires the salvation of all men. The Bible clearly presents God as willing the salvation of all, Calvin clearly taught it, and it has been held as important truth throughout the history

Stevenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-73317232369033700212008-11-26T11:22:00.002-05:002009-04-03T17:10:05.669-04:00

Calvin's doctrine of the love of God expressed in the gospel The recent questions about hyper-Calvinism and "optative language" have been slightly provoking. So I turn to Calvin. Calvin always sheds light on these questions, and here is a small beam from the Institutes: On the other hand, we have good ground for comprehending all the promises in Christ, since the Apostle comprehends the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-66005800801486128212008-11-25T19:16:00.004-05:002008-12-05T14:14:06.951-05:00

In my first article in this series, entitled "Is James White a Hyper-Calvinist?" I gave an overview of White's problem and the Biblical reason for entering into the difficulties James White alleges. Those problems are (probably among others he would name if pressed) The Two-Wills "conundrum" The "partial desire" and sovereignty problem "God wills the salvation of all men" is a meaningless

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-58775122440467664032008-11-16T00:10:00.007-05:002008-12-05T14:10:25.212-05:00

The Genesis of the dispute James White was recently accused of being a hyper-Calvinist at the John 3:16 conference. White reacted with a strongly worded denial. But the question persists for some folks -- myself included. The question of characterization as "hyper-Calvinist" is certainly an interesting one, but is ultimately a question of semantics. Neither White nor his friends will accept

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-40210331554034281412008-11-10T12:20:00.004-05:002008-12-14T14:35:02.206-05:00

I recently received one of those Sunday School papers that get passed around in most evangelical churches. I happened on one that contained a quotation from J. C. Ryle. Here is the part that interested me: There are many who hear of Christ with the ear, and believe all they are told about Him. They understand that there is no salvation apart from Christ. They acknowledge that Jesus alone

Stevenoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-74825806985246153542008-10-13T02:31:00.004-04:002009-06-08T17:08:22.719-04:00

I continue my critique of Roger Nicole's 1985 article, "John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement." This article will relate especially to Calvin's doctrine of Christ as mediator. After Nicole's survey of the literature, he engages in an analysis of the arguments, both pro and con, beginning with rebuttals of six arguments for seeing John Calvin as advocating unlimited atonement. I

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-89426408252072607562008-10-04T21:38:00.003-04:002009-05-22T14:49:57.142-04:00

Introduction to 2Peter 3:9 (This is a repost of an article I wrote for a previous blog of mine. I like the analysis and wanted to put it here. This is over 2 years old ... so the dispute is dated; but the issue is still important.) My friend Tony Byrne (whose most excellent blog, Theological Meditations, I highly recommend) recently posted some criticisms of Dr. James White, which garnered a

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-85865715922132673772008-10-04T19:32:00.006-04:002009-06-08T17:10:12.583-04:00

This is one of my favorite quotes from Calvin's universalist statements. This is from John Calvin's Commentary on Romans 5:18 (the link goes to one of my previous blog posts where one can read the quote in a larger context and get more of my thoughts on the subject): He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though

Stevenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-91642119272973819872008-10-04T14:43:00.008-04:002008-12-17T13:13:11.501-05:00

This is a Table of Contents page. Here you will find a full chronological listing (from oldest to newest) of the articles posted on this blog. I will try to keep it current enough to cover everything that isn't listed in the archive section of the blog home page. Complete Table of Contents Controversial Calvinism R L Dabney's View - Expiation is Not Limited! - Part I My Agenda R L

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-72358642766732429842008-09-29T02:26:00.002-04:002009-06-14T21:36:10.778-04:00

Back to my defense of R. T. Kendall It is time to return to my critique of Roger Nicole’s criticism of R. T. Kendall. For the sake of reference, one may find Nicole’s critique at this link: John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. (The essay was originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197-225.) Having made arguments from logic (which I have answered in

Stevenoreply@blogger.com81tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-26781406432024218422008-07-17T22:13:00.002-04:002009-06-14T21:38:33.726-04:00

I was reading the other day in Chronicles ... really ... and I noticed a verse in a new light. For thou, O my God, hast told thy servant that thou wilt build him an house: therefore thy servant hath found in his heart to pray before thee. I Chronicles 17:25. Now compare this to Calvin's statement about faith. For it were of no avail to us to know that God is true, did He not in mercy allure

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-69913907906040239152008-07-03T01:46:00.008-04:002009-09-05T12:17:36.855-04:00

I am returning to a critique of Nicole’s arguments against R. T. Kendall’s thesis regarding Calvin. Kendall has said that Calvin’s theology saw assurance as of the essence of saving faith. And Kendall argues that since assurance is of the essence of saving faith, Calvin must have believed in some form of universal atonement. One can only have assurance of God’s interest in him if God has

Stevenoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-53628976708642602362008-04-04T15:12:00.005-04:002008-04-06T12:19:55.480-04:00

This is the conclusion of the previous blog post on the necessity of universal atonement to assurance of salvation. I offer this post with a certain amount of fear and trepidation. I feel certain of my ground in the reading of Calvin, but I stand open to correction on the radical implications this could have for the doctrine of faith. If Kendall is right (and I am inclined to think he is),

Stevenoreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-62640122587392508382008-03-31T12:39:00.003-04:002008-03-31T12:44:36.812-04:00

Many in the reformed camp would have us know of our election from the process of self-examination. For example, Roger Nicole said: universal atonement is neither necessary nor sufficient for assurance. It is not necessary since my understanding of how the work of Christ affects others is not essential for a perception of how it affects me. The difficulty is, of course, that any sensible

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-64090905025662702782008-03-12T11:12:00.002-04:002008-03-23T11:13:33.728-04:00

I was reading today in Calvin's commentary on Psalm 51:7 and found some words that strongly reminded me of Calvin's commentary on John 3:16. There Calvin says that "our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God." Here's the quote from Calvin's comment on the Psalm: The truth is, that we cannot properly pray for the pardon of sin until we have come to a

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-54214025853298641782008-03-09T18:59:00.002-04:002008-03-09T19:02:55.881-04:00

I continue my critique of Roger Nicole's answer to R. T. Kendall's important work on Calvin's doctrine of faith. You can look at previous blog entries in this series to gain some context: Calvin vs. Cunningham & Nicole Individuals or Classes? Calvin on 1Timothy 2:4-6 The love of God for all men in Calvin's writings Calvin Extolling Universal Grace Nicole's critique of R. T.

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-73547797507169892592008-02-15T14:35:00.001-05:002008-02-15T14:35:21.417-05:00

I want to thank the moderator of Calvin and Calvinism for posting my article on Calvin, Heshusius, and Limited Atonement on his website. The Heshusius quote has been misunderstood and grossly exaggerated in importance by the urgent necessity of finding some quote from Calvin that shores up limited atonement. I hope that the article will open up an avenue of thought and help to put to rest the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-7657951720630424072008-02-08T11:17:00.001-05:002010-01-22T11:02:33.254-05:00

A friend of mine told me last night that he had added a link to my blog from his. I was gratified, but it made me think I ought to write something once in a while to justify the link. Is it possible for me to know that God loves me? Calvin wrote this in the Institutes: It were presumptuous in us to hold that God is propitious to us, had we not his own testimony, and did he not prevent us by

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82141362634526056072007-11-27T15:20:00.002-05:002008-02-18T13:26:12.231-05:00

I am continuing my review of Roger Nicole's article on Calvin's doctrine of the atonement. Part of Nicole's article is devoted to a critique of R. T. Kendall's book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. This book is a very interesting read for the student of history and an important one for the student of theology. After Nicole's general criticism of Kendall, covered in my previous blog entry

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82076678466344316752007-11-03T15:47:00.001-04:002007-11-19T17:51:47.573-05:00

I am going to devote a few articles to Roger Nicole's criticism of R. T. Kendall, which appears in Nicole's well-known article on Calvin and limited atonement. (John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. (Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 197-225).) Roger Nicole spends a few paragraphs critiquing R. T. Kendall's 1979 book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford

Stevenoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-59286496719633848862007-11-02T14:02:00.001-04:002010-01-21T19:50:29.802-05:00

In the Editor’s Preface to the third edition of W. G. T. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology, Alan W. Gomes writes that "modern evangelical systems tend to be weaker precisely at those points where Shedd’s is most robust." In this blogger’s opinion, the statement is true with respect not only to modern evangelicalism, but with respect to modern evangelical Calvinism as well. Today’s Calvinism

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-24275522775287439142007-11-01T09:44:00.001-04:002010-01-21T19:50:29.804-05:00

In Shedd’s view of Christ’s expiation for the sins of mankind, the work of Christ is not merely theoretical. Christ has done all that is necessary for the sins of man to be forgiven. In relation to God’s justice, Christ’s atonement cancels the claims of the law against the human race: In the third place, atonement, either personal or vicarious, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims.

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-22051337179772622622007-10-09T12:13:00.005-04:002009-06-08T14:37:44.494-04:00

Well, I have finally completed the Heshusius article. I put the article in pdf format so you can download it to your computer and have it look nice. [UPDATE June, 2009. I consider myself web-savvy and all ... but I have had a great deal of difficulty figuring out exactly how to publish this paper in a nice form without spending money. :-) The link above goes to an html document published on

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82546375447961743482007-09-29T00:24:00.001-04:002010-01-21T19:50:29.806-05:00

In this series of articles on the theology of 1John 2:2, I am attempting to show that there is a substantial minority report among Calvinistic and reformed theologians on the meaning of "the whole world" in that passage. In my previous blog entry on this topic, I gave W. G. T. Shedd’s view of limited atonement: "Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited." Because Shedd had that view, he

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-11388379220908836422007-09-19T10:23:00.001-04:002010-01-21T19:50:29.808-05:00

I plan to post four essays on W. G. T. Shedd's understanding of 1John 2:2. I originally wrote these essays for another blog, but I have wanted to post this material on Shedd here for some time. Since I am currently busy reading RT Kendall (I'm nearly done), I thought I would take this opportunity to brush up this material and post it here. I hope to show that the "reformed" understanding of

Stevenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82286722758225204092007-09-12T12:50:00.001-04:002007-09-12T12:50:28.351-04:00

My apologies to the thousands of you :-) who read my blog regularly. I have been working on a response to Roger Nicole's handling of R. T. Kendall, and found that it required more background preparation on my part than I had anticipated. I have decided to read Kendall's book in full, and I'm working on that now. Let me just say that the Kendall thesis looks pretty good to me, and I will have

Stevenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-49355603717152637252007-09-12T12:30:00.001-04:002007-09-12T12:52:39.085-04:00

Some Christian doctrine is difficult. It challenges our self-image by bringing us face to face with the limits of the finite. To put it plainly, we don't know everything, and God sometimes tells us things that would require more knowledge than we possess to properly understand. (That doesn't mean, of course, that we ought to reject the truth or succumb to skepticism.) Calvin's universalism

Stevenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-83567857417047346342007-08-10T13:03:00.001-04:002007-08-10T15:54:10.760-04:00

One of my commenters, — anonymous" by name — referring to a criticism I made of Roger Nicole, posted this comment: Anonymous said... Remember that Nicole used the alleged emphatic repudiation to bolster the idea that Calvin taught particularism in the atonement. But in this quote we see Calvin distinctly teaching that God's grace extends to those who ultimately reject it. How do you explain

Stevenoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-56460059749626457022007-08-10T10:00:00.001-04:002007-08-10T10:16:50.624-04:00

Well, here it is, as promised. I'm very proud of Aaron, as you can imagine. The performance is not his best (he makes a couple of unfortunate mistakes right at the end of the piece), but it is certainly his bravest (he was performing in front of an audience of very talented teenage musicians). Even with the mistakes, it is still glorious music. The piece is Alexander Scriabin's Etude in

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-59419736381992018132007-08-04T10:51:00.003-04:002008-11-29T00:01:20.680-05:00

In one of the comments, Seth asked the following question: Here is my law question. As an attorney: How would you define pecuniary vs judicial debt payments? Money or jail? Good question. In very broad terms, the difference is between payment in money or in kind (e.g., barter) as opposed to payment in the person of the debtor himself (e.g., imprisonment, penal servitude, stripes, or death)

Stevenoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-38731196826372655922007-08-02T14:13:00.002-04:002008-11-29T00:02:08.483-05:00

Just to let you who are interested know what I am working on (and that I AM working), I wanted to show you some of the projects I'm working on for the blog. By popular demand, I am working on an essay that combines my thoughts on the Heshusius question into one article. I will make a blog entry with a link to a pdf article for your reading pleasure. The high Calvinists have badly misinterpreted

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-75248870562625166962007-08-02T13:27:00.002-04:002008-11-29T00:01:38.268-05:00

Seth McBee has this really cool blog, entitled Contend Earnestly Seth recently added me to his blogroll, and I thought I would reciprocate. Check out Seth's blog. (And thank you, Seth!)

Stevenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-85497309289247732912007-07-20T00:03:00.001-04:002007-07-20T00:06:20.352-04:00

In a recent blog article, I commented on Calvin's statement regarding Isaiah 53:12, that "'many' sometimes denotes 'all.'" This sentiment is quite opposite of the modern Calvinistic party line, which generally insists that "many" does not mean "all." The consequences of this line of thinking are significant. If "many" sometimes means "all," not only does limited atonement lose one of its

Stevenoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-10843883930209991792007-07-17T12:43:00.001-04:002007-07-17T12:45:09.390-04:00

One of my recent articles drew criticism of a rather general sort from "anonymous." The criticism warrants a separate blog entry because it encapsulates the criticisms I've received over the last year-and-a-half, and I'd like to make a more prominent response to these criticisms. So here we go, paragraph by paragraph. Anonymous starts with this: It seems to me that the Calvinists you refer to

Stevenoreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-60910357551986347292007-07-11T14:21:00.001-04:002007-07-11T14:24:38.244-04:00

Does Calvin see God as extending grace to all men without exception? Roger Nicole (and William Cunningham, whom Nicole cited with approval,) have said that Calvin emphatically repudiated such a view of God's grace, though neither of these authorities gave evidence of such a repudiation. My previous blog post was devoted to giving evidence from Calvin debunking Nicole's and Cunningham's idea.

Stevenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-75587832820502674702007-07-04T11:56:00.001-04:002007-07-04T11:59:44.716-04:00

I have begun a series of critiques of Roger Nicole's 1985 article, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. Dr. Nicole's article has been published online at A Puritan's Mind. In a previous article, I criticized Nicole and an authority he cited, Principal William Cunningham, as having failed to substantiate the claim that Calvin emphatically repudiated "God's universal grace or love

Stevenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-79359512186299395622007-06-30T11:29:00.001-04:002007-06-30T13:57:58.342-04:00

The reformed view of "the sin of many." That wording, "the sin of many" can be found in Isaiah 53:12: Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Often the defender of

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-18506447622469958272007-06-26T12:30:00.001-04:002007-06-30T10:26:43.128-04:00

I offer this article as a supplement to the first article critiquing Roger Nicole's article entitled, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. (Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 197-225). I wish to address a point about Calvin's comment on 1Timothy 2:4 that may seem to some readers to have been omitted. Classes of men vs. individuals in 1Timothy 2:4 In his comment to that

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-45051509593222534192007-06-21T19:40:00.001-04:002007-06-21T19:46:10.832-04:00

Roger Nicole wrote an article published in the Westminster Theological Journal in 1985 entitled, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. Dr. Nicole's article has been published online at A Puritan's Mind, and I thank Dr. McMahon (and Dr. Nicole) for permission to quote from and link to that article. I plan to critique the article at some length. Calvinists often cite Dr. Nicole as

Stevenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-34834745059215773552007-06-20T13:22:00.002-04:002008-12-22T14:32:42.261-05:00

I have started a series of blog posts critiquing Roger Nicole's article on Calvin's view of the atonement. The article is: Roger Nicole, John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197-225. You can find the article available online at A Puritan’s Mind. If you wish to see a list of my articles critiquing Nicole, just click on this link.

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-10935577667165783572007-06-01T15:08:00.001-04:002007-06-01T15:12:39.370-04:00

My thesis is that Calvin did not teach limited atonement — not the kind advocated by most modern Calvinists at least. This is proved by a reading of Calvin's tract against Heshusius. In previous blog posts, I went through the famous statement from the tract that supposedly proves that Calvin did teach limited atonement. (You know the one — "I should like to know how the wicked can eat the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-52824639344190478132007-05-31T00:28:00.001-04:002007-05-31T00:28:58.210-04:00

Some of us were discussing The Lord's Supper and the question of the presence of Judas came up. There is a question raised by some because of the order of events portrayed in Luke's account. The question is settled in favor of Judas' presence by Luke 22:21: But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. Calvin shares this view. It is instructive to hear Calvin's

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-39505584716514990602007-05-29T20:41:00.001-04:002007-05-29T20:47:46.041-04:00

One wishes for the bullet-proof quote. Against a determined opponent, the quote almost never is. When the quote is questionable or controversial to the least degree, the interpreter's biases nearly always determine the ultimate interpretation. I thought of this (with, I must confess, a great deal of aggravation) when I read this analysis by Roger Nicole of the famous Heshusius quote:

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-60899357232056913972007-05-13T14:02:00.002-04:002010-01-22T11:04:59.308-05:00

A young friend of mine recently asked me if there were a verse in the Bible that explicitly states that Christ died for all men. I immediately offered John 3:16 as such a verse. He objected that John 3:16 shows God loving the world, not dying for the world. This is true in a strictly literal sense: there is no mention of the word death in John 3:16. On the other hand, the sending of John 3:16

Stevenoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-2991592157664430102007-05-11T21:54:00.001-04:002007-05-11T21:57:31.420-04:00

We in the reformed theological tradition are very much inclined to think of Christ's work on behalf of sinners as a payment. This is encouraged by the Biblical metaphor of ransom and redemption. It is reinforced by the arguments of theologians who encourage us to think in the terms of commerce. John Owen is a good example. Here is just a sample from his Death of Death in the Death of Christ:

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-30814406358779883662007-05-09T01:52:00.001-04:002007-05-09T01:54:00.147-04:00

I know it is a question (for some a struggle) in the reformed community how to preach the gospel. What should we say about the crucifixion? Do we say "Christ died for you;" "Christ died for us;" "Christ died for sinners"? Here is a hint at Calvin's answer from the Institutes 1.11.7. This is in the context of his objection to the Roman Catholics' use of images as "books of the unlearned."

Stevenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-59722793165336350532007-05-04T23:31:00.001-04:002007-05-04T23:33:25.166-04:00

My favorite commentator on the scriptures is Calvin — no question about it. The reason for my strong preference is not that I am a Calvinist, or that Calvin was one of the early reformers, or that I'm a Presbyterian (I'm not); it is Calvin's brilliant insight, clarity of expression, and stone-cold honesty that appeals to me. In Calvin these abilities and dispositions are combined with a

Stevenoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-45775551727532878542007-05-01T20:41:00.002-04:002009-02-25T22:25:53.787-05:00

All Christians believe in limited atonement. The atonement does not save all men. Arminians believe that the atonement is unlimited even though some men are not saved. What they mean is that Christ's work is intended for all men and any man equally and without any distinction. The limitation is strictly man's doing. Man exercises his free will and the way he exercises his will determines

Stevenoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-67879753156362001402007-04-27T00:08:00.001-04:002007-04-27T00:11:45.567-04:00

Well ... not really a conclusion, but a breathing point. I want to briefly summarize the previous seven blog articles before moving further. In the previous seven articles, I have been rebutting the high Calvinists' reading of Calvin's theology of the atonement. It is commonly believed that Calvin taught limited atonement. "Of course he did!" they will say. Challenges to this notion are met

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-39927713418439068842007-04-24T15:50:00.001-04:002007-04-24T15:53:36.696-04:00

The Spiritual v. the Physical Presence of Christ Continuing the discourse of previous essay, I resume the review of the passage in Calvin's tract against Heshusius that contains the famous, vaunted, and (if I am correct) much misunderstood "limited atonement" quotation. The reader may need to go back to that previous blog post to pick up the threads of my argument. In the first sentence of the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-77893802818014592042007-04-21T16:10:00.001-04:002007-04-26T13:41:50.060-04:00

Another Way to Understand Heshusius The problem with the high Calvinists' understanding of Calvin's tract against Heshusius is that — given their understanding of it — the quote they rely on is so jarringly out of place. It doesn't fit with Calvin's theology or with his argument against Heshusius. Here is the quote. But this time I'm going to provide a larger portion of the paragraph. It is

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-13821837741083634332007-04-20T16:45:00.001-04:002007-04-26T13:41:20.348-04:00

No Citadel for Limited Atonement Here I have been advancing reasons why Calvin's tract against Heshusius is not the bastion for the limited atonement advocates that they imagine it to be. The first two reasons relate to the context of Calvin's body of work as a whole and the tract against Heshusius in particular. Limited atonement is foreign to his teaching. Reasons three and four are logical

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-50783320784919488012007-04-17T21:03:00.001-04:002007-04-26T13:40:11.665-04:00

Two more reasons why Heshusius doesn't work For those who advocate the position that Calvin taught limited atonement, Calvin's tract against Heshusius is the strong bulwark. But it won't work. I promised five reasons in my previous essay on Heshusius, but I've now upped it to six. In today's blog entry I'll give you reasons three and four and reserve the rest for another entry — to be posted

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-25918519054218808402007-04-14T00:06:00.001-04:002007-04-26T13:39:07.995-04:00

Yeah, but what about Heshusius? The final refuge for the limited atonement advocate — and the argument with the strongest appeal on the face of it — is the statement Calvin made in his treatise against Heshusius. Here is the statement: But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of

Stevenoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-32070558521942710552007-04-09T22:14:00.001-04:002007-04-09T22:32:51.977-04:00

What about 1John 2:2? 1John 2:2 KJV And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. One of Calvin's statements that is most relied upon in proving that Calvin did teach limited atonement is his comment on 1John 2:2. Here is Calvin's comment in its entirety from Christian Classics Ethereal Library: And not for ours only. He added

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-63362635230120785242007-04-05T18:01:00.001-04:002007-04-05T18:08:31.199-04:00

Did Calvin teach Limited Atonement? This is the central question of the "Calvin v. the Calvinists" dispute. Though this has been primarily the province of Calvin scholars and experts, it strikes me as well within the capacity of lay readers of Calvin. The Christian of ordinary intelligence can decide the question for himself. The question is fairly simple because of the paucity of evidence on

Stevenoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-52220715454265213042007-03-16T14:22:00.000-04:002007-03-16T14:23:20.417-04:00

For the last essay in this series, I want to take a couple of real life examples and analyze them using Venn diagrams. If you stumble across this in the backwaters of the internet and have a question about logic or Venn diagrams, please feel free to add a comment. My friend Terry West complains about an argument for believer's baptism. He writes, Premise 1. Believers are to be baptized.

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-36867786365725540462007-03-14T22:13:00.001-04:002007-03-15T00:27:17.844-04:00

The standard categorical syllogism has three categorical statements or propositions: two premises — major and minor — and a conclusion. These three statements contain three terms. In the examples in the previous essay in this series, oranges, citrus fruit, apples, basketball players, people over 7 feet tall, F, and G are all terms. In a standard categorical syllogism, each term occurs in

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-57623251763310534252007-03-09T21:52:00.001-05:002007-03-09T21:59:11.626-05:00

This brief essay, the second in my series on Venn diagrams, is based on the work of W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic, 4th ed., and Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 10th ed. A categorical syllogism, in its classic form, contains three categorical statements (Quine) or propositions (Copi & Cohen). Two such statements constitute the premises -- a major premise and a minor premise

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-69135336867979731582007-03-08T19:31:00.001-05:002007-03-09T21:57:52.646-05:00

I profess to be examining the logic of the theology of John Calvin. In order to do that, we have to have some ideas about logic itself and we have to have tools for analyzing logic. One common form of argumentation is Aristotelian or categorical syllogisms. Categorical syllogisms are those syllogisms that have a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The famous one runs like this:

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-33999852321895728892007-02-14T13:16:00.001-05:002007-04-09T22:31:13.179-04:00

I know that technical logic can be oppressive. So I'm going to make a brief summary of the objections I posted in my previous blog posts on Zanchius's misuse of logic and his error on Romans 8:32 in particular. Zanchius made this comment about Romans 8:32: In the same chapter Paul asks, "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all [i.e., for all us elect persons], how shall

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-53057940360738355832007-02-12T21:16:00.000-05:002007-02-12T23:07:22.973-05:00

Immanual Kant said, "Fallacious and misleading arguments are most easily detected if set out in correct syllogistic form." [Quoted in Copi and Cohen, "Introduction to Logic," 10th ed., p. 256.] Kant was certainly correct, and it is just this procedure that I hope to apply to the argument of Zanchius in respect of Romans 8:32. In part I, I made a critique of the logic of Jerome Zanchius in the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82426390596093991842007-02-09T21:18:00.001-05:002008-12-15T16:07:38.680-05:00

I have criticized, previously and in another forum, Jerome Zanchius's treatment of Romans 8:32. I was going to brush up the criticism in order to publish it here. In researching the article, I found that Zanchius's logic is worse than my first impression told me, so I decided to make this a two-part article. I refer to Zanchius's argument in chapter 2 (entitled "The Will of God") in his work,

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1166570639524613482006-12-19T18:23:00.001-05:002008-12-14T14:37:41.881-05:00

If there is an incongruity in the idea of unlimited atonement, it cannot be rooted in a conflict between the members of the Trinity but in an incongruity between election, particular redemption, and the effectual call on the one hand and general love, universal atonement, and the free offer of the gospel on the other. There is no conflict between the members of the Holy Trinity, but an apparent

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1166515621099244612006-12-19T03:07:00.002-05:002008-12-08T12:44:10.349-05:00

While I hold to a version of Limited Atonement, I also hold to a version of Unlimited Atonement. As I mentioned in my first blog entry, I hold to unlimited atonement (as defined by W. G. T. Shedd,) and limited atonement (as defined by R. L. Dabney). The difference between these two theologians is partly in their definitions of "atonement." When Dabney used the term, he meant actual

Stevenoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1165798997764096712006-12-10T20:03:00.001-05:002008-11-29T00:19:41.753-05:00

We Calvinists consider ourselves to be students of the Bible, of theology, and -- not incidentally -- of logic. If many of us are not students of logic as a formal discipline, we at least find ourselves drawn to logic and resorting to logic in our interpretation of scripture and in our apologetic for the Calvinistic system of theology. And why not? We feel ourselves committed to the stern

Stevenoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1161842543140505802006-10-26T02:02:00.001-04:002008-11-28T23:57:41.138-05:00

Dabney distinguished between expiation, which is Christ's work on behalf of sinners, and atonement, which is actual reconciliation -- "at-one-ment".  Here is a quote from Dabney's Systematic Theology apropos to the subject: It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term 'atonement,' has very much complicated the debate.  This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1160022666840168672006-10-05T00:31:00.001-04:002008-11-28T23:55:13.724-05:00

Yes, I have an agenda, and I want you to know it before we go any farther. Here, in bold print, is my agenda. I want my readers to accept that a 5-point Calvinist can say the following things: God loves all men. God desires the salvation of all men and offers salvation to all by faith in Christ. Christ died for all men; he died for you. The last item on the agenda is particularly important

Stevenoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1159996451466331092006-10-04T17:14:00.003-04:002008-11-29T00:02:58.733-05:00

R L Dabney , one of the great American Presbyterian theologians of the 19th century, was certainly no Amyraldian. There are (at least) two sections in his Systematic Theology opposing the doctrine of Amyraut. And yet Dabney makes this rather startling assertion: "Expiation is not limited." (Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth, 1985, p. 528.)How can a man who holds to TULIP (as Dabney plainly

Stevenoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1159852612609969102006-10-03T01:15:00.002-04:002008-11-29T00:17:20.981-05:00

Calvinism is controversial. Further, the view that I will espouse in this blog will be controversial with many Calvinists. It is primarily those folks I wish to address. Calvinism as it is held in many conservative churches and denominations, is destructive of true doctrine and the Christian faith to a greater or lesser degree. I shall point out the deficiencies (as I perceive them) along the

Stevenoreply@blogger.com3