Assurance Must Rest on Universal Atonement - Part 2

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.

So for Calvin, assurance is always produced by faith. But that faith must have an object. Obviously, for the Christian, the object of that faith is God. God promises salvation, faith believes God, and faith in God produces assurance. That's Calvin.

But what of the modern evangelical Calvinist? He says that there are some men for whom Christ has not died. How then can one have faith in God if God, perhaps, has not provided for my salvation, has no love for me, and has no desire that I should be saved? How then am I to have assurance?

The answer of many Calvinists down through the years is this syllogism:

• All believers will be saved
• I am a believer
• Therefore I will be saved

This, or something like it, is called the practical syllogism, and it is often resorted to as the grounds for assurance. The problem in the syllogism is that "I am a believer" part. It's problematic in two ways: first, it focuses on "I"; second, it presumes that I am not a false believer.

But what if I am a false believer? Surely it's conceivable that I have deceived myself. That being the case, I search somewhere for assurance. It cannot rest in God, for God may not love me. It must rest, therefore, in my works. I have believed, I am progressing in sanctification, etc. The assurance for the high Calvinist rests in God's work in him.

For Calvin, though, assurance rests directly in God. It is a direct (rather than reflex) act of faith. The look of faith looks to Christ alone, and finds assurance there.

But what of the objection that God may not love me? Rubbish. God loves all men and has proved his love by sending Christ to die for them.

But what if I'm a false believer? Look to Christ. The answer always for Calvin would be "look to Christ." Assurance is found always and only in the look of faith to Christ. No syllogisms, no looking to self; look to Christ and to him alone for assurance.

That look to Christ can only give hope if I know that God loves me and Christ has died for me. And that is why assurance must rest on universal atonement.

The answer to the Pyro Blogger

So how would I answer Phillips's objection: that if Christ has died for Judas and the Beast, I can't have any assurance that my sins won't send me to hell.

Answer: look to Christ. All objections are answered in that way: look to Christ. In Christ alone is salvation, and in Christ alone is assurance. No syllogisms, no arguments; just look to Christ. I can look to Christ, for I know that he has died for me.

Assurance Must Rest on Universal Atonement - Part 1

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 require his opponent to think, while not wasting too much time actually engaging with the theological opponent. "The response," says Phillips, "is meant to be that sort of a verbal sharp stick." I mean to take on one of his recent "gotchas."

I must, of course, devote more than fifty words to answering his objection. It takes less time to throw mud against a wall than to clean it off. But the subject deserves some thought; and though Phillips apparently thinks he has the answer, I hope to show that he has both understated the problem and completely missed the answer.

Read the ENTIRE POST by clicking here

Paul Helm and Calvin's Doctrine of Faith

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 presentation of Christ freely to say that God sincerely desires the salvation of everyone, and to say such a thing makes preaching sermons on definite atonement and eternal election all the more difficult, leading to unnecessary perplexity.

Faith as Assurance of Divine Favor

I would make three points about Helm's statement: first, since Calvin taught that faith is the knowledge of God's love for us, it is problematic to say that God's sincere desire for the salvation of everyone is no part of the gospel presentation.

That Calvin taught the doctrine of faith I have alleged can be demonstrated most easily from the Institutes 3.2.7:

When conscience sees only wrath and indignation, how can it but tremble and be afraid? and how can it avoid shunning the God whom it thus dreads? But faith ought to seek God, not shun him. It is evident, therefore, that we have not yet obtained a full definition of faith, it being impossible to give the name to every kind of knowledge of the divine will. Shall we, then, for “will”, which is often the messenger of bad news and the herald of terror, substitute the benevolence or mercy of God? In this way, doubtless, we make a nearer approach to the nature of faith. For we are allured to seek God when told that our safety is treasured up in him; and we are confirmed in this when he declares that he studies and takes an interest in our welfare. Hence there is need of the gracious promise, in which he testifies that he is a propitious Father; since there is no other way in which we can approach to him, the promise being the only thing on which the heart of man can recline. * * * For it were of no avail to us to know that God is true, did He not in mercy allure us to himself; nor could we of ourselves embrace his mercy did not He expressly offer it.

Calvin, Institutes 3.2.7.

Notice how expressly Calvin declares that faith can only rest on the testimony of God himself that he is good and merciful. Indeed, Calvin says that the gracious promise is God's testimony that He is a propitious Father. How odd to scruple, as Helm does, against the declaration of God's desire for the salvation of any particular sinner. Such a scruple is certainly not concordant with Calvin's definition of faith. We cannot assure sinners of God's love for them while exhibiting reluctance in declaring to them God's desire that they be saved. Helm's idea of the free declaration of the gospel is distinctly at odds with Calvin's doctrine of faith.

We shall now have a full definition of faith if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

Institutes, 3.2.7

Calvin's doctrine of faith as it relates to definite atonement

One of the important points to come out of Helm's statement is the fact that the doctrine of limited atonement as it is commonly held is not consistent with Calvin's doctrine of faith. If it is problematic to tell sinners of God's desire for their salvation (and I would equate the declaration of God's benevolence, mercy, and propitious stance toward a sinner with such a desire toward that sinner) consistently with our doctrine of limited atonement, then our doctrine of limited atonement must not be consistent with Calvin's doctrine of faith.

That such is the case is further buttressed by the reluctance that many high Calvinists have of saying that God is good and kind to the non-elect, even in a general sense. The hyper-Calvinist usually simply denies such benevolence; but many high Calvinists, though stopping short of denying God's favor toward the non-elect, stop short of allowing that such favor is salvific in any sense. The common doctrine of limited atonement produces resistance to the notion of God's love for the non-elect - especially saving love for the non-elect. Indeed, Helm baldly states that the notion that God desires the salvation of every sinner is problematic for the preaching of limited atonement and unconditional election. To me, this at the very least indicates a doctrine of atonement and election that is out of step with what Calvin taught.

Calvin's doctrine of faith supports the notion that he did not teach limited atonement

Having established that Calvin's doctrine of faith involves a declaration of God's benevolence toward sinners (I mean individual sinners, all sinners, every sinner), we are further justified in concluding that Calvin did not teach limited atonement (at least not the kind that is inconsistent with his doctrine of faith). This is especially true, as Calvin's doctrine of faith necessarily involves the proclamation of Christ's work as the very testimony of God's love for the sinner.

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 his invitation, which leaves no doubt or uncertainty as to his will. It has already been seen that Christ is the only pledge of love, for without him all things, both above and below speak of hatred and wrath.

Institutes, 3.2.7

The work of Christ on our behalf (I speak as a man, not as a Christian) is the testimony by which God leaves no doubt as to his will. Christ is the pledge of God's love, for without Christ, "all things, both above and below speak of hatred and wrath." Without the testimony afforded by Christ's death for us, there is, indeed, no testimony of the divine favor. And if there is no testimony of the divine favor, there can be no faith.

If our doctrine of the atonement holds that there are some men for whom Christ is not the pledge of divine love and favor, then it would be presumptuous indeed on the part of Christ's ministers to profligately proclaim that God is propitious toward any particular individual. But if there is no promise of the divine favor on which the individual can repose, then there cannot possibly be faith ... at least not of the kind that Calvin taught. How could one have assurance of the divine favor if there are many men for whom Christ did not come (indeed, was not sent)? I claim that such an attitude would be not only against the spirit of Calvin's doctrine of faith, it would also be against the spirit of a Biblical notion of the gospel.

For ...

God so loved the world that he sent his only-begotten Son. See Calvin on John 3:16

God's promise as grounds for assurance

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 us to himself; nor could we of ourselves embrace his mercy did not He expressly offer it. “I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy loving-kindness and thy truth. Withhold not thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy loving-kindness and thy truth continually preserve me” (Psa_40:10,Psa_40:11).

Institutes 3.2.7. Calvin says that knowledge of God would avail us nothing did we not know of the merciful promises of God. David expresses a similar sentiment. Because God had promised him a house, he found the fortitude to ask God for His blessings. Calvin goes on to say:

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 his invitation, which leaves no doubt or uncertainty as to his will.

The revelation of God's merciful intentions toward us is the grounds on which we can have hope.

Nicole v. Kendall - Is Universal Atonement Sufficient for Assurance?

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 evidenced that interest in some way. For Calvin and for Kendall, the supreme evidence of God’s interest in the individual sinner is Christ’s work on the cross.

Nicole, of course, rejects the notion:

The close connection posited by Kendall between universal atonement and the assurance of faith must also be challenged, for 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. It is not sufficient since on Kendall’s showing, all covered by the atonement will not be saved; assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.

Nicole, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197 at 204-205.

We have already examined the question of the necessity of universal atonement for assurance; now we turn to the question of the sufficiency of universal atonement for assurance.

A recent comment by Sean Gerety actually makes the same argument that Nicole has made, i.e., that one can have assurance of salvation only if Christ’s atonement actually saves all those for whom it is made. Nicole says that an atonement worth trusting must “actually [make] a difference between the saved and the lost.” Gerety says that if anyone for whom atonement is made actually suffers in hell, then their sins remain unatoned for and this makes “the promise of salvation in Christ somewhat dubious.”

As Tony has pointed out in that same comment thread, Gerety has not clarified his meaning for the word “atonement.” Charles Hodge complained of this lack of clarity in the common use of the word:

While the verb to atone thus means to expiate and to reconcile by expiation, the substantive means, either the reconciliation itself, or the means by which it is effected. This latter sense is not a Scriptural usage of the word, but is very common in theological writings. Thus when we speak of the atonement of Christ, of its necessity, efficacy, application, or extent, we mean Christ’s work, what He did to expiate the sins of men. This ambiguity of the word necessarily gives rise to more or less confusion.

Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. ii., 469. When Gerety refers to atonement, he refers (apparently) generally to Christ’s work, its application, and its effects, lumping these concepts together as if they need not be distinguished. But when I speak of a universal atonement, I do not refer to the application of the benefits of the atonement to the elect, nor do I speak of the actual reconciliation that takes place when men believe the gospel. When I speak of universal atonement, I refer to Christ’s work, i.e., his expiation of the sins of mankind, but not of the application of the atonement or its benefits to a particular individual, and not of the reconciliation that follows faith in Christ.

Nicole’s argument is less ambiguous, though perhaps more problematic for its clarity. Nicole said of the relationship of universal atonement to assurance:

It is not sufficient since on Kendall’s showing, all covered by the atonement will not be saved; assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.

When Nicole speaks of assurance, he means assurance of salvation, whereas Calvin spoke of assurance of God’s love. Thus for Calvin, assurance is logically prior to faith, while for Nicole, faith is logically prior to assurance.

If, like Nicole, we think of assurance as assurance of salvation, then according to Nicole’s scheme, we can be assured of salvation only if the atonement saves all for whom Christ suffered. But why must this be so? It makes as much sense to say that the atonement must save all to whom it is offered as to say that it must save all for whom Christ suffered. There does not appear to be a necessary logical connection between a limitation in the extent of the atonement and the consequent assurance of the trusting sinner. The limitation, if anything, presents obstacles to assurance.

The argument that Nicole is making really amounts to this: a universal atonement is not sufficient to inspire confidence because it doesn’t work for some people. But we must keep in mind that the salvation offered in Christ is rejected or neglected by those who remain unsaved. Their refusal to believe does not make God’s promise or Christ’s work less trustworthy. Does the refusal of the drowning man to embrace the life-preserver make it unworthy of trust for the drowning woman?

As I said in my reply to Gerety, the idea that God will not keep his promise to save all who embrace Christ or that God will not see Christ’s work as sufficient for the trusting sinner is really a species of unbelief. This unbelief is not excused on the grounds that God has shown himself merciful to all.