Whose (sic) afraid of R.T. Kendall?

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 his theological views are certainly not closeted. The pursuit of logic is the pursuit of truth, and Gerety shows his defect on both points (logic and truth) by his careless or malicious chatter.

I shall make some response to some of Gerety's less odious comments. He writes:

While Calvin certainly said things that, at first blush, seem to support Kendall’s and your thesis, the fact is Calvin had much bigger fish to fry. Unambiguously expounding on the extent of Christ’s death certainly wasn't high on his list.

Yes, Calvin did indeed say things that support Kendall's thesis: quite a few things, in fact. The canard that the atonement wasn't on Calvin's agenda is nothing more than wishful thinking. Anyone who has read this blog at all, (or the mountain of material at Calvin and Calvinism, particularly the over 200 quotes from Calvin relevant to the subject of the atonement) will know that Gerety's statement is simply whistling in the dark.

It is true, of course, that Calvin did not devote a chapter of the Institutes to "the extent of the atonement," (though I would argue that chapters 12 through 17 of the second book of the Institutes would fill that function as well as any other "less ambiguous" treatment) but that does not mean that he was not aware of the theological question or express himself clearly on it. The reason Gerety sees Calvin's statements on the atonement as ambiguous is because he doesn't like the consequences of the unvarnished truth. What could be more unambiguous than Calvin's comment to Romans 5:18? Or how about this statement from the Institutes?

Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.

Institutes 2.13.3

Calvin's Argument against Marcion

This last quote is particularly interesting because it approaches our problem from a different angle. Calvin's discussion in 2.13.2, and 3 is addressed to those (Marcionites or their contemporaneous admirers) who denied that Christ came in the flesh. Calvin proved that Christ came in the flesh by arguing that Christ came as the savior of the whole human race. If Calvin meant "the elect of the whole human race," his argument would no longer be cogent against the Marcionites. (It would, in fact, give them support!)

Let me elaborate. Marcion believed that Christ came as God, but not God in the flesh. Christ was God Manifest, not God Incarnate. Christ was not born, had no childhood, and was in no sense incarnate. (See the article on the Marcionites in the Catholic Encyclopedia.) Tertullian says mockingly of the doctrine of Marcion: "Suddenly a Son, suddenly Sent, suddently Christ!" (loc cit.) Calvin said, "In ancient times, the reality of his human nature was impugned by the Manichees and Marcionites, the latter figuring to themselves a phantom instead of the body of Christ...." (Institutes 2.13.1) For Marcion, Christ was God descended to humanity, not God who took on human flesh.

Calvin argues against the doctrine of the Marcionites: Christ was indeed manifest in the flesh. "Wherefore, our Lord himself not contented with the name of man, frequently calls himself the Son of man, wishing to express more clearly that he was a man by true human descent." (Institutes 2.13.1)

And Calvin advances his case for Christ's true humanity by saying that Christ brought salvation to the whole human race! If Calvin really believed that Christ came to bring salvation only to the elect, then his argument against Marcion would have been ineffective and disingenuous. Why ineffective? Because the Marcionites could argue that the elect are the spiritual children of God, and that Christ need not come in human flesh, since he did not come to save all descended from Adam. Why disingenuous? Because in advancing his argument, Calvin would have to hide his secret definition for "whole human race" and "us all." I trust that we accept that Calvin was more honest than to hide or misrepresent his true beliefs in order to gain a debating point.

Predestinarianism proves limited atonement?

Gerety goes on to bring his proof of Calvin's bona fides on "L" (the emphasis in the following quotes were supplied by Gerety):

That said, Calvin was by no means unclear:

Through Isaiah he still more openly shows how he directs the promises of salvation specifically to the elect: for he proclaims that they alone, not the whole human race without distinction, are to become his disciples (Isa. 8:16). Hence it is clear that the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be reserved solely and individually for the sons of the church, is falsely debased when presented as effectually profitable to all. Inst. III.xxii.10

Whence it comes about that the whole world does not belong to its Creator except that grace rescues from God’s curse and wrath and eternal death a limited number who would otherwise perish. But the world itself is left to its own destruction, to which it has been destined. Meanwhile, although Christ interposes himself as mediator, he claims for himself, in common with the Father, the right to choose. ‘I am not speaking’, he says, ‘of all; I know whom I have chosen’ (John 13: 18). If anyone ask whence he has chosen them, he replies in another passage: ‘From the world’ (John 15:19), which he excludes from his prayers when he commends his disciples to the Father (John 17:9). This we must believe: when he declares that he knows whom he has chosen, he denotes in the human genus a particular species, distinguished not by the quality of its virtues but by heavenly decree. Inst. III.xxii.7.

Hence we read everywhere that Christ diffuses life into none but the members of his own body. And he that will not confess that it is a special gift and a special mercy to be engrafted into the body of Christ, has never read with spiritual attention Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. Hereupon follows also a third important fact, that the virtue and benefits of Christ are extended unto, and belong to, none but the children of God. A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God

Some of my readers will have already spotted the problem in Gerety's proof texts: they are all irrelevant to the question. I deny none of those statements from Calvin. My readers might also note that the statements Gerety adduces as proof all relate to the application of the benefits of Christ's death. The application is not in dispute; the benefits (the saving benefits) of Christ's death are applied to the elect alone. But Christ's death was sufficient for all (intentionally so), offered for all, and is offered to all.

I have dealt with Gerety's error in the past. Gerety believes that proof of Calvin's predestinarianism also proves limited atonement. Such is simply not the case. In the first article of my series on Calvin's view of the atonement, I answer those who think they've carried their burden on "L" by proving "U". Again, Gerety simply wishes his problems away.

Arminian Perspectives

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 argument gives comfort to the other side. If we must support our theology with outrageous assertions (e.g., "Calvin clearly taught limited atonement") or outlandish arguments ("all really means all elect") then we make our own position weak. The bad arguments give our theological opponents a place to stand.

This was brought home to me strongly last week, when my daughter returned from a weekend working at a Bible camp. The camp director led a Bible study in which he advocated limited atonement using John Owen's "trilemma." My daughter wondered what to think of it, and I gave her a brief tutorial on the assumptions at work in Owen's argument. She was quickly satisfied that Owen was talking through his hat.

But not everyone can see the problems so quickly. (It took me decades to figure out the problem in Owen's thinking.) In the meantime, some young people will be misled about Calvinism; and either they will embrace Reformed theology with the corrupting influence of Owen's bad assumptions, or they will reject the argument (as they ought to do) and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Calvin's theology is built on careful exegesis. His followers have, over the centuries, ruined a lot of it by careless exegesis and careless argumentation.

Part 2 of Dominic Bnonn Tennant's series on the atonement

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 God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). Therefore, if the particularist is right, he cannot say to all people without exception, “Be reconciled to God”—because God has not made provision for all people to be reconciled to him. He cannot say to the reprobate sinner, as the ESV Study Bible would have it, “Receive the reconciliation that God has wrought”—for no such reconciliation exists for that sinner. He cannot tell a non-elect man, “Believe and you will be saved”—that is, quite flatly, a lie. He can only say these things to the elect. The moral inability of the reprobate sinner to respond to the call is irrelevant because the reality, the atonement, which would save him does not exist. There is nothing for him to trust. In this way, the universal gospel call is utterly undermined and shown to be without basis under the particularist view. In fact, it is so undermined that the particularist, to avoid misrepresenting God, is forced into the most extreme hyper-Calvinism, and is crippled in his evangelism.

I am particularly interested in the way the gospel is summarized here: "receive the reconciliation that God has wrought." That impresses me as a very succinct summary of the doctrine of faith that Calvin has taught us, and it is quite true that it is incompatible with a strictly particular view of the atonement. There must be a universality in it for it to be universally proclaimed.

I also like the way he analyzes the "sincerity" issue. In order for a gospel proclamation to be sincere, it must be true. If it is not true that Christ has died for every man, then we have no business making any reference to the crucifixion as if it had any reference to the men we speak to ... for it might not. The gospel cannot be a lie to be proclaimed sincerely.

Highly recommended reading.

Issues in the Atonement - Federal headship and forensic Imputation

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.) :-)

The Free Offer Incompatible with Limited Atonement

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 asserting, as he does repeatedly, the legitimacy of a universal, indiscriminate offer of salvation to any and to all, Calvin, they urge, presupposes a universal atonement as the logical necessary foundation for such a call.

To this we reply in acknowledging readily that Calvin does indeed assert the propriety of, yea, the divine mandate for an indiscriminate call to salvation addressed to any and all human beings that may be reached by language. We furthermore believe that Calvin was right in line with Scripture, and that those who would restrict the call to the elect are mistaken. But the proposition that the prerequisite for an indiscriminate call is a universal provision, which is the base of the whole argument, appears to us palpably and demonstrably false. Most of the well-meant offers and invitations, human as well as divine, are not grounded in coextensive provision! All that is really requisite for a well-meant offer is that, if the terms of the offer be complied with, that which was offered will in fact be delivered. This is precisely what occurs with the gospel (John 6:37), but no one fulfills the terms except those whom the Father draws (John 6:44, 65). Whether or or not God has made a provision for those who do not come has nothing to do with the sincerity of the offer. No solid argument can therefore be built in favor of universal atonement on this basis.

~Nicole, John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 213-214. Available online at A Puritan’s Mind.

Nicole represents his opponents as saying this: “Calvin must have taught unlimited atonement, because he taught the free offer of the gospel.” The free offer, it is argued, presupposes provision for all.

Nicole answers that “most of the well-meant offers and invitations, human as well as divine, are not grounded in coextensive provision!” Nicole adds an exclamation mark, presumably to emphasize the obvious point his opponents have missed. But one is hard-put to explain exactly what Nicole means here. What divine offers does Nicole have in mind? Nicole believes, apparently, that there are some number of divine invitations (beside the offer of salvation?) that are not backed up by adequate provision. Puzzling.

Regarding human offers, we normally associate sincere offers with a knowledge of some reasonable ability to meet one’s obligations under such an offer. And we would normally greet the failure to live up to those obligations with a certain amount of moral disdain. Indeed, the law often requires that merchants (to use one example) back up their offers with adequate provision -- and provides remedies for those offers that are not so backed up. But despite the limitation (or frailty) of human offers, we need not associate those limitations with God’s offers.

Nicole argues further that in order for an offer to be sincere, it need merely be true that every instance of compliance with the terms of the offer be met with the promised benefits. Since the elect alone are they who will respond to the offer of the gospel, the provision need be only for them. But is that really the measure of sincerity? Since the offer is indeed made to many who will not respond, can we hide the fact that many who are offered salvation in the gospel are in fact completely outside of its provision? It seems out of keeping with the message proclaimed that there are many for whom no provision is made, though the offer is urged upon them.

But all this is quite irrelevant. For the question is not whether limited atonement (or a certain kind of limited atonement) is consonant with the free offer of the gospel, but whether the free offer of the gospel in Calvin’s theology is consonant with strict limited atonement.

I submit that there are two aspects of Calvin’s teaching that are utterly incompatible with a strict doctrine of limited atonement. (By “strict doctrine of limited atonement,” I mean that doctrine that says that there are some men for whom Christ has made no expiation. The reader should bear in mind that Calvin obviously taught that there are some men who will never enjoy the benefits of the atonement. The elect alone are they who will enjoy those benefits.)

Calvin’s doctrine of faith

Calvin’s doctrine of faith is such that the promiscuous proclamation of the gospel is incompatible with limited atonement.

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

This is where Kendall’s critique is so devastating. If it is true that Calvin taught (as Kendall proves) that faith is the subjective assurance of God’s favor (or “paternal indulgence”), then calling those to faith for whom no reconciliation has been provided is tantamount to proclaiming a falsehood. How can we proclaim that God would be reconciled to men when He would not be? For Calvin, faith is the subjective assurance that God is -- in and because of Christ -- propitious toward us. But if no propitiation has been made for some, then to proclaim to them the command to believe the gospel is to command them to believe something that is not and could not be true. (One wonders how “unbelief” could be a sin in such a case.)

The answer (given by some) that the gospel ought to be preached to all because “we don’t know who the elect are” is no answer -- at least not to this problem. When we preach the gospel, we know that some will never believe. But it could never help them (nor do credit to the gospel message) to tell them something that is not true. And how could calling on them to believe a falsehood cut off any excuse? (See Calvin on John 3:16.) Sensibility to this problem is reflected in certain strains of hyper-Calvinism, where the gospel is not proclaimed promiscuously precisely because it is held that God is not propitious to all men. How would Nicole reconcile the idea of God’s being irreconcilably at enmity with certain men with the idea of proclaiming to them that God is reconciled to them?

The answer of most high Calvinists (and presumably Nicole) might be that God is indeed not reconciled with the non-elect at all. He is quite at enmity with sinners. He does not show himself to be reconciled, but ready to be reconciled with all who will trust in Christ. Since the reprobate will never trust Christ, the proclamation to them of the terms of pardon is not inconsistent or insincere.

But if Kendall is right, then Calvin taught that the gospel is the proclamation of God’s favor, love, and mercy, which not to believe is the very unbelief that God will condemn.

This ... reveals why Calvin feels so strongly about a universal expiation by Christ’s death; Christ’s death is that to which we look because it is the ‘pledge’ that God loves us. Calvin does not direct us to God’s secret decree; it is ‘Christ alone’ to Whom ‘faith ought to look’. For ‘we are to learn to fix our eyes on the death of Christ, whenever our salvation is concerned’.

Had Christ died only for those whom God had chosen by His secret decree, then, it would obviously cease to be a pledge to all.

~R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, p. 14.

Compare this statement from Calvin:

Every promise which God makes is evidence of his good will. This is invariably true, and is not inconsistent with the fact, that the large benefits which the divine liberality is constantly bestowing on the wicked are preparing them for heavier judgment. * * * Therefore, when the Lord by his promises invites us not only to enjoy the fruits of his kindness, but also to meditate upon them, he at the same time declares his love. Thus we are brought back to our statement, that every promise is a manifestation of the divine favor toward us.

~Institutes 3.2.32

Kendall’s book is known for its treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement, but it ought to be known for its treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of faith. Kendall’s treatment lays waste to many modern views of Calvin, as well as many modern views of faith.

Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper

Since we are speaking of the free offer of the gospel, there is one special application of that offer that must be mentioned here. It is Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

Calvin saw the Lord’s Supper as a picture of the gospel, the elements representing Christ’s body and blood. Christ’s body is exhibited to us “as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands.” For Calvin, Christ’s body and blood are really, (spiritually and mysteriously, not corporeally) present in the elements. The sacrament, which should always be accompanied by the preaching of the word, which explains the sacrament, is a gracious offer of forgiveness. Whenever the gospel is preached, it proclaims God’s good will, love, and mercy.

It is one thing to allege (as Nicole has done) that the free offer of the gospel is compatible with limited atonement in the abstract. It is quite another to say that the free offer of the gospel (to believer and unbeliever alike) in the offer of Christ’s body and blood through sacrament is compatible with a limitation of that very body and blood to the elect alone.

Nicole’s rebuttal here does not really address Kendall’s argument, which is that Calvin’s doctrine of faith is incompatible with limited atonement. And though Nicole didn’t have the opportunity to address this point in his critique of Kendall, I would add that Kendall’s argument is greatly strengthened by understanding Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, where Calvin really did see an offer of the gospel in the picture of Christ’s body and blood.

I’ve quoted these words before, but they bear repeating:

To all these things we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands. For these are words which can never lie nor deceive: Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation. And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy of the sacrament, consists in these words, It is broken for you: it is shed for you. It would not be of much importance to us that the body and blood of the Lord are now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption and salvation.

~Institutes 4.17.3 (emphasis added).

A Word in Favor of Limited Atonement

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 whether the atonement does him saving good. God's intention is universal and the application of the benefits of the atonement is particular, i.e., to those who believe.

Some Calvinists take the opposite view: Christ's atonement is intended for the elect exclusively and this limitation of intention limits the application. In this case both God's intention and the application of the benefits are particular.

In both the Arminian scheme and the Calvinistic, the application is particular. Only those who believe will be saved. The important difference between these two views is in the intention of God; in the one case it is strictly universal and in the other case it is strictly particular.

Are these the only possible positions? Some Calvinists take a different view of God's intention: a middle road or tertium quid. These Calvinists see both a universal intention and a particular intention in God's purposes and in the atonement itself. This is the position that I am advocating in this blog. I believe it is the position of John Calvin.

As I pointed out in a previous two-part blog post regarding the unity of the Trinity, (entitled "The Incongruity of Limited Atonement) the particular intention is reflected in the decree of election and the effectual call, while the universal intention is reflected in God's universal love (Matthew 5:45) and the general call (Acts 17:30).

Many who hold the "L" in TULIP these days, hold it strictly, i.e., they hold that the intention and the application are equally limited. I suggest that one can hold the "L" while also holding that there are universal aspects in the atonement, as there are universal aspects in God's love and in the call of the gospel. This involves no conflict within the Trinity.

These divergent intentions in God — universal and particular — are generally said to reflect different aspects of God's will (or even "two wills" in God). The particular intention is — prior to its execution in history — known only to God, while the universal intention is declared to all (in principle, though not in actuality) through revelation. These intentions correspond to God's secret will and His revealed will.

The secret will and the revealed will are often (usually?) at variance from one another, but we ought not (it seems to me) to consider one as "more real" than the other. The secret will is not more real because it is actually carried into fruition, nor is it less real though it is often contrary to that which is revealed as God's will. For Christians committed to the authority of the scripture and the Holiness of God, both His revealed will and His secret will must be considered real, meaningful, and in keeping with His Holy character.

This may involve us in mysteries, but this cannot be avoided by any method than smoothing out one's theology to fit with one's biases. One may smooth out the theology in the Arminian way, by denying all sovereign interference in man's will. In this theology, God effectively has no secret will: man decides his own course. One may smooth out the theology in the way of certain Calvinists by exalting the secret will to primary status and relegating the revealed will to irrelevancy or nonexistence. In this theology, God effectively has no revealed will and man's volitions become meaningless.

It seems to me that both ways are wrong.

I submit that the middle way is the way of Calvin. We can see this in his commentary on 2Peter 3:9. Though this comment does not directly relate to the atonement, it does reflect Calvin's universalism in respect of God's love and his view of the secret and revealed will of God:

But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance.

* * *

And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent.

This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.

Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

Re-read this passage in Calvin and notice some things. Notice the universality: "all mankind," "give to all time to repent," love towards mankind, all to be saved, etc. But notice also the particularity reflected in the final paragraph. The reprobate are doomed to their own ruin while God lays hold of those whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

More importantly for my purposes in this article, notice Calvin's reference to God's hidden purpose one the one hand and his will as made known to us in the gospel on the other hand. In God's hidden purpose, "the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin." While in God's will as expressed in the gospel, he "stretches forth his hand without a difference to all." There we have the difference between the secret will and the revealed will taught by Calvin himself. And these two aspects of God's will are particular and universal respectively.

So I do hold to limited atonement. I hold that God has a special love for his elect, which is reflected in Christ's work for his church, and results in the effectual call of the Holy Spirit. I also hold that in some ways the atonement is for all men. I hold that God has love for all men, which is reflected in his sending Christ to save the world, and results in the general call of the gospel to any who will hear.

How do I hold to limited atonement? In this way:

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

1Timothy 4:10

Technorati Tags: john calvin, calvinism, limited atonement, reformed theology, unlimited atonement

The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement - Part II

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 conflict within God's plan.

The conflict exists between two manifestations of God's will: God's will of decree as opposed to God's revealed will. That such a tension exists between God's decretive will and His revealed will is obvious from many passages of scripture. When Jesus taught us to pray "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," he implicitly taught us that God's revealed will does not always come to pass despite God's desire that it should come to pass. Or take the occasion of Jesus' lamentation over Jerusalem. He said, "how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37.) Here Jesus strongly expressed the revealed will of God, which God did not see fit to bring about through His will of decree. I believe the conflict is also seen in Christ's prayer in Gethsemane. (I am unwilling to consign Jesus' cry for deliverance to his human nature only.)

To return to the pressing question for unlimited atonement, how could it be that God could love a sinner -- love him enough to send His only Son to die for that sinner -- and yet consign him to eternal damnation without mercy? One must, of course, appeal to mystery at this point. R. L. Dabney writing on this question urges us to modesty in analyzing the infinite mind:

Let one take this set of facts. Here is a company of sinners; God could convert all by the same powers by which He converts one. He offers His salvation to all and assures them of His general benevolence. He knows perfectly that some will neglect the offer; and yet, so knowing, He intentionally refrains from exerting those powers, to overrule their reluctance, which He is able to exert if He chose. This is but a statement of stubborn facts; it cannot be evaded without impugning the omniscience, or omnipotence of God, or both. Yet, see if the whole difficulty is not involved in it. Every evangelical Christian, therefore, is just as much interested in seeking the solution of this difficulty as the Calvinist. And it is to be sought in the following brief suggestions. God's concern in the transgression and impenitence of those whom He suffers to neglect His warnings and invitations, is only permissive. He merely leaves men to their own sinful choice. His invitations are always impliedly, or explicitly conditional; suspended on the sinner's turning. He has never said that He desires the salvation of a sinner as impenitent; He only says, if the sinner will turn, he is welcome to salvation. And this is always literally true; were it in the line of possibilities that one non-elect should turn, he would find it true in his case. All, therefore, that we have to reconcile is these three facts; that God should see a reason why it is not proper, in certain cases, to put forth His almighty grace to overcome a sinner's reluctance; and yet that He should be able to do it if He chose; and yet should be benevolent and pitiful towards all His creatures. Now God says in His Word that He does compassionate lost sinners. He says that He could save if He pleased. His word and providence both show us that some are permitted to be lost. In a wise and good man, we can easily understand how a power to pardon, a sincere compassion for a guilty criminal, and yet a fixed purpose to punish, could co-exist; the power and compassion being overruled by His wisdom. Why may not something analogous take place in God, according to His immutable nature? Is it said: such an explanation implies a struggle in the breast between competing considerations, inconsistent with God's calm blessedness? I reply, God's revelations of His wrath, love, pity, repentance, &c., are all anthropopathic, and the difficulty is no greater here, than in all these cases. Or is it said, that there can be nothing except a lack of will, or a lack of power to make the sinner both holy and happy? I answer: it is exceeding presumption to suppose that, because we do not see such a cause, none can be known to God!

Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, pages 245-246. The modest position is to allow mystery where scripture speaks clearly and logic fails us.

Technorati Tags: unlimited atonement, limited atonement, dabney, calvinism

The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement

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 reconciliation, while Shedd used the term in the way that most modern Calvinists would. Despite the difference in definition, they both believed that Christ's work was for everyone without distinction. The limitation in the atonement is in the application, which is for the elect alone -- by grace through faith.

So I am a five-point Calvinist of a sort. My previous blog entry, though, was in defense of four-point Calvinism. I mentioned there that four-point Calvinism is not logically inconsistent, B. B. Warfield to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is nothing illogical here provided we keep in mind the distinction between provision on the one hand and application on the other (borrowing Dr. Kevin Bauder's terms [scroll down to find the article entitled "The Logic of Limited Atonement"]). We could better use the terms Dabney and Shedd used. They taught the same concept by distinguishing between expiation and atonement -- as per Dabney -- or between atonement and redemption -- as per Shedd.

There does seem to be something wrong with the scheme, though. Here is the problem: If we understand the eternal counsel of God properly, the Father elected certain ones to be given to the Son as his people. Thus the saving and efficacious love of the Father is bestowed on the elect alone. If we view Christ's work on the cross as being universal, then the Son died for all men, regardless of the particular love of the Father for the elect. So the Father's work in salvation is limited and particular, while the Son's work in salvation is unlimited and general. Though there may be nothing illogical about this in the strict sense, there certainly does seem to be something incongruous about it. Why would the Son do a work of sacrifice that is seemingly so out of step with the particularity of the decree of election?

The incongruity is really only a misunderstanding. If we think of God as having both a general will that all men be saved and a special will that the elect be saved (1Timothy 4:10), then we must think of each member of the Holy Trinity as agreeing with such a purpose and contributing to that purpose.

Thus, the Father loves the world in general and has a special love for the elect (compare Matthew 5:44-45, John 3:16, John 6:32, Romans 2:4, and 1John 4:14 with Ephesians 1:4 and cognates). The Son gave his life for the world and especially those that believe (compare John 3:16, John 12:47, and 1John 2:2, with Ephesians 5:25 and 1Timothy 4:10). The Holy Spirit draws all men generally, and the elect efficaciously (compare Revelation 22:17 with 2Thessalonians 2:13).

Thus there is no conflict between a general work of Christ on the one hand and a particular electing decree of the Father and the effectual call of the Holy Spirit on the other hand. Rather, there is a general love of God for all men and a saving purpose concordant with that love in which every member of the Holy Trinity participates. And there is a particular love of God for His elect people with an efficacious saving purpose concordant with that love in which every member of the Holy Trinity also participates.

More on this in the next blog entry.