Last week I was said to fit a "Moldy Universalist Heretic Profile" for denying a "Limited Atonement" (see comment thread on my February 14th post "Did Christ Die For Your Sins?"). Of course, this charge I take seriously.
First, let me review the 5 points of Calvinism for those of you who may be unfamiliar with them. The 5 points of Calvinism (also known by the acronym TULIP) are: 1) Total Depravity, 2) Unconditional Election, 3) Limited Atonement, 4) Irresistible Grace, and 5) Perseverance of the Saint.
T - Calvinism defines total depravity as total inability. This means the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God. The effects of sin destroyed man's ability to accept God's gift of salvation and the human will is in bondage to sin. Calvinism concludes that mankind is unable to repent and believe; therefore God has to first regenerate man and give him faith before he can believe and be born again.
U - Calvinism equates predestination and election. In Calvinistic thought, God predestines those who will be saved and those who will be forever lost. This predestination is based solely upon the will of God and has nothing to do with man.
L - Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for the elect and not the whole world. They reason that if Christ died for the whole world then everyone would be saved (the heresy known as universalism). Calvinism defines “world” as meaning “the elect”. Calvinists read John 3:16 this way... "For God so loved the world (of the elect), that He gave His only begotten Son..."
I - According to Calvinism; the Holy Spirit extends to the elect only, a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation (irresistible grace). This internal call will not and cannot be rejected.
P - The traditional Calvinistic teaching on Perseverance of the saints is that the elect will be faithful to the end and will not die in a sinful state. As a result, you can never be sure you are one of the elect until you have actually persevered until the end and die in the faith.
I want to go on record as saying that it is not necessary to believe even 1 of these 5 points as a prerequisite for salvation. Not one! If Calvinism is the gospel, then only Calvinists can be saved. The word "gospel" translates the Greek word euaggelion, which literally means "good message" or "message of good news". When we speak of the Gospel, we normally mean the good news about salvation. Listen to the great Apostle Paul as he expounds on what the gospel really is.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4... "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"
I want to assert that I am neither a Universalist nor heretic; and that while Calvinism may be a valid theological system and approach to the Christian life, it is not the standard by which heresy is measured. What do you think, should all Non-Calvinists be labeled Universalist Heretics?
19 comments:
i agree that calvinism is a theological construct attempting to explain the intricacies of the order of salvation (orto salutis).
i for one can't suscribe to limited atonement. although i don't believe non-believers will be saved, i believed it's appropriate to say with paul that "Christ died for all."
of course, if He died for all, then the calvinist system sort of goes back to point 1, "total depravity." i think we can all bank on that one. but, although no one can arrive at a saving knowledge of God on his or her own, the Holy Spirit convicts the word of sin, repentance, and judgment (john 15-16).
in other words, i tend to agree with your reasoning. that said, i think there's plenty of room in evangelical (in my case baptist) life for calvinists and non-calvinists who agree on the content of the gospel. but, no, you are not a heretic for not being a calvinist.
Remember Joe: "You have made the assertion in your post by quoting 2Peter 2:1 that we who believe in the historic SBC position over against your position, are heretics, so don't feel slighted if I return the favor by making you one of those who twist the Scripture to their own destruction."
"Christ died for all." mike, check out my blog. Joe is just wrong. Admitting it will be hard, but not deadly.
You labeled all 5-Point Calvinists heretics. What's up, no backbone?
You further elucidated your position at my blog. Your strawmen an caricatures of Calvinism not withstanding, I stand on my conclusion about your beliefs are outside the bounds of Biblical orthodoxy. That you believe in Christ and are regenerate never was in consideration.
"I want to go on record as saying that it is not necessary to believe even 1 of these 5 points as a prerequisite for salvation. Not one! If Calvinism is the gospel, then only Calvinists can be saved."
And I want to go on record also, that no Calvinist believes in an implicit faith. And that your second statement is a flat out lie and distortion of the Calvinist position. It is in fact your doctrine that implies an implicit faith as the means of salvation in opposition to Christ who saves by regeneration through the Spirit and grants the grace of faith. But, by that I do not mean that you are not born again. It is possible to be a heretic as Peter was being, and still be a Christian, you know. And you should grant that even though you believe Calvinists to be heretics, they might just be born again too, and they might just be right.
Mike ,
I agree, there is room for both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists. However, rhetoric such as "Calvinism is the Gospel"... "Jesus was a Calvinist"... and "Non-Calvinists are Universalist Heretics" is not conducive to cooperation.
Thanks for the support in my heresy accusation.
Thomas,
You wrote that I... "labeled all 5-Point Calvinists heretics."
Actually, I never asserted that. You have read that into my words because I nowhere state or imply such. My only comment on 2 Peter 2:1 was... "This verse says that the Lord "bought" the apostate false prophets and teachers." That comment was made, not to show Calvinists to be false teachers, but to further illustrate the depth of the Atonement (i.e Christ died for all, Christ died for the world, Christ died for sinners, Christ died for the ungodly, Christ died for the apostates, etc).
You also wrote... "What's up, no backbone?" Congratulations, you may be the first person to ever accuse me of this. :) There are many things that I am (flesh as I am), but an invertebrate I am not.
Thomas, do you believe that Calvinism is the gospel? Is it the heart and/or essence of the gospel? Or is it what Mike Fox has asserted; merely a "theological construct attempting to explain the intricacies of the order of salvation (orto salutis)"?
"Thomas, do you believe that Calvinism is the gospel?"
Yes but no. As I said I do not make it an implicit faith, but the DoG do fully examine it and preaching them fully preaches it. No one is saved by them. We are saved by the grace of God, and that alone.
Your original post quoted Peter for the very purpose of linking the denying of purchase by false teachers to those who you disagree with. Didn't it? And if I deny that Christ died for all, you do lump me with them, don't you? But, as I explained the context is not propitiation but doctrine legitimizing unrighteous behavior that denies the purchase that was claimed.
You say there is room. But why quote PP then. He doesn't believe so, and if you think that we in the SBC have come so far that this is a unacceptable statement now, it is simply that you do not know the history of the SBC. You know full well what PP's statement was aimed at because he thinks as you do; that Calvinism is an heretical belief system. I don't deny PP's right to say what he did, I do reject the claim that there is no where in the SBC for those who hurl invectives, as he does, and you do, even at those who are in the historical mainstream and not the aberration that is the Arminian (non-Calvinist) faction. I grant you the full right to do as you all do. Thems fighting words. All right, then let's fight, let's really put the gloves on and see if we can agree to disagree agreeably, even if adamantly and passionately defending the truth against error. Fair? No. No backbone?
You see, people like David Allen, one of yours called James White a heretic and James White righteously got angry for the false accusations made about him, then James picked up that gauntlet and challenged Allen to a dual. No dual yet. But, just what kind of manchild is it that lobs bombs but doesn't want to fight? Allen has yet to respond. My feeling, is not that he is a coward, but knows he will lose in an open debate with White and your side cannot afford the disgrace.
Perhaps you are not aware of the many times that our side is called heretical by you guys. Perhaps you didn't even realize what you were implying such. I can grant that, but in this short exchange you have not demonstrated yourself an ignorant person.
So what if I call your globlization of the terminology false and that it makes the doctrine you profess universalism? Is there no room for the Hunt's, the Pages, Vines', PP's, et cetera, et cetera, who do worse than I have done? My my, such double standards. And here is the gig, I don't care that they do so, what I do care about is that they will not allow similar freedoms that they take for themselves.
Again your claim that world always means mankind exhaustively and all too, will not stand the scrutiny of Scripture. But have at it all you like. I will denounce it all day also.
My reasoning for posting what I did is not unlike yours. You meant to strike a blow for your side. To set the Calvinists a running. Mine was to blow the horn and call attention to it. Tag you're it.
Truly, I don't doubt your love for the Lord. Do you doubt mine? Do you believe Paul had a right to do what he did to Peter and then to write about it? Do you believe in the liberty that we have as Baptist to speak our minds? How would we know we were wrong if we just kept silent? Or, as you have done, as PP did, should someone come along and say you may not speak? Even when you know others are wrong, are you saying that what you did shouldn't be allowed? Then why the hots for making people who believe that Calvinism is the Gospel shut their mouths? Do you believe what you do is the Gospel? What do you call it? If not why do you do it? Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than whine about abuse. In our pursuit of the Great Commission if we cannot say that what we believe to be falsehood is falsehood and be challenged to prove it, where would we be? Where would you be. You see my friend, you do what you condemn. When will you let others judge you with the judgement that you judge them?
Thomas,
You have espoused at least 2 false premises in your last comment to me.
First, you equate civility with cowardice. You argue for “fighting” and “putting the gloves on”; and if one fail to respond to you in such a manner, perhaps it is because they have no backbone. This is a false premise.
Second, where I dwell (in the hills and hollers of TN), there is a big difference in saying someone is wrong and disagreeing with them and leveling charges of heresy. Perhaps you honestly do not see the difference. Nevertheless, this too is a false premise.
In matters of soterology, we should be able to disagree with each other and say that an opposing view is wrong without putting on the gloves and fighting to the death. This is what men like Tom Ascol, Danny Akin, and others in the SBC are arguing for. You seem to be arguing against it.
Two Christians ought to be able to disagree without lobbing name grenades and making heresy charges. Make no mistake about it; I think you are wrong as wrong can be on the Atonement. Calvinism is not the Gospel, Calvinism is not the heart of the Gospel, nor is Calvinism the essence of the Gospel. The Gospel is the “good news” of the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of sinners. Calvinism is a theological construct attempting to explain the intricacies of the order of salvation (orto salutis). Am I saying the two are mutually exclusive and incompatible? No, not necessarily. Am I saying that the two are not identical and indistinguishable? Yes I am.
"First, you equate civility with cowardice. You argue for “fighting” and “putting the gloves on”; and if one fail to respond to you in such a manner, perhaps it is because they have no backbone."
No I didn't. Civil discourse, however, is not being what you do, lobbing grenades and claiming innocence. That is uncivil, kinda terrorist like. That is what you did, and you did respond to me in a similar vain making your case that I held to false doctrine. You just forget what manner of man was in the mirror.
If you want to fight, which you do, do it honestly. That is what I am saying, all pyrenics aside.
"Second, where I dwell (in the hills and hollers of TN), there is a big difference in saying someone is wrong and disagreeing with them and leveling charges of heresy."
Let me ask you something. If in the hollers someone says that a girl sleeps around but doesn't use the word slut, have they called her a slut? You say that your truth is the truth, and likewise say that Cavlinitic teaching is not. In other words, you define your beliefs as orthodox and ours as false teaching. Now, we can quibble about terms, but you as much call me a heretic for denying the univesalism of the atonement as I call you a heretic for holding that all means all always, even though you don't use the term. So no, in the second case you are also wrong.
Now this as I said is falsehood on your part. For even though you do not label, you do define. No difference, just dishonesty. In neither case have I begun or ended with a falsehood.
Doctors Ascol and Adkin work for civility without compromise. And I have troubled Tom with the fact that I put labels to what he has defined also, even though he is on the right side. You see, weuns in the outback isen not dumb, eadder. Some of us actually made it through the third grade. This I find insulting: that people like you and PP and many others think that we peons are so stupid that by defining but not labeling, you expect that we don't know what word goes with it.
How important are matters of soteriology? Important enough that PP would make the statement that he did, right? Or, was he just blowing smoke? Do you see how disingenuous you have been? If soteriology is not important, if the person and work of Christ means so little, why do you defend your position? Why not let Calvinists make their claims, why bother? Surely you don't defend mere opinions of men, do you? We are to make a defense of the Gospel, not our pet theories, is that what you're doing? You seem to think that the second is what is right and good. If you want to drop your defense of your Arminianisms, then do it, but don't expect that if you castigate your enemies in defense of your sytems, that your enemies are just going to role over and play dead. Paul forbade Timothy from engaging in the worthless arguments; like what you say are merely matters of dispute over soteriology. So, what do you want to do, continue defending your myths and old wives tales -as you say they're matters of mere disagreements, vain arguments, leading nowhere, and not doctrine- or obey the Scripture; either make a defense, put on the gloves (the whole armour), or drop your defense of matters that you say are just opinions. Why would you waste your time defending what you say you cannot claim is truth by agruing against what you say is a false Gospel which you cannot prove is?
"Two Christians ought to be able to disagree without lobbing name grenades and making heresy charges."
I covered this above. But to remind you, if that is your attitude then stop lobbing grenades. Don't lob the grenade and claim innocence! And don't expect that having carried out your attack that the other guy should not exercise the right, as Paul did in his dealing with people who were challenging his word, to come back with a bigger stick.
On the other hand, please treat me with the respect you expect. If you want to say that: "I think you are wrong as wrong can be on the Atonement." Define what "wrong as wrong can be" means. False- teaching? Heresy? Don't claim that you are being neutral toward your responsibility within Scripture to label wrongness as false-teaching by defining and not naming. Because when you say what you do, you are not being generously neutral, nor gentle. But, if you believe that you shouldn't call to account, you are indeed rejecting the charge of Scripture to rebuke, reprove with gentleness. And, don't tell me that gentleness means that Scripture is wrong in its protrayal of Jesus and his servants, cuz bro, their gentleness was anything but the limp wristed effeminate attitude you say is what characterizes the Hollers of TN. If what I say is false, say so, don't cage it in flowers and sweet purfumes. You're not a whore, and I'm not your jon. If what I say denies the Gosple, if I have not brought what Paul brought, then hurl the anthema, please. I will not be saved from the fire unless you violently snatch me from it. I am strong enough to answer the charges, if they are false. And all that I ask is that you do not treat me an an inferior specie with your condecending attitude and false humility. That is not love.
"Am I saying the two are mutually exclusive and incompatible? No, not necessarily. Am I saying that the two are not identical and indistinguishable? Yes I am."
This is fine. I disagree, but not necessarily ;)
It is no mere system anymore than when you preach you do not preach the Gospel, but just a system. The exposition of Scripture and explanation of the Gospel, is what you do, when you preach the Gospel, is it not? Do you then call it not the Gospel because you are sytematically explaining it. Isn't an explanation a system of thought? If you do think that systematizing the teaching of the Gospel is just a system and not the Gospel, then stop preaching. For what you have said is that the explanation of the Gospel is not the Gospel.
It is a mere shibboleth you've glommed onto with no understanding, a popularized platitude that has wormed its way into what otherwise would be an intelligent and civil discourse. But it is really an insult, Joe. The bossmans have offered you a tasty retort made of mud. You can bite into it if you want. You are guilty of the same things that you condemn, calling your system the Gospel, preaching it, teaching it. You cannot escape the facts no matter how many billboard slogans you parrot.
Truly, we define the terms you use differently, and no matter how deep you thrust your head into the sand, they are not the same Gospel, by definition, are they? Yes they may contain certain shared attributes, certain shared words, but the very definition of soteriology is the doctrines of salvation. So, you might want to say you have no soteriology, no system, but soteriology is how we define the Gospel, whether you call it that or not. You might want to claim the hillbilly mentality that you believe the bible, or that you just proclaim the Gospel, or whatever. Define it any way you want, but get a backbone, and stand up straight when others put the label on what you would rather not.
Thomas,
I think we have finally found the crux of our disagreement. To imply that the explanation of the Gospel is the Gospel, well that is just a bad inference. As Dr. Adrian Rogers put it, “salvation is not a plan, it’s a Man!” Christianity is not about religion, it is about a relationship. If a person can be saved without knowing of or holding to even a single point in 5 point Calvinism... then Calvinism is not synonymous with the Gospel.
Adrian Rogers? Guess you didn't follow the next post at my site. By the way he was one of the worst at lobbing grenades.
A bad inferrence? You mean that all the explanation that Christ did about himself and all that Paul, Peter and John did was not the Gospel? You have got to be kidding, Jesus is not just a Man, but is the Word. And Peter says that what Paul's explanation was, was Scripture and all Scripture is about the Man. And we have been given the high honor and trust of proclaiming its meaning. Sorry if you don't like it. If you listened to Adrian too long, I can see why you missed the fact that Jesus' plan, as he explained, was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
“salvation is not a plan, it’s a Man!” Yep, that's right, that is exactly what the DoG explains. But without explanation, i.e. preaching, there is no Man presented to the hearer because the Man is a plan. Problem is, Adrian Rogers offered neither if he did not offer both. John three sixteen, "for this purpose" is a quaint phase meaning the cause of the plan. That is the word so, "in this way" God loved the world and sent his Son, that who might have eternal life? Not all, but the pas in this passage is exclusive, "only" the believing ones. The next verses tell us of those who he does not pray for, those for who he did not come. They it says are condemned already. Just the facts jack.
The crux of the disagreement is your lack of being forthright. And your quote of Adrian splains a lot Lucy, for the Man was both a somebody as well as what he did and without explaining that there is no Gospel. I don't believe in an implicit faith, I don't believe you do either. I believe you are saved since you confess Jesus crucified for your sins and resurrected. But, if Adrian offered salvation by belief in an an unexplained man, and not by the Man himself and all for which he stood, he did not offer Christ. If you believe that you are saved by your faith, not by the Sovereign Work of God in regenerating you, then I am wrong, you believe in your faith, not Christ, cf. Galatians. If you believe regeneration proceeds from your choice, that is a mere plan. I offer the Man who died for his children and not just an amorphous man who died for no one in particular.
Go listen to the presentation by James White of Adrian's mishandling of the word of God. It would do you good. For the Scripture has meaning, that is, it is not just empty platitudes about a man not a plan, but of a man who is also the plan.
You still haven't answered why Jesus did not pray for the world if God sent Him into the world because he equally loved all in the world. Seems in your boast of knowing the "Man", your man is at odds with the will of his Father.
Thomas,
The life and message of Adrian Rogers certainly needs no defense from me. I am confident that one of the greatest preachers of the 20th century will surely be vindicated by both history and Christ.
I have a post coming that will answer your John 17 argument for Limited Atonement. Stay tuned.
No defense of Adrian necessary. It is what he did that needs to be examined. So, let's ego detach for a second.
Can't wait for your eplanation of the text. It will be interesting to see how you avoid offering a plan and not just the man.
Seriously, you need to go listen to the White examination of Adrian, not to prove a point, not so I win, you lose, or vice verse, but just so we can honestly look at something without prejudice... OK?
1) No. All non-Calvinists should not be labeled Universalist Heretics. But how many Calvinists are actually going around making this charge? I'm not saying there aren't any, but what "respectable" Calvinist is? Mohler or Sproul? Ascol or White?
2) I take exception to your explanation of the Five Points.
T - does not eliminate all human ability to understand or respond to God, but does prevent individuals from knowing God savingly (apart from divine intervention). The problem is not that people are unable to repent and believe, but that they won't do so (apart from divine intervention).
U - The Bible speaks of predestination unto salvation, not unto condemnation (which is based entirely upon God's grace). Individuals are not lost because they are non-elect, they are lost because they willfully broke God's commandments, refused to repent of their sins and trust Christ alone for salvation.
L - Christ's atonement is sufficient for the whole world, but efficient only for the elect. The entire world has benefits as a result of Christ's death. Some Calvinists read Jn. 3:16 in the way you propose, but not all.
P - One may very well have full assurance of salvation prior to death.
3) I do agree with you, Joe, that Calvinism is not the gospel. You chose the perfect passage from 1 Cor. to define the gospel. However, Calvinism is intricately bound with the message of the gospel. May we, as brothers in Christ, link arms together and proclaim this wonderful message to the entire world! Amen?
Dr. Galyon,
Thanks for sharing your views on this post, and for offering a striking contrast to what Thomas Twitchell (a.k.a. Strong Tower) has presented as Calvinism.
1) You ask... "how many Calvinists are actually going around making this charge?" At least one that I know of. (i.e. "Joe White Fits Southern Baptist Moldy Universalist Heretic Profile") :)
2) This is not so much my explanation of the 5 points, but rather the way they have been explained to me. (see previous posts and comments). In fact, your explanation of "L" is exactly the case I have been trying to make, that... "Christ's atonement is sufficient for the whole world, but efficient only for the elect." The way I put it was... "Atonement is unlimited in scope in that the offer of salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in that only believers are truly saved." Are we in agreement?
We are not so very far apart on "T", in complete agreement on "P", but still having some distance on "U".
3) AMEN!
"No. All non-Calvinists should not be labeled Universalist Heretics. But how many Calvinists are actually going around making this charge?"
Goodness gracious, when I was n'Cal, I didn't fit the title, either. I was wrong about what I did believe. And I found my explanation of the Doctrine of God skewed into Open Theism because of what I had been taught about free-will and unlimited atonement in the Arminian camps and the SBC where I served. I had to reverse field and retrain my family who clings to my teaching because daddy knows best.
Now, the fact is Joe, that Open Theism is heresy, and so is Molinism, and I would never as Keathley has, introduce it as viable in the SBC, now that I know better. It lurks behind the theology and does its dirty deed, which has been much of the conversation. What I hope you come to realize is that we must carry our systems of thought to their conclusions. Because when pressed as I was when my daughter was inquiring into the libertarian freedom of man, she was not satisfied with platitudes. Being more smartsie than me, she required logical consistency as well as Scriptural consistency. It was me, and not her who was lost in answering God's foreknowledge (listen to White's Adrian examination, k). And that is what I have forced in the issue of all, doesn't always mean all. As in: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men." The word is pas, and it obviously cannot mean all men past present and future eshaustively in the second case. Instead, it has been modified even within the body of this context. And that context is not without testimony elsewhere. All, in the second case means the whole of the many and not all exhaustively without particularity. Which is important because the particularity is tied directly to the extent of the atoning death.
Joe, Rev is right, I am not a respected Calvinist. I make my pronouncements as a means of challenging the opposition. What I find out often, as was the case with you, when the opposition begins to explains their theology, they end up where I used to.
Here is the case. If we cannot disengagd the ego, and just speak to the exegetical reality of Scripture, we remain where the heros of the Arminian faction wish us to remain, untrained in the defense of the Gospel.
I don't care how many times Adrian called Cavinists heretics, or Allen, Lempke, or PP, Hunt, Vines, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, either explicitly or implictly, but when they do, when they say as PP that an institution cannot be built on anything but his exclusivistic beliefs, when the fact is he wouldn't even be in his position if Calvinists in the past had taken that attitude, it smacks of hyper-Fundamentalism. We need to not be ignorant, for "My people are destroyed for their lack of knowledge."
You've been sucked into a political system, Joe, based in traditionalism and not a free and open examination. That is really a denial of the educational admonition of the BFM and of the spirit of cooperation that characterized the SBC at one time.
I find this amazing; in the world of civilian politics the right cannot contest or criticize the left without the charge of harshness, bitterness, mean-spiritedness..., but the left gets a free pass, yet, we find this very thing happening all the time in SBC circles. It should not be so. If you're a non-Calvinist you can get away with crucifying a Calvinist, but let a Calvinist once make a critical remark of the majoritarian party and they are anthema with no opportunity of defense. How worldly we've become when we can't even say Arminian without offense, but must adopt the term non-Calvinist so as not to be offensive. We can't even claim the DoG, and to call ourselves Reformed, well that is as much a word of as Calvinist.
That is sad Joe. That we in the SBC reflect more of the inquisitional RCC, than Baptists.
So I hope you understand. I don't represent Calvinism, I represent the truth and the mode that I choose to take is outrageous, but there is a method to this disgusting man no matter how mad you think he is.
You'll have to do better than just define terms as they fit your traditions if you want to post a challenge of "how did we ever come to this?"
"In fact, your explanation of "L" is exactly the case I have been trying to make..."
Before you jump for joy, you need to go back and reread Dr. Galyon's point. I also believe in the sufficiency of Christ's work, but not in Arminain terms. Was it sufficient for the sins of all men throughout time, without a doubt. The sufficiency is without question, it is the intent and extent, to whom it applies and how. The atonement is a many fold blessing that does have application of benefit to the "world". It is the question of propitiation, just who is it that Jesus bought by propitiating sin.
Non-Calvinists often infer that by limiting the atonement in this way we deny that Christ bought anything ("Christ died for you"). What I have contended is that without particularity, nothing was actually bought. That is the divide, whether or not Jesus actually atoned for sin, or if his blood was that of a common sort, one that doesn't in its sacrifice truly take away the sin of his people, but is only efficacious in the people applying it to themselves.
We use similar terms such as sufficency. But, the fact is that within our favored systems (yes you have one too) the way we define them have vastly different meanings.
You may want to ask Rev. to clarify, for from your response you do not understand the term sufficiency in the same light as the Reformers did. Perhaps a change in terminolgy, general vs. particular. As many have observed, limited gets maligned and derails the conversation before the facts are even tried. But, I will let Rev answer that if you inquire of him. He's a Rev and a Dr., me, I am a vessel of dishonor. But less now than when I was dishonoring my daughter by not knowing and explaining the alternative view.
Thomas,
What do you think of my Lord's Prayer post?
Have't seen it, I have been busy elsewhere on the net and vacuuming and domestic stuff.
Wow!! I stepped into a lot of drama here. Why are people so hasty to throw around the "H" word? (heretic)
Instead of arguing what Calvin said and meant, why don't we try to argue what the Bible SAYS (like you are doing, Joe).
Also, I have found it incredibly helpful to view Calvinism in the context of the five articles of Remonstrance of Arminius' followers.
And by the way, the "TULIP" and 5 points came about after Calvin's death, at the synod of Dort!!
My only "question" remains: if God died for "all" and "the world," then how is his death efficacious for the unrepentant?
Maybe more people would be Calvinists if Calvinists weren't so nasty and unchristian about everything!! Seriously, let's see some fruit of the Spirit.
(PS-I'm kind of a closet Calvinist, but I've never read the Institutes---it's pretty long!)
Matt-
Little history lesson here.
If you want you can go to my blog and take in the scene and maybe some of this will make some sense.
Joe rose to defense of PP, PP made a statement that is not detached from a long hoary history of invectiives of the type that I used hurled at the Calvinists .
Joe comes from the populist doctrinal steam of the SBC and not from the historic doctrinal stream. But he doesn't know that.
The question by way of insult that I raised was just what does Joe White believe, does he fit the moldy old interpretations of universalistic passages of the Arminian faction that he belongs to, and is he willing to follow the logic where it leads, or, is he content to remain within the traditionalism he was taught which is outside the lineage of Augustine, Luther and protestantism in general and that of historic baptistism?
His assertion was when did it come to this? My position is that it never was what he thinks it is and by saying it was he fits the mold. He's been cloned.
The question comes down to which is the right doctrine. Labels aside, it is either one or the other, it cannot be both, it might be neither, but why would anyone hold to that which is not the truth and say they believe it? When his side calls mine heresy and labels those who hold it heretics, and they have, and he clings to them in unity, he might want to excuse himself because he has never used the word but a rose by any other name still would smell as sweet. And when they as Joe did make such defining statements about orthodoxy, even if they did not label, are the not as much labeling by definition. As Jesus said, there is no neutrality. J. I. Packer labeled the Arminianism of the non-Calvinists doctrines of demons, a host of n'Cals have done the same. The fight began five hundred years ago when the Arminian faction labelled the DoG heresy. The response was the defense you know as Dort. "And by the way, the "TULIP" and 5 points came about after Calvin's death, at the synod of Dort!!" True, but the principles are there in the Institutes of Calvin and his writtings elsewhere as the are for the most part in Luther and Augustine. Systematics of the sort that were developed post-Reformation yielded this beautiful flower which embodies along with the Solas what constituted the Protestant Gospel and their movement away from the semi-Pelagianism of Rome. They were not going to do an about face when challenged by the semi-Pelagianism of Aminius.
That is why, if you read my last response here, that I answered as I did. Should a non-Calvinist be called a heretic? Well that depends on where their doctrine goes. When the claim is made that the propitiaion was made for all mankind we run into a distinct problem which historically has lead to ever worsening error eventually ending up in full blown universalism. The RCC church held to a semi-Pelagian schema but their legalisms kept it from going that way, it went the opposite also condemning the work of regeneration before faith by defining grace, not as singularly sufficient and monergistic, but synergistic works much the same way Arminians do. Ergo, when Joe asserts that all always means all and that is his hermeneutic and I take that hermenuetic and apply it to passages about justification, it results in heresy. For Joe believes that the enabling grace of God provided by Christ's sacrifice doesn't accomplish anything unless man adds his effort to it (Christ died for your sins requires your acceptance to make it efficacious). If Joe wants to amend his hermenuetic to say that all doesn't always mean all, then we can discuss the possible interpretations of other all passages. But until he does, we are at an impass because his hermenuetic leads to heresy either way it is applied.
That is the basis of my title. Rev. is right, we shouldn't call all non-Calvinists heretics, but Roman Catholicism is non-Calvinist. What do we label it? So, I don't care about that as much as I do that Joe would tell us not what is is not, but what he is. To do that he needs to define his doctrine and let the definition find its proper label. But his system, and he does have one, is frought with inconsistencies. It is those that are what I scrutinize. Fundamentally, we must harmonize a system of beliefs and though that system is not the Gospel, it does explain it. And, if the explanation fits the label, then though they are not equivalents, they mean the same thing.
Error can be found most anywhere. Some errors are great, some small. That is what this is about.
I had a Pastor who believed that God had free-will because he created man with such. When asked if God could choose against his own righteousness, he said yes, God is able to choose evil. He got that from H. H. Hobbs, the hero of modern day non-Calvinist SBC'ers. Free-will doctrine is intimately connected to the doctrine of predestination and of election, and that of limited atonement, for regeneration is one of the benefits of it. The question becomes this, who believes? The unregenerate or the regenerate? The answer is, "Unless you are born again you cannot see..." By definition the unregenerate do not and cannot believe (you want Scripture I've posted far more than Joe has but you can go listen to White at my site and read my posts there). Contrasted to them are the regenerate who can and do believe. The final queston then is who applies the regeneration so that they have ears and eyes to understand and turn and be saved? Jesus said not all, but only those to whom it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom.
That should be enough said. Can we all just get along? Yes, but only if we are honest with one another. Hurling grendades and claiming innocence or siding with those who do, only makes one a part of problem, not a defender of truth. And if I take up the grenade hurled down at my feet to meet the challenge, and lob it back, that does not make me nasty, does it?
If you want a good example of this out of Scripture, familiarize yourself with the life and work of Jesus. When challenge by those who found his doctrine offensive, when they called him names, he returned the favor. They said he had a demon, he said they were of their father the devil. The moral of the story, don't start what you are unable to finish.
"Seriously, let's see some fruit of the Spirit."
Take that up with Jesus. You might want to ask him what spirit he was motivated by.
i like andrew's post. i'm not a calvinist, and he apparently is one (at least a "closet-calvinist" by his own confession lol), but i'm pretty sure we'd get along fine.
when i said "Christ died for all," i had this in mine from 2 corinthians:
5.14 - Christ's love compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: if One died for all, then all died.
5.15 - And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised.
and again,
5.19 - in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us.
5.20 - Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, we plead on Christ's behalf, "be reconciled to God."
by the way, you can't see the "all" here is only the saved. the context is paul trying to convince the corinthians to accept the persecution which comes with sharing the gospel with the world, a world for which Christ dies.
so, paul apparently could have it both ways. he believed Christ died for all. but, he believed we must share the gospel so people can be saved and avoid eternal punishment. this is the same paul who said God has predestined those He foreknew to be conformed to the image of His Son (rom. 8), and the same Paul who emphasized that we should pray for all people (even the emperor!) because Christ died for all people (1 tim. 2).
Christ died for all. not all will be saved. if paul had it both ways, then so should we.
Post a Comment