“Encouraging” is the best word I can find to describe the aftermath of the SBC Calvinism Study Committee. So encouraging, in fact, that I am emboldened to try something risky. One way to pursue a sort of “unity-lite” is to put aside soteriological discussions as off-limits. I regret that this approach has, for too much of our recent history, been the most reliable one and has probably corresponded pretty closely to the best outcome we could achieve. A more robust unity, however, occurs when we are able to discuss even our differences and to emerge from that completed conversation as friends and brothers still, and with our love and respect for one another undiminished (or enhanced? Is that too much to hope?).
The Study Committee report itself acknowledges that soteriology is important and that our differences should generate dialogue rather than silence among us:
These differences should spur us to search the Scriptures more dutifully, to engage in lively interaction for mutual sharpening and collective Gospel effectiveness, and to give thanks that what we hold in common far surpasses that on which we disagree.…
We affirm the responsibility and privilege of every Southern Baptist to advocate his or her doctrinal convictions. We affirm that theology should be honored and privileged in our conversations and cooperation. We also affirm that theological and doctrinal debate can be a sign of great health within a denomination that is devoted to truth and is characterized by trust.
While encouraging dialogue, however, the report warns us…especially us as users of the Internet and social media…to exercise caution in the content, tone, and spirit of the dialogue that we conduct:
We affirm the responsibility of all Southern Baptists to guard our conversation so that we do not speak untruthfully, irresponsibly, harshly, or unkindly to or about any other Southern Baptist. This negativity is especially prevalent in the use of social media, and we encourage the exercise of much greater care in that context.
We deny that our cooperation can be long sustained if our conversation becomes untruthful, uncharitable, or irresponsible
Are we up to that challenge? Considering this vision of robust soteriological dialogue that does not threaten our cooperative unity, are we the sort of people who dare to attempt to live that way?
We are about to find out.
One of the points of Calvinism that I do not embrace is Particular Redemption (i.e., Limited Atonement, Singular Redemption, etc.). I do not believe that there is any human being for whom Jesus did not offer His propitiatory sacrifice on the cross. I’m about to explain why I believe as I do, such as this forum permits, and then we’re going to engage in dialogue in the comments. I’m nervous about this. Dave is nervous about this, I think. My nervousness regards my peculiar limitations as much as it regards the general limitations that we all share (i.e., the temptations we face in the midst of spirited debate). Those particular limitations include the fact that my degree is in history rather than theology, and therefore I am only a theologian in the sense that all of us in this conversation are. Also, as an historian, I have read enough of the previous exchanges on this topic to know both that I will be able to offer nothing that is new and that all that I say, when it was offered before, was insufficient to put the controversy to rest.
Nevertheless, I am more hopeful than I am fearful. Why? Because the old insult about “Father, Son, and Holy Bible” notwithstanding, I believe in the Holy Spirit—nay, DEPEND upon the Holy Spirit. Believing that there is one Spirit means that I must be optimistic about all of those who share Him. And so, I invite you—both those of you who will agree with my conclusions and especially those of you who will disagree—to join with me in the aspiration that this will be among our finest moments and that all Southern Baptists will look to this comment thread as an example of how brothers seek together a more perfect understanding of the faith.
Why I Favor a General Atonement
Defining the Doctrine:
Calvinism, strictly defined, teaches that there are people for whom Christ did not make atonement in His death on the cross. Together with Calvinists I believe that Jesus died on the cross in the place of sinners, taking the punishment for their sins upon Himself (i.e., we agree about penal-substitution). Together with Calvinists I believe that Christ’s substitutionary death was made for the elect. Together with Calvinists I agree that some, on the basis of Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross, will receive forgiveness from their sins and will spend eternity in Heaven, free from the punishment due them for their sins. Together with Calvinists I agree that others will be punished for their sins in eternal Hell. But at this point we disagree: Full-fledged Calvinists believe that Jesus did not make substitution for this latter group of people, while I believe that He did.
It is critically important that I represent the doctrine of Particular Redemption accurately in this section. For those of you who are Calvinists, although it is possible that I have not said EVERYTHING here that you might wish to say as an apologetic or explanation of why you believe as you do, if the preceding paragraph in any way mischaracterizes this doctrine as held by Calvinistic Southern Baptists, then you will do me a great favor to point that out right away.
Biblical Data:
Of course, if there were any statement in the New Testament identifying any person or group of people who was not the object of Christ’s work on the cross, then this discussion would be over, at least for those of us who are biblical inerrantists. But there is no such statement in the Bible. There are statements in the New Testament to the effect that Christ died for the elect, but this is a point on which we agree, not a point of difference between us. There are also statements in the New Testament that use precisely the words that I would use to describe a general atonement. Perhaps the most explicit of those is 1 John 2:2.
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2, NASB)
Among all of the passages used to support the idea of general atonement, this one is the most explicit because it uses the word “propitiation,” which can be referring to nothing other than Christ’s death on the cross. Also, this sentence contains a phrase (“not for ours only”) that directly addresses and then denies some potential limitation of the scope of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice that was in the minds of the author and the readers. Finally, instead of this limited universe of objects of Christ’s propitiation (whoever they were), the sentence asserts “the whole world” as the actual recipients of Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice.
It would not be fair to suggest that Calvinists have no response even to this, the strongest text for those who affirm a general atonement. My Southern Baptist friends who are Calvinists are all—every last one of them—biblical inerrantists who have struggled honestly with 1 John 2:2 and have advanced explanations of why this verse does not actually mean what everyone takes it to mean upon first reading. And yet, I think it would be fair to say that the persuasive appeal of those explanations is not strong except among those with a prior commitment to the doctrine of Particular Redemption. Also, there are other texts beyond this one. 2 Peter 2:1 is formidable. So is 1 Timothy 4:10. There are others. For each of these passages, Calvinists have offered explanations in defense of Particular Redemption that are, for them, persuasive. And these other passages are, in my opinion, less decisive, since their vocabulary is less explicitly tied to Christ’s atoning sacrifice or less explicitly refutes limitations of the scope of that sacrifice. And yet for myself, I find the absence of a clear statement limiting the scope of the atonement, when combined with what strikes me as the plainest reading of 1 John 2:2 and these other passages, to be persuasive in favor of general atonement.
Theological Considerations:
The stronger case for Particular Redemption, in my opinion, is theological rather than biblical (not that these are in opposition to one another, but they can be differentiated). A number of rhetorical approaches can be identified:
Appeal to the Efficacy of the Atonement:
One popular line of argumentation, especially in recent conversations, deals with the efficacy of the atonement. It goes like this: Everyone either limits the atonement in some way or is a universalist. Yes, Calvinists limit the scope of the atonement by saying that it does not apply to all people, but non-Calvinistic non-Universalists limit the efficacy of the atonement by holding a view of it by which it does not save anyone entirely.
It is the most persuasive of the arguments in favor of Particular Redemption, as much for its emotional significance as for its logical force. After all, in view of the gratitude all believers feel toward Christ for His work on the cross, to put any of us in the position of devaluing what He accomplished there is to make us very uncomfortable. And yet, it is as wrong to say more than what the New Testament says about Christ’s work on the cross as it is to say less than what the New Testament says about it. I think that other theological arguments for Particular Redemption are actually stronger than this one, at least as far as their logical validity goes.
I admit it: I believe that the work of Jesus Christ on the cross did not entirely accomplish the salvation of anyone. I submit that even Calvinists agree with me. You don’t have to abandon monergism to conclude that, even for the elect, Jesus did not entirely accomplish salvation on the cross. After all, even monergists acknowledge an entire suite of events, with the cross indisputably at the center, that together accomplish our salvation entirely. The Father elected. The Son atoned. The Spirit calls and regenerates. The sinner believes and repents. These do not all happen at the same time. In the New Testament, God is even content to list among His saving acts His delay of Christ’s return, giving us time to hear the gospel and be saved. Unless one believes in eternal justification, salvation is not entirely accomplished for anyone until all of this has transpired, and even if you do believe in eternal justification, you have relocated the moment of salvation not back to Christ’s death on the cross but back to eternity past. For the Calvinist, it is true, all of God’s saving events things must inevitably accompany one another, but it is not, I don’t believe, accurate to say that Christ’s atoning work on the cross is, according to Calvinism, the first cause of the whole sequence. Rather, the electing choice of the Father before the beginning of time occupies that position in Calvinist theory. Calvinism tightly couples the atonement with election and regeneration. Belief in a general atonement is, necessarily, a decoupling of the atonement from election and regeneration to some degree.
And so, if I understand Calvinists correctly, salvation is irreversibly determined by God long before Christ was crucified, and salvation is finally accomplished at the moment of conversion, which is, for all of us reading this, something that takes place long after Christ’s crucifixion. What Christ accomplished on the cross was simply this: He provided entirely the basis for the salvation of sinners, whenever it might be that salvation should be fully accomplished. On the cross salvation was fully purchased, albeit not fully delivered yet. On the cross the punishment due for our sin was executed upon Christ. Because of what Christ did on the cross it is not unjust that we might be saved.
Appeal to the Injustice of Double-Punishment:
But if because of Christ’s death it is no longer unjust that we might be saved, does that mean that it is no longer just that we might be condemned? The strongest theoretical argument in favor of Particular Redemption, in my opinion, is the appeal to the injustice of double-punishment for sins. If Christ paid for the sins of the whole world on the cross, how can it be just that any person should pay for those sins in Hell? Would not such a person be paying the second time a punishment that Christ has already paid the first time?
This line of persuasion reveals so many of the things that I admire about Calvinists. Calvinists take seriously the details of the gospel. You guys rightfully ponder the fact that the gospel cannot be arbitrary. God does not just flippantly come to a sinner and declare, “Do over!” He does not regard our sins and say, “Let’s just pretend that never happened. It’s no big deal.” He does not just willy-nilly decide upon and schedule the passion of the Christ. Sin matters. Holiness matters. Justice matters. Punishment matters. Grace matters, and so does the cost of grace. Every detail of the gospel story has transpired just the way it has in the service of divine, eternal reasons that matter. God bless you for reminding us all of that and for teaching us to take it seriously. There is nothing wrong with pondering deeply the details of penal substitution, and if you do so, you cannot help but face this question of double-punishment.
Unless you adopt the Particular Redemption view.
Limiting the scope of the atonement does solve the troublesome question of double-punishment. That is the greatest strength of the view.
How, then, do I deal with the problem of double-punishment? You must be asking that question. “Not satisfactorily” is likely to be the answer from my more Calvinistic friends. Gosh, I don’t know how satisfied even I am with my treatment of this topic. I would nevertheless offer the following thoughts:
- The detailed actuarial view of penal substitution that creates the problem of double punishment is not articulated in this form in the New Testament, but is instead inferred theologically from the text of the New Testament.
- In the Old Testament sacrificial system, which existed to point us forward to the sacrifice of Christ, there is reason to believe that a person could still be held accountable for sins—even after an acceptable sacrifice had been made on his behalf—if that person was not sincerely contrite and repentant (consider Isaiah 1:10-20 as one example). Yes, these are Old Testament passages and do not fully take the gospel into account; however, regarding the question of how a propitiatory sacrifice works, such passages ought to be able to shed some light, shouldn’t they? I do not suggest that a passage like Isaiah 1 explains the gospel fully; rather, I maintain that it is hard to read Isaiah 1 while characterizing as preposterous the idea that God might still condemn to Hell someone for whom Christ did actually make a propitiatory sacrifice on the cross.
- Eternal condemnation in Hell poses problems for a detailed actuarial view of penal substitution regardless of one’s theory of the atonement, since by it a finite set of sins committed by a finite being results in infinite punishment. I believe in Hell and in the fearful teaching that they will suffer for eternity there whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life. Obviously, I do not believe that objections to the justice of infinite Hell for finite sin are well founded. However, I do believe that all of us, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, solve the problem of the justice of Hell by moving somewhat away from a detailed actuarial view of sin and punishment. If we can do that, I contend, we can move away from the kind of detailed actuarial view of the atonement that poses the problem of double punishment.
- The failure to believe in Christ—the neglect of the way of salvation provided on the cross—is presented in the New Testament as a basis for condemnation. Since these grounds for condemnation are necessarily both consequent and subsequent to the atonement, they are available to serve as just grounds for condemnation even if one holds to a doctrine of general atonement and penal substitution.
- The objectionable idea of double-punishment is indeed invoked in the New Testament, but not in connection with the extent of the atonement. Rather, the idea of a person’s experiencing multiple occasions of regeneration (Hebrews 6:6) is the occasion that brings forth the objectionable idea of double punishment for sin.
Conclusion
For brevity’s sake, and in view of the hour (I write this at 2:00 am after a day of many hours and miles), I will draw things to a conclusion by speaking of my motivation in this post. Of course, I have partially revealed it in the introduction: I hope that we can model an exemplary way of conversing about soteriology. And yet, perhaps there is more to say.
Am I trying to convert Calvinists away from Calvinism? As is true of any teacher, I cannot deny that I hope both to discover truth and to lead others to discover it. Whatever is the truth, as well as I can see it, I want to proclaim to others. If someone reads this and comes to embrace a general atonement, I will not dissuade him, nor will I be disappointed.
And yet, I honestly declare that my heart is for the conversion of the lost to the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the conversion of Calvinists to my point of view. From brothers in Christ who have already experienced conversion, what I most desire is that, when we talk about the saving work of Christ on the cross, we will be so overcome by gratitude toward Him, undeserving as we are, that little room is left for anger or haughtiness toward one another. After all, the most important, most wonderful, most inspirational word in the phrase is neither “Limited” nor “General,” but “Atonement.” How amazing that there is an atonement at all, whatever its nature! And certainly, how unfathomable is the fact that it was made for me. Oh, let us contemplate the atonement more to worship Him than to contest with one another. May He grant that my little essay (as well as the conversation that may ensue) will lead us there.
If I have failed in this essay to treat my Calvinistic brothers with respect, then my failure reflects a lack of ability rather than a lack of effort. I profess my love for the Calvinists among us as my brothers in Christ. I dare hope that we will indeed understand it better by-and-by. Until that day, may God help us to learn from one another—me as well as you—and may our conversation reveal more clearly that we have experienced salvation than that we have understood it.
For the record, I am not nervous about Bart’s post. Just hope our discussion will have the same irenic spirit that this post exhibits.
Bart,
This is phenomenal. I’m not in a position to fully interact at this point…but I just wanted to drop a quick note and say that I pray that the irenic tone in this post continues throughout. This, brothers and sisters, is how this discussion ought to be had. Great job, Bart!
As a Calvinist I feel that you have fairly represented my position (though granted I’m still not sure if I’m a 4 or 5 point Calvinist–depends on who you ask). And you also have made great points about your position. Thank you!
Thanks, Mike. I’m encouraged by how things have developed so far!
For those that may wish to pursue and respond to Bart’s gracious post I suggest that both he and you refer to pp. 89-100 in the title Living For God’s Glory – An Introduction to Calvinism by Joel Beeke et. al. Those pages answer with exegetical substance each of the points that Bart raised in his post.
In Grace,
Tom
Thanks, Tom. As I tried to make clear in the original post, I know that I have contributed nothing new, and I know that Calvinists have formulated many replies to each of these points down through the years.
I did not, however, give a source for Calvinists to consult for those answers. Why? Because that’s your job. 🙂
God bless.
Bart, This is not face to face but it is irenic and civil. I have appealed since the Ridgecest Bridge Builders Conf for this format. When it gets really challenging is when we apply the principle of Non-Contradiction. One of us may be correct and the other incorrect. Both of us may be incorrect. But what is ABSOLUTELY NOT POSSIBLE is for us to hold differing understanding of a given text and both of us be correct. There is only one (1) correct interpretation of each portion of God’s Word. This is the time when we will prove our humility… Read more »
Bart,
Great post. I’m one of those full fledged Calvinists. I heartily believe in particular redemption. I also heartily believe that none of us ever has or ever will know whether the people we encounter and share the glories of Christ with are numbered among the ones for whom Christ died.
Therefore I heartily believe in sharing the gospel with all. I can only pray that I will be more and more faithful in doing so.
And mostly, I heartily affirm the manner and tone of this post. This is how one engages the discussion, with conviction and humility.
Blessings.
Thanks, Les. I appreciate your participation in the thread. This thing only succeeds if Calvinists join the dialogue.
I enjoyed the spirit and tone of your post. Would you consider taking John 6:36-40 and explaining what you see Jesus teaching? I read and see Jesus standing before a group that has rejected him. He takes the opportunity to inform them that God’s plan of redemption includes a gift of individuals who will believe in the Son and who will be eternally secured by the actions of the Son AND that these people he is addressing are not those given to him by the Father. When I read it I see: (1) The Father will give the Son a… Read more »
Philip, Please forgive my delay in responding. Although I thought I knew how I would respond, I wanted to make sure that I had looked again at precisely the verses that you mentioned…as a safeguard against giving a dumb answer. That opportunity just did not present itself until this morning. So, here’s my reply: With regard to John 6:36-40, I could give a full exegesis of the passage here, but that would be lengthy and would perhaps lead us far afield. Since the topic of this post is the scope of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, perhaps it will… Read more »
Brother Bart, Thank you for both the spirit and the thought that you put into this post. As one who is neither Calvinist nor Traditionalist, I would like to offer an unexpected alternative. The term atonement is an Old Testament term, kaphar, which literally means to cover, as with pitch (or, tar). It is a direct reference to the blood covering the Mercy Seat (and similar, such as the altar, and even the sprinkling of blood on the people). It is a picture of covering the sin (or sinner) with the blood of the sacrificial substitute — the interposition of… Read more »
Ken, To make a distinction between Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice on the cross on the one hand and the accomplishment of atonement at the moment of regeneration on the other hand strikes me as a theological approach that would work equally well for those who are Calvinists and those who are not. Although we use the term “atonement” in differentiating the general and the limited view, the heart of the question is simply this: The work of Jesus on the cross, to whom did it apply? Whether you would call that word “atonement” or “propitiation” or whatever else, the question still… Read more »
Bart,
God’s wrath remains on the elect sinner until he believes. We are not propitiated AT the cross but only THROUGH the cross. God’s wrath (or justice) is not satisfied in my particular case until God chooses to interpose the cross of Christ between me and Him. Justice in this case cannot be satisfied by the mere fact that a sufficient price has been exacted from a Substitute; justice must also find that the Substitute and I have been joined in reality to become one identity.
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2, NASB) If our sins were propitiated 2000 years ago, then we would not need propitiation. The verse implies that we need propitiation now because we have sinned now. And where can we now find a propitiation for the sins that we have committed in our lifetime? John points us to Christ for propitiation—not that He propitiated God’s wrath against every person’s sin 2000 years ago, but that His death then can propitiate God in your case… Read more »
Bart writes stuff like this….just off the top of his Jim Neighbors looking head….at 2 am. I’d like to lash at his head 1,000 times with a steaming hot spaghetti noodle. Just makes me sick!!! 🙂
You ought to hear me do Gomer Pyle.
“He Himself is the propitiation for our sins;
and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. ”
(1 John 2:22)
and
” . . . “Behold, I am making all things new.” ”
(from St. John’s Book of Revelation 21:5)
St. John’s understanding of Christ IS as the Lord of the Cosmos.
I think this is actually something that both sides can agree upon, although they may differ in how this applies to a theology of salvation.
Both sides would agree, however, that for any person to be saved, they must personally, consciously, in this lifetime repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ. They would also agree that God will not save anyone from any other faith (muslim, mormon, etc…) regardless of how sincere they were in that belief. Finally, they would both agree that anyone who disputed the above was preaching a gospel different from the one the Lord Jesus Christ preached.
Christiane: Frank Beck, successor to A.J. Gordon, called attention to the fact that the “whole world” has limitations as witness, I Jn.5:19, “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one.” The world, lost, lies confortably in his grasp, but obviously John Excepts himself along with those who “are of God.” A study of kosmos, the word translated world, will support the idea of limitations.
Bart, I appreciate the deliberate, determinative, declarative, decision by the convention for the calvinists and non-calvinists to coexists in our convention with mutual respect, love toward one another, and civil dialogue. You have represented non-calvinists quite well. The tone and tenor of your post is in keeping with the letter and spirit of the newly adopted “peace resolution” between the two groups. If our convention could somehow how manage to adopt similar kinds of peace resolutions on all areas of division within our convention–and the policies and practices reflected the peace resolution–then our convention could be restored to wholeness, and… Read more »
“deliberate,
determinative,
declarative,
decision by the convention”
Dwight’s preview for his Sunday Sermon.
R.G. Lee eat your alliterative heart out.
Dwight,
Thank you for your kinds words about the post. It was good to see you in Houston, and I found it most agreeable to be able to greet your wife.
In Christ,
Bart
Dwight,
I did not get to see you in Houston. I did not get a Tex Mex meal payed for….like the others. How disappointing.
David
I agree.
Dr. Barber Congrats on now being the 1st VP. I think there is some “ambiguity” in the term “Calvinism” which is causing at least part of the difficulty when people discuss soteriology vis a vis “Calvinism”. I have always understood “particular redemption” (meaning that Christ only died for a subset of all people) to be “Hyper-Calvinism” not “Calvinism”. So I think a person could be a “Calvinist” and still not hold to particular redemption. My layman’s reading of the “Calvinist” statement (i.e. TTTTT statement) is that Hyper-Calvinism is outside the bounds of either Calvinism or Traditionalism in SBC life. I… Read more »
Roger,
I’m not aware of any reputable sources that characterize those who hold to particular redemption as hyper-Calvinists. Not saying there aren’t any. I just have never seen any.
Spurgeon held to particular redemption and I know of no one who would call him a hyper-Calvinist.
Blessings brother.
Good point, Les.
I do not know any Southern Baptists who are hyper Calvinists. With so many people saying they exist – they must – but I have yet to meet such a creature. 😉
Note; WA Criswell held to particular redemption as well.
Yes he did. The pastor friend of mine that was the interim in College Station actually called him and discussed this with him at the time and was surprised at how many of the TULIP points Dr. Criswell acknowledged (if I am accurately representing both my memory and what he told me of the conversation at the time). WE should reserve the term Hyper Calvinists not for ones that acknowledge God’s sovereignty but for those that claim no evangelism is necessary, by the way, or those that claim they can in advance tell who deserves to be preached to and… Read more »
“I’ve never been able to understand how the Calvinists, some of them, believe in a ‘limited atonement.’ That is, the sacrifice of Christ applied only to those who are the elect, but there is no sacrifice of Christ for the whole world—when John expressly says He is the sacrifice, the atoning, dedicated gift of God in our lives for the whole world [1 John 2:2]. And it is just according to whether we accept it or not as to whether the life of our Lord is efficacious for us in His atoning death.” -W. A. Criswell, 1 John 2:1-2; wacriswell.com… Read more »
Which helps to prove that nobody’s perfect.
David, do you know which points of Calvinism that Criswell held? It had never crossed my mind that he was a Calvinist.
Thanks.
Robert Vaughn, W. A. Criswell would proudly proclaim himself a Calvinist. But there are 347 varieties of Calvinists. And “Calvinist” meant something a little different in the 1970 SBC than it does to some today. Some would call “non-Calvinists” by the term “Moderate Calvinists. As one who knew him well said, “W. A. Criswell called himself a Calvinist, but he sure didn’t act like a Calvinist.” Criswell strongly proclaimed election, predestination, eternal security, and the Sovereignty of God. But he rejected Limited Atonement, and strongly proclaimed that a sinner had the choice of either accepting or rejecting Christ and his… Read more »
David,
If he held to total depravity then he was certainly no semi-Pelagian.
Thanks, David. I see now this subject was the fodder for some internet discussion awhile back that I apparently missed somehow. Yes, I guess there are gazillion ways to approach defining W. A. Criswell as a Calvinist (or not). It just had not crossed my mind to so define him.
David R. Brumbelow,
What you have stated about Dr. Criswell is true, every word.
You also made this true observation of the time:
“And “Calvinist” meant something a little different in the 1970 SBC than it does to some today. Some would call “non-Calvinists” by the term “Moderate Calvinists.”
David R. Brumbelow, that statement is so very true.
“If he held to total depravity then he was certainly no semi-Pelagian”
Chris Roberts,
Nor were any of the men who signed the Trad Document Semi-Pelagians. That was an unfair and poor accusation of a lot of theologically sound men.
Guys, we’ve been doing so well. Let’s not go backward with that tired old exchange.
We’re all zen – the way forward is the way back.
“””So to the question was Criswell a Calvinist?, the answer is, “Yes, and no.”””
Isn’t that the answer with so many?
Dear David: A friend of mine once had the opportunity for an extended discussion of Calvinism with Dr. Criswell at Ridgecrest, and he said Dr. Criswell said, “James Petrigu Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology sums up my theology.” Boyce is, of course, a limited atonement advocate. Even so I am apt to say, since there is a sufficiency of value for the populations of millions of planets, vide, John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, that the multitude for whom He died is numberless. In fact, every one preaches a limited atonement. The Calvinists limits by… Read more »
First, Many Calvinists today argue as Criswell did, that the atonement had some value to the entire world….and still do not deny particular redemption (limited atonement). (sufficient for all – efficient for elect)
Second, SP is linked to ones view of depravity – not particular atonement – so I’m doubting that Criswell woud be do labeled today.
C. B. Scott,
Thanks.
Enjoyed visiting with you at the SBC.
Bart Barber,
Very good article. I think Wally Amos would agree.
David R. Brumbelow
Tarhell,
Just for the record, somme here know this already, I am a SB ordained pastor and have been ordained in the PCA since 1992 as well. And not only have I never met a hyper in the SBC, I have never known of one in the PCA, surely a Calvinist denomination if there is one. In fact, a hyper could not get ordained in the PCA.
Blessings brother.
Les Prouty,
I love you, brother, but you are not a Southern Baptist. You are a PCA guy who was mistakenly ordained by some Southern Baptist guys who did not properly question you. Had they, they would not have ordained you as a Southern Baptist.
You are, in fact, a PCA guy who visits a Baptist blog and makes comments. Now, that does not mean I will take you off of my Christmas card list. It does mean that we are not going to plant churches together.
CB, I really hope to meet you someday. Are you still in God’s country (Alabama for the unenlightened)? They weren’t mistaken. At that time, I affirmed credo immersion only. Can’t blame them. And I really do love being allowed to participate here. I’ve been banned at a couple other SB sites. 🙂 Christmas card list? Darn postal service. I didn’t get it last year. And I understand we can’t plant churches together. But each of os can separately advance the Kingdom, amen? How about orphan care in Haiti together? I’d love to have you come along on one of my… Read more »
Les Prouty, I am now in Georgia trying to educate the BULLDOG NATION on the finer points of FOOTBALL and how to lose gracefully to the SABANATION. However, I must say that they are extremely resistant to learning revealed truth. Yes, I would be most open to an opportunity to work with you in Haiti, as I am convinced you are a hard charger in your efforts there and you love children and are not condescending to those you serve, but are filled with godly compassion. Also, any time you are in South Georgia, coffee and lunch is on me… Read more »
CB, maybe there should be a Georgia-Alabama college football reconciliation committee. You could be the chairman.
Or not…
Robert Vaughn,
It has been stated that FOOTBALL Reconciliation is my strength, as I use such a non-offensive manner of mediation. I treat all parties fairly. . . . and I never lie.
CB, more to say later. Off to dinner and Superman with my bride.
Les Prouty,
I look forward to it.
I do hope you enjoy dinner with your wife and I especially hope you enjoy the movie based on my personal biography.
CB,
South GA? I lived for 3 years in Forsyth, GA. Had an enjoyable time there, though those Dawgs can be a bit obnoxious.
The Baptist pastor who gave me my first preaching opportunity (brave soul) pastors in south GA. Valdosta. He’s been there a long time.
I’ll email you and we can exchange info. Thanks brother.
Dinner was great with the little woman and the movie about your life was pretty good too.
Bart Barber and Dave Miller…HELP.
The Presbyterian is already calling names! It’s TarHEEL not TarHell (although…nevermind.)
Les, No I did not know that you were Presbyterian…but thanks for owning up to that…now I will know that everything you say is to be immediately treated as suspect.
Of course I am kidding, Les. In fact, my friends often call me a “Baptiterian” because of my soteriological Calvinist leanings coupled with otherwise baptist ecclesiology.
I wear it with honor!
Oh Tarheel, sorry. But maybe CB likes it the way I typed it since there are no Tarheels in SEC country.
But Tarhell for Tarheel is not as bad as the pastor who mis typed “things” with an “o” instead of an “i” one time. That was funny.
As far as you treating what I say as suspect, well you’ll be far back in the line behind CB. 🙂
Tarheel, I knew you were. See how we are all getting along?
“Baptiterian.” I’m often called that too (among other things) since I will wet a baptismal candidate sometimes more, sometimes less.
LOL. That is funny things with an “o”.
I once types a letter to teens and parents to make sure they wear their shirts on the first day of a trip we were taking…however – I left out the “r” so it read –
“Remember to wear your _ _ _ _ on the first day!”
Yea, that is right – complete with the exclamation point.
but we digress from the topic at hand. 😉
This is all so very entertaining… I mean, “I don’t care who you are, that’s funny!”
Roger,
Particular Redemption (we who are not Calvinists usually call it “Limited Atonement,” but I thought it might improve the tone of the article to use what some Calvinists have chosen as a preferred term) is not a marker of hyper-Calvinism. Plain old Calvinism affirms Limited Atonement.
Items that tend to mark the movement from Calvinism to hyper-Calvinism include eternal justification, the rejection of duty-faith, and the rejection of general offers of salvation. Peter Toon’s The Emergence of Hypercalvinism in English Nonconformity is among the definitive works on the subject.
Bart: Thanks for historically delineating Calvinism from Hyper-Calvinism. Having a non-Calvinist like yourself correctly define the positions is helpful. I am afraid that a lot of those opposing Calvinism are really opposing Hyper-Calvinism. That is not to say that they don’t oppose things like limited atonement. Rather, it is to say they conflate the two and often say things like “if you hold to all five points, you are an extreme or hyper-Calvinist” when in actuality it is as you said, “plan old Calvinism.” When I hear the term “hyper-Calvinism” tossed out in SBC debates, most often it is a… Read more »
Tim,
Agreed. James Leo Garrett (smartest Southern Baptist alive today) once said to me, “Only when you are able to articulate your interlocutor’s point of view so clearly and accurately that he himself says, ‘Yes, that’s what I believe,’ are you ready then to begin to show why you think he is wrong.”
This type of thing is part of why I maintain that thorough training in just plain listening to people (in the sense that what you hear actually has a chance of matching what the speaker intended to say) ought to be mandatory in seminary and taught in the church.
Roger, my ordaining pastor was a self-professed supralapsarian hyper calvinist. The term as he used it has reference to the order of the decrees, and it did not hinder him one bit from being a soul winner. Two of his sermons which I remember were, “Why Sit Ye Here Till Ye Die?” and the other, “The Great Supper.” He once pleaded with a member of my family until tears ran down the man’s face. Our problem is that we find a group in history who use the term and immediately think of every one who hold that term to be… Read more »
“””my ordaining pastor was a self-professed supralapsarian hyper calvinist. “””
That explains alot 🙂
To all: It is a cardinal sin of blogging—and one of which I am frequently guilty—to drop a major post on the world just as one is about to become largely unavailable to engage in the ensuing conversation. I have just a few moments right now, and then perhaps, as strength endures, I will be able to comment further tonight. Those of you whom I can answer quickly I will answer now. If you do not get a reply in this batch, please do not be insulted. It may mean that your questions are so deep and substantive as to… Read more »
“It may mean that your questions are so deep and substantive . . .”
That often happens when I engage Bart Barber in a blog thread. His cognitive abilities are just too shallow to grasp the depth of substantive questions. That is why he is constantly asking Tim Rogers to explain to him what I asking.
Tim’s answer is always the same: “Bart, how would I know? I wear stupid bow-ties to the SBC and look Andy Griffith in Matlock when speaking to resolutions made by Pete Lumpkins. cb is way over my head”
That’s the big story of the 2013 SBC: Tim Rogers stole Nathan Finn’s bowtie collection.
Bart,
I heard that Nathan Finn is going to write a post about bow-tie theft for photo-ops and post it at Between the Times next week. I also heard that Frank Page is going to ask you to chair a special committee to investigate the problem and report the findings in Baltimore next year. I also heard that Jared Moore is going to write a book entitled: The Bow-Tie Bible Study.
Next year will be interesting and should draw a larger crowd.
First let me say that as a young (hopefully coming out of my cage) Calvinist, I was greatly helped by attending the SBC Annual Meeting in Houston. This was actually my first convention to attend though I’ve been a Southern Baptist longer than I’ve been saved (forgive the tongue-in-cheek there). I found myself in tears at some of the most unexpected moments throughout the convention, as I simply marveled at the unity that was displayed in our great Savior and King. As I listened to Dr. Mohler share a story at 9Marks at 9 on Tuesday night about what it… Read more »
P.S.
I just realized I may not have made this clear. Each of my numbered points correspond to Bart’s numbered list in the original post.
Bob B, Thanks for interaction with those points about double-punishment. I’ll reply to them in my next comment. But I wanted to reserve into a comment of its own my affirmation that you are doing EXACTLY what I had hoped for in this dialogue. It is OK to hold differing views on such a question as this one. It is OK to articulate them. We can do so without sinning in the way that we do it. So far, I’m very encouraged by how the thread it going. As I read the rest of it to the end, I hope… Read more »
Perhaps the best thing I can do is to clarify where I was unclear in what I wrote before. At the commencement, I should note for those who are following alone that you chose to respond to the numbered points at the end of the essay by which I sought to delineate some of my thoughts about reconciling general atonement with the problem of double-punishment for sins. To take them point-by-point: 1. Regarding the Trinity, the word does not appear in scripture, but all of the points of the definition do. What prevents me from putting limited atonement in the… Read more »
Bart, Thanks for your thoughtful responses to each of my questions. I think we’re on the same page with most of this, and where we may differ slightly I am merely encouraged to think more carefully on these points. I don’t have anything to add right now on the finer points, but I do want to make an observation. It appears that most of this discussion is centered around debating 4-point vs. 5-point Calvinism. Certainly there may be some exceptions and I haven’t read everbody’s post word-for-word, but that seems to be the thrust of this discussion. So while this… Read more »
Bart,
Suppose there is peace among all the bloggers, and peace among all the pastors. How will all this relate to the church either accepting or denying
Calvinism or Traditionalism? Is this not placing a blanket over the real problem, because the church rules and has the final say.
We pastors can go to meeting after meeting, and either be for something or against it. Then we return to the church and everything is swept under the rug. We can make the balm but if folks don’t think they need it, it’s back to square one. What are your thoughts?
Jess,
Here’s how it works out at our church: We don’t have any official position on the extent of the atonement. Individual church members search the scriptures and arrive at their own convictions on the matter (if they know about the question at all). Our fellowship and service together is unhindered by this.
Your parenthetical statement really hits the heart of this: if they know about the question at all. These questions don’t arrive in these theological forms in local churches. They show up when a teenager calls his grandmother and says “The pastor told us in youth group that God does not love us all the same way,” and then the grandmother calls her pastor and says “What in the world is wrong with that pastor?” The finer theological point of it all is lost on the teen who is floored by the idea that God might not love him, which just… Read more »
Bart-
Thanks so much for this. Of course, I’m on your side on this issue, but I think you’ve written a warm, congenial piece that does great justice to what I (we) believe, and, does justice to what I understand of the Calvinist position.
Thanks again, congratulations on your new position, it was great to see you in Houston, and tell your lovely wife hello and thanks for all the work in childcare.
Thanks, Michael!
Bart, Great post. I would agree with you here. What I like about Calvinists is their view upon God’s calling and sovereignty. He is still the one who does the saving and He gets the glory. But, overall, I agree with this perspective on General Atonement, although I would say that the way that we get out of the double-punishment dilemma is that, while Christ’s atonement is for all, it is only applicable to those who respond in faith and repentance and faith comes from hearing the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. While Christ paid for… Read more »
Alan,
I missed you in Houston. I thought of you when I drove through Montgomery. Hope to see you again soon.
CB, You drove through Montgomery and didn’t let me know? Didn’t stop for a cup of coffee or anything? Well, I might not be able to forgive such a slight and probably would not be able too if you and Bob Cleveland had not let me sleep in your room in Jackson, Tennessee all those years ago when Baptists knew how to fight and Blogtown still had outlaws roaming around. Now, everyone just tries to get along and civility has come and we end up with posts like Bart’s here, and, I don’t know, CB. I miss the old days… Read more »
You fight the fight on that resolution, Alan. You are right as the rain on that one. It is high time for change.
I do wish we had time to stop, but I had a crew with me who had been working the exhibit hall booth and they were tired and wanted to get on home. Maybe, I can get down that way soon and we can catch up.
Absolutely. Just joshing with you. Would love to see you. On the resolution, I am going to start making some calls later in the summer and putting a draft together. Thought I’d call the guys at the ERLC and ask for their help/input as well. I am hopeful that we can get something passed and I think it would be significant here in Alabama, what with the power that ALCAP has in SBC life here and their influence with the GOP and how many Baptists we still have here. Plus, that law was struck down anyway and is null and… Read more »
Alan, We need to get away from the idea that what Christ paid was equal to the sum total of what the world owed to God’s justice. How much of Christ’s suffering and death were needed just to pay for your own sin? Would one stripe, one thorn or one nail cover it? How much less would one-millionth of one stripe cover it. I think you will agree that you, like me, owed it all—every bit of His suffering was in my place, including the immeasurable and incomprehensible spiritual suffering that the physical suffering represented. Each single sinner owes the… Read more »
Ken,
How do you differentiate between the elect and those who believe?
Grace to you, brother.
Brother Randall,
It is the end result that the atoning death of Christ was efficient only for the elect, but it is not the modus operandi. The fact that it is a certainty that only the elect will believe does nothing to invalidate the full warrant for every man to believe and be saved—neither does it bar the nonelect from believing. Even for the elect, it is not efficient until they believe. And if a nonelect sinner would be willing to come in faith, it would be just as efficient for him.
Grace to you as well!
I have been out of circulation for most of two-two and a half weeks, due to heart stoppage and recover by defibilator and stent, all of such brought on by the stress of moving and a wedding, all on the same day. Bit much. I comment you Bart for your peaceful tone. Is it not interesting that it was the Regular Baptists, along with the Separate Baptist who were also Particular Baptists for the most part with a few exceptions, who began the great missionary movement. While the General Baptists who held to a general atonement mostly sat on their… Read more »
Dr. J. Glad you are healing, friend.
Thanks for the history lesson. I think it is notable that Calvinism “in theory” should be “less missionary,” but in practice that has not been the case.
Of course, hyper-Calvinism is another issue altogether, but that is not a significant issue in Baptist life.
“We are nearing the point of that Third Great Awakening.” DJW, Why would the Charismatic movement not be the Third Great Awakening? Consider that they have gone from 0 to almost 600,000,000 in about 50 years? Numerically, that is the greatest movement in the history of Christianity. The previous two “Great Awakenings” are uniquely American events, while the Charismatic Movement is worldwide. According to Wikipedia, there have already been four “Great Awakenings”. How do we know when the real “Third Great Awakening” gets here? I ask because you do bring this up often, and so I assume you have some… Read more »
Ever wonder why Evan Roberts would not allow the Welsh Revival to be associated with the Azusa Street meetings? And there were the Charismatic prophets that the Wesleys opposed. While I think there many Charismatics who are Christians, my experience with them has been for the most part uniformly negative, beginning with the first charismatic church in the town near where I grew up. The lady pastor packed them in, rolling in the aisles, etc., until she ran off with one of the deacons who had four sons. I do accept the work on the mission field or even here… Read more »
I’m thankful for your recovery. May God grant you renewed health and vigor for His work!
I want to note for all of those who are reading that I have not alleged that limited atonement causes laxity in missions. Particular Baptists were among the first and most faithful in the Baptist missionary movement.
Bart, that was COMMEND you…not comment.
Dr. Barber: I just ordered the book by Toon that you recommended. Everybody is talking about Hyper-Calvinism so I guess I better be informed as to what it is. I have the “Institutes of Christian Religion” here but my problem is that even though Calvin wrote it (at least the original French / Latin editions) I really can’t correlate much between Calvin and “Calvinism” without outside help. I wonder if Calvin came back today if he would recognize what we now call “Calvinism”. In any case, reformed theology really strikes a positive chord with me since it stresses “semper reformada”… Read more »
Roger, I’m going to email you a PhD work on Calvinism for your reading pleasure. 🙂 It’s a book by a Baptist Calvinist.
When you find out what a hyper-calvinist is, please let me know. I was Presbyterian from 1968 to 1981 and never did meet one. Although we did joke about them. Called’em “TR’s”; they seemed .. whoever they were .. to think they were the only ones that were Truly Reformed.
I don’t agree with Bart about particular redemption, but I don’t care. And I did vote for him for First President of Vice.
Of course you did. You had no other choice. ;>
Bob, I sent him Curt Daniel’s The History and Theology of Calvinism which should be very helpful.
Toon’s book will be very helpful on this topic.
Bart Barber has set the bar exceedingly high in relation to understanding where Calvinists are coming from on Particular Redemption.
Thanks, Randall!
Dr. Hammett (SEBTS) argues that the three texts that seem to point most forcefully to the general view are I John 2:2, I Tim. 4:10, and II Pet. 2:1. He settled into 4-point Calvinism because he could not put logical arguments above Biblical arguments. (see link below) Never having measured my beliefs by the points of Calvinism, I never struggled with the “L” of TULIP. Whether Calvinism, Arminianism or Molinism, all systems of theology are man-made constructs and should never be mistaken for the text of scripture. Must the text pass thru a rigid system in order to be understood?… Read more »
Consider the Armenians stricken!
Man, the Armenians have been through enough, what with their mistreatment by the Turks. Can we leave them out of this?
Arameans, too.
It was so bad they almost lost everything.
This comment fell out of its threading. Someone had accidentally used “Armenian” rather than “Arminian” and then requested that we “strike the word Armenian” from the quote. I did so, and then I gave this comment. Then I deleted the comment making the request, and I THOUGHT I deleted my response as well. Something didn’t work, and now this comment appears here completely out of context.
Threading usually breaks down here around a hundred comments – or when I use my phone to make a comment!
Bart, a comment without a context is just a prooftext…or something like that 🙂
Doug: I have lost all my email addresses due to the move and change of carriers. Send me an email so I can re establish contact. MY email is jimwillingham@centurylink.net
I’d be careful…that 1915 historical event still doesn’t sit well in Turkey.
Bloomin’ critters won’t stay stricken.
Bart,
I was out of circulation yesterday when your post dropped. I just want to say thanks for its tone and depth. I agree with quite a bit of it- which may drop me from the ranks of “Calvinist” in some eyes- but more than anything I appreciate the way you went about trying to understand the issue from both sides.
Congrats on your election and may your tribe increase greatly over the next year.
Thanks, Ryan
I realize I’m late to the conversation, but I never the less have a question that I believe needs to be added to the conversation about Limited Atonement. Is it not accurate to say that most Calvinists have a high view of Common Grace, and that this favorable disposition of God towards all men, without exception, was indeed purchased in the cross of Christ? If this is true, can any discussion about “limited” atonement really be accurate without including the implications of Common Grace?
Phillip,
I don’t speak for any Calvinist but myself.
Grace is God’s favor toward whoever He has favor towards.
Sometimes that favor is unto salvation.
He doesn’t punish sinners as soon as they sin.
Thus He graciously allows them to continue to live. He often blesses obedience as well though no person deserves or earns blessing since we are all sinners.
But such ‘common’ grace as that is not usually part of the discussion on atonement by the people I discuss atonement with. But there may be many other perspectives out there. What is yours?
Bart,
I am appalled by how you misrepresented Calvinism, used straw man arguments, and clearly simply hate Calvinists. May the grace of John Calvin be ever with you.
(I hope everyone very clearly saw the sarcasm in my post above)
🙂
And the threading broke…
It’s toasted.
with jelly.
I write this post with some level of uncertainty. My motivation and purpose is to make our deliberations in the BLOG world fruitful and productive. I trust that this will be the result. First, several Principles that guide the development of this material: 1. Words and their relationship give meaning to language. 2. Words are symbols and those symbols convey meaning. 3. Unless and until we define what I/we mean by our choice of words/symbols, there can be little if any progress in our understanding of one another. 4. The languages of the OT & NT are ‘dead languages’. As… Read more »
Amen.
Tom. Unity is something we develop and maintain. The Scripture you used tells us quite clearly how to have unity of the Spirit in thebonds of peace: Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Our goal of unity includes our being humble and gentle and patient while being tolerant of one another in love. And… Read more »
How about a new apporach. I recommend setting out to win China to Christ with the doctrine that He died for the church with no mention of anyone else. I speak, of course, of Matthew T. Yates and the Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church. So I think it would be appropriate to seek to win the whole earth and every soul in it with every one of the TULIP doctrines plus predestination and reprobation. And one of the most gung ho soul winners was my Hyper Calvinist Pastor who ordained me to the ministry, Every doctrine is a revelation of the… Read more »
“If I have failed in this essay to treat my Calvinistic brothers with respect, then my failure reflects a lack of ability rather than a lack of effort. I profess my love for the Calvinists among us as my brothers in Christ. I dare hope that we will indeed understand it better by-and-by. Until that day, may God help us to learn from one another—me as well as you—and may our conversation reveal more clearly that we have experienced salvation than that we have understood it. ” Based on what you’ve written, I believe the sincerity of this paragraph. Not… Read more »
Andy, I think Bart’s comment and yours gets right to the heart of productive theological debate – the genuine effort to accurately represent those with whom you disagree.
So far, I’ve not seen anyone complain that Bart has misrepresented what Calvinists believe, even as he disagreed with it. That is why this has been among the most productive discussions of Calvinism I’ve seen on blogs.
It also helps to have relatives on the other side of the fence, relatives that you love and respect for being people of integrity. My Brother-in-law is a Traditionalist as is his son. They are people of devotion to the cause of Christ, and, thus, it is not possible to be so negative about a theological position with which I disagree. Besides, both sides can pitch in help out with problems, and they do. Also both sides can stand up and tell the truth about the successes and failures of their own side as well as see the successes and… Read more »
Bart, great article, fitting of a 1st VP! As one who holds to Particular Atonement, I appreciate your handling of the view. The words differ a little from how I would have explained it, but it is essentially how I believe it, so I’ll own what you said. That kind of accuracy goes a long way to fleshing out the committee’s statement. Something I’ve been toying with is a re-categorization of the soteriological issue. I think it’s clear by the way you put it that we have more common ground than not, even on the extent of the atonement. What… Read more »
I like that. It’s a good insight. I’ll be pondering that for a while to come, I think.
When you are done pondering, I’ll get busy posting!
Sometimes, I feel so discouraged, that I feel lower than a snake’s belly. Then things pick up. I am reminded that Judson said, when things were at their darkest in his mission to Burma, “that the promises of God were never brighter.” That is what has held me to it all of these nearly 40 years of prayer for a visitation. The change in theology had to go along with it, but I did not ask God to make a bunch of Calvinists, Sovereign Grace believers, maybe. But, in any case, the theology of the Awakenings and the launching of… Read more »
Brother, I hear you. I often get discouraged as well. Then I remember there is so much to so. I read this quote this morning from David Brainerd: “May I never loiter on my heavenly journey.”
BTW, Desiring God website has several free e books available, including one on Brainerd. Piper is making a lot of good stuff freely available.
Les: It is hard these days not to loiter, having had no church for 16 years, nearly 17, and few opportunities to preach and now the decline of strength brought on by the heart problem though the doctors tell me that I will pick up in about 8 weeks or so.
Here’s a very informative article that’s well worth your time to read….
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/06/what-is-wrong-with-the-young-restless-and-reformed-movement-an-interpretive-essay-by-dr-paul-owen.html#more
David
I’d like to officially thank Bart for this entry. It seems (so far at least) that Baptists CAN have a productive discussion of the topic.
David: You get better as time goes by. Maybe we ought to consider you for President of the SBC someday.