Category Archives: Atonement

Were the Puritans consistent Calvinists?

Pilgrim’s Progress, first edition 1678.

By Spencer D Gear PhD

I was engaged in blog discussions with Bond-servant of Christ who demonstrated Calvin believed in universal atonement.

The poor man [Calvin] had problems making up his mind! His comments on John 3:16 are very clear:

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

1. Calvin wavered

I responded:

You are correct bond-servant.
You have given the one side of his doctrine. This is the other side:
Calvinā€™s online edition of
1 John 2:2 states:

And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.?

I used the language he was a fence-sitter. Perhaps it would be better to state he wavered between universal and limited atonement.

2. A hyper-Calvinist jumped in

Iā€™ve had battles on the Calvinism topic over the years with an administrator at christianforums.com, Hammster. He jumped into this discussion with a brief comment: ā€œFortunately, the Puritans that [came] after him didnā€™t waver.ā€[1]

2.1 Some Puritans also wavered

2.1.1 Richard Baxter

I find it interesting to examine Richard Baxter, the Puritan, and his teaching on the atonement. He stated in this article on the extent of redemption:

I have perused,” he said, “all the articles of the Synod of Dort and unfeignedly [genuinely] honour them asĀ  containing sound and moderate doctrine”. He wrote: “In the very article of perseverance, which some are pleased to quarrel with me about, I subscribe to the Synod.” “Yea” he adds, “in the article of the extent of redemption, wherein I am most suspected and accused, I do subscribe to the Synod of Dort, without any exception, limitation, or exposition of any word, as doubtful or obscure. . . .
“I do subscribe to the Synod of Dort, without any exception, limitation, or exposition, of any word, as doubtful and obscure.” Baxter’s view was that Dort’s theology expresses the mind of Calvin. Fundamental to the Dort Canon’s conception of the atonement is the formula ‘sufficient for all, efficient for the elect'” (Sec Orme’s Memoir of Baxter in
The Practical Works of the Rev. Richard Baxter, vol. 1, p. 456, emphasis in original).

A fundamental teaching of the Synod of Dort was strict Calvinism expressed by the slogan, the atonement was “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.”

2.1.2 John Bunyan

The Puritan, John Bunyan, rejected limited atonement. He wrote:

O how heartily He will receive us into his arms!Ā  He offers all freely; yea, He comes in the word of the gospel with the blood running down his face, tears upon his cheeks, fresh wounds in his hands and feet, and blood still flowing from his side, to entreat you to accept his gracious offer of reconciliation.Ā  Will you love sin more than grace, and darkness more than light?Ā  Will you shut your eyes to Him but open them wide for the pleasures of the flesh?Ā  Will you run the hazard of death in the day of judgment?Ā  Will you despise Him and reject his grace? (Works 1:1 31-36).

2.1.3 Jonathan Edwards

The Puritan, Jonathan Edwards, viewed the atonement this way:

Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy.

For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy-Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when [they]Ibid. say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an opportunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; ’tis past all contradiction (Jonathan Edwards [1722], The ā€œMiscellaniesā€: (Entry Nos. aā€“z, aaā€“zz, 1ā€“500; “t”: Universal redemption, Works of Jonathan Edwards, online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout, page 174.)

2.1.4 The Synod of Dort

The Synod of Dort stated in . . .

Article 2.8: The efficacy of the death of Christ. For this was the most free counsel of God the Father, that the life-giving and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect (John 17:9). It was his most gracious will and intent to give to them alone justifying faith and thereby to bring them unfailingly to salvation (Ephesians 5:25ā€“27; Luke 22:20.).

This means: God willed that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) [Luke 22:20; Hebrews8:6] should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and tongue (Revelation 5:9) all those, and those only, who from eternity were chosen to salvation and were given to him by the Father. God further willed that Christ should give to them faith (Philippians1: 2, 9), which, together with other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, he acquired for them by his death; that he should cleanse them by his blood from all sins (1 John 1: 7), both original and actual, both those committed after faith and before faith; and that he should guard them faithfully to the end (John10:28) and at last present them to himself in splendour without any spot or wrinkle (Ephesians 5:27).

3.Ā  Conclusion

Some leading Puritans did not support limited atonement. See my articles in support of the biblical basis of universal (unlimited) atonement:

cubed-iron-smĀ Is this verse forced into limited atonement theology?

cubed-iron-smĀ Unlimited atonement by Jesus;

cubed-iron-smĀ Limited atonement conflicts with Godā€™s goodness.

cubed-iron-smĀ Did John Calvin believe in limited atonement?

cubed-iron-smĀ Does the Bible teach limited atonement or unlimited atonement by Christ?

cubed-iron-smĀ If Jesusā€™ atonement is for all, should all be saved?

cubed-iron-smĀ Was John Calvin a TULIP Calvinist?

cubed-iron-smĀ Can people choose to reject salvation?

4.Ā  Notes


[1] Christianforums.com 2020. ā€œCan a person that believes Jesus is the Son, but not God be saved?ā€ Hammster #236. Available at: https://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-you-be-saved-not-believing-jesus-is-god.8189988/page-12 (Accessed 8 December 2020).

Copyright Ā© 2021 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 September 2021.

Was John Calvin a TULIP Calvinist?

By Spencer D Gear PhD

clip_image002

(Tulip image courtesy photos public domain)

Does it matter what your church teaches and practices concerning Christian salvation?

What is the future for churches that proclaim the following?

clip_image004All people are saved (universalism)?

clip_image005People have no say in whether they accept or reject the Gospel of salvation?

clip_image004[1]The whole of humanity is so corrupted inwardly that there is no hope of salvation without Godā€™s supernatural intervention ā€“ without that personā€™s agreement.

clip_image006People have a free will that enables them to accept or reject Godā€™s offer of salvation.

clip_image005[1]The offer of salvation is open to everyone in the world?

Two of these positions come under what is known as the salvation theology of Calvinism.They are:

clip_image005People have no say in whether they accept or reject the Gospel of salvation?

clip_image004[1]The whole of humanity is so corrupted inwardly that there is no hope of salvation without Godā€™s supernatural intervention ā€“ without that personā€™s agreement.

In this article, I will examine whether the teaching of TULIP was included in the doctrines of Calvin.

Iā€™m particularly concerned with whether John Calvin, who preceded the formulation of TULIP, believed the doctrines of TULIP.

1. What is TULIP Calvinism?

TULIP is an acronym for the theology expounded at the Synod of Dort (1618-19), held in the city of Dordrecht, the Netherlands, that responded to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance. These doctrines have been summarised as TULIP. Here is a brief explanation of these five doctrines at: ā€˜The Calvinistic ā€œTULIPā€ā€™:[1]

In brief, TULIP means:

clip_image008Ā ā€“ ā€˜total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himselfā€™.

clip_image010ā€“ ā€˜unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own meritā€™.

clip_image012 ā€“ ā€˜limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the electā€™.

clip_image014 – ā€˜irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

clip_image016 ā€“ perseverance of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

Since Calvin did not originate TULIP, the purpose of this article is to discover from Calvinā€™s writings if he taught the theology expressed in TULIP.

Of necessity, this article will require many quotes from Calvin, especially to demonstrate favour or disfavour towards each point of TULIP.

clip_image0181.1 Total Depravity:

Calvin wrote in Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.2.26: ā€˜The will is so utterly vitiated[2] and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing but evilā€™.

Elsewhere in Institutes he states:

ā€˜Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,ā€™ (Gen. 6:5; 8:21). If every thing which our mind conceives, meditates plans, and resolves, is always evil, how can it ever think of doing what is pleasing to God, to whom righteousness and holiness alone are acceptable? (John Calvin, Institutes, Book 2:2.25)

… Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil. If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is under a necessity of sinning (Institutes Book 2:3:5).

clip_image020See my articles in support of total depravity:

clip_image0221.2 Unconditional Election:

Calvin wrote in Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Book Three, Chapter 21.1: OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

The covenant of life is not preached equally to all, and among those to whom it is preached, does not always meet with the same reception. This diversity displays the unsearchable depth of the divine judgment, and is without doubt subordinate to God’s purpose of eternal election.

But if it is plainly owing to the mere pleasure of God that salvation is spontaneously offered to some, while others have no access to it, great and difficult questions immediately arise, questions which are inexplicable, when just views are not entertained concerning election and predestination. To many this seems a perplexing subject, because they deem it most incongruous that of the great body of mankind some should be predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction.

How ceaselessly they entangle themselves will appear as we proceed. We may add, that in the very obscurity which deters them, we may see not only the utility of this doctrine, but also its most pleasant fruits. We shall never feel persuaded as we ought that our salvation flows from the free mercy of God as its fountain, until we are made acquainted with his eternal election, the grace of God being illustrated by the contrast–viz. that he does not adopt all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what he denies to others.

See also Institutes 3.22.7,10. In point 10 of this quote, Calvin wrote:

Some object that God would be inconsistent with himself, in inviting all without distinction while he elects only a few. Thus, according to them, the universality of the promise destroys the distinction of special grace. . . . But it is by Isaiah he more clearly demonstrates how he destines the promises of salvation specially to the elect (Isa. 8:16); for he declares that his disciples would consist of them only, and not indiscriminately of the whole human race. Whence it is evident that the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be set apart for the sons of the Church only, is abused when it is represented as effectually available to all. For the present let it suffice to observe, that though the word of the gospel is addressed generally to all, yet the gift of faith is rare (emphasis added).

This point also infers the doctrine of Limited Atonement as well.

In his commentary on Romans 9:3 he wrote:

It was then a proof of the most ardent love, that Paul hesitated not to wish for himself that condemnation which he was impending over the Jews, in order that he might deliver them. It is no objection that he knew that his salvation was based on the election of God, which could by no means fail; for as those ardent feelings hurry us on impetuously, so they see and regard nothing but the object in view. So Paul did not connect Godā€™s election with his wish, but the remembrance of that being passed by, he was wholly intent on the salvation of the Jews (Calvinā€™s Commentary, Romans 9:3).

Second Timothy 2:19 (ESV) states, ā€˜But Godā€™s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ā€œThe Lord knows those who are his,ā€ and, ā€œLet everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquityā€ā€™.

Calvin responded:

Having this seal ([It] denotes either ā€œa sealā€ or ā€œthe print of a sealā€) having led into a mistake some people who thought that it was intended to denote a mark or impress, I have translated it sigillum (a seal,) which is less ambiguous. And, indeed, Paul means, that under the secret guardianship of God, as a signet, is contained the salvation of the elect, as Scripture testifies that they are ā€œwritten in the book of life.ā€ (Psalm 69:28; Philippians 4:3.)

The Lord knoweth who are his This clause, together with the word seal, reminds us, that we must not judge, by our own opinion, whether the number of the elect is great or small; for what God hath sealed he wishes to be, in some respect, shut up from us. Besides, if it is the prerogative of God to know who are his, we need not wonder if a great number of them are often unknown to us, or even if we fall into mistakes in making the selection.

Yet we ought always to observe why and for what purpose he makes mention of a seal; that is, when we see such occurrences, let us instantly call to remembrance what we are taught by the Apostle John, that ā€œthey who went out from us were not of usā€ (1 John 2:19) (Commentary on 2 Timothy 2:19-21).

While Calvinā€™s language is not that of unconditional election but elect who are known only to God who has sealed them, shut them in. That sounds awfully like unconditional election language.

Elsewhere he stated it more clearly: ā€˜It is no small matter to have the souls perishes who are bought by the blood of Christā€™. (A Selection of the Most Celebrated Sermons by John Calvin: Titus 1:15-16, p. 84).

This reads like universal atonement but the same sermon he wrote of Godā€™s eternal predestination and election before the world began:

Whereupon hangeth our salvation? Is it not upon the election and choice that hath been from everlasting? God chose us before we were. What could we do then? We were made fit, We were well disposed to come to God. Nay, we see that our salvation doth not begin after we have knowledge, discretion, and good desires; but it is grounded in Godā€™s everlasting decree, which was before any part of the world was made: (A Selection of the Most Celebrated Sermons by John Calvin: Sermon II, 2 Tim 1:8-9. p. 42).

There you have the contradictory nature of Calvinā€™s views: (1) Souls perish who have been bought by Jesusā€™ blood sacrifice, BUT (2) Godā€™s salvation is grounded in His decree before believers were created and before the world came into existence.

Iā€™m befuddled how Calvin could say that he bought the souls of unbelievers with his blood but they didnā€™t make it into the elect. This is a glaring example of Calvinā€™s violation of the law of Noncontradiction.

clip_image020[1]See my articles opposing unconditional election:

clip_image0241.3 Limited Atonement

Calvin wrote (quoted above) that salvation is solely for the ā€˜sonsā€™ (believers) of the church and is not effectual for all. So, Jesusā€™ salvation through substitutionary sacrifice could not have been for everyone.

By application, it means Jesusā€™ atonement was for a limited number of people, ā€˜the sons of the churchā€™. Did he believe in limited atonement? Was it only for the elect of God? Letā€™s check him out!

He continued:

Though the word of the gospel is addressed generally to all, yet the gift of faith is rare. Isaiah assigns the cause when he says that the arm of the Lord is not revealed to all (Isa. 53:1). Had he said, that the gospel is malignantly and perversely condemned, because many obstinately refuse to hear, there might perhaps be some color for this universal call (Institutes 3.22.10).

Paul Helmā€™s research on Calvin and the atonement led to this conclusion:

While Calvin did not commit himself to any version of the doctrine of definite atonement, his thought is consistent with that doctrine; that is, he did not deny it in express terms, but by other things that he most definitely did hold to, he may be said to be committed to that doctrine. The distinction is an important one in order to avoid the charge of anachronism (Helm 2013:98).

Not all Calvinistic scholars are in agreement with Helmā€™s conclusions as he acknowledged:

Those who claim that Calvin held to indefinite atonement are by no means agreed about its consequences. G. Michael Thomas refers to a ā€œdilemmaā€ in Calvinā€™s theology, the existence of ā€œstress points,ā€ rendering Calvinā€™s overall position ā€œinherently unstable.ā€ R. T. Kendall holds that while Calvin had an unlimited view of the atonement, Christā€™s intercessions were definite, on behalf of the elect alone. Kevin D. Kennedy claims that, according to Calvin, while atonement is universal, union with Christ is particular. The difficulty with the last two views, which tend in the direction of post-redemptionism, or Amyraldianism,[3] is that they imperil the unity of the divine decree, and the divine operations ad extra that Calvin emphasized (Helm 2013:100).

He included this example from Calvin to support his conclusion:

That which Augustine adds in continuation must by no means be omitted. ā€œSince we know not (says he) who belongeth to the number of the predestinated, and who doth not, we ought so to feel as to wish all to be saved. From this it will come to pass that whosoever shall come in our way, we shall desire to make him a partaker of the peace which we ourselves enjoy. ā€˜Our peace,ā€™ however, will nevertheless ā€˜rest upon the sons of peaceā€™ (John Calvin, A Treatise of the Eternal Predestination of God).

Calvin wrote this treatise to challenge the teachings of ā€˜Albertus Pighius, the Campanian, a man of evidently phrensied audacity, [who] attempted, at the same time, and in the same book, to establish the free-will of man. and to subvert the secret counsel of God, by which He chooses some to salvation and appoints others to eternal destructionā€™ (ibid.).

Other Calvinistic scholars are not as sure as Helm ā€“ neither am I ā€“ about Calvinā€™s support for limited atonement. The following evidence should demonstrate that Calvinā€™s teaching on the scope of the atonement extended to the whole world. But there are passages where he is double minded.

1.3.1Ā Ā  I John 2:2 (ESV) states:

ā€˜He [Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole worldā€™.

Calvinā€™s interpretation endorses his view of limited atonement.

And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?…

They who seek to avoid this absurdity [universalism ā€“ all saved, including Satan], have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world. (Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles: John 2:1-2).

Honestly, is that what 1 John 2:2 teaches? Sounds more like Calvin pushing his own Reformed barrow to me.

Here Calvin confirmed again that Christā€™s propitiation/expiation was not for the sins of the whole world of unbelievers but for the ā€˜whole Churchā€™ and that ā€˜all ā€¦ does not include the reprobateā€™. It only designates those who ā€˜should believeā€™.

Simply put, that is not what 1 John 2:2 teaches. Jesus died for ā€˜our sinsā€™ (believersā€™ sins) and ā€˜the sins of the whole worldā€™ of unbelievers. Any other interpretation manufactures conclusions to agree with oneā€™s presuppositions.

1.3.2 Conversely, Calvin also supported universal atonement

However, in other passages Calvin supported unlimited atonement. This is only a sample from some of his commentaries, Institutes, and other writings:[4]

He wrote:

We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us (Institutes 3.1.1).

Calvin used the language of the offer of universal salvation, hence unlimited atonement, to have limited effects on people:

If it is so (you will say), little faith can be put in the Gospel promises, which, in testifying concerning the will of God, declare that he wills what is contrary to his inviolable decree. Not at all; for however universal the promises of salvation may be, there is no discrepancy between them and the predestination of the reprobate, provided we attend to their effect. We know that the promises are effectual only when we receive them in faith, but, on the contrary, when faith is made void, the promise is of no effect (Institutes 3.24.17).

I find this commentary by Calvin to be conflicting, even contradictory:

This is my blood. I have already remarked that, when we are told that the blood is to be shed ā€” according to the narrative of Matthew ā€” for the remission of sins, these words direct us to the sacrifice of the death of Christ, without the remembrance of which the Lordā€™s Supper is never observed in a proper manner. And, indeed, it is impossible for believing souls to be satisfied in any other way than by being assured that God is pacified towards them.

Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke ā€” Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated (Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol 3, Mark 14:24).

On the one hand, the Lordā€™s Supper reminds believers that ā€˜God is pacified towards themā€™, i.e. His wrath towards sinners has been appeased (expiation). However, according to Calvin, ā€˜shed for manyā€™ means for ā€˜the whole human raceā€™. Wait a minute! Is it for the whole world? Not according to Luke where this message is directed to the disciples/believers and this shedding of blood is applied only to them and their own sin being expiated.

Here, I see that Calvin has violated the law of non-contradiction.

ā€˜The law of non-contradiction states that A and not-A (where A is a proposition) cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, my car cannot be parked in my driveway and not parked in my driveway at the same time and in the same sense.[5]

Calvinā€™s contradictory remarks were: (1) The Lordā€™s Supper reminds believers God is pacified towards them, and (2) When the ā€˜holy tableā€™ is approached, ā€˜let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christā€™. Has the whole world been ā€˜redeemedā€™ by Christā€™s death or only that of believers? He did not state it plainly as it is.

However, everyone does not embrace the Gospel that is proclaimed:

Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him,[6] all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him. And although it is true that we obtain this by faith, yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of Christ which is made by the gospel, the very nature of the case teaches us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of the Spirit, to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings (Institutes 3.1.1).

1.3.3 Calvin, Scripture and universal atonement[7]

clip_image026 Matt 22:14: ā€˜For many are called, but few are chosenā€™ (ESV).

Calvinā€™s interpretation was:

The expression of our Saviour, ā€œMany are called, but few are chosenā€ (Matt. 22:14), is also very improperly interpreted (see Book 3, chap. 2, sec. 11, 12). There will be no ambiguity in it, if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear, viz., that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts (Institutes 3.24.8).

clip_image027 The parallel in the Synoptics is Mark 14:24 (ESV): ā€˜And he said to them, ā€œThis is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for manyā€.

Concerning this verse, Calvinā€™s comment is significant:

Mark 14:24. This is my blood. I have already remarked that, when we are told that the blood is to be shed ā€” according to the narrative of Matthew ā€” for the remission of sins, these words direct us to the sacrifice of the death of Christ, without the remembrance of which the Lordā€™s Supper is never observed in a proper manner. And, indeed, it is impossible for believing souls to be satisfied in any other way than by being assured that God is pacified towards them.

Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke ā€” Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated (Commentary on Matthew 26:26-30; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:17-20).

Here would have been an ideal opportunity for Calvin to expound on ā€˜manyā€™ meaning that Jesus did not die for the whole world but only for the elect. He didnā€™t. Instead he stated that ā€˜manyā€™ does not leave out a chunk of the worldā€™s population that are excluded from Jesusā€™ atonement.

This was in opposition to contemporary Calvinistic commentator, the late William Hendriksen, who stated that ā€˜Jesusā€™ says that his blood is poured out ā€œfor many,ā€ not for allā€™ (Hendriksen 1975:575).

This is in contrast with the biblical teaching in 1 Timothy 2:9 (ESV), ā€˜For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper timeā€™.

Jesusā€™ atonement cannot be ā€˜for manyā€™ and that does not mean ā€˜for allā€™. Why is ā€˜for manyā€™ used in this way? Lenski, a Lutheran commentator, explained the meaning of huper mallwn (ā€˜in behalf of manyā€™) in the synoptic parallel of Matt 26:28 as:

These polloi [many] are all men [people], for all of whom the blood was shed ā€œfor remission of sins,ā€ and not merely the believers in whom this remission was realized. They are ā€œmany,ā€ and thus extend far, far beyond the eleven. Mark combines this by using huper mallwn, ā€œin behalf of manyā€ in the sense of ā€œin place of many, huper having the idea of substitution (Lenski 1943:1031).

clip_image026[1] John 1:29 (ESV): ā€˜The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming towards him, and said, ā€œBehold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!ā€™

How would Calvin interpret ā€˜the sin of the worldā€™? He leaves no doubt that it applies to all people, Jews and Gentiles ā€“ everyone:

Who taketh away the sin of the world. He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him (Commentary on John 1:29-34).

Calvin did not understand Jesusā€™ taking away the ā€˜sin of the worldā€™ in any limited way. All were guilty of unrighteousness and needed to be reconciled to God through Christā€™s death for all. Calvin is sounding more like Amyraldians who support a universal atonement.

clip_image026[2] John 3:14-16 (ESV):

Calvinā€™s commentary on John 3:16 was:

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father ā€” that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ (Commentary on John 3:16).

So, all are invited to Christ to partake of the Christian life and unbelievers are without excuse. However, while all people ā€˜without exceptionā€™ are invited to faith in Christ, but there is one brick wall for them: Only the elect have eyes opened by God.

There we have a violation of the Law of Noncontradiction again: All are invited to come but all do not have a chance of responding positively to the invitation. I could paraphrase Calvinā€™s position: ā€˜Yes, all of you can come to Christ but all of you canā€™t come because you are not elected to salvationā€™.

clip_image026[3] John 12:48 (ESV): ā€˜The one who rejects me [Jesus] and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last dayā€™.

How is it possible for anyone to reject Christ if he or she is included in TULIP theology? What did Calvin have to say about this verse? ā€˜And receiveth not my wordsā€¦. We must therefore attend to this definition, that Christ is rejected when we do not embrace the pure doctrine of the Gospelā€™ (Commentary on John 12:47-50).

So, individual people can reject or embrace the Gospel. This excluded unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace. Since Calvin believes there is this choice for people, he is affirming some dimension of free-will, the power of alternate choice for or against Jesus.

clip_image026[4] John 16:8-11 (ESV): ā€˜And when he [the Helper] comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgement, because the ruler of this world is judgedā€™.

Will the Helper, the Holy Spirit, convict the whole world of sin and righteousness or only part of the world because the other part is not included in Jesusā€™ salvation?

Calvinā€™s interpretation was:

He will convince the world; that is, he will not remain shut up in you, but; his power will go forth from you to be displayed to the whole world. He therefore promises to them a Spirit, who will be the Judge of the worldā€¦.

Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates. For there are two ways in which the Spirit convinces men by the preaching of the Gospel. Some are moved in good earnest, so as to bow down willingly, and to assent willingly to the judgment by which they are condemned. Others, though they are convinced of guilt and cannot escape, yet do not sincerely yield, or submit themselves to the authority and jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit, but, on the contrary, being subdued they groan inwardly, and, being overwhelmed with confusion, still do not cease to cherish obstinacy within their hearts (Commentary on John 16:8-15).

Holy Spirit convincing will happen to the entire world with two kinds of responses, according to Calvin, they willingly agree with the Holy Spiritā€™s conviction while the rest do not yield. There is no U or I here.

clip_image026[5] Isaiah 53:12 (ESV): ā€˜Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors

Calvinā€™s comment was: ā€˜I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that ā€œmanyā€ sometimes denotes ā€œallā€ā€™ (Commentary on Isaiah 53:1-12).

Therefore, he adopts the view that the Messiahā€™s bearing the punishment ā€˜of manyā€™ means He had ā€˜the guilt of the whole worldā€™ laid on him. If ā€˜manyā€™ sometimes indicates ā€˜allā€™, as in Romans 5, the Messiah took on himself the punishment for the whole world (of sinners).

Thus, Calvin supported universal atonement.

clip_image027[1] Galatians 5:12 (ESV): ā€˜I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!ā€™

This is an unusual verse to attract this kind of comment by Calvin:

Would that they were even cut off. His [Paulā€™s] indignation proceeds still farther, and he prays for destruction on those impostors by whom the Galatians had been deceived. The word, ā€œcut off,ā€ appears to be employed in allusion to the circumcision which they pressed. ā€œThey tear the church for the sake of circumcision: I wish they were entirely cut off.ā€ Chrysostom favors this opinion. But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world (Commentary on Galatians 5:7-12).

Here he supports the view it is Godā€™s will for all people to seek salvation and that refers to every single person in the world, without exception. How is this possible? ā€˜Christ suffered (atonement?) for the sins of the whole worldā€™.

Nothing could be clearer. He supports unlimited atonement. However, in Institutes 3.24.16 he makes ā€˜all menā€™ mean all ā€˜order of menā€™. I find this to be manipulation. He seems confused, indicating salvation is for all people but then he tempers it to the limit of ā€˜order ofā€™ people ā€“ groups, ethnicity, etc. This is nonsensical eisegesis of the biblical texts.

clip_image026[6] Colossians 1:14 (ESV): ā€˜in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sinsā€™.

Calvinā€™s commentary on 1:14 could not be clearer on the extent of expiation of sins:

Unquestionably, when God remits our transgressions, he exempts us from condemnation to eternal death. This is our liberty, this our glorying in the face of death ā€” that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated (Commentary on Colossians 1:12-17).

So Calvin supported expiation for the sins of the world, thus confirming his rejection of limited atonement.

clip_image026[7]1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV): ā€˜This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truthā€™.

This passage should challenge the extent of Calvinā€™s understanding of the atonement. He wrote:

How comes it that many nations are deprived of that light of the Gospel which others enjoy? How comes it that the pure knowledge of the doctrine of godliness has never reached some, and others have scarcely tasted some obscure rudiments of it? It will now be easy to extract the purport of Paulā€™s statement. He had commanded Timothy that prayers should be regularly offered up in the church for kings and princes; but as it seemed somewhat absurd that prayer should be offered up for a class of men who were almost hopeless (all of them being not only aliens from the body of Christ, but doing their utmost to overthrow his kingdom), he adds, that it was acceptable to God, who will have all men to be saved. By this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men; that, on the contrary, he had manifested his mercy in such a way, that he would have none debarred from it (Institutes 3.24.16).

Note the difference between what Scripture states that God our Saviour ā€˜desires all people to be savedā€™ but Calvin interprets it as salvation ā€˜not shut against any order of menā€™. The difference is crucial ā€“ and cunning manipulation, in my view.

All people include every single person in the world while ā€˜any order of menā€™ can refer to different classes and races of people instead of individual people. In his commentary on 1 Tim 2:4 Calvin stated that ā€˜allā€™ does not mean ā€˜allā€™:

Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. ā€œIf Godā€ say they, ā€œwishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.ā€ They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual menā€¦.

There is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake [of] salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations (Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:1-4).

ā€˜God our Saviour, who desires all people to be savedā€™ does not refer to every single person in the world but only to groups of people such as classes of people, princes of foreign nations, but definitely not ā€˜individual personsā€™.

Thatā€™s Calvinā€™s view and Iā€™d put it in the class of Calvinistic spin where these interpreters make it comply with their presuppositions against universal atonement, conditional election and the free grace of Titus 2:11 (ESV), ā€˜For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all peopleā€™.

clip_image026[8] Hebrews 5:9 (ESV): ā€˜And being made perfect, he [Jesus] became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey himā€™.

For Calvin, his interpretation was that benefits of salvation came to those who chose to obey him:

To all them that obey him. If then we desire that Christā€™s obedience should be profitable to us, we must imitate him; for the Apostle means that its benefit shall come to none but to those who obey. But by saying this he recommends faith to us; for he becomes not ours, nor his blessings, except as far as we receive them and him by faith. He seems at the same time to have adopted a universal term, all, for this end, that he might show that no one is precluded from salvation who is but teachable and becomes obedient to the Gospel of Christ (Commentary on Hebrews 5:7-11).

There is no unconditional election, limited atonement or irresistible grace here. Nobody is disqualified from salvation except those who do not want to obey the Gospel of salvation through Christ alone.

Overall, Calvin is straddling the fence between limited atonement and unlimited atonement. He canā€™t make up his mind.

clip_image029

(image courtesy The Remarkable Blog)

clip_image030See my articles opposing limited atonement:

clip_image0321.4 Irresistible Grace

John 6:44 (ESV) states: ā€˜No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last dayā€™.

This verse is used by Calvin to expound his gospel of irresistible grace:

Christ declares that the doctrine of the Gospel, though it is preached to all without exception, cannot be embraced by all, but that a new understanding and a new perception are requisite; and, therefore, that faith does not depend on the will of men, but that it is God who gives it.

Unless the Father draw him. To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him (Commentary on John 6:41-45).

In light of that interpretation, how does Calvin interpret the prevenient grace of John 12:32 (ESV), ā€˜And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myselfā€™.

Following Calvinā€™s decision on the meaning of John 6:44, he is required to provide an interpretation at 12:32 that is in harmony with 6:44. I wasnā€™t disappointed:

I will draw all men to myself. The word all, which he employs, must be understood to refer to the children of God, who belong to his flock. Yet I agree with Chrysostom, who says that Christ used the universal term, all, because the Church was to be gathered equally from among Gentiles and Jews, according to that saying,

There shall be one shepherd, and one sheepfold, (John 10:16) [Commentary on John 12:27-33].

I find this to be fiddling with the data of exegesis to fit into Calvinā€™s theological framework of only the elect (the children of God) being drawn. Calvin could reach a harmonious conclusion if he accepted:

clip_image034 Only God provides salvation (Eph 2:8-9; 2 Tim 1:9);

clip_image035 Since Jesusā€™ death and resurrection, God has extended his grace (his drawing power) to all people (John 6:44; 12:32; Titus 2:11). It is not irresistible grace. It can be rejected or accepted.

clip_image034[1] Since the time of Adam and Eve, God has given all human beings the power of alternate choice (free-will). They can choose for or against Godā€™s salvation (John 1:11; 12:48; Acts 16:31).

Calvin further supports irresistible. Is Godā€™s grace extended to all sinners to enable them to repent? Not according to Calvin:

Hence it is that the whole world no longer belongs to its Creator, except in so far as grace rescues from malediction, divine wrath, and eternal death, some, not many, who would otherwise perish, while he leaves the world to the destruction to which it is doomed (Institutes 3:22.7).

It is agreed that all human beings suffer from the curse (malediction) of sin. Why, then, would the Creator choose only a portion of these cursed sinners while allowing the rest to be damned forever? It sounds awfully unjust to me?

The fundamental problem with this comment from Calvin is that he ignores the extent of Godā€™s grace to all people: ā€˜For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all peopleā€™ (Titus 2:11 ESV). See my exposition of this verse: How to interpret ā€˜appearedā€™ in Titus 2:11.

Calvin wrote that there was zero chance of anyone anywhere resisting God. This citation could just as easily be placed under unconditional election and the sovereignty of God:

Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination (Institutes, 3.23.7).

I react negatively to this view when examining the logical consequences of the Lord God Almighty and his ā€˜wonderful counselā€™ being ā€˜dreadfulā€™ and ā€˜impossible to denyā€™. It makes God the author of horrible evil. Calvinā€™s teaching is that salvation is irresistible through grace extended to the elect but that God decreed all that happens in our world.

That makes God responsible for child sexual abuse, rape, murder, genocide, the Holocaust, terrorism, etc. He would be a monster God. See my articles:

(1) God sovereign but not author of evil,

(2) Is a Calvinistic God a contradiction when compared with the God revealed in Scripture?

(3) Salvation by grace but not by force: A person chooses to believe

(4) Prevenient grace ā€“ kinda clumsy!

(5) Does God create all of the evil in the world?

clip_image030[1]See my articles opposing irresistible grace:

Now to the last point of TULIP. Did Calvin teach and promote it?

clip_image0371.5 Perseverance of the Saints

For although adoption was deposited in the hand of Abraham, yet as many of his posterity were cut off as rotten members, in order that election may stand and be effectual, it is necessary to ascend to the head in whom the heavenly Father has connected his elect with each other, and bound them to himself by an indissoluble tie (Institutes 3.21.7).

In Institutes 3:22.10 Calvin wrote:

Why does the Lord declare that our salvation will always be sure and certain, but just because it is guarded by the invincible power of God? (John 10:29). Accordingly, he concludes that unbelievers are not of his sheep (John 10:16). The reason is, because they are not of the number of those who, as the Lord promised by Isaiah, were to be his disciples. Moreover, as the passages which I have quoted imply perseverance, they are also attestations to the inflexible constancy of election.

Rieske (2016) in

citing data from Calvin supporting penal substitution, from such places as Institutes, 2.16.2.3.5 and 3.22.7.10, on the definite scope of the atonement, the distinction was made between Calvinā€™s being committed to definite atonement and committing himself to that view.

Calvinism has been called “the archenemy of soul-winning” and rightly soā€¦. Failure to present the gospel of Christ is the real problem. One can easily notice that Calvinists discuss and present Calvinism with the notion that they are presenting the gospel.

How can they do that when their theology states that not all people are thoroughly depraved, offered the Gospel without reservation when they donā€™t accept conditional election? How can a TULIP people be true to their calling when their theology states that Jesus died only for the elect and not for all. Imagine an evangelist on the street preaching, ā€˜Seek forgiveness from God for your sins, repent ā€“ but you may not be able to do this as you are not in Godā€™s elect. Unless the Calvinists are honest with their theology, they should keep quiet on evangelism, not preach for all within listening distance. They could do letter box drops and engage in Internet evangelism where they donā€™t have to be honest about their TULIP beliefs.

I find that to be a dishonest approach to evangelism in my community. I attended 2 different Presbyterian churches for 6 years and preached semi-regularly in another. None of these TULIP Calvinist churches conducted evangelistic outreach. I asked one pastor why there was no evangelism in his church and his response was, ā€˜God will bring them in.ā€™ He sometimes does in dribs and drabs but they are most often from other churches and not new converts.

I recommend this printed interview with Austin Fischer by Jonathan Merritt on Religion News Service, Author says Calvinism canā€™t make sense of the cross (3 April 2014). Fisher tells of his journey into the young, restless and reformed Calvinists and his journey out of them.

clip_image030[2]See my articles in support of perseverance of the saints:

I am convinced the Bible does not teach OSAS where a person makes a decision for Christ, does not persevere in the faith, and is considered saved forever. See: Once Saved, Always Saved or Once Saved, Lost Again?

I also am convinced by the biblical teaching on total depravity.

2. Conclusion

Calvin taught total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. He presented contradictory messages on the atonement. At times he stated that Jesusā€™ death was for the whole world. In other instances, Jesus’ atonement was for the elect of God.

Therefore, Calvin was a ā€˜leakyā€™ TULIP theologian because of his double-mindedness on the atonement.

I am a TP Calvinist, which makes me a Reformed Arminian in my doctrine of salvation.

I highly recommend Roger E Olsonā€™s article, ‘What’s wrong with Calvinism?‘ (Patheos, March 22, 2013).

clip_image039

3. Works consulted

Barnett, T 2015. Can We Escape the Law of Non-Contradiction? Stand to Reason (online), 31 October. Available at: https://www.str.org/blog/can-we-escape-the-law-of-non-contradiction (Accessed 30 June 2019).

Geisler, N 2004. Systematic theology: Sin, salvation, vol 3. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Helm, P 2013. Calvin, Indefinite Language, and Definite Atonement. In D Gibson & J Gibson (eds), From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective (online), 97-120. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway. Available at: http://s3.amazonaws.com/churchplantmedia-cms/new_covenant_presbyterian_church_ga/from_heaven_he_came_and_sought_her_1.pdf (Accessed 21 June 2019).

Hendriksen, W 1975. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to Mark. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lenski, R C H 1943/1961.Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of St. Matthewā€™s Gospel. The Wartburg Press. This limited edition licensed by special permission of Augsburg Fortress to Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. Edition.

Lumkins, P 2011. John Calvin on Limited Atonement. SBC Tomorrow (online), 15 April. Available at: https://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/04/john-calvin-on-limited-atonement-by-peter-lumpkins.html (Accessed 15 June 2019).

Rieske, K R 2016. Calvinism: False doctrines from the ā€˜Popeā€™ of Geneva. Bible Life Ministries (online). Available at: https://biblelife.org/calvinism.htm (Accessed 15 June 2019).

4.Ā  Notes

[1] Available at: http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html (Accessed 29 June 2019).

[2] Vitiate means to ā€˜spoil or impair the quality or efficiency ofā€™ (Lexico/Oxford Dictionary 2019. s.v. vitiate).

[3] Post-redemptionism and Amyraldianism are synonymous terms for belief in Jesusā€™ universal atonement and are opposed to limited atonement (particular redemption).

[4] These Scriptures were raised and expounded by Peter Lumkins (2011).

[5] Barnett (2015).

[6] See Eph. 4:15; Rom. 6:5; 11:17; 8:29; Gal. 3:27.

[7] I am indebted to Geisler (2004:182-185) for some of the research in this section.

Copyright Ā© 2019 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 02 July 2019.

clip_image041clip_image043clip_image045clip_image047clip_image049clip_image051clip_image053clip_image055

Calvin’s appalling interpretation of ‘all men’

(image public domain)

By Spencer D Gear

Does God zap people with unconditional election and they are INTO the kingdom, NEVER to be excluded?[1] Is Godā€™s grace extended to all people or are many excluded?

What happened with the Philippian jailer? According to Acts 16:30-31 (ESV), it is stated: ‘Then he brought them out and said, ā€œSirs, what must I do to be saved?ā€ And they said, ā€œBelieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your householdā€’. They did not say, ‘Just leave it to God/Jesus; he decides if you are ever going to be saved. He by a sovereign act pulls you into his kingdom ā€“ he sovereignly elects you and you have no say in the matter’.

No, these evangelists said, ‘(You) believe in the Lord Jesus’ to be saved. As I understand Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), there is no salvation without the human responsibility of believing. However, we always need to remember that

  • Ā Jesus said, according to John 6:65 (ESV), ā€˜No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Fatherā€™.
  • Matthew 11:27 affirms the same message: ā€˜No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal himā€™.
  • Paulā€™s message to the Ephesians was, ā€˜For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boastā€™ (Eph 2:8-9 ESV).
  • Titus 1:1 (NLT) confirms that Christian believers are ā€˜those God has chosenā€™.

clip_image001_thumb1

(image courtesy portagechurch.org)

A. Godā€™s grace to all

I find a better biblical emphasis than unconditional election[2] to be that found in Titus 2:11 (ESV): ‘For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people’. This does not promote universalism, BUT it proves how God’s saving grace is universal – is available to all ā€“ and that grace brings salvation. This is in contrast to Calvin’s limiting grace to only a select number of people, made available through Calvinistic limited atonement.[3]

Here is John Calvinā€™s interpretation of this verse from Calvin’s commentary on Titus 2:11. He stated of this phrase:

Bringing salvation to all men,[4] That it is common to all is expressly testified by him on account of the slaves of whom he had spoken. Yet he does not mean individual men, but rather describes individual classes, or various ranks of life. And this is not a little emphatic, that the grace of God hath let itself down even to the race of slaves; for, since God does not despise men of the lowest and most degraded condition, it would be highly unreasonable that we should be negligent and slothful to embrace his goodness.

B. Calvinā€™s shocking eisegesis

What is eisegesis? Berkeley Mickelsen states that ā€˜eisegesis is the substitution of the authority of the interpreter for the authority of the original writerā€™ (Mickelsen 1963:158). Lewis & Demarest describe it as the method of people ā€˜reading their own ideas into the Bibleā€™ (1987:30). The World Council of Churches understood that

there is always the danger of eisegesis, reading into the Bible the ideas which we have received from elsewhere and then receiving them each with the authority with which we have come to surround the book (World Council of Churches Symposium on Biblical Authority for Today, Oxford, 1949).[5]

I find Calvinā€™s interpretation of Titus 2:11 to be an awful piece of eisegesis. Calvin, a very accomplished commentator, has made ‘all men’ refer NOT to all individual men ā€“ meaning all human beings ā€“ but to individual classes of people and those in various ranks of life, including the race of slaves.

This is as bad a piece of exegesis that I’ve read in quite a while as he makes ‘all men’ = some slaves and some from other classes and ranks in life. This is what happens when a commentator allows his predisposed presupposition (God’s grace cannot be extended to all, but only to the elect) to intrude into his interpretation. Thus exegesis of this phrase in Titus 2:11 has become eisegesis in the hands of a Reformed Calvinist, the founder of the movement.

Meyerā€™s commentary states: ā€˜[pasin anthropois, all men and women] does not depend on [epephane, appeared], but on [sotegios, salvation]ā€¦. The emphasis laid on the universality of the salvation, as in 1 Timothy 2:4 and other passages of the Pastoral Epistles, is purely Paulineā€™ (Titus 2:11 commentaries, Bible Hub).

First Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV) reads, ā€˜This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truthā€™ (emphasis added). This is in harmony with Paulā€™s statement in Titus 2:11 that Godā€™s grace is made available to all people, thus making salvation available to all. These two passages ā€˜have specific reference to the redemption wrought by Christ, and all posit universality. They are supported by numerous correlative passages which assert Godā€™s will that all men be savedā€™ (Shank 1970:83). These verses support unlimited atonement. Fairbairnā€™s assessment is accurate regarding Titus 2:11: The grace of God and its saving design is towards all people; it ā€˜presents and offers salvation to all, and in that sense brings itā€¦. The salvation-bringing grace of God is without respect of persons; it is unfolded to men indiscriminately, or to sinners of every nameā€™ (Fairbairn 2001:278).

William Hendriksen promotes an opposing view:

Does Titus 2:11 really teach that the saving grace of God has appeared to every member of the human race without exception? Of course not! It matters little whether one interprets ā€œthe appearance of the saving graceā€ as referring to the bestowal of salvation itself, or to the fact that the gospel of saving grace has been preached to every person on earth. In either case it is impossible to make ā€œall menā€ mean ā€œevery individual on the globe without exceptionā€ā€¦..

The context makes the meaning very clear. Male or female, old or young, rich or poor: all are guilty before God, and from them all God gathers his people. Aged men, aged women, young women, young(er) men, and even slaves (see verses 1-10) should live consecrated lives for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to men of all these various groups or classes. ā€œAll menā€ here in verse 11 = ā€œusā€ in verse 12 (The Pastorals, Hendriksen 1957:93, 371, emphasis in original).

So Hendriksenā€™s interpretation is essentially that of Calvinā€™s, as is Matthew Henryā€™s:

It hath appeared to all men; not to the Jews only, as the glory of God appeared at mount Sinai to that particular people, and out of the view of all others; but gospel grace is open to all, and all are invited to come and partake of the benefit of it, Gentiles as well as Jewsā€¦. The doctrine of grace and salvation by the gospel is for all ranks and conditions of men (slaves and servants, as well as masters) (Matthew Henry, Titus 2:11-14).

This cannot be accepted because of the various verses throughout Scripture that promote unlimited atonement (1 John 2:2) and Godā€™s desire for all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

The obvious question remains:

C. At what point is grace for salvation available to all?

Titus 2:11 makes it clear that Godā€™s grace, his goodness to the ill-deserving, is made available (ā€˜has appearedā€™ is the language) ā€˜to all peopleā€™. But when is that? Is it at the time of birth, at some time after birth, at the time of the Gospel being presented, or at some other time? Has the grace of God appeared bringing salvation to the drunk on the street, the Muslim in an anti-Christian country, the secular Aussie who doesnā€™t give a hoot about God, or at some other time?

Titus 2:11 seems to indicate that the grace of God has appeared to all people in some way that we could describe as prevenient grace, preparing the way for salvation when the Gospel is proclaimed to them. See my article, Is prevenient grace still amazing grace? Here I put the case that this means that the human will is freed in relation to salvation. It is not a violation of free will. We know that the will has been freed in relation to salvation because it is implied in these exhortations:

  • to turn to God. (Prov 1:23; Isa 31:6; Ezek 14:6; 18:32; Joel 2:13-14; Matt 18:3; and Acts 3:19);
  • to repent (1 Kings 8:47; Matt 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 17:30), and
  • to believe (2 Chron 20:20; Isa 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil 1:29; 1 John 3:23).

Prevenient or common grace is no more a violation of a personā€™s will than their receiving a beating heart before birth and breath after birth.

Exegete, Gordon Fee, explains Titus 2:11:

An explanatory for opens the paragraph and thus closely ties verses 11-14 to 2-10. It proceeds to explain why Godā€™s people should live as exhorted in 2-10 (so that the message from God will not be maligned [v. 5] but instead will be attractive [v. 10]): because the grace of God that brings salvation to all people has appeared.

In the Greek text all of verses 11-14 form a single sentence, of which the grace of God stands as the grammatical subject. But contrary to the NIV (and KJV), Paul does not say that this grace appeared to all men; rather, as almost all other translations have it, and as both Paulā€™s word order and the usage in 1 Timothy 2:3-6 demand it, what has appeared (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:14; epiphaneia) is grace from God that offers salvation to all people.

Paul does not indicate here the reference point for this revelation of Godā€™s grace. Most likely he is thinking of the historical revelation effected in the saving event of Christ (v. 14; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9-10), but it could also refer existentially to the time in Crete when Paul and Titus preached the gospel and Cretans understood and accepted the message (cf. 1:3 and 3:3-4). That at least is when the educative dimension of grace, emphasized in verse 12, took place (Fee 1988:194, emphasis in original).

See my article for a further explanation: Does Godā€™s grace make salvation available to all people? It is important to note that Godā€™s grace is made available to all but Feeā€™s insight that ā€˜Paul does not indicate here the reference point for this revelation of Godā€™s graceā€™ is important. We do not know the how and when this happens. Fee thinks it could have happened historically when the saving event of Christ was effected (cf Titus 2:14 and 2 Tim 1:9-10). However, I put it to you that this could happen at the time when the Gospel is proclaimed in any contemporary situation. The grace of God is extended to all people in the sound of the proclamation. But that is only a suggestion. We are not told the chronology of when it happens. But we do know that Godā€™s grace bringing salvation has appeared to all people ā€“ not just a handful of Godā€™s elect.

Related image

(image public domain)

D. Objections to label of eisegesis

It is expected that Calvinists would object to any attempt to interpret 1 Tim 2:4 (pantas anthropous) and Titus 2:11 (pasin anthropois) as referring to all people. I expect that they would not like my labelling Calvinā€™s interpretation as eisegesis. I hope the following explanation demonstrates that I do not have a beef over Calvinā€™s interpretations for no good reason.

Some standard Bible translations of these two verses are:

1 Timothy 2:4,

  • ā€˜who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truthā€™ (ESV);
  • ā€˜who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truthā€™ (NIV);
  • ā€˜who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truthā€™ (NASB);
  • ā€˜who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truthā€™ (NRSV);
  • ā€˜who wants everyone to be saved and to understand the truthā€™ (NLT).

Titus 2:11,

  • ā€˜For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all peopleā€™ (ESV);
  • ā€˜For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all peopleā€™ (NIV);
  • ā€˜For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all menā€™ (NASB);
  • ā€˜For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to allā€™ (NRSV);
  • ā€˜For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all peopleā€™ (NLT);

All of these translations take the two verses in which the Greek states ā€˜all menā€™ as referring to all people, all of mankind, or all of humanity. However, the NKJV still retains ā€˜all menā€™ in Titus 2:11, without explaining the meaning, ā€˜For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all menā€™ (NKJV). It takes the same approach with 1 Tim 2:4, ā€˜who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truthā€™ (NKJV).

Does ā€˜all peopleā€™ refer to all human beings or does it refer to something else?

Image result for photo William Hendriksen public domain

(William Hendriksen, photo public domain)

William Hendriksen is a Calvinist.[6] In his commentary on Titus 2:11, he stated that ā€˜all menā€™ referred back to 1 Tim 2:4 and the explanation of ā€˜all menā€™ (Hendriksen 1957:370-371), where Hendriksen wrote at length. Some of my objections to his comments on 1 Tim 2:1 (Hendriksen 1957:93-94) are noted in [square brackets]:

Several expositors feel certain that this means every member of the whole human race; every man, woman, and child, without any exception whatever. And it must be readily admitted that taken by itself the expression all men is capable of this interpretation. Nevertheless, every calm and unbiased interpreter also admits that in certain contexts this simply cannot be the meaning.[7]

Does Titus 2:11 really teach that the saving grace of God has appeared to every member of the human race without any exception? Of course not! It matters little whether one interprets ā€œthe appearance of the saving graceā€ as referring to the bestowal of salvation itself, or to the fact that the gospel of saving grace has been preached to every person on earth. In either case it is impossible to make ā€œall menā€ mean ā€œevery individual on the globe without exception. [N.B. What causes Hendriksen to be so sure that he certainly knows that Godā€™s grace (even prevenient grace that prepares the human race for salvation) is NOT available to all people? Thereā€™s an air of Calvinistic firmness (Hendriksenā€™s theological persuasion) coming through with this kind of comment].

Again, does Rom. 5:18 really teach that ā€œevery member of the human raceā€ is ā€œjustifiedā€? [N.B. What Hendriksen fails to mention in this context is that Rom 5:18 includes two examples of ā€˜all menā€™. The first is, ā€˜Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all menā€¦.ā€™ So does ā€˜all menā€™ who are condemned refer to all people? Of course, as the following parallel verses confirm: Romans 3:23; 5:12. Hendriksen refers to one view of ā€˜all menā€™ but avoids the other use of ā€˜all menā€™ in the very same verse. Seems like selective exegesis to me.]

Does I Cor. 15:22 really intend to tell us that ā€œevery member of the human raceā€ is ā€œmade alive in Christā€œ? [N.B. I find this quite a unreasonable statement because 1 Cor 15:23 gives the context, ā€˜Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christā€™ (ESV). So in 1 Cor 15:22-23, Paul is addressing ALL ā€˜who belong to Christā€™ (v. 23); He is not speaking of all people, non-believers and Christians alike. So Hendriksenā€™s use of 1 Cor. 15:22 does not prove his point. It demonstrates he has not taken into account the meaning as context determines.]

But if that be true, then it follows that Christ did not only die for every member of the human race, but that he also actually saved every one without any exception whatever. Most conservatives would hesitate to go that far.[8]

Moreover, if, wherever it occurs, the expression ā€œall menā€ or its equivalent has this absolutely universalistic connotation, then would not the following be true:

(a) Every member of the human race regarded John the Baptist as a prophet (Mark 11:32). [N.B. Part of Mk 11:32 in the Greek is literally, ā€˜they feared the crowd [the people], for all heldā€¦.ā€™ Even if one translated ā€˜the crowd for all menā€™, the ā€˜all menā€™ in context has to refer to ā€˜the crowdā€™ (the people of the context), not all people in the world. I find it disingenuous of Hendriksen to want to make ā€˜all menā€™ refer to the human race when he, a scholar with excellent knowledge of Greek knew that ā€˜allā€™ referred to ā€˜the crowdā€™ in context. I find this to be an example of the commentator playing his misleading Calvinistic games. It is a begging the question logical fallacy. That is, if he starts with the Calvinistic premise that ā€˜all menā€™ does not mean all men and then ends with ā€˜all menā€™ cannot mean the ā€˜human raceā€™, he has engaged in circular reasoning, a question begging fallacy. So his use of Mark 11:32 is invalid to support his case.]

(b) Every member of the human race wondered whether John was, perhaps, the Christ (Luke 3:15). [N.B. This verse in the ESV states, ā€˜As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christā€™. Which people? Verses 7 & 10 call them ā€˜the crowdsā€™ while v. 12 states that ā€˜tax collectors also cameā€™ and there were soldiers who asked John the Baptist (v. 14). These are the ā€˜peopleā€™ who came to John the Baptist according to Luke 3:15 (Interlinear). It is obvious that ā€˜the peopleā€™ were not all the people in the world. They were the people in his era who had heard and seen him and were ā€˜questioning in their hearts concerning Johnā€™. Again, I find this to be an unfair way for Hendriksen to push his Calvinistic agenda.]

(c) Every member of the human race marveled about the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5:20). [N.B. Hendriksen is again stretching the text to fit his agenda. The verse states: ā€˜everyone was amazedā€™ (Interlinear) but the context makes it clear who all of these were. They were ā€˜in the Decapolisā€™ (Interlinear). We use the same kind of language today, say, when we are attending a fruit and vegetable market. We say things like, ā€˜Look at all the people buying lady finger bananas on specialā€™. No person in his or her right mind would think that ā€˜all the peopleā€™ meant all the people in the entire world. So when ā€˜everyone was amazed according to Mark 5:20, it was referring to the amazed people in Decapolis who had seen evidence of the demon-possessed person set free by Jesusā€™ exorcism. Again, Hendriksen is stretching the imagination to arrive at a conclusion that is unrealistic in the context.]

(d) Every member of the human race was searching for Jesus (Mark 1:37). [N.B. Mark 1:37 (Interlinear) has the statement, ā€˜Everyone is looking for youā€™. There is not enough information in the immediate context to determine who the ā€˜everyoneā€™ refers to, but the context in the Gospel of Mark 1:32-34 (Interlinear) indicates that the people were bringing the sick and demon-possessed to Jesus for healing and deliverance. The language is, ā€˜The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseasesā€™ (NIV). Therefore, there is a strong possibility that ā€˜everyoneā€™ who was looking for Jesus could have referred to the sick or demon possessed because of Jesusā€™ reputation for healing and exorcism. To make this refer to the entire human race in this context is quite a nonsensical intent. Context in Scripture snuffs out that idea. So it is possible for ā€˜everyoneā€™ to refer to everyone in a group that is seeking Jesus. But to make Mark 1:37 apply to ā€˜all menā€™ regarding the offer of salvation, is stretching my theological logical thinking.]

(e) It was reported to the Baptist that all members of the human race were flocking to Jesus (John 3:26). [N.B. The Interlinear gives the translation, ā€˜Everyone is coming to himā€™. What does the context tell us about the ā€˜everyoneā€™? People were coming to John the Baptist to be baptised (John 3:22-24) and then there was a discussion between some of John the Baptistā€™s disciples and a Jew about John the Baptistā€™s baptism and the ā€˜allā€™ who were now coming to Jesus to be baptised. It is obvious in context that the ā€˜allā€™ are those wanting to be baptised. It is a very local understanding of ā€˜allā€™. Context demonstrates that].

And so one could easily continue. Even today, how often do we not use the expression ā€œall menā€ or ā€œeverybodyā€ without referring to every member of the human race? When we say, ā€œIf everybody is ready, the meeting can begin,ā€ we do not refer to everybody on earth!

Thus also in the present passage (I Tim. 2:1), it is the context that must decide. In this case the context is clear. Paul definitely mentions groups or classes of men: kings (verse 2). those in high position (verse 2), the Gentiles (verse 7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews. and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in public worship not a single group be omitted. In other words, the expression ā€œall menā€ as here used means ā€œall men without distinction of race, nationality, or social position,ā€ not ā€œall men individually, one by one.ā€

Besides, how would it even be possible, except in a very vague and global manner (the very opposite of Paulā€™s constant emphasis!), to remember in prayer every person on earth? (Hendriksen & Kistemaker 1966:93-94).

What is Hendriksen trying to demonstrate? The verses he plucked from the New Testament are meant to try to prove his Calvinistic presupposition that when Scripture states God desires ā€˜all people to be savedā€™ (1 Tim 2:4), it does not mean all human beings but only some from all races, classes, tribes, etc., i.e. God does not really desire all people throughout the entire world through all ages to be saved. He also is trying to show that Titus 2:11 does not refer to Godā€™s grace appearing and bringing/making salvation available to all people. I find his argumentation to contain some flaws that Iā€™ve attempted to expose here. This is unfortunate because I have the Hendriksen-Kistemaker New Testament Commentary Series in my personal library and I find many helpful explanations in them.

However, it does demonstrate the need to be discerning when reading any material ā€“ commentary or other Christian literature (including all of my writings on this homepage) ā€“ according to what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: ā€˜Test everything; hold fast what is goodā€™ (1 Thess 5:21 ESV).

E. Did Jesus die for all people?[9]

First John 2:2 would seem to be an excellent verse to establish Christā€™s unlimited atonement ā€“ dying for the whole world of sinners: ā€˜He is the atoning sacrifice[10] for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world, (NIV).

How does R C Sproul, a Calvinist, interpret this verse? He admits that ā€˜this text, more than any other, is cited as scriptural proof against definite atonementā€™. His view is that if this verse is taken in this sense, ā€˜it becomes a proof text for universalismā€™. His way of viewing the text is

to see the contrast in it between our sins and those of the whole world. Who are the people included in the word our?ā€¦. In this text, John may merely be saying that Christ is not only a propitiation for our sins (Jewish believers) but for the elect found also throughout the whole worldā€¦. The purpose of God in Christā€™s death was determined at the foundation of the world. The design was not guesswork but according to a specific plan and purpose, which God is sovereignly bringing to pass. All for whom Christ died are redeemed by His sacrificial actā€¦.

The Atonement in a broad sense is offered to all; in a narrow sense, it is only offered to the elect. Johnā€™s teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world means that the elect are not limited to Israel but are found throughout the worldā€ (Sproul 1992:176-177, emphasis in original).

Talk about confusion. There is not a word in context of 1 John to speak of the elect as limited to Israel. What does the Bible teach?

By contrast, Lutheran commentator, R. C. H. Lenski (1966:399-400), while preferring the term expiation to propitiation, states that the Righteous One (Jesus, from 1 John 2:1) ā€˜suffered for unrighteous onesā€™ and this is ā€˜effective ā€¦ regarding the sins of the whole worldā€™. He goes further:

John advances the thought from sins to the whole world of sinners. Christ made expiation for our sins and thereby for all sinners. We understand [kosmos] in the light of John 3:16 and think that it includes all men [meaning people], us among them, and not only all unsaved men [i.e. people]ā€¦. [As in 2 Pet 2:1]: the Lord bought even those who go to hell. ā€œThe whole worldā€ includes all men who ever lived or will live (Lenski 1966:400).

Lenski appropriately states that ā€˜Christā€™s saving righteousness and expiation are the basis for his action as our Advocateā€™ and that we Christians have him as one who is called to our side, our Advocate. ā€˜John does not say that the whole world has him in this capacityā€™ (Lenski 1966:400-401).

1. Calvin on the atonement

Did John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) support limited atonement? In the early days of his writing when he was aged 26, he completed the first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the Institutes, he wrote:

I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed it is not ours to ask, as we cannot comprehend, nor can it become us even to raise a controversy as to the justice of the divine will. Whenever we speak of it, we are speaking of the supreme standard of justice (Institutes 3.23.5).

Here Calvin affirmed that God willed the destruction of unbelievers. Calvin continues:

Their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed (Institutes 3.23.8).

While this description is tied up with Calvinā€™s view of double predestination, it is linked with the doctrine of limited atonement in that it would be impossible for God to predestine unbelievers to eternal damnation and yet provide unlimited atonement that was available to them, with the possibility of salvation. That is the logical connection, as I understand it.

Roger Nicole, another Calvinist, has written an article on ā€œJohn Calvinā€™s view of the extent of the atonementā€. This indicates that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement, but that it was a doctrine originated by Calvinists following Calvin.

Calvinā€™s first edition of The Institutes was in Latin in 1536 and this was published in a French edition in 1560.

John Calvin did progress in his thinking when he wrote his commentaries on the Bible later in life. His first commentary was on the Book of Romans in 1540 and his commentaries after 1557 were taken from stenographerā€™s notes taken from lectures to his students. He wrote in his commentary on John 3:16:

Faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perishā€¦.

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life (emphasis added).

Thus John Calvin himself is very clear. He believed in unlimited atonement.

Why

(image courtesy ChristArt)

The following verses also affirm unlimited atonement:

clip_image003_thumb John 1:29: ā€œThe next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ā€˜Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the worldā€ (NIV).

clip_image0031_thumb John 4:42: ā€œThey said to the woman, ā€˜We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the worldā€™ā€ (NIV).

clip_image0032_thumb Acts 2:21: ā€œAnd everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be savedā€ (NIV).

clip_image0033_thumb Romans 5:6: ā€œYou see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodlyā€ (NIV).

clip_image0034_thumb 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: ā€œFor Christā€™s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised againā€ (NIV).

clip_image0035_thumb 1 Timothy 2:3-4: ā€œThis is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truthā€ (NIV).

clip_image0036_thumb 1 Timothy 2:5-6: ā€œFor there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men ā€“ the testimony given in its proper timeā€ (NIV).

clip_image0037_thumb 1 Timothy 4:10: ā€œThat is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believeā€ (NIV)

clip_image0038_thumb Titus 2:11: ā€œFor the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all peopleā€ (NIV).

clip_image0039_thumb Hebrews 2:9: ā€œBut we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyoneā€ (NIV).

clip_image00310_thumb 2 Peter 3:9: ā€œThe Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentanceā€ (NIV).

clip_image00311_thumb 1 John 4:14: ā€œAnd we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.ā€

clip_image00312_thumb John 3:16: ā€œFor God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.ā€

Arminian-leaning theologian, Henry C. Thiessenā€™s, summary of the sense in which Christ is the Saviour of the world is:

His death secured for all men a delay in the execution of the sentence against sin, space for repentance, and the common blessings of life which have been forfeited by transgression; it removed from the mind of God every obstacle to the pardon of the penitent and restoration of the sinner, except his wilful opposition to God and rejection of him; it procured for the unbeliever the powerful incentives to repentance presented in the Cross, by means of the preaching of Godā€™s servants, and through the work of the Holy Spirit; it provided salvation for those who die in infancy, and assured its application to them; and it makes possible the final restoration of creation itself (Thiessen 1949:330).

Limited or definite atonement is clearly refuted by Scripture. See this external link, ā€˜A letter to a limited atonement brotherā€™ (Timothy Ministry 2011).

Conclusion

Calvinā€™s shocking commentary on Titus 2:11 that makes ā€˜all peopleā€™ equal ā€˜all classes of peopleā€™ is an example of how a theologianā€™s Calvinistic presuppositions are imposed on a text to arrive at an interpretation consistent with his premises. This is an example of eisegesis – imposing Calvin’s predetermined view on the text. It also is a question begging logical fallacy.

An exegesis of the text discovers that Godā€™s grace appears to all people with the view to salvation. We donā€™t know when that happens as it is not stated in the text. But we do know that all people who have ever lived have experienced this grace to make salvation available to them when the Gospel is preached.

We further uncovered the fact that Calvin engaged in eisegesis of the text of Titus 2:11 to impose his view on the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself in exegesis.

William Hendriksen also imposed his view which was challenged to demonstrate that ā€˜all peopleā€™ means exactly that ā€“ all of the human race and not all tribes or groups of people.

It was demonstrated from Scripture that Jesus died for all human beings and not only for the elect. This unlimited atonement is the view that Calvin also supported. A range of biblical verses was presented to demonstrate that unlimited atonement is clearly taught in Scripture.

In summary: The grace of God has appeared to all people everywhere and making salvation available to them. Jesus died for all people, not just the elect. We donā€™t know the time at which Godā€™s grace and its availability for salvation comes to all people. The Scripture does not reveal the precise time of that grace being extended to all. This we know from Titus 2:11: That grace of God appears to all people without exception ā€“ unto salvation.

Second Corinthians 5:19 affirms that ā€˜in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliationā€™ (ESV) and ā€˜the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all peopleā€™ (Titus 2:11 NLT)

Ā Works consulted

Fairbairn, P 2001.[11] Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers.

Fee, G D 1988. I and 2 Timothy, Titus. W Ward Gasque, New Testament (ed). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.

Hendriksen, W 1978. The Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Hendriksen, W & Kistemaker, S J 1955. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lenski, R C H 1966. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the epistles of St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (Ā© 1966 Augsburg Publishing House).

Lewis, G R & Demarest, B A 1987. Integrative theology, vol 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Academie Books (Zondervan Publishing House).

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Olson, R E 2006, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Shank, R 1970. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election. Springfield, Missouri: Westcott Publishers.

Sproul, R C 1992. Essential truths of the Christian faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Notes:


[1] I included some of the following explanation as OzSpen#959 in Christianity Board, Christian Theology Forum, ā€˜The doctrine of OSASā€™, available at: http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/18216-the-doctrine-of-osas/page-32#entry261296 (Accessed 17 September 2015).

[2] For contrasting views, see: Arminianism: Roger Olson, ā€˜Election is for everyoneā€˜; Calvinism: J I Packer, ā€˜Election: God chooses his ownā€™.

[3] See R C Sproulā€™s Calvinistic explanation of limited atonement in ā€˜TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonementā€™ (Accessed 18 September 2015).

[4] Calvinā€™s footnote at this point was:

ā€˜ā€œWe now see why Paul speaks of all men, and thus we may judge of the folly of some who pretend to expound the Holy Scriptures, and do not understand their style, when they say, ā€˜And God wishes that every person should be saved; the grace of God hath appeared for the salvation of every person; it follows, then, that there is free-will, that there is no election, that none have been predestinated to salvation.ā€™ If those men spoke it ought to be with a little more caution. Paul did not mean in this passage, or in 1Ti 2:6 anything else than that the great are called by God, though they are unworthy of it; that men of low condition, though they are despised, are nevertheless adopted by God, who stretches out his hand to receive them. At that time, because kings and magistrates were mortal enemies of the gospel, it might be thought that God had rejected them, and that they cannot obtain salvation. But Paul says that the door must not be shut against them, and that, eventually, God may choose some of this company, though their case appear to be desperate. Thus, in this passage, after speaking of the poor slaves who were not reckoned to belong to the rank of men, he says that God did not fail, on that account, to show himself compassionate towards them, and that he wishes that the gospel should be preached to those to whom men do not deign to utter a word. Here is a poor man, who shall be rejected by us, we shall hardly say, God bless him! and God addresses him in an especial manner, and declares that he is his Father, and does not merely say a passing word, but stops him to say, ā€˜Thou art of my flock, let my word be thy pasture, let it be the spiritual food of thy soul.ā€™ Thus we see that this word is highly significant, when it is said that the grace of God hath appeared fully to all men.ā€ ā€” Fr. Ser.ā€™

[5] Cited in Bob Utleyā€™s 2010 article, ā€˜The contextual method of biblical interpretationā€™, available at: https://bible.org/seriespage/6-contextual-method-biblical-interpretation (Accessed 17 September 2015).

[6] Hendriksenā€™s Calvinistic emphases are explained in, The Covenant of Grace (Hendriksen 1978).

[7] This, in my view, is a reasonable point, but does that follow through with 1 Tim 2:4 and Titus 2:11?

[8] That is not what these passages teach. It is Hendriksenā€™s Calvinism that is intruding into his interpretation.

[9] This section is taken from my article, Does the Bible teach limited atonement or unlimited atonement by Christ?

[10] A better translation for ā€˜atoning sacrificeā€™ would be ā€˜propitiationā€™, but many everyday readers do not understand the meaning of propitiation as appeasing the wrath of God. The ESV and NASB translate the word as ā€˜propitiationā€™ while the NRSV, ISV and NET follow the NIV with ā€˜atoning sacrificeā€™ and the RSV uses ā€˜expiationā€™.

[11] This was previously published in 1956 by Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

 

Copyright Ā© 2015 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 17 October 2015.

If Jesus’ atonement is for all, should all be saved?

(courtesyĀ clker.com)

By Spencer D Gear

If you visit some Christian forums on the Internet, you are likely to encounter some Calvinists who support limited atonement and oppose unlimited atonement (that is promoted by Arminians)? Why? Because the limited atonement folks think that if Jesus died for all, then all would be saved.

I encountered this a few times when I was interacting.[1] You might like to read some of the interaction in, ā€˜The effects of limited atonementā€™.

Take a read of these Scriptures that support Jesusā€™ dying for the world and providing the righteousness of God to those who believe:

blue-arrowĀ 1 John 2:2: ā€˜He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole worldā€™ (ESV).

blue-arrowĀ 2 Corinthians 5:21: ā€˜For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of Godā€™ (ESV).

blue-arrowĀ Romans 5:15-19:

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgement following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous (ESV).

Norm Geisler comments about these verses:

The salvation of everyone was not immediately applied; it was simply purchased. All persons were made salvable, but not all persons were automatically saved. The gift was made possible by the Savior, but it must be received by the sinner (Eph. 2:8-9; cf. John 1:12). In short, the salvation of all sinners from Godā€™s eternal wrath is possible, but only those who accept Christā€™s payment for their sins will actually be saved from it.

To put it another way, this objection presupposes universalism (that all will be saved), for which there is no sound biblical, theological, or historical basis (Geisler 2003:405).

This is one of the finest, brief statements Iā€™ve read that provides a summary of Jesusā€™ death providing atonement for all, but salvation only for those who receive the gift of salvation by faith.

Works consulted

Geisler, N 2003. Systematic theology: God, creation, vol 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Notes

[1] I am OzSpen on Christian Forums, Soteriology directory.


 

Copyright Ā© 2014 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 18 November 2015.

Did Jesus die for the elect or the whole world?

Crucify

ChristArt

By Spencer D Gear

If youā€™ve ever visited Christian forums on the Internet, youā€™ll see a regular stream of back and forth between Calvinists and Arminians on the extent of the atonement.

After my engagement in one of these (Iā€™m a convinced Reformed/Classical Arminian), I wrote to a supporter of an Arminian view of the atonement[1] that no matter how many verses OT or NT we muster to show that atonement was unlimited, for the world, for everyone, there is a barrier that cannot be overcome. Those who have a presupposition that requires limited atonement, will constantly make world = part of the world. They will say that world does not mean everyone; everyone = some; all = many; you’re not taking the context into consideration, etc.

I cannot see any way through. When there is a presuppositional bias towards a certain theology, it is very difficult to move, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. This is what this person and I have found in this discussion with Calvinistic limited atonement (particular redemption) advocates.

I think we are wasting our keyboard skills and breath trying to convince limited atonement folks of unlimited atonement as I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against Christ’s death being the propitiation “also for the sins of the world” (1 John 2:2) and Jesus was to “taste death for everyone” (Heb 2:9).

A Calvinist came back with the cynical and inaccurate reply:

Do you realize that if I replaced “limited atonement” with “universal atonement” and “Calvinists” with “Arminian” (and other references), it would make the same argument against you?

Just thought I’d point that out. I’m sure it’s some sort of logical fallacy, though.[2]

Then he took to my idea and made it into his Calvinistic perspective. He wrote:

I think you are wasting your keyboard skills and breath trying to convince unlimited atonement folks of limited atonement as I find that there is a solid rock theological barrier against “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.” (John 10:14, 15 NASB). Or “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44 NASB).[3]

You might be saying as you read this article: But surely you have the same problem? You could say: You also have a strong, biased view that is as stubborn as the other personā€™s. That might be true or false.

I can honestly confirm that if there was an absolutely certain scriptural mandate that Jesus only died for the elect, I would be enthusiastically promoting it. However, there are too many Scriptures to counter the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. I have presented some of this evidence above.

I recommend Ron Rhodes outlined reasons for rejecting limited atonement. See his article, ā€˜The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonementā€™.

Logical fallacy committed

clip_image001

What is a logical fallacy? Dr. Michael C. Labossiere has provided this explanation:[4]

In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).

There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or “cogent”) inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply “arguments” which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.

My response in the online example was:[5]

You have committed another logical fallacy[6] when you try to demonstrate that because Christ died for believers that he did not die for the ungodly (the reprobate, unbelievers, etc).

While the texts you have given demonstrate that Jesus laid down his life for the sheep, I found nothing in your two texts to confirm that Jesus died only and exclusively for those who are believers in the church.

We have examples of how this happens on a human level. I love my friend John whom I have known for 30 years. When I say that I love John, it does not say that I don’t love Monty whom I have known since 1978 and is a close friend.

We know that the NT teaches that God loved the world and gave his one and only Son for it (John 3:16), but the Scriptures also stated that Jesus is ā€˜He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole worldā€™ (1 John 2:2). God our Saviour wants all people to be saved (2 Peter 3:9); and Jesus tasted death for everyone (Heb 2:9). It also teaches that he gave his life for the church – the sheep (John 10:15).

Ron2

Ron Rhodes (courtesy ā€˜Reasoning from the Scripturesā€™)

Ron Rhodes provides further examples:

There are certain Scripture passages that seem very difficult to fit within the framework of limited atonement. For example:

Romans 5:6 says: “At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.” It doesn’t make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly of the elect.
Romans 5:18 says: “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”

Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: “He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him.”
Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase “all men,” E. H. Gifford comments: “The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses.”

1 John 2:2 says: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” A natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimited atonement.
Isaiah 53:6 says: “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6).

This verse doesn’t make sense unless it is read to say that the same “all” that went astray is the “all” for whom the Lord died.
“In the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men is declared; in the second, the particular deviation of each one; in the third, the atoning suffering of the Messiah, which is said to be on behalf of all. As the first ‘all’ is true of all men (and not just of the elect), we judge that the last ‘all’ relates to the same company.”

Theologian Millard Erickson comments: “This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for.”

1 Timothy 4:10 says: “…we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.”

There is a clear distinction here between “all men” and “those who believe.” Erickson notes that “apparently the Savior has done something for all persons, though it is less in degree than what he has done for those who believe.”

In 2 Peter 2:1, it seems that Christ even paid the price of redemption for false teachers who deny Him: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves.” Millard Erickson notes that “2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost….there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved.”

So I don’t fall for the line that Jesus died for the church so he cannot have died for all of humanity. Why? Because what this person online was perpetrating was a misleading logical fallacy that is called a fallacy of ā€˜biased sampleā€™ or a ā€˜fallacy of confirmation biasā€™. Jesus’ death for the church and for all of humanity are solid biblical teachings. His teaching on limited atonement denies one of these biblical emphases.

How do you think he would reply to the above about the fallacy of biased sample? His response was simple: ā€˜And….you still completely missed the point of my post. Hopefully it wasn’t deliberateā€™.[7]

My reply was:[8]

You have committed a red herring logical fallacy with your response. Your comment did not address the content of my post. In addition there was your committing a fallacy of biased sample in the previous post.

I directly dealt with the content of your post from John’s gospel, dealing with Jesusā€™ dying for his sheep AND for the whole world, and demonstrated how you committed another fallacy.

You can’t tolerate it when I call you for your use of a fallacy of biased sample. So what do you do? Give me another logical fallacy – a red herring. This is used to divert attention away from the content of my post about the fallacy of biased sample to a topic that he wanted to speak on. But it leaves the charge of his committing the fallacy of biased sample unanswered by this poster.

I asked him when he would quit his use of logical fallacies so that we can have a rational conversation. I am not hopeful that that will happen as he is too committed to his unbiblical doctrine of limited atonement. He is not ready to give that up in his TULIP theology.

Letā€™s look at some definitions of logical fallacies that this person used:

Fallacy of biased sample

What is the nature of a fallacy of biased sample? The Nizkor Project provided this definition:

Also Known as: Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization

Description of Biased Sample

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner.[9]

The example I have been pursuing in this brief article,[10] was of a fellow who wanted to demonstrate that Jesus died only for Godā€™s elect (his sheep, the church) but he excluded the verses that demonstrate that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. His bias is towards limited atonement, so he is determined to pull out verses that support such a view. His approach is one of jeopardy for his view because when it is examined against Scripture, we find two views presented:

(1) Jesus died for his sheep, the church, the elect of God, AND

(2) He died for the sins of the whole world ā€“ everyone.

When a fallacy of biased sample is used, it prevents the continuation of a logical discussion between two people.

What about the use of logical fallacies?

The Purdue Online Writing Lab (from Purdue University) made this comment about the use of logical fallacies:

Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.

I particularly watch for them in my own arguments but also keep an eye open for their use in the writing or conversation of others. Iā€™ve noticed there are far too many of them used on Christian forums and I have called a number of posters for using them. Many do not like this tactic as it catches them out. It shows how they are avoiding engagement with rational arguments in discussions.

However, rational discussions are not possible when people engage in the use of logical fallacies.

There is another parallel fallacy that this person could be using, it is theā€¦.

Fallacy of confirmation bias

A related fallacy is:

confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few “answered” prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).[11]

observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.[12]

Another has helpfully described conformation bias:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor evidence and information which already supports previously held ideas or beliefs. The human mind will trick itself into protecting currently held beliefs regardless of evidenceā€¦.

Confirmation bias is comprised of two main behaviors. The first behavior is searching and the second is filtering or appraising.

Searching

When searching for information a person with confirmation bias will actively search for information that supports their currently held belief, think liberals hitting up CNN or conservative only watching Fox. This aspect to confirmation bias is all aboutĀ  filling up your time with material that reinforces your world view.

Filtering or Appraisal

Alternatively, the mind may also filter out information which contradicts the currently held belief. When appraising multiple pieces of information a person might favor their current belief over contradictory data. In this case picture a liberal rejecting anything they hear from Glenn Beck or a conservative rejecting something they hear from CNN.[13]

So the fallacies of biased sample or confirmation bias are the ones used by this person who was promoting Calvinismā€™s limited atonement while ignoring the Scriptures that disagreed with this perspective.[14] He seems to have deliberately chosen biblical information to support/confirm his view, to the exclusion of other biblical information that confirms that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world of all people.

Conclusion: Observe how people use logical fallacies

You need to know your product ā€“ the name and nature of logical fallacies ā€“ to be able to notice them in conversation, particularly in discussion or debate. When you see this happening, I encourage you to calmly and gently draw this to a personā€™s attention.

Why is it not possible to have a rational conversation with people who use logical fallacies? Simply stated: A logical fallacy is an error in logic so accurate, logical discussion then is impossible.

Norm Geisler & Ron Brooks put this challenge to us:

Of making many fallacies there is no end. For every right way to think there is at least one wrong way. The real shocker is that the wrong ways often sound more persuasive! This is the power of sophism. So as not to be trapped in the persuasive pit of these fallacies, practice in recognizing them is necessary (Geisler & Brooks 1990:115).

I highly recommend the Geisler and Brooks publication (see works consulted) and The Nizkor Projectā€™s online site on ā€˜Fallaciesā€™.

Works consulted

Geisler, N 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Geisler, N L & Brooks, R M 1990. Come let us reason: An introduction to logical thinking. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

Notes:

Ā 


[1] Christian Forums, Soteriology, ā€˜If faith is a gift from Godā€¦ā€™m OzSpen#316, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-32/ (Accessed 21 October 2013).

[2] Hammster#342, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-35/.

[3] Hammster#408, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-41/#post64342160 (Accessed 21 October 2013).

[4] The Nizkor Project, ā€˜Fallaciesā€™, available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (Accessed 25 November 2013).

[5] OzSpen#409, ibid.

[6] I received the essence of this idea from Norm Geisler (1999:75).

[7] Hammster#410, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-41/.

[8] OzSpen#411, http://www.christianforums.com/t7780352-42/.

[9] The Nizkor Project, ā€˜Fallacy: Biased Sampleā€™, available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html (Accessed 21 October 2013).

[10] Hammster (see above).

[11] Jim Walker, ā€˜List of common fallaciesā€™ (online), 2009, available at: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm (Accessed 21 October 2013).

[12] Ibid.

[13] Logic & Critical Thinking 2011, available at: http://logical-critical-thinking.com/human-thoughts/confirmation-bias/ (Accessed 21 October 2013).

[14] Hammster, as above.

 


Copyright Ā© 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 12 November 2015.

Did John Calvin believe in double predestination?

By Spencer D Gear

Green Salvation Button

What do I mean by double predestination? I mean predestination either to eternal salvation in Christ or eternal damnation for the remainder of humanity. If God predestines the elect, then the automatic inference is that he leaves the rest to damnation, so he predestines the damned to hell.

Iā€™m jumping ahead of myself. What is meant by predestination? My understanding is that the teaching on foreknowledge, election and predestination are closely related. Henry Thiessen explained it:

God foreknew what men [human beings male and female] would do in response to His common grace; and He elected those whom He foresaw would respond positively. Election is followed by foreordination (also called predestination). This is the act of God whereby He pre-registers, as it were, those whom He has chosen. It implies that He has determined to save them: to give them life (Acts 13:48), place them into the position of sons (Eph. 1:5, 11), and conform them to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29, 30)ā€¦.

[As applied to redemption], in election God has decided to save those who accept His Son and the proffered salvation, and in foreordination He has determined effectively to accomplish that purpose [Thiessen 1949:157, 345].

The biblical sequence is articulated in Romans 8:29-30 is, ā€˜For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Sonā€¦. Those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorifiedā€™ (ESV).

Charles Hodge (photo courtesy Wikipedia)

Calvinistic theologian, Charles Hodge, explained that there is one meaning of predestination where

it is used in theology generally to express the purpose of God in relation to the salvation of individual men. It includes the selection of one portion of the race to be saved, and leaving the rest to perish in sin. It is in this sense used by supralapsarians, who teach that God selected a certain number of individual men to be created in order to salvation, and a certain number to be created to be vessels of wrath. It is in this way they subordinate creation to predestination as a means to an end (Hodge 1979:321).

Norman Geisler calls himself a moderate Calvinist, although his views in Chosen but Free (Geisler 1999:129) indicate to me that he is closer to Arminianism in his understanding of predestination and free will. His view is that

all Calvinists must believe in some form of double-predestination ā€“ the logic of their position demands it. Augustine said of God, ā€˜As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to graceā€™ [Augustine n d:100].[1] R. C. Sproul confirms, ā€˜If there is such a thing as predestination at all, and if that predestination does not include all people, then we must not shrink from the necessary inference that there are two sides to predestinationā€™ [Sproul 1986:141]ā€¦.

Moderate Calvinists [such as Geisler] call the active predestination of both the elect and the reprobate ā€˜double-predestinationā€™. Those who maintain it are called hyper-Calvinists (Geisler 2004:564, emphasis in original).

Was John Calvin a double predestination advocate?

John Calvin (image courtesy: Wikipedia)

At the level of the laity, this is sometimes stated this way: ā€˜Heck even Calvin did not believe in double predestinationā€™.[2]

With this kind of statement, I went looking for John Calvinā€™s view on double predestination. Did he follow Hentenzaā€™s view or not. This led to the following post by me:[3]

Why did this person misrepresent John Calvin’s teaching like this? This demonstrates that the person did not know what Calvin taught about predestination.

The facts are: Calvin most definitely did believe in double predestination. This is what he wrote and taught:

The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny….By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.21.5).

From where did this person get the idea that Calvin did not teach double predestination? Did he get it from another Calvinist?

This quote from the Institutes of the Christian Religion refutes this person’s statement about Calvin. He most definitely did believe in double predestination.

Black and white denial

#

(image courtesy openclipart)

I provided the exact quote from Calvin to demonstrate that this theologian did believe in double predestination. So what did this person do? He stated:

lol This is a typical Arminian quote mine. You need to keep reading. The term double predestination is actually a pejorative and use to fully twist Calvin’s views of the “election” of the reprobate. It has been used as a synonym for a “symmetrical” view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of divine operation.

This twisting of double predestination suggests a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry, which results in a positive-positive view of predestination, i.e., God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation and in the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

The classic position of Reformed theology views predestination as double in that it involves both election and reprobation but not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather predestination is viewed in terms of a positive-negative relationship based on God’s knowledge.[4]

This sounded too academically sophisticated for the kind of posts that this person has been making, so I searched online and found that it had been plagiarised. This was my reply:

Why have you engaged in plagiarism here – stealing somebody else’s ideas without giving him credit?

Some of your material here is from R C Sproul on ‘Double” predestination‘.

For the sake of integrity in your posts, I urge you to give credit to your sources when you use another person’s views.[5]

His response was: ā€˜The majority of my post came from an article given to me by one of my students of my bible class and is not copyrighted. I thought it was well written but did not realize that some of the material came from Sproul. My apologiesā€™.[6] My reply was,

That confirms that you got the information from somebody else and did not give them credit. That also is plagiarism. I am not attacking you, the poster. That is the farthest thing from my mind.

When you misrepresent another person’s views, as you did with John Calvin on double predestination, I’ll draw that to your attention because it is the truth. When will you acknowledge that you were wrong when you stated that Calvin did not believe in double predestination – when he did?[7]

What is plagiarism?

Here is a USA definition from US Legal (accessed 19 October 2013):

Plagiarism Law & Legal Definition

Plagiarism is taking the writings or literary ideas of another and selling and/or publishing them as one’s own writing. Brief quotes or use of cited sources do not constitute plagiarism. The original author can bring a lawsuit for appropriation of his/her work against the plagiarist and recover the profits. Although not normally a crime, a person who plagiarizes is subject to being sued for fraud or copyright infringement if prior creation can be proved. Penalties vary depending on jurisdiction, the charges brought, and are determined on a case by case basis.

The Internet has made plagiarism easier than ever before. From elementary schools to the highest levels of academia, the ease of downloading and copying “untraceable” online information has led to an epidemic of digital plagiarism. Plagiarism detection software now exists and is used in schools to monitor student’s work. If you adopt someone else’s language, provide quotation marks and a reference to the source, either in the text or in a footnote, as prescribed by such publications as Format, The MLA Style Sheet, or another manual of style. Students who commit plagiarism may be subject to grade or disciplinary penalties, which vary by institution.

Intentional or unintentional use of another’s words or ideas without acknowledging this use constitutes plagiarism: There are four common forms of plagiarism:

  • The duplication of an author’s words without quotation marks and accurate references or footnotes.
  • The duplication of author’s words or phrases with footnotes or accurate references, but without quotation marks.
  • The use of an author’s ideas in paraphrase without accurate references or footnotes.
  • Submitting a paper in which exact words are merely rearranged even though footnoted.

Even though I provided information in black and white with a quote from Calvinā€™s Institutes, this person continued to deny Calvin taught and believed double predestination with responses like these:

6pointMetal-small ā€˜I am not misrepresenting Calvin’s views. That is for you to proveā€™.[8]

6pointMetal-small ā€˜The only thing that you have proved is your ignorance of Calvin’s theology but then again, quote mines only show ignorance anywayā€™.[9]

6pointMetal-small ā€˜You posted a quote mine that YOU interpret as meaning that Calvin believed in the pejorative double predestination. I have already addressed thisā€™.[10]

This is what happens when a personā€™s pet doctrine is challenged with contrary evidence. He was immediately into denial of Calvinā€™s teaching of double predestination or blaming me for misrepresenting him. I did not misinterpret him. I quoted him exactly. He said Calvin didnā€™t believe in double predestination.

It doesnā€™t fit with his established and agreed view of Calvinism. The truth can be disturbing when it is provided and it confronts an accepted doctrine. It is not easy to admit, ā€˜I was wrong. Thanks for providing that correction. Iā€™ll be able to affirm Calvinā€™s belief in double predestination when it is raised. Thanks for your research to correct meā€™. That kind of response was far from his mind.

Is double predestination an Arminian twist?

This person also wrote, ā€˜There is no Calvinistic view of double predestination. Tis (sic) is an Arminian twist. God does not positively act in the lies of the reprobate to keep them reprobate. God knows that they will not turn from their ways and merely passes them overā€™.[11]

I replied:[12]

Why do you refuse to believe what John Calvin said about his belief in the doctrine of double predestination? It is not an Arminian twist. It is Calvin’s own teaching. When will you get it?

The title page from the 1559 edition of John Calvin’s Institutio Christianae Religionis

(image courtesy: Wikipedia)

Here the quote is again. The facts are: Calvin most definitely did believe in double predestination. This is what he wrote and taught:

The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny….By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.21.5).

I wrote: You are the one who is misrepresenting John Calvin’s teaching when you refuse to accept his belief in and teaching about double predestination. In this one paragraph, he emphasised it twice:

  1. ‘The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death’;
  2. ‘each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death’

Why do you, a Calvinist, refuse to believe what Calvin believed by affirming that God predestines to life and God predestines to death. God predestines to the hope of life and adjudges (predestines) others to eternal death. To deny this is to deny what Calvin taught.

See: ā€˜Double-Talk From a Double Predestinarian [John Piperā€™, by J C Thibodaux. The article begins:

Dr. John Piper recently responded to the question, ā€œWhat did the death of Jesus on the cross accomplish for the non-elect? Anything?ā€ His reply, oddly, raises more questions than it answers. Despite his views on unconditional election and reprobation, Piper frames his answer in terms of God giving those who arenā€™t chosen a ā€œchanceā€ at salvation. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was identified partially by his unusual, but correct use of an oft-misquoted proverb thatā€™s very applicable here: ā€œYou canā€™t eat your cake and have it too.ā€

To understand the issue, the reader should know that Piper is a 5-point Calvinist and a supralapsarian (Got Questions 2002-2016).

He believes that whether one is saved or not is strictly up to the choice of God, with no input from a human beingĀ  or conditions fulfilled by human beings. His view is that God unchangeably chose or rejected each individual before the world was ever made.

He also believes that Christ didnā€™t die for the ones that werenā€™t chosen in any sort of way by which they could be saved through free will (this is commonly called ā€œlimited atonementā€). Whether one accepts the gospel or not is entirely dependent upon whether he or she has been ā€œregeneratedā€ by God beforehand (per Calvinism, one who is regenerated inevitably will believe the gospel, one who isnā€™t regenerated never can). With that said, letā€™s examine Piperā€™s response.

In one sense, as soon as we sin we should be punished eternally. We shouldnā€™t get another breath. There should be no reprieve. There should be no time given to us. So clearly then, in some sense, the time given to us is grace. And grace for a sinner requires some kind of payment or purchase or warrant from a holy God. And Christ would be the one who provides that.

So Iā€™m inclined to say, ā€œYes, the fact that the non-elect, the unbelievers all over the world are still breathing and have another chance to believe is a gift, just like the offer of the gospel is a gift. And that offer is provided by the cross”….

Now hereā€™s the catch. Romans 2:4 says, ā€œDonā€™t you know that the patience of God is meant to lead you to repentance? But you, by your hard and unrepentant heart, are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when the righteous judgment of God is revealed.ā€

So if a non-elect person spurns-which they do-they spurn this grace, the grace itself becomes added judgment. Which makes me wonder, ā€œIn what sense was it grace?ā€ In some sense it is. Itā€™s a real offer, itā€™s a real opportunity. But if you spurn it, if you reject it, it backfires and mounts up with greater judgment….

Itā€™s like the more kindness is shown to a person that they resist, then the more wicked they show themselves to be. And the more wicked they show themselves to be, the more judgment falls upon them.

I think the answer is yes. I think real grace, real common grace, real offer of salvation-right now, just watching this-is grace. And if youā€™re a non-Christian, grace is being offered you at this very moment in my warning you that, if you spurn this, judgment will be greater….

And thatā€™s a gift to you right now that God may be pleased to then use to awaken you to say, ā€œWhoa. I donā€™t want to multiply my judgment. I want to respond to this moment of grace.ā€

Thatā€™s what I think the upshot of this conversation should be: respond to the grace. Youā€™re alive! Thereā€™s still a chance to believe and be saved.

J C Thibodaux concluded with this assessment:

Again, per 5-point Calvinism, if youā€™re not among those elected to salvation, tough beans. God hasnā€™t chosen you, Christ didnā€™t die for you, and the Holy Spirit most certainly wonā€™t regenerate you. You are lost without remedy, condemned already beyond repair, there isnā€™t a single ray of hope, and you never had a prayer. The accessibility of salvation to you is absolute zero. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. So how can a person to whom salvation isnā€™t even remotely applicable have any sort of ā€œopportunityā€ to be saved?

Put even more simply, if Christ didnā€™t die for the forgiveness of oneā€™s sins in any sense, then there can never be an ā€œopportunity to be savedā€ for him, because there is no way to be saved unless Christ died to forgive his sins.

Such doublespeak is strong cause to question Piperā€™s personal theology. If his determinist views are so repugnant that he has to ā€œbalanceā€ them with concepts that flatly contradict his doctrine, then heā€™s essentially embraced cognitive dissonance. If you reject universalism, but believe that God still genuinely offers salvation to all men, then which is more consistent and less convoluted to believe?

1. Christ died provisionally for the sins of all, such that any who believe in Him will be forgiven.

2. Or Piperā€™s view, where if youā€™re not one of the elect, youā€™re given an ā€œopportunityā€ that you canā€™t possibly take, to accept an ā€œofferā€ of salvation from God that isnā€™t really His will that you accept, just so youā€™ll have a ā€œchanceā€ to obtain faith that isnā€™t even accessible to you, wrought by a Savior who didnā€™t die to forgive your sins, but whose death fortunately did provide ā€œgraceā€ that will inevitably backfire and condemn you even more.

Makes perfect sense. Where do I sign?

Works consulted

Augustine n d. Enchiridion – The handbook on faith, hope and love (online). The Fathers of the Church, New Advent. Available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm (Accessed 19 October 2013).

Geisler, N L 1999. Chosen but free. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Geisler, N 2004. Systematic theology: Sin, salvation, vol 3. Minneapolis, Minnesota: BethanyHouse.

Hodge, C 1979 (reprint). Systematic theology, vol 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Sproul, R C 1986. Chosen by God. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory lectures in systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Notes:


[1] The New Advent online edition provides this translation, ā€˜He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to graceā€™ (Augustine n d).

[2] Christian Forums, Baptists, ā€˜Calvinist Arminian dialogā€™ (online), Hentenza#152, available at: http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-16/ (Accessed 19 October 2013).

[3] OzSpen#158, http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-16/.

[4] Hentenza#167, http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-17/.

[5] OzSpen#172, http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-18/.

[6] Hentenza#173, ibid.

[7] OzSpen#175, ibid.

[8] Hentenza#177, ibid.

[9] Hentenza#181, http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-19/.

[10] Hentenza#184, ibid.

[11] Hentenza#201, http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-21/.

[12] OzSpen#211, http://www.christianforums.com/t7773893-22/.

 

Copyright Ā© 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 20 September 2016.