February 27, 2012
Confidence in God’s working

I have noticed a tendency in my Calvinist friends to fall into thinking that God is not working sometimes. I want to say, here, that I don’t think that necessarily means Calvinist thought leads there always. However, where all of our systems may lend us to different errors, I feel Calvinism may lead its subscribers into this possible error more easily. 

The point is not that we all doubt at times, but that people may not be too sure God is really willing or working for them or on their behalf in their specific area of life. I could be wrong. Maybe this could be more attributed to just plain doubt that any Christian is subject to. Still, it seems that if a Calvinist doesn’t know if God really wants a certain person saved or not, then the implications to the heart might lead such a Calvinist to doubt if God is working or willing at times and still be completely consistent with their system of understanding. 

As someone who holds an Arminian view of election and grace, I don’t always see visible fruit of what Lord God is doing all around me or understand the way he is working things for the good of those who love him and called according to his purposes. However, I’m always confident in God’s work that it is absolutely effective to his purpose, that he is definitely willing, that he is definitely drawing. I don’t wonder if the person in front of me is loved or not. I know that Christ has objectively demonstrated his love. I know that Christ’s Spirit is moving and doing great things before me even if I don’t always understand or see it. 

Whether or not the doubt I mentioned earlier is a side-effect of Calvinism, I pray my Calvinist brothers and sisters would be able to know the depth and breadth of God’s love that surpasses understanding so that they can have confidence in God’s willingness in whatever way they must in order to justify that fact in their minds. 

1:27am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexH71oBv
(View comments) 
February 8, 2012
Calvinism and Self-Confidence

I’m thinking about the relationship between ideas of eternal security and assurance of salvation within the Calvinist scheme. It seems ironic that the Calvinist likes to point to an objective atonement that secures salvation for the elect. How can we say this concept can give anyone assurance? The Calvinist will agree that assurance can only come through the Spirit, but, then, is the assurance really from an objective atonement?

As an Arminian, I agree that the atonement was objective in the most important sense. However, that the atonement was objective or particular only to some people, in the Calvinist scheme, does not provide assurance to anyone. If the church is a mixed body of the elect and non-elect, then we cannot know with certainty that we are in fact a part of the elect because that would be in the realm of the secret knowledge of God. Thus, the issue of salvation and assurance comes back to personal experience and the testimony of the Spirit to the individual. Calvinist rhetoric on the objective nature of the atonement can bring about their desired effect in thought about particular redemption; however, the same rhetoric cannot provide any solid basis for personal assurance. In the Calvinist scheme, God being particularly redemptive towards some doesn’t do anything toward making me certain that the atonement was for me, rather, in that scheme, god could just as easily being passing me over even if I think I possess saving knowledge.

I could be wrong about Calvinism is general (I’m pretty sure I’ve read enough to know I’m not), but the rhetoric about limited/particular atonement and the atonement’s objective nature lead me exactly here.

*Note that I believe in an objective atonement, just not the Calvinist kind.

Thus, this leads me to one last musing: Are Calvinists actually more self-confident than God-confident despite the emphasis on their understanding of TD that supposedly makes them more thankful than others? I’m sure most are totally God-confident as Jesus is the only true hope for the family of God. I’m just observing that if I were a Calvinist, I would have trouble locating any confidence in my salvation’s final accomplishment

7:52am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexG4zsgf
(View comments) 
February 3, 2012
Grace a Gift

The nature of grace is inextricably linked to its characteristic of being undeserved. In other words, I’m not special nor have I done something special in order to merit attention from the giver of grace (in this post we will be referring to the Giver). 

An important idea related to grace is the idea of unconditional love. Note that no one is scared of the word unconditional; the rub is in the word that follows it. 

So, Arminians proper don’t believe that we have merited God’s favor over others through faith because God’s grace was given to us in revelation, Jesus’ incarnation,  and in the prevenient drawing and convicting of sinners (everyone). The potter has freedom over the clay and has chosen to save, regenerate, and eventually glorify us with himself by his grace through our faith made possible by him. 

What a gift! Lord God laid himself on the line through the incarnate Son. Can I reject that gift? If a loving parent gives a child a Christmas gift, will the child reject it? What if the parent sends a gift to a child who has run away and tricked himself or herself into thinking the parent actually hated them, causing the child to leave, so that now the child despises the gift? The last situation is most like fallen humanity. Arminianism and Calvinism agree that God’s grace is necessary to initiate a reconciled relationship. So, Calvinism’s concern can really be thought of in this respect: some people don’t respond because God didn’t decide to initiate with them, otherwise they would have responded positively. I think some Calvinists would be quick to agree with this until they put that alongside their doctrine of perseverance and Hebrews 6, where they would say that (in their view) God initiates with some people just a little so that they respond externally but remain unchanged for the long haul. Thus, they also touch on resistance eventually. So, what do Arminians think about the gift? Maybe many are more familiar with this idea. The offer of salvation and eternal life is a gift of God’s grace (Eph. 2). God judges those who reject the light who love darkness instead (John 3).  God’s desire is to save all people (John 3, 1 Tim 2, 2 Pet 3) and does not delight in the destruction of the wicked (Ezek 18). Thus, like the Pharisees who reject God’s purpose for them in  Luke 7:30, many will perish because they reject the light. 

So, everyone recognizes that grace is resistible at some level. The issue is whether the grace given to certain people is resistible. So, the Arminian assumption is that God’s gift isn’t coerced onto its recipients. Lover God determines the universe so that the people are wooed in his direction, even lets them get hurt so that they ache for his healing, and actively calls and draws all people to himself (John 12). This Lover/Giver has put himself out there, made himself vulnerable. I don’t mean that he can be hurt or defeated. I mean he has placed his dignity on the line. Those who reject his offer won’t be punished out of petty wounded dignity. They will be punished because they remain enemies of the Most High Lover who is also Just Ruler. So, the resistible quality of grace doesn’t have to limit the power of the Giver if the giver creates the recipients with a capacity to choose as well as restores the capacity after it was lost. However, this scenario does put the Giver in a situation where he would have to condescend to the recipients and risk humiliation. Does that sound like the Lord? It does to me. 

11:01am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexFq498d
(View comments) 
December 26, 2011
God’s Grace is Resistible, His will is Irresistible

God’s grace is resistible; whereas, His will cannot be resisted. 

Part of Romans 9:11, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls,” is held hostage by Calvinists who use this passage to justify their system. In the three examples cited by Paul, God is concerned with His PURPOSE IN ELECTION as well as his glory. I actually am not arguing that the Calvinist interpretation is unreasonable; I think it’s reasonable, just not best. I’m arguing that I think Romans 9 is better understood with God’s purpose in election in mind—that purpose being centered in Christ. 

In the next few posts I want to spend some time thinking about God’s purpose in election. 

Some things should be discussed, for example, how faith is not a meritorious work connecting the passage back to chapter 3 and 4 as should be done. Also, I want to highlight some parts of Romans 8-11 that tip me off that Paul probably isn’t talking about a deterministic, fatalistic destiny about which nobody ever had a choice; rather, they have a choice because of grace. I also must acknowledge that in the posts I will write I am not condemning Calvinism entirely as erroneous because I’m not sure enough of my reading. However, even if the Calvinists are correct about their interpretation, which I don’t think they are, then much still must be done to correct the Calvinists’ rhetoric flying around these days about views of God as an omni-causal being (meaning their words often paint God as the author and constant cause of evil). In other words, in my view either Arminius or Augustine is correct about the interpretation of Romans 9 (not to mention many others I haven’t read), but much of Calvinist rhetoric is in excess regarding reprobation. 

In the next post I would like to focus a little more just on the idea that grace is resistible whereas God’s will is irresistible, and these things are not contradictory. 

6:49am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexDofjur
(View comments) 
December 2, 2011
Theology Lessons from John

John 3:36  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. 

1 John 2:2  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 

The atonement Christ made for sin is at the heart of the good news and our Christian faith — I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20). 
So, I am thinking a little about the atonement. I am glad to have come to understand the moral government theory of atonement, that it is also a form of penal substitution though perhaps not vicarious. Perhaps, to be strict, I should say it is another substitutional theory, since including the word penal technically confuses the government theory with the vicarious model. I also am recognizing that my true thoughts about the atonement have been more in line with the government theory since I received the good news the first time. Whether or not my views needs to be corrected stands to question. By my views falling more in line with the government model, I mean that I have always imagined that Christ took on a punishment sufficient to propitiate the sins of the entire world and that he had me, as well as all other people, in mind from the garden onward through through the suffering on the cross. I have always imagined that Christ made this atonement and the benefits applied to me were based on grace through faith. 
When I think about John 3:36, the conditional seems clear to me. Whoever…whoever… wrath of God remains on him. Now, I can see how someone might look on the other side of this and say, “Well, how can you have any confidence in the benefits if it’s based on your faith and obedience (I would take obedience here to have the sense of perseverance)?” Well, first, my trust isn’t put finally in myself but in Christ’s work because the object of my faith is Christ and his work, and he sustains my faith through the work of his Spirit though I have a secondary role in receiving and submitting to the work of his Spirit. The question is based on thinking that my view has no continuing help and preserving work of Christ when it is actually based on that work. 
Now, second and more importantly, I believe this conditional actually points to the unconditional love that God has for us. When asked, “Why does this bad thing happen to me? Does God not love me?” I can say with confidence that God loves every person unconditionally. I view the atonement as God’s unconditional, objective display of love for the whole world. Thus, we experience pain in the world because we are suffering the consequences of sin, the sting of death. However, God truly sympathizes with our weaknesses and desires that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. God has this loving longing for us, has righteous wrath against all of us simultaneously, and  works continually in the universe that good will ultimately win in his purposes against the plans of the wicked. So, the love of God is clear and unwavering in Jesus Christ, whereas we are the only ones who waver.
 
Points where I agree with vicarious suffering, though apparently not in an exact theoretical sense: I agree that Jesus was punished for my personal sin as well as the sin of Adam and Eve, our parents. I can sing along full-heartedly that Jesus paid it all, for every sin of every person. I think every person is still justly punished because they reject this gift of atonement thereby remaining under wrath as a rebellious enemy against God. I also think because Jesus has propitiated the wrath of God on behalf of the world that this brings resolution to the paradox of God’s unfailing love in Christ Jesus, God’s displeasure at the death of the wicked, and yet God’s righteous anger and oversight of the punishment of the wicked. Though God has actually forgiven everyone in his heart having a truly merciful disposition towards all backed by the work of Christ, yet he will by no means pardon the wicked (God is just) who continue in rebellion rejecting his grace in the atonement. I would like to say that I think the “vicarious” model sort of highjacks the term penal and it could properly describe the governmental model. Now, I should conclude this bit by saying that I need to continue reading more on the atonement because my thoughts could be an amalgamation of the two theories. However, I stand by my views in the sense that I believe they accurately reflect the teaching on atonement from John. My views are of course subject to conform to the Lord and his word as needed. 
Note: God also displays his love in all kinds of special ways to individuals. However, it is clear to me that God’s unfailing, objective love is undoubtable for every person in the person of Jesus Christ.

5:56am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexCiUPzG
(View comments) 
November 18, 2011
Final and Ultimate

These two words, final and ultimate, are used interchangeably many times. They have obvious distinctions (final being chronological and ultimate always having the idea of most important or a superlative connotation). However, sometimes it is easy to confuse these words while listening to or reading arguments. As I’ve been reading a lot of Calvinist criticism of Arminianism on their blogs and comments on non-calvinist blogs, I have noticed this subtle mistake that people often make. 

The common criticism: If people must finally choose to believe, then they are the final authority in salvation, not God. 

Sadly, I think the mistake is not obvious to many, but here we see how the critic looks at the person’s decision chronologically following God’s atonement, prevenient grace, and conviction from the Holy Spirit and improperly labels this point in time as final meant in the sense of ultimate. 

A person might still argue that the last place in a timeline is the most important. I can see how one might make this argument if the timeline is blank. However, I do not see how one can criticize Arminianism in this way based on 1. the fact that the person could not exist at this point in the timeline without God 2. the person can only respond because of God’s first having loved, atoned for, drawn, and convicted and 3. the choices are limited by God and the destination/consequences of the choice are chosen only by God. 

4:33am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexC4imKs
(View comments) 
November 11, 2011
Atonement Theory

I am trying to learn more about atonement theories right now. It seems either Calvinists or Arminians could hold either a penal or governmental theory. Both seem to be substitution theories that have a lot of overlap.

However, I’d like to comment a little on what I believe to be the underlying basic difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. This foundational difference is a presupposition. Calvinists presuppose that the scope of the atonement will match the application of the atonement. Universalists hold this same presupposition. So, a Calvinist acknowledges only some will be saved and, then, says it is because God only ever wills these some to be saved. Universalists look at Bible verses that say God desires the salvation of all and hold to the Calvinist’s idea about God’s will; therefore, the Universalist assumes that because God desires to save all that God will save all. If one reads Calvinists comments about Arminianism, it is not hard to find criticism stating that Arminianism leads to Universalism (or at least a fear that it may lead there). Of course, I believe this assertion is rediculous, but I think the fact that these assertions are made reveal the underlying commitment to this presupposition.

So, how does this relate to atonement theories? Some insist that a penal substitution theory can only be held by Calvinists because the punishment placed upon Christ is only just if it is only for the elect. The critics assert that either Christ is punished unjustly because he is innocent and literally taking the punishment of guilty people (I would say this is one of the beautiful things about this theory) or people are unjustly sent to hell if Christ literally made atonement for everyone’s sin and yet most are still punished for it eternally in hell (double jeopardy argument). 

Also, here is a helpful blog discussion about governmental theory of atonement and why many Arminians hold it <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/02/jonathan-edwards-and-john-piper-on-the-atonement/>. I hold to penal substitution, I think, right now. Arminius held to penal substitution. Also, Wesley held to penal substitution. However, from this blog discussion that I listed, I have learned that the penal and government theories are both true substitution theories as apposed to many critics I have heard mention the government theory before without really explaining it. 

Back to the point: I think the presupposition that God has one unmitigated, unconditional will for every person to end up in heaven or hell is related to theories of atonement. So, what about God’s will? The Universalist will say that God desires the salvation of all people and, therefore, all people will be saved. The Calvinist insists that only some will be saved because of God’s eternal will, yet many Calvinists also acknowledge a seemingly duel will within God. God (according to these Calvinists) wants all to be saved at some level, but this will is trumped by his will to glorify himself by showing his wrath in punishing most in hell forever. So, where do find another option as Arminians? 

The Arminian position is based on thinking that God decided in his infinite wisdom to create something (i.e. angels and people) with the choice to worship and love him or disobey and rebel. Angels got only one shot. Man, however, lost the capability to please God at the fall, but God loves man who is created in his own image. Therefore, election is conditional upon, first, Jesus’s atonement and the Holy Spirit’s conviction of the world about Jesus’s work, and second, upon the response of every individual to God’s initiating grace. 

So, what about the atonement specifically? John 3:36  Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (ESV). To understand the Arminian theory of atonement alongside penal substitution, one must think in terms of how the benefits are applied. Christ is 1 Jn 2:2 the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (ESV). The atonement sufficiently propitiated the wrath of God for the sins of the whole world. God decided that the benefits of his own sacrifice (salvation) would be applied by grace through faith. As an Arminian thinker, I would say this is conditional on faith in Christ made available through God’s initiating (prevenient) grace.

So, the double jeopardy criticism remains. Can God do this for everyone and still punish those who don’t believe in hell forever (remaining just, good, and perfect)? Honestly, I have trouble with this assertion, but I have some thoughts. First, I think this may be an irony of the cross and the punishment of the unbeliever in that the believer would be completely forgiven except that he/she remains obstinate against God’s grace. Thus, it seems to me that the punishment forever in hell is leveled more justly, not less, because God is so patient that he stood ready to pardon, constantly holding out the offer to pardon, throughout the time he ordained for each person to live on the earth. The critic will still complain that the sin is already paid. However, God will imminently destroy all evil and make all things new as he has promised. Thus, the atonement at the cross is God’s ultimate action in reconciling all things to himself (Colossians 1). So, the wrath remains on people as they obstinately refuse God’s plan for their life because they refuse to be reconciled in salvation that is completely secured in every way for them. So, the legal satisfaction has been made for all people, but they who are punished in hell are those who refuse to be reconciled in salvation and continue in sin and rebellion. It would be as though a state within the United States such as Delaware rebelled against the country and it’s leaders committed several war crimes (I just picked Delaware because I agree with Wayne’s World that there isn’t much in Delaware). Then, the United States made some legal satisfaction for all their crimes (maybe even past, present, and future). Delaware would be technically immune, but what if Delaware continued to rebel, fight, and commit crimes against the whole country? The United States would have to put down the rebellion. I think it must be something like this. I could be wrong, and I will continue to think on this. But, I think this idea describes what God has done making salvation possible for the whole world and yet justly punishing those who refuse his gracious offer of himself. 

Extra Note: As for the double jeopardy criticism that usually comes from Calvinists, I think the argument cuts both ways. If this argument is legitimate, which I don’t think it stand in the end, then Christ’s atonement isn’t really sufficient for all as the Calvinist would like to claim. If the sins of the elect, specifically, are the only ones atoned in Christ’s death, then there is no sense in which the Calvinist conception of penal substitution really makes the atonement sufficient for all.

10:21pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexBpRifo
(View comments) 
November 11, 2011
God Is Sovereign

God is in control. Everyone who calls themselves Arminian in the classical sense is comfortable with God’s reign and extensive providence in the world. In the Lord we live and move and have our being, and all things are held together by Jesus. Furthermore, the Lord works all things according to the counsel of his will and for the good of those who love him who are called according to his purpose. 

The only reason anyone ever has to shy away from talk of God’s control is because of the things other people will impute to God such as evil and sin. One of the things that puts me in deeper awe of God is how he can work all things according his will while giving lesser beings the ability to obey or disobey him. That what others mean for evil, the Lord can superintend for good by using their evil actions. The Lord takes what bad people will to do and works all things so that redemption and grace result. In no way does God prompt or tempt these actions, but he foresees them, allows them according to his wisdom, and uses them for his purposes. How amazing is the Lord who allows creation will and still remains in control in accordance with his justice. My mind doesn’t ever think creation is equal to God in power or right to choose. On the contrary, my mind continues to be amazed at how the Lord’s mind is so much higher and wiser that he governs and judges the world with equity and justice, that his mercy and compassion never cease in justice. 

“Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” 

The thought of God’s sovereign control makes me sing, “Oh, the depth and the riches of the knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, how unknowable his ways!…” I guarantee you that this is my heart completely in sync with my thoughts of God that stem from my Arminian view. The gospel is good news. It is based in God’s eternal wisdom. The gospel really is good news because, by it, we are saved to the Good Father (after whom every family in heaven and on earth is named). He has extended his gracious offer to the world. The blood of the atonement merely needs to be applied by grace through faith. Salvation truly is a gift, and the One who offered it really is good.

4:20am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexBnCx8r
(View comments) 
October 23, 2011
Parables

Jesus spoke in many parables. Most, if not all, Calvinists point to these instances as examples of specific individual election, without foreknowledge of individual responses, of some to salvation and some to damnation, or at least some (infralapsarians) might say only some to salvation. 

As I have been reading through Luke, I was struck by the parable of the sower as I often pause to reflect on it as the disciples can’t understand it and ask Jesus the meaning. Many Calvinist teachers use Luke 8:10-15 to support unconditional election, that God is intentionally withholding his good news from most people. However, as I read this passage this time, I couldn’t help but noticing the way Jesus closes his explanation of this parable in verses 16-18. 

Jesus says that no one lights a lamp and puts it under a table. If we take the Calvinist interpretation, this teaching contradicts God’s own supposed secret will. I think the explanation must be either that Christ is speaking in parables now simply to fulfill prophecy and that the truth will be presented clearly later, when he has been resurrected, or that the lamp teaching point is used to qualify the meaning of the parable of the sower to say that hearers should take care how they hear and give glory to God by honoring him with professing faith that doesn’t shy away at the fear of man. I’m inclined to the former of my two suggestions, but it seems semi-obvious to me that the parable of the sower is not about God withholding salvation from some based on the analogy of the lamp given at the end of Jesus’s explanation.

3:55am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexB00lrz
(View comments) 
October 22, 2011
How limited is the atonement?

Calvinists often like to speak about the atonement using the word “definite” rather than “limited” because they feel it better represents their point of view. On top of this, Calvinists want to argue that Arminians must also limit the atonement in some way in order to prevent a universalist conclusion. 

In being charitable, I can talk with Calvinists about the atonement with their word choice of definite versus indefinite. However, it is a mistake for anyone to assert that Arminians limit the atonement in any way. The atonement is unlimited (this word was chosen for a reason) because 1 John 2:2 says “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Calvinists argue that Arminians limit the atonement because Jesus’ death doesn’t irresistibly save anyone. In other words, Calvinists would argue that the atonement is limited by Arminians in power because the atonement doesn’t force the salvation of anyone. Grant them, most Calvinists will argue it is for the sake of grace that they argue and not for determinism as a first principle. However, the Calvinist argument seems to have at least a few major problems.

First, if we say that the atonement is unlimited in the extent of God’s intentions to save the world, then the atonement is not rendered ineffective for some and effective for some others. The doctrine of unlimited atonement renders propitiation effective for all but the application of the atonement conditional for some on the basis of grace through faith. Calvinists say the atonement is ineffectual for some referring to the positive application of the atonement on specific people, thus they would say an unlimited atonement doctrine actually creates a limit in effectiveness. This argument seems to be a strong rhetorical move that, however, actually creates a logical or definition problem. By saying that unlimited atonement is less effective, often the argument moves to saying less powerful as if the doctrine of unlimited atonement were inept to perform the function for which God created the atonement. This may be exactly what the Calvinist argues, but this is a fallacy because it criticizes the Arminian description of the atonement from a Calvinist paradigm. The Calvinist really seems to create a false dilemma here in order to restate their own case and then restate the Arminian belief as if it has a problem other than the fact that it is not their belief (which is really based more in unconditional election and irresistible grace than in the atonement). I wish I knew the name for this logical fallacy because I am sure a name exists for it. At the very least we can say it is circular logic based on a false premise forced against (not naturally arising from) the opposing argument. So, the Calvinist attempt to refocus the argument to the “definiteness” of the atonement is basically an attempt to level the rhetorical playing field on the limited, unlimited battlefield. As I argue above, perhaps not too clearly, I don’t believe the Calvinist can point out an actual problem of impotence within the Arminian doctrine of unlimited atonement; their only point is that the doctrine does not logically flow from monergism.

For the Calvinist doctrine of atonement, “limited” is truly the best word because scope and not certainty or definiteness is what is in mind. In both Calvinism and Arminianism, the atonement works fully for those within the intended scope. As Arminian theologian, Roger Olson, has said more eloquently, the great irony and sadness for the sinner in Arminianism is that Christ has fully paid for and accomplished redemption, yet people reject God’s gift and thus remain under wrath. Truly, the Calvinist misses the Arminian point that the atonement has accomplished redemption in its fullness for the whole world as a gift; people who do not believe remain under wrath because their sins have been paid for and yet they rejected the gift of forgiveness and redemption (thus these people stand on their own merits apart from Christ’s work). Indeed, God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ. Limited atonement properly describes the Calvinist idea because the atonement’s sufficiency, in Calvinism, for all is only theoretical in the sense that it could be applied to all if God wanted it applied to everyone. However, the Calvinist doctrine of the atonement does not apply the work of the atonement to everyone, so the atonement is properly said to be limited to the elect. 

The atonement is not limited by the application of the atonement being only made possible and not certain. A Calvinist, again, will argue that the atonement is limited in power if it is not rendered certain for some people. First, the Arminian understanding already includes an element of this in that God foreknows that some will receive the application of the atonement by grace through faith. Thus, the classical Arminian doctrine of unlimited atonement also includes an element of certain effectiveness. So, as classical Arminians we can with Paul in 1 Timothy 4:10, “…we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” 

It is also incorrect to say the doctrine of unlimited atonement actually limits the atonement’s power because we believe the atonement is sufficient, or powerful enough, to save all people. The Calvinist also does not believe the atonement itself converts the sinner. We both believe the Holy Spirit is responsible to convert the sinner, actually rendering the atonement effectual in an individual life. So, in criticizing Arminians by saying the the doctrine of unlimited atonement is truly limited in power, we can see that this is, first, false and, second, the Calvinist definition of the atonement is truly about who is “in” rather than the power and efficacy of the atonement’s work.

(I feel that my arguments need to be edited here a little to be made clearer and perhaps even more accurate. However, I stand by the heart of what I have said here.)

1:35am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z2OeexAzEUC7
(View comments) 
Filed under: limited atonement unlimited atonement definite atonement indefinite atonement 
Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »