The following is a five-part review (in one post) of chapters from Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, edited by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, published by B&H Academic (order from B&H here). This first section will address chapter one, Jerry Vines’ “Sermon on John 3:16,” as well as chapter two, Paige Patterson’s “Total Depravity.”
The chapters in the book correspond with the presentations given at the John 3:16 Conference. Arising from the Conference, held in late 2008 at First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, Whosoever Will presents, according to the B&H Academic site, “a biblical-theological assessment of and response to five-point Calvinism.” B&H continues: “Baptist leaders offering an alternative to the doctrine’s TULIP tenets include Paige Patterson (Total Depravity), Richard Land (Unconditional Election), David Allen (Limited Atonement), Steve Lemke (Irresistible Grace), and Kenneth Keathley (Perseverance of the Saints).”
Both the Conference and the book were formulated as a response to the Building Bridges Conference in 2007, a conference on Calvinism which was held at Ridgecrest in North Carolina, co-sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders Ministries. Clearly, the role which Calvinism is playing and will play in the future of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) and Southern Baptist churches in general is a concern for a vast majority of Southern Baptists, Calvinists, “non-Calvinists,” and Arminians alike.
President of Union University David S. Dockery, from the back cover, comments: “Exploring issues from a biblical, historical, philosophical, and theological perspective, the contributors to Whosoever Will have put forward an alternative to the Calvinist model of the doctrine of salvation within Baptist life.” Roger E. Olson, also from the back cover, notes: “A much needed corrective to the contemporary rise of Calvinism especially among young Christians; it presents a scholarly, biblically accurate, and reasonable case against radical Reformed theology.”
DR. JERRY VINES: SERMON ON JOHN 3:16
Vines’ opening chapter, a more fully developed version of his sermon on John 3:16, is a more than appropriate way to begin a book titled Whosoever Will: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Vines remarks: “The phrase ‘that whosoever believes’ responds to five-point Calvinism, which says Christ died only for the elect.”1
When a Calvinistic friend asked me how Vines’ chapter on John 3:16 held any relevance to the Calvinist-Arminian debate, my initial response was the same as most “non-Calvinists” and Arminians: At John 3:16, God explicitly confesses His love for the world, and His demonstration of that love by the sending of His Son to be murdered by the world, that the world may be atoned for their sins through trust in His Son. But if God has unconditionally elected to save only some people by a mere decree, and Christ died only for the unconditionally elect, then those assumptions would be impossible to reconcile with the truth of John 3:16, to say nothing of 1 Timothy 2:4 and many other passages of Scripture.
In Vines’ critique of Calvinism, noting that John 3:16 (“that whosoever believes”) responds to five-point Calvinism, he then critiques Arminianism by noting, “The phrase ‘but have everlasting life’ responds to Arminianism, which says God only gives life conditionally. John 3:16 is a simple biblicism which reveals the mind, the heart, and the will of God.”2
There is a need to critique Vines’ statement regarding Arminianism here. First, there are many in the Arminian camp which adhere to eternal security. Call them “four-point Arminians” if it helps you sleep better at night; nonetheless, I personally know many Arminians who hold to Perseverance. Second, even Arminians who believe in Apostasy admit that one’s eternal security is found in Christ. Thus eternal life is really granted to all who trust in Christ, and they can be sure of their salvation as long as they remain in Christ. A believer, as long as he or she remains a believer, cannot forfeit his or her salvation. Third, though it may seem pious to some to claim that their “non-Calvinist” / “non-Arminian” stance is merely “biblicistic,” that nomenclature is unfair, since both Calvinists and Arminians derive their beliefs from Scripture alone: all Bible-believing Christians are “biblicists.”
What Vines, and those who follow his train of thought on this specific issue, means by such a statement is that once a person receives Christ, there is no way that he or she would not remain in Christ (even though Christ warned His followers regarding remaining in Him, John 15:1-6). Therefore, in Vines’ theology, a Christian will remain a believer and gain eternal life without question. For those who adhere to Apostasy, however, the believer has no absolute guarantee that he or she will remain a believer. (See Arminius and Calvin on Perseverance here.) Assuming Vines’ doctrine of perseverance is correct, in that a believer will inevitably remain a believer, then his critique of Arminianism is correct. However, his doctrine of perseverance remains an assumption in the opinion of many. But he neglected to mention that many Arminians (and especially those “non-Calvinists” and Arminians in the SBC) agree with him on this issue.
Vines correctly notes that the word “world” at John 3:16 “provides no hint here that [it] refers only to the world of the elect.”3 This is true contextually and etymologically. We have not one Lexicon which gives the Greek word for “world” to denote “elect,” let alone “the unconditionally elect.” The attempt by many Calvinists to infer “God so loved the world” necessarily implies “God so loved the unconditionally elect” is nothing short of desperate. Terry L. Miethe comments that none of our Lexicons or following works gives “elect” as a definition for “world”: Trench, Kittel, Vine, Vincent, Robinson, Thayer, Berry, Arndt-Gingrich, Abbott-Smith, Schaff-Herzog, Hasting, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Tasker, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, or John D. Davis’s Dictionary of the Bible.4
Truth be told, the concept of unconditional election is not found in Scripture, to say nothing of the actual wording. Arminius notes that if salvation is conditional, then election is conditional as well: election and salvation are found in Christ.5 For Vines, as well as Arminius, God’s love is global, sacrificial, personal and eternal.6 This precludes any theory of unconditional election.
Some Calvinists have argued that the phrase “whosoever believes” should be rendered “the one who believes.” Allegedly, this change is supposed to negate the universality of the text. Evidently, from this perspective, God is not interested in the salvation of “whosoever,” but of “the one who believes.” But this change is entirely inconsequential, because “the one” who believes could still be anyone, anywhere and at any time. Vines writes: “David Allen says, ‘The addition of pas before the participle generalizes it to every single person. The best translation is: ‘Anyone who believes.’ The idea is non-restrictive. The idea is anyone . . . anywhere . . . anytime.’”7
I enjoyed Vines’ academic and heart-felt chapter and his passion both for God and His word. Vines merely echoes the heart of God for lost sinners: “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost” (Isaiah 55:1 NASB); “Come to Me,” says Jesus, “all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28 NASB).
DR. PAIGE PATTERSON: TOTAL DEPRAVITY
This chapter, though in my opinion the weakest in the book, is remote to the Calvinist-Arminian debate because both Calvinists and Classical or Reformed Arminians believe in total depravity and inability. While semi-Pelagians deny total inability, Reformed Arminians adhere to the doctrine, noting that without the power of the Holy Spirit, no one could or would receive Christ Jesus as Lord. Dr. Patterson’s views are a weak Arminian view at best, and semi-Pelagian at worst, in my opinion.
Patterson rightly and scripturally refutes the theory of regeneration preceding faith. He quotes the truth of John 6:44, noting that without the supernatural agency of the Lord, no one would come to Christ, and also quotes from John 12:32, stating, “The Father’s plan for the Suffering Servant is one way by which appeal is made to every human heart.”8 Patterson, in Classical Arminian fashion, writes:
Therefore, all people, though totally depraved and unable to do anything to save themselves, receive the witness of Christ lifted up in His atoning work to draw them to the Savior. This enablement, together with the witness of the Word of God and the convicting agency of the Holy Spirit, is adequate to elicit faith but may ultimately be resisted by the sinner in his depravity.9
Patterson places the origin of depravity in Adam, but notes that “the Federal Theory fails to explain adequately the transmission of a sinful nature. . . .”10 The Natural Headship Theory of the Reformers, for Patterson, “rings true, offering a viable explanation for the effect of Adam’s sin upon all subsequent members of the race.”11 Sinners are born “dead” spiritually, i.e. separated from life in God and a right relationship with Him. However, he relates many (too many) stories and analogies as examples of how “the dead” can still respond to God: sinners are “helpless and hopeless in that sin, but they can still cry out to God. All the people on the face of the earth can cry out to God.”12 Most Classical Arminians, however, are not convinced that Patterson is entirely correct. Arminius states:
In this [fallen and sinful] state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good, is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. . . .
The Mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God: For “the natural man has no perception of the things of the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). . . .
To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil. . . .
To these let the consideration of the whole of the Life of Man who is placed under sin be added, of which the Scriptures exhibit to us the most luminous descriptions; and it will be evident that nothing can be spoken more truly concerning man in this state than that he is altogether dead in sin (Rom. 3:10-19).13
I am not necessarily suggesting that Patterson is “soft” on the will or depravity of mankind, but I will certainly admit that Arminius possesses a far more severe perspective on Total Depravity and Inability than does Patterson. Calvinist R. C. Sproul confesses:
The above citation from one of Arminius’s works demonstrates how seriously he regards the depths of the fall. He is not satisfied to declare that man’s will was merely wounded or weakened. He insists that it was ‘imprisoned, destroyed, and lost.’ The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.14
The problem, in my opinion, in SBC pulpits regarding depravity and free will is (obviously) not Classical Arminianism (and certainly not the Works of Arminius) but semi-Pelagianism. Arminius’s views on Total Depravity / Inability, as those of Classical Arminians today who follow his thought, are Reformational (and Calvinistic). I am not convinced that Patterson’s views on depravity are as strong as Reformed Arminians.
If anyone is under the impression that the first two chapters of Whosoever Will are subpar, the next two chapters are certainly heavy-hitting, to say the least. Richard Land’s chapter on Unconditional Election, coupled with David Allen’s chapter on Limited Atonement and Steve Lemke’s chapter on Irresistible Grace, take TULIP theology to serious task.
__________
1 Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 14.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid., 17.
4 Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism & Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House, 2002), 53.
5 Terry L. Miethe, “The Universal Power of the Atonement,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 77. See also BDAG, pp. 561-63.
6 Whosoever, 15-28.
7 Ibid., 24.
8 Ibid., 35.
9 Ibid., 36.
10 Ibid., 37.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., 43.
13 James Arminius, “Twenty-Five Public Disputations: On the Free Will of Man and its Powers,” The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:189-96.
14 R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy Over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 127.
________________________________________
DR. RICHARD LAND: CONGRUENT ELECTION: AN “ETERNAL NOW” PERSPECTIVE
Dr. Richard Land’s chapter (three), “Congruent Election: Understanding Salvation from an ‘Eternal Now’ Perspective,” offers a sort of middle approach to the Doctrine of Election between Calvinism’s Unconditional Election and the Classical Arminian’s Foreknowledge or Corporate Election model.
Land first traces Southern Baptist roots in order to gain a contextualized perspective of the Doctrine of Election as it has been maintained in Southern Baptist tradition. The most significant figure in Southern Baptist life during the eighteenth century was John Leland, who stated that “the doctrine of sovereign grace in the salvation of souls, mixed with a little of what is called Arminianism” best fits his understanding of the subject. Many Southern Baptists today who reject both five-point Calvinism and five-point Arminianism vie for a middle approach to the doctrine — God elected whom He would save, and people maintain free will. How these two beliefs find reconciliation is either described as a mystery (or antinomy) or, as Spurgeon stated, needs no reconciliation, for friends do not need to be reconciled.
Land quotes Leland’s criticism of both Calvinism and Arminianism, stating that “men often spend too much time in explaining away one or the other, or in fixing the lock-link to join the others together; and by such means have but little time in a sermon to insist on these two great things which God blesses” (47). However, both five-point Calvinists and Classical Arminians are merely aspiring to be consistent with the biblical data, not “explain away” what others suggest are problem texts: both are seeking to attain biblical consistency.
Separate or Regular or Particular Baptists (Calvinists) and General Baptists (Arminians) in the South preserved their obvious theological differences. Land notes that Regular Baptists (Calvinists) “were a constant reminder that men can preach all they want, but if God’s Holy Spirit does not convict and call, men are not going to respond” (48). Classical Arminians wholeheartedly agree, as did Arminius, even if the General Baptists (Arminians) in the eighteenth century “provided emphasis on the necessity for human agency in reaching men with the gospel” (49).
The soteriology of Southern Baptists, as is demonstrated in the New Hampshire Confession, was “neither fully Calvinistic nor remotely Arminian”:
[We] believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the Gospel; that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith; and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth except his own inherent depravity and voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ, which refusal will subject him to an aggravated condemnation. (51)
All Classical Arminians agree with that statement. Absent from such a statement is any notion of reprobation by decree or unconditional election unto faith and salvation — both of which belong to Calvinism.
Land offers a conceptual method of Congruent Election in his chapter. He states: “my doctrinal formulation should ignore no Scripture and seek to harmonize all revelation” (52). Such is the goal of every serious student of Scripture. He continues:
My theology should allow me the freedom to preach from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans that those God “foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son . . . and those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30 HCSB). Here the objects of His grace are so secure and certain in their destiny that He can speak of their ultimate heavenly glorification as a past, completed event. (52)
One might ask, If the objects of God’s grace are “so secure and certain in their destiny,” then why would the authors of Scripture warn those objects concerning falling away from the faith and salvation? But I digress. Land also confesses:
My theology should make me equally comfortable preaching Eph 1:3-5 and 1 Tim 2:3-6. . . . [In] his first epistle to Timothy, the apostle Paul declares that “God our Savior . . . wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4 HCSB). In these verses God’s “desire” for everyone to be saved is thelō, “speaking of a wish or desire that arises from one’s emotions.” Wuest explains that the “literal Greek is, ‘who willeth all men’ and ‘marks a determinitate purpose.’” God, Paul reveals, strongly desires that all men be saved and come to an epignōsis or “advanced or full knowledge” of the truth. The Timothy passage further declares that Jesus gave Himself as a substitutionary atonement, “a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6 HCSB). (53)
The manner in which Land constructs his Doctrine of Election while maintaining both truths is through the agency of congruency. Since God has always existed in the “Eternal Now,” then His relation to His creation has always been present. The “elect” are those who “will be” saved, not those who “must be” saved, as in necessitarian Calvinism. The “non-elect” are those who “will not” be saved, not those who “cannot be” saved, as decreed in Calvinism.
Land’s Dispensationalism led him to accept what I call a two-election theory. He sharply distinguishes between Israel’s (or the Abrahamic) Election and the Doctrine of Election in the New Testament. Israel’s election was corporate and included only those “within the covenant people,” but also incorporated salvifically those who “understood and appropriated in their souls the saving truths taught in the Old Testament’s sacrificial system” (53). While the “Abrahamic Election” was corporate (but included individuals who appropriated faith), the “salvation election” of the New Testament “pertains to God’s elective purpose in how He brings about the eternal salvation of individual human beings, both Jew and Gentile” (54)
Classical Arminians (as well as early Church fathers prior to Augustine) have long retained the biblical model of Election, that believers are the Elect and nonbelievers are the non-Elect. The non-Elect may become the Elect through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. God is the One who brings about the salvation of the one who will trust in His Son Jesus Christ. God is willing to save all those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21). The only ones whom God is unwilling to save are those who will not trust in His one and only Son. Classical Arminians find no biblical reason why Election in the Old Testament must be viewed as radically different in the New. Land, however, complains: “conflating the two differing types of election or assuming they are the same — they are not — is unwise and misleading (55). If Arminians are wrong on this issue, I certainly would not suggest that they are intentionally “misleading” people. No one has to resort to that type of rhetoric in order to make one’s point.
Land confesses that his model of Congruent Election is “new” (55-57), and in my opinion it is speculative as well, noting Land’s “what if” and “if” statements (55). He notes: “I challenge all interested parties to read Romans 9-11 carefully and think about two types of election, Abrahamic (corporate) and salvation (individual). . . . When you view these chapters from that perspective, previous understandings of election are challenged and changed” (59). The hermeneutical grid, then, by which he interprets Romans 9-11, as well as Ephesians 1 and other passages, is through the lens of the two-election theory.
However, given any number of hermeneutical grids by which one could interpret any number of texts, one could conclude with any number of possible interpretations. In my opinion, what Land is suggesting is that we all view Scripture through a Dispensational lens in order to accurately understand his Doctrine of Congruent Election. But before we could do that, we would have to validate Dispensationalism. Moreover, we would have to be shown why the Doctrine of Election in the Old Testament is so radically different from the Doctrine of Election in the New. Is not the Bible one unified book?
While I appreciate Land’s attempt of understanding Election in a non-Calvinistic manner, he also states that his view “rejects the woeful under-estimation by some Arminians of the ravaging effects of the sinful nature on the human ability to respond to God apart from prevenient, enabling grace” (59). I understand that by such a statement Land is trying to distance himself from any semblance of Arminianism. In this way, his Calvinistic opponents cannot point their finger at Land and declare that his views are merely regurgitated Arminianism. But as was pointed out on yesterday’s post, regarding Paige Patterson’s chapter on Total Depravity, the Classical Arminian view on the “ravaging effects of the sinful nature” are much more severe that what Patterson and many other Southern Baptists offer.
I have two concluding remarks: 1) While I appreciate Land’s stance against the unbiblical theory of Unconditional Election, I was left uncertain whether God’s election of the elect was before the foundation of the world, as was alluded to by his quoting Ephesians 1:4, or if the non-elect truly could have been saved; and 2) He concludes the chapter by stating: “I believe God led me to this understanding of election” (59). That is an outrageous statement! It is nothing short of admitting infallibility, which has more in common with Rome or the modern Charismatic movement than Southern Baptist tradition.
It is one thing to suggest that the Spirit of God aided him while studying Scripture, granting him the ability to study and to put his own findings together, but his conclusion cannot be said to be from the leading of God. Such a bold statement means that he is right, with his novel theory of Congruent Election, and everyone else is wrong and should adopt it. We should not be so careless with our language, and we should not be so afraid to admit that we are all trying to be godly and consistent with God’s revelation without having to suggest that God led us to such conclusions. Such a statement is a plea for authority, and I think it should be taken out of future copies of the book.
__________
Richard Land, “Congruent Election: Understanding Salvation from an ‘Eternal Now’ Perspective,” in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).
________________________________________
DR. DAVID L. ALLEN: THE ATONEMENT: LIMITED OR UNIVERSAL?
Dr. David L. Allen’s excellent chapter (four), “The Atonement: Limited or Universal?” seeks to answer the key question “whether Scripture teaches limited atonement” (61). The Calvinist who comes to a conclusion which necessitates logically a limited atonement based upon a philosophical assumption bares the burden of proof of exegeting that doctrine from Scripture. In my opinion, the doctrine is necessitated not by proper study of Scripture but by the Doctrine of Unconditional Election.
Allen acknowledges that the earliest Baptists (General — Arminian — Baptists) “believed the nature of Christ’s satisfaction for sin on the cross extended to every human being. Thus the atonement was universal in scope” (61). This biblical doctrine does not lead to the doctrine of Universalism (that everyone will inevitably be saved), since only the believer experiences Christ’s propitiation. He briefly defines his definitions in the chapter in an effort to rightly represent all parties involved in the debate, noting that there are three “major areas [which] comprise the subject of the atonement: intent, extent, and application” (64).
“The intent of the atonement,” writes Allen, “answers the question, What was Christ’s saving purpose in providing an atonement?” (64) Allen accomplishes something extraordinary by noting that “God’s plan in the atonement was to provide a punishment and a satisfaction for sin as a basis for salvation for all humanity and to secure the salvation of all who believe in Christ” (64). The atonement is seen by many as being merely positive — the means by which God will save human beings. But Christ’s atonement also secures the damnation of those who will not receive Christ. No sinner could ever complain that God was being unjust with him or her, since atonement was made on his or her behalf, if he or she would have trusted in Christ: The one who continues to believe in the Son will keep on having eternal life, but the one who keeps on disobeying the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains upon that one (John 3:36).
“The extent of the atonement,” writes Allen, “answers the question, For whose sins was Christ punished?” (65) At this point I began to think about the suffering which Christ Jesus endured. Suddenly, I was propelled back in time to the day on which Jesus was being tormented, beaten, whipped, mocked and then crucified. In a moment I thought that our wrangling over the extent of Jesus Christ’s atonement had somehow been cheapened by our debate. This is our Savior that we are talking about. He felt each strike, each slap, every slash of a soldier’s whip. He heard and felt the insults and mockery. He endured the nails and the splintery seat on the cross, while He struggled for each breath. He was suspended between heaven and earth for all present to gaze upon his naked body. What humiliation! And here we are debating the extent of His agony. Allen concludes: “All Arminians, moderate Calvinists, and non-Calvinists believe that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity” (65).
“The application of the atonement,” Allen continues, “answers the question, When is the atonement applied to the sinner?” (65). He grants three options: 1) it was already applied in God’s eternal decree to save His unconditionally elect (held by hyper-Calvinists); 2) it was already applied at the cross to all of God’s unconditionally elect (held by some hyper-Calvinists and supralapsarian Calvinists); or 3) the biblical view, admits Allen, which is that it is “applied at the moment the sinner exercises faith in Christ” (65). He notes that these three subjects “(intent, extent, and application) cannot and should not be divorced from one another. The focus in this chapter is primarily on the question of the extent of the atonement” (65).
In his chapter, Allen “argues the case for unlimited atonement (an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ) and against limited atonement (a limited imputation of sin to Christ) without ever quoting a single Arminian or non-Calvinist” (66), which would not be difficult to accomplish since he has in his possession God’s word. However, Allen intends to reach his goal from quoting Calvinists! He surveys five areas in answering the question “whether the atonement of Christ is limited or unlimited: historical, biblical, logical, theological, and practical” (67).
HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Allen asks what men such as John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Thomas Cranmer, Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, Stephen Charnock, Isaac Watts, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainard, Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, J. C. Ryle and A. H. Strong have in common: “All were Calvinists, and all did not teach limited atonement” (67). He then lists (and quotes from) Calvinists from Dort and Westminster Divines who also rejected limited atonement. He understands that “truth cannot be determined by counting noses” (78). However, he explains that their views on the subject of the extent of the atonement should not be overlooked, given their influence upon the theology of the Church.
EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Allen seeks to reconcile the three types of texts — “all,” “world” and “many” — with those which state that Christ died for His “church,” “sheep” and “friends” (78). Though both Christ Jesus and the apostle Paul state that Christ died for His church (and sheep and friends), those texts do not explicitly state that He only died for them. Calvinists (such as John Owen) allow their theology to determine their exegesis (79). By this method, then, words such as “all” and “world” must be re-interpreted as “all the unconditionally elect” or “the world of the unconditionally elect.” Allen comments: “To make the meaning of ‘world’ here [John 3:16] ‘the elect’ is to commit a logical and linguistic mistake of confusing categories” (80). He rightly explains:
The strength of any theological position is only as great as the exegetical basis upon which it is built. Limited atonement (strict particularism) is built on a faulty exegetical foundation. Those who affirm limited atonement usually affirm God’s love for all humanity and God’s desire to save all humanity (in His revealed will, though not in His secret will). However, they deny that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity [contrary to John 1:29]. Any teaching that says God does not love all humanity [John 3:16], God has no intent or desire to save all humanity [1 Tim. 2:4], or Jesus did not die for the sins of all humanity [1 John 2:2], is contrary to Scripture and should be rejected” (83).
I am reminded of John Piper’s question whether Christ died for the sin of unbelief. He is attempting to suggest that if we answer yes, then we must concede to Universalism. We would have to admit that Jesus did indeed die for the sin of unbelief, but the propitiation for that sin can only be applied to the person who believes. Piper continually ignores the conditionality of the atonement, and this is partly why much of his theology is so erroneous.
THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
John Owen’s infamous “double payment” argument against the biblical doctrine of unlimited atonement is dismantled by Allen. He notes that Owen’s inept attempt at arguing against unlimited atonement faces several problems. First and foremost, such an argument is not found (or even hinted at) in Scripture. The authors of Scripture unequivocally taught unlimited atonement. Second, “it confuses a pecuniary (commercial) debt and penal satisfaction for sin” (83). Third, “the elect are still under the wrath of God until they believe (Eph. 2:4)” (83). This truth speaks to the error of unconditional election as well, for how could God’s wrath have any real power for those whom He has unconditionally elected to save from that wrath? Fourth, “it negates the principle of grace in the application of the atonement — nobody is owed the application” (83).
Allen even acknowledges that other Calvinists, such as Edward Polhill, R. L. Dabney, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and Curt Daniel, have been very critical of the “double payment” argument: “Though Christ died sufficiently for all people, the promise of deliverance is conditional” (85). There is no double payment. It was constructed as a desperate attempt to promote the error of limited atonement.
LOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
To suggest that because Christ died for His “church” or His “sheep,” then He only died for the elect, is to commit the negative inference fallacy: “the proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse” (93). A person cannot infer a negative. This is a rather embarrassing fallacy for the particularist: “There is no statement in Scripture that says Jesus died only for the sins of the elect” (93).
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Allen notes seven areas which he believes could negatively impact one’s practical theology if limited atonement was adopted, which includes 1) the problem of the diminishing of God’s universal saving will; 2) problems for evangelism (though many Calvinists are engaged in aggressive evangelism, paticularists can never admit to sinners that God loves them or that Christ died for them since they cannot know that for sure); 3) problems for preaching (see previous complaint); 4) problems for the giving of altar calls; 5) problems when Calvinism is equated with the gospel; 6) problems when non-Calvinist churches interview a Calvinist potential pastor or staff member (ambiguous questions and answers, ignorance, and dishonesty in this area are causing problems in Southern Baptist churches); and 7) problems when being truly Southern Baptist is equated with being a Calvinist.
Allen concludes his chapter noting that historically “neither Calvin nor the first generation of reformers held the doctrine of limited atonement” (107); biblically, “the doctrine of limited atonement simply does not reflect the teaching of Scripture” (107); both theologically and logically, “limited atonement is flawed and indefensible” (107); and practically, “limited atonement creates serious problems for God’s universal saving will” (107). He conclues:
I cannot help but remember the words of the venerable retired distinguished professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Jack McGorman, in his inimitable style and accent: “The doctrine of limited atonement truncates the gospel by sawing off the arms of the cross too close to the stake.” Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward “five-point” Calvinism? Such a move would be, in my opinion, not a helpful one. (107)
__________
David L. Allen, “The Atonement: Limited or Universal?,” in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).
________________________________________
DR. STEVE W. LEMKE: A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
Dr. Steve Lemke’s chapter (five) “A Biblical and Theological Critique of Irresistible Grace” strikes a devastating blow to the philosophical theory of irresistible grace. He places the origin of the debate between the doctrines of resistible and irresistible grace with the Calvinists of Dort and the Remonstrants, the followers and successors of Jacob Arminius, and then examines (and decimates) the theory of irresistible grace from Scripture.
Lemke also assesses the teachings of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, noting the absence of the theory of irresistible grace taught within its pages (129-131), and concludes with seven theological concerns about the implication of irresistible grace, including, most notably, the shocking potential that irresistible grace can lead to the denial of the necessity for conversion, which is proven by anti-scriptural and heretical statements quoted from Calvinist David Engelsma (who studied at the Protestant Reformed Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI, for three years under Calvinist Herman Hoeksema), as well as comments from the supralapsarian heretic R. C. Sproul, Jr. (my words, not those of Lemke).
Lemke notes that Arminius’s followers, the Remonstrants (because they held to a high view of Scripture), maintained the biblical teaching that the grace of God is
the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places. (110)
Classical Arminians appeal to Scripture when addressing the grace of God in salvation and are not stymied by a philosophical presupposition, such as unconditional election or limited atonement, which necessitates a theory of irresistible grace. Lemke quotes from Dortian Calvinists who denied the following:
God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man’s conversion, man nevertheless can . . . resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him (111).
Calvinists often balk at the biblical teaching of resistible grace because, at least for them, it makes God’s effectual work less effectual. But they are operating under a presupposition, one which is absent in Classical Arminian theology: God effectually draws His unconditionally elect unto His Son Jesus Christ in His sovereign time by the operation of regeneration through the Holy Spirit. This entire construction, as noted above, necessitates a theory of irresistible grace.
Arminians and other non-Calvinists (and not a few moderate Calvinists) reject the speculation of irresistible grace (that regeneration precedes faith) and often charge Calvinists as teaching that God imposes (others suggest forces) regeneration and conversion and faith and salvation upon unsuspecting sinners. Many Calvinists tend to soften the term “irresistible grace” by replacing it with a term like “effectual calling” (112). They do not want people to misunderstand their doctrine. Someone such as John Piper admits the following in an article on his site: “the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible” (112). Yet, Piper (and his staff at Desiring God) also affirms: “irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will” (112). Lemke comments: “No attempt is made in the article to reconcile these apparently contradictory assertions” (112).
R. C. Sproul, Sr. is convinced that the word “draw” at John 6:44 is “‘a much more forceful concept than to woo,’ and means ‘to compel by irresistible superiority”‘ (113). Thus, God does not force sinners to convert, He compels them irresistibly to convert. Lemke asks: “So which way is it? If God compels persons with ‘irresistible superiority,’ in what way is it inaccurate to say that God is forcing people to choose Christ?” (113) He concludes:
The problem is that Calvinists cannot have their cake and eat it, too. They cannot insist that an omnipotent God overwhelms and bends human will powerfully and unfailingly, and then transform this doctrine into something other than it is by softening it with more palatable language such as “effectual calling” and “compatibilism” [compatibilist volition]. The effectual calling means precisely the same thing as irresistible grace. Effectual calling just sounds nicer. At the end of the day, people have no choice but to do what God has programmed them to do. (114)
This truth corresponds well, however, with the Calvinists’ distorted view of God’s “absolute sovereignty.” Lemke comments: “When pressed by their own words, Calvinists sometimes seem to play word games or equivocate their words in order to make their beliefs more palatable” (116), which is of course dishonest.
Ultimately, however, the problem with the conception of irresistible grace is its utter lack of scriptural warrant. Lemke underscores many biblical passages which explicitly exemplifies resistible grace and the genuine offer of salvation to all people, not solely to the unconditionally elect (partially listed here): Ps. 78:10; 81:11-13; Prov. 1:23-26; Jer. 32:33; Joel 2:32; Hosea 11:1-9; Matt. 7:24; 10:32-33; 11:28; 13:1-23; 18:14; 21:28-32; 23:37; Mk. 4:1-20; Luke 6:47; 7:30; 8:1-15; 12:8; 13:34; 18:18-23; John 1:7; 3:15-16; 4:13-14; 6:40; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21; 7:51-60; 10:43; 26:14; Rom. 9:33; 10:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2, 23; 5:1.
The last 21 pages of Lemke’s chapter addresses what he notes as seven theological concerns about irresistible grace:
1. Irresistible Grace Can Lead to the Denial of the Necessity for Conversion:
Calvinist David Engelsma, when asked when he was converted, shockingly responds: “When was I not converted?” (132) Is he promoting the hyper-Calvinist heresy of eternal justification? He states: “As a Reformed minister and parent, I have no interest whatever in conversion as the basis for viewing baptized children as God’s dear children, loved of him from eternity, redeemed by Jesus, and promised the Holy Spirit, the author of faith. None!” (132) This, of course, completely contradicts Jesus’ teaching at John 1:12. Noting that Engelsma’s position is perhaps “embarrassing and unpopular among some contemporary Calvinists,” Lemke notes that it “is consistent with the teachings of John Calvin himself, as well as affirmations in the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confession” (132).
Supralapsarian heretic R. C. Sproul, Jr., affirming the concept that the sprinkling of infants removes the guilt of original sin, making their covenant secure as one of God’s unconditionally elect and eliminating one’s need for repentance and conversion, berated Billy Graham for his insistence that the children who died in the Oklahoma City bombing were with Jesus in heaven. Lemke writes:
Sproul Jr. insisted that since we are born guilty of original sin, and infants have no opportunity for justification by faith, they have no real hope of salvation. He accused Graham of advocating “a new gospel — justification by youth alone” [perhaps Sproul Jr. prefers justification by sprinkling alone]. Sproul’s article was infamous not only in quickly setting the record for the number of letters to the editor but also in setting the record for producing not a single letter affirming Sproul’s position. (133)
Lemke comments: “Hopefully, few Calvinistic Baptists are tempted to practice nonconversionist Calvinism in the manner of Engelsma,” especially since repentance and conversion, coupled with faith in Christ Jesus, are at the heart of the gospel (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 11:20; 21:32; Lk. 13:3, 5, 7; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor. 7:10). He continues:
When Baptists go out of their way to organize fellowship with such Presbyterians rather than fellow Baptists, or when they push to allow people christened as infants into the membership of their own church without believer’s baptism, or when they speak of public invitations as sinful or as a rejection of the sovereignty of God, seeing much difference between them is difficult. (134)
Lemke’s other six concerns include: 2) Irresistible Grace Reverses the Biblical Order of Salvation (134-40); 3) Irresistible Grace Could Weaken the Significance of Preaching the Word of God, Evangelism, and Missions (140-45); 4) Irresistible Grace Creates Questions About the Character of God, Particularly Regarding the Problem of Evil (145-50); 5) Irresistible Grace Does Not Have an Adequate Account of Human Freedom (150-52); 6) Irresistible Grace Has an Inadequate View of Time and Eternity (152-53); and 7) Irresistible Grace Does Not Maximize God’s Sovereignty and Glory (153-62).
He rightly concludes: “I believe the cumulative case that has been raised against irresistible grace is compelling” (162). Lemke’s chapter is more than merely compelling; it is one of the most definitive articles on the subject of not only the resistibility of God’s grace but the manner in which God relates to mankind salvifically.
__________
Steve W. Lemke, “A Biblical and Theological Critique of Irresistible Grace,” in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic), 2010.
________________________________________
DR. KENNETH D. KEATHLEY: PERSEVERANCE AND ASSURANCE OF THE SAINTS
Professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, Dr. Kenneth Keathley’s excellent chapter (six) “Perseverance and Assurance of the Saints” argues that “the basis of assurance is the same as the basis for salvation itself: Jesus Christ — who He is, what He has done, and what He has promised” (164). He maintains that assurance in perseverance “is found in our justification in Christ rather than in our sanctification” (164).
Keathley offers two major components regarding this subject: how one can know that he or she is genuinely saved, and how secure can a person be in one’s salvation. While Roman Catholics think it is arrogant for Protestants to claim that they can know that they are or will be saved (163, 166), the Reformers, Puritans and other Protestants historically have held that a person can know the spiritual state of one’s salvation by faith in Christ Jesus. Keathley sums up Calvin’s view: “the believer will know when he has believed” (167).
The doctrine of perseverance is supposed to be a comfort (an assurance) for the believer in times of doubt, temptation and persecution — that he or she is safe eternally in Christ. For many believers, however, their assurance has been ambushed either by the doctrine of unconditional election or the necessity of works. Arminius’s mentor, Theodore Beza, “departed from Calvin by adhering to a doctrine . . . of assurance that begins with the absolute decree of the hidden God as its starting point” (168). The Puritans found it difficult to maintain assurance of salvation because they did not know for certain if they were unconditionally elected by God. They knew that the heart was deceitful and that they could have been deceived into thinking that they were saved: no one can know for certain that he or she has been unconditionally elected from eternity past and will not fall away from the faith and be lost. Calvinism still faces this problem. Arminianism does not look for a secret or hidden will of God, whereby He unconditionally elected only some unto faith and salvation, we look to present faith in Christ Jesus.
To add insult to injury, the doctrine of temporary faith, propagated by Beza and William Perkins, “further intensified the problem of assurance” (169). Keathley writes:
According to them, God gives to the reprobate, whom He never intended to save in the first place, a “taste” of His grace. Based on passages such as Matt 7:21-23; Heb 6:4-6, and the parable of the Sower, Beza and Perkins attribute this false, temporary faith to an ineffectual work of the Holy Spirit. . . . Beza declared that the reason God gives temporary faith to the reprobate is so that “their fall might be more grievous.” In Olmsted’s opinion, Beza’s teaching “comes perilously close to ascribing the matter to divine sadism.” (169-70)
Keathley notes that “these doctrines produced a crippling anxiety in the later Calvinists and Puritans that drove them to an introspection which an objective observer might describe as pathological” (170). There is no wonder why Calvinists such as Perkins and John Bunyan died with little assurance of being justified and entering heaven (170), since they could not know infallibly if they were unconditionally elected by God.
History shows that Augustine was the first one to generate the heretical and unbiblical theory that “God has not elected every believer whom He regenerates” (172). Accordingly, Augustine believed that God “regenerates more than He elects” (172-73), though he does not know why God would do such a thing (173). That God would deceive a person into believing that he or she is justified, by regenerating that individual, enabling him or her to actually believe in Christ, only to retrieve that individual’s regeneration, thereby causing him or her to fall away from Christ, is unthinkable.
How secure is one’s salvation? Keathley lists Augustine’s heretical view, that apostasy is possible, but the cause for that apostasy lies in God’s deceiving those whom He temporarily regenerates. He then lists other views, such as the one which holds that nonpersevering believers fall. This is what is known as a typical Arminian view, expounded by Dale Moody and I. Howard Marshall. Moody is quoted as stating: “Eternal life is the life of those who continue to follow Jesus. No one can retain eternal life who turns away from Jesus” (173).
The Classical Calvinist position is that apostasy is not possible, since it is predicated upon the doctrine of unconditional election and limited atonement, to say nothing of irresistible grace. Included in this Calvinistic position, however, are divergent beliefs. Karl Barth taught implicit universalism: everyone will be saved regardless, for all are elect (174). Charles Stanley, Zane Hodges, R. T. Kendall and Charles Ryrie hold to once-saved-always-saved: even those who turn away from Christ will be saved, since salvation is like a tattoo which cannot be removed, no matter what the life of that individual is like after receiving it — even if the person rejects Christ (174-75). Another view is called evidence-of-genuineness: the fruits of salvation “will necessarily and eventually manifest themselves in the life of the believer” (175). Scholars such as D. A. Carson sustain the belief that apostasy is threatened but is not possible: this tension necessitates mystery or antinomy — it is an irreconcilable tension.
Keathley then expounds on Thomas Schreiner and A. B. Caneday’s view that the threat of losing one’s salvation is the means by which God preserves His unconditionally elect (177-83). He does an excellent job of accurately expressing this view. Keathley appears to leave no stone unturned regarding the means-of-salvation position, and then he demonstrates why the view is not viable whatsoever.
The inconsistency of this position is glaring: “the warning passages, such as those found in the book of Hebrews, threaten believers with eternal damnation in hell if they fail to persevere” (177) (emphases added). Again, “a Christian can know he is saved based on God’s promises, although various New Testament warning passages threaten him with final condemnation if he does not persevere” (181) (emphases added). Note that this view insists that believers cannot fall away — they will necessarily persevere. However, this same believer, the one who will inevitably persevere, is threatened with eternal damnation if he or she “fails to persevere.”
These incongruous statements are completely unwarranted. In effect, believers are being threatened by something that is non-threatening. Believers who follow this error are taught to be scared of a bogeyman who does not exist in reality. If believers cannot fall away, then neither do they persevere by an empty threat. Keathley rightly notes: “They affirm that the believer experiences forensic justification, full adoption, and divine regeneration as present realities. How then is it conceivable that a believer so positioned in Christ is in any danger of damnation?” (181) This position is an embarrassing and inept attempt at taking the warning passages in Scripture seriously. It is impossible to heed a warning when the results of not heeding the warning do not exist.
Keathley offers a model of perseverance and assurance that is a variation of the evidence-of-genuineness position. Though I do not fully agree with his position, because I believe that apostasy is possible for a believer, I appreciate much of Keathley’s view, including the proposition that “the only basis for assurance is the objective work of Christ” (184). Without a proper Christology, it is difficult to maintain a biblical view of God’s relation to sinful mankind through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Keathley adds: “Any doctrine of assurance that includes introspection as a component will produce anxiety in the hearts of the people it is intended to encourage” (185).
There is a lot of merit in his statement. However, the believer is exhorted to a measure of introspection: “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you — unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Cor. 13:5 NASB); and also, “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall” (2 Pet. 1:10 NASB).
Concerning works, Keathley rightly notes: “Good works and the evidences of God’s grace do not provide assurance. They provide warrant to assurance but not assurance itself” (186). For Keathley, perseverance “should be understood as a faith that cannot be annihilated and therefore persists” (186). He notes that the warning passages “that look forward (such as those found in the book of Hebrews) are pointing out the obvious: genuine belief will not turn back. Warnings about future behavior can be tests of genuineness without being retrospective” (186).
__________
Kenneth Keathley, “Perseverance and Assurance of the Saints,” in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010).
__________
These five posts have corresponded with the five points of TULIP, part one of Whosoever Will. I highly recommend this book to all “non-Calvinist” or Arminian Southern Baptists (and others) for edification, clarification and information regarding the Calvinist-Arminian debate within SBC life. Part two of the book consists of articles by Kevin Kennedy, “Was Calvin a ‘Calvinist’? John Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement,” Malcolm B. Yarnell, III, “The Potential Impact of Calvinist Tendencies upon Local Baptist Churches,” R. Alan Street, “The Public Invitation and Calvinism,” and also two outstanding articles from professors of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, who did not speak at the John 3:16 Conference: Jeremy A. Evans, “Reflections on Determinism and Human Freedom,” and Bruce A. Little, “Evil and God’s Sovereignty,” both of which will be used on this site in future posts.
Filed under: CALVINISM Tagged: ARMINIANISM, CALVINISM, DAVID L. ALLEN, IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, JERRY VINES, KENNETH KEATHLEY, LIMITED ATONEMENT, PAIGE PATTERSON, PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS, RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTISTS, STEVE W. LEMKE, TOTAL DEPRAVITY, TULIP THEOLOGY, UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, WHOSOEVER WILL: A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF FIVE-POINT CALVINISM 
© 2011, Matt. All rights reserved.
