Some questions for an educated Calvinist

[Caleb Taylor]

I am Arminian but would appreciate an informed Calvinist to clarify some issues within Calvinism itself:

(1) Do most Calvinists hold to Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect? Is this a new or old idea in Calvinism?

(2) Does the hyper-Calvinist idea that the sufficiency of the atonement extends no further than its efficiency not fit more naturally with the title of "Limited Atonement" in TULIP than the supposedly generally accepted idea that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect?

(3) Was this not one of the problems Arminians originally had with "Limited Atonement" in the first place? (Namely opposing the hyper-Calvinist view.) I am an Arminian and can still accept the idea of sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect, which doesn't exactly sound very "limited" to me... Perhaps Calvinists over time have become more Armenian in their interpretation of TULIP?

(4) How does the "sufficiency" above differ from Richard Baxter's "general redemption" view?

Just trying to clarify things. Many thanks. Caleb.

 

[Caleb Taylor]

I found the following definition of limited atonement on bible-researcher.com/arminianism.html

"Particular redemption or limited atonement. Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and actually secured salvation for them. His death was the substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation; including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation."

As this mentions "intended to save the elect only" which is different from what I have seen elsewhere, would the writer then be regarded as "hyper-Calvinist" or closer to the original Calvinist ideas?

Many thanks again.

Caleb.

 

[AMR]

I think you will find your questions answered here:

Limited Atonement by Brian Schwertley

"Hyper-Calvinism" is hard to pin down as there are many views on what comprises the term. For example:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

 

[AMR]

I think you will find your questions answered here:

Limited Atonement by Brian Schwertley

"Hyper-Calvinism" is hard to pin down as there are many views on what comprises the term. For example:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

 

[hedrick]

The OP makes a false distinction. To my knowledge all Calvinists would agree that Christ's death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. This does not contradict limited atonement. Limited atonement says that Christ intended to die for the elect. It doesn't say that his death is insufficient for all, just that it was only intended to redeem the people that God gave to him.

Limited atonement is not hyper-Calvinism. It's part of the mainstream. For conservative Reformed it *is* the mainstream.

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Thanks.

I note in the first link the author states "Inconsistent universalism holds that Christ died for all men without exception, but that only some of those for whom Christ died actually will be saved..."

Does this include most Calvinists believe it. It sounds very Arminian... Since the author is arguing against it, perhaps he is in the minority of Calvinists, and therefore subject to the label "hyper-Calvinist"?

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Lets clarify,

So most Calvinists would agree to "sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect", and most Calvinists would disapprove of "Christ died for all men without exception, but that only some of those for whom Christ died actually will be saved" ?

They don't really sound much different, as they both have a sense in which the atonement is universal and some sense in which it is particular. .Doesn't it sound like splitting hairs?

On the other hand if most Calvinist agree to "Christ intended to die for the elect", this is getting a little more specific, and appears (by impression) to go against any idea of "sufficient". It seems to be a contradiction if most Calvinists would believe both. Do they?

 

[Caleb Taylor]

How would a Calvinist account for the following?

Not all preachers preach the perfect number of times that God wishes them to, so that the number of "elect" may be limited by the preacher's faithfulness in preaching (as how can they believe if they do not hear) and how will a preacher preach as any times according to God's perfect Will unless that preacher himself is perfect in following God?

If Calvinists hold that they are not perfect, then doesn't that mean they don't perfectly follow God's Will, and that there is less preaching going on than what God would fully intend (even if only a little less), and therefore this limits the number that hear the gospel, and therefore the number of those who believe, to be less than what he ideally intended to believe?

I would be interested in how a Calvinist would account for that.

That is why I really think that the only Calvinists who really believe TULIP are the hyper-Calvinists who go all the way and limit preaching just to the elect...

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Ultimately, instead of getting into arguments over words, we need to look at the practical aspects of our theology. What first impressions are we really trying to give? Ultimately Arminians are concerned with being able in evangelism and prayer, acquire "more" people for Christ whereas the Calvinists are settled for a set number, which would hold them back from using as many means as possible to gain more salvations e.g. increase prayer for the unsaved etc., at least that is the impression that is given through the wording of "limited", and ultimately the reason that inspired an Arminian reaction in the first place. We need to understand the reason and motivation behind it all, was not to put people in categories, and to see that we could further the cause of Christ through our obedience and ever increasing obedience to Him... Calvinists stress the sovereignty of God, but does this really have any practical motivations beyond elitism?

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Sorry, it still doesn't appear to make any sense...

The author you gave on hyper-Calvinism was interesting...

He noted...

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.


But, honestly, these are really the ONLY things that Arminians really stand againist!!! I honestly find it really hard to believe that ANYONE holding to TULIP would not automatically also come to the conclusions that are listed above. And if they don't, as far as I'm concerned, they ARE an Armenian, even if they call themselves Calvinist. I think they are really confused if they hold they are against the above statements yet hold doggedly to TULIP (which would clearly by first impression lead to the above).

The gospel call applies to all who hear
Faith is the duty of every sinner
The gospel makes some "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect.
The offer of divine mercy is free and universal.
There is such a thing as "common grace."
God has some sort of love for the non-elect.

All such above are COMPLETELY inconsistent with -

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace

I find it really hard to believe that one would try to fit them together at all. The statements seem diametrically opposed without any twisting of words to try and make them fit... Really they should be immediately evident and not need any qualification at all, otherwise they should be changed!

Caleb.

 

[twin1954]

First, no serious student of the Scriptures denies the doctrine of election. What many do is seek to twist the Scriptural teaching of it.

Second, the description of Hyper-Calvinism given in the link is hogwash. It is the polemic of a man who has an agenda and therefore defines terms to fit that agenda. A Hyper-Calvinist is one who believes that election is salvation instead of unto salvation. I know as I was raised as a Hyper.

Third, Arminians "limit" the atonement in a much more harmful way than Calvinists ever could. Calvinists limit, actually they don't the Scriptures do, the extent of the atonement to the elect while Arminians limit the power and meaning of it.

Fourth, The Calvinist has more reason to preach the Gospel and more assurance in it than the Arminian because we are assured that it is the power of God unto salvation to them that believe. We are not concerned with our appeal or our enticing words as they make no difference. We know that God will open the ears of the elect and that the Gospel will reach their hearts and that they will believe precisely because it doesn't rest with us or our preaching but with the Spirit. We recognize that in His sovereign wisdom He has ordained the preaching of the Gospel of the free and sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus as the means by which the elect shall hear and come to faith. We preach because we want with all our hearts for men to come to faith in Christ. We don't know who the elect are so it is impossible to just preach to them.

Fifth, the acrostic TULIP is not the best way of expressing the Doctrines of Grace to be sure. I actually rarely use it. I prefer total inability, unconditionional electing love, particular redemption, effectual calling and perseverance of the saints. But it must be understood that TULIP came about as an answer to the Remonstrance's 5 points and were never intended to be a clear and unqualified description of the truth of God.

Sixth, if you are actually seeking to learn what Calvinists believe then forget the acrostic and everything else you have heard or think concerning it and ask questions about our legitimate doctrines not about what is surmised.

 

[twin1954]

One more thing, the hypothetical concept of sufficient for all efficient for the elect only is just that, a hypothetical. It was devised in order to appease the Arminian and has no real basis in Scripture. It is a pointless exercise in theology for the atonement accomplished exactly what it was intended to and anything more or less is absurd. The atonement of Christ was sufficient and efficient to accomplish the full and complete redemption of every single sinner it was intended for.

 

[AMR]

We often see written that the atonement was “sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. The phrase leads to speculation without warrant. So we find folks speculating that, well, God could have saved everyone, etc., versus looking at exactly what God actually did, what Christ did and accomplished. This slippery slope leads to further speculation on the possibilities of the atonement versus its actualities.

The plain truth is that even if Christ died only for AMR, and I had committed but one single sin, His death must have been of infinite worth.

Why?

Because Christ's death must propitiate and expiate AMR's sin before God who is infinitely holy and whose holiness is infinite.

The sin offering to be given to God is defined by the character of God. Since God is holy and AMR has sinned against an infinitely holy God, the sacrifice of the Mediator sent by God must be one that is infinitely given, an infinite sacrifice. What sort of Mediator can accomplish such a feat? Only one who is infinite, only one who is God--Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

Thus we have in Christ's atonement an infinite sacrifice of infinite worth in satisfying the justice of God for those whom were given to Him...even if those given to our Lord was but a single individual sinner.

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Hi Twin.

(1) So far no one has answered my previous question on the idea that no-one is perfect and thus preaching is not perfect, and thus preaching does not perfectly reach all that God might have chosen, as we may preach less than we should. Would that not deny the chance for an "elect" to respond?

(2) Calvinists believe sinners are deprived, but not all as sinful as they could be. An interesting question I would like to know is do Calvinists then believe the unsaved have a CHOICE to be worse, and is that CHOICE restrained by God to a certain extent so as to prevent possibly killing off the elect before they are converted? Or does God predetermine all extent of evil in each person so that no one has any choice at any point at all?

(3) Do many Calvinists believe that we remain sinners until the day we die? Or is it ESSENTIAL for a truly converted and elect person to at least to some extent repent (even if by irresistible grace or similar) and live the rest of their life in a generally higher moral state than before converted? I'm sure some would hold that no change is absolutely necessary, just "faith". So how prevalent would these two seemingly opposing views be among Calvinists?

Thanks. (This is for research. I am not about to become a Calvinist.)

Caleb.

 

[twin1954]

Hi Twin.

(1) So far no one has answered my previous question on the idea that no-one is perfect and thus preaching is not perfect, and thus preaching does not perfectly reach all that God might have chosen, as we may preach less than we should. Would that not deny the chance for an "elect" to respond?

Calvinists believe in a sovereign God. Part of that sovereign rule is that He orders all things and controls all things to bring to pass His sovereign will. That means that He has ordained that every one of the elect hear the Gospel preached. In other words He sees to it that the elect and the preacher come together at the appointed time which He has determined for that elect soul to hear and believe. Perfect preaching has nothing to do with it. An example would be in Acts 16 where the Spirit wouldn't allow Paul to go into Asia but sent him to Philippi where there was a woman and a jailor that God intended to hear and believe. Acts 16:6

(2) Calvinists believe sinners are deprived, but not all as sinful as they could be. An interesting question I would like to know is do Calvinists then believe the unsaved have a CHOICE to be worse, and is that CHOICE restrained by God to a certain extent so as to prevent possibly killing off the elect before they are converted? Or does God predetermine all extent of evil in each person so that no one has any choice at any point at all?

We believe that sinners are depraved not deprived. Sure the unbeliever has choices as do all men. We are not robots but our wills are bound by our natures. But our choices are controlled and ordained by a sovereign God who has determined everything that comes to pass. God controls every influence and circumstance that everyone finds himself in. He controls who you were born to and where, who you come in contact with and every other influence in your life. Therefore He controls the choices you make because He controls those things that influence your choices. He shapes each person to accomplish exactly what He had determined before hand to do. Acts 2:23 is an example of that.

(3) Do many Calvinists believe that we remain sinners until the day we die? Or is it ESSENTIAL for a truly converted and elect person to at least to some extent repent (even if by irresistible grace or similar) and live the rest of their life in a generally higher moral state than before converted? I'm sure some would hold that no change is absolutely necessary, just "faith". So how prevalent would these two seemingly opposing views be among Calvinists?

Calvinists do not hold to Pentecostal Perfectionism. We believer that we remain sinners as long as we are in this body of death, Rom. 7:14-25, and until we are given a new body sin remains in us and with us. We believer that all believers are born again and given a new nature that fights against our sin nature daily. Gal. 5:16-17.

Thanks. (This is for research. I am not about to become a Calvinist.)

Caleb.

You never know what God has in store for you.

 

[twin1954]

Something else for you to think about: God doesn't have a plan He has a purpose. God is a God of purpose not a god of plans.

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Dear Twin,

You appear to be avoiding my questions by not really looking at the point.

(1) (a) The point of the first question was whether or not it is possible for the gospel (say of a Calvinist) to be ever preached less often than God would purpose or plan, because of a preachers imperfect following of God's will?
(1) (b) If so, then would that not mean that there would be some cases at least where an "elect" person would not hear the gospel at all?

(2) Would God have made Hitler, for example more depraved than a commonly depraved sinner, from a Calvinist perspective? (This question is of relative less importance)

(3) I am not talking about perfectionism here. What I asked was whether it is expected that there is a moral IMPROVEMENT when one becomes converted to Calvinism, AND if this improvement is absolutely necessary as evidence of being truly elect. Or do some Calvinists hold that and some not?

"You never know what God has in store for you..."

1 Cor 2:10 "For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God"

Upon observation I would say Calvinism is full of inconsistencies, and I would challenge you to rethink it through yourself, although my main purpose here is to gather some first-hand details of Calvinist thought for a Post-grad research project if that is possible... I would say in order to be consistent, one must be either hyper-Calvinist or Arminian - the other views appear to be sitting on the fence and double-minded. I am with Charles Finney.

 

[twin1954]

Dear Twin,

You appear to be avoiding my questions by not really looking at the point.

(1) (a) The point of the first question was whether or not it is possible for the gospel (say of a Calvinist) to be ever preached less often than God would purpose or plan, because of a preachers imperfect following of God's will?
(1) (b) If so, then would that not mean that there would be some cases at least where an "elect" person would not hear the gospel at all?

I answered your questions you just aren't grasping the implications of my answers. I will answer directly with a no it isn't possible because of the reasons I gave you in my other answers. Your question presupposes a god who doesn't control anything and my answers were in response to that presupposition. You presuppose that God depends on man when the truth is that God never depends on men He uses them. There is no possibility that God will allow any of His elect to not hear the Gospel and believe. The Lord Jesus Christ said in John 6:37 all that the Father gives me shall come to me ...
He also said in John 17:2 that the reason He had been given power over all flesh was in order to give eternal life to all that had been given Him.

(2) Would God have made Hitler, for example more depraved than a commonly depraved sinner, from a Calvinist perspective? (This question is of relative less importance)

No Hitler was no more depraved than any other he was simply allowed to act on that depravity where others are restrained by God.

(3) I am not talking about perfectionism here. What I asked was whether it is expected that there is a moral IMPROVEMENT when one becomes converted to Calvinism, AND if this improvement is absolutely necessary as evidence of being truly elect. Or do some Calvinists hold that and some not?

What do you think being born of God means? Of course there is a moral improvement so the question is absurd. You presuppose far too much.

"You never know what God has in store for you..."

1 Cor 2:10 "For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God"

Context my friend. To apply that passage as though God has revealed to you what He has in store for you, other than eternal life which was promised, is to misapply the passage.

Upon observation I would say Calvinism is full of inconsistencies

Only because you don't have a clue what Calvinism actually teaches. Actually it is the most logical and consistent system of theology.

, and I would challenge you to rethink it through yourself, although my main purpose here is to gather some first-hand details of Calvinist thought for a Post-grad research project if that is possible... I would say in order to be consistent, one must be either hyper-Calvinist or Arminian - the other views appear to be sitting on the fence and double-minded. I am with Charles Finney.

I have spent many years considering my beliefs and whether they are Scriptural and am absolutely convinced by the Spirit that what I believe is true. I am happy to try and answer your questions as best as I can but you need to recognize your presuppositions when you ask them.

 

[Skala]

I never understood Arminianism's beef with Limited Atonement, because it seems to fit nicely into the Arminian framework, too.

Consider:

Even in Arminianism, there are people that are known by God as "the elect". As election happened "before the foundation of the world", that means there are people born into the human race that are either already 1) elect or 2) not elect. It's not as if some non elect people can become elect, because election doesn't happen in time at the moment of belief, but it already happened "before the foundation of the world".

In other words, the difference between Calvinistic and Arminian election (unconditional vs conditional) is not "when" election happens, but "why" it happens. The "when" it happened is the same in both views: before the foundation of the world.

That being said, since even in Arminianism there are elect people born into the world who WILL believe the gospel (God foreknows it, thus it is set in stone), it makes perfect sense that God would send Christ to make perfect atonement for these people. Why would God make atonement for people who are already known to him, and have been known to Him from eternity past, as the "non-elect"? Why is He trying to save them? Is he trying to hope his own foreknowledge is proven wrong, thus meaning he doesn't know the future perfectly?

 

[Caleb Taylor]

Dear Twin,

Please don't feel I am getting at you but I would really like a direct answer. Do Calvinist preachers ALWAYS preach the gospel as many times that God WILLS them to?