| Posting
# 22
www.evangelicalinclusivism.com
JOHN
CALVIN'S UNLIMITED ATONEMENT II
This is a
follow-up to Posting # 21 “John Calvin's Unlimited Atonement.” If
you have not done so please read Posting # 21 at www.evangelicalinclusivism.com
before proceeding. If you cannot retrieve this posting
let me know. I will be pleased to send it, or any other posting,
by regular email.
R.T. Kendall claims that: “Fundamental to the
doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509-1564) is his belief that
Christ died indiscriminately for all men.” My purpose in
presenting Kendall's claim in Posting # 21 is not to demonstrate
that Calvin's view of the atonement is scriptural or to show how
Calvin's view of the atonement is related to that of that of Beza,
the Puritans or other Calvinists. My only intent is to display what
Calvin actually believed and taught regarding limited (particular)
atonement.
Calvin and Calvinists , (The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1982) is a rebuttal of Kendall's work by Paul Helm. He spends
most of his energy rebutting not what Calvin actually says, but
what he determined Calvin must have been saying about the
extent of the atonement. His argument, like that of nearly
all of Kendall's detractors, is based on what Calvin says about
the other points of doctrine set forth by the Synod of Dort.
From these observations they draw the logical conclusion that Calvin
must have believed in a “limited” atonement.
The uncritical reader thinks this type of argument,
based on logic, refutes Kendall's thesis. It does not do
so. Such argumentation does nothing more than demonstrate
that Calvin is not always consistent in his writings.
“Counter arguments [those used by defenders of Kendall's thesis]
usually fail to perceive the logic of ‘definite atonement' and what
it consistently allows, that is, sufficiency for all, universal
offer, salvation accomplished for the ‘race' as an organic whole,
and the like” The Glory of The Atonement (Eds. Charles
Hill and Frank James III, Intervarsity Press, 2004, pp. 280 - 281).
This quotation endorses the kind of argument used by Helm
and others in their attempt to refute Kendall's thesis. However,
such “logical” arguments do not refute what Calvin actually says
about the so-called “universalistic” texts!
The question is not what “the logic of definite
atonement” would compel Calvin to say — if he was consistent.
Neither is the question “what would Calvin have said” if he had
been confronted with the Arminian propositions. The question
is what in fact did Calvin actually say and teach regarding the
“world” and “all men” passages of the Scriptures.
In reply to my previous posting I was asked to consider
some of the more recent scholarship that supposedly “debunks” Kendall's
thesis, e.g. the book I just mentioned, The Glory of the Atonement
. This is a 495-page, scholarly, well-written and extremely
well organized treatment of the biblical basis, historical development
and practical implications of the doctrine of the atonement.
It is well worth purchasing. I am pleased it was called to my attention.
However, this book says precious
little about Calvin's handling of the “world” and “all men” passages
of the Scriptures. Calvin never explains that “world”
does not really mean world or that “all men” does not
really mean all men , as Calvinists following Dort incessantly
do. The book adds nothing to what others have said or implied
regarding the precise question at issue. It does not counter
the many compelling passages Kendall cites directly from Calvin's
writings in Appendix # 1 (See Posting # 21.).
We should note that many of Kendall's detractors
are associated with The Banner of Truth Trust or they are of a similar
mind-set. This means, among other things, that they take
the Word as written very seriously. This is to their credit.
Ever since the framers of Dort responded to the
five points of Arminianism
evangelical
scholars (those who “take the Word as written very seriously”) have
been obligated to take one side or the other in their interpretation
of the so-called "universalistic" texts. They had
to accept either the “certain-to-be- realized salvation” element
(as Calvinists do) or the “all persons” ingredient (as Arminians
do) of the “so-called” universalistic texts. The only other
possibility for them was to accept both elements as Universalists
do.
Much has been written in the four hundred year-old
debate between Arminians and Calvinists with equally competent scholars
on both sides of the issue. Based on this endless discussion
I conclude that: Any theology that can not accept both the
"certain-to-be-realized" salvation and the "all persons"
elements of the so-called "universalistic" texts, in conjunction
with a final division of mankind, is not structured according to
the Word of God as written. What we do with this fact may be debatable
but the fact itself is, in my opinion, beyond question.
I challenge my readers to submit a worthy rebuttal
to what I say in Posting No. 2 (at www.evangelical
inclusivism.com ) regarding
the “so-called” universalistic texts. I would be delighted
to publish such a rebuttal to my
nearly 1,900 readers and install it as a permanent posting on my
website.
The result of the four hundred-year struggle
between Arminianism and Calvinism is a conviction, among who wish
to refute Kendall's thesis, that Calvin must have made the
same kind of choice they have been compelled to make. These theologians
are unalterably opposed to what Calvin is saying, namely that: “Christ
died indiscriminately for all men.” Everything in their psyche rejects
what Kendall and others before him have demonstrated that Calvin
actually taught.
In his theologizing about the “world” and “all
persons” passages, Calvin has simply not made the Hobson's choice
evangelical theologians have been required to make. John
Calvin accepted the so-called “universalistic” texts as written.
My acceptance of the so-called “universalistic”
texts as written was not due to my exposure to Kendall's thesis.
I so accepted them long before I heard of Kendall.
As I noted at the conclusion of Posting # 21
— John Calvin accepts the “world” and “all men” passages as written,
teaching “that Christ died indiscriminately for all persons.”
This universal sacrifice of Christ is limited by His intercessory
work which is done only in behalf of the elect, according to Calvin.
Evangelical Inclusivism also accepts the “world”
and “all men” passages as written, teaching “that Christ died indiscriminately
for all persons.” This universal extension of Christ's work
may be limited only by the Bible itself as it does in the exceptions
to these texts that are found in its broader context. (See Posting
# 1 at www.evangelicalinclusivism.com .)
For those who wish to accept the Word as written
the only question is: "How does the Bible limit the extent
of those passages that clearly state that Christ died to save "the
world," or "all men"?
Cordially,
Neal Punt <whenindoubt1@charter.net>
|
