What's With All This Negative Energy Towards Calvinism? - Day 2

I have an intuition.  In fact, one might easily call it a hunch.  We are commonly informed today that Calvinists distort scripture.  We are told that passages which speak of Christ dying for 'all', or 'the world', are edited by Calvinists to mean, 'the elect'.  And while I can't comment on individual verses in a relatively short blog post, I would like to suggest that perhaps it is not in fact the Calvinists who twist scripture, but their opponents. 

In order for Christ to have died an atoning death in which he paid for the sins of all men, one of two statements must be true.  Either:

- Christ paid for the sins of all completely, but the unbelieving pay for those same sins again.

or

- Christ died for the sins of all potentially, but this atonement is only applied to our account following belief in Christ.

The first seems at best unlikely, and as far as I know, few, if any, hold to it.  The second, however, requires that we make certain assumptions regarding the atonement which are not clear in scripture.  They only follow as a result of the theology of a general atonement. 

Passages on Christ's atonement are certainly not easy to interpret, yet, if one does a word study, say, in the writings of John, on the uses of the word, 'world', one discovers some interesting usages of it.  For instance, in John 3:17,

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

also, in 1 John 4:14,
 
"And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world."
 
I'm curious: How could Jesus be the Savior of the world if all the world is not saved?  We may argue all we want as to whether or not Jesus paid for their sins, but at the end of the day, the world has not be saved, because people are going to be eternally punished in hell. (2 Thess. 1:8-9).  I challenge you to do a word study on that Greek word and try to tell me that the word always means all people to ever live. 
 
The only possible alternative is to say that Christ was thwarted in his plan.  That is a serious charge to make, and one would be well to consider carefully before making that kind of statement.
 
A further question:  'Cui bono'?  It's a legal term that is latin for, 'To whose benefit?'  To whom does a universal unsaving atonement benefit?  If we consider over it, that kind of atonement has no value to God or man and seems to fly in the face of passages such as John 6:37 and John 10:26-29. 
 
Essentially, as far as I can see, doing my best to understand the position, a view favoring a general atonement requires two understandings of the text: 

First, that kosmos is not a general term that can refer to people out of all nations (Rev. 5:9) but refers to all individual people to ever live,

And second, that atonement for sins is applied upon faith in Christ Jesus.  The only place I know of that seems to speak of Christ dying for an unbeliever is in 2 Peter 2:1,
 
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."
 
The text seems to say that although their ransom had been 'bought', they were facing destruction.  I can only interpret it to mean that it speaks of Christ having bought them in the same sense as Jesus refers to unfruitful branches on the vine being taken away in John 15.  In both cases, the people in question are those who have made a profession of faith but have turned away from Christ.  Just as in John 15 where the branches appeared to have been part of Christ yet showed by their lack of fruit that they had no real connection to him at all, so also in 2 Peter 2:1, they claimed to have been bought by Christ, yet now they denied His name.  I think in relation to the full revelation concerning Christ's atonement, that is not an unreasonable explanation. 
 
I have yet to hear a meaningful response to the passages in John 10 where Jesus speaks of His flock and His sheep whom His Father gave Him and for whom He laid down His life (not to mention Eph. 5:25-26 where it speaks of Christ dying for the church).  It is disheartening to hear so many reject the idea of a particular redemption as an unbiblical idea built strictly on logic.  I have yet to hear someone admit that the case for general atonement has any holes in it or that there is a biblical case for particular redemption. 
 
I don't explain all verses that are used in favor of a general atonement in the same way.  But I have yet to find one that does not have an alternate interpretation to the general atonement view that makes perfect sense.  I would further submit that many of the verses used in favor of their view, if read objectively, do not plainly and straightforwardly advance their view, but point rather to universalism.  We are told that we can't reexplain texts to fit our theology, yet do they really believe that they are not guilty of what they accuse us of?
 
Apologies for the apparent harshness of this post.  I am trying to be reasonable, but in particular on this post, it struck me that the advocates of the opposite view are less than reasonable themselves.  My purpose here was primarily to point out holes in their view in order to stress the importance of reading all scripture carefully so that we are able to rightly divide the word of truth.  I was also partially attempting to defend my viewpoint as one not divined by logic, but from the Bible. 
 
Possibly to be continued.  (The possibly would most likely be on a less doctrinal level and more on a practical level relating to something I read online this morning.  Whether I post about it or not will be determined later).

What's With All This Negative Energy Towards Calvinism? - Day 1

What exactly is it that makes Calvinistic theology so odious to some people? I actually began studying Calvinism and theology in earnest two years ago when I heard an anti-Calvinist speak at another church. Just to give an idea of what kinds of things are being said about it, here's a few blurbs from the front of Dave Hunt's work, "What Love Is This?" (Excerpts only - full comments are lengthier).

"To suggest that the merciful, longsuffering, gracious and loving God of the Bible would invent a dreadful doctrine like Calvinism, which would have us believe it is an act of 'grace' to select only certain people for heaven and, by exclusion, others for hell, comes perilously close to blasphemy." Tim Lahaye.

"Calvinism makes our Heavenly Father look like the worst of despots..." Joseph R. Chambers.

"...Calvinism, like dandelions, comes in the spring. Students get wrapped up in arguing the issues of Calvinism. Those students who don't like aggressive soul-winning use their view of Calvinism to defend their position. Those who are aggressive soul winners attack the weaknesses of Calvinism. Very little of their discussions are grounded in the truth of the Word of God. In the final analysis, their arguments are like weeds, i.e., dandelions that bear no fruit." Elmer L. Towns.

This is to say nothing of the attacks that Dave Hunt himself makes throughout the lengthy (414 pg.) work.

But the criticisms are not new ones. They are all well-worn in their usage. First, Calvinism, it is said, discourages evangelism. Interestingly, Calvinists have throughout history been just as staunch in their evangelism as their detractors. It was Charles Spurgeon who was reported to have said, "Lord save your elect...and then elect some more!"

George Whitefield, the associate of the Wesley brothers, was firmly Calvinistic in his view of salvation. (Ironically, it was Charles Wesley who wrote one of the most popular hymns among Calvinists today: "And Can It Be"!) Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd, both evangelists, both convinced of the doctrines of grace; to say nothing of the other great names who were convinced of the complete sovereignty of God in salvation.

I would submit that ones soteriological viewpoint makes little difference in regards to his evangelistic zeal. In either case, we still have the command from Jesus to preach the gospel to all peoples.

To paraphrase a thought from D.A. Carson's, "A Call to Spiritual Reformation", people will pray for the lost or they won't. A Calvinist who was indolent might say, "Well, God has predetermined who will be saved. I see no need to pray for their salvation." In actuality, that would more accurately represent a more hyper Calvinistic viewpoint, but in either case, it is woefully errant.

On the other hand, a person who held to a synergistic view of salvation (God enables all men to come to him, but men must individually make the final choice themselves), might say, "It is no good praying to God for so-and-so to be saved. He's already doing his best to save them".

People who hold Christ as their Savior will either follow the Bible's teachings or they will not. If a person has no desire to evangelize, he doesn't need to become a Calvinist to avoid it. I suspect, though I cannot say for certain, that those anti-Calvinists who make such statements can`t see the forest for the trees. That is, they see Calvinists who are disinclined to evangelize, and use faulty logic to link the two together. They suggest that correlation implies causation between the two things where it does not of necessity exist.

Using this kind of logic, one might just as easily say:

A. Sales of hot chocolate increase in the winter time.

B. More people go ice skating in the winter time.

Conclusion: drinking hot chocolate causes people to want to ice skate.

In actuality, both are traditionally more prevalent due to a common cause: Cold weather.

Similarly, though not quite the same, a belief that God is completely sovereign over salvation and must effectually call individual sinners to salvation before they can respond, which nullifies the need for evangelism, and a disinclination towards evangelism, may seem as though they represent a case of cause and effect. However, the common cause in both cases is unfaithfulness to the Word of God which tells us that we must evangelize the lost. To read the Bible plainly, it seems to state both that God is absolutely sovereign in election for salvation, yet we are to preach the gospel to all men.

To be continued.

Spurgeon and Songs of Praise to the Savior at 2 AM.

Last night I was in bed listening to mp3's from T4G '08(?) of several thousand men singing hymns. That was great, but for whatever reason, my dinner hadn't fully digested, causing me to cough a lot. Also, last night was my insomnia night of the month. So at 2 in the AM, I was awake and wishing I was asleep.

Having no better ideas, I got up, drank a glass of water and pulled out volume 1 of Spurgeon's Park Street sermons. This was when the old boy had just come to preach in London at the age of 19. With the devotional skill of a man twice his age, Spurgeon moved through the text of Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob."

Few people can encourage me through the simple text of their sermon the way that Spurgeon can. What a blessing those who heard him in the flesh must have had!

I wonder if there'll be any videos of him for viewing in heaven...

Blog title

I was stuck between my current title - referencing Collin Hansen's '06 Christianity Today article (and book of the same name) - and Between Two Worlds. The latter was already taken already, however, so I went with the former.

It seemed as though both the title and article description fit me, so there you have it. I'm definitely young: A struggling postal clerk by day and a struggling college student by night.

Restless? Well, as restless as any young man, I expect. At any rate, more restless than some and not as restless as others.

Reformed is a bit trickier. That term has different meaning to different folks. I affirm the historical five points of Calvinism (popularized in the acrostic TULIP) and agree with the Synod of Dort's decision in 1619. On the other hand, I do not (at the moment, anyway) affirm infant baptism or any model of eschatology that rejects a future for an ethnic Israel.

My personal study of salvation both through the Bible and works of theology has convinced me of the doctrines of grace. On the latter points, I've studied them less, and coming from a more Dispensation Baptist background, it is not unsurprising that I hold those views. At the present I see it unlikely that my view will change on either, but due to my lack of personal study into those issues I cannot guarantee a total resistance to change. My views are molded by how I understand the teachings of scripture, not traditions of men.

The purpose of this blog is for personal musings on theology and anything else I end up putting up here. I don't pretend to really have a totally clear idea where this will lead. We'll just have to wait and see.