Some Observations about Blogging, and an Honest Question for 5-Point Calvinists tagged: , , ,

Some Observations about Blogging, and an Honest Question for 5-Point Calvinists

Posted by in Bible & Theology

One of the things I like about blogs is the opportunity to dialogue openly about issues on which there may be a difference of opinion among bona fide members of the Body of Christ. Certain settings are not the best venue for this type of discussion. I can understand, for instance, the concerns of church elders, who are accountable for teaching what is in accordance with sound doctrine, and for keeping a watch over the flock, in not giving carte blanche to anyone and everyone to air their opinions on this or that issue in a Sunday School class. There are, many times, recent converts and immature believers present who may be stumbled in some way or another by what a well-meaning controversialist may say.

I remember one time my wife and I were visiting the young adult Sunday School class of a well-established Baptist church in Spain, and, when we got there, the 20 or so people present were in the middle of a heated argument over whether or not it is possible to lose your salvation. Suffice it to say, if I were an elder at that church, I would not have been happy about that discussion; and, in the same vein, there are certain blog discussions that I would not want to see take place verbally in certain church meetings.

And yet, the fact remains, we do not always see eye-to-eye with each other, as members of the Body of Christ, on every issue. And, an atmosphere in which, day-in and day-out, we are not encouraged to think for ourselves, express our questions, and voice our doubts is not a healthy environment. I have been told, for example, that one of the signs of a dysfunctional family is a family in which certain topics are taboo, in which there is not the freedom to be open and honest with one another.

A lot of classroom settings in Christian universities, seminaries, etc. have certain limitations as far as this type of discussion is concerned as well. Though, it is, perhaps, fair to assume that those who are there are mature enough to handle a good discussion, and not have their faith undermined by new ideas they may not have entertained before (or, at least, ought to be), the professor in charge of the class generally has a point of view he/she is wanting to advance, and, in keeping with this agenda, seeks to limit discussion accordingly.

As I see it, this is not a bad thing. If I am in a classroom, I expect to learn from the professor, and thus submit myself to the professor’s experience in his/her field and expertise on the subject matter being taught. In a real sense, indoctrination, or the intentional and systematic teaching of sound doctrine, is not necessarily a bad thing in an academic environment.

Up until recently, if someone wanted to expose themselves to new ideas, and try, as objectively as possible to weigh the merits of one point of view over against another, the best way to do this was by reading books and articles by authors representing different perspectives. A popular format of theological books in recent years has been “four perspectives on this” or “five perspectives on that.” I myself have enjoyed and benefited from several titles along this line. This is certainly still a good way to learn, and something we all should take advantage of. And yet, even here, there is something of the interactive, participative element missing. You can listen in, but you can’t really jump in and ask the questions you are dying to make, or make the observations you think are relevant to the discussion.

Now, there are certain doctoral seminars, and similar venues, where open discussion is encouraged, which are quite beneficial, and appropriate for the context. But not everybody has the opportunity to participate in these types of discussions. That is where a good, healthy blog discussion fills a void for many of us. Everyone is free to participate, and, ideally, there is due respect for differing opinions.

That is not to say we don’t still have a responsibility to be civil in our discussions, and to be aware of who may be listening in, and who may, by the way we carry ourselves, or by the ideas we throw out there, be caused to stumble or led astray. But still, as I see it, on a blog comment stream, we have the opportunity for certain types of discussion we may not have elsewhere.

It is in this spirit that I want to throw out the following question. Along the line of Dave Miller’s list of “Key SBC Constituencies” in his post from yesterday, I do not consider myself to be a “card-carrying member” of either the Calvinist or Anti-Calvinist group. I have written my general take on the issue of Calvinism here. I guess, in relation to most issues related to the Calvinist debates, I take a perspective of accepting the concept of biblical antinomy. There are certain doctrines that, from a human (and, perhaps, at times, superficial) perspective, seem mutually incompatible. Yet, an objective study of Scripture seems to affirm both perspectives. Often, it is a question of the angle from which you are looking. And, in some cases, God Himself has an angle from which He looks, from which we, as humans, are unable to see, and, as a result, comprehend.

As far as Calvinism is concerned, none of this poses a big problem for me. I am able to accept certain antinomies, even though I can’t explain them, and don’t understand them, because it appears that Scripture itself supports them.

Also, I don’t have much use for the tired accusations sometimes launched back and forth between Calvinists and Anti-Calvinists regarding commitment and lack of commitment to evangelism. Some of the most fervent and dedicated evangelists I have known have been avowed 5-pointers. Now, true bona fide hyper-Calvinism may well be something different. But, I haven’t yet met anyone who is willing to own up to that label in the SBC. They may be out there. But I haven’t met them. So, that’s not the point here.

In any case, what I am getting to in this long introduction, is:

What is the biblical evidence in favor of limited atonement?

I’m not talking here about any of the other 4 points of T-U-L-I-P. Perhaps some may want to make the argument that they all rise or fall together. If so, I guess I will be willing to listen. But, I especially want to know the biblical argument in favor of limited atonement.

It seems to me the preponderance of Scripture teaches pretty specifically against limited atonement. I bring to the witness stand the following passages (all citations from the ESV, bold print mine):

John 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.

2 Corinthians 5:14–15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

1 Timothy 2:3–6 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,  who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

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

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I can’t think of any passage that specifically teaches limited atonement. There are plenty of passages that teach that Christ died for the elect. But where are the passages that teach that He died for the elect only? The only arguments I have heard are that it is a logical consequence of other doctrines taught in the Bible (i. e. the other 4 points of the T-U-L-I-P). But, as a “card-carrying inerrantist and believer in the sufficiency of Scripture,” logical consequences are not good enough for me. I would like to see if Scripture itself teaches it or not.

Five-pointers out there, go ahead and give it your best shot. I am here wanting to learn. If you have some points that I have not yet considered on this, I would love to hear them.