For one and all?
I’ve occasionally been involved in discussions about the nature of the atonement – specifically, whether Jesus died for everyone, or just for a few (the elect). Usually, one finds Calvinists and other folks who believe in predestination going for the latter, and Arminians and other folks who believe in the primacy of the human will going for the former. The debate is, essentially, about whether Jesus’ death accomplished the potential for anyone to be saved, or whether it accomplished the salvation of a few.
Today is Trinity Sunday in the Church of England calendar, and the Gospel reading this morning was John 3:1-19, which is the story of Nicodemus’ visit to Jesus. It’s also the source for the well-known verse: For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. It’s also a passage the comes up fairly often in the discussions I mentioned above – but for the wrong reasons. The focus is usually on this well-known verse, with the focus on God’s love for the world and on the meaning of “believe in Him”. Although this is undeniable, it allows the debate to get sidetracked into analysing what God’s love and our belief mean. And this passage has a far more relevant lesson for this debate in the very next verse: Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. It requires quite a lot of juggling to make that passage apply to anything other than the world as a whole – which rather implies that salvation is for the whole world. (And, be it noted, not just for humanity. For the whole of Creation!)
What’s more, there’s another verse that I’ve rarely seen used in the debates I’ve witnessed. And it’s odd because, again, it argues very strongly indeed against any limitation on salvation. 1 Cor 15:21-22: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (KJV) It’s extremely hard, it seems to me, to argue in the light of this passage against the position that salvation is open to all (indeed, that salvation might even be obtained by all!). The only option is to argue that “resurrection” here isn’t equivalent to salvation but merely talks about the dead being raised in order to be condemned. However, this won’t do. The passage itself is clearly talking about salvation – Paul is offering assurance to the believers that there is, indeed, a resurrection to eternal life. Indeed, later in this chapter, Paul clearly talks about the resurrection body being perfect and imperishable. In this passage, resurrection and salvation are equivalent, and Paul explicitly says that Christ will rule over all things, eventually destroying even death itself.
Anyway, what irritates me about this debate is that is too often portrayed as being between “Bible-believing” and “liberal” – implying that, if you argue against limited atonement, you are ignoring the Bible. But the truth is that one cannot easily extract the idea of limited atonement from the Bible. The Bible is much too messy for that. At various places, it suggests both that everyone (indeed, the whole of Creation) will be saved and transformed. At others, it suggests that there are a few who God chose for salvation. This is a problem – but it’s not one we can solve by ignoring the Bible while claiming that we’re not!
Personally, I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I believe neither that our salvation is entirely random, depending on nothing in us at all (and, consequently, that even our response is not our own), nor that salvation is a human choice, with God merely passively reaching out to us. I believe that both positions must be incorrect, because both ignore part of the Bibilical witness. The problem, I think, isn’t so much that they’ve made mistakes in answering the questions as in that they are answering the wrong questions. To ask, “Is human choice or divine choice more important?” is to assume a mechanistic process, and to assume that the reductionist, analytical approach is the best approach. Better to say, with the Bible, that God in Christ has accomplished the salvation of the world, defeated death and the devil, and brought us into the Kingdom of God. Better to say, with the Bible, that we escape the fire only barely, snatched from it at great cost. Better to say, with the Bible, that God knew before the foundation of the world, that He would redeem us for His own pleasure.
Better, I think, to acknowledge the paradox.
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
Steven Harris () (URL)
10:35pm on 11 June 2006
If you engage angry people, you’ll get angry responses, whether they be Calvinist, Arminian, Open Theists or Universalists.
I don’t think Arminianism is “liberal”, and never called it such. However,now that you mention it, I think it would be an interesting study to survey the various denominations and see if liberal theology is a natural progression from Arminianism. I doubt it is that cut and dried, but when I think of Calvinistic denominations in the US – Southern Baptist, Presbyterian Church in America, etc, they are conservative, Biblical inerrantists.
Hmmm.
I also never called “the world” the elect. I don’t know who you guys read, but it isn’t J.I. Packer. I’d think you’d start with the most prominent CofE Calvinist to consider the idea, John, not some blogger!
The whole world, in Johannine writings, can be reasonably assumed to mean “people from all nations, not just the Jews.” This is especially clear in Revelation 5:9 and John 11:51-52. I’m not saying that it is obviously so, but reasonable. However, I’ve yet to hear a reasonable Arminian interpretation of Romans 9.
I would also assert that you falsely attribute a “question” that best fits your idea, not reality. The question isn’t, whichis more important, God’s choice or man’s, but merely, how is a mna saved from damnation? The answer is merely this – through the death and ressurection of Christ.
Don’t paint us all with the black brush, John. Name names if you must.
Peace in Christ,
Hammertime () (URL)
9:36pm on 14 June 2006
My point here wasn’t that there are good defenses of Calvinism, but that too many debates are based on bad defenses of it! And even discussing this on your blog, I’ve been called liberal (which is ridiculously untrue) for opposing strict Calvinism – although I wasn’t here thinking only of the debates I’ve had with you on this subject, because they’ve always been courteous and sensible. There is a strand of evangelicalism that views any deviation from a strict Calvinist line as apostasy.
As for which is the important question, I agree with you. Which was rather my point – Calvinism and Arminianism take the wrong question (where does choice lie?) and make it the focus, when we would be better to focus on questions such as you suggest.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
10:54pm on 14 June 2006
Also, I will proofread better in future comments!
Hammertime () (URL)
5:12pm on 19 June 2006
That’s such a funny way to think about it, given that the historic Calvinist view is that both are true. Acting as if these are inconsistent with each other leads to pseudo-debates where people are just using their terminology differently. There are people who think the atonement is universal with no limiting in actuality. Those people are called universalists. There are also people who think the atonement is limited with no sense in which it’s universal potentially. Those people are called hyper-calvinists. Everyone else, including standard Arminians and standard Calvinists, should be ok with both claims as long as their terms are properly defined first.
Jeremy Pierce () (URL)
12:58pm on 26 June 2006
BruceA () (URL)
04:43am on 28 June 2006