Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.In this post I intend to show that Limited Atonement is not compatible with this passage from scripture. I will lay out my case logically.
P1. If Jesus did not die for the condemned, then unbelief in him is not the cause of their condemnation
P2. Unbelief is the cause of their condemnation
C1. Therefore Jesus died for the condemned
As there are just two groups, condemned and not condemned, and both Calvinists and Arminians will agree Jesus died for those not condemned - and this argument shows that Jesus died for the condemned, we can conclude that Jesus died for all.
First it is important to note that this argument is logically valid. That is, if the premises are true then the conclusion it also true. It follows the form of modus tollens. Having valid form, we need to support the truth of the two premises in order to establish that the argument is logically sound.
In defence of P1
If Jesus did not die for a man, then he is condemned - regardless as to whether he believes or not. Now a Calvinist might be tempted to argue that because of the facts that Jesus did not die for them and that they did not believe - these are both causes of their condemnation. That both Jesus' payment for the person, and the person's belief are necessary conditions for avoiding condemnation, but only together are they sufficient conditions for avoiding condemnation. So then the Calvinist might conclude that the removal of either condition would be the cause of their condemnation, and hence be sufficient reason to reject P1.
While it may be true that the removal of either one of these necessary conditions on their own would be the cause of condemnation, I am arguing that men's lack of belief is not the cause of their condemnation if Jesus did not die for him. This is because there is a logical order in the two conditions. For example: you wouldn't say the reason a man doesn't become a lawyer in a law firm is because he didn't he didn't accept the job, if it turns out he didn't have the qualifications and hence wasn't offered a job so he didn't have a job to accept. Or you wouldn't say the reason a person drowned was because he chose not to grab hold of a life buoy, if there was no life buoy for him to grab hold of. Likewise you wouldn't say the reason a person was condemned was because he didn't believe in Jesus, If Jesus didn't die for him and so he had no one to believe in. So we can see that when there is a logical order of requirement in necessary conditions, that the logically latter conditions are only causal if the logically prior conditions are fulfilled. This gives us more than adequate reason to think that Premise 1 is true.
In defence of P2
Calvinists may dismiss passages that link condemnation to unbelief as mere correlation. The strength of John 3:18 is that it clearly states that there is more than simple correlation, but a causal relation between unbelief and condemnation. Thus Premise 2 is established from scripture - from John 3:18, which unambiguously tells us that condemnation is the result of unbelief.
Conclusion
In conclusion it seems the argument is sound, having both valid form and demonstrably true premises. This is just one more argument from scripture against the faulty doctrine of Limited Atonement as espoused by five-point Calvinists, and gives us one more reason to favour the Arminian view of Unlimited Provisional Atonement over the false Limited Atonement of Calvinism.
Thanks for the post, Daniel. I have a couple of comments. First, your syllogism is flawed in its form. Premises (P1, 2) must be in the form of statements. Your P1 is a syllogism all in itself (if-then). Secondly, your equivocate on the meaning of "cause." If a word changes its meaning in a syllogism it invalidates the syllogism. "Cause" can't mean lack of inclusion in the atonement in P1 and then mean unbelief in P2. It's meaning must stay the same throughout.
ReplyDeleteHope this helps.
Mark LaCour
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteI believe you are mistaken about the syllogism being flawed in its form (and P1 is not a Syllogism in itself - It’s supposed to be an “if-then” statement, as all “modus tollens” statements do!)
If you are unfamiliar the with modus tollens form this is how it goes:
If P, then Q
Not Q
Therefore not P
I have merely substituted the following into this form:
Let P = If Jesus did not die for the condemned
Let Q = Unbelief in him is not the cause of their condemnation
Perhaps your confusion flows from the double negative that I simplified in Premise 2
Substituting in the above Q into premise 2 gives us:
Not (Unbelief is not the cause of their condemnation)
This has the same meaning that I gave in my original second premise.
So we can see that my syllogism indeed is NOT flawed in its’ form, in fact it is cookie-cutter Modus Tollens and thus valid.
As for your claim that “cause” changed meaning throughout the syllogism; this simply isn’t true. I don’t know where you got the idea that in P1 “cause means lack of inclusion of the atonement”. The cause in P1 exactly the same as P2 – referring to whether unbelief is the “cause of” (or “reason for” if you prefer) their condemnation, or not. The only reference about the inclusion of the atonement is on whether that precludes the possibility of the unbelief being the cause, but it’s the same cause. So contrary to your claim that it has changed meaning: - in actual fact the meaning remains identical throughout the syllogism.
I hope I’ve cleared up any misunderstandings.
Daniel
Look up syllogism is Wikipedia. You're confusing terms in categorical logic with terms in propositional logic. A premise in categorical logic (major or minor) is not the same as the if-then format in propositional logic. You need to separate your P1 and P2 and simply make them separate if-then arguments. Here is the correct modus tollens of John 3:18:
ReplyDeleteIf P (Whoever believes), then Q (is not condemned)
Not Q (not [not condemned])
Therefore not P (doesn't believe)
There is nothing in the above modus tollens concerning the scope of the atonement as having any causal effect. You state -- "If Jesus did not die for a man, then he is condemned - regardless as to whether he believes or not." But the above John 3:18 text contradicts this statement. It does matter whether he believes or not because that's the basis of an unbeliever's culpability -- not the sovereign scope of the atonement, which the text says nothing about.
You're confusing a sovereign cause of something with a judicial cause of something. God's sovereignty is the logical cause of all things, but unbelief is the judicial cause of condemnation in John 3:18, and this is what the unbeliever will be held accountable for -- not some action on the part of God.
Another example of the above is what God says to Moses about Pharaoh:
Exodus 4:21-23
21 The Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go (sovereign cause). 22 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the Lord, " Israel is My son, My firstborn. 23 "So I said to you, ' Let My son go that he may serve Me'; but you have refused to let him go (judicial cause). Behold, I will kill your son, your firstborn."'" (condemnation)
Thanks again for the cordial reply, as iron sharpens iron!
Mark
The differentiation of "sovereign cause" and "judicial cause" is red herring.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Atonement: if there is no provision of atonement for Judas, say, then Judas can't be held accountable by not believing that "there is no provision of atonement for me". I can't be condemned because I believe in a truth! It is nonsense!
It has nothing to do with 'sovereing causes'. That is simple: a unbeliever can't be held accountable to being an unbeliever, because the unbeliever is not refusing nothing.
Also, the Exodus narrative is not so easy to be grasped. The hardening was judicial by nature, because God didn't do injustice to righteous people.
YOU STATE: In the case of Atonement: if there is no provision of atonement for Judas, say, then Judas can't be held accountable by not believing that "there is no provision of atonement for me". I can't be condemned because I believe in a truth! It is nonsense!
ReplyDeleteMY REPLY: You need to read the text closer. Judas was NOT condemned because of something he did not believe concerning the atonement. He was condemned because He betrayed Jesus (Lk. 22:22).
YOU STATE: It has nothing to do with 'sovereing causes'. That is simple: a unbeliever can't be held accountable to being an unbeliever, because the unbeliever is not refusing nothing.
MY REPLY: Sure he can be held accountable. The text in John 3:18 actually says he's accountable for NOT BELIEVING in something. And that NOT BELIEVING in something results in something else -- condemnation.
YOU STATE: Also, the Exodus narrative is not so easy to be grasped. The hardening was judicial by nature, because God didn't do injustice to righteous people.
MY REPLY: Once again, you need to be honest with the text. First, there are no righteous people (Rom. 3:10). And secondly, before Pharaoh refused to let God's people go, God sovereignly hardened Pharaoh's heart. He even told Moses He was going to do this before it happened. Pharaoh wasn't condemned (culpable) for anything God did, but only what Pharaoh did (of didn't do) -- refusing to let the people go. God never said to Pharaoh, "I'm going to kill your firstborn because I hardened your heart." He said, I'm going to kill your firstborn because YOU REFUSED to let My people go."
We may not like what the text says, but the text is the text. And the text trumps all our reasonings and conclusions.
Mark
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI was not attempting to make use of categorical logic. If you think I’m confusing these types of logic, you will need to explain that further.
You have created a false dilemma saying your example is “THE correct modus tollens of John 3:18” (as if there is only one). I merely used John 3:18 as support for my second premise “P2 Unbelief is the cause of their condemnation”. That could of course be used in conjunction with a myriad of other premises.
You said: “There is nothing in the above modus tollens concerning the scope of the atonement as having any causal effect. You state -- "If Jesus did not die for a man, then he is condemned - regardless as to whether he believes or not." But the above John 3:18 text contradicts this statement. It does matter whether he believes or not because that's the basis of an unbeliever's culpability -- not the sovereign scope of the atonement, which the text says nothing about.”
I think you are wrong when you said “But the above John 3:18 text contradicts this statement.” It is completely consistent if it turns out Jesus did die for him. Yes you are correct that the passage makes it clear that unbelief is the reason for his condemnation; however I think it is more than just mere culpability. Rather lack of belief denies him any access to the benefits of the atonement.
This brings us to the main point of the argument. If Jesus did not die for him, then of course he doesn’t have access to the benefits of the atonement, even if he did believe!
By the way, this has nothing to do with confusing sovereign cause of something with judicial cause of something. I’m not bringing up determinism or the like with this argument.
If you say “He died because he did not take his medicine”, this statement assumes there was medicine for him to take. Likewise if you say that “they are condemned because they did not believe in him”, this statement assumes there was someone to believe in (but there was no one to believe in if Jesus did not die for them). Therefore the text assumes that Jesus died for them.
Daniel
YOU STATE: I was not attempting to make use of categorical logic. If you think I’m confusing these types of logic, you will need to explain that further.
DeleteMY REPLY: I don't know that I can. I'll let it ride.
YOU STATE: You have created a false dilemma saying your example is “THE correct modus tollens of John 3:18” (as if there is only one).
MY REPLY: Your original post states under P2 -- Unbelief is the cause of their condemnation. Later you state under Q -- Unbelief in him is not the cause of their condemnation. I don't see how I created some false dilemma. I was trying to make sense from the two statements and thought you were trying to put in modus tollens form John 3:18. Nothing more. You added the more.
YOU STATE: I think you are wrong when you said “But the above John 3:18 text contradicts this statement.” It is completely consistent if it turns out Jesus did die for him.
MY REPLY: Consistent with what? Turns out on what? It certainly isn't consistent with anything in the text. Now, if you want to introduce some other texts to make that point, then fine. But from what you gave in your post you simply asserted things as if they were truths with no reference to anything else.
YOU STATE: Yes you are correct that the passage makes it clear that unbelief is the reason for his condemnation; however I think it is more than just mere culpability. Rather lack of belief denies him any access to the benefits of the atonement.
MY REPLY: How do you know that the sinner's lack of belief denies him any access to the atonement? This is an assertion without a proof.
YOU STATE: This brings us to the main point of the argument. If Jesus did not die for him, then of course he doesn’t have access to the benefits of the atonement, even if he did believe!
MY REPLY: Same above comments on proof. Too much "if then" reasoning with no proof. You assume he has no access, You assume he can even believe. You assume that Jesus did not die for him. You assume the two points are connected, etc.
YOU STATE: If you say “He died because he did not take his medicine”, this statement assumes there was medicine for him to take. Likewise if you say that “they are condemned because they did not believe in him”, this statement assumes there was someone to believe in
MY REPLY: I agree with you up to this point because the text states this.
YOU STATE: (but there was no one to believe in if Jesus did not die for them).
MY REPLY: Same as my last reply. Prove that the sinner has no one to believe in if Jesus did not die for him. You state it as if it's true. And it might be. But you must show your work.
YOU STATE: Therefore the text assumes that Jesus died for them.
MY REPLY: No, YOU have assumed that. It still needs to be proven that the two points are connected. An assertion is not a proof. It's an assertion only.
I'm not trying to be difficult -- and Daniel, I'm not expecting a full blown treatise in response. I just started out with a few logical observations of what seemed flawed. If this is more than what you care to engage in, that's fine. I'm not asking for a debate. My plate is pretty full now and I don't know when I could respond. It might be some days. But thanks for the exchange!
Mark
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
“Your original post states under P2 -- Unbelief is the cause of their condemnation. Later you state under Q -- Unbelief in him is not the cause of their condemnation. I don't see how I created some false dilemma. I was trying to make sense from the two statements and thought you were trying to put in modus tollens form John 3:18. Nothing more. You added the more.”
Honestly I think you just need to go back and read what I read. I never stated under Q that unbelief is not the cause of condemnation. Also you will see in my original post that I mereley used the passage in defence of just one of the premises.
I will repeat what I said earlier:
If P, then Q
Not Q
Therefore not P
I have merely substituted the following into this form:
Let P = If Jesus did not die for the condemned
Let Q = Unbelief in him is not the cause of their condemnation
None of these premises assume Q. The first premise only assumes that Q is true IF P is true. In fact the second premise is affirmation of the NEGATION of Q , so I think perhaps that’s the source of your confusion.
You said:
“Consistent with what? Turns out on what? It certainly isn't consistent with anything in the text. Now, if you want to introduce some other texts to make that point, then fine. But from what you gave in your post you simply asserted things as if they were truths with no reference to anything else.”
Here you are confusing consistency with necessity. There is nothing in the text that contradicts my assertion; therefore it is consistent with the text.
You said:
“How do you know that the sinner's lack of belief denies him any access to the atonement? This is an assertion without a proof.”
All my assertion assumes is that we are saved by Grace through Faith (no faith means no access to Grace). Sure this is an assumption, but the argument is aimed at Protestant Calvinists, and Salvation by Grace through Faith is core to Protestantism.
You said:
“Same above comments on proof. Too much "if then" reasoning with no proof. You assume he has no access, You assume he can even believe. You assume that Jesus did not die for him. You assume the two points are connected, etc.”
Your response here doesn’t even remotely address what I said. I didn’t assume he can believe. I didn’t assume that Jesus did not die for him. I said that if Jesus did not die for him he can’t have access to the benefits of the atonement. Honestly I really think this is straight forward. To deny that Jesus death is required for access to the benefits of the atonement would be utter absurdity, and a denial of the basic Christian orthodoxy. Perhaps you misread me, which I really hope is the case.
You said:
“Same as my last reply. Prove that the sinner has no one to believe in if Jesus did not die for him. You state it as if it's true. And it might be. But you must show your work.”
As I’ve said earlier sure there are some assumptions. The argument assumes there is some degree of common ground. If Jesus did not die for them, then who else are they to trust in for salvation? I’m not sure where you are coming from, but it seems you are questioning assumptions which only assume basic Christian orthodoxy. If you don’t hold to the basics of Christianity, then I would prefer to discuss those issues, rather than Calvinism/Arminianism.
You said:
“No, YOU have assumed that [the text assumes Jesus died for them]. It still needs to be proven that the two points are connected. An assertion is not a proof. It's an assertion only.”
No I didn’t simply ASSUME this. I provided a defence of this reasoning. Just as I provided a defence for all the premises I used in my original deductive argument. In my original post, I defended the idea that that when there is a logical order of requirement in necessary conditions, that the logically latter conditions are only causal if the logically prior conditions are fulfilled. So I haven’t simply “assumed” this, but rather provided a detailed defence of this.
I hope this helps
Daniel
Daniel, thanks for this great post. I got the same understanding from this passage in John 3 just a few weeks ago. Unbelievers are condemned because they do not believe in Jesus, not because they're not chosen. The condemnation isn't that they've been "passed over" by Christ Jesus but that they love doing evil and hate the light (v. 19-20).
ReplyDeleteHi Daniel,
ReplyDelete“If Jesus did not die for a man, then he is condemned - regardless as to whether he believes or not.”
Yes, that is true, but condemned to what?
If Jesus died and rose again from the dead unto life for a man, then that man must receive that new life – regardless as to whether he believes or not.
If Jesus died and rose again from the dead for every human being without exception, then every human being without exception must receive that new life (eternal life) – regardless as to whether they believe or not.
After all, it's a free gift of God, therefore election will stand, not because of him who believes but because of Him who died and rose again.