Condemnation for Unbelief and the Atonement

From John 3:18 (ESV)

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.

Calvinistic Depravity vs Arminian Depravity?

Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that as a result of sinful nature inherited from Adam, man left to his own devices lacks the will or ability to repent and turn to God. Both believe that God must first act in order for man to respond. Both believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity and inability.

Some Calvinists such as John MacArthur have misrepresented Arminians in saying that Arminians believe that "the sinner unaided by the Holy Spirit must make the first move". Fortunately there are still some Calvinists out there who make the effort to accurately portray those who have opinions different to their own.

Where the two systems part is in the remedy to this problem of inability. Arminians teach that God works through Prevenient Grace in order to enable sinners to respond. Calvinists teach that God first makes a sinner born again, and then the sinner can only choose to repent, and in fact cannot choose not to repent. The difference is in whether God allows his grace to be resistible or not.

Calvinists such as John Piper have said that Arminians don't believe in Total Depravity as Calvinists do. A quote from Piper (which can be found at 4:45 in this video) says "Calvinism says people are so depraved and rebellious that they're unable to trust God without a special work of grace to change their hearts so that they necessarily and willingly believe. In other words if this grace doesn't compel them to believe they won't believe." (As a side note, I do appreciate Piper's honesty in saying that Arminians believe in the necessity of grace to believe, given that misrepresentation in this area is so rampant by many.)

If the above is how the Calvinists specifically define Total Depravity, then there is a difference between the two camps (not that Calvinism should be the benchmark for the term in the first place). To the Arminian, the difference isn't in the Depravity. It's not that we believe we are "less totally depraved" than Calvinists do. The difference is in God's power. Does God have the ability to enable a sinner to repent who is totally depraved, without having to do so irresistibly? Arminians such as myself say God could act irresistibly, (though he decides to do otherwise.) It seems the real difference between the views is that Calvinists limit God's power in saying that God is unable to enable a sinner without acting irresistibly.

Does Atonement for all lead to Universalism?

A common question that Calvinists pose to the Arminian is "If Jesus died for all, then why aren't all saved?" John Owen popularised this argument with his "triple dilemma" or "triple choice" where he said [paraphrased] that "Jesus died for either all sins of all men, all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men."

Some non-Calvinists (in taking Owens third choice) have tried to defend their view by saying that Jesus died for all sins of all men, except for the sin of [continual] unbelief. While I respect their attempts to reconcile the facts that Jesus died for all, and that not all will be saved, I reject way in which they try to harmonise theses two truths.

Universalists (in taking Owens first choice) generally appeal to the same passages that Arminians appeal to in support of unlimited atonement. They however, like the Calvinist make the mistake of thinking that not having all saved and having atonement for all poses some sort of contradiction.

Calvinists (in taking Owens second choice) believe that Jesus died for all the sins of some men. In doing so they jump through many hoops to avoid the implications of the countless passages that Jesus died for everyone, and those passages which say God would rather that those who perish would repent. At the same time they point to verses which say Jesus died for "his people" or "his sheep" etc. (Note that these verses don't exclude the rest of the world. Their logic here is flawed, and is akin to me saying that "I love my mother" and then deducing that I don't love anyone else.)

Arminians, including myself (and also Amyraldians) argue that the atonement is provisional. That is, Jesus died for all, but the benefits of the atonement are applied to those who are in Christ. In fact some Calvinists now accept that the atonement is provisional (although say it is only provided for the elect.) In doing so these Calvinists concede that unlimited atonement doesn't lead to universalism.

But those Calvinists who follow Owen and refuse to admit that the atonement is provisional (whether for all or just the elect) walk into a problem of their own. If they deny that the benefits of the atonement are applied only once a person exercises saving faith (Such Calvinists typically claim "You believe God is your potential saviour, where I believe Jesus actually saved me at the cross.") then they must believe that they were then never under God's wrath (as opposed to scripture e.g. Ephesians 2:1-3). They must believe that they were born saved (as there is apparently nothing remaining that is required to make them a beneficiary of the atonement). So then to these people, faith cannot be the means by which they access grace (Romans 5:1-2), but rather a revelation that they are already saved!

Daniel Nebauer

Article Review: The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel: You Do Not Believe Because You Are Not My Sheep

I will give a brief review of an article, written by Robert L. Hamilton that I found particularly helpful.

In his article, Hamilton does an excellent job of biblically refuting the major Calvinist arguments from the Gospel of John, in particularly John 8:47 and 10:26. He answers the question in context of what it means "to be a child of God, to belong to the Father, and to be one of Christ's Sheep". Hamilton points out that in the Old Testament, that "belonging to God" etc. is used to mean the nation of Israel, but more importantly that it can more specifically refer to the Jews who were repentant and living in right covenant relationship with the Father.

It then makes sense that Jesus' Jewish audience did not believe him, because they did not believe the Father. Jesus' point is that there would not be any Jews still living rightly in the old covenant once the new covenant had been established. People would either accept or reject Jesus, so that there would not be any "third option". All the Jews who were truly repentant would believe Jesus, and God would ensure that none would be lost during this transition.

Hamilton also deals with Calvinist objections and other arguments used by Calvinists from the Gospel of John.

Hamiltons article can be found here or here.

Setting the Record Straight

This short post is to set the record straight, to stop ignorant Calvinists accuse Arminianism of being semi-Pelagian, a straw man that is easier to knock down that Arminianism itself. Some of you might remember John MacAthur's misrepresentation of Arminianism where he said [1]"So that the sinner unaided by the Holy Spirit must make the first move. That is essentially Arminian theology. The sinner unaided must make the first move, and God will then respond when the sinner makes the first move." It can be found here (3rd Audio File down), and the quote occurs about 33 minutes into the Audio File.

It's no wonder that Calvinists often know so little about Arminian doctrine, with Calvinist leaders who are apparently ignorant themselves. I'll give John MacAthur the benefit of the doubt that he is just ignorant of Arminian theology, rather than purposefully misleading, though there is really no excuse for such ignorance for a man in his position. In addition to his ignorance of Arminian theology is apparently his ignorance of theologians (note that about 32 minutes into the Audio File he calls John Wesley a "messed up Calvinist", even though Wesley was Arminian through and through!)

Many Arminian blogs have already posted on this, but it is a straw man that keeps popping up. So together, let's set the record straight, and try to put an end to this straw man.

Pelagianism: Under Pelagianism man has the natural ability to do right including choosing God, and that human nature is unaffected by original sin. Pelagius taught that man is born into the same state that Adam was created, with an untainted will.

semi-Pelagianism: Under semi-Pelagianism, mans nature has been affected by original sin so that he is depraved, but not totally depraved. Under semi-Pelagianism, man has the ability to make the first move towards God, but God must finish the process.

Arminianism: affirms the doctrine of total depravity and original sin. Man is naturally unable to make any move towards God. As you likely already know, it is one of the 5 main points of Arminianism (the T in FACTS.) If MacArthur read Arminius himself or even took 2 minutes to look up Wikipedia, he would know that [2] "No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity; both Arminius and Wesley strongly affirmed that man's basic condition is one in which he cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek God".

The Society of Evangelical Arminians Statement of Faith affirms [3]"We believe that humanity was created in the image of God but fell from its original sinless state through willful disobedience and Satan's deception, resulting in eternal condemnation and separation from God. In and of themselves and apart from the grace of God human beings can neither think, will, nor do anything good, including believe. But the prevenient grace of God prepares and enables sinners to receive the free gift of salvation offered in Christ and his gospel. Only through the grace of God can sinners believe and so be regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto salvation and spiritual life. It is also the grace of God that enables believers to continue in faith as well as good in thought, will, and deed, so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God."

Arminius himself wrote [4] "This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace."

Article III of the Remonstrants says [5] "That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”"

Anyone who does not affirm original sin or total depravity is not a true Arminian. Perhaps more would be willing to accept the doctrines of Arminianism if they actually knew what the doctrines were.

Daniel Nebauer

Citation:
[1]http://www.t4g.org/conference/t4g-2008/#Audio
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism#Common_misconceptions
[3]http://www.evangelicalarminians.org/sof
[4]http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/the-works-of-james-arminius/a-declaration-of-the-sentiments-of-arminius/
[5]http://www.crivoice.org/creedremonstrants.html

1 Cor 10:13 - Free because God is Sovereign

1 Cor 10:13 (ESV) says: "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."

While not all Calvinists adhere to exhaustive determinism, I think it is worth while to see if exhaustive determinism is biblical. I believe this verse shows us that we are free (in the non-Calvinist sense of the word) to choose not to sin.

Determinists often like to claim that humans will always "choose" whatever we most desire, and that desire is a result of our nature and our environment at that point in time. So then what does it mean to be tempted? Temptation is the influence that causes us to desire sin. Now logically, according to the determinist, when we sin, it is because our desire to sin is greater than our desire not to sin. In other words, we sin when the temptation becomes too great for out nature to deal with.

But what does the above verse say with regards to temptation? "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability..."
God will never let us be tempted beyond our ability. In other words, it's always possible to resist the temptation. So the times we have sinned - it was possible for us to choose not to sin. But according to the determinist, it is only possible to "choose" what we have been determined to choose. And there lies the determinist's inconsistency.

And there lies one of the strengths of the Arminian position. If God doesn't determine us to sin, and we have the freedom not to sin, then the blame for sin can only lie with us. We are responsible for our own sins, and God is not the author of sin. God didn't decree for us to sin, just as it is evident he didn't decree the sins in Jer 19:5.

But why is it that we have this freedom not to sin? Is it because God is powerless and must let us have this freedom? Of course not! It is in His Sovereignty that God grants us this freedom. "...but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." It is by God's graciousness that we are able to not sin. But at the same time we know we still choose to sin. God doesn't force us to not sin, - as we know we still sin, - this is His permissive will. As in God's grace He has granted us the ability to not sin, I also believe He has done so in regards to our ability to repent and believe, - but that is a post for another day.

Daniel Nebauer