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.

Roger Olson's Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism

Dr Olson wrote this upon request of an evangelical publication. The assignment was to write a 600 word essay on "My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism", which is what he did but was rejected. Olson has now kindly made this essay available and this will also be appearing on SEA's official website.

My Biggest Problem with Calvin/Calvinism
Roger E. Olson
Professor of Theology
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University

Above all I want to make clear that I admire and respect my Calvinist friends and colleagues. We disagree strongly about some points of theology, but I hold them in high esteem for their commitment to the authority of God’s Word and their obvious love for Jesus Christ and his church as well as for evangelism.

However, I do not admire or respect John Calvin. I have been told that he should not be held responsible for the burning of the heretic Servetus because, after all, he warned the Spanish doctor and theologian not to come to Geneva and he urged the city council to behead him rather than burn him. And, after all, Calvin was a child of his times and everyone was doing the same. Nevertheless, I still struggle with placing a man complicit in murder on a pedestal.

Furthermore, I find Calvin’s doctrine of God repulsive. It elevates God’s sovereignty over his love, leaving God’s reputation in question. What I mean is that Calvin’s all-determining, predestining deity is at best morally ambiguous and at worst morally repugnant.

Much to the chagrin of some contemporary Calvinists, Calvin clearly taught that God foreordained the fall and rendered it certain. (Institutes of the Christian Religion III:XXIII.8) He also affirmed double predestination (III:XXI.5) and displayed callous disregard for the reprobate who he admitted God compelled to obedience (disobedience). (I:XVIII.2) Calvin distinguished between two modes of God’s will—what later Calvinists have called God’s decretive and preceptive wills. (III:XXIV.17) God decrees that the sinner shall sin while at the same time commanding him not to sin and condemning him for doing what he was determined by God to do. To Calvin this all lies in the secret purposes of God into which we should not peer too deeply, but it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth of anyone who regards God as above all love.

John Wesley commented on the Calvinists’ claim that God loves even the reprobate in some way. As one contemporary Calvinist put it, “God loves all people in some ways but only some people in all ways.” Wesley said that this is a love such as makes the blood run cold.

Calvin’s successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, commented that those who find themselves suffering in the flames of hell for eternity can at least take comfort in the fact that they are there for the greater glory of God. To paraphrase Wesley, that is a glory such as sends chills down the spine. God foreordains some of his own creatures, created in his own image, to eternal hell for his own glory? Calvin may not have put it quite that bluntly, but many Calvinists have and it is a necessary extrapolation of the inner logic of consistent Calvinism. (Institutes III:XXII.11)

I have been heavily criticized by some of my Calvinist friends for saying that my biggest problem with Calvinism (by which I mean consistent divine determinism) is that it makes it difficult for me to tell the difference between God and the devil. (I am not saying Calvinists worship the devil!)

For me nothing about the Christian worldview is more important than regarding God and the devil as absolute competitors in this universe and its tragic history. God is good and desires the good of every creature. As church father Irenaeus said “The glory of God is man fully alive.” The devil is bad and desires harm for every creature. To view the devil as God’s instrument makes a mockery of the entire biblical narrative.

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

Calvinist Justice

Some time ago a Calvinist made a parody of the song "Amazing Grace" called "Arminian grace" where the Calvinist confuses Arminianism with Pelagianism. It can be found here.

Here is an attempt to parody the Calvinist view of justice using the same song. I believe that this does more justice to the Calvinist positition than the above does to the Arminian position. If it seems at all dark, its because it's a reflection of Calvinism. It is written in the eyes of the 'reprobate'.

Calvinist “justice!” How dark the sound,
Condemned not because of me.
God made me lost and would not find,
Made blind, but won't help me see.

What “justice” is this from secret decrees,
Made from this God within?
Created unable to hear God’s voice,
Condemned before I sinned.

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have gone through alone.
God tempted me more than I could bear,
To justify my place in my home.

When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Because of what God’s done.
We’ve no less days to scream in pain,
Than when we first begun.

Daniel Nebauer

Calvinist Witnessing Video

I found this funny and thought I'd share it. Enjoy!

Consistent Calvinism FAQ (Satire)

This is a post I added to the Society of Evangelical Arminians prior to creating this blog.

Disclaimer: The following is a light-hearted satire on Calvinism and not an attack on Calvinists. :-)

Q. How should I approach evangelism?

A. You should evangelise if you believe that you are included in the command of the Great Commission. It is important, however, to know what the right motivation for evangelism is. Your motivation should be to obey God’s command. People’s salvation is not a legitimate motivation for evangelism, for you cannot change their elected status.
When you evangelise, be careful not to tell people that “Jesus died for their sins”. Also note, that since grace is irresistible, there is no need to be persuasive, (for you cannot change people’s elected status). The corollary of this is that there is no harm in being non-persuasive. Once people have heard the ‘good news’, there is no need to continue preaching to them.
Remember that statistically speaking, those you are evangelising to are probably part of the reprobate. There is, however, no need to seek out the elect, or any need to reach as many people as possible. This is because God will ensure one way or another, that those who are included in the elect will hear the gospel by some means.
Take comfort in that, if you are not spreading the ‘good news’, it’s not your fault, because it just means that at this time God is not using you.

Q. What should I do if it looks like someone is in danger of falling away?

A. Nothing. It is impossible for someone to fall away. If someone does fall away, you must conclude that they were never saved in the first place. In which case, it is legitimate (though not necessary since they have already heard the ‘good news’) to evangelise to them. (See “How should I approach evangelism?”)

Q. How should I approach prayer?

A. The purpose of prayer is to build your relationship with God. Asking God for anything won’t have an impact, for God has already decided. There is no need to ask for people to be saved because God’s mind is already made up, and can’t be changed.

Q. What should my attitude be of hell?

A. It is impossible to know who is part of the elect, and who is part of the reprobate. On one level, it should grieve you that people are damned, (because God does desire all men to be saved). However, in perspective, it is a greater desire of God to have His glory revealed. More than anything, you should rejoice in the fact that God’s will is done. You should rejoice in that God’s glory will be made known, through the condemnation and eternal damnation of the majority of humanity.

Q. Should I have children?

A. Some people are worried that if they have children, God will reprobate them to hell. It is true that there is a chance, that should you ‘choose’ to have children, that they will be reprobated to eternal condemnation, and that even raising them up in a Christian home will not influence your children’s decision in following Christ. However, this should not deter you from having children, for should God choose to reprobate them, it will help make God’s glory known. (See “What should my attitude be of hell?”)

Q. How do I best convince Arminians and other non-Calvinists that Calvinism is the true Gospel?

A. You shouldn’t. Those who are deceived are deceived because God wants them to be deceived. To do so would make you fighting against God.

Q. What about sin?

A. Just because God determines everything doesn’t mean that He determines sin. This apparent contradiction can be resolved with “compatiblism”. Remember, Calvinism is thoroughly consistent, and any ‘apparent contradictions’ can be resolved with Deut. 29:29.
As Calvinists we must recognise (somehow) that we are responsible for our sins, otherwise we could end up like those prideful Arminians.

By Daniel Nebauer