I am pleased to announce the new blog of renowned Arminian theologian Dr. Roger E. Olson.
Dr. Olson's blog can be found at http://www.rogereolson.com/
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Sunday, 28 February 2010
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
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
Sunday, 30 August 2009
Recommended Resources
This post will be updated on an ongoing basis and there will be a permanent link to this on the sidebar. Note that recommended resources are resources I have read and found helpful, but may not necessarily agree with 100%.
On John
Other
On John
- Hamiltons "The Order of Faith and Election in John's Gospel" also found Here. Also see my review.
On Acts
On Romans
On EphesiansOther
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
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.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)