Are you among those people who find the 5 Points of Calvinism difficult to swallow? Perhaps you might find some bacon a little more tasteful than a TULIP. No, it’s not Kosher, but it is orthodox and Biblical:
by Douglas Wilson
“At last,” I thought. “Now we should be able to talk about what brought me here in the first place.” Pastor Spenser and I were both settling in chairs with the conversation already well under way.
“I know what your position is,” I said. “But I am afraid that I still don’t know why.”
“And what is my position?” he said, smiling.
“Well, I assume that you believe that it is not possible for a Christian to lose his salvation…that’s correct, isn’t it.”
“Sort of.”
I grinned. “Way to come down clearly on the issue.”
Pastor Spenser laughed. “There would be a lot more peace in the church if Christians learned to frame their questions more biblically.”
“How do you mean?”
“The question is posed as to whether a Christian can lose his salvation, the pros and cons line up, and debate the question as it was posed. But salvation is not a personal possession of ours, like car keys, which can be misplaced by us.”
“So what is the real question?”
“The way the question is usually asked, we wonder if a Christian can lose his salvation, which is the same as asking whether a Christian can lose Christ. Some say yes, and others no.”
“And you would say…?”
“I would ask whether Christ can lose a Christian.”
“I don’t get you.”
“Christians are those who are redeemed or purchased for God through the blood of Christ. We have been bought with a price. Now if someone, so purchased, winds up in Hell, then who has lost that person’s salvation?”
“I’m sorry, I must be thick. I still don’t get what you are driving at.”
“Christians cannot lose their salvation, for the simple reason that their salvation does not belong to them. It belongs to Christ. If anyone is to lose it, it must be He. And He has promised not to.”
“Where does the Bible teach that we are His possession?”
“There are many passages which cover this…too many to cover tonight. Why don’t we just look at several? I’ll give you a list of others.”
“Fair enough.”
“In Revelation 5:9-10, the new song in honor of the Lamb states that He has redeemed us to God by His blood – from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.”
“And…”
“In 1 Corinthians 6:20, it says, `For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
“It seems pretty clear.”
“Right. In salvation, Christ does not become our property; we become His. So in discussing this, we must remember that all the saving is done by Him. Those who want to maintain that salvation can be lost are really saying that He is one who loses it.”
“This throws the whole debate into a completely different light.”
“It does. And frankly, it is the difference between grace and works.”
“How so?”
“To assert that a man can lose his salvation through what he does or does not do is to assert, in the final analysis, salvation by works.”
“But the church in which I grew up taught that you can lose your salvation, but they also preached salvation by grace.”
“Not quite. They preached a conversion experience by grace. But how is that experience to be maintained and protected? And by whom? They begin with the Spirit, but seek to finish through human effort.” I must have looked confused, so he continued.
“Were you ever taught that you could, by committing certain sins, place yourself outside of Christ?”
“Yes, and it terrified me.”
“Now, let’s say that you committed such a sin, and then were killed in a car wreck? Where would you go?”
“To Hell.”
“And why?”
“Because I had sinned, and a holy God cannot look on sin.”
“And your salvation, or lack of it, was up to whom?”
“You are arguing that it was up to me. I can tell you that it certainly felt that way. The more I wanted to serve God, the more condemned I felt.”
“Don’t you see that your insecurity was the result of your salvation riding on a roulette wheel…every day?”
“How so?”
“If you died on Monday, you go to be with the Lord. If you died on Thursday, off to Hell. On Sunday night, you are heaven-bound again.”
“You are saying that this is salvation by works?”
“What else can we call it? And it produces two kinds of people. One group is confident in their own righteousness, but they have watered down the righteous standards of God in order to delude themselves this way. The other group is comprised of sincere people, who, because they are honest, realize that they are under condemnation.”
“It seems a little strong to say that they are professing salvation by works, though.”
“Paul rebuked Peter to his face at Antioch, and why? Because Peter did something as “trivial” as withdrawing table fellowship from Gentiles temporarily. But Paul knew that the gospel was threatened by this. How much more is it threatened through teaching that a Christian can do a “work” which will blow his salvation away? This teaching makes salvation depend upon the works of men.”
“You contrasted this with grace.”
“Correct. Salvation by grace is a gift from God. “Salvation” by works is man’s attempt to earn his way into the presence of God, or in this case, his attempt to earn his right to stay there.”
“But what is to prevent someone from saying they are “saved by grace,” and then going to sin up a storm?”
Pastor Spenser laughed. “Nothing at all. Sinners can say and do what they please. Until the judgment.”
“But how would you answer the objection?”
“There are two things worth noting about it. One is that having to answer it places me in good company. The apostle Paul had to answer the same objection in Romans 6, against those who objected to his message of grace. Secondly, the answer is the one Paul gives. Recipients of grace do not get to decide to receive forgiveness grace, while passing on death to sin grace. How can we who died to sin, still live in it?”
“But aren’t there some who teach that salvation can be lost simply to keep this type of person from presumption?”
“There are some who insist on teaching that Christians can lose their salvation out of a concern they have for ‘holiness’. They say that if this is not done, then people will abuse grace. But if you hold the biblical perspective, you do not consider grace a possession of ours, to be abused or not. Rather, grace belongs to God, and He never abuses it.”
“This means what?”
“In Ephesians 2:8-9, we learn that we are saved by grace through faith. In the next verse, we learn that we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works prepared beforehand by God. God’s grace is never truly abused because it belongs to God. Those outside abuse the name grace, but they cannot touch the thing itself.”
“You sound like you have very little respect for those on the other side of this issue.”
“That is not quite true. Some of them are teaching another gospel, and the condemnation of the apostle is sufficient for them. But there are others who are true Christians, and who hold this position because of their reading of certain texts…Hebrews 10:26, for example.”
“You respect them?”
“Yes. I believe them to be wrong, but their error proceeds from a desire to be honest with the text. With the purveyors of a false gospel, the error comes from an almost complete confusion of grace and works.”
“What about Hebrews 10:26?”
“We are almost out of time. Why don’t I read that passage, adding some comments of my own based on the context of Hebrews. Then you can go back through the book with that context in mind. It should be helpful in chapter 6 as well.”
“Fine.”
“For if we sin willfully by going back to the sacrifices of bulls and goats after we have received the knowledge of the truth that Christ was the once for all sacrifice for sin, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins because temple sacrifice of bulls and goats is a system that is fading away, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries because they are sacrificing their bulls and goats in a temple that will be destroyed in just a few years.”
I laughed. “Is all that in the Greek?”
Pastor Spenser grinned. “No, but it is in the context. Read through the book of Hebrews with the impending destruction of Jerusalem in mind, and consider the problem caused by professing Christians who were being tempted to return to Jerusalem in order to sacrifice there. The fire that was going to consume the enemies of God in this passage is not hellfire.”
“So what is the basic issue here?”
“It is grace; grace and works. Works is a barren mother; she will never have any children, much less gracious children. Grace is fruitful; her children are many, and they all work hard.”
****
This is Part 3 in a series of 6.
I stirred nervously in my seat, and cleared my throat. I was not at all sure I wanted to ask the next question, but I also realized I had to. “You have already told me you have no desire to be called a Calvinist.”
“That is correct,” Pastor Spenser nodded.
“Is this a concern over party labels, or is there any theological area where you disagree with the Calvinists?”
“How do you mean?”
“Well, I was talking with someone at my home church, and he told me something that horrified me. He said that Calvinists believe in something they call limited atonement. They think that Jesus only died for Christians, and not for all men.”
Pastor Spenser laughed, and then said, “I’ll answer your question, if you promise to hear me out.”
I had a sinking feeling that this meant he did believe it, but I nodded my head anyway.
“First, all orthodox Christians believe in a limited atonement. Every Christian who believes that there is an eternal Hell limits the atonement. One group limits its power or effectiveness, and the other limits its extent. But both limit the atonement.” I nodded, so he went on.
“Secondly, I don’t know who came up with the phrase ‘Limited Atonement‘ to describe this position. He may have been a theological genius, but when it comes to public relations, he must have been a chucklehead.”
“In what way?” I asked.
“One fellow says he believes in a limited atonement, and another says he believes in an unlimited atonement. Which one appears to be doing justice to the Scriptures?”
“The second one, of course.”
Pastor Spenser smiled. “Of course. God so loved the world; Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; One died for all, and so forth.”
I nodded again, wondering where on earth he was going.
“Now suppose we hear the same two fellows, but this time the language is changed. The first says now that he believes in a definite atonement, and the second affirms his belief in an indefinite atonement. Who sounds more biblical now?”
“Well, now the first sounds more biblical.”
“Of course. Christ laid down His life for the sheep; Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it; and He gave Himself up, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed. When He went to the cross, Christ had a definite end in view – for a definite group of people.”
“It seems to me that when it is put the first way it shows that the Arminians do justice to the universality of the redemption, and when it is put the second way, it shows that Reformed Christians do justice to the efficient purpose of the redemption. Both sides have their verses.”
“But both sides, if they believe that the whole Bible is from God, must affirm both types of verses.”
“How can you do that? If you believe in a definite atonement, how can you square that with some of the universal passages you quoted earlier?”
“One of the reasons I object so strongly to terms like limited atonement is that it does nothing but reinforce a theological caricature that many have in their minds. I believe that Jesus purchased a definite number of people when He died. I have no reason to believe that that number was a small one. He came into the world to save the world, and He will be content with nothing less than a saved world.”
“Do you believe that there will be more people saved than lost?”
“Certainly. It says in 1 John 2:2 that “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”
“Wait a minute,” I said. “That just means that every person can be forgiven for their sins if they come to Christ.”
“But that is not what it says. It says that Christ was the propitiation for the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s wrath is turned aside from the whole world.”
I sat silently for a moment, and Pastor Spenser went on.
“Notice how the verse does not read. It doesn’t say that He is the propitiation for our sins, because we believed, and not only for ours, but He is a potential propitiation for the whole world, if only they believe, but of course we know they won’t.”
I laughed. “Well, I agree it doesn’t say that.”
“See, the difficulty with verses like this, from the Arminian standpoint, is that they prove too much.”
“What do you mean by that?”
“The Bible teaches that Christ’s death is powerful to save. This power comes through in many of the universal passages. The Arminian position wants the universality of the passage, but not the efficacy of it. In other words, there is no potential propitiation in 1 John 2:2. It is actual. Real. In the cross of Christ, the wrath of God has been turned aside from the world.”
“Does this present any Calvinists with a problem?”
“It surely does. When the Bible speaks of all men, or the world, there is no grammatical reason in Greek to refer it to each and every man. But at the same time, I believe it is impossible to refer such wonderful universal statements to a tiny snippet of humanity.”
“I don’t understand you.”
“Suppose you went to a football game at your school, and the attendance was spectacular. Would you be lying if you said that the whole student body was there, when in fact Jones was in his room sick?”
I laughed. “No.”
“But suppose you said the whole student body was there, when it was just you and Jones. Would there be a problem now?”
“Certainly.”
“Because. . . ?”
“Because in the first instance my language would not be at all misleading, while in the second instance it would be.”
“Correct. Those who believe what the Bible says about election, but who believe the elect to be few in number, have the same problem. They are confronted with glorious texts about a saved world, and they turn them into texts about a saved church, comprised of the few that will be saved. Of course, their theological opponents turn glorious texts about a saved world into texts about a world which could be saved, but probably won’t be.”
“So if we continue in this vein, we will no longer be talking about the atonement, but rather eschatology?”
“Well, yes. Although biblical eschatology is based on this understanding of the atonement, it would take us off track at the present. Some future discussion perhaps? It should suffice to say that the Bible teaches us about an atonement that is efficacious and definite on the one hand, and universal on the other. All those for whom Christ died will be saved, and Christ died for the world.”
“And you are saying that this is different than saying Christ died for each and every person.”
“Yes. The problem people have with this comes from assuming that both sides of this dispute mean the same thing by for.”
“What do you mean?”
“Given that not all men are saved, contrast these two statements: 1) Christ died for each and every man; 2) Christ died for His people. The word for has a completely different meaning in each of these sentences. In the first, it means that Christ died in order to provide an opportunity of salvation to each and every man. In the second, it means He died to secure the salvation of His people. So the debate is not about the extent of the atonement so much as it is about the nature of the atonement.”
“Can you illustrate what you mean?”
“Sure. Suppose you have a philanthropist giving away money. He walks down the street handing out $100 bills. It is easy to assume (falsely) that the one position says he gives $100 to everybody, while the other side maintains he will give money to only some of the people. In this scenario, the debate is about the extent of generosity, and whether or not the philanthropist is being stingy. But on this understanding, both sides agree that the gift is the same (money), while the generosity varies.”
“OK,” I said. “What is the debate about?”
“In the first view, the philanthropist is not giving out $100 bills. He is giving out tickets to an awards ceremony, where every person attending will be given $100, if they decide to show up. He is giving away an opportunity to get $100. This contrasts with the other view which has the philanthropist out in the street, stuffing the money into pockets. He is not giving away opportunity; he is giving away money. So now the debate is over the nature of the gift. Is the gift money, or an opportunity to receive money?”
I thought for a moment. “So in the area of salvation, you are saying that Christ did not die to give men the opportunity of redemption, if they believe, but that He died to redeem men.”
“You’ve got it.”
“Well, I think I understand it anyway. But you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t accept what you are saying right off. This is going to take some hard thinking and Bible study.”
“That is exactly what it takes. And don’t rush it. Don’t agree to anything until you see it in the Scriptures. Which does the Bible teach? Redemption, or an opportunity to be redeemed?”
****
This post is Part 1 in a series of 6. It originally appeared as a series in Credenda Agenda.
GRACE & PEACE 