Inefficient Love - Part 3

Note: I wrote this piece after reading some Calvinist authors on the subject of Christ's atonement. I wrote it more as a way for me to study the issue than to present it to others. As a result, many of the arguments are not original with me (although some are), but rather more of a compilation of my building a defense as to why I believe Christ suffered for the sins of both the elect and non-elect alike. Although I am "heavy" against limited atonement adherents in this piece, I do try to be honest about where I assume things about the Bible from my own, non-Calvinist, theology.

---

< Back to Part 2

Logical Arguments

For me, if anything should be clear from the biblical text, it is that Christ died for everyone.

If anything should make sense, that should.

Not only is that interpretation in harmony with how we naturally understand God’s love (for if Christ truly, without pretense, wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth--see 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4--why would he not back it up with His actions: why would He not make it possible for all men to be saved?).

Not only is it essential to our natural understanding of the gospel (for if we are to preach the gospel to all men, why wouldn’t we assume that it is applicable to all men?)

But it is by far the most obvious rendering of the text when theological assumptions are set aside.

And that is the point that I’ve been trying to make this entire time. As I said at the beginning: I think that at least some Calvinists would not hold to the doctrine of limited atonement if they didn’t have to.

Nonetheless, they do, and they present arguments against unlimited atonement that in my opinion ask questions of the Bible from theology rather than asking questions of theology from the Bible (Not that I don’t sometimes as well!).

Objection: If we are to interpret Christ’s death as applying to all the sins of the entire human race, that is, if Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of every human being to walk the face of this planet as verses such as 1 John 2:2 indicate, than aren’t we affirming universalism?

Answer: Quite simply, no. This question assumes its own theology, namely the system of "high" Calvinism which holds that, if Christ paid for your sins, you are, for all practical purposes, automatically ushered into heaven.

In other words, this question is often asked of the non-Calvinist as a lead-in for the Calvinist to espouse more Calvinist theology. The non-Calvinist hasn’t a clue as to why universal atonement and universalism would be connected until the Calvinist helpfully connects the dots for him, which usually goes something like this:

If Christ died for all sins, including the sin of unbelief, than the “fact” that Christ’s death was “effective” (Calvinist theology) means that all who don’t believe will still end up in heaven because Christ’s atonement was not “potential” but “actual” (Calvinist theology).

Note that my primary goal here is not to dispute whether or not those doctrines are correct but to highlight that this way of arguing starts from a theological premise and logically works its way out to make a conclusion about a biblical text, rather than starting from the biblical text and logically working its way out to form a theological conclusion.

Isn't this the definition of eisegesis?

For the non-Calvinist, there is no reason to assume that a universal atonement automatically implies universalism. Why? Because one must believe in Christ to be saved (non-Calvinist theology). Not all whose sins are paid for will choose to enter heaven (non-Calvinist theology). Some will stubbornly insist on paying for their own sins.

But this leads into the next objection…

Objection: But when Christ saves someone, that salvation is “actual”, not “potential.” A “potential” salvation would make a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross.

Answer: No. Whether you think it makes a mockery of Christ or glorifies Him all the more is your opinion, but Christ’s salvation is potential in that it must be received in order to be realized, like all free gifts (non-Calvinist theology). We are saved by grace through our faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). A man may be seated and provided with the most gorgeous feast that can be crafted, but he has to eat it in order to receive the benefits. This in no way makes a mockery of the one who provided the feast.

As John 3:14-15 analogizes, just as the salvation the bronze snake offered to the stricken Israelites was not effected in their bodies until they looked upon it, so too the salvation offered by Christ on the cross is not effected in us until we look to Him.

Again, using another Old Testament analogy, the blood of the Passover lamb only becomes efficacious when applied to the door post.

Objection: But if the atonement is unlimited, than that means there are and will be people who will pay a debt which has already been paid by Christ! How can a just God allow this? What just judge would require a criminal to serve a sentence that has already been paid?

Answer: Simply this: Just as God was just in allowing the stricken Israelites to suffer when salvation was already provided to them through the bronze serpent, so too He is righteous and just in allowing those in hell, whose sins have already been paid, to suffer (non-Calvinist theology).

True, a just judge will not require a criminal to serve a sentence that has already been paid, but a just judge will allow that criminal to stubbornly reject a bond offer and serve his own time if he so wishes.

If there is any fault to be found, if there is any lack of justice, it’s on us; on our own stubbornness, not on Him.

And this is exactly what makes hell so futile! It’s exactly what makes us so foolish for our stiff-necked refusal to accept a debt that has already been paid on our behalf!

Objection: Perhaps it’s fair to those in hell, but it’s not fair to Jesus to have to pay for sins that will be paid again by those in hell.

Answer: His entire death on the cross wasn’t fair.

Objection: But if Christ’s death is potential, than where is our security? If He does not actually save us but only offers salvation, how can we be assured that we will receive it?

Answer: If God gives you anything, rest assured you will receive it!

Our God is a God of covenants and promises.

Deuteronomy 7:9 | Know that Yahweh your God is God, the faithful God who keeps His gracious covenant loyalty for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commands.

Titus 1:1-2 | Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.

God never fails to come through with His promises (Joshua 21:45). As believers, we can say along with Paul:

1 Timothy 1:12b | I know the One I have believed in and am persuaded that He is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day.

Objection: But that means that ultimately, whether or not I end up in heaven or hell depends on me as a frail human rather than on God.

Answer: Yes it does (non-Calvinist theology). God has done His part. Have you? Will you?

Conclusion

I conclude: the clear, unmistakable biblical witness is that Christ died for each and every individual, in every time and in every place.

Without exception.

I would hold my Calvinist friends to account for missing part of this truth.

Furthermore, I conclude that without the help of a previously assumed theological system, this doctrine would not be found through a simple reading of the text.

What I just said was important. It’s my main point.

Let me rephrase it in the form of a question: If you were a new convert, who didn’t understand anything about Calvinism, would you personally come to the conclusion of limited atonement on your own from simply reading your Bible?

I’m not saying that theology is bad. I’m not saying that it can’t help us understand the Bible better. I’m not saying that we don’t need to harmonize scriptural texts sometimes.

I’m not saying that I don’t harmonize texts. I’m not saying that the most obvious interpretation of a text is always the correct one.

I’m not even saying that as a non-Calvinist, I don’t have my own presuppositions and theological systems––I do. And I’ve tried to be honest about where I do presuppose things.

But I am saying that from all appearances, the doctrine of limited atonement does not come from a simple reading of the text, but from theology.

And this opens the way for some major problems:

1. First, what does this say about the ability of God to communicate? God invented language! And yet could it be true that even the great, the almighty God, who created the World by the Word of His power, even this God needs the help of the Calvinist structure to fully explain Himself on this issue? Even the most creative Being to ever live cannot put into words as simple an idea as a restricted atonement without the help of Edwards, Sproul, Piper, and the like, to help explain what He “really meant” on something so central to the gospel as the atonement?
2. Second, what does this say about the clarity of Scripture? Do we dare let a new convert simply read the New Testament on his own? By himself? He might get the wrong idea! What if, heaven forbid, the simple nature and clarity of the texts on the atonement seduces him into drawing the wrong conclusions? Can we trust only the Bible? Quick, hit him with the Institutes!

Sorry. Like I said, my goal is not to offend, so I digress.

But, no matter how good, no matter how impressive, no matter how scholarly…

…If your theological system leads you to deny something that, without it, is in the Bible…

Than you need a new theology. Or at least an update. We cannot let a large, intricate theology trump a simple biblical truth. Even if doesn’t make sense with the rest of our theology. The simple biblical truth always comes first.

Always.

Perhaps John Calvin himself realized this when, towards the end of his life, he stated:

Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.

Does this quote prove Calvin himself did not believe in the doctrine of limited atonement? I don’t know.

And I’m not going argue the point.

But maybe, just maybe, he came face to face with a biblical truth that, explained away as his brilliant mind and theology could…

…could not be trumped in its simplicity.

The Inefficient God

I would like to ask the question: How could it be that some of the sharpest, most brilliant theologians could miss something which seems to be so obviously in Scripture? How can we read over that many texts? How can we not see what is presented to us over and over and over again, in multiple ways?

But then I remember that I am not one to be throwing stones.

I tend to miss things too. I tend to miss major themes of the Bible––like God’s violence. I tend to shy away from Bible passages that speak of the elect, of God’s chosen people.

Why?

Because our theology blinds us. Because we unconsciously elevate our theology over and above Scripture itself: If it doesn’t fit in with our theology, than Scripture must not say it!

Calvinism, I think, struggles with this problem much more than other theological systems. It’s so easy to put your trust in Calvinism. It’s big; it’s strong; it has all the answers; it could never be wrong, right?

Wrong.

I feel that at the heart of the Calvinist resistance to universal atonement is an unwillingness to let God be anything other than our human view of a mighty, worldly conqueror.

And so of course God wouldn’t pay for the sins of somebody who’s already going to pay for them! Of course God wouldn’t offer a beautiful gift, prepared with care…

…only to have it spurned, trampled in the mud, and shoved back in His face.

That would be inefficient! That would be weak! God would get taken advantage of, and we can’t let that happen!

We can’t let people take advantage of God!

The word love is so misused today. It’s misused to mean tolerance of sin. It’s misused to describe a fleeting feeling. It’s misused to describe sexual promiscuity.

And so in reaction, we have hardened love. We’ve made it rough. It doesn’t tolerate unrighteousness. It is love, yes, but it is a qualified love, a restricted love.

Inadvertently, we harden God’s love in the process.

We forget that God’s love has a soft side. That God is also a lamb––a slain lamb at that. We forget that God opens His heart to His creation and allows them to wrench it. Yes, wrench it. He allows Himself to be, dare I say…

Vulnerable?

No, He wouldn’t let Himself be vulnerable! Not God!

And so we start to fashion a picture in our minds of a God who is hard. Who is heartless. Who is an efficient machine and nothing more.

Mark Driscoll states that he refuses to worship a God He could beat up. I think Calvinism goes one step further. It refuses even to worship a God who would allow us to beat Him up.

But the fact is, I think God does allow us to beat Him up. God does allow us to play with His heartstrings.

God does allow us to reject Him.

Amazing.

What must anyone, and I’m not only speaking to Calvinists here, do when the Bible seems at odds with one’s theology? Change the Bible to fit one’s theology? Or change one’s theology to fit the Bible?

I trust the answer is obvious.

But wouldn’t that make things not make sense? Wouldn’t that mean that our theological systems can’t explain everything about God? Wouldn’t that make us confused without our system?

Yes, but it is better to be confused with only the Bible than to be confidently wrong with a theological system.

But doesn’t Calvinism logically require limited atonement in order to make coherent sense?

It would seem to. Charles Hodge affirms this:

If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent His Son to die in the same sense for the elect and the nonelect. The doctrine of election and the extent of the atonement are inseparably united. If you hold to one, you must hold to the other; if you deny one, then you must deny the other.

The question then becomes:

If a necessary component of a theological system comes into conflict with the biblical witness, is the Bible suspect, or is the theological system suspect?

Again, I trust we know the answer. And I trust we know what we need to do.

But wouldn’t changing that system be inefficient?

Yes, but then…

So is God.