Friday, June 12, 2009

This Week in Calvinism - June 12, 2009

  • Eric Carpenter loves Calvinism because it is Trinity-centered. He notes, "The Calvinistic view of salvation emphasizes the involvement of all three members of the Trinity. It also emphasizes the cooperation of all three members: the Father elects those He sovereignly chooses, the Son pays for the sins of the elect, and the Spirit regenerates the hearts of the elect. All three members of the Trinity work together as One."

  • Bobby Grow believes that John Calvin, "no matter what you think of him, has made an impact upon the trajectory of Christianity that will never be shaken."

  • Geoff Hill leaves behind Geneva, "this city of smug Calvinism," and sets out to discover the real Switzerland.

  • "John Calvin and the Land of Chocolate" discusses the extent of the Reformer's cultural and political influence.

  • BBC4 will be featuring a documentary later this season that "will look at the effects Calvinism is perceived to have had over the psyche of Scots."

  • Kyle remains "deeply unsettled" by those of us who continue to defend the "blasphemy" of limited atonement, and he would like to know why. Well, here's just one reason: If Christ did indeed die for every, single human being (i.e. bore the punishment of sin for each and every person), then there would be no need for God to punish anyone else for the same sin. In fact, it would be unjust for him to do so. The very fact that people die and go to Hell is enough proof that the atonement is limited. (Actually, both Calvinists and Arminians teach limited atonement. Calvinists limit the scope of the atonement, whereas Arminians limit its effectiveness.)

5 comments:

Eric said...

Thanks for the link!

Phil said...

You are making a double jeopardy fallacy in your last post. http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?cat=12
Unless you are a supralapsarian there is no reason a Calvinist can't believe the words of 1 Tim. 4:10.

Anonymous said...

i can't understand how anyone orthodox (non-universalist) could believe that Jesus was the "savior" of judas and all the rest of the unsaved. if Jesus referred to judas as "doomed to destruction so that scripture would be fulfilled," why would He die for judas? and on what grounds would He be judas' "savior?"

Kyle said...

So you prefer to hold on to a certain view of Penal Substitutionary atonement instead of affirming God's universal love and atonement? Simply change your view to something along the lines of a provision or a payment that can be accepted or rejected, and you can extend the atonement to all people.

Also, it's just wrong to say Arminians limit the effectiveness of the Atonement. Arminians believe Christ effectively made atonement, bridged the gap, and now extends the benefits of the atonement to be received or rejected. He accomplished His goal effectively.

Even Calvinists have to maintain that God has more work to do after the Atonement in order to save people. Every elect sinner is at some point "under the wrath of God" until God applies the blood and saves Him. So even Calvinists do not apply a literalistic, commercial-type version of the atonement all the way through.

Limited atonement is only necessary if you hold to a certain version of the Penal Substitution theory. There are other versions, and indeed other theories altogether. And really, LA is motivated by unconditional election.

The center of Calvinist theology is power. The center of Arminian theology is the God of justice and love. Calvinists like a God who can do whatever He wants, irrespective of having a holy and loving character towards all people.

Kyle said...

Plus, if God were loving (which Calvinists at least assert) and if He saves people unilaterally, there is no explanation for why He does not elect all people. The only explanation available is that He is evil.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails