This is the fourth and final part of our series of posts looking at a number of so-called "Arminian" texts—texts often cited by opponents of Reformed theology in the belief that they somehow undermine or refute Calvinism.
1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
This is one of the most frequently cited verses by Arminians against the Reformed doctrines of grace, especially against particular redemption, but also against unconditional election. The Arminian argument is straightforward. The verse says God desires everyone to be saved; Calvinism says that God desires (at least in the sense of the desires he decides to decree to come to pass) the elect to the saved and the non-elect to be damned. Therefore, Calvinism must be incorrect.
There are at least two ways Calvinists have answered the Arminian view.
The first Calvinist view says that we need to look at context to dispel Arminian claims. In verse 1, Paul writes: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people." We note again the phrase "all people"—the same words as are found in verse 4. Paul says Timothy's church is to pray for all people. Did he mean that they were to pray for every single person without exception? We they, as it were, supposed to get out the voter's roll for Ephesus and work their way through it in prayer? That seems unlikely. The true interpretation is confirmed by verse which explains the "all people" of verse 1: "for kings and all who are in high positions."
Paul means that they are not to exclude any type of person in their prayers. They are to pray as much for kings and governors as they are for ordinary people. Therefore, "all people" in context means "all kinds of people". No class or type of person is to be excluded from the congregation's prayers.
So then, in verse 4, Paul means that God desires all kinds of people to be saved. He did not mean that God desires the salvation of everyone without exception. So the Arminian use of this verse simply falls apart.
A second Calvinist view, accepts that the verse does teach God has a desire to save everyone without exception. It is not controversial in Reformed theology to teach that God has desires for some things that he chooses not to fulfil via his decree. Considered as a thing in itself, it pleases God for sinners to come to faith and be saved. He has this desire towards all his creatures. But this does not contradict the parallel truth that God also desires to save only some and to allow some to bc condemned for his own glory and the display of his justice. This Calvinist view counters the Arminian more fundamentally in some respects by saying "so what?" - we agree God desires all people to be saved and we preach the free offer of salvation on that basis, yet we do not deny God also has a secret or decretive will that purposes only to save the elect and condemn the reprobate.
1 Timothy 4:10
For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.
The Arminian interpretation of this verse is normally something along the lines that God has made salvation available to everyone (without exception) but it is effective only especially for those who believe. The problem of course is that this is not what the verse says.
If "Saviour of all people" means Saviour of everyone without exception then the verse proves too much and teaches universalism—that all are saved, especially those who believe. This would conflict with dozens of verses and passages that teach those not everyone is saved.
There are three Calvinist interpretations of this verse.
Firstly, that "all people" has the same connotation as 1 Timothy 2:4 that we have just looked at and means "all kinds of people". Once we note that the Greek word translated "especially" (malista) could also be translated "namely" or "more specifically" we can see that the verse means "the living God, who is the Saviour of all kinds of people, namely [or more specifically] those who believe." The verse then makes perfect sense and is fully compatible with Calvinism.
Another Calvinist interpretation, notes that the word for "Saviour" (soter) is not always used in the sense of saving from sin. It can also mean a "preserver" or "deliverer" from non-salvation related situations, such as illness or danger. According to this view, the verse is only pointing out that God preserves and delivers everyone, but especially "delivers" in the full salvific sense believers. Personally, I think this view is open to charges of "special pleading" as it requires Paul to be using "Saviour" in a different sense here from is found in almost all occurrences in Paul's writings.
Third, some Calvinists simply acknowledge that Christ has been appointed as the sole Saviour of mankind though he accomplishes salvation only for those who believe (the elect). Many Calvinists accept that though the intention in the cross was to save the elect, this does not preclude Christ being set forth, held out or offered as Saviour to everyone through the gospel. In his revealed will, God sends Christ as Saviour for anyone who will believe in him; in his decretive will, God sends Christ to save the elect. While there may be mystery as to how these two ideas fit together, there is no contradiction.
2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
In this verse Peter mentions false teachers who "deny the Master who bought them." This, according to Arminian views, conflicts with limited atonement, as we apparaently here have Peter acknowledging that Christ died for false teachers who are not saved.
Clearly, from other places in Scripture, we know that those "bought" (or "redeemed") by Christ are saved, the Arminian view cannot be correct, particularly since these false teachers have brought swift destruction on themselves. So, another interpretation must be possible.
One such interpretation is that Peter was saying that the false teachers were denying the Master who they claimed to believe had bought them. He is, as it were, writing not from the perspective of the truth, but from the perspective of the false teachers' claims. It is almost as if he is putting inverted commas around the words. If this view is right, Peter was saying something like this: "even denying the Master "who bought them," bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
Another Calvinist interpretation, regards Peter as writing of them from the point of view of their having been associated with the body of believers. They are part of the visible church or covenant community, though as non-elect not part of the true invisible church or real covenant people. As Christ died for the church, insofar as the false believers associated with the church, Peter could speak in a sense of them denying the Master who it would appear bought them according to their own (false) profession.
A third view argues that "bought" here does not refer to salvation at all, but to Christ's ownership over them as created people, rather than as redeemed people. This view points out that "bought" could refer to any type of deliverance paid for. It could therefore be referring to outward benefits received by these men by being drawn into the church community (such as deliverance from idolatry or obvious wickedness in their lives) and therefore might not concern the atonement of Christ at all.
These three views have some overlap elements of all three views are present in this ambiguous verse in 2 Peter.
One final point to make that applies to this verse and many of the others claimed by our Arminian friends is that this passage is not about the atonement. The phrase in question is tangential to the main argument of the passage which is about false teachers. It is always dangerous to base a doctrine not on the main passages that deal with the subject, but on isolated words and phrases capable of more than one interpretation.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
This verse in 2 Peter is one of the most frequently used verses by Arminians. Along with Matthew 23:37 and 1 Timothy 2:4 it forms what James White calls "the Big Three" cited over and over again by Arminian authors. The Arminian takes the phrase "no wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" and claims this applies universally. God wants to save everyone and so by implication election, predestination and limited atonment must be false.
The Calvinist can respond forthrightly and as we have frequently seen, there are several Calvinist approaches.
The one group of Calvinists maintains that these words should not be viewed as having a universal import, but rather that they apply to the "you" (plural) of the verse. The "you" of the verse are the recipients and addressees of the letter, and that is not everyone without exception, but God's people, the elect. The "you" of the verse is "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1).
Peter is really saying "God is patient with you, not wishing that any [of you] should perish. The context bears out that view. The passage is dealing with the timing of the second coming of Christ. Peter is explaining that God delays this cataclysmic event in order that all of the elect would come to faith because he is not willing that any of them should perish.
An alternative Calvinist viewpoint, similar to approaches we have seen already in John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37 and other places, acknowledges the Arminian interpretation insofar as 2 Peter 3:9 does teach that God is unwilling that anyone perish (not in the absolute sense of his sovereign or decretive will), but in the sense of his revealed or preceptive will. This to be preached to all because God does in one sense desire all to be saved and that none perish, and the Biblical revelation both includes God's desire towards salvation for all AND his decree to save only the elect and believers must keep both truths in tension without jettisoning either. Both the Arminian and the High/Hyper Calvinist are in danger of overemphasising one to the exclusion of the other truth. Evangelical Calvinists hold to both, even if they cannot rationally explain how they logically cohere.
1 John 2:2
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
I believe we can deal with this verse quite quickly. As with John 3:16, here the Arminian believes this verse teaches that Christ died for everyone without exception. They tend to point to the words, "the whole world" to underline their argument. The Arminian view tends to contrast "not for ours" by which they understand all current Christians at the time John was writing with "the whole world" meaning everyone without exception.
One Calvinist view points out that "whole world" need not mean "everyone without exception". Even within the context of First John this is clear. In 1 John 5:19 John says: "and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Clearly this does not include the church who are not under Satan's rule, so the addition of "whole" to world does not make it mean "everyone without exception" automatically.
If the whole world meant everyone without exception here then the verse would teach that Christ is the propitiation for all sins of everyone. This would lead to universalism as how could God condemn anyone if Christ has already taken away that person's sins and turned aside God's wrath from them?
In this view, "our sins"—the sins of those already believing—is contrasted with the sins of all the nations—the whole world—everyone who would come to believe from any nation on earth.
As with other verses, a second Calvinist interpretation, accepts that "whole world" means everyone, but argues that John means simply that Christ is sufficient to propitiate the sins of the whole world, even though he efficiently propitiates the sins only of the elect and that both aspects are God's intent. Calvinists taking this view include the likes of W. G. T. Shedd, C. H. Spurgeon and John MacArthur - all pointing to the sufficiency of the atonement for all while also holding that the atonement is effective only for the elect.
No comments:
Post a Comment