The question at hand is this: Did Christ die for every human being and make atonement for every human being, or did Christ die effectively only for the elect? Strong Calvinists, or high Calvinists, contend Christ died only for the elect (particular redemption, limited atonement) while Arminians believe Christ died for all but only those who repent and believe have that atonement applied to them.

As you may know, we are doing this series on Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. Olson contends limited atonement is not supportable from Scripture, is out of sync with the Great Tradition of the Church (no one believed this among the fathers, before Augustine), and takes exegetical ingenuity to make NT texts teach this. Roger Olson says it this way: “the high Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement is confusing at best and blatantly self-contradictory and unscriptural at worst” (145).

Calvinism believes the death of Christ actually redeemed while Arminians contend it provided salvation but that redemption is only applied if one believes. The big nuance for Calvinists is this: the death of Christ was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. Olson contends there is virtually no difference between “sufficient for all” and the typical Christian view that Christ died for all. Since some Calvinists accuse others of believing necessarily of universalism if they believe Christ died for all (since that death actually saved), Olson argues that Calvinists ought to be universalists since they believe the death of Christ is actually sufficient for all. [Packer unfortunately says Arminians save themselves since they believe Christ’s death potentially saves but only saves those who believe.] (more…)

Michael Horton examines a basic question contested between Calvinists and Arminians: Is the grace of God resistible? Well, he reframes this with what is surely a more accurate framing of the issues into effectual calling rather than “irresistible,” arguing as he does that the latter sounds like coercion. Further, he addresses yet another topic: perseverance and apostasy. As you may know, we are this series on Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism.

Horton’s sketch here roams freely from Bible to the major statements in the Reformed tradition, and he has a constant eye on the Arminian and tosses some barbs at them. Central to this whole debate is whole debate is the human condition, and he makes much of humans being “dead” in sins and that means they need to be awakened — by God’s grace — to new life. That awakening is a sovereign act of God. And Michael Horton knows the golden chain of Romans 8:30 – what God begins, God finishes. It’s all of God.

Do you believe in “eternal security”? Do you believe all genuine Christians will persevere to the end? Do you think genuine Christians can “fall away” and be finally lost?

The new birth, then, is an act of God; it is not dependent on human decision. (Here Horton pushes against synergism.) He thinks grace is always resisted by humans apart from God’s regenerating grace which then awakens a person to obedience.

Horton believes we must carefully distinguish “new birth” (an act of God; we are passive) from “conversion” (we are active). The commands to respond to God are not “conditions” but “gifts” from God. [This sort of distinction requires positing information when the NT texts don’t talk like this very often.] But the odd thing for me in this chp was that I think Horton becomes, in effect, synergistic in conversion but not in new birth. Yet, he works hard to deny that his approach here is synergistic. He sees us as “covenant partners,” not “synergists.” {My first response: OK, then, Arminians then can be covenant partners in the new birth.] (more…)

In high Calvinism God predestines the elect to salvation and the non-elect to damnation. Some Calvinists do not believe in double predestination; instead they believe in “single” predestination. Roger Olson, however, argues (along with many Calvinists) that single predestination necessarily entails double predestination. Then Olson probes into the doctrine to say it makes a mockery of God’s love and goodness, and offers instead an Arminian approach to election. So, he argues “Yes to election; No to double predestination.”

Calvinism’s commitment to its form of election creates theological and logical problems for Calvinism. Do you think double predestination ultimately shakes confidence in God’s love and goodness?

As you may know, we are this series on Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. One of the most admirable characteristics of Roger Olson is his candor about what he thinks and what he thinks of others, seen for instance in his recent criticisms of JI Packer’s understanding of Arminianism. When Arminians criticize like this it is seen as arrogance or a lack of charity while when Calvinist theologians go after Arminians it is perceived as commitment to the truth and a willingness to defend the hard doctrines (of grace). Baloney on that one. Olson is simply being a good, sharp-minded theologian and is always open to discussion — and his recent public debates with Michael Horton, who like Olson is charitable and civil even when they disagree firmly and say strong things, are a good sign of this commitment to public civility. I digress.

Olson’s chp on election is admirably clear about what Calvinists believe and at the same time firm in disagreement. Olson is against double predestination for individuals; he is for “conditional election” for individuals. He is firmly against “unconditional individual election’s inevitable correlate — reprobation” (104), and he sees it contrary to God’s love. (more…)

Did Jesus Christ die for everyone, from Adam to the last person ever born, or did Christ die only for the elect? Calvinism, or at least most of it, teaches what is called “limited atonement” or “particular redemption.” In other words, the mission of Jesus Christ’s death was to secure an atonement for those who are the elect of the Father. As you may know, we are this series on Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. I began with Olson’s book before Horton’s arrived so I am catching up.

Horton’s sketch of atonement is, well, not as satisfactory as I’d like but his sketch of particular redemption is clear and accurate for what this Calvinist view affirms.

What do you believe about the atonement? For all or for the elect only? Do you think an atonement that makes possible redemption is less than an atonement that actually saves? (Arminian vs. Calvinist.)

He sketches atonement theories: penal substitution, recapitulation, Christus Victor, satisfaction, moral exemplary theory, and governmental theory. Horton makes it abundantly clear that Calvinism isn’t just the substitutionary theory but includes all the others, but in this his words don’t go as far as his sketch for, by the time he’s done, the only one that really matters is penal substitution (he does give some attention to recapitulation, but it’s not easy to distinguish recapitulation and Christus Victor) and his view of PS is through and through forensic and legal, and therefore it comes down to justification theory. Fair enough; that’s one kind of Reformed theology.

Example: while Anselm grounded atonement in the need for God to be satisfied in his dignity, Reformation theology was grounded in God’s justice. (That’s a justification theory driving atonement theory.) (more…)

Terry Tiessen, author of Providence & Prayer : How Does God Work in the World? and Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions, writes this in response to some Arminian arguments that Calvinism tends toward a view of God that is monstrous (and good Arminian theologians who say such a thing also say they know Calvinists don’t affirm such monstrosities). I post this in the interest of fairness to our readers:

In describing the God of Calvinist understanding a “monster,” one has to speak very strongly but no more strongly than did Wesley in his hymn against predestination. Berkouwer aptly spoke of the “scandal of election,” and I too have felt its scandalousness. Yet, I am currently at a point in my own thought where I feel its scandalousness less than I do its wonder and its praiseworthiness.

I think that Jerry Walls is right when he identifies the doctrine of hell as one of the chief tenets of Christian faith that calls forth a theodicy. Like you, he has found resolution in the free will defence. I have been unable to do so because my reading of the biblical narrative continuously impresses upon me the meticulousness of God’s sovereign control in the world. Its history is the one God has chosen should occur, though much of it comes about by the action of free agents who bear responsibility for any evil they do, while obligated to acknowledge God as the source of any good they do.

So, how can I worship and gladly serve a God who chose to create a world in whose history some would not be saved, even though the saving of sinners is something God alone can do and which no one can thwart, if God wills to do it? (more…)

One of the reasons I like this book by Michael Horton is that he’s talking about topics that, like the holy underwear of Mormons, are not subjects discussed in public. This series will go back and forth between Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. Today I want to look at Michael Horton’s chp on election, which he calls “Loved before Time.”

Horton’s will no doubt become a go-to book for those wanting a clear exposition of Calvinism, though (as both Horton and Olson constantly emphasize) Calvinism is not the same as Reformed, covenant theology. This is a book about Calvinism and a “For Reformed Theology” would be a different book.

Is election in Calvinism good and just?

No topic is more difficult than election. Michael’s conclusion has an idea that can be brought in first; election may be a mystery but there is no mystery that the Bible affirms election. How God elected, whom God elected, and the mechanics of election — these are not readily explained. But that God elects, that’s all over the Bible. (And Michael often appeals to Romans 9-11, but he has a good sketch of the Bible’s texts on this topic.)

Arminianism teaches election on the basis of God’s grace but in conjunction with human decision (Horton: “in view of” a person’s faith that God foresees) while Calvinism teaches that God elects “unto faith.” In other words, for one it is “conditional” and for the other it is “unconditional.”

Does this mean God chooses unto reprobation? This is often called double predestination. Horton emphasizes with many in the Reformed tradition that God doesn’t choose to damnation and that God’s choice unto redemption is active while the other is simply not acting. [I don’t buy the escape on this one; the choice not to elect remains a choice.] The problem for the reprobate is their own will; the only hope of the saved is the act of God. (more…)

This series will go back and forth between Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. Today I want to look at Michael Horton’s chp called “Of Regents and Rebels: The Human Condition,” which is a good sketch of Calvinism’s “T,” or total depravity.

Horton importantly begins on a note that might jar many who are suspicious of Calvinism: “no theological system has been more affirming of this world and human nature” and that “Calvinism teaches that humans beings are basically good in their intrinsic nature, endowed with free will, beauty of body and soul, reason, and moral excellence” (35). You might want to tweet that! Most don’t look at Calvinism that way, but Horton makes this clear: by nature, these things are true. In other words, as originally created.

But once the Fall happened, this all changes. As created, humans are good; as fallen, humans are comprehensively affected by sin in all areas of life.

Humans, after the fall, are bound to their sin nature. They are “bent toward unbelief and sin.” Humans have “lost this freedom for righteousness before God.” We are a “race of rebels” — having been designed to be “regents.” All of this is consistent in Calvin, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, the Belgic Confession and the Westminster tradition.

Depravity then is not inherent but something that happens to human nature. And this sinful nature incurs God’s judgment and it imprisons the whole person. Total means extensiveness not intensiveness. Comprehensively, humans are fallen (cracked Eikons). The image of God remains but humans are in a fallen condition. Humans are not deprived of will but soundness of will.

Which leads to a big question: Do Calvinists believe humans can do good of their own free will? (more…)

Finally, Michael Horton’s book arrived: For Calvinism. I agree with Roger Olson, whose companion volume in this series ( Against Calvinism) has so far been the focus of the first three posts, that Michael Horton is a fair-minded proponent of Calvinism and a fair-minded, firm critic of Arminianism.

Before I go forward I would like to register a disagreement with both Olson and Horton in the endorsement of terms like “synergism” and “monergism.” I understand that many are willing to say Arminianism is synergistic while Calvinism is monergistic, but I find the terms loaded and creative of a false dichotomy. They seem to emerge when Calvinists set the agenda. Michael Horton, in the opening introduction, says as much: Arminians don’t think they contribute to salvation one bit and Calvinists believe in the necessity of a human acting in faith. The so-called “co-operation” in Arminian thinking is not equal: it is not the God does one part and we do our part, nor is the Calvinist denying the human is an actor in faith. There are differences here, to be sure, but I for one would like to register that I don’t think these terms help much.

Is Calvinism’s focus on justification an indicator of a soterian approach to the gospel?  Which of Calvinism’s five (TULIP) give you the most trouble? Do you think the “synergism” and “monergism” labels help us understand each of these systems of thought?

Michael Horton points out something I hinted at, and something that needed more development in The King Jesus Gospel, namely that revivalism of the Second Great Awakening combined evangelistic zeal and modernity and American pragmatism to create a reduced gospel, and that form led to what I call “pragmatic” soterianism. The Reformation emphasized soteriology, but it was only later in revivalism that the seed that had taken root flourished into a soterian gospel that is severely reductionistic. (more…)

Roger Olson’s newest book, Against Calvinism, is a fair-minded description of “mere Calvinism,” a sketch of how this mere Calvinism is not the same or identical with Reformed theology, and is also a critique of mere Calvinism. This book is matched by Michael Horton’s book that defends Calvinism, a book I have not seen. (Horton’s is called For Calvinism.) Olson’s approach is to examine what leading proponents of mere Calvinism actually say.

Roger Olson argues that it is not just Calvinism (or Reformed theology) that believes in God’s sovereignty, and he is arguing that some in today’s versions of Calvinism think they (and they alone) actually believe in divine sovereignty. Not so, so do Arminians. (But Olson’s not offering an Arminian theology.)

How can one believe in “meticulous providence” and not make God culpable of sin and evil? Does God control all in the sense of determining all? Concretely: Does God determine that children suffer with cancer or that a sexual maniac rape a young child? How is God extricated from causation in such matters for those who affirm meticulous providence/determinism?

The issue here is “meticulous providence,” that God ordains, determines and brings about everything. He begins with Zwingli, a notable influence on Calvin in this subject, then to Calvin, then Edwards, then Sproul, then Boettner, then Paul Helm and finally Piper. There are nuanced differences here, and you can go to the book for the details. Olson sums it up with this:

In high Calvinism, God’s sovereignty in his providence means that everything down to the minutest details  of history and individual lives, including persons’ thoughts and actions, are foreordained and rendered certain by God. Even evil thoughts and actions are planned and brought about such that God ‘sees to it’ that they happen to carry out his will. Nothing at all, whatever, falls outside God’s predestining plan and activity.

Yet, God is not stained by the evil that creatures do even though he renders it certain…

God renders sin and evil certain not by coercing or forcing people to do them by withdrawing or withholding that divine influence that they would need not to sin and do evil. (more…)