Calvinism isn't a produce stand from which we can pick and choose
which doctrines we wish to keep and pass over the rest in a sort of hermeneutical
reprobation. Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology which must
be accepted or rejected as a whole.
by Christopher Alexion
I can still remember the relief I felt when I, a young four-point
Calvinist, heard that I didn't have to believe in limited atonement
in
order to be Reformed. The man who was explaining this assured me that
the
pastors at his church disagreed among themselves about this doctrine;
he
personally didn't believe it, but he knew pastors who did.
It wasn't until several months later that I had to admit the truth:
four-point Calvinism is no Calvinism at all. If limited atonement is false,
then the other four points are false as well. One cannot truly and
consistently believe in total depravity, unconditional election,
irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints without accepting
definite atonement.
The doctrine of total depravity, first in the acrostic TULIP, is a good
place to start in the explanation of why this is so. Total depravity means
that unregenerate man is so bound by sin that he willfully suppresses
the
truth of God and cannot of himself turn from that suppression to the truth.
He is in such darkness that he cannot-or rather will not-find the light.
Thus if he is to be saved, God must save him. No one is willing; there
is
"none that seeketh after God" (Rom. 3:11).
Universal redemption, on the other hand, insists that Christ died to
make salvation possible for or accessible to all. But how can one who
agrees with total depravity subscribe to such a view? Four-point Calvinism
reduces to this proposition: Man is incapable of choosing Christ, but
at
the same time he is capable of choosing Christ-which is, of course,
self-contradictory.
The doctrine of unconditional election leads to the same conclusion.
No work, faith, receptivity, or anything done in or by us had anything
to
do with our election. Election is an "election of grace" (Rom.
11:5). This
means that God designed to save a certain number and no more. But then
why
would Christ die for all? Universal redemption holds that God wills to
save
everybody, but unconditional election holds that God wills to save only
the
elect.
Then, too, the inconsistency may be seen in the light of the effectual
calling. Calvinists-even four-point Calvinists-believe that that the elect,
who have been purchased by Christ, will be surely brought to enjoy the
benefits of this blessing. Christ does not pay a ransom for us and leave
us
in the dungeon. But if one truly believes in irresistible grace, how can
one say that Christ died for all? That is equivalent to saying that Christ
either cannot or will not apply redemption to the redeemed-which is
unacceptable in light of unconditional election.
What about the last of the five points: the perseverance of the
saints? This doctrine insists, against Arminianism, that when God chooses
to redeem and save a sinner, He does not do it merely to lose him to
eternal destruction. That is the point of unconditional election: salvation
has nothing to do with our merit, so it will not end with our lack of
merit. The implication for the limited atonement debate is this: if we
believe that Christians cannot lose their salvation, then we believe that
God must be upholding them. If we believe that God upholds them, then
we
believe that He does it for a particular reason. This reason, if you
believe in unconditional election, is that Christ has made satisfaction
for
all our sins and covered us with His merit and righteousness. But if He
did
that for all, then all would persevere. Thus we have two choices: (1)
all
will persevere (which is not the case: see Jn. 17:12); or (2) Christ did
not die for all (the biblical choice: see Matt. 26:28, Jn. 10:15, Eph.
5:25, etc.).
At this point the four-point Calvinist may cry foul and charge that
these arguments misrepresent his view. He doesn't hold to the Arminian
view
of the atonement; he merely insists that Christ died for all. By this
he
may simply be expounding the view, held by Charles Hodge and others, that
there is "a sense in which it is scriptural to say that Christ died
for all
men." Hodge points out, "To die for one is to die for his benefit.
As
Christ's death has benefited the whole world, prolonged the probation
of
men, secured for them innumerable blessings, provided a righteousness
sufficient and suitable for all, it may be said that he died for all."
Yet,
cautions Hodge, "this is very different from saying that he died
equally
for all men, or that his death had no other reference to those who are
saved than it had to those who are lost." (Charles Hodge, 1 &
2
Corinthians [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994], p. 149. Italics his.)
Whether or not Hodge's view is correct, it's at least thoroughly
Calvinistic; it asserts that Christ did not die in the place of all. So
long as our four-point friends believe this, they aren't four-point
Calvinists after all, for, as Hodge says a page later, "all this
is
perfectly consistent with the great scriptural truth that Christ came
into
the world to save his people, that his death renders certain the salvation
of all those whom the Father hath given him, and therefore that he died
not
only for them but in their place, and on the condition that they should
never die."
These lines from Hodge sum up the whole point; the letter L is not in
the center of the word TULIP for nothing. The heart of the Gospel is that,
in J. I. Packer's words, God saves sinners. He does this through the
vicarious death of Christ for all the elect so that they would be saved.
"God helps sinners save themselves" is alien to Reformed theology,
and, for
that reason, so is universal redemption.
Calvinism isn't a produce stand from which we can pick and choose
which doctrines we wish to keep and pass over the rest in a sort of
hermeneutical reprobation. Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology
which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. From the acceptance of
one
point, one is compelled by simple logic to the acceptance of all the rest.
You can't deny one without denying them all. The four-point Calvinist
is as
consistent as a psalm-singing atheist.
