If you’ve done study into the details of salvation (sometimes referred to as soteriology) you’ll know that the Synod of Dort in 1619 came up with five affirmations of Calvinism, commonly known as the “Five points of Calvinism”.
The five points can be remembered using the acrostic TULIP:
T = Total Depravity of man
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the saints
I’ve been very strongly in the Calvinist camp since a short time after I was saved, however I’ve heard others express one point of difference between the five points and the scripture – and I share this.
Half a point difference
The one point is in the Limited Atonement. According to the Moody Handbook of theology the third point of Calvinism is as follows:
Because God determined that certain ones should be saved as a result of God’s unconditional election, He determined that Christ should die for the elect. All whom God has elected and Christ died for will be saved.
My point of difference is that the writings of Paul seem to disagree with one small point in this – that is that the death of Christ while effective only for the elect, was not only for the elect.
For example lets have a look at 2 Corinthians 5:18-20:
All this is from God who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore we are ambassadors of Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
While I understand that Paul was writing this to believers, the key here is in the use of the word “world” – because that is what Christ was reconciling to Himself. This theme would seem to fit with classic verses such as John 3:16:
For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
That is that God loved the world – not just the elect, and so the death of Christ was sufficient not only for the elect, but also for those who perish.
1 John 2:2 would seem to confirm this:
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Propitiation means to make atonement – so this would seem to be stating clearly that Christ atoned for the sins of the world.
How this affects the Gospel
The point of this little nitpick is that this changes the gospel we preach. Today the Gospel is either badly watered down or lumbered with conditions. However, there is only one condition for salvation – believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved (Acts 16:31). This message of reconciliation is thus “the punishment for your sin has already been taken care of in Jesus’s death – believe in His sufficiency to appease the wrath of God on your behalf and you will be saved”.
To believe in the sufficiency of Christ means we need to believe that He is the incarnate God and as such is without sin, thus his sacrifice for sin is acceptable.
If the death of Christ was only for the elect, then the message we preach must be “believe on the Lord and that affirms that your sin was punished in His death”. This is quite a different message and raises questions in the mind of the hearer – “Was my sin really covered in Christ’s death? How do I know? If I believe, is that just me or is it because of His work?”
However if all that is required is believing in the sufficiency of Christ, we are better able to repent as we can see that that is all that is required (and by repentance I mean the sanctification that results from believing in Jesus).
So there we have it – I’m a four and a half point Calvinist – and if you didn’t know – Jesus was punished for your sin – you just need to believe in Him to be saved from the punishment of your sin – so believe and be saved!
**Update**
Dom was good enough to take time to respond to this post and email me to let me know. He makes some good points in his post. And as a result I’d like to clarify what I’m saying here as I did in my comment on His blog post:
I’m certainly not a universalist, nor do I subscribe to Hypothetic Universalism. Mankind is utterly depraved, and incapable of saving himself, thus election and consequent regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary acts of God on an individual.
In my mind (and thus this post), I have always distinguished between atonement and justification. On reflection – this is not necessarily everyone’s understanding, and thus is misleading.
I regard atonement as being related to the value of Christ’s death (which is infinite), and regarding justification (or redemption) as the application of that atonement. This means that if God chose to do so – the death of Christ would be sufficient for the salvation of all men everywhere – however, God has chosen some – not all – to be redeemed or justified, and thus the application of Christ’s death is strictly limited to those who believe.
Perhaps I should say the following by way of clarification: Christ’s death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God. The intention of Christ’s death (actual satisfaction and atonement of sin for individuals) is given only to those who believe. Salvation is offered to all – the whole world, but received only by those who believe.
For further reading on this issue I recommend Dogmatic Theology (also on Logos) by William Shedd (p739-750)
Recent Comments