Philosophical Theology

The aim of this installment is to shed light on why a non-Reformed view of the atonement subverts Christian orthodoxy as it relates to a divine intention to redeem by the undivided works of the Trinity. Stated positively, only limited atonement coheres with God’s intention to save. In what follows below, attention will be given to the theological implications of “four-point Calvinism” and anti-Calvinism in an effort to show why such non-Reformed views of the atonement are incompatible with the Christian church’s understanding of the triune God.

Christ’s high priestly prayer:

Being a priest, Jesus prays for the efficacy of his atoning sacrifice. In doing so, the Savior prays for those given to him by his Father. Perhaps most striking is not that Christ prayed for those chosen in him but that he positively excludes from his prayer the rest of mankind, which he refers to as the world. (In passing we might note that “world” need not refer to every person God could save but can also refer to those he has sovereignly determined not to save.*)

“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.”

John 17:9

Had Scripture merely revealed that Jesus prayed that his atoning sacrifice and persevering grace would be applied to the elect, that of itself would not imply that he did not ever pray or desire that his shed blood would be applied to those who would not believe. However, the hypothetical possibility of the salvation of every person becomes theologically untenable when we consider that Jesus explicitly limits his prayer of efficacy to the elect alone. In other words, Jesus decidedly prayed that God’s saving grace not be extended to those not chosen in him. 

Now, of course, those who reject limited atonement can counter with Jesus’ plea upon the cross that forgiveness be extended to those who mocked him and were instrumental in his crucifixion. (Luke 23:34) They can also point to the mandate of 1 Timothy 2:1-4, that we are to pray for all people without distinction. Of course, Calvinists have rejoinders to those sorts of objections to limited atonement. Perhaps the prayer in Luke’s gospel was fulfilled at Pentecost recorded in the second chapter of Luke’s Acts. Or perhaps the man, Christ Jesus, prayed as all humans are instructed in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 to pray, not only that Christians might flourish under biblical governance but that God might be pleased to save those who from our human perspective might be elect. Lastly, just maybe Paul is telling Timothy that we must pray for all kinds of people, such as those in authority over us, because God will save from all classes of people. Regardless of the correct interpretation, the takeaway is simply that exegetical interpretation is subject to theological commitment and theological commitment is largely shaped by exegesis.

It is safe to assume that the Calvinist-Arminian impasse won’t likely be resolved anytime soon given the human factor. Notwithstanding, the discussion and charitable debate may must ensue. In the spirit of the Ninth Commandment, we ought always to strive for a deeper and more critical understanding of opposing positions along with greater consistency with respect to our own theological systems. One way to approach such matters with intellectual integrity is to evaluate the downstream implications of opposing views in an effort to test which can successfully maintain Christian orthodoxy while maintaining its own position. (1 Corinthians 11:19)

The atonement and God:

From a Reformed perspective, limited atonement,** which is an adequate term that need’t be reworked for the implacable, is a crucial doctrine if we are to do justice to the orthodox doctrine of the inseparable operations of God and a divine intention to save.

One God, will and purpose in salvation:

God’s acts are necessarily undivided because Christ is one in being with the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. If all three persons of the Trinity are involved in every action of creation, providence and grace, then it follows that although God eternally exists as three distinct persons, there is an external unity in what God does. The unity of divine actions are a necessary consequence of God being a simple being who is not made up of parts. 

Although all God’s acts are indivisible, Scripture often attributes particular works to distinct divine persons and not to the one triune God. So, with respect to redemption: the Father chooses, the Son redeems, and the Spirit seals and sanctifies. Nonetheless, theologically we understand these particular acts of God as the Father saving his people in Christ by the Spirit. Accordingly, attributing particular divine acts to distinct persons needn’t puzzle us with thoughts of tritheism if we remain mindful that Scripture presents an ordering of the external works of God that are appropriate to the eternal personal relations of divine origin (unbegotten, begotten, and procession). So, with biblical fluidity, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself through the rebirth by the Holy Spirit. (John 3:8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) Similarly, it is by the the new birth the blood of Christ purifies the believer’s conscience of dead works in order to serve God because Christ through the eternal Spirit has offered Himself without blemish to God. (Hebrews 9:14)

The divine intent:

Before bringing these various strands of thought together, a word or two might be in order regarding the divine intent. The divine intent is closely associated with the will of God. And because the will is always indexed to a person’s nature (e.g., the incarnate Son has two wills, human and divine, whereas mere mortals have one), the unity of the three distinct persons of the Trinity demands numerically one divine will, given one divine essence, and by extension a single divine purpose. Accordingly, from a Reformed perspective God (ad extra) is a divine agent working indivisibly in perfect harmonious-unity with a single intent to save only those who are chosen to believe. 

Prodding non-Reformed evangelicals toward greater consistency: 

Whether one believes in limited atonement or not, all evangelicals agree that not all will be saved. Evangelicals, also, agree that only the elect (i.e., those eternally chosen in Christ), will be saved. Accordingly, when it comes to redemption, the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists turns on the question of why one is chosen for salvation and not whether some are chosen for salvation. In other words, on what basis are some chosen and others not?

Hypothetical universalism within garden variety four-point Calvinism:

With respect to four-point quasi-Calvinists, a central point of disagreement some have with pure Calvinism is over the question of whether those not elected unto life can possibly be saved by virtue of the finished work of Christ on their behalf. In other words, if the cross truly makes all men savable, then hypothetically all can be saved. (The hypothetical universalism conundrum is in principle addressed here, here and here.) But aside from that somewhat esoteric debate, all four-point Calvinists do not value the finished work of Christ upon the cross as being particular for the elect in the same sense as God’s electing grace and the Spirt’s irresistible drawing are deemed particular. At the very least, how can the atonement be “sufficient to save all” if electing and irresistible grace are not sufficient in the same way? (Noodle that around.)

For the four-point Calvinist, if there was a divine intention for redemption accomplished, it is detached from redemption applied. In other words, the historia salutis does not mate-up well with the ordo salutis. Consequently, confessing any less than the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement, an unfortunate mismatch is set forth – a mismatch that undermines the Christian doctrine of God with respect to intent and inseparable operations. What the four point Calvinist is left with is: the Father sovereignly chooses the elect for salvation – the Spirit draws only the elect unto salvation – yet the incarnate Son dies for those who perish. Clearly, such implicit cross-purposes would undermine any hope of a coherent divine intent.

With those preceding principles in place, we can now consider in more detail some of the downstream ramifications of denying limited atonement. We will consider those ramifications from the two vastly different evangelical perspectives of four-point and anti Calvinism.

1. The downward spiral of a non-Reformed atonement in four-point Calvinism:

If Christ died for every person, then in some respect it’s possible that all men can be saved. Yet, if it is possible for all unelected people to be saved, then how can unconditional election and irresistible grace be necessary for one’s salvation? And if those graces are not necessary for salvation, then how does such a theological system avoid spiraling downward to an Arminian notion of depravity and autonomous freedom, which would further lead to a view of foreknowledge that would undermine God’s utter independence or aseity? In short, if the non-elect can possibly be saved by virtue of Christ’s death on their behalf, then those not predestined to be irresistibly drawn can mysteriously incline their fallen and depraved wills to Christ. This is semi-Pelagian at best, which belies the four-point Calvinism it seeks to uphold. (See links provided above for a fuller treatment of hypothetical universalism.)

With respect to four-point Calvinists who do not self-consciously subscribe to the possibility of the non-elect being saved, their position still requires them to consider all men savable virtue of unlimited atonement. Therefore, the implications of their position is that all men are savable through the atonement, while maintaining the impossibility of their salvation due to the need for electing grace. Such a position obviously suffers from inconsistency. After all, on four-point Calvinism terms how can the atonement secure the possibility of salvation for those not chosen in Christ? Yet if the atonement does not make all men savable, then in what sense does Christ die for each person? Like with all non-Reformed positions, the historia salutis does not cohere with the ordo salutis.

2. Non-Calvinistic evangelicals who deny not just limited atonement but Reformed predestination etc.:

For those who will have none of this Calvinistic high talk, we may safely infer either that God intends to save the non-elect or it is false that God intends to save them. (There is no third option given the law of the excluded middle.)

A. If God intends to save the non-elect, then it follows that God’s intention does not come to pass. Moreover, God would have intended to save those he foreknew would not believe and be saved. It is admittedly hard to understand what such a divine intention can even mean. Are we to believe by “intention” that it was God’s goal, plan or design to save those who won’t be saved? Did God’s intended mission fail?

B. Yet, if it is false that God intends to save the non-elect, then we might go in one of three directions. It would seem that either (i) God has no intention for the non-elect, (ii) God has positive intention to pass over the non-elect, or (iii) God’s only intention is to make all men equally savable. The second option is immediately disqualified because it’s Calvinistic, whereas the first option reduces God to an indifferent bystander with no goal, plan or design whatsoever for the non-elect. But if God has no divine intention for the non-elect, while also having a positive intention to save the elect, then there must be some particular redemption intention for the elect that does not apply to the the non-elect, which in turn undermines the equality contemplated in option (iii). Of course, in a last ditch effort non-Calvinists can say that God has no intention to save anyone. Any takers?

Closing:

As discussed elsewhere, consigning ourselves to exegesis alone (e.g., context, grammar, genre, etc.) is inadequate to derive a coherent biblical theology given that what is to be gleaned from Scripture are the theological implications of what the texts of Scripture say. For instance, exegesis can lead us to believing that God is both one and three, but only a sound philosophical theology can bring these teachings together to come up with divine simplicity, the unbegottenness of the Father, eternal generation of the Son, the spiration of the Holy Spirit, the mutual indwelling of the Three (perichoresis), and the inseparable operations of the Trinity. It is this last doctrine in particular (inseparable operations) that is subverted by anything less than a confessionally Reformed view of limited atonement.

In sum, to deny limited atonement is to abandon any hope of a divine intention to redeem that is fulfilled by the triune God of Scripture. In light of this, all Christian traditions should reject any other atonement view and only confess the one associated with Calvinism, all to the glory of a Savior who saves.

*For a worthy treatment of John 3:16 and how it supports limited atonement, check out James Anderson’s piece: John 3:16 Teaches Limited Atonement

**I will stick with the traditional term of limited atonement, which is no less susceptible to criticism and uncharitable caricatures than definite atonement and particular redemption. In other words, if one is serious about interacting with the concept, the traditional term won’t stand in the way.