- Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Limited Atonement
- Irresistable Grace
- Perseverance of the Saints
Writing them down now I realise that my theology differs in some minor ways, and so maybe I'll blog about them all in time. One interesting thing to do is read the relevant bits of Calvin's Institutes and try to decide in what particular ways he agrees with each.
Anyway, as the title demands, I want to say something very brief on four and a half point Calvinism. I know Mark Driscoll considers himself one. The point he and other four and a half point Calvinists take issue with is the third point, Limited Atonement.
Limited Atonement goes something like Jesus only died for the sins of those who he would save. The argument for this, I believe, has to do with unnecessary punishment. Did Jesus suffer for a non-Christian's sin? If he did, then those sins will be punished twice.
So, Unlimited Limited Atonement, or whatever you want to call it, according to Driscoll is (from Wiki)
[Jesus], by dying for everyone, purchased everyone as His possession and He then applies His forgiveness to the elect by grace and applies His wrath to the non-elect. Objectively, Jesus' death was sufficient to save anyone, and, subjectively, only efficient to save those who repent of their sin and trust in HimI think we get hung up on the wrong language with this one. I think that four and a half point and five point and even four point versions of Calvinism can potentially be the same if we think in different terms.
I don't think Jesus suffered for the sin of three billion people, I think he suffered for sin. And I think the terms should be relational not quantitative. How many friends can I have? There is no limit (time and space limitations ignores). I think this is the right language. The advantage of having a positive relationship with Jesus is his advocacy, which is available to everyone.
In this language though, I'm not comfortable using words like "sufficient for all, effective for some", because sufficient doesn't make sense. Jesus is able, but there's no quantity that justifies the use of the word sufficient.
Anyone who knows more than me here feel free to come back at me.
Posts
I think that Jesus did die for the sins of some and not for the sins of others. I think it's more like someone doing a favour that benefits a bunch of people, but then specifying who they did it for. The task was the same, as was the burden, no matter how many people they did it for.
ReplyDeleteBut I think that on the last day when people find out they are not in the kingdom, it will be a case of being told that Jesus' blood was not shed for them.
I don't think, though, that it's a case of increased suffering for the amount of sins paid for, etc.
Nor am I comfortable with what Driscoll said. I tend to think that if all sin is paid for then there is no offence. If there is no offence then there is no reason to reject from the covenant since it is clearly sin that keeps us out of the covenant relationship with God.
So I think limited atonement is right and that Jesus' death was only for some and not for others.