Paul's Passing Thoughts

Why are Calvinists so heck-bent on “limited atonement”? Other than the fact that salvation is not an atonement to begin with (it is an ending of sin, not a mere covering), and “particular redemption” is closer to the truth but still wrong (redemption is the salvation of the body and creation, not the soul), they are big on limited atonement because if Christ died for everyone that brings predeterminism into question.

Let’s pause for a moment and define the difference between the Protestant definition of “election” and predeterminism. The latter states that all events or anything that happens is predetermined by some force or higher order. Election, as posited by Protestantism, only recognizes salvation as predetermined.

A good picture of this distinction took place yesterday at a social gathering I attended. A bunch of Protestants were sitting in a circle playing a game of sorts. Each person wrote a question, any question, on a piece of paper and it was placed in a pot. When randomly picked out of the pot by the moderator, each person in the circle answered the question. One question was; “What is the most important decision you have ever made in your life?” The first one who answered this question was a pastor who said, “Well, normally I would say my decision to follow God, but we are all dead wood until God regenerates us and therefore unable to make that choice, so I’m not going there….” He then went on to state some other decision that he had made that apparently, he was able to make. The others in the circle followed suit accordingly.

It begs the question; why would God allow freewill for every decision in life except the decision to follow Him? However, this example is also indicative of Protestants not knowing what a Protestant is; authentic Protestantism was founded on historical-redemptive metaphysics which is, in fact, defined by predeterminism. The historical-redemptive hermeneutic posits the following: all reality is a metaphysical narrative written by God for His own self-love and glory. Whatever happens in anyone’s life is simply part of the prewritten story. The Bible is a prototype of the narrative, or a master narrative, that gives us a prism from which to interpret life. Hence, we interpret the meaning of life through the narratives presented in the Bible—they are examples of why we experience life the way we do. All of life, and all of reality, and all of history is a redemptive narrative that glorifies God. That’s historical-redemptive metaphysics. And that’s Protestantism whether most of them know it or not.

At any rate, some Calvinists see the problem with limited atonement and take this position: “The death of Christ is sufficient for all men, but not applied to all men.” This position denies that quantity is the issue but rather quality. This enables them to get around the glaring irrationality of limited atonement. Why is it glaringly irrational? Because many Bible verses state unequivocally that Christ died for everyone. I still say the best argument against limited atonement follows: Christ died to end the law, and everyone born into the world is under law; therefore, Christ died for everyone. Invariably, Calvinists reply with this silly rebuttal on either wise: “Then why isn’t everyone saved?” Answer: because the promise of salvation is conditional. We will revisit salvation as a promise, but suffice to say for now that the death of Christ made the promise possible.

Let’s look at some verses which clearly state that Christ died for everyone:

1Peter 3:18 – For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,

Note: in a lot of these verses we see a common thread that is easy to miss if we are not careful; Christ died for the sins of the unrighteous. Who is unrighteous before conversion? Answer: everyone. “The (definitive) unrighteous.” That is an all-inclusive statement that includes everyone in a category.

1John 2:2 – He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Any questions? And by the way, this is 1John which is not focused on the Jew/Gentile issue. Therefore, the “our” refers to believers and the “also” refers to all the unrighteous.

Romans 5:18 – Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Note: You can’t have it both ways. In the same way that one sin condemned all men, one act (potentially) saved all men. What the ESV and many other translations do with this verse is interesting. The grammar implies that all will be saved in the same way that all were condemned. This enables Calvinists to interpret “all men” as “all kinds of men and not every individual” because, of course, not all men will be saved. But please note how the KVJ translates these verses: “18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” The offer of a free gift came upon all men, not universal salvation; the necessity to accept or receive the free gift is implied, not “all kinds of men” rather than individuals. This is clarified by verse 17 in the same chapter: “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” YLT states it this way: “for if by the offence of the one the death did reign through the one, much more those, who the abundance of the grace and of the free gift of the righteousness are receiving, in life shall reign through the one –Jesus Christ.” The acceptance/receiving of the gift is assumed in verses 18 and 19.

Hebrews 10:10 – And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Note: again, Christ died to take away sin; so, how many have sinned? Answer: everyone. Christ didn’t die for preselected individuals, he died to take away sin for those who are being set apart (sanctified) or in other words, those who receive the gift.

1Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

I saved 1Timothy 2:5,6 for last to segue into the next point; salvation is a conditional promise, we will get to that, but it is also a grand purchase. The Bible speaks of two masters; the Sin master and Christ. In Bible lingo, we are enslaved to one or the other; Sin or Christ—under law or under grace. We are under the dominion of one or the other (Romans 6:14). Romans chapter 6 spells this out in no uncertain terms. However, in 1Timothy 2:6 the word for “ransom” is a very strange rendering. Though in all cases translated “ransom” (lutron), the word is actually “antilutron” from anti (against, or the antithesis of, or in lieu of, ect.) and lutron (ransom). In other words, Christ gave himself to vanquish the whole concept of ransom, not just to purchase particular individuals. He cancelled the ransom altogether. There is no longer any ransom to be paid for anyone.

Now let’s close with the fact that the gospel is to be preached to everyone, and another term for the gospel in Scripture is, “the (definitive) promise.” The gospel is a conditional promise. But if it is a promise, it must be assumed that the promise is to all who hear the gospel. Also, the gospel means “good news.” How can the following idea be deemed good news: “You may or may not be preselected”? Part and parcel with Reformation thought is the idea that God is glorified by the “good news” bringing about eternal life and more and more death in those who continually reject the gospel. This is referred to as “a savor of life and a savor of death.” God finds both a sweet savor because one exemplifies His grace while the other exemplifies His justice. But the problem is in the biblical nomenclature of the presentation: it is presented as a promise, and good news, when it may or may not be a promise to any given person or, in fact, horrible news to some. And consider, when was the last time a Calvinist presented the gospel this way:

“If you were preselected you will believe the gospel, so I am not asking for a decision to follow Christ because you are unable to be persuaded to make a decision because of your total depravity. We will just have to wait and see what God does.”

This flies in the face of how Paul presented the gospel to Agrippa in Acts 26 as one example among many. Also…

Acts 2:37 – Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Who then, are “the called”? The called are everyone. Acts 2:37 ff. clarifies that. “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32). Actually, “all” is the word “pas” which includes all grammatical forms of declension and means “the whole.” Furthermore, “people” or “men” does not appear after pas in the manuscripts as a way to state everyone and everything…period!

The gospel is a conditional promise to everyone; another example of a conditional promise is Ephesians 6:2-3,

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2“Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3“that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”

The gospel is a promise to everyone who is persuaded by a gospel presentation predicated on reason. Throughout the Bible, we see numerous examples of 2Corinthians 5:11,

Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others…

It is also interesting to note that “persuasion” or “persuade” (peitho) is used interchangeably for “obey,” “trust,” and “believe/believed.” Man is primarily called on to be persuaded by the good news. This seems very strange if man has no ability to be persuaded. And why bother with persuading people if their fate is already determined? Why use “many words” to persuade as Peter did at Pentecost?

So, what is going on with Bible verses that seem to indicate predestination? Unless God is a god of confusion, and He says He isn’t, something else must be going on. Calvinists demand that we reconcile those verses and effectively ignore a whole massive body of problematic questions. They claim to appeal to reason regarding those verses in a standalone context. However, we must remember the following: none of those verses state specifically that the salvation of every individual is predetermined. That can be surmised through eisegesis, but the jury is still out concerning what exactly election is; we must remember that many things in the Bible are elected where salvation is not needed. It is most likely that professing Christendom has very little understanding of what biblical election is.

Moreover, when paradox, mystery, and unreconcilable “tension” is acceptable hermeneutics, what can be taught about limited atonement is not only unlimited, but whatever Protestants want to teach about any particular “truth.” They interpret certain verses in a certain way, and any verses that disagree constitute a “paradox.” And it is a paradox because they say it’s a paradox because they are God’s anointed because they say they are God’s anointed and have persuaded you that such is true about them.

Sorry, I’m not persuaded.

paul

The linchpin of the Protestant gospel is double imputation. What is it? It is a theory of salvation based on three false presuppositions about God’s law, or the Bible.

First, justification, or holiness, is defined by perfect law-keeping or the fulfillment of “the righteous demands of the law.”

Second, double imputation only has one perspective on the law, or confines the law to only one use by the Spirit. The law can only demand a perfect fulfillment of all its tenets and any shortfall or slightest infraction results in eternal condemnation.

Third, Christ not only died as a penal substitution for sins against the law, but also obeyed the law perfectly, and thereby obtained righteousness which is also imputed to the believer’s account.

I. Double imputation is not APART from the “law of sin and death.” It doesn’t matter who keeps the law; justification is “apart” from it (Romans 3:20, 28).

II. Double imputation makes Christ subservient to the law. Rather than Christ being righteous by virtue of who He was and is, double imputation demands that Christ “validated” himself through perfect law-keeping (Matthew 3:17, Romans 9:11).

III. Double imputation denies God as the Father and strips the significance of the title from God. Rather than the righteousness of God being infused into the believer through the new birth, righteousness is only credited to an untransformed person’s “account.” Therefore, the “believer” has “no righteousness of their own” which is stated as if righteousness can only be possessed by someone from whom the righteousness originated (2Timothy 1:9, 1Peter 2:9). Therefore…

IV. Double Imputation denies salvation as a gift and makes the new birth a mere legal declaration and not a new state of being (2Corinthians 5:17, Hebrews 3:1, Matthew 23:35). In addition…

V. Double imputation tries to call “righteousness apart from the law” a “legal declaration.” How is a “legal” declaration apart from the law? (Galatians 3:17).

VI. Double imputation makes salvation a mere covering, or atonement for sin and not an ending of sin. Sin is not taken away as far as the east is from the west, but only covered by a “righteousness not our own.”

VII. Double imputation denies that “God is one.” This refers to God as the only life-giver. This is the cardinal point of Galatians chapter 3. Double imputation claims that the law can give salvific life through its fulfillment. This makes the law a fourth member of the Trinity.

VIII. Double imputation denies the ministry of the Spirit in the life of the believer. The law can only be used for a condemning standard that defines righteousness rather than the Spirit using it to sanctify believers (John 17:17).

IX. Double imputation denies the ability of believers to love God and others. Since righteousness is also a substitution, any actual act of love must be a substitution and not really performed by the “believer.” Therefore…

X. Double imputation does, in fact, make God unrighteous; He not only forgets the loving service of the saints, but the “saints” are not able to perform acts of love to begin with (Hebrews 6:10, John 14:15, Romans 8:7, Romans 13:10).

XI. Double imputation leaves the “believer” enslaved to sin. Consequently…

XII. Double imputation will promote sin when Protestants are exposed to the law. Being still under law, Bible teaching will not promote a service of love to the law apart from condemnation, but will rather provoke one to more sin (Romans 6:14, 7:4-8).

XIII. Double imputation requires a reapplication of Christ’s “atonement” because “Christians” being under law continually fall short of the law. Being continually under condemnation, they need continued atonement (“We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day”). Hence…

XIV. Double imputation calls for a progressive justification (Hebrews 9:26).
paul

Mind triggers. Every time I see one of these advertisements for a “Christian” Alaska cruise I am reminded of how our present age is truly defined: it is a resurgence of the exact same Gnosticism that wreaked havoc on the 1st century assembly of Christ. Whether a pricy cruise/Bible study hosted by the Protestant philosopher king of your choice, or a Christian conference in Palm Springs, it is indicative of the fact that Gnosticism has always been a rich person’s game.

Why? First, money affords one the opportunity to wallow in a stimulating philosophy that doesn’t really work in real life. People who make between 20,000 and 50,000 per year with both spouses working do not have time for mysticism and would certainly end up homeless if they stopped long enough to partake in it. Protestantism is the same old song and dance of ancient caste which goes hand in hand with Gnosticism.

The institutional church in general, and the Protestant church in particular, is totally controlled by the rich and powerful. The power is defined by authoritative expertism and elitism; aka, the gnosis. When John MacArthur Jr. and many others host pricy events that exclude the serf class of Christianity by virtue of money alone, nobody even blinks.

So, these congregations are “families” and not caste institutions? Since when do families go on vacations with only part of the family? It’s a valid question; the church is earmarked for pricey events that exclude the church serf class. The only exception is potluck dinners where the serfs do most of the work. In fact, here is a better illustration: in caste societies, the elitist educated class does little work in the same way that pastors are supported by the working serfs.

Moreover, pastorates are cushy elitist jobs occupied by some of the laziest people on earth. Pastors spend most of their time hanging out in their offices reading the latest book by some other Protestant hack, going out to lunch and dinner with other pastors and rich congregants, or attending conferences paid for by the church serf class.

Pastors are little more productive than congressional politicians. I know, I was a Protestant pastor for years and experienced the pastorate culture up close and personal. I remember, while at a conference, hearing one staff pastor laugh about being able to go golfing after long elder meetings while the lay-elders had to go to work the next day, or in essence, that morning. And if I stated the guy’s name here in this post, most readers would know who he is.

As far as studying to show themselves approved, most pastors use canned orthodox outlines. Few professions on earth are more useless.

Like Catholicism, historical geo-economic conditions fail to hinder the building of splendid infrastructure and the lifestyles of elitist priests. This is because the serf class has bought into the ancient idea that salvation comes by approval from those who have the gnosis of Gnosticism. Regardless of financial hardship, God will smile on doing whatever it takes to support His “authority on earth” to the degree that they think they need supporting. Degree of assurance is measured by the degree of self-sacrifice that benefits these lazy self-proclaimed mediators that replace Christ as the only true mediator between God and mankind.

The better way is God’s family meeting as a family in a family home where all are recognized as part of “God’s holy nation of royal priests.” A literal family in a family setting naturally transcends caste elitism. In such an environment, the head needs more of a variety of gifts than the ability to give money because so much money isn’t needed to fund self-proclaimed authority by serial narcissists. This is a family setting dependent upon a fully functioning body that recognizes ONE authority and ONE mediator.

That being Christ, and Him alone. The Solus Christus of the institutional church is a lie, that mantra is only lived out in home fellowships.

paul

Protestants, especially those of the Reformed stripe, are the most intellectually dishonest people among men. When it gets right down to it, as someone mentioned just yesterday, any attempt to debate a Protestant is a “fool’s errand.”

Why is this? I think my encounter with John Piper at the 2016 Cross Conference put the reasons on full display.

During an open Q and A session that will be a format unlikely to be repeated at future Neo-Calvinist conferences, I confronted Piper about Calvin’s three categories of election; the non-elect, the temporary elect, and those who persevere, or the permanent elect (Calvin Institutes 3.24).

He had just finished stating his position on predestination in response to a question about lost relatives. His position? Though the thought of relatives spending eternity in hell is agonizing, the fact that God elects some people for salvation should give us hope. Otherwise, there would be no hope that anyone would be saved.

My question to Piper followed immediately after: how can any of us know we are saved when Calvin’s temporary election is considered? His answer follows:
“I don’t know Calvin well enough to answer. I don’t believe there is any such thing as temporary election. So, if he says that I don’t agree with him.”

I then offered to read Calvin’s position on temporary election from the Calvin Institutes. Piper then replied, “You don’t need to read it he’s not my authority.” Problem is, here is what Piper stated in his opening to the Q and A shortly before our exchange:

“So, I am committed to election, predestination, effectual calling, and the whole Calvinistic scheme.”

I called him out on the contradiction: “You referred to the whole Calvinistic scheme like 5 minutes ago.” To which he replied, “Right, the whole scheme of TULIP. The Institutes are 1100 pages and there are lots of them I don’t agree with but let’s just go to the Bible.”

There are several problems to be noted here regarding Piper’s legitimate knowledge of Calvinism while claiming to be one, and his blatant flip-flopping of positions within the same conversation.

First, if people would educate themselves about Piper’s primary mentor, Jonathan Edwards, they would find that Edwards wrote about the joy we will experience in heaven while watching our former family members suffer in hell. Supposedly. While often referring to Edwards as an example of pure genius, Piper seems to feel our agony about condemned relatives. My point? The history of Protestantism’s psychopathic murdering despot forefathers should discredit Protestantism all by itself. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin are held up as heroes of the faith while a cursory observation of history will reveal who they really were.

Secondly, while Piper surprisingly pointed to his lack of knowledge concerning Calvin while claiming to be a Calvinist, he later claimed to be aware of several pages in the Calvin Institutes that he disagrees with. Which is it? Does he know Calvin well, or not well? He stated both in the same conversation.

Thirdly, when called out about saying he is committed to the whole Calvinistic scheme and then rejecting Calvin as an authority, he answered by saying that his statement only referred to TULIP. There are two problems here: TULIP doesn’t represent the whole scheme of Calvinism and TULIP is not from Calvin but rather the Synod of Dort.

Fourthly, during said Q and A, Piper claimed to be an advocate of OSAS concerning the elect, and contended via the Bible that “those who left us where never of us,” or in other words, were never God’s true elect. But Calvin clearly states in the Institutes that the temporary elect are also temporarily “illumined” and suffer a greater damnation than the non-elect accordingly.

Fifthly, while recognizing that he threw Calvin under the bus to save face and quickly claimed to be a Biblicist instead, he proceeded to use the Bible to defend his version of election which includes “effectual calling.” Only problem is, the Bible makes it clear that “many are called but few chosen.” This is the verse that Calvin used to make his case for temporary election. The “called” are the second class of elect who fall away, or the ones temporarily elected and illumined for purposes of suffering a greater damnation for God’s glory, and those who persevere are the permanent elect.

Hence, in fact, and in contrast to the Bible according to Calvin, some of God’s gifts and callings are revoked.

Though Piper denied this in the Q and A, Calvin’s position of temporary election is reflected in the Protestant tradition of supersessionism. This is the idea that Israel was, well, temporarily elected and replaced by the church.

Sixthly, here was my response to Piper’s rejection of temporary election: “And if that’s true, why is ‘final justification’ (a staple Protestant doctrine) future and not present?” To which he replied, “I do believe that justification is present, and will be confirmed in the last day.”

So, if justification is confirmed on the last day, how can he say that “those who left us were never of us”? If they already left us, why would those who didn’t leave us need to be confirmed on the last day? And if they didn’t leave, doesn’t that mean they persevered?

Seventh, while throwing Calvin under the bus and quickly becoming a Biblicist, he denied the clear teaching of Scripture concerning multiple judgments. If justification is “confirmed on the last day,” doesn’t that mean believers and unbelievers all stand at one final judgement? Sure it does; and in fact, that’s Protestant orthodoxy. The huge problem with that follows: CLEARLY, all who stand at that judgement are condemned and judged by the law. This is not only a Piperist propagation of Progressive Justification, but an admission that Protestants are biblically defined as “under law.”

The problem with debating a Protestant is simple: they will continually move the goal posts and redefine terms. Many of their interpretive doctrines have it both ways: “Already, not yet.” “Simultaneously saint and sinner.” “Distinct, but never separate,” and “the paradoxical gospel.”

Therefore, the endeavor to debate a Protestant is indeed a fool’s errand.

paul