Castle Church Discussion on Calvinism

Whence All the Calvinists?

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:05:10 GMT

Mark Dever writes a good and edifying blog at 9 Marks. Recently Mark has been doing a series, "">Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?"

When Mark uses the word "Calvinist" he's using it broadly to mean "predestinarian." Many of the folks and influences he describes are confessional Reformed folk, but not all. My impression is that this is the way the word is used used with SBC (Southern Baptist) circles where the growing interest in the doctrine of predestination is a matter of genuine concern in some places and a cause for rejoicing in others. I know that when a good friend of mine, in our SBC congregation back home, back in the 70s, became a predestinarian it was a matter to be kept strictly secret!

There's one factor that I did not see him mention in the series (maybe I missed it?): Westminster Seminary. It is not widely known, but in the 30s and 40s, Westminster (Phila) was a very small seminary. By the 1970s, however, it became a much larger seminary. After a failed attempt to start a campus in Miami, the leadership in Philadelphia began a campus in Escondido (now independent). There are also WTS campuses in Dallas, and elsewhere.

WSC alone has graduated more than 800 students, about 70% of which have entered the pastoral ministry. Many of those students who have gone through WSC were not Calvinists when the arrived, but they became confessional, full-blooded Calvinists by the time they left. Of course WTS/Phila is a larger campus (and there's Dallas and NYC) with an even larger number of graduates.

In the same period that WTS/PA began growing from a few dozen students to several hundred and WSC has grown to about 150 students, there has been a small explosion in the growth of regional Reformed seminaries in North America. Many of them are small (by design) but it all adds up.

The growth of interest in the doctrine of predestination generally and in confessional Calvinism more particularly probably can't be explained fully without reference to the Westminster Seminaries.

I was a Calvinist when Calvinism wasn’t cool

Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:11:33 GMT

I imagine all of you reading these words are aware of the tremendous gains that the Reformed Faith has made in the public eye in the last few years. When I was engaged in the work of church planting 17 years ago the number of churches who held to the doctrines of grace were few [...]

"Many Mansions"

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:05:12 GMT

On December 25, 1737, after the seating of the third new meetinghouse in Northampton’s history, Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon entitled, “Many Mansions.” In eighteenth century New England, seats in the meetinghouse were assigned according to social rank. The sermon is based on John 14:2, “In My Father’s house are many mansions.” This is his conclusion:

'Tis very little worth the while for us to pursue after honor in this world, where the greatest honor is but a bubble and will soon vanish away, and death will level all. Some have more stately houses than others, and some are in higher office than others, and some are richer than others and have higher seats in the meeting-house than others; but all graves are upon a level.

But the mansions in God's house above are everlasting mansions. Those that have seats allotted 'em there, whether of greater or lesser dignity, whether nearer or further from the throne, will hold 'em to all eternity. This is promised, Revelation 3:12 :"Him that overcometh I will make him a pillar in the temple [of my God, and he shall go no more out]." If it be worth the while to desire and seek high seats in the meeting-house, where you are one day in a week, and where you shall never come but few days in all; if it be worth the while much to prize one seat above another in the house of worship only because it is the pew or seat that is ranked first in number, and to be seen here for a few days, how will it be worth the while to seek an high mansion in God's temple and in that glorious place that is the everlasting habitation of God and all his children!

You that are pleased with your seats in this house because you are seated high or in a place that is looked upon honorable by those that sit round about, and because many can behold you, consider how short a time you will enjoy this pleasure. And if there be any that are not suited in their seats because they are too low for them, let them consider that it is but a very little while before it will [be] all one to you whether you have sat high or low here. But it will be of infinite and everlasting concern to you where your seat is in another world. Let your great concern be while in this world so to improve your opportunities in God's house in this world, whether you sit high or low, as that you may have a distinguished and glorious mansion in God's house in heaven, where you may be fixed in your place in that glorious assembly in an everlasting rest.

Let the main thing that we prize in God's house be, not the outward ornaments of it, or a high seat in it, but the word of God and his ordinances in it. And spend your time here in seeking Christ, that he may prepare a place for you in his Father's house, that when he comes again to this world, he may take you to himself, that where he is, there you may be also.

From Selected Sermons of Jonathan Edwards, edited with introduction and notes by H. Horman Gardiner, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1904.

On Limited Atonement: The Sufficient and Efficient Distinction

Wed, 16 May 2007 19:25:05 GMT

When the topic of limited atonement comes up there are a couple verses that are sure to be presented as a proof that limited atonement cannot possibly be true. 1 John 2:2 is one such verse, which says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

This passage seems to be the end of the discussion for many people. If this verse says Christ was the propitiation for the whole world, and Calvinist say that he is the propitiation for the elect only, then surely the doctrine is wrong, and scripture has the final authority. But before we make such hasty conclusions we must be aware that great students of the Bible like Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Whitfield and many others were aware of these verses, and did not see them as contrary to their understanding of limited atonement. So how do Calvinists understand their view in light of these verses?

Many point out that the term “whole world” in 1 John 2:2 actually refers to the elect in the “whole world,” and not everyone in the “whole world,” but this seldom satisfies the objector. So in order to take this objection from a slightly different angle, we will assume that the term “whole world” actually refers to every person in the world, in order to present a clearer understanding of limited atonement, because what is frequently missed is the nuanced understanding of the nature of limited atonement.

Is it possible for the Calvinist to say that “Jesus died for everyone in the world,” and then say that “Jesus did not die for the sins of everyone” without contradicting himself? Well, that all depends on what a contradiction entails, and since most of us have studied logic, we know that a contradiction means that something cannot be both A and non-A in the same sense and at the same time. For example, if a person points to water and says, “That is ice” and then says, “That is not ice” either the person has contradicted himself or something has changed. The first thing that could have changed would be time. If this person points to water and says that is ice, and two hours later says, that is not ice, there is no contradiction because time has changed and in fact it is no longer ice because it has melted. The second thing that could change is the sense in which the words are used. If a person says, “That is a bow,” and then says, “That is not a bow.” If the sense of the word “bow” means a device used to shoot arrows in the first use, and then in the second use the word “bow” means a type of knot you put in your shoelaces, then there is no contradiction.

The same applies to the statement. “Christ died for the whole world.” There are two senses in which the statement can be made. The first sense deals with the sufficiency of the payment that Christ made, and the second deals with the efficiency of the payment Christ paid on the cross.

Most Calvinist tend to believe that Christ’s death was sufficient to save the “whole world.” What this means is, if a greater number of people were to be saved then were foreknown, Christ would not have had to suffer more. So in the sufficient sense, Calvinists do say that Christ’s death is the payment for the sins of the whole world just as John 2:2 says.

But there is another sense in which Christ’s death is not the payment of sins for the entire world, and this is its efficiency. The suffering Christ endured is sufficient to be the payment for the sins of everyone, but in actuality His death does not pay for the sins of everyone since many will be paying for their sins themselves. And if Christ had paid for them on the cross and they later pay for them in hell, then the sins would have been paid for twice, and that is not justice. So in the effect, or the actuality of the atonement, Christ did not pay for the sins of the whole world.

So with these two senses the Calvinist can say, Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, meaning the sufficiency, and also says, Jesus did not pay for the sins of the whole world, meaning in actuality.

Ultimately, it seems the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist can see this in Scripture when thinking about foreknowledge. Though both groups understand foreknowledge differently, they both agree that there is an elect group since before the foundations of the world. In fact, Revelation tells us that their names have been written in the lambs book of life since before any of us came to be, and when Jesus was on the cross He was not in the slightest bit confused about whom He was actually redeeming and who He was not. Nor is He holding out hope that any of the non-elect will actually be saved since He already knows that they will spend eternity in hell before He even creates them.

-Doug Eaton-