Theologically, I have nothing to add. To start, I think there are far too many calling themselves followers of Christ who are really universalist; a heresy requiring a completely different discussion and not one I'm up for in this blog. That aside, I think the majority of those that have issues with limited atonement are not universalists. Unfortunately, they just do not like the sound of limited atonement. In response they toss around Scriptures indicating Christ died for the world. They claim these counter the concept of limited atonement. The problem is they have not defined what we are really talking about, i.e., what do we mean when we say Christ died for the world? Because they are not universalist I really don't know what they think these verses mean. I think they only use them because the just cannot digest "limited" and they these counter that. They cannot accept atonement in the Calvinistic sense yet their ok with it in the Arminian sense simply because they avoid ugly sounding words like "limited".
Net, I see the two sides as more aligned than most think. I simply see that Arminians just don't like the sound of the logical conclusion of this aspect of our faith.
Technorati Tags: Calvinism
6 comments:
Hi Rick.
I enjoy your blog & visit periodically - Cigar smoking calvinists intrigue me :-)
Really though, from what I know about Calvin, he's not the sort of person I would want to build my theology around. He apparently ran Geneva like a police state & had opponents burnt at the stake.
Limited atonement seems like precisely the kind of theology I would expect from such an intolerant person, who looked rather papist to me.
I'm not a universalist per se but calvinism looks rather perverse from my vantage point.
Go well meantime.
Russ...
russ - thanks for the perspective
Rick,
Is there anything to the rumour that John Calvin himself didn't believe in limited atonement, ie: He taught the rest but his views on atonement were expanded and adjusted by those who came after him?
- Trav
Hi Rick.
My perspective might have felt more like a poke in the eye, so apologies for that.
I met a calvinist on the train a while ago, who had just come back from a church camp. He wore it with pride and soon told me that he was a five point calvinist. Within 15 minutes he had a lady virtually spitting at him and telling him that his beliefs were disgusting.
You seem far more thoughtful than that gentleman so i'm curious: How do you get your head & heart around the teachings of limited atonement & God choosing certain individuals & not others?
Russ.
Russ/Trav - Thanks for your interaction.
I've noted many times in my blog that I only use the word Calvinist for simplicity's sake. Unfortunately that's a lose-lose situation. Using the label carries baggage leading to endless discussion explaining where I'm coming from and not using it leads to endless discussion explaining where I'm coming from.
I don't know all of Calvin's theology and the little I've heard of him as a person sounds rather ugly. Fortunately Reformed Theology does not revolve around him. And I learned a long time ago that if you pick any issue you will find ugly representatives on either side.
In the case of Reformed Theology, I find it to be Scriptural and logical where I cannot do the same for the non-Reformed position. But I can still love those that do.
A bit more about Calvin.After his death, Theodore Beza and other students of Calvin reformed their doctrine around predestination in the matter of salvation and developed their various "doctrines of grace." The emphasis on divine sovereignty caused division in the Reformed community. Jacob Arminius, a student of Beza,along with some others,wrote five articles in 1610 which affirmed the election of believers but disagreed with the Calvinists' interpretation of election. In 1618, the Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed Church convened the Synod of Dort in order to condemn the Arminians and their five points. Dort's "five heads" of doctrine were later rearranged under the acronym TULIP.
Net - Calvin didn't invent TULIP. It isn't perfect and it certainly isn't Scripture. :-)
It is a few guys responding to a few guys who responded to a few guys.
Net - on this one, we've all met Calvinists and Arminians on the train. Both sides had good representatives and both sides had folks that shouldn't have been let into society.
Hi Rick.
Russ here. Thanks for your comments and as you rightly say, every perspective have their resident nutters. I enjoy your blog & will continue to visit.
God bless & go well meantime.
Russ.
Post a Comment