Get Our Anniversary Anthology→

Conciliar Post

, , , ,

Calvinism on the Cross of Christ: The Good News of Particular Atonement

Published by

George Aldhizer

on

“It is Calvinism that understands the Scriptures in their natural, one would have thought, inescapable meaning; Calvinism that keeps to what they actually say; Calvinism that insists on taking seriously the biblical assertions that God saves, and that He saves those whom He has chosen to save, and that He saves them by grace without works, so that no man may boast, and that Christ is given to them as a perfect Saviour, and that their whole salvation flows to them from the Cross, and that the work of redeeming them was finished on the Cross. It is Calvinism that gives due honour to the Cross.”-J.I. Packer1

In this article, I want to resurrect the challenge offered by Stephen Sutherland in one of Conciliar Post’s earliest articles to grow to understand the “substantive differences that make one confession different than another.” “If theology,” Sutherland argued, “is not merely an abstract intellectual system, but is instead the attempt to understand who our God is and what He requires of us, then we cannot downplay our convictions for one moment.”2 Thus, a step towards church unity will necessitate wrestling with the beliefs and practices that most divide Christian traditions.

To that end, I hope to elucidate and argue for one of the most contentious of Calvinist doctrines, the belief that Christ secured the redemption of the elect in his death on the cross, rather than providing for a universal, potential atonement for every person. Moreover, I want to argue, along with Anglican Reformed theologian J.I. Packer, that this debate is significant, getting to the heart of “substantive differences” in various traditions’ worship and understanding of the gospel.

In many discussions surrounding the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, there is usually a lot of argument about the extent (how many Christ died for) rather than the intent of Christ’s death. The conversations tend to result in scripture being thrown around as to whether Christ died for “all” (1 Tim. 2:6) or whether merely for “his sheep” (John 10:11). This way of framing the conversation assumes that the intent of Christ’s death is the same whether he died for each and every person (Catholic/Orthodox/Arminian) or for merely for the “elect” (Calvinist).3

However, John Owen, the great 17th century Puritan theologian, in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, seeks to understand the intent of Christ’s atoning work which then results in understanding the extent for which Christ’s redemptive work is extended. Surveying the biblical evidence, Owen understands what is “accomplished and fulfilled by the death [of Christ]” as:

  1. “Reconciliation with God, by removing and slaying the enmity that was between him and us” (“When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” Rom. 5:10)
  2. “Justification, by taking away the guilt of sins, procuring remission and pardon of them, redeeming us from their power, with the curse and wrath due unto us for them” (“by his own blood he entered into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us,” Heb. 9:12)
  3. “Sanctification, by the purging away of the uncleanness and pollution of our sins, renewing in us the image of God, and supplying us with the graces of the Spirit of holiness” (“The blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself to God, purgeth our consciences from dead works that we may serve the living God,” Heb. 9:14)
  4. “Adoption, with that evangelical liberty and all those glorious privileges which appertain to the sons of God” (“God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons,” Gal. 4:4-5)
  5. “Neither do the effects of the death of Christ rest here; they leave us not until we are settled in heaven, in glory and immortality for ever” (“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance,” Heb. 9:15)

Owen concludes from these five glorious accomplishments of the death of Christ, “The sum of all is,—The death and blood-shedding of Jesus Christ hath wrought, and doth effectually procure, for all those that are concerned in it, eternal redemption, consisting in grace here and glory hereafter.”4

Now, there are many who are not persuaded of this truth. The majority of Christendom—Catholic, Orthodox, and Arminian—is persuaded that Christ died for every person, intending for the redemption of every person. Owen responds in a piercing critique of the logical result of this position, for the Catholic/Orthodox/Arminian is thus committed to either:

  1. Universalism is true, every person will ultimately be saved. Or,
  2. “God and Christ failed of their end proposed, and did not accomplish that which they intended, the death of Christ being not a fitly-proportioned means for the attaining of that end (for any cause of failing cannot be assigned); which to assert seems to us blasphemously injurious to the wisdom, power, and perfection of God, as likewise derogatory to the worth and value of the death of Christ” (my emphasis) 5

Unlikely to conclude either that universalism is true or that God and Christ failed in their intention to redeem humanity, Owen argues that the Catholic/Orthodox/Arminian must respond with the following proposition, that God neither intended nor effected anything in Christ’s death. Salvation is not procured by the death of Christ, but rather a general potentiality for salvation is created. In order for the potentiality to be actualized, “an act of some, not procured for them by Christ, (for if it were, why have they it not all alike?),” 6 namely faith, must be exercised by the individual. What distinguishes the saved from the unsaved, the Christian from the non-Christian, those who make use of Christ’s blood vs. those that waste it, is predicated on the “deliberative act,” as Benjamin Winter of this blog writes, of faith on the part of the believer. If what distinguishes me as a justified/sanctified/glorified person is an act of faith of myself and not the act of Christ’s atoning death to secure that faith for me, I see this as a potential for pride in the heart of the Christian, rather than an opportunity for worship (more on this later),

One can see a steaming Owen sitting behind his desk in frustration in the logical results of the Catholic/Orthodox/Arminian position with his pen and paper writing, “Now, this seeming to me to enervate the virtue, value, fruits and effects of the satisfaction and death of Christ,—serving, besides, for a basis and foundation to a dangerous, uncomfortable, erroneous persuasion—I shall, by the Lord’s assistance, declare what the Scripture holds out.” (As a brief aside, if you want to read a theological work with a number of rhetorical flourishes against the opposition, Owen’s Death of Death is a scream.)

Unsatisfied with the intent of the death of Christ under the Catholic/Orthodox/Arminian paradigm, Owen’s dense and thorough (albeit cumbersome) theological treatise continues with no less than sixteen arguments against what he calls “the universality of redemption.” Below are six of what I find are the most persuasive:

  1. The Scriptures repeatedly distinguish humanity into two sorts of conditions, and Christ is said to die particularly for the first set and not the second. Those whom He “loves” vs. those whom he “hates” (Rom. 9:13), those who are his “sheep” vs. those who are not his sheep (John 10:14), those whom he “foreknew” vs. those who he “knows not” (Rom. 8:29, Matt. 25:12), those whom God has mercy vs. those he hardens (Rom. 9:18), those who were chosen before the foundation of the world vs. those that weren’t (Eph. 1:4), sheep vs. goats (Matt. 25:32), those who were predestined, foreknown, called, justified and glorified vs. those that are not (Rom. 8:28-30). Christ is then said to die for the first of these conditions. “He will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21), “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15), “the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28), “He who did not spare his Son but gave them up for us all…Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies” (Rom. 8:32-34), and on and on. Owen probes the biblical evidence, asking that if the Scriptures distinguish humanity between two sorts of conditions, and say that Christ died for the first set of conditions, is not this the same as saying Christ died for the elect only?7
  2. Jeremiah 31:33 prophecies of a New Covenant that is to come, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Owen, “The condition of the covenant is not said to be required, but is absolutely promised….But thus, as is apparent, it is not with all; for all men have not faith.”8
  3. If God wanted every person to come to faith in Christ so as to be saved, why would God not give them an opportunity to respond in faith? For as Paul says, “for faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17), why would God not let them hear? Owen writes thus, “this good-will of God, and this purchase made by Jesus Christ, is plainly in vain.”9
  4. The burden of proof is on those who assert that Christ died a universal death. For “the Scripture nowhere saith Christ died for all men, much less for every man…It is true, Christ is said to give his life “a ransom for all,” but nowhere for all men. And because it is affirmed expressly in other places that he died for many, for his church, for them that believe, for the children that God gave him…it must be clearly proved that where all is mentioned, it cannot be taken for all believers, all his elect, his whole church, all the children that God gave him, some of all sorts, before a universal affirmative can be thence concluded.”10
  5. If Christ died a propitiating death for every person, what about those already in hell, “shall we suppose that Christ would make himself an offering for their sins whom he knew to be past recovery, and that it was utterly impossible that ever they should have any fruit or benefit by his offering? Did God send his Son, did Christ come to die, for Cain and Pharaoh, damned so many ages before his suffering?”11
  6. Israel in the scriptures is seen as a type of the church to come in the New Covenant. Thus, “their priests, altar, sacrifices, were but all shadows of the good things to come in Jesus Christ.” It is absurd, Owen argues, for Israel to be seen as the type of all of humanity. For Israel was portioned out from all of humanity to be God’s people and to have their sins atoned for through various sacrifices, why should any more than God’s elect in the New Covenant be given the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice? Owen asks probingly, “Were the Jews and their ordinances types to the seven nations whom they destroyed and supplanted in Canaan? Were they so to Egyptians, infidels, and haters of God and his Christ?”12

Without spending too much time getting into all of Owen’s engagement with various counterarguments (for this goes beyond the intentions of this article), I will merely mention a couple of Owen’s responses. First, the words “world” and “all” in the Scriptures have numerous meanings in the Scriptures, rarely signifying each and every person, and not pertaining to each and every person in the certain texts used to prove universal redemption (John 3:16 etc.). Second, Owen spills a lot of ink dealing with various proof texts for universal redemption (1 Tim. 2:4,6, 2 Peter 3:9, etc.) and finds them wanting, claiming that the verses utilized to argue for a universal redemption position do not refer to the redemption of each and every person. If anyone is interested, I’d love to further engage with the particulars of Owen’s exegesis of various texts if you’d like below in the comments section.

Now, many may say that this theological debate of the intent and the extent of Christ’s death is splitting theological hairs, while also creating division where it is unnecessary. Going along with Sutherland above, however, I believe this is a “substantive difference” that affects both our understanding of the gospel and the worship of the God who redeems.

In his 1959 introduction to Owen’s work, J.I. Packer argues that the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist have two different understandings of the gospel that stand in opposition to one another. While I do not share Packer’s insistence that Calvinism represents a “recovery of the gospel,” implying that non-Calvinists do not have the gospel at all, I do share his conviction that Calvinism, and the doctrine of particular atonement within it, best portrays the biblical and liturgical reality that “God saves sinners.”13

Calvinists and non-Calvinists, Packer argues, have different understandings of key biblical terms. “Election” for Calvinists is understood as God’s “choice of particular undeserving persons to be saved from sin and brought to glory”14, the non-Calvinist understands her faith as what brings her into the classification of elect. “Redemption” for Calvinists is understood “as Christ’s actual substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners, through which God was reconciled to them,” whereas non-Calvinists can only see the cross as offering the potentiality for salvation, though not “ensuring that anyone would ever accept it.” The work of the Holy Spirit for Calvinists is seen as bringing the “dead” to life (Eph. 2) and “taking away their heart of stone, and giving them a heart of flesh” (Ez. 36:26), the non-Calvinist’s Holy Spirit does not ensure that any actually come to Christ.

What results from this depth of understanding of our sinfulness and the great lengths God has gone to in order to plan, secure, and bring us unto salvation is a richer worship of the Triune God. Far from the “frozen chosen” stereotype of the Calvinist believer, these doctrines of predestination, particular atonement, and effectual calling should call the Christian into rich praise. What a great God who would see me in my utterly helpless state and would bring me from death to life! May we proclaim with the great hymn, “And Can It Be,”15</sup

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me who caused His pain!
For me who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be That
Thou, my God, should die for me?

He left His Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace!
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race.
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!

Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, should die for me!>16

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

1. J.I. Packer, “An Introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” Pg. 7, http://www.johnowen.org/media/packer_quest_for_godliness_ch_8.pdf
2. Stephen Sutherland, “We Were Getting Along So Well,” https://prahlowjacob-pvcnh.wpcomstaging.com/theology-spirituality/we-were-getting-along-so-well/
3. Also, the term “limited” atonement, the “L” in the popular acronym “TULIP,” tends to paint the Calvinist picture of the atonement as less-than the non-Calvinist position. Why must we limit the atonement of Christ? the Catholic/Orthodox/Arminian would proclaim. This misunderstanding does not get at the differences of intent between Calvinist and non-Calvinist. In order to remedy this misunderstanding, I use the term “particular atonement” in order to get at the intentionality of Christ’s death to secure the redemption of the elect.
4. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Kindle Edition, Location 56
5. Ibid., 60
6. Ibid., 85
7. Ibid., 1640
8. Ibid., 1512
9. Ibid., 1540
10. Ibid., 1668
11. Ibid., 1712
12. Ibid., 1916
13. J.I. Packer, “An Introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ,” Pg. 5, http://www.johnowen.org/media/packer_quest_for_godliness_ch_8.pdf
14. Ibid., Pg. 5
15. Indelible Grace, “And Can It Be,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpfqmlc19is
16. Interestingly, this hymn was written by Charles Wesley, a Wesleyan (lol) in theology. The fact that Packer quoted this hymn in his introduction proves that the robust Arminian does not proclaim a different gospel. However, as we’ve seen, the words of this hymn fit far more naturally within a Reformed framework.
17. I would urge everyone to listen to Propaganda’s important song, “Precious Puritans,” revealing that we must not uncritically celebrate the so-called theological “purity” of the Puritans, for the Puritans were conduits of white supremacy in American and European slavery. One key lyric from the song humbly admits yet exhorts that no human/Christian has every found a perfect balance between theology and practice. Let us work to strike this balance well for the sake of Christ.

[/wpex]

28 responses to “Calvinism on the Cross of Christ: The Good News of Particular Atonement”

  1. mmchanb Avatar
    mmchanb

    Good morning, George. Your article gladly reminds me this morning of the beautiful fact that all Christian agree that Jesus is the Anointed Son of God by whose death we who believe in Him gain true and glorious life!

    Your article appears to be framed as a contrast with all non-Calvinist Christianity, but I believe in large part it is a Western disagreement rather than an argument with all non-Calvinist Christians. If I understand correctly (which is not a given), then Assyrian Christians, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox differ fundamentally regarding #2 in Owen’s list of what was accomplished in our Lord’s death.

    Are you familiar with the historic framing of atonement, now popularly termed “Christus Victor?” Aulén’s book was an eye-opener for me. While I do not rule out the plausibility of penal sub, Christus Victor appears to me to be more consistent with historic Christian doctrine of “at-one-ment” and more consistent with Scriptural teaching on sanctification.

    Reply
    1. George Aldhizer Avatar
      George Aldhizer

      Yeah, I’m with you. I was thinking about whether I should work on nuancing the differences between Catholics/Orthodox/Arminians, particularly on the issue of Christus Victor, but I decided to keep as is. I imagined questions such as yours would allow me to clarify.

      I guess one way of keeping the argument as Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist is to say that, while not all along the non-Calvinist agree with Owen’s penal substitutionary atonement framework, they do agree that Christ, in some sense, died for each and every person, bringing the potentiality for salvation to all. Now, what that salvation entails is controversial, but I hope that the framework I set up in my article still holds up. Thanks for the clarifying question.

      I was also thinking the time I was writing this what to do with Christus Victor, Moral Influence, etc. Owen is particularly working under a penal substitutionary framework, and engaging with Arminians who share the framework (albeit with a different understanding). Personally, I certainly agree that Christus Victor is biblical, Christ’s death and resurrection have defeated death, sin, the powers of satan and his demons, etc.

      1 John 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.

      Colossians 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

      Hebrews 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

      I’m with you, penal substitution is not the end all be all of the story, and I lament that Calvinists tend to have a slightly stunted view of the cross. However, penal substitution is most certainly biblical as well and we must proclaim that truth as well. Moreover, this substitution is particularly for God’s elect, I believe with Owen that the Scriptures proclaim.

      I guess I don’t understand why the penal sub framework is so controversial, particularly for Orthodox.

      Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11—”Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all … It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin … By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.”

      Romans 3–23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom Godput forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

      1 Peter 2:24—”He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”

      Etc.

      I find Derek Rishmawy’s term “soteriological maximalism” to be helpful. We should not take theories of the atonement as necessarily exclusive of one another, as if Christ cannot both defeat satan and death and also pay for the sins of his people. The Cross, as Ben is want to say, is mysterious and more than our theoretical constructions, but it is not less than them. If we are faithful to scriptures (the word of God) in our application and construction of models to help us understand more clearly what the scripture teaches, then I see no problem in them.

      http://derekzrishmawy.com/2014/07/20/giving-jesus-credit-where-credit-is-due-or-soteriological-maximalism-atonement-accounts/

      Reply
      1. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Certainly there is language of “expiation” (Hilasterion; ἱλαστήριον) but how do we understand that language, I think is where we differ. From Frederica Mathewes-Green book, “Welcome to the Orthodox Church”:

        “How do we inherit this fallen human nature? It comes to us simply because we are human, and our life is continuous with our fallen ancestors.

        “But here’s an Orthodox idea that was quit new to me. This oneness of human life permits the reverse to happen as well. When Christ entered the human race, he set an opposite force in motion, a strain of healing form sin that spreads outward, just as sin-sickness spread from Adam and Eve.

        “That’s a startling thought, if you’re used to thinking of sin and salvation as external events. If sin were just a bad deed, an infraction of the law, it could be paid by a third party, as a speeding ticket might be. But in Orthodox understanding, sin is infection, not infraction. Christ comes, not just to pay a debt, but to heal us. To treat sin as something external, superficial, that could be resolved by paying a fine, just doesn’t take it seriously enough. Sin isn’t a string of bad deeds. It’s an inward-spreading condition, a sickness of the soul.

        “God could not bear to see his beloved, whose he created and destined for glory (Eph. 1:12), sick and in chains. Seeing us afflicted and in pain, in his great compassion, Christ came to deliver us—not just from the penalty for sin, but from sin itself (John 1:29). And he began that process in an elegantly simple way, by stepping into the flow of human life. With his Incarnation, his healing power began to stream into the life that we all share. . .” (143)

        “Christ did not come just to enable our forgiveness, but to restore the “image [and] likeness of God (Gen. 1:26) that was damaged by Adam and Eve. . . What’s unexpected in this view of salvation is the idea that life in Christ will change us, not in an external way, as a legal fiction (being “imputed” righteous), and not in some vague spiritual sense, but objectively, ontologically—a change in our very being. This happens because Christ literally shares in our nature; we are united with him in the way we are united with every other human being. The victory he won flows to us as well. Now we are being restored to God’s “image and likeness” just as a damage portrait could be restored, when the person depicted brings it back to the artist and sits for it once again (another of St. Athanasius’s analogies). We are being healed of the wounds we bear from our own sins and those of others, and turned into the person God had in mind before we were formed in the womb (Jer 1:5).” (144).

        “Christ’s death on the cross was an offering to the Father—but it wasn’t a payment. This is a distinction we don’t usually catch because we don’t make sacrifices anymore. But it was never the case that the Father needed animal blood before he could forgive his people. Rather, the people needed to offer it.

        “Sinners need to make a costly gift as evidence to themselves and everyone that they were sincere; they really were sorry for their sin, and truly desired to renounce it. The offered blood “ratified” the covenant; it demonstrated the human partners’ commitment to that covenant. It was a gift, the kind given to heal a relationship. . .

        “This can be a rather new thought, if we have been used to thinking of salvation as a transaction: a big debt on this side, and a big payment on that side, and now we’re in the clear. But our relationship with God doesn’t have a legal or financial character. It is a relationship of love. And love functions under different rules than law and finance do. For example, love “does not keep account of wrong doing.” (That’s how 1 Cor. 13:5c would be literally translated.) Love doesn’t keep track of how many sins there are, and sit back with arms folded until it is paid off. Love doesn’t worry about who owes what. When it starts fretting about being cheated or not getting a fair shake, it has stopped being love. ” (149)

        She goes on to speak of ransom language on page 153:

        “When we hear the word ransom we picture a big bag of money with a dollar sign on it, the kind that well-appointed bank robbers carry in cartoons. But the term used to mean simply setting someone free. You could “ransom,” “redeem,” or “deliver someone in a number of ways. You could do it by meeting the kidnapper’s demands, or paying the slave owner’s price, or you could offer to take the person’s place . . . or you could just help the escape.”

      2. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        Yeah, I want to affirm all of her discussion of healing and ransom and the beautiful “opposite force of motion” that Christ’s redemption of the world brings. I also would want to affirm the “relationship of love” and “help the escape” that she so emphasizes. I find her illustrations beautiful, and I’ve certainly learned a lot from you and the emphases of the Orthodox tradition in discussing the healing of Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection.

        However, the Orthodox have a tendency to conceive of the Christian salvation as either “legal” or “healing” (I would say the Calvinist understanding leans toward the first while the Orthodox leans toward the second, both a problem in my view). The problem with this perspective is it does not know what to do with the various legal discussions of salvation in scripture.

        For Colossians 2 speaks particularly of the legal ramifications of Christ’s death,

        13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

        Again, how do the Orthodox handle passages such as these and Romans 3, which speak of the “propitiation” (not expiation) of Christ’s death. How do Orthodox view the “wrath” of God on unrepentant sinners?

        Again, I want to emphasize. I say these things not to be cold, or to be divisive, but to call us to faithfulness to God’s revealed word. I believe I have learned much from the Orthodox understanding of scripture, learning from their emphases on the Incarnation, the victory of Christ, the importance of sacraments, and the healing of the work of the Triune God in the life of the Christian and the Church. Just as I can admit that these points about EO theology that I have learned from Ben and others on this blog are blind spots in Calvinistic theology, so I believe I can say that the legal implications of the gospel that Paul continually emphasizes (propitiation, justification, righteousness, wrath vs. forgiveness on individuals) can potentially be blind spots in EO theology

      3. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Sorry, Hilasterion is the word in Romans 3:25 for Propitiation not expiation. That was my mess up on the English side of things. Interestingly enough, this same Greek word is what is used in the Septuagint (c. 250 B.C.) for the “mercy seat’ above the ark of the covenant.

      4. mmchanb Avatar
        mmchanb

        If you haven’t already, I highly recommend Aulén’s short book “Christus Victor,” not even for the purpose of changing your mind, but for the purpose of more thoroughly understanding the Eastern mind.

        Regarding penal sub, most of the scriptures you quote match the Eastern mind perfectly. I have searched Scripture for a clear statement that the Father poured out His wrath on the Son or that the Father punished the Son. With a mind for penal sub, many scriptures *sound* like they say that. Likewise with a mind for penal sub, many of the early Christian writers *sound* like they say the same thing.

        The closest I have found in Scripture are two statements in Isaiah 53. The first states “We esteemed Him as stricken of God, but . . .” Indeed, He was mocked on the cross and considered to be bearing divine punishment for His (in their eyes) blashemy. Isaiah continues with the word “but,” noting perhaps that they were in error to have esteemed Him that way. Later in the same chapter, the Masoretic says God was pleased to crush Him. With a penal sub mindset, this is a prooftext if there ever was one. But the Septuagint reads, “The Lord wishes to cleanse Him of His wound.” Since the LXX is the Old Testament of the East, the closest thing to a proof text disappears for them.

        Admitting that it’s an argument from silence, I would expect the apostles to have quoted Isaiah 53:10 to clarify for us, but they did not.

        As I understand it, Eastern (including Oriental and Assyrian) at-one-ment sees the Adamic race completed in the obedience of our Lord rather than in the punishment of our Lord (Rom 5:19). Those who believe in the Last Adam are found in Him. I escape damnation, not because God punished my sins through His Son, but by being transfered from Adam to the Anointed. My sins no longer need punishment because the man who would be punished died (Rom 6).

        When I was a Baptist, I went door to door telling people “Evangelism Explosion” doctrine that God must punish sin. Yet the Scriptures never make that statement.

        If this is just a rehash of things you’ve already thought through, I won’t draw you into rehashing things. And admittedly, I’m not doing CV justice in my brief comments. Aulén did a much better job. Aulén erred by attributing some of Anselm’s doctrine to Aquinas, but other than that, it’s a marvelous and thought provoking book. Not to mention a brief one, which is a plus for me!

        In the Western mind, Romans 3:25 proves penal sub. In the Eastern mind, Romans 3:25 does not say what is often read into it. The Western mind sees “satisfaction” in Romans 3:25. Knowing that Paul has written to Rome at length regarding God’s wrath, the Westerner read into Romans 3:25 the idea that it was God’s *wrath* which was satisfied by the blood of our Lord.

        In the Eastern mind, Romans 3:25 only creates a mystery which is not solved until Romans 5:19. The Eastern Christian reads Romans 3:25 and wonders how anything was satisfied by the blood of our Lord and why God would display the dead body of His Son to show that He was *just* in passing over previous sins.

        I probably created more questions than I answered, but I hope this explanation helped. And the most important thing about all this is our global Christian agreement that we live because He died! Hallelujah!

  2. Ben Cabe Avatar
    Ben Cabe

    Hi George. There is much here that we could talk about but, frankly, I find conversations with calvinists cumbersome and exhausting—not to mention even more so on the computer than in person, face-to-face. That being said, the first quote in this article is quite bold. I could only say, come and see. Come to the Orthodox services, experience God’s love, participate in the life, and see.

    I could talk about God’s “hating” and “hardening” as expressions applied to a God infinitely beyond language. Or the illustration of how the sun, with the same rays, both hardens mud but melts wax. Or we could possibly speak about how Owen’s syllogism assumes the infallibility of the calvinist premise.

    Certainly, we should hope for the salvation of all. Historically speaking, the atoning theories are relatively late in the game, although this gets us back into the discussion of history, fathers, etc. That being said, a truly Christian point of view is that Christ’s death on the cross defeats death. Gregory of Nazianus asks in the fourth century: “God, not being a bloodthirsty God, did not require or desire the sacrifice of his Son to himself. Nor was it an offering to ‘pay’ the devil in order to ‘buy’ man’s freedom, since nothing was owed to the devil. But the empirical result of Christ’s death was the destruction of sin, the destruction of him who had the power of death (the devil) and the destruction of death. The death of the sinless one and his resurrection, had these results.”

    Reply
    1. George Aldhizer Avatar
      George Aldhizer

      I guess I’m a little taken aback by your comment. Did you find my article “cumbersome and exhausting”? Do you find me cumbersome and exhausting? I purposefully wrote with the intention of not being un-charitable while also trying to be “more dogmatic,” as our most recent communique wants us to do.

      As a matter of fact, I was most cumbersome and exhausting prior to my conversion to Reformed theology, I think I’ll write my “conversion story” as my next article. I was most intent on dismantling the idiocy and immorality of Calvnists that God would only die for his elect, I was actually quite militant. So I don’t want to fall into the stereotype of the cold Calvinist that feels he has the whole truth and is not willing to constructively dialogue. Do you feel my article closed off dialogue with you?

      My quoting of Packer at the beginning of the article was only to proclaim the truth of the Calvinist understanding of the cross, not to make a comment about Reformed liturgy/ecclesiology etc. writ large as superior. It was also intended to be provocative.

      Please see my discussion with Matthew above, I would certainly affirm with Gregory the cross and resurrection as destroying sin, death, and the power of satan. I guess to move this conversation forward (if you are willing) is to ask how Orthodox engage with various scriptures such as

      Romans 3: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

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

      1 Peter 2:24—”He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.”

      2 Corinthians 5:21—”For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

      Reply
      1. Ben Cabe Avatar
        Ben Cabe

        Those are wonderful scriptures filled with good news.

        I do not find you cumbersome. However, I do find that, the more I speak about theology, the harder it is for me to get from my head into my heart. And the heart is where I need to be. This all may be rather cryptic, but, at least for now, I suppose that is okay. I may write an article called “speaking of Orthodox theology” which focusses on how it cannot be extricated from Orthodox worship and liturgy / Orthodox life. That being said, I did respond with part of a book I had lying around in the comment on Matthew’s comment.

      2. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        Yeah, I’d love that. I do share with you the difficulty of writing and reading for this website, and having my heart feeling empty sometimes.

  3. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
    Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

    This is a worthy summary, as I recall the arguments, but I ask this question as a former Calvinist myself: What about the God described above would entice me to love him?

    Reply
    1. Ben Cabe Avatar
      Ben Cabe

      Possible answer: You don’t have to be enticed to love him. He makes you love him.

      Possible question: what is love and how does it function?

      Reply
      1. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
        Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

        The “drawing” in Romans 6 is a big part of the theology, and so I think it’s important to let George address this, and not leave the discussion just a sterile logical argument. If salvation is the result of a relationship, as we all agree it is, there has to be a level on which this relationship is not simply the result of force.

      2. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        Absolutely. This is no forcing, but of a God reviving a dead corpse, bringing light to darkness, life from death. And this new birth (to use a biblical term) results in an ongoing relationship of sanctification (we could use the EO term of deification as well)

    2. George Aldhizer Avatar
      George Aldhizer

      That was the purpose of my final paragraph. The truth that God has brought us from death to life at the cost of Christ’s life ought to have us rejoice in the love God has shown to us. Paul proclaims that “while we were yet still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). If this is true, how else can we respond but in love and adoration of the God who not only becomes a servant in taking on the flesh of humanity (what Ben and the Orthodox tradition is so right to emphasize in the Incarnation) but to also to humble himself to death-even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8).

      And to add to my article, what a God who beckons us to feast on Christ’s flesh and blood, to taste and see that the Lord has good. I believe along with the Orthodox that word cannot be divorced from sacrament, and what sweet truth it is to be able to participate in the truth of Christ’s flesh and blood given for us in his death on our behalf.

      It appears that the question assumes an argument against the arguments above in my article. What about my portrayal of Calvinist doctrine do you find non-enticing?

      (I hope I’m not coming across as cold, I know that is the stereotype of Calvinists, and I hope to not fulfill that in my responses)

      Reply
      1. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
        Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

        First let me say, your portrayal is dead-on. From reading Boettner, Calvin, and Owens, among others, as well as hearing it from the pulpit for nearly a decade, I can find no fault in your portrayal whatsoever.

        The holes for me come in when it comes to how we communicate this to our children. When we have to have an honest discussion about whether we can truthfully teach them to sing “Jesus loves me”, like we had on the Reformed Baptist Discussion List several years ago, or for a Presbyterian who still somehow believes in the purity of the Church, who baptises a baby without having any idea as to the actual state of the child – that child may have no hope of union with God. These are nonsensical problems based on the idea of a God who literally has no regard for his creation. I know the arguments about the potter and the clay, etc – I’ve used them myself – but they don’t present a God who I feel drawn to love, because there is no guarantee that I am one of the “elect” really, in the Calvinist system, nor that anyone is, nor do I have any reasonable expectation that he should love me, if he doesn’t love everybody.

      2. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        Maybe it’s because you were on the Reformed Baptist side of Calvinism, but the paedobaptist wing of Calvinism has a robust view of families, predicated on the gift of baptism as God brings the child into the new covenant community. God in his scriptures claims that the children of believers are holy (1 Cor. 7:14), and so we have every reason to communicate God’s love over our children. I think you’re right, it does seem that under credobaptism, God’s salvation seems entirely predicated on the individual, without any reference to the social context (believing family, covenant community of the Church) in which God has gracefully and sovereignly chosen to place her/him.

        Certainly that does not cover the entirety of the paedobaptist theology of the family/children, but I think it does show that (under an infant baptism perspective) the Calvinist doctrine of election is deeply intertwined with the love of families.

        Further, I’m not sure if any orthodox theological position can have a surety as to “the actual state of the child.” I’m not sure any theological position (other than universalism) can be any more sure of the “hope of union with God” of the child. However, I’m not sure you can get better than a paedobaptist view of a covenantal God who sovereignly uses families of believers to incorporate children into the new covenant community. (My Round Table contribution to the Baptism discussion may help give more context to this conversation)

        As to your overall question of love and assurance of salvation, I would most first say that we should wrestle with the teachings of the scriptures rather than ask whether the teachings “present a God who I feel drawn to love.” I don’t mean to say this coldly, and I’m sure your beliefs concerning election/predestination, etc. are not merely based on this response, but we do need to make sure that the teachings of the scriptures are at the forefront (though you may disagree with me on this).

        Second, as to your question of assurance, for those of us that have faith in Christ, the down payment of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:14), and have fruit that confirms our calling and election (2 Peter 1:10), we ought to have every reason to have assurance that we are of the elect. Certainly the Reformers spilled a lot of ink over the issue of assurance, this was the key pastoral issue for the Calvinist reformers.

        We can look at the book of Philippians that continually calls us to “rejoice” in the truth that God has shown grace to us in Christ, for we have a “righteousness which comes through faith in Christ that depends on faith, not of righteousness that comes from the law” (Phil. 3:9). In seeing this beautiful gift of grace, we can cling to what Paul says earlier in the letter, that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil. 1:6) God must truly love us!

        I guess I’d ask the similar questions of you. Within a theological framework in which one can fall away from salvation, how can you trust a God to hold fast to his promises that he will save his people from their sins? Within a theological framework in which your faith brings you into the status of “elect,” rather than a God who is faithful to his elect and brings them into the fold, your assurance is ultimately predicated on you. Within a theological system in which, potentially, no one could turn out to be one of the “elect” (as predestination and election are predicated on one’s faith, not on the will of god), there is no guarantee that “anyone is” one of the elect, whereas in Calvinism we have the highest of confidence that God will save sinners as he says he will.

        Edit: In fact, I just remembered. At my church after an infant baptism, the entire congregation sings “Jesus loves me.” Which I think is significant given our theology of baptism, the family, and God’s covenant promises.

      3. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
        Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

        So, in God’s particularism, He chooses families, not individuals? Boiled down, that’s what you’ve said above.

        As to whether I can trust God to save his people from their sins in the catholic framework (as in, what the majority – some would say entire – church believes), if God loves everyone, has dies for the world, provides us with every grace to come to him, then I can trust that, if I live a life of repentance in that grace, I am accepted – because he accepts me regardless of me, and regardless of my parentage. The problem only comes in when I reject him, because he never rejects me.

      4. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        No. I’m not arguing that God chooses families and not individuals. What I was trying to do was correct the perception that Calvinism is predicated on God willy-nilly choosing individuals. No, God has covenantally bound himself to a people, a church, first and foremost, that is comprised of families and individuals. Seeing baptism in this light (as opposed to, what I would argue, an insufficiently Reformed Baptist perspective), it would make good sense for a Reformed perspective on salvation to draw us to love our children and to know that God loves our children.

        I guess we could go back and forth about what scripture teaches or how Calvinism conceives of assurance/repentance/grace/acceptance. It seems we won’t get there unless we discuss the narrative and particulars of the scriptures.

        I guess I’m wrestling with whether or not you feel like a Calvinist is something of an insufficient Christian, or less than, or believes in a theology that is emotionally unstable, or is problematic for our children to be exposed to. I guess that’s what I get the sense from you and Liz. Maybe the question to you would be, could you conceive of yourself writing poetry or hymn lyrics from a Calvinist framework? Can we place ourselves in the position of a different Christian tradition and see the beauty laden in its theology? Without swallowing the ideology whole, can we understand how one would be driven to worship within a framework that is different than our own?

      5. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
        Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

        Not only can I conceive of it, I’ve done it. I spent nearly a decade in Reformed circles, and wrote several songs and hymns from that perspective.

        I feel like we’re all insufficient Christians, myself the least sufficient, but I cannot grasp the logic of saying that God has selected to die for only certain individuals (in spite of your talking about a “people”, that is the theology of Particular Atonement), but then saying we know our children to be among them.

      6. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        I guess we could go back and forth about the practical implications of particular atonement and its perceived problems and my problems with the practical implications of universal atonement, though I’m more interested in your conversion out of being a Reformed Baptist. What ultimately brought you out of Protestantism and into Orthodoxy?

      7. Kenneth O'Shaughnessy Avatar
        Kenneth O’Shaughnessy

        Not too long after I joined the RB church, I went to a meeting of budding theologians and was handed a Baptist edition of the Shorter Catechism. This edition had retained the word “sacrament”, which had then been whited out for the word “ordinance” to be substituted. I mentioned it to a friend at work, who asked if I thought baptism and communion were sacraments or ordinances, and I realized I had always really thought of them sacramentally. At that point I started a search for the historical understanding of theology, which eventually led back across the Atlantic to England for a visit, then to Rome on a brief sightseeing trip, where a fellow tourist mentioned I might be more interested in the other side of the Bosporus. I looked into it and discovered the East had the same issues with the West that I had (filioque, and papal infallibility and the trappings thereof, as well as the remnants of the scholasticism that had infected both the Roman church and her wayward children), and went there. Brief summary, but if you have questions about specific points, I can try to give an answer to them. Oh, I can mention also, it was the elders’ instruction to my wife that if I became Orthodox, she should refuse to go with me and should refuse to allow me to take the children there to services, that helped propel her out.

  4. Liz Winter Avatar
    Liz Winter

    “What a great God who would see me in my utterly helpless state and would bring me from death to life!”

    Why you?

    If everyone is exactly the same helpless sinner and nobody responds to the grace God gives then what is the point.

    What is the point?

    You say worship?

    Thank you God that you chose me.

    How does that affect the way you love your neighbor?

    I hope that you were chosen too?

    What a lot of Christians and religious people understand is that God called us to love God AND love our neighbor.

    I’m sure you have warded off these concerns with various scripture passages and with sayings of various theologians.

    I commented today because like many I find this doctrine especially heinous.

    I went to a Presbyterian school for 14 years. I lived the consequences of this doctrine.

    Reply
    1. George Aldhizer Avatar
      George Aldhizer

      Thank you Liz for your comment. I’d love to have this be an ongoing dialogue, I would really want to hear out your concerns on Calvinism and the article above.

      You’re right, I did not address how this doctrine specifically applies to loving our neighbor. I think I would point to Ephesians 2:8-10. After Paul has these grand statements concerning election, predestination (“choosing us in him before the foundation of the world), and God’s “making us alive” in Christ, he says this

      8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

      If we have been saved by grace through faith, then we cannot help but respond in love of neighbor. I’m absolutely with you, the Christian life is not mere doctrine or cold theology, but is a life of worship toward God and love of neighbor

      Likewise, Titus proclaims in Chapter 3

      4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, butaccording to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.

      We are to be “careful to devote ourselves to good works” out of response to the God who has saved us out of sheer grace!

      Reply
      1. Liz Winter Avatar
        Liz Winter

        Thanks for responding, George. Naptime is over for my daughters so I dont have time to respond now but I would like to flesh out my comment about the systemic effects of this doctrine. I think my comments speak more to life lived than to the logic (or lack thereof ;)) of your viewpoint.

      2. George Aldhizer Avatar
        George Aldhizer

        Yeah, I’d love to hear it!

  5. Ian Attila Avatar
    Ian Attila

    Hello George,

    What do you make of 2 Peter 2:1 “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them and bring on themselves swift destruction” (NKJV)?
    If they (false teachers) deny the Lord who bought them, doesn’t that mean that they were redeemed by Christ?

    You said: “If what distinguishes me as a justified/sanctified/glorified person is an act of faith of myself and not the act of Christ’s atoning death to secure that faith for me, I see this as a potential for pride in the heart of the Christian, rather than an opportunity for worship.” While it is true that one could embrace pride within this understanding, could not one also become prideful that God chose them out of sheer grace, to the point they have contempt for those who are obviously not chosen?
    For example, the Pharisee in Luke 18:11 does not articulate any kind of works righteousness mentality, he simply says, “God, I thank you that i am not like other men…” Notice, he thanks God for his spiritual condition, he in no way looks to how well he has improved himself; he thanks God alone for where he is. So, shouldn’t I have some concern over the doctrine of particular atonement as well?

    Finally, do you know of any Christian writer before the 16th century who taught the doctrine of particular atonement?

    Thanks for your time.

    Reply
    1. George Aldhizer Avatar
      George Aldhizer

      Thanks Ian for your comment, I appreciate your engagement with the arguments of the article.

      I will say at the outset that I don’t pretend to be an exegete or an historical theologian like some on the blog actually are. Before agreeing to write for the website, I had very little understanding of historical theology, and that certainly still remains today. So, unfortunately I don’t have much of a response to the extent to which particular atonement was taught prior to the Reformation.

      Of what little I do know, I will say that many of the central Reformers were not ignorant of historical theology (like I am), and were deeply engaged with the Patristics and Medievals. Though, I do feel the force of your question, as I do with other questions from the Orthodox and Catholics on the blog concerning Protestant belief/practice and its relation to historical theology and liturgy. I think these questions spur me on to both understand more the Reformed tradition and Reformation history as well as how that relates to all of church history.

      Second, in response to your question about pride and unlimited atonement. I think that pride (or man-centeredness) can be argued as inherent to a non-Calvinist atonement position, whereas a correct understanding of the Calvinist position would not allow for that pride.

      The reason why this pride does not work for the Calvinist position is that the true Calvinist will not see their election as a source of pride, but as a source of worship. For someone who is chosen out of the world out of nothing that he/she has done or any beauty/moral superiority etc. inherent in that person, that person cannot be prideful. It would make no sense, for the only distinguishing fact of the elect vs. the non-elect is God’s action. We can only respond with Paul in Eph. 1 that our election is “to the praise of [God’s] glorious grace,” not to ourselves, for we have no room for boasting (Rom. 3:27).

      As for the non-Calvinist, what distinguishes the elect from the non-elect is not God’s action (such that there be no room to boast), but our action. What distinguishes a Christian from a non-Christian is a deliberative act on the part of the Christian towards God. This, in my understanding, being the correct vision of the non-Calvinist view of atonement/election, the non-Calvinist has room to boast, to see his/her action as bringing them to God. Beyond the biblical evidence/narrative that I believe proves the Calvinist position, I find the implications of the non-Calvinist position troubling.

      As for 2 Peter 2:1, I’ll relay Owen’s responses to the verse. He first goes in depth on all six of these points and why what the Arminian believes concerning this passage is wrong. His conclusion is to say what the Arminian must prove in order for this text to prove universal atonement (notice the hilarious, although probably immoral, rhetorical flourishes. We just don’t do this anymore. Also Owen is really hard to understand haha, I apologize).

      “Now, after all this, if our adversaries can prove universal redemption from this text, let them never despair of success in any thing they undertake, be it never so absurd, fond, or foolish. But when they have wrought up the work already cut out for them, and proved,–first, That by the Lord is meant Christ as mediator; secondly, That by buying is meant spiritual redemption by the blood of the Lamb; thirdly, That these false teachers were really and effectually so redeemed, and not only so accounted because of the church; fourthly, That those who are so redeemed may perish, contrary to the express Scripture, Rev. 14:4, fifthly, Manifest the strength of this inference, “Some in the church who have acknowledged Christ to be their purchaser, fall away to blaspheme him, and perish for ever; therefore, Christ bought and redeemed all that ever did or shall perish;” sixthly, That which is common to all is a peculiar aggravation to the sin of any one more than others;–I will assure them they shall have more work provided for them, which themselves know for a good part already where to find.”

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Welcome to

Conciliar Post

Conciliar Post is an online community and archive devoted to thoughtful Christian reflection. Since its founding, the site has published theological conversations, reflections on Christianity, reviews, and commentary on culture and current events from a Christian perspective.

Get our articles in your inbox

Top Posts

The Old Testament in OrderDecember 13, 2024Jacob Prahlow
The New Testament in OrderApril 14, 2021Jacob Prahlow
How the Christ Defined the ChristianAugust 15, 2025Matthew Bryan
Why I Didn't Convert to Eastern OrthodoxyAugust 8, 2016TJ Humphrey
A Brief History of Communion (Part I)February 14, 2017Jacob Prahlow
John Wesley and Small GroupsFebruary 17, 2020Jarrett Dickey

Recent Posts

Discover more from Conciliar Post

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading