Moderate Calvinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moderate Calvinism (also referred to as Four-point Calvinism)^{[1] [2]} is a variation holding to universal or unlimited aspects within the atonement. Moderate Calvinism is a growing stream of theologians and churches within the Evangelical movement who are re-thinking and re-evaluating the meaning and implications of the Five Points of Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P.), the Synod of Dordt, and the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Hoping to form a middle ground, Moderate Calvinists reject traditional Calvinist tenets of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, yet retains modified versions of total depravity and perseverance of the saints.

Moderate Calvinists are those who come out of a Calvinist heritage but have significantly moderated their Calvinism, especially its views on predestination. Most Baptists today fit this description, as well as a host of Evangelicals in independent congregations, denominations, and parachurch groups. Prominent apologists for and supporters of Moderate Calvinism have included theologians James Orr, Millard Erickson, Andrew Fuller, Henry C. Thiessen, Zane C. Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Robert Lightner, John Walvoord, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Bruce Ware, and Josh McDowell, ministers Charles Stanley, Steve Lemke, David Allen, Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, John Rice and Bill Bright, historian Timothy George, and philosophers Norman Geisler and Ravi Zacharias.

The first people to hold such views started as General Baptists, the Arminian Baptists who originated in early seventeenth-century England. A group of General Baptists in the late seventeenth century began to moderate their Arminianism. They did so to the point that it changed from a belief in the possibility of apostasy from the Christian life to the unconditional perseverance of the saints. They, like other General Baptists, had always affirmed total depravity. After the shift to unconditional perseverance, they continued to hold to election conditioned on foreseen faith, general (unlimited) atonement, and resistible grace. They articulated this perspective in a confession of faith entitled "The Orthodox Creed" (1689). It is doubtful, however, that these early general-atonement Baptists had any connection with later Moderate Calvinists in the Baptist tradition.

Moderate Calvinism is a nineteenth- and twentieth-century phenomenon. Some historians argue that Baptists in North America began to soften the hard edges of traditional Calvinism in the nineteenth century. This doctrinal shift, they maintain, coincided with the spread of the Separate Baptist movement and the wide acceptance of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. Baptist theologians in both the North and South held as strenuous a brand of Calvinism as that of their Princeton Presbyterian colleagues. However, Baptists in the pew, aflame with the fires of frontier revivalism, began to moderate the strict Calvinism of their forebears. Other historians place the erosion of traditional Baptist Calvinism in the early twentieth century with teachers such as E. Y. Mullins and L. R. Scarborough. At any rate, Moderate Calvinism became the majority view among Baptists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Many dispensationalists in groups like the Plymouth Brethren and the Bible Church movement also moderated their Calvinism considerably.

Contents 1 The Five Points of Calvinism: Contrasting Extreme Versus Moderate Calvinistic Positions 2 Did Christ Die for All People Or Did He Die Only for a Selected Few? 3 Criticism 4 See also 5 Notes 6 Further reading

[edit] The Five Points of Calvinism: Contrasting Extreme Versus Moderate Calvinistic Positions

1) Total Depravity

Extreme Calvinism defines total depravity as total inability. They mean the elimination of all human ability to understand or respond to God. The effects of sin destroyed man's ability to accept God's gift of salvation. The human will is in bondage to sin and cannot respond to the call of God unto salvation. Fallen man is unable to choose the gift of salvation. The sinner is not a free agent because he is a slave to sin. Extreme Calvinism concludes that the non-elect are unable to repent and believe. Therefore God has to first regenerate man and give him faith before he can believe and be born again.

Moderate Calvinism maintains that man's depravity is “total.” Since the fall of Adam all men are born in sin with Adam's sin nature. There is no part of man's nature that was not affected by sin. Man is totally depraved, and unable to change his inherit sin nature. But total depravity does not mean total inability. Man's will is free to choose the gift of salvation. The basis or ground of human responsibility is human ability. Even though man does have a free will, he has no capacity for saving himself. God graciously draws people to Himself, but free will is the means by which salvation is received.

2) Unconditional Election

Extreme Calvinism: Total Inability is closely related to Unconditional Election. Extreme Calvinism (supralapsarianism) teaches double predestination, that is, God predestines those who will be saved and those who will be lost. On the other hand, clasical calvinism teaches the infralapsarian view, so it is not indeed extreme calvinism: for example, The Westminster Confession says this: “By the decree of God … some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.” There is no symmetry between "predestinaton" and “foreordination”.

Moderate Calvinists agree that salvation is an unconditional gift. The question is not whether there are any conditions for God giving salvation; but whether there are any conditions for man receiving salvation. Election is unconditional from the vantage point of the Giver, but there is one condition for the receiver. Faith is the condition for receiving salvation. Moderate Calvinism does not have to redefine the word “foreknowledge” in 1 Peter 1:2. Election is “according to” or “in harmony with” God's foreknowledge. God's election is neither based on His foreknowledge of man's free choice nor is His election exercised independent of it. There is no chronological or logical priority of God's election and God's foreknowledge.

3) Limited Atonement

Extreme Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for the elect and not the whole world. They reason that if Christ died for the whole world then everyone would be saved which is contrary to scripture—a heresy known as universalism. Extreme Calvinistic logic states: “If God the Father elected some to everlasting life, then it must follow that Christ died for them only and not for all men without distinction.” Extreme Calvinism defines “world” as meaning “the elect.” For God so loved the world (of the elect) that He gave His only begotten Son …”

Moderate Calvinism agrees with John Calvin who wrote, “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for part of the world only, but for the whole human race.” God sent the Son into the world that the world through Him might be saved (Jn. 3:17). That's why Jesus is referred to as the Savior of the world (Jn. 4:42; 1 Jn. 4:14). In dying for the whole world, Christ tasted death for every man (Heb. 2:9). Jesus is truly the Savior of all men (1 Tim. 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in that the offer of salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in that only believers are truly saved.

4) Irresistible Grace

Extreme Calvinism: the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. This internal call cannot be rejected. Extreme Calvinists reason: “All sinners who hear the gospel are commanded to repent and believe. But this they cannot do, because they are dead in trespasses and sins. Then God, through the operation of the Holy Spirit, creates within his elect the power to do what he commands. The divine and sovereign act of regeneration effected by the Holy Spirit precedes the human activity of repentance and faith.” Extreme Calvinism's consistency and logic requires the doctrine of irresistible grace. Because of (1) total inability, (2) God the Father elected certain ones to salvation, (3) God the Son died for only the elect, therefore (4) God the Spirit regenerates the elect so they can believe the gospel.

Moderate Calvinism maintains that saving faith is the God-ordained means for regeneration, and not the result of regeneration. Regeneration or the new birth takes place at the moment a person trusts in Christ and not before they trust in Christ. The scriptural order is first faith and then life. Putting regeneration before faith is putting the cart before the horse. God's Word consistently conditions justification and/or eternal life on faith, not vice versa. According to Moderate Calvinism it is possible to resist prompting of the Holy Spirit. Moderate Calvinism insists that no one is ever saved against his will as the Extreme Calvinist teaches.

5) Perseverance of the Saints

Extreme Calvinism teaches that the elect will be faithful to the end and will not die in a sinful state. As a result, you can never be sure if you are one of the elect until you have actually persevered until the end and die in faith. Many (but not all) Extreme Calvinists repudiate the teaching of “once saved always saved” stating that this doctrine is from the pit of hell.

Moderate Calvinism teaches preservation of the saints as opposed to perseverance of the saints. The Biblical doctrine of Eternal Security teaches that the believer will be preserved by the grace of God. No saint will ever be lost (even if they die in a sinful state). The believer is eternally secure. Moderate Calvinists believe in assurance of salvation while on earth whereas Extreme Calvinists teach that no one can know 100% for sure that they are saved.

[edit] Did Christ Die for All People Or Did He Die Only for a Selected Few?

Amidst all the theological debates regarding the extent of Christ’s death on the cross, many Christians are left wandering whether we still can do an honest proclamation of the gospel – inviting all people to come to faith and repentance – while being bothered by the thought that Christ may not have actually died for the person we are evangelizing because he may not be one of the elect (those who were chosen to be saved) after all. Is the gospel “good news” for all who are lost or only for some who are lost but chosen? Can an evangelist sincerely tell an individual that Jesus Christ died specifically for him, and not doubt the honesty of his message?

Did Christ die for all people or did He die only for a selected few? A proper view of the extent of the atonement can have a serious impact on how we do evangelism and the content of the gospel message we proclaim.

Christ suffered and died on the cross for the sins of every individual person in the world, but his death is effective only when the individual accepts it. John Calvin wrote, “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for part of the world only, but for the whole human race.” God sent Jesus Christ into the world that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:17). That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the Savior of the world (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). In dying for the whole world, Christ tasted death for every individual person (Hebrews 2:9), which makes Him truly the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in the sense that the offer of salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in the sense that only those who believe in Jesus are truly saved.

God loves all people

The highest expression of God’s love for the whole world (John 3:16) is Christ dying for the sins “of the world.” Jesus was declared by John the Baptist as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Paul also tells us that Jesus died for all people: “For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; and therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15).

The New Testament Greek words for “world”, “whosoever”,and “all” are universal in scope implying that Christ died for everyone in the world. 1 John 2:1-2 clearly declares, “Jesus Christ… is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Even Paul asserted in 1 Timothy 2:6 that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all.” Because of God’s unlimited love (John 3:16) and God’s desire to reconcile the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19), Christ died for all individual persons in the world.

Millard Erickson observes that a contradiction exists between biblical affirmations about God’s love for the world and the view that Christ did not die for all people in the world. John 3:16 tells us that God’s love for all people requires that Christ died for all of them – all sinners (Romans 5:8), all ungodly men (Romans 5:6), all lost people (Luke 19:10), and all God’s enemies (Luke 23:34) – not limited only to the elect. The Greek lexicons are unanimous that "world" in John 3:16 denotes humankind, not the "world of the elect”.

God desires all people to be saved

Another significant argument for the unlimited atonement view is God’s desire for everyone to be saved. Peter described God as “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). Furthermore, the New Testament is replete with passages that show that the gospel is to be proclaimed to all people in the world (Matthew 24:14; 28:19; Acts 1:8; etc.). In Acts 17:30, God “commands all men everywhere to repent.” Titus 2:11 also asserts, “the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men”, implying that the invitation to receive the gift of salvation is issued to all people and not only to a selected few (Matthew 11:28 and Revelation 22:17).

In light of the above passages, Wakefield asks: “If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not proper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?” God’s character simply cannot find compatibility with any doctrine teaching that the death of Christ was offered only to some and not for all.

Millard Erickson’s comment on Isaiah 53:6 support the unlimited atonement view: "This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for." He concluded, “that the hypothesis of universal atonement is able to account for a larger segment of the biblical witness with less distortion than is the hypothesis of limited atonement."

God saves only those who believe in Christ and receive the free gift of salvation

The question now is, “If Christ atoned for all persons, is it not possible that all men will be saved?” The answer to this inquiry should be, as Chafer would put it, “The provision of a Mediator and the grounds of mediation for the whole world does not save the world, but it does render the salvation of the individual possible…” Although Christ died for all men, only those who accept Christ’s death will be saved. There are scriptural evidences that prove that some people, whom Christ died for, will perish (Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11; Hebrews 10:29; 2 Peter 2:1) but those who believe are saved (Acts 16:31; John 3:36; 5:24).

Calvinists will point to verses connoting that Christ died for a specific people: his sheep (John 10:11); his friends (John 15:13); "many" (Heb. 9:28). Arminians will point to passages indicating that Jesus died for the "whole world" (1 John 2:2); "all" (2 Cor. 5:15); "every man" (Heb. 2:9).

I believe that the redemptive benefits of Christ's death are both specific and universal. Christ's blood was shed for His Church. Jesus "loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25). The Church was "bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). That makes the atonement of Christ specific -- it was for His Church. But the atonement is also universal in the sense that the Church's gates are wide open to "everyone who calls" (Rom. 10:13), to "him who is thirsty" (Rev. 21:6), to "all you who are weary and burdened" (Matt. 11:28). The invitation to believe and enter the Church extends to "every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev. 5:9). In that sense, the atonement is universal and available to all. The atonement, therefore, is both limited and universal. It is both specific and general.

J.C. Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind....What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ's death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us....I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man....The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers."

God makes the provision of salvation for all men, but it is conditioned by faith. Thus, salvation becomes actual only for those who believe, although it is potential and available to all. "Our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: an objective factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation)." Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the application of it is limited.

In his book The Death Christ Died, Robert Lightner explains: "[Moderate Calvinists] believe the cross does not apply its own benefits but that God has conditioned His full and free salvation upon personal faith in order to appropriate its accomplishments to the individual. This faith, which men must exercise, is not a work whereby man contributes his part to his salvation, nor does faith, in the moderate Calvinist view, improve in any way the final and complete sacrifice of Calvary. It is simply the method of applying Calvary's benefits which the sovereign God has deigned to use in His all-wise plan of salvation."

Conclusion

Christ suffered and died on the cross for the sins of every individual person in the world, but his death is effective only when the individual accepts it. God sent Jesus Christ into the world so that the world through Him might be saved (John 3:17). That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the Savior of the world (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14). In dying for the whole world, Christ tasted death for every individual person (Hebrews 2:9), which makes Him truly the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10). Atonement is unlimited in scope in the sense that the offer of salvation is for all men. Atonement is limited in effect in the sense that only those who believe in Jesus are truly saved.

[edit] Criticism

Traditional Calvinist thinkers often feel this moderate label is a misnomer that incorrectly attempts to portray their position as "extreme."

Moderate Calvinists have generally denied the following Calvinist distinctives (collectively referred to by the acronym TULIP): unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace, yet they have retained modified versions of total depravity and perseverance of the saints. Because of this, James R. White, the Reformed Baptist apologist and author of The Potter's Freedom has referred to them as "inconsistent Arminians."^[3]

[edit] See also

• Amyraldism (or four-point Calvinism)

[edit] Notes

[edit] Further reading

• “Chosen But Free” by Norman Geisler
• “What Love is This”' by Dave Hunt
• “The Other Side of Calvinism” by Laurence M. Vance
• “Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism” by C. Gordon Olson
• “Four Views on Eternal Security” by J. Matthew Pinson
• "Salvation: A Clear Doctrinal Analysis" by Lewis Sperry Chafer
• "The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement" by Robert Lightner