I will be deliberately simplifying things in this post; I fully realize that the particular teachings mentioned herein are much more nuanced than I will be expressing. I also realize that within the groups ascribing to these particular teachings, there are a myriad of differences and particularities of doctrine; it is not my intention to explain all of that here. Likewise, there may be certain people within a group which disagree with one or more things I am ascribing to that group, and again that is fine. The bottom line is that this post is being written for a friend of mine in an attempt to answer her question, and I am basing my answers largely upon my own personal experience. You’re of course more than welcome to ask questions via the comments and even to debate these subjects at the Hall.
There are many different takes on Christian theology, and it itself is composed of a great many subjects. Some Christians believe Satan was once a cherub named Lucifer who got a bit too big for his britches, so to speak; others believe that Satan & Lucifer are unrelated entities. Many Christians today believe that there is yet a 1,000 year reign of Christ in Earth’s future; others recognize that “Millennial Reign” has being symbolic of the entire church age, no matter how long it goes for.
And then there is the subject of salvation itself, a subject which touches on sin, free will, works, grace, mercy, judgment, sovereignty, and so much more. Within Protestantism today there are two big “streams” of salvation theology (or from here on, soteriology): Arminianism & Calvinism.1 And basically what I want to do here is give a brief introduction to both systems, starting with Arminianism:
Arminianism
Arminianism most broadly describes the theology affirmed by Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). It’s popularity is likely due in large part to John Wesley (1703-1791). You’ll find Arminian theology taught in Wesleyan & Methodist churches as well as Nazarene churches. Basic Arminian soteriology could be described as follows:
- Man is totally depraved, sin having affected every facet of his being; however, God has granted enough grace to all men to allow them to either choose or reject Him.
- Election to salvation is conditional upon faith; in other words, the elect (i.e., the saved) are those who exercise faith in God and as a result were chosen by Him.
- The atonement (or more accurately, the propitiation) which Jesus accomplished at Calvary was universal — for every man and woman who has ever lived and will ever live; it is thus unlimited in scope, yet its benefits are only bestowed upon those who believe unto salvation.
- God’s grace for salvation is extended to everyone, and while He may work to draw unbelievers unto Himself, they are capable of resisting His will and remaining in their unbelief. In other words, man has unbound free will (at least regarding salvation) and is thus capable of choosing or rejecting God.
- Because man has such free will, the salvation which they receive upon believing is dependent upon their continuing in their faith. At any point a believer could repent of his belief and go back to his life of sin, losing any benefit of salvation which he once had. Likewise, a believer through growing and maturing could begin to live a truly holy life without sin.2
- The Gospel message — that of grace through faith in (and only in) Jesus Christ on the basis of His life, death, and resurrection — should be preached to every one, for all have the ability to be saved if they so choose.
So in summary, we see that the Arminian viewpoint is that God saves those who He sees will have faith in Jesus Christ; anyone may exercise this faith, and many will. Some of them will fall away, but those who remain in their faith will be saved. God helps & aids believers on their way, but ultimately the choice is theirs.
Perhaps a parable would help: Mankind is adrift in a river which is headed toward a waterfall. God is on the bank with His arm outstretched, willing to save anyone who would take His hand. Most people reject the reality of the danger and ultimately perish; however, many choose to take God’s hand. At any time, however, they may jump back into the river — at which point they could again choose to take God’s hand or remain in the river.
Calvinism
Calvinism most broadly describes the theology affirmed by John Calvin (1509-1564). Notable evangelists from history which held to Calvinist theology include Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) and Charles C. Spurgeon (1834-1892).3 You’ll find Calvinist theology taught in Presbyterian & Congregationalist churches as well as Reformed Baptist churches. Basic Calvinist soteriology could be described as follows:
- Man is totally depraved, sin having affected every facet of his being; left in this natural state, man will never seek the true God but will only ever choose that which allows them to remain sinful.
- Election to salvation is unconditional; in other words, the elect (i.e., the saved) are those whom God has chosen arbitrarily, apart from anything inherent within those chosen (including their actions, beliefs, etc.).
- The atonement (or more accurately, the propitiation) which Jesus accomplished at Calvary was not universal — Jesus died only for those whom God has chosen; it is thus limited in scope, its benefits only being bestowed upon the chosen.
- God’s grace in salvation is only bestowed to the elect, and when He thus exercises grace on a sinner, they will not resist it. In other words, God’s grace overrides man’s inability to come to God, grants man this ability, and drags man to Jesus for salvation.
- Because salvation (even faith itself) is solely a work of God, the saved will persevere in their faith; falling away from the faith completely is a sign that a person was never truly a part of it in the first place. This perseverance in faith does not preclude sin, and Calvinists recognize that until we are given new bodies, Christians will continue to sin, albeit not habitually.
- The Gospel message — that of grace through faith in (and only in) Jesus Christ on the basis of His life, death, and resurrection — should be preached to every one because God has commanded it, the preaching of the Gospel being the primary means He has chosen to reach those He has chosen.
So in summary, we see that the Calvinist viewpoint is that God saves those whom He has sovereignly chosen; only they will exercise faith in God, and they will continue in this faith throughout their lives. Regarding salvation itself, man brings nothing to the table — even his faith being the handiwork of God; salvation, from beginning to end, is credited only to God.
Perhaps a parable would help: Mankind is adrift in a river which is headed toward a waterfall. While mankind seeks a great variety of things to alleviate the sense of danger — life preservers, life vests, floaties, indifference, and so on — none of them are a true help, and none are aware of where true help comes from. God, however, is in a rescue helicopter which is unheard due to the rapids below. Prior to humanity ever being in this river, God has chosen those He would save, and it is those which He plucks out of the river below, harnessing them into the helicopter so that they will remain with Him.
The Middle Road
Oh my goodness, I cannot believe I forgot that this position could be described as “Semi-Pelagianism”! Chalk one up to my imperfect memory, and I tip my hat to Glen for reminding me of this title! Thanks, buddy!
I’m unsure if this position actually has a name or not. Actually, I’m really unsure just how common this position is. I’m fairly certain most independent, fundamental Baptists believe this, and while there may very well be other more prominent teachers, David Cloud (1949-) is the only one coming to mind at the moment.
And as the title of this section says, this really is a middle of the road position; it takes elements from both Calvinism & Arminianism along with some “custom” modifications. Of course, various adherents of the Middle Road view will have diverse (perhaps even wildly so) beliefs. This summation is based upon my own experiences.
Rather than re-hash what has already been written, I will go down the six points as above as simply as possible:
- The Arminian view is taken without much modification.
- The Arminian view is taken without much modification.
- The Arminian view is taken without much modification.
- The Arminian view is taken without much modification.
- Not much of a middle road so far, is it? Anyway, on this point, the Middle Row views lean more Calvinist, adopting what is commonly called “once saved always saved.” Like the Calvinist “perseverance of the saints,” this is a form of “eternal security”; unlike the Calvinists, however, Middle Road adherents believe that once a person is saved, it is possible for them to leave their faith and once again adopt a life of sin. Because they were saved at one point, they are still saved.
- The Arminian view is taken without much modification.
And That’s That
As I noted at the beginning, this was by no means meant to be in-depth, comprehensive, or anything of that nature, and I am very much open to suggestions on what should be added to these brief intros.
Why does any of this matter? Shouldn’t churches be aloud to teach what they want, all the while remaining respectful of other churches? No. The above differences between the three view points represent differences in their understanding of the Gospel, of God, and so on. Do you believe in a Jesus Christ who died for every man indiscriminately or in a Jesus Christ who died only for His elect? Do you believe in a God reaching out waiting on you to come to Him or in a God proactively saving those whom He has chosen?
The answers are important because as you can see, whichever systems are wrong are thus pointing to a false Christ or a false God. God is Truth, and He demands truth in worshiping Him.
Likewise, because these issues are regarding central truths of the Gospel, it’s very possible that to adhere to the false system is to adhere to a false gospel, which according to Galatians 1:8,9 results in curse, not blessing or salvation (those who are saved are not under a curse).
As for me, I hold to the Calvinist viewpoint, believing it to be in line with what the Bible teaches,4 and I would be happy to explain why to anyone who asks. In the interim, however, you can browse over to the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry for their brief intro to Calvinism which includes all sorts of scriptural support.
- There are also groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, which make good works (the sacraments) a requisite for salvation; I have too much disdain for such teaching to even consider it under the umbrella of “Christian theology” and so will not go into it or other such works-requiring systems here. [↩]
- I noticed this particular belief in the doctrines of the Nazarene church of which I was temporarily a member. [↩]
- I’m including two very prominent & effective evangelists here due simply to the charge that Calvinists don’t evangelize; history, however, scoffs at such a view point! [↩]
- Ultimately the Bible is my rule in faith & doctrine; however, Calvinism provides a handy framework of theology which has proven trustworthy enough to rely upon thus far. [↩]
9 Comments
What are your thoughts on the Calivinist teaching that the Atonement was actually Universal, in the thought of Christ buying everything back, but it’s only the elect few that actually Redeemed. Similar to the parable of the man who purchased the field to Redeem something out of it.
Good question, Glen; I’m not entirely happy, however, with the word “atonement” as it is applied to what Christ accomplished. I prefer instead the term “propitiation.” As a matter of fact, in some Bibles (the ESV, for example), the word “atonement” doesn’t even appear in the New Testament, nor does “atone.”
Certainly I think that the Lord is redeeming the whole world to Himself based upon what He accomplished at Calvary; in particular, the Cross provided propitiation only for the elect.
So rather than the terms “Limited Atonement” or “Unlimited Atonement,” perhaps we should be speaking in terms of propitiation, and if that is the case, then it is truly “limited.” Atonement was an annual thing that anyone with a sacrifice to slaughter could have done for them; propitiation, however… Whosoever has propitiation made for their sins has no more guilt, no more legal obligation to God for evil deeds committed. They are forgiven, washed away, once for all.
If propitiation was made for the whole world — if Christ’s sacrifice was as universal as Arminians claim — then no one — NO one — would be punished for their sins, the preaching of the Gospel becomes a useless exercise (if propitation was made for everyone whether they believe or not, why the need for anything more?), and so on. Certainly they would say the same to Calvinists — if God provided propitiation to the elect, why must they believe? To that I’d respond that it is because they are the elect — because propitiation has been made for them — that they believe. Such logic does not work in the Arminian system, and suddenly “believing in Jesus Christ” becomes something which can be boasted of. If everyone is afforded the same opportunity to be saved, the same grace, the same wooing of the Spirit, then those who have faith are bringing something to the table in and of themselves — their willingness, their faith, whatever. Either way, biblical salvation affords nothing to the man, casting all glory, all workmanship, all honor unto God.
Rick,
Would you mind expanding your thoughts a little more on your dislike of the word “atonement?” I’m thinking of the comparison of “katallagē” vs. “hilastērion.” Thanks.
I don’t dislike the word “atonement”; it applies perfectly well to what the Old Testament sacrifices. However, “atonement” is not a word ascribed to the New Testament sacrifice of Jesus Christ in numerous translations of the Bible (including the ALT, ESV, NASB, LITV, Darby, and JPS). The one time the word appears in the New Testament in the KJV is Romans 5:11, which states that we have “now received the atonement.”
If that’s the word we’re using, then technically we’ve been receiving the atonement for millennia each year via sacrifices of animals.
Other versions translate that word as “reconciliation” rather than “atonement,” and so it is: through Jesus, we have received true reconciliation to God, not a mere covering over of sins (i.e., atonement).
My NASB concordance says that katallagē means only “reconciliation.” Likewise, the couple of words from which we translate “propitiate” always mean “propitiate” or “propitiation” or similar.
So I’m not sure why those two words are in a “versus” situation, but I am by no means a Greek scholar.
It seems to me that the act of atonement in the Old Testament was but a temporary or perhaps even “minor” propitiation — the people made amends (expiation or propitiation) to God through the temporary covering over of sins (atonement). This is contrasted by the once for all time sacrifice of Christ which accomplished true reconciliation, permanent propitiation, and the wiping away of sins (rather than the covering over, or atonement, of them).
If any Greek scholar sees this, it’d be great if they could weigh in on this. :)
I don’t think it is a “vs” situation at all. I am not a scholar of any kind. I am familiar with Greek; but we can keep this discussion in english and still clarify things a little. You said you prefer the word propitiation. Without going into further explanation right this second; I understand the doctrine to go something like this - “Christ became our the propitiation for sin, so that we could receive THE ATONEMENT. Look back over the verses that contain “propitiation” and then look at Rom. 5:11, Rom. 11:15, II Cor 5:18, and II Cor 5:19. All theses verses contain the same Greek word translated “atonement” in Rom 5:11. Look past the english trans. and see what they are saying.
Latest from Rob: Happy Birthday My Buggy!
You can’t say “we can keep this discussion in English” while at the same time saying “Look past the english trans.” ;-)
That said, the word in Romans 5:11 is “reconciliation.” Christ provided the propitiation for sins so that we may be reconciled to God.
Old Testament sacrifices were able to provide atonement; Christ provided reconciliation — so much more than a mere covering of sins (atonement).
The King James Version is the only version I have that says “atonement” at Romans 5:11; it seems every other version has figured out that the word is actually “reconciliation” or a form thereof, for if all Christ did was provide atonement, then our sins would still exist, albeit covered up.
That, however, is not what the Scriptures teach Messiah would provide; He completely removed sins, blotting out the record of trespasses so that never again would God remember our sins. Under the Old Testament system of atonements, sins would have to be covered yearly.
So my question is, if Christ provided us “atonement” rather than “reconciliation” at Romans 5:11, are our sins merely covered over or are they completely blotted out? In any event, the propitiation provided by His blood accomplished this reconciliation.
Hmm, I guess the issue is “reconciliation” vs. “atonement”; why do you feel all the modern translations of the Scriptures have gotten it wrong? Many of them do not contain the words “atone” or “atonements” in the New Testament.
yea, you are completely right - “You can’t say “we can keep this discussion in English” while at the same time saying “Look past the english trans.” ;-)”
The way I am used to studying, I really don’t pay very much attention to the different English trans. I guess i should.
“why do you feel all the modern translations of the Scriptures have gotten it wrong? Many of them do not contain the words “atone” or “atonements” in the New Testament.”
Regardless of whether they translate ” ” As reconciliation or atonement, the doctrinal implications are the same. The translators maybe should have paid more attention to The Letter To the Hebrews; chapters 9 and 10. These passages demand a synthesis between the overarching OT theme of atonement, and the work of Christ.
That said, I do not think there is anything wrong with using the word ” reconciliation.” Except that we think of it in terms of… “we were friends, then we were not, but now we are reconciled.” In biblical terms, it is a bookkeeping allusion. As in… ” You owed me money, but someone paid the money for you, so now we are reconciled;” which harkens back to the OT just as Heb. 9 and 10.
Hebrews 9 & 10 still do not mention atonement, preferring instead to focus on redemption.
Alas, though, I really don’t know much else about the topic than what I’ve already said, and none of this seems to affect what the original post was about.
And I still welcome anyone knowledgeable in Greek (or the finer points of soteriology) to weigh in. :-)
we may need to use another forum to continue this, if you so desire. Either way, you may find it helpful to get a hold of a copy of Gordon Lewis & Bruce Demarest’s Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1990) They do a wonderful job describing atonement as a “multi-faceted diamond” which includes propitiation, redemption, reconciliation,substitutionary sacrifice, freedom, victory, and even the atoning work of the Resurrection. Atonement is the theological term derived from the revelation of God in the OT used to describe ALL the work of the Christ.