Seven Point Armalvinism
Last week, I made reference to the fact that I don’t like using the labels ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Arminian’ because I agree with three and a half of the Calvinist five points, and three and a half of the Arminian ones. This prompted a few people to ask: which ones? And why? So I’ll try and explain my current perspective, as briefly as possible. (Like all the posts at whatyouthinkmatters.org, this only reflects my personal view, and not those of the contributors, let alone everyone in Newfrontiers).
Firstly, I need to define some terms. When I refer to the five points of Arminianism, I mean the Five Articles of Remonstrance agreed upon by the Remonstrants in 1610. The five points of Calvinism refer to the Canons of Dordt, which are the decisions of the Synod of Dordrecht on the five disputed points of doctrine in the Netherlands in 1618-19. The latter are usually known by the acronym ‘TULIP’: Total depravity of man, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. The former, perhaps less neatly, are sometimes known by the acronym ‘FACTS’: Freed by grace to believe, Atonement for all, Conditional election, Total depravity of man, and Security in Christ.
The sharp-eyed among you will notice that one of the five points is common to both acronyms: the total depravity of man. Here’s how the Articles of Remonstrance expressed it (article 3):
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Because the Canons of Dordt were a response to the Articles of Remonstrance, they only disagreed with them where they felt the Articles were inadequate. On this point, they didn’t, so they affirmed it (and, in a manner that is often true of Reformed theologians, expressed it at considerably greater length!) This means that both Calvinists and Arminians believe that man, since the Fall, has been dead in his sins and unable to save himself. It also means that even the most diehard five point Calvinists are, if you like, at least one point Arminians.
For those who are mathematically troubled by my seven point Armalvinism, that explains how you can believe in six of the ten points. But how can you believe in seven? Where else might duplication be found? The answer is in the way the Remonstrants explained their fifth article, on security in Christ:
That those who are in corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.
Translation: nothing external can stop a believer from persevering, and we’re going to read our Bibles very carefully before teaching confidently whether anything internal can. I think that’s brilliant, humble and thought-provoking; and interestingly, it is not contradicted by any of the nine ‘rejections of the errors’ included in the Canons of Dordt on this point. So I believe in the perseverance of the saints as expressed in the Canons of Dordt, but I also give a point (literally, in this case) to the Articles of Remonstrance. That’s how six becomes seven.
As such, there are only three areas of direct disagreement between the two sets of statements, and not five. They are:
1. Is election unconditional (Calvinist) or conditional (Arminian)?
2. Is atonement limited (Calvinist) or unlimited (Arminian)?
3. Is grace irresistible (Calvinist) or prevenient (Arminian)?
As some readers of my last post guessed, I (like many Calvinists, and arguably John Calvin himself!) find unlimited atonement to be a much more biblical idea than limited atonement, even though I understand where the logical impulse to define the atonement as ‘limited’ comes from. If I’m honest, I cannot see any of the verses usually cited in support of limited atonement – the idea that Christ only died for the elect – carrying the weight they are asked to, and find myself wholly in agreement with the second Article of Remonstrance:
That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
On election, on the other hand, I find the reverse: I understand the quasi-logical impulse to believe in the Arminian conclusion, which is conditional election (as I talked about a bit last week with reference to Roger Olson), but find the biblical material to support the Calvinist one, which is unconditional election. That could be the subject of a post (or a book!) in itself, so I won’t go into it here. But it does show why, despite my seven points being split 50/50 at the moment, I would still see myself (and others would still see me) as more Calvinist than Arminian – unconditional election, probably rightly, has been seen as the key area of debate between the two camps, and it was the first article in both the Articles of Remonstrance and the Canons of Dordt.
So, finally, why the half points? What could be wrong, I hear many ask, with the doctrine of irresistible grace? And what could be right with prevenient grace? Haven’t you read Tom Schreiner’s chapter in Still Sovereign?
Well I have, and I agreed with virtually all of it, and that’s why I would never give a point to prevenient grace in the Wesleyan sense. It’s also why I give half a point to the Calvinist doctrine of ‘irresistible grace’: God’s saving grace, when it operates on somebody who is dead in their sins, is irresistible, and turns them from corpses into children of God, by not just enabling faith, but effecting faith. (Again, I could quote lots of scriptures here, but this post is long enough already). Well, says the Calvinist, you have no business handing out half points then: you are a four point Calvinist, so you might as well lump it. But oh, those pesky Articles of Remonstrance, with their seemingly unachievable brevity and theological precision! Here’s what article 4 actually said:
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But respecting the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.
And I agree. Nobody can do any good without grace; grace is that which awakens, follows, cooperates and empowers the believer. But is all grace irresistible? It doesn’t seem to be in Acts 7:51, where Stephen accuses not just the Sanhedrin, but generations of Jews, of resisting the Holy Spirit. And it doesn’t seem to be in Paul; sections of his letters (Galatians 5, for instance) seem to be addressed precisely to those who are at risk of resisting the grace of God in the sense expressed in the Articles, even if not in the sense meant by all subsequent Calvinist theologians. In that sense, while saving grace is irresistible, I don’t think the scriptures say that all grace is. (And in fairness, the Canons of Dordt don’t argue that it is; to be scrupulously even-handed, I should probably treat them on their own terms, and affirm four of their five points. But then that would make me a seven and a half point Armalvinist, and that would be just plain silly.)
So there you have it. T, U, P, A, T, S, and half a point each for I and F. Some call it fractional Calvinism, others call it Armalvinism, but I (following the acronym) am thinking of calling it STUPIFAT. I wonder if it will catch on.
Comments
By Liam Thatcher on 26/10/2011 at 10:16
STUPIFAT sounds good to me. Though I quite like FAT SITUP as well.
(I really feel like I’ve engaged with the heart of what this article was hoping to achieve!)
On a more serious note… great article. I’ve never read the Five Articles of Remonstrance and was amazed at how concise and compelling they are!
By Stephen Pegler on 26/10/2011 at 15:41
If I’m honest, I cannot see any of the verses usually cited in support of limited atonement – the idea that Christ only died for the elect
For me, Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
has been instrumental in pointing to limited atonement, apart from the logic of the doctrine.
Those for whom Christ died - won’t God give them all things?? - and how can that not include saving faith and perseverance? So if the atonement is unlimited, then isn’t this universalism?
By Richard McIntosh on 26/10/2011 at 17:10
Fascinating, simply fascinating. I am on the whole overjoyed with this post! Andrew I cannot say how happy I am to see you endorsing universal atonement! If there was a pernicious doctrine that deserved to be rejected it is this one (as you mention it is unlikely that Calvin would have endorsed it-Kendal is far more convincing that Helm here) . I had really started to worry that newfrontiers was following Piper and Grudem’s lead on this issue far too much. With my friend Adrian Warnock so strongly defending Limited Atonement (or particular as he would call it) .
Nevertheless, I must take issue with the 5th article of the Remonstrants. The glory of Calvin’s soteriology is that union with Christ, by the Spirit, proceeds our faith. And not vise-versa as in the 5th article.
The whole [benefits of salvation]comes to this that the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually binds us to himself. -Cavlin’s Institutes III.1
That is the starting point and then as a consequence comes our faith. Union, Adoption and regeneration all proceed faith. I fear that you have lost this amazing truth!
By Daniel Pritchard on 26/10/2011 at 19:53
Fascinating analysis Andrew, and helpfully presented.
My concern with your conclusion regarding unconditional election is not so much whether or not the election referred to (in the Scriptures typical alluded to in this debate) is conditional or unconditional but, whether or not it is dealing with the election of individual believers to personal salvation at all.
This perhaps is the reason why I personally resist being categorised by these acronyms at all. It is too much like domino toppling for me; e.g. if you buy total depravity (as understood by the Calvinist) then unconditional election is a must and, therefore, limited atonement is a logical conclusion too - etc. etc. But, that is only if election is understood in that individualistic way. If it isn’t, then unlimited atonement (and I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one!) is not really the same problem.
So, like you I can agree with some of the points of Calvinism - or, indeed, of Arminianism, but find it unhelpful to regard myself in terms of either set of points. As I can’t buy either package fully (partly because the Arminians are still regarding the election scriptures in an essentially similar way to the Calvinists) why would I find it helpful to add up how many points I can tick off on each list?
I intend no offence Andrew, this is such stimulating stuff and I thank you for it! We should never be afraid to re-examine such doctrines thoughtfully and prayerfully.
By Daniel Pritchard on 26/10/2011 at 19:56
@Richard, I am not sure what you are getting at in your criticism of the fifth article of remonstrance - but would be happy to hear more! It seems to me to accord quite closely with Paul’s teaching in Galatians…
By Richard McIntosh on 26/10/2011 at 21:36
just re-read my comment, the last paragraph should have read,
That is the starting point and then as a consequence comes our faith. Union, Adoption and regeneration all PRECEDE faith. I fear that you have lost this amazing truth!
@Daniel hope that clears it up!
By Mark Amos on 27/10/2011 at 08:38
Really balanced an thoughtful position.
It would seem important to me to talk about God’s eternal decision to become man. God has always willed to become man in Christ. The provision of the means for salvation is therefore provided in this eternal decision of the Triune God prior to all things.
The human response is to participate in this divine decision. But this participation is genuinely offered in the light of Christ’s participation with God as man.
By Andrew Wilson on 27/10/2011 at 10:24
@Stephen: the “us” of 8:32 is clearly understood as “God’s elect” in 8:33, which is why v32 is (in my view) not universalist.
@Richard: I’m with Daniel on the ordo salutis in Galatians 3, I’m afraid! Unless Paul had also “lost this amazing truth” ;o)
@Daniel: we’re back to Rom 9 again, aren’t we? In advance of a fuller discussion, I’ll say that I can’t read the passage without seeing any reference to individuals, even though I don’t think that’s necessarily Paul’s main point.
@Mark: perhaps you should write the Barth post instead!
Thanks all - very stimulating.
By Andrew Wilson on 27/10/2011 at 10:28
@Stephen (again): sorry, I’ve just realised that your opening para is a quote from me, not your own view, which makes a bit more sense! Without the quote marks to say what’s my view and what’s yours, it’s a bit like reading 1 Corinthians ... ;o)
By Richard McIntosh on 27/10/2011 at 11:48
Andrew please don’t muddy the issue with Galatians 3! ;o)
So I take it from this that you subscribe to an Arminian (or Wrightian) ordo saltuis. I can’t quite see that Galatians 3 is the knock-down text for an Arminian ordo salutis. And I raise you Ephesians 2v5.
By Stephen Pegler on 27/10/2011 at 14:17
“@Stephen: the “us” of 8:32 is clearly understood as “God’s elect” in 8:33, which is why v32 is (in my view) not universalist.”
Indeed. And the elect are those for whom Christ died - they will receive all things. If Christ died for us all (being all humanity) then all will receive all things and all will be saved. This passage teaches a definite atonement (limited, if you will).
By Andy Johnston on 27/10/2011 at 18:23
“He (Christ) loved her (the Church) and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25) points us towards redemtion being particular doesn’t it? The word “Limited” is surely unhelpful in minimizing / downsizing what Christ achieved at Calvary. Like Calvin, we shouldn’t try and dot every i and cross every t, especially where the Bible leaves us with apparently irreconcilable tensions.
By Richard Burgess on 27/10/2011 at 20:19
Good article, but isn’t this part of our problem, i.e. trying to systematise into a nice logical framework the great miracle of the new birth (not that we shouldn’t study it)?
My own background said ‘it was all of grace…” as if nothing was required of me - that believing either came or it didn’t, and yet the scriptures having presented the good news of Jesus Christ makes that very call “believe…. and you shall be saved.”
At the end of the day both are true, apart from God’s grace I cannot be saved, but without faith in Christ’s finished work I shall not be.
@ Richard, If I’m reading you right, then it begs the question, if union with Christ precedes our faith doesn’t that lead you back to a limited or definite atonement (as some prefer to positively call it), after all if only those who believe are previously united to Christ, what is the point of a a universal atonement?
By Richard McIntosh on 28/10/2011 at 07:46
The point is that God wants everyone to be saved! 1 Timothy 2:4
By Andrew Wilson on 28/10/2011 at 16:18
@Stephen and Andy: I’ve never understood why statements that Christ died for the elect / the church (which clearly do appear in Scripture, e.g. Eph 5 and Rom 8) necessitate affirming that Christ didn’t die for everyone (which emerges as a logical implication of other doctrines, but isn’t taught in Scripture, unless there’s a verse I’ve missed, and seems to fly in the face of a whole bunch of texts). Why does believing that the “us all” are the elect in Rom 8:28ff, since the context clearly defines it that way, mean affirming that Christ didn’t die for everyone? Or, put differently, what’s wrong with saying that God is the saviour of all, especially those who believe (1 Tim 4:10)? ;o)
By Stephen Pegler on 28/10/2011 at 17:48
“@Stephen and Andy: I’ve never understood why statements that Christ died for the elect / the church (which clearly do appear in Scripture, e.g. Eph 5 and Rom 8) necessitate affirming that Christ didn’t die for everyone (which emerges as a logical implication of other doctrines, but isn’t taught in Scripture,”
But the logical implication of Romans 8 which I quoted above is that those for whom Christ died (either limited or unlimited) are those whom God will give all things. So if it’s unlimited, then you have universalism. If it’s limited in scope, then Christ died for the elect. I don’t see how you can be faithful to Romans 8 and say that Christ died for everyone, and the Father won’t give them everything.
On another tact, I’ve often wondered what the point of 1 John 2 is if atonement is unlimited. I can imagine John writing - if you sin, you have someone who will intercede for you! That’s great! BTW, he died for you - and for everyone else, including people who are going to hell. Hmm. What comfort and encouragement is that?
By Richard McIntosh on 29/10/2011 at 09:03
@Richard B.
See my rather verbose comment on http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/a-response-to-rob-bells-love-wins
By Andrew Wilson on 29/10/2011 at 13:52
@Stephen: we seem to keep talking past each other! I totally agree with you that, in Rom 8:28ff, Paul is talking about the privileges of the elect, and the death of Christ for the elect. But this does not mean that Christ didn’t die for everyone; it simply means that Paul is not referring to his death for everyone in this particular passage. So I can’t see Rom 8:33 (or any other verses, as it happens!) as a prooftext for Limited Atonement.
By Stephen Pegler on 30/10/2011 at 00:28
I think we are talking past each other. I guess what I am saying is that Paul isn’t simply talking about the privileges of the elect, but is describing those for whom Christ died in terms that demands LA. The “us all” must be those for whom Christ died, and no other. If Christ died for all humanity, then the second part of the verse 8:32 demands their salvation.
Either you’re missing it, or I’m not explaining it well!! ;) In any case, I consider this passage probably the strongest teaching of LA, along with John 10:11 & 11:51ff and Hebrews 2.
anyway - interesting post! As a committed Calvinist, I will admit that there a couple of passage that don’t fit LA well, but I think that the problems with the UA view are much more difficult.
By Andrew Wilson on 31/10/2011 at 13:09
This will have to be my last comment, but ... Syllogistically, Stephen, I think you’re saying:
1. Christ died for the elect.
2. The elect receive all things (Rom 8:32ff).
3. Therefore all for whom Christ died must be given all things.
4. Only the elect receive all things.
5. Therefore Christ only died for the elect.
And we are disagreeing about the logic or otherwise of 3, which I do not accept as valid (it’s akin to the “everything that has four legs is a dog” fallacy), and also do not see anywhere in Scripture, and certainly not in Rom 8.
By Andrew Wilson on 31/10/2011 at 13:26
(Sorry, re-reading that I think it sounds abrupt! My apologies. I should have said it more cautiously, since after all, there’s a good chance I’m wrong ...)
By Stephen Pegler on 31/10/2011 at 14:36
I think that the order is this: (and my last post as well!!)
3. [Therefore] all for whom Christ died must be given all things.
4. Only the elect receive all things.
1. Christ died for the elect. see #5 below
2. The elect receive all things (Rom 8:32ff). restates #4 above
5. Therefore Christ only died for the elect.
By Matthew Hosier on 08/11/2011 at 20:18
An interesting take on this from Justin Taylor: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/11/08/tweaking-the-tulip/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+between2worlds+(Between+Two+Worlds)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher