Inconsistency of Calvinists saying Christ’s death is sufficient for all - response to Turretinfan
This post is a follow on to Turretinfan’s comments here and here.
Calvinists, in the Synod of Dordt, said that Christ’s death is sufficient for all. But they also say Christ’s death paid for this many, no more. But this is inconsistent. If Christ’s death didn’t pay for someone, in what sense is it sufficient for them?
TF states: God has shown favor on some of mankind. He has provided for them His Son's blood - blood of infinite intrinsic efficacy. Yes, the blood WILL not do the reprobate any eternal good, but it WOULD do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sin and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, it WOULD do the reprobate good if Christ had offered it for the reprobate, in short it WOULD work for the purpose of expiating the sins of the reprobate if it were applied to that use.
Let’s look at this first portion: Christ’s blood would do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sins and believed. That sounds good to me. If the Calvinist could consistently hold this position, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But I don’t think a consistent Calvinist can hold this position. Since Christ didn’t pay for their sins, His death wouldn’t do the reprobate any good even if they believed. The reprobate would still have to pay for their own sins, because Christ didn’t pay for them.
Now let’s look at the second part: Christ’s blood would do the reprobate good if Christ had offered it for the reprobate. I already pointed this out to TF once, but it has come up again. Christ’s death was in the past, the reprobates’ conversion (or lack thereof) is in the future. Talking about what Christ could have done through His death before He died, and what He can do based on His death after He died, are two different topics. Based on what Christ could have done though His death before He died, a Calvinist can consistently say Christ’s death is of infinite value. That’s not the concern. But a Calvinist can’t say that “Christ’s death is sufficient for all” or “able to save everyone” based on what Christ could have done through His death. Today, for someone to say that Christ can save everyone, it has to be based on what Christ actually did on the cross, not what He could have done on the cross.
For a Calvinist, the counterfactual conversion of the reprobate must be joined with a counterfactual payment of their sins through Christ’s death to suppose they end up saved. In other words, if a Calvinist’s supposes a different future (i.e. the reprobates’ conversion) they also have to suppose a different past (i.e. Christ died for them). If they just suppose a different future, Christ’s death does them no good.
That’s why I used the analogy: A Calvinist saying Christ is able to save the reprobate (or that Christ’s death was sufficient for them) is kinda like me saying I am able to speak French, because I could have taken French in college (even though I didn’t).
TF dismissed the analogy, but for the wrong reason: This is also not a fair analogy, because we conventionally take "able to speak French" to mean something other than intrinsic ability to learn French.
I didn’t say because I could learn French in the future, but rather because I could have learned French in the past… In the same way, the Calvinist needs to suppose Christ acted differently than He did, in order to say He can save the reprobate. A Calvinist saying Christ's death was sufficient for all appears to make their view more palatable, but in fact it just makes it inconsistent.
Calvinists, in the Synod of Dordt, said that Christ’s death is sufficient for all. But they also say Christ’s death paid for this many, no more. But this is inconsistent. If Christ’s death didn’t pay for someone, in what sense is it sufficient for them?
TF states: God has shown favor on some of mankind. He has provided for them His Son's blood - blood of infinite intrinsic efficacy. Yes, the blood WILL not do the reprobate any eternal good, but it WOULD do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sin and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, it WOULD do the reprobate good if Christ had offered it for the reprobate, in short it WOULD work for the purpose of expiating the sins of the reprobate if it were applied to that use.
Let’s look at this first portion: Christ’s blood would do the reprobate good if the reprobate turned from his sins and believed. That sounds good to me. If the Calvinist could consistently hold this position, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But I don’t think a consistent Calvinist can hold this position. Since Christ didn’t pay for their sins, His death wouldn’t do the reprobate any good even if they believed. The reprobate would still have to pay for their own sins, because Christ didn’t pay for them.
Now let’s look at the second part: Christ’s blood would do the reprobate good if Christ had offered it for the reprobate. I already pointed this out to TF once, but it has come up again. Christ’s death was in the past, the reprobates’ conversion (or lack thereof) is in the future. Talking about what Christ could have done through His death before He died, and what He can do based on His death after He died, are two different topics. Based on what Christ could have done though His death before He died, a Calvinist can consistently say Christ’s death is of infinite value. That’s not the concern. But a Calvinist can’t say that “Christ’s death is sufficient for all” or “able to save everyone” based on what Christ could have done through His death. Today, for someone to say that Christ can save everyone, it has to be based on what Christ actually did on the cross, not what He could have done on the cross.
For a Calvinist, the counterfactual conversion of the reprobate must be joined with a counterfactual payment of their sins through Christ’s death to suppose they end up saved. In other words, if a Calvinist’s supposes a different future (i.e. the reprobates’ conversion) they also have to suppose a different past (i.e. Christ died for them). If they just suppose a different future, Christ’s death does them no good.
That’s why I used the analogy: A Calvinist saying Christ is able to save the reprobate (or that Christ’s death was sufficient for them) is kinda like me saying I am able to speak French, because I could have taken French in college (even though I didn’t).
TF dismissed the analogy, but for the wrong reason: This is also not a fair analogy, because we conventionally take "able to speak French" to mean something other than intrinsic ability to learn French.
I didn’t say because I could learn French in the future, but rather because I could have learned French in the past… In the same way, the Calvinist needs to suppose Christ acted differently than He did, in order to say He can save the reprobate. A Calvinist saying Christ's death was sufficient for all appears to make their view more palatable, but in fact it just makes it inconsistent.
Comments
Good debate. That is precisely what my problem with the C-s position of" sufficient for all" is.
I also never understood why our respectful Calvinist camp holds to that view - I have a moral problem with it, namely see it as hypocritical. What does that view achive? As if bringing enough medicine for all but giving it to only some makes such a doctor look any better then one who brings enough medicine only for some, not all..
Why dont the C position affirms the latter? ( sufficient only for elect, do you know by chance whats the reason ?)
I wont go to tribalogue and such, I am not confident in my english (and the debate participants kindness out their, to be honest :)))
God bless you richly,
Odeliya
If we're honest, and we cut through a lot of the verbage, I think we'll find we're closer than we realize on this point. I'm not saying we agree completely, because we don't, but I am saying the "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" actually provides quite a bit of ground for agreement. We disagree as to the exact design of the atonement, but not necessarily in all of its applications.
You stated, "the atonement has application to the non-elect in matters of common grace"? But did not God already extend "common grace" before the Cross as well? How is there "more" common grace becaue of Christ's atonement?
I'm not trying to challenge you or be a jerk. I'm just trying to understand what you mean.
Sincerely,
Billy
I don't think Calvinist's are hypocritical or dishonest. If I did, I wouldn't bother with them. At times, I do think they are interested in marking though... I mean, TULIP in the Netherlands? It's practically a national symbol.
But I also think in some cases they are confused. This exchange with Tfan was relatively abstract.
God be with you,
Dan
The two primary ways in which Arminians mean Christ death was sufficient for all are: Christ is willing and able to save everyone. Do Calvinist mean it in the same way?
I understand there's some incidental benefits to Christ's death, such as the reprobate may be restrained from evil, if, let's say, the founding fathers of their country set things up in such a way that certain moral evils are illegal... But that's fairly far from Christ being willing and able to save everyone.
God be with you,
Dan
I haven't called Calvinists hypocritical and didnt use the word "dishonest" at all :)
Sorry i made myself misunderstood, let's write it off as E. as a second language.
I referred to the particular view as hypocritical, not people that are holding it.(I presume you do make stupid decisions, which doesnt make you..:) If you later maybe come up with the answer to my question in the first post, I would greatly appreciate it.
May God bless you richly,
Odeliya.
I don't take your questions as a challenge in any way. I think the best way for us to understand is to ask. We need to talk through these things together rather than just making accusations and destroying straw men, as some are prone to do (on both sides). Dan, am I just confused on this? ;)
"Calvinists," like "Arminians," affirm that Christ is willing and able to save everyone. This statement does require a a bit of an explanation, I realize. When we speak of "God's will" we may be discussing one of three things - 1) His decretive will (e.g., His "hidden will," as Luther put it, related to the divine decrees); 2) His preceptive will (e.g., His commands, moral will); 3) His will of disposition.
God's disposition is such that He does not delight in the death of the wicked. He desires all men to be saved, being longsuffering with them and offering them salvation. No one can blame God for their refusal of salvation and rejection of Christ. People do that all on their own. Their unbelief is not owing to predestination, but their own sinfulness.
The atonement is sufficient for all, meaning that if "Bob" (who is 'non-elect') would turn from his sin and embrace Christ by faith, he would be saved. He won't, though, because of his own sinful condition. On the other hand, "Joe," (who is 'elect'), ends up turning from his sin and embracing Christ by faith because the Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ to Him, granting him faith.
Thanks for your polite and godly attitude. You can imagine how appreciative I am. People on some blogs are just down right nasty.
These "wills" of God that you listed: do you have biblical examples of each? I realized that in the fourth paragraph you mentioned God's desires. I agreed wholeheartedly with what you wrote in that fourth paragraph.
The fifth paragraph, however, is troublesome to me. Yes, the atonement is "sufficient" for all, even the non-elect, given that the non-elect would turn from their sins and trust Christ.
But it was never God's intention to "apply the work of Christ to Him, granting him faith," so how is that atonement "sufficient"? What is it actually sufficient to accomplish? It actually accomplishes nothing whatsoever on their behalf. Does that make sense? I worry that I'm never clear enough.
Billy
Would the Arminian say that it was God’s intention to save all, but man would not allow it? Would you agree that intention and desire are vastly different? It also appears that you struggle with the fact that faith is a gift and if God does not give it then that person will not have it.
Yes, unfortunately, there are some rather impolite characters in the blogosphere, aren't there?
As to the "wills" of God...
The preceptive will of God is most clearly evident in the Ten Commandments. Interestingly enough, we see how it is not God's will for anyone to murder (per the Decalogue), yet it was God's decretive will for Christ to be murdered (Acts 2:23). As to His will of disposition, I already alluded to Ezekiel 33:11.
I know you had troubles with the fifth paragraph, but I think this is the main issue - here we see how the doctrine of election comes into play. The salvific element of the atonement is not applied to the non-elect, however, this is not owing to any deficiency in the atonement or any fault with God, but with their own sin and rebellion.
Sorry if my last comment was unclear, but I didn’t mean to imply you were saying Calvinists are hypocrites. I am also sorry if my answer to your question was unclear, but I think Calvinists use the expression sufficient for all for 2 reasons: 1) they are inconsistent and 2) it leads people to think Calvinism must not be too bad.
God be with you,
Dan
In the Arminian view what does the atonement “accomplish” for the un-repentant person?
A provision has been made, enabling their salvation.
By saying “sufficient” would that just mean that had God intended to save everyone nothing further needed to be done by Christ, his work would have sufficed.
Christ’s death provides for salvation, but His blood also has to be applied. It’s a two step process: 1) Christ death and 2) justification. Think of the Passover in Exodus. The lamb was killed, but the blood has to be applied to the door post. I wasn’t justified in 33 AD, I was justified when I came to faith.
Would the Arminian say that it was God’s intention to save all, but man would not allow it?
God stipulated a condition for salvation: faith. God wants all to come to faith and be saved. (1 Tim 2:4) We can’t leave out the fact that God wants all to come to the knowledge of the truth (i.e. come to faith).
It also appears that you struggle with the fact that faith is a gift and if God does not give it then that person will not have it.
I agree that faith is a gift, but like normal gifts, we can reject or return it.
God be with you,
Dan
When we speak of "God's will" we may be discussing one of three things - 1) His decretive will (e.g., His "hidden will," as Luther put it, related to the divine decrees); 2) His preceptive will (e.g., His commands, moral will); 3) His will of disposition.
I have heard of two wills before, but not three… Hum… Do any of these three wills contradict each other? I.E. God both wills and doesn’t will Christ’s murder.
The atonement is sufficient for all, meaning that if "Bob" (who is 'non-elect') would turn from his sin and embrace Christ by faith, he would be saved. He won't, though, because of his own sinful condition.
Where did he get his sinful condition from? Adam? Why did Adam sin? Ultimately, doesn’t the chain of sufficient causes start with God?
Without LFW, man isn’t the point of origin for his actions, and the source can be traced back to God.
God be with you,
Dan
So the cross has provided the enabling of all men to respond to the gospel or is more needed?
True that some Calvinist believe in eternal justification, but not all of them do. Were your sins paid for on the cross or weren’t they? Granted the blood would still have to be applied, but both sides agree to that.
Also, since faith is a gift and you say that one can reject or return that gift are you saying that faith is given to all men? Since we know that “natural man” cannot understand things of the spirit would it not be safe to say that all men would reject the gift of faith, this would lead you to the conclusion that all men have been spiritually awakened that empowers them to understand the spiritual things. Would this be the Arminian position?
Peace
So the cross has provided the enabling of all men to respond to the gospel or is more needed?
There’s more. Prevenient grace also illuminates their mind and inclines their will, enabling them to respond.
True that some Calvinist believe in eternal justification, but not all of them do.
I don’t think eternal justification can be reconciled with the passages that teach justification by faith.
Were your sins paid for on the cross or weren’t they? Granted the blood would still have to be applied, but both sides agree to that.
Christ’s death was a sufficient penal substitute for the sins of the whole world, but again, Christ’s work has two parts. Christ must also ask the Father to graciously accept His death on their behalf (i.e. intercede for them). Christ only intercedes for believers, so only believers end up saved.
I am not sure I understand how you could agree that Christ’s blood needs to be applied. Suppose Christ’s death, by itself, paid for someone’s sin, such that they no longer have to pay for their sin in hell. Does this person need Christ’s blood to be applied to him? I don’t think so. He already doesn’t have to pay for his sins in hell.
Also, since faith is a gift and you say that one can reject or return that gift are you saying that faith is given to all men? Since we know that “natural man” cannot understand things of the spirit would it not be safe to say that all men would reject the gift of faith, this would lead you to the conclusion that all men have been spiritually awakened that empowers them to understand the spiritual things. Would this be the Arminian position?
Hum… I am not sure there is one and only one Arminian view of prevenient grace, so what I am going to give is my own view of the details of how this all works…
Without any grace, man is unable to do anything good.
The first instrument of prevenient grace is oddly the law. The law points out that we are doing wrong. Everyone, at some point in their life, figures out that they are sinning. They can either respond to this illumination given by God, by either ignoring it, in which case they go back to their ignorant and hardened state (i.e. the without grace state described above), or they can respond by struggling. If they struggle, they may further be illuminated by God to realize they are failing miserably. Again, they can ignore it, but if not they may be further illuminated by God to realize they are under God’s just judgment, and they may come to fear God’s wrath. Further they may come to realize they are in need of a Savior. At this point, God’s instrument, the law, has done its part.
The next instrument that takes over is the Gospel. God calls those who, through the law, have come to realize they need a Savior. They are illuminated by God to the truths about Christ and forgiveness and so forth… and God also enables them to believe.
At every stage, we can say two things: 1) man can’t make any progress to the next stage without God and 2) man is able to reject and go back.
God be with you,
Dan
At times it would appear so. God forbids murder yet fulfills His purpose at the cross through the unlawful murder of His Son (Acts 2:23-24). This doesn't mean that God approves of such sinful action, but rather He accomplishes His purposes despite (and through) the rebellious choices/actions of individuals (e.g., Gen. 50:20). There is, of course, then the question of election and the free offer. Which is it?! I say, "Both!" Can I understand it completely? No, but then I'm not required to understand so much as I'm required to believe.
Yes, one's sinful condition ultimately comes from Adam (just as one's righteousness before God ultimately comes from Christ - Romans 5, etc.).
Ultimately, yes, the "buck stops" with God. Does this lessen human responsibility along the way? None whatsoever. Adam sinned because he chose to do so, yet it was all within the purpose and plan of God. Who hardened Pharaoh's heart? The Scripture affirms both that he did it himself and that God did it. Who will stand responsible on the Day of Judgment? Pharaoh, because God let him have exactly what he wanted - his own willful way.
Philip:
I contend that your statement, "True that some Calvinist [sic] believe in eternal justification, but not all of them do," is flawed (if that wasn't original with you on this thread, I apologize). No 'Calvinists' believe in eternal justification, but hyper-Calvinists do. I realize I'm being a bit picky on this point, and that the hypers would argue fiercely with my point, nonetheless, those in line with Calvin, Dort, etc., agree with our Arminian brothers on the necessity of faith. We disagree, obviously, no how the aspect of faith and and its exercise is fleshed out. I would say the main difference is that 'Arminians' affirm prevenient grace, whereas we 'Calvinists' do not.
At times it would appear so. God forbids murder yet fulfills His purpose at the cross through the unlawful murder of His Son (Acts 2:23-24).
Seems to me simpler to say God permits things He doesn't want, then to say He wants and doesn't want them. God permits evil in His plans to accomplish a greater good.
God be with you,
Dan
Did God "cause" the sinful murder of His Son? That is, did He actively harden the hearts of the Pharisees and the Romans so they would put Christ to death? No! Did He permit it? Yes. But He didn't merely permit it, He ordained it; by His providence, He orchestrated His purposes and His plan for redemption. Quite a bit of tension there, and I would say, even mystery. Free agents making free choices all in accordance with the purpose of God. Absolute human responsibility, absolute divine sovereignty.
Isaiah 53:4,10 - "...Smitten by God, and afflicted....Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief."
Acts 2:23 - "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death."
However, the sticking point is Scripture, isn't it?
Yep, the controversy is in the interpretation (i.e. how to get the pieces to fit together).
But He didn't merely permit it, He ordained it; by His providence, He orchestrated His purposes and His plan for redemption. Quite a bit of tension there, and I would say, even mystery. Free agents making free choices all in accordance with the purpose of God. Absolute human responsibility, absolute divine sovereignty.
On that, I think we both can agree, dear brother.
God be with you,
Dan