Michael Spencer continues to flounder in his position on the Atonement. Earlier today he said the following: But the problem is that the question of “world” cannot escape- no matter what the exegesis- the question of my neighbor. Does God love him? If God’s love is differentiated, why? Can I say to a roomful of students tomorrow morning, “God loves all of you IN JESUS, and he is salvation. Believe!” He goes on the talk about the “bad” Calvinist and the “good” Calvinist. Of course he ends his comments by envoking my name again saying, “The reason Jason says I am “mocking the Gospel” is that he believes “L” is the Gospel.”
Michael, I will respond here since the BHT is too afraid to allow comments. Your “smarts” have blinded you. Maybe you have taught philosophy* for so long that you no longer can think clearly about theology. What I mean is that the doctrine of Limited Atonement is connected to the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. Roman Catholicism did not teach Limited Atonement because it has a false view of the Atonement. Luther and many of the early reformers did not teach Limited Atonement for the same reason they had not reformed in other areas. But I do not fault them at all. Calvin’s teaching laid the groundwork for fully reforming the doctrines of the Atonement and Beza continued it. Since then all Reformed theologians believed in some degree of a limited atonement and considered it part of the Gospel, because the atonement is part of the Gospel.
Richard Baxter, who is considered a 4-point Calvinist, even said, “Christ therefore died for all, but not for all equally, or with the same intent, design, or purpose.”
The following is a perfect example of a 5 point Calvinist named Charles Spurgeon preaching to the lost without compromising any truth of the Gospel. The title and subject of his sermon was “Particular Redemption” in which he preached Limited Atonement as part of the Gospel. He concluded with the following:
“I pause once more; for I hear some timid soul say — “But, Sir, I am afraid I am not elect, and if so, Christ did not die for me.” Stop, sir! Are you a sinner? Do you feel it? Has God the Holy Spirit made you feel that you are a lost sinner? Do you want salvation? If you do not want it, it is no hardship that it is not provided for you; but if you really feel that you want it, you are God’s elect. If you have a desire to be saved, a desire given you of the Holy Spirit, that desire. is a token for good. If you have begun believingly to pray for salvation, you have therein a sure evidence that you are saved. Christ was punished for you. And if now you can say,“Nothing in my hands I bring simply to the cross I cling,” you may be as sure you are God’s elect as you are sure of your own existence; for this is the infallible proof of election — a sense of need and a thirst after Christ.”
[Spurgeon, C. H. -- The Death of Christ: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 4- #173]
Michael, even if you don’t ever come to believe in limited atonement, I would implore you not to mock gospel preachers any more in the future. Your confusion is no excuse and you are only heaping up judgment upon yourself. And had you not done so publically, I would not publically speak this way to you.
[*see comments]
With grace and benevolence,
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
I will post all comments, but do expect delays. I am watching LSU’s TWO games today and going out to eat with my lovely wife near Newport Beach in Orange County.
I don’t teach philosophy.
Jason, I have gotten so much out of these posts the last few days. I know that you have been working hard to keep them going and I hope that you continue. It seems that Michael Spencer just lives in his own little world and makes it up as he goes along. He has no concept of the amount of damage he does to the gospel and Christians. BHT won’t let you leave a comment and Michael rejects theology. Well it seems that no one over there wants to be held accountable. I hope, Jason that you at least keep them accountable over here. I’m looking forward to your next post.
I’m sorry, Spencer, what was it that you teach?
Chris, thanks for the kind words. I agree with most of what you said, but I hope Michael hasn’t damaged the ministry of the gospel to either those who associate or read his internet writings or to those guys who are in his classes.
>He has no concept of the amount of damage he does to the gospel and Christians.
Do you mean the Gospel or Calvinism, Mr. Hinton?
Somewhere I have a bio page, but if you can’t find it, read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/27/weu227.xml
Michael, I’m not going to pretend to know what your view of Calvinism is but in my view they are one and the same. When dealing with people in the church that have issues and are in need of counseling, some have been damaged by bad teaching and preaching. When I speak of the damage, make no mistake, I’m speaking of the individuals that have been hurt in that context. Let me make myself perfectly clear, I am a five point Calvinist and believe in the complete sovereignty of God, which means that I also believe in limited atonment. I believe that God’s sovereign plan is being carried out and I can see His hand at work. I don’t believe that we can do anything to damage that. It is, however, very important for people who are in the midst of a trial or tribulation in their life to understand that God is in complete control no matter how it looks or how we feel. At the end of my life, I will be comforted by the fact that no matter what mistakes I have made in my life, God’s decreed will was carried out exactly the way He intended it. I am not going to have to wonder if I had done something different, maybe more would have come to Christ or lived a better life. No matter what our disagreements are, I thank God for the furtherance of His gospel in His ministry. Philippians 1:15-18
Please clarify, Jason. Do you believe that if one does not preach limited atonement, then he is not preaching the gospel?
I can’t imagine that being your contention. J. I. Packer (Evangelism and Sovereignty of God, 69) expressly notes just the opposite of that position. He states that “we have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement; our job is to point them to the living Christ, and summon them to trust in Him.”
I would appreciate clarification on this when feasible for you. If you note a “bite” in my tone, rest assured it is due to the success of LSU.
Peace!
Eric, thanks for the question. First and foremost… how bout dem tigers!!!! But concerning your questions, I want to be clear. In one sense, if a person never preaches the extent of the atonement then he is not preaching the whole of Scripture. In another sense, I do not content that a person should preach the controversies of Limited Atonement all the time, in all gospel sermons, in every setting. I only preach the issue when the text requires it. My point in these posts have been two-fold.
1. I think many theologians today are universalist in their theology which is contrary to the truth of Biblical soteriology.
2. I think many theologians who do believe that the extent of the Atonement was definite in its purpose are too either too scared to preach it or believe that they have a right to skip for whatever reason.
(Notice I said many, not all. I thank God for courageous men of God who will graciously and lovingly preach the whole of the Gospel throughout their ministry.)
And before you tell me that not all Calvinist believe in “L” let me remind you that all Calvinist believe that the Atonement had some degree of limitation. I will expand on this later this week as time allows.
And by the way, asking people to trust in Christ is in effect preaching a limited atonement. Stay tuned and I will explain.
Again thanks for the comments.
Please clarify, Jason. Do you believe that if one does not preach limited atonement, then he is not preaching the gospel?
I can’t speak for Jason, but if he and I are remotely alike on this Eric, a proper way to frame teaching on the atonement is to assert that Christ died for sinners and a person must repent and place his faith in Him. If you assign penal substitution the primary place in your theory of atonement, then you should preach limited atonement from the pulpit, because if you don’t you end up affirming massively inconsistent propositions. Those in the SBC that do this and affirm general atonement wind up torturing the texts frequently.
I’d add that a genuine Amyraldian still limits the atonement. It is very difficult to hold to Amyraldianism and not limit the atonement. The “general” atonement in which they believe is a decree executed prior to creation, and there is a electing decree immediately after it, which is also executed prior to creation, so, in reality, the atonement is never intended for all persons, since the discriminatory decree is completed prior to creation, and the decree to apply the benefits flows from the discriminatory decree.
I would say that if you preach a view of the atonement that relates to the moral government view, you are very likely outside the bounds of orthodoxy. Evangelical Arminians, as a rule, assign some place to penal substitution in their preaching on the atonement. Wesley averred to moral govt. theory, but he assigned penal substitution to a secondary position in his soteriology. Non-evangelical Arminians tend to deny penal substitution altogether.
The assertion that persons shouldn’t be required to believe a particular view of the atonement in order to repent and believe in Christ when they respond to the gospel cuts both ways as well. Ironically, it is by far those who hold to General Atonement that violate this priniciple, for they tell men to believe Christ died for them.
A. Believing Christ died for you is more properly assigned to assurance, not conversion.
B. No evangelical plea in Scripture shows men told to believe Christ died for them.
C. Believing Christ died for you is really useless under the Arminian scheme anyway, for, on an Arminian theory of the will, nobody might believe anyway. All that is required for evangelism is the knowledge that Christ died for sinners, not that Christ died for you in particular. The way to know that Christ died for you is to repent and believe. The way to be certain God loves you redemptively is to repent and believe and cast yourself on His mercy.
Looking forward to more.
Jason,
I believe Eric’s question was “Do you believe that if one does not preach limited atonement, then he is not preaching the gospel?”
Just a straight up yes or no will do?
Further does calvinism=the gospel? If so, then the natural conclusion is that anyone who preaches less than the five points is not preaching the gospel. A very serious charge.
If so…………that means the vast majority of preachers throughout history have preached a false gospel. Since most Calvinists (unless one is huper-calvinist of the Gospel Standard type) believe in means, does God use that false non-calvinst gospel to save people? I have found that many Calvinists, particularly in Baptist ranks, were saved in Arminian Churches. What say you? Were they “really” saved? How about all those who were saved before Calvin (oh yes I forgot Augustine thought it up) and his followers defined Calvinism?
This debate reminds me of the one I used to hear in my KJVO days………unless you are are saved using the KJV you aren’t saved.
I do agree with you about preaching it when we come to it. Good exposition demands as much. Unfortunately, it is far too common in Calvinistic circles that sermons revolve around the five points. Sermons are routinely turned into a polemic for the system. Yes, I realize this is done in non-calvinistic Churches. It is a problem everywhere.
Most Calvinists will do a soft show dance around the calvinism=the gospel issue. The more honest ones will say YES. That’s why they spend so much time defending the five points. In their mind………..the gospel is at stake. I appreciate that. All of us must be diligent in defending the gospel.
At the end of the day……………the gospel of calvinism and the gospel of everthing else that is not calvinism are diametrically opposed to one another. No sense in trying to make peace because there can be no peace. This dog fight has been going on for 500 years. Everything that can be said has been said. Every book that can be written has been written.
And while we fight…………..the world goes to hell.
Bruce Gerencser
Thanks Gene for slightly expanding on that very important point I was alluding to that all Reformed Evangelicals believe in an Atonement that is limited in some degree. I say Amen to your comment and I look forward to the joy of expanding these thoughts further this week.
And Bruce, did you have a question for me or did you have a question for yourself? Surely you didn’t ask me a question and then answer for me and then rebuke me.
I suppose some further clarity on the subject is needed. If what you are suggesting is that we preach the doctrine of the extent of the atonement as we approach it in the text, then I would agree that we must not cower from dealing with the extent of the atonement; such as, “For this is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28). We must deal with this verse exegetically.
But, if what you are proposing is the presentation of the gospel message, borrowing the language of Jonathan Edwards, inviting people to “choose Christ” (Discourse V: The Excellencies of Christ), then I must disagree that we preach “particular redemption” or “general atonement.”
Again, taking my clues from Packer, I concur when he writes: “The gospel is not, ‘believe that Christ died for everybody’s sins, and therefore yours,’ any more than it is, ‘believe that Christ died only for certain people’s sins, and so perhaps not yours.’ The gospel is, ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for sins, and now offers you Himself as your Saviour.’ This is the message which we are to take to the world. We have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement; our job is to point them to the living Christ, and summon them to trust in Him.” (Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, 69)
Once again, I must vehemently reject all positive references to LSU Tigers!!
Thanks for the interaction.
Jason,
Actually, Eric asked the question & you never answered it … Bruce just brought up some more questions:
1. I believe Eric’s question was “Do you believe that if one does not preach limited atonement, then he is not preaching the gospel?” Just a straight up yes or no will do?
2. Further does calvinism=the gospel?
3. If so…………that means the vast majority of preachers throughout history have preached a false gospel. Since most Calvinists (unless one is huper-calvinist of the Gospel Standard type) believe in means, does God use that false non-calvinst gospel to save people?
4. I have found that many Calvinists, particularly in Baptist ranks, were saved in Arminian Churches. What say you? Were they “really” saved? How about all those who were saved before Calvin (oh yes I forgot Augustine thought it up) and his followers defined Calvinism?
Please let us know if you plan on answering any of these questions.
Peace,
Frankie
The only letters written in this controversy:
1) I wrote an email REPLY to Scott Hill. You can ask him why he wrote me first, and you can publish the email if you like. Unedited.
2) My note to Mr. Fields asking him to clarify his comment on this board.
If there are other letters, who are they to?
Mr. Robertson: Have you or have you not refused every comment I have ever sent you that mentioned Mark Driscoll’s new book with the words “emerging church” in the title?
As to this “L” business, I have posted SBTS professor’s Bruce Ware’s notes on his 4-point Calvinism. I have posted John Macarthur’s comments on the meaning of the word “world” in John 3:16. It’s clear that the preference here is to interact with me, not with others who are more capable of discussing the matter.
Calvinism=the Gospel? Spurgeon said so, right guys?
Arminians not saved? Find Matthew Macmahon (A Puritan’s Mind) who has a post called “The Arminian God is Not Worshippable.”
…all Calvinist[s] believe that the Atonement had some degree of limitation
Even more to the point, perhaps: all Christians believe that the Atonement had some degree of limitation, with the sole exception of Universalists — if they’re “Christian.” All without exception limit either its scope, its efficacy, or both.
Bruce, none of the questions you proposed deserve yes or no answers. We aren’t talking about do you like hotdogs. We are talking about the Gospel. Pigeon holing will not work around here.
“While we fight…..the world goes to hell” That is a nice summary of your view on soveriegnty. While I believe that a man must hear the Gospel to be saved, and that men are the means by which the Gospel is spread, I also believe that as Christ said, all that the Father has given me will come to me. So I highly doubt that our discussion of Particular Redemption will effect eternity to any great degree.
I deleted an earlier comment since Michael Spencer answered my question over at the iMonk – “BHT open to comments?” answer – no. But on another note Michael, I would strongly encourage serious dialogue here. I realize that there is a great temptation not to take these discussions seriously – especially when they become controversial, however, we should be able to come to the table of discussion and debate – especially when we are discussing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His precious work on the cross.
Can one preach reformed theology and never preach the gospel?
Can one preach the doctrines of grace and not preach the gospel?
Can one preach Calvinism and never preach the gospel?
Can one preach the gospel and at the same time deny the sovereign grace of God?
Can one preach the gospel and at the same time deny the depravity of man?
Can one preach the gospel and deny the substitutionary atonement?
oh yeah, that would be NO.
Now where are those hotdogs?
And Michael, you did often email me accusing me of not reading Mark Driscoll. I didn’t post your accusations out of common decency. You apparently missed the whole series of posts and comments we had about Mark’s church, beliefs, and blog. We even asked in Mark was a Fide-O-ite. In fact, Scott secured an interview with Mark.
So again, Michael, I have posted every comment you have sent me that was substantive and worthy of discussion. And I have mercifully rejected a few of your comments that were just not based on reality.
You do not need to thank me. Nor does, Michael.
(*insert friendly punch in the arm*)
Eric, did you see that LSU game against Texas? Man was that a great game or what?
Again, I must protest this vaunting of LSU. It is simply unbearable!
Scott,
The world goes to hell for want of hearing the gospel. Debates about limited atonement are meaningless, except to those who are arguing. Millions of people have been converted through the means of an Arminian gospel.
Eric asked a simple question that deserved a simple answer. “Do you believe that if one does not preach limited atonement, then he is not preaching the gospel?”
An honest Calvinist will answer NO!. Those who hem and haw, who squirm, realizing the horror of their doctrine, tend to never give a straight answer. Do Arminians preach a false gospel, false as in Paul’s declaration of “another gospel?” If so then, be clear. Make that clear in your associations with the SBC who for the most part (Ipastored in the sbc) preach an Arminian gospel. Why be a part of a group where the vast majority of the Churches preach a false gospel?
Before you write me off as a flaming Arminian…………might ask around a bit. I suspect I have made the Calvinism is the gospel comment a number of times (of which I have repented)
There is no way you can determine my view of sovereignty based on one statement. That would be pigeon holing, now wouldn’t it
But…………..for the record………….God is absolutely sovereign. Even Sovereign enough to give man a free will. For all the talk Calvinists give about God’s sovereignty………….it seems there are some areas HE is not sovereign in.
I regret getting into this discussion. I know nothing good comes from it. I sponsored a discussion list for years………….we beat this to death………….same discussion. Same result. Few converts. Many wounded. I am not saying it is impossible to discuss the issue but when it is couched in such a way that suggests those who don’t believe in limited atonement are preaching a defective or false gospel, the discussion is dead on arrival.
Many Calvinists believe that Arminians are intellectually inferior. “If only they knew what we knew then they would believe like we believe.” It seems impossible to some that someone can actually, with full intellectual function, believe something other than the doctrines of grace. Or that they can believe some modified form of them.
This is my last comment. Thank you for allowing me to participate.
Bruce Gerencser
Bruce, two comments and then I will let you go back to sharing the Gospel.
I find it interesting that you brought up the subject of Free Will. All Calvinist believe that man has Free Will. It is his free will that he makes all decisions he makes. It is in his free will that he chooses to sin. It is in his free will that refuses to acknowledge God and the things of God. It is in his totally depraved free will that he will not choose God because in his free will he doesn’t want to choose God. That is the miracle of grace and mercy revealed in salvation. That is why the real irony and difficulty of Romans 9:9-14 is not that he hated Esau, but that he loved Jacob. If Jacob had been left up to his depraved free will then he would be in Hell with Esau right now. Man has free will, and it is that very will that is sending him to hell.
Also, please to not in one breath say “God is absolutely sovereign” and then say “but there are some things HE is not sovereign over. That is an absurd statement. It cannot be that way. “A” cannot equal non “A”. Something can’t be absolute and not absolute at the same time. If God is sovereign then He is sovereign over everything. If there is one thing, no matter how small, that is outside his sovereignty then He is not sovereign over anything. That thing is God, because it is outside of His control. Sovereignty when speaking of God is absolute or it is not sovereignty. So either admit God is sovereign or say that he is not. You can’t have it both ways no matter how hard you try.
Bruce, sorry I have one more thing. Nevermind I will just post on it.
Bruce said-
“Eric asked a simple question that deserved a simple answer. “Do you believe that if one does not preach limited atonement, then he is not preaching the gospel?”"
“An honest Calvinist will answer NO! Those who hem and haw, who squirm, realizing the horror of their doctrine, tend to never give a straight answer. Do Arminians preach a false gospel, false as in Paul’s declaration of “another gospel?” If so then, be clear.”
Jason, Scott and Chris,
See, I’m not the only person who has thought this! I do feel kind of weird knowing that Mr. Spencer also quoted, in a negative light, the “Arminian God Is Not Worshippable” article. (Jason, this was pure coincidence I swear!)
“An honest Calvinist will answer NO! Those who hem and haw, who squirm, realizing the horror of their doctrine, tend to never give a straight answer. Do Arminians preach a false gospel, false as in Paul’s declaration of “another gospel?” If so then, be clear.”
A. Personally, I find an atonement that secures salvation for none and is powerless in and of itself to save the horrible doctrine.
B. Paul’s declaration of “another gospel” is quite clear. He’s not addressing synergism broadly as much as a denial of Sola Fide and a specific type of synergism.
C. Apropos B, your objection is invalid on exegetical grounds. You’re trying to conflate exegetical usage of “gospel” with dogmatic usage and then chastise Calvinists for failing to measure up…but Calvinists are appealing to dogmatic, not exegetical usage when they say “Calvinism is the gospel.” Ergo, you’ve made a category error in your argument as well.
D. Calvinism is the gospel by way of dogmatic usage, in that, as a comprehenisve, systematic soteriology it identifies the source of salvation, the condition of men, the nature of the atonement, the necessity of grace, and the assurance of salvation for all who will believe far more accurately than Arminianism. This is what Spurgeon meant. It is also a worldiview that shapes much of the way we view the world.
E. Arminianism is a mixture of truth and error as a system and a worldview. How can anybody look at historical theology and not see this? Arminianism is inherently Unitarian at a functional level. It puts, in its more Pelagian forms (like the easy believism of Dave Hunt)m both election and regeneration outside a chain effected by grace; only the cross is in view. Ergo, this is functional Unitarianism. In classic Arminianism, the kind with a real doctrine of prevenient grace (in the former this is explicitly equated with common grace, cf. Elmer Towns), a person is enabled to believe from a state of equipoise effected by grace, so, while regeneration is outside the chain of grace directly, indirectly it resides inside of it, because faith would not result in it apart from this grace. The Father, however, because He bases election on foreseen faith, is still outside the chain of grace. Ergo, this is “Bi-Nitarian.” It’s not without reason that Arminianism has historically flirted with Socinianism as a result of this. Let’s not forget the General Baptists and early Arminians in general turned to Socinianism relatively quickly, and it was only via the New Connection that they survived among Baptists. The crossroads of theological liberalism also tends to lie near or in Arminianism. Moreover, Arminianism tends toward neo-sacramentalism in Baptist churches where it takes hold, contrary to our eccelsiology. We do not affirm baptismal regeneration, yet so much emphasis is put on aisle walking and hand raising and sacramental prayers (decisional regeneration) that we end up creating neo-Campbellite sacraments of our own when we do this.
F. Apropos E, not all Arminians are of a stripe.
G. If you define “gospel” in exegetical terms, both Arminianism and Calvinism affirm the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the necessity of Sola Fide and personal conversion.
H. Apropos G, when “gospel” is defined in this manner, closer to exegetical usage, the essential issue addressed by the Gospel is that man is a sinner, under the condemnation of God. The Gospel never calls upon the unregenerate to believe that they are unable to believe. Rather, it calls upon us to recognize our guilt before God, and to see Christ’s sacrificial death as the sole remedy for our guilt and condemnation.
The Gospel message is about guilt, condemnation and forgiveness. It is not about “Who chose whom?”, or “Where does faith come from?” Gospel-faith is trust in the person of Christ, having the confidence that He, by means of His Substitutionary death, has borne our sin and is fully able to forgive everyone who calls upon Him for salvation. Gospel-faith recognizes that Christ saves only those who trust in Him. It does not necessarily recognize the truth that this trust is God-given. One need not know or believe that God is the one behind your repentance and faith to experience repentance and faith. One need not understand the nature of justification before he experiences it. One need not believe in eternal security in order to be eternally secure; one need not believe it is impossible to fall away and fail to persevere in the faith in order not to fall away and persevere in the faith. Ergo, in this sense, both Calvinism and Arminianism can be said to encapsulate the gospel.
Gene,
I had to read that twice to realize how brilliant it was!!