My son's recital at BJU music camp

This is a video of my son's recent recital at a Bob Jones University summer music camp. I'm very proud of Aaron, as you can imagine. The performance is not his best (he makes a couple of unfortunate mistakes right at the end of the piece), but it is certainly his bravest (he was performing in front of an audience of very talented teenage musicians). Even with the mistakes, it is still glorious music. The piece is Alexander Scriabin's Etude in D-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 12, "Patetico." Enjoy!

The Humor of E. B. White

I was reading my copy of Strunk & White today. I came across an entry that made me chuckle:

Try. Takes the infinitive: "try to fix it", not "try and fix it." Students of the language will argue that try and has won through and become idiom. Indeed it has, and it is relaxed and acceptable. But try to is precise, and when you are writing formal prose, try and write try to.

I note that the original Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. is available online at no cost.

And I was a bit dismayed to see that Strunk's preference for omitting the comma before Jr. in a name is not followed by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article about Strunk is entitled "William Strunk, Jr." Strunk thought the comma illogical; in this case it is also ironical. "See rule 3," he would have said.

Lions and Donkeys and Apes, Oh My!

While I was doing some research on Calvin v. Heshusius for my Controversial Calvinism blog, I ran across this extremely tantalizing little tidbit. Referring to Tileman Heshusius, Calvin writes (quite caustically) the following:

In like manner this fine writer, to seize upon the minds of the readers, collects from his master Melancthon apt and elegant sentences by which he may ingratiate himself or give an air of majesty, just as if an ape were to get clothed in purple, or an ass to cover himself with a lion’s skin.

Has Calvin been reading C. S. Lewis?? Oh my!

P.S. I found the quote on an online resource. The quote could be found (I presume) in Theological Treatises but I don't know the page number. It should be near the beginning of his treatment of his dispute with Heshusius on the Lord's Supper.

Technorati Tags: John Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia

Move to Controversial Calvinism

For the record, I am going to begin posting my theological musings of a controversial nature on a new blog, entitled "Controversial Calvinism." The url is http://controversialcalvinism.blogspot.com I will be moving most of the posts here over to that blog ... eventually. This space will be reserved for thoughts on culture, chess, gardening, pie, and maybe pi ... all from my unique Christian perspective.

Thoughts About Limited Atonement

After my recent (from the perspective of the denizens of the blogosphere, “recent” might be a slight exaggeration here) articles on this blog about W. G. T. Shedd’s interpretation of 1John 2:2, I paused to ponder the implications of Shedd’s view for a Calvinistic approach to soteriology. Specifically, I asked myself why we speak of limitation in the atonement.

First let me try to defuse the bomb before I throw it. I do affirm that God had a special intention for the elect in delivering Christ up to death. I do affirm that Christ intended to do the will of His Father, and that this obedience included obedience to the special intent of God to save the elect through the death Christ died. I do affirm that God actively regenerates the elect and none others through the reading and preaching of the scriptures and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Apart from this work of grace, no man will desire or accept the salvation offered in Christ. The work of the Holy Trinity has special reference to those whom God has chosen from eternity. Eph. 1:4

On the other hand, I also affirm that God had a general or universal intent in the atonement. I believe I have established from Shedd’s work that he too believed there was a universal intent in Christ’s sacrifice.

For the Scriptures everywhere describe God as naturally and spontaneously merciful and declare that all the legal obstacles to the exercise of this great attribute have been removed by the death of the Son of God 'for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2). * * * Now the only obstruction, and it is a fatal one, to the exercise of this natural and spontaneous mercy of God is the sinner's hardness of heart.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3d. edition, pages 930-931.

Calvin, in his comment to 2 Peter 3:9, says something similar:

So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost.

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Comment to 2 Peter 3:9.

If we have this view of the grace of God — that God would be merciful to all and that the only obstruction to the exercise of God’s mercy is the sinner’s hard heart — then it seems inappropriate to speak of limitation in the atonement. When we speak of the grace of God, we ought to speak of the fullness of his grace to the elect, and the wideness of the offer of his grace to all men. To speak of limitation in the atonement is to speak of man’s sinfulness, of the rejection of grace proffered, not of God’s love and mercy. Rather than speak of a limitation in God’s grace, we ought to speak of what Calvin called that "free promise in Christ," the knowledge of which is the foundation of saving faith. Institutes 3.2.7. Rather than speak of a limitation of God’s grace, we ought, as the church of Jesus, to speak words of invitation to all men:

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Revelation 22:17.

There is, of course, a limitation. But let us keep in mind what Shedd taught us: the limitation is not in God, but in the sinner who will not have the salvation offered to all in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for all.

W. G. T. Shedd on 1John 2:2 - Conclusion

In the Editor’s Preface to the third edition of W. G. T. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology, Alan W. Gomes writes that "modern evangelical systems tend to be weaker precisely at those points where Shedd’s is most robust." In this blogger’s opinion, the statement is true with respect not only to modern evangelicalism, but with respect to modern evangelical Calvinism as well. Today’s Calvinism has a view of God that is myopic, emphasizing the sovereignty of God to the exclusion of His love of all mankind. Shedd’s view of the mercy of God would tend to counteract that defect. Here is a marvelous passage, in which Shedd extols the mercy of God as shown in the free offer of the gospel:

The Christian gospel--the universal offer of pardon through the self-sacrifice of one of the divine persons--should silence every objection to the doctrine of endless punishment. For as the case now stands, there is no necessity, so far as the action of God is concerned, that a single human being should ever be the subject of future punishment * * *

"For the Scriptures everywhere describe God as naturally and spontaneously merciful and declare that all the legal obstacles to the exercise of this great attribute have been removed by the death of the Son of God 'for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2). In the very center of the holy revelations of Sinai, Jehovah proclaimed it to be his inherent and intrinsic disposition to be 'merciful and gracious, long-suffering, forgiving iniquity and transgression' (Exod. 34:6-7). Nehemiah, after the exile, repeats the doctrine of the Pentateuch: 'You are a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, and of great kindness' (Neh. 9:17). The psalmist declares that 'the Lord is ready to forgive and plenteous in mercy unto all that call upon him' (Ps. 86:5); 'the Lord takes pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy' (147:11). From the twilight of the land of Uz, Elihu, feeling after the promised Redeemer if haply he might find him (Job 33:23), declares that 'God looks upon men, and if any say, I have sinned and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not; he will deliver his soul from going down to the pit, and his life shall see the light' (33:27-28). The Bible throughout teaches that the Supreme Being is sensitive to penitence and is moved with compassion and paternal yearning whenever he perceives any sincere spiritual grief. He notices and welcomes the slightest indication of repentance: 'The eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy' (Ps. 33:18); 'whoso confesses and forsakes his sins shall have mercy' (Prov. 28:13). The heavenly Father sees the prodigal when he is 'yet a great way off.' He never 'breaks the bruised reed' nor 'quenches the smoking flax.' If there be in any human creature the broken and contrite heart, divine pity speaks the word of forgiveness and absolution. The humble confession of unworthiness operates almost magically upon the eternal. Incarnate mercy said to the heathen 'woman of Canaan' who asked for only the dogs' crumbs, 'O woman, great is your faith; be it unto you even as you will' (Matt. 15:28). The omnipotent is overcome whenever he sees lowly penitential sorrow. As 'the foolishness of God is wiser than man,' so the self-despairing helplessness of man is stronger than God. When Jacob says to the infinite one, 'I am not worthy of the least of all your mercies,' yet wrestled with him 'until the breaking of the day,' he becomes Israel and 'as a prince has power with God' (Gen. 32:10, 24, 28). When Jehovah hears Ephraim 'bemoaning himself,' and saying, 'Turn me, and I shall be turned,' he answers, 'Ephraim is my dear son. I will surely have mercy upon him' (Jer. 31:18, 20).

"Now the only obstruction, and it is a fatal one, to the exercise of this natural and spontaneous mercy of God is the sinner's hardness of heart."

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3d. edition, pages 930-931. In Shedd’s theology of 1John 2:2, we see a well-rounded view of God’s love for the whole world as expressed in Christ’s expiatory work.

W. G. T. Shedd on 1John 2:2 – Part III

In Shedd’s view of Christ’s expiation for the sins of mankind, the work of Christ is not merely theoretical. Christ has done all that is necessary for the sins of man to be forgiven. In relation to God’s justice, Christ’s atonement cancels the claims of the law against the human race:

In the third place, atonement, either personal or vicarious, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3d. edition, page 724. This being the case, the gospel can be freely offered to all:

The atonement is sufficient in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and this fact should be stated because it is a fact. There are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinite atonement has not been provided. All things are now ready. Therefore the call to come is universal. It is plain, that the offer of the atonement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy. The extent to which a medicine is offered is not limited by the number of persons favorably disposed to buy it and use it. Its adaptation to disease is the sole consideration in selling it, and consequently it is offered to everybody.

Shedd, page 750. The man who refuses the benefit of what Christ has done effectively limits the atonement by his unbelief. Christ has done all that is necessary for the salvation of every man as far as God’s justice is concerned. For those who refuse the gracious offer of Christ’s expiation, justice will be satisfied another way.

W. G. T. Shedd on 1John 2:2 -- Part II

In this series of articles on the theology of 1John 2:2, I am attempting to show that there is a substantial minority report among Calvinistic and reformed theologians on the meaning of "the whole world" in that passage. In my previous blog entry on this topic, I gave W. G. T. Shedd’s view of limited atonement: "Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited." Because Shedd had that view, he was at liberty to see universal aspects of Christ’s atonement in those passages of scripture that speak of the atonement as universal.

In describing the effect produced on the conscience of believers by the reconciliation of God and man, Shedd does not hesitate to say that Christ died for the whole world:

The human conscience is the mirror and index of the divine attribute of justice. The two are correlated. What therefore God's justice demands, man's conscience demands. "Nothing," says Matthew Henry, "can pacify an offended conscience but that which satisfied an offended God." The peace which the believer in Christ’s atonement enjoys, and which is promised by the Redeemer to the believer, is the subjective experience in man that corresponds to the objective reconciliation in God. The pacification of the human conscience is the consequence of the satisfaction of divine justice. God’s justice is completely satisfied for the sin of man by the death of Christ. This is an accomplished fact: "Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2). The instant any individual man of this world of mankind believes that divine justice is thus satisfied, his conscience is at rest. The belief is not needed in order to establish the fact. Whether a sinner believes Christ died for sin or not will make no difference with the fact, though it will make a vast difference with him: "If we believe not, yet he abides faithful: he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. 2:13). Unbelief cannot destroy a fact. Should not a soul henceforth believe on the Son of God, it would nevertheless be a fact that he died an atoning death on Calvary and that this death is an ample oblation for the sin of the world. But it must be remembered that the kind of belief by which a man obtains a personal benefit from the fact of Christ’s death is experimental, not historical or hearsay. * * * And a sinful man may have no skeptical doubt that the death of Christ on Mount Calvary has completely expiated human guilt and may even construct a strong argument in proof of the fact and still have all the miserable experience of an unforgiven sinner, may still have remorse and the fear of death and the damnation of hell.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3d. edition, pages 708-9, emphasis added.

One need not be puzzled by Shedd’s statements; he simply saw two aspects to the work of Christ: the universal expiation and the particular application. Part III from Shedd will follow in a few days.

W. G. T. Shedd on Unlimited Atonement and Limited Redemption

1 John 2:2 has always been a source of difficulty for Calvinists; perhaps less so for the theologian and scholar than for the laity who has to live with the arguments and exegesis proposed by the theologians and scholars. The difficulty is this: while Calvinists hold that Christ is the propitiation only for the elect, 1 John 2:2 says that Christ is the propitiation for the world. If you’re reading this and you're a Calvinist, you likely have been in the position where your Arminian friend contemplates you smugly while you finger your collar, squirming under the pressure of the "kosmos" in this verse.

We have, of course, our talking points on passages such as this. All doesn’t mean all, "kosmos" refers to the elect rather than all men, John was addressing elect believers, etc.: such arguments are the stock in trade for the modern evangelical Calvinist.

James White, in a recent brief article on Revelation 5:9-10, says this of the Arminian and Calvinist understanding of 1 John 2:2:

The understanding presented by the Arminian is as follows: Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all Christians, and not for Christians only, but also for every single person in all places and at all times. The Reformed understanding is that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and in all places.

In this first series of essays, I hope to show that the "Reformed" understanding of 1John 2:2 is not monolithic; there is a minority report, which offers a sensible alternative to the interpretation offered by many modern reformed theologians.

W. G. T. Shedd, a Presbyterian Pastor and theologian of the 19th century, wrote a 3-volume work entitled Dogmatic Theology. In this work, Shedd affirms a species of limited atonement, though he quarrels with the ambiguous use of certain terms associated with the dispute, and thus affirms, to be precise, limited redemption. I quote from the third edition, a much-improved one-volume edition of Shedd's work, issued by P&R Publishing in 2003.

Since redemption implies the application of Christ’s atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election. The use of the term redemption, consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of "atonement," and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the scriptural texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement and limited redemption cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application.

Page 743.

Thus, for Shedd, there are both universal and particular aspects of Christ's work, and that helps us to understand the texts that speak universally. As Calvinists we ought not to overstate our case or take alarm at the idea that Christ died for all. More to come from Shedd soon.

James White on Revelation 5

Introduction

In a recent blog on his website, James White posted some comments about Revelation 5:9. A friend of mine (on Calvin and Calvinism, an excellent Yahoo email discussion group for those who wish to have a slightly lower rung of the Calvinist ladder to stand on) posted a criticism of White’s initial essay and challenged the group to examine the essay for logical fallacies. I undertook the challenge for the sake of the exercise. When I posted the results of my effort to the discussion group, it prompted a response from Dr. White. I intend to address the matter in several blog entries over the coming weeks. For the sake of reference, I am posting (with minor revisions) the substance of my original criticism of Dr. White’s brief essay on Revelation 5:9-10. (In reviewing my original criticism for this blog entry, I am not so happy with the section on formal fallacies and would delete it altogether [though I stand by the wishful thinking fallacy]. But fair’s fair ... I won’t dress up my faults. Just skip that part if your eyes glaze over.)

Though I am critical of Dr. White’s reasoning in this essay (and in several to follow), I mean no disrespect to Dr. White or those who share his views. My goal is to be critical of faulty reasoning and exegesis, while maintaining the standard of Colossians 4:6.

White's original post

In Dr. White's defense, his blog essay on Revelation 5:9 was not posted as an exercise in exegesis or logic, but as a devotional thought to encourage the troops. He was preaching to the choir about the truths of reformed theology as compared to the errors of seat-of-the-pants Arminianism. But ask yourselves whether this is a justification for a fallacious presentation. Even a brief devotional thought should consist of a careful presentation of a proper reading of the scripture. So I present this list of fallacies not in the manner of piling on, or to be critical of a servant of God (which James White certainly is -- I honor him for it) but for the exercise and as an admonition to careful thinking and writing. Dr. White’s comment is about this verse:

Revelation 5:9-10 KJV And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

My criticism

I present White's original post with my assessment of the fallacies (as they occur) in [brackets]. (If you want to check up on me or learn more about the particular fallacies involved, I recommend fallacyfiles.org, where you can find a wealth of information about reasoned argumentation.)

One of the glorious truths [argumentum ad superbium] of Scripture is that Jesus is not a hypothetical Savior [straw man], a mere wanna-be who fails with regularity [argumentum ad odium]. No, we proclaim a powerful Savior who perfectly does the will of the Father [black-or-white fallacy (in addition to other previously-mentioned fallacies)]. His death did not make the purchase of men from every tribe, tongue, people and nation possible, it actually accomplished that which the Triune Majesty intended. Why so many long for an "atonement" that atones not [straw man] I will never understand, but when they make reference to the extent of the atonement, point them to this text that defines what it means to speak of the "world" in a New Testament context [formal fallacies].

The Informal Fallacies

I counted four informal fallacies. Each of the informal fallacies occurred more than once, but I didn't indicate every such occurrence. I put the [formal fallacies] at the end to indicate the possible existence of one or more formal fallacies. The informal fallacies already noted can be reduced to three: appeal to emotion (either positive or negative); straw man argument; black-or-white fallacy. The appeal to emotion is understandable when dealing with issues that lie so close to our hearts. When speaking of God and the salvation wrought by Christ, it is quite natural to speak in emotive terms. The impropriety lies in using the emotion as an argument to convince the reader of the truth of some proposition. We love God and ought to love God. But the love of God ought not to be used as an argument for some particular reading of scripture. Our love for God is seen not in adopting some particular view, but in adopting the true view. Emotion ought to be used for adoration of true propositions, not to persuade of the truthfulness of a particular proposition. The black-or-white fallacy (a/k/a false dilemma) is easy to fall into and ought to be studiously avoided. The straw man arguments are more problematic, as they involve a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of an opponent's position. One might be of the opinion that Arminianism logically entails a non-atoning atonement, but this would be strongly denied by the Arminians and it is problematic whether the words "atonement that atones not" are meaningful at all.

The search for formal fallacies

In considering the formal fallacies, we have to distill the language to arrive at brief logical statements. Here's the first argument as I see it:

Christ's satisfaction is extolled in Revelation 5:9; Only a satisfaction that saves all for whom Christ died is worthy of praise; Therefore all for whom Christ died will be saved.

This is a valid argument (or could be made valid with minor adjustment in language and form). The difficulty is that the minor premise is not known to be true. In fact, the minor premise is really the question in dispute with the Arminian and is thus question-begging. Begging the question is (or should be) formally valid but informally invalid. So in examining the first argument for a formal fallacy, we found a fourth informal fallacy. The second argument, as I see it, is this:

Christ has redeemed some of all men to God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation; some of all men redeemed from every tribe and tongue and people and nation can be referred to as "the world"; Therefore the New Testament word "world" should be seen as some of all men, not all men without exception.

For simplicity's sake, we can specify that the argument boils down to this:

"Some men" are from every tribe; every tribe is "the world"; therefore "the world" means "some men."

This is interesting. Because "some men" can be called "the world," what does that mean about the meaning of "the world" in some other context? First, we have to note that John does not use kosmos here, so this example doesn't help determine the proper meaning of "kosmos" in, for example, John 3:16. This is wishful thinking on White's part -- a fifth informal fallacy. This last argument is probably formally invalid as well, though it depends very much on how one words it. So I'll stop at this point. My count is five informal fallcies (not counting repetitions of the same fallacy), plus a possible formal fallacy.

References

You may be interested in the following links: first, James White’s original blog entry on Revelation 5:9-10; second, my original (unedited) post to the Calvin and Calvinism list in response can be found here; third, White’s subsequent response to my criticism can be found here. If you want to join the Calvin and Calvinism discussion group, cick here to join.