That Darn Calvin: A Response To Peter Lumpkins and Keith Schooley

I think dialog possesses the greatest potential for real communication.  Not debate, dialog.  For me, debate is like playing a ball game...a sporting event.  For example, when our Dawgs play their Vols in a sporting event, it's not to gain a better understanding of their team nor communicate our position.  It's to show them who's boss...to kick some butt...in short, to win.  And, to think that since it's "Christians" who debate, that they will not be in it for the competition it affords, is, from my vantage point, naive at best   >>>

Thus, a game--a debate--possesses one winner--the slickest moves, the best planned responses and answers, the art of the most sweat dropped during practice runs, the home-team advantage (packed audience with my supporters), etc.

A dialog on the other hand possesses two winners at minimum and is not performed before fans.  Rather it happens more times than not, spontaneously...two people made in God's image talk and hear one another. All win when authentic dialog happens.

For that reason--for dialog--I may periodically post a guest commentary.  The commentary may or may not be my view.  That's beside the point. Good or bad, fallacious or not, it's at least somebody's view--that somebody being a person made in God's image.

Thus, I have chosen to post a comment by Timotheos to one of my posts as a main feature for SBC Tomorrow.  Actually it addresses another post more thoroughly than mine written by Keith Schooley at the The Schooley Files.  Timotheos wrote well, argued well and his response oozes the kind of gracious dissent that should mark blogs, especially those whose authors name the name of Christ. I trust it stimulates dialog. 

With that, I am...

Peter

 That Darn Calvin

Hello Peter and Keith,

I hope you are prospering in the grace of our Lord today. I had mentioned earlier that I would take up a response to Keith Schooley's post on I Jn 2:2, and would do it at the beginning of this week, and now here it is the end...ah, well, c'est la vie. The best laid plans of mice and men...(by the way, where is that SelahV?)

In responding to Keith's post, and in our parley (I use the term loosely) over previous posts, I want to be clear on one point, which I'm sure will leave Volfan feeling a bit cheated and inconvenienced, if not convinced: I am not an apologist for Calvin, his successors nor "5 pointers" in general...although the unchaste manner with which Volfan brandishes the latter epithet might tempt one to own it simply because he does not - but it's only a fleeting temptation, brother Volfan ;~).

You, Petros, demonstrate what ought to be a truism regarding Calvin, which is, his successors have, in many instances, out done him. Such is the history of movements and followings. Your selection of readings from Calvin provide a moderated corrective to some of the excess that attaches itself to the man, and equally well demonstrates that not even the eminent Don himself - with all of his gifts and powers - was able to make easy work of Holy Writ. The Word ultimately submits neither to our interpretations nor our schemes, no matter how well conceived.

It would be a mistake, however, to draw from your selections the conclusion that Calvin still did not view the work of Christ in atonement as an actual remission of sin and as definite in its effect and scope. Calvin, not being the author nor proponent of systematic Calvinism, surely did not labor under the burden of propounding and protecting the system named for him. He was, in an important sense, no Calvinist. But he was, as Paul helm notes, "committed to definite atonement," though surely not in the familiar terms of today's Calvinist. We should not be to quick (nor happy) to run away with only part of Calvin's gown in our hands, ay?

Now a few thoughts on Keith Schooley's post regarding I Jn 2:2. First, I think Keith has provided some fine, thought provoking commentary on this passage. I appreciate it, if for no other reason than that it sharpens my own study and understanding of the word.

With regard to propitiation, John states that Jesus "Himself is the propitiation for our sins;" - that is, the actual sins of those to whom John writes have been taken away, and the present advocacy of Jesus on their behalf is predicated upon the actual removal of their sin. Concerning the actual text at hand, no "activators" which make the propitiation effective are under consideration in 2:2. As the Hebrews passage Keith cited shows, Jesus has "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Period. Hence, as the Advocate, Jesus ensures that the sin which He has put away through propitiation is not and will not - ever - be revisited. There is no chance that the Advocacy of Christ can fail because sin has actually been put away, once for all, and because of the nature of His priesthood, which is based upon an unending life. Because of the inseparable nature of His propitiation and advocacy which  verses 1-2 well establishe, the assertion that wrath could still be visited upon those for whom propitiation has been made is impossible - unless one is willing to postulate that Jesus, in fact, has an im-permanent priesthood, much like what we find in the Old Testament priesthood.

It is interesting, if not a little problematic, that Keith's notion that propitiated wrath can be revisited upon those for whom the propitiation was first made is drawn from the shadows of the Old Testament rather than the glory of the New. We should not be surprised to find such a state under the Old Covenant, for "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Hebrews 10:4. This is a deficiency of the Old which is not at all present in the New, in spite of Keith's assertion to the contrary by way of parable.

Without going into a lengthy explanation on the two parables cited by Keith, I hope it will be sufficient to note that neither parable has the atonement per se, in any respect, in view. These parables generally work to establish a single fundamental truth, which, in the case of the two mentioned by Keith, is neither the nature nor the scope of the atonement. Parables do not easily bear the weight that interpreters often put upon them, which I believe to be the case here. Furthermore, I have to squint in a very peculiar fashion at oblique angles in order to come close to seeing Keith's assertion that lack of proper wedding attire in Matthew 22:11 means "lack of proper response to the invitation." That just seems, well...extremely fanciful. Perhaps Luke 13:24 ("Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.") offers a better explanation of the scenario in Matthew 22:11-14 than Keith's statement.

I think it is also wise to bear in mind the audience to which Jesus' teachings were commonly addressed - Jews yet under the Old Covenant. This observation is not meant to blunt the point of truth, but rather to note that revelation has been given to men progressively. When Jesus came unto His own in the fullness of time, He came to the Jewish nation as one born under their covenant and law. When He spoke in parables, He spoke of the kingdom He came to bring near by His yet future propitiation. To superimpose New Covenant excellencies backwards over Old Covenant shadows is, I believe, unwarranted and anachronistic. New wine calls for new wineskins. Teachings which adhered to the Old were being fulfilled and passing away, and perhaps the greatest of these new truths was the nature, extent and effectiveness of His sacrifice over against the long, bloody and incomplete history of Old Testament sacrifice.

While I appreciate and agree with Keith's assertion that the Old Testament "sacrifice of propitiation only potentially, not inevitably, appeases the wrath of God," his reason for such an assertion is surely wide of the mark, for he states that, "The reason why [the OT sacrifice] is ineffective is solely located in the actions and attitude of the worshipper." On the contrary, Old Testament sacrifices were never meant to take away sin, but the sacrifice of Christ decidedly was and did. The promise of redemption in Christ cast its shadow over all OT sacrifices but came to its realized substance in the cross. The something "better" spoken of in Hebrews 11:39-40 is the New Covenant, ratified by both the body and blood of Messiah, and OT sacrifices are first and foremost made effective for Abraham's seed only in Christ, according to promise. Paul takes up this very truth in Galatians 3.

In light of the above discussion (which is by no means exhaustive), the concluding two paragraphs of Keith's post on I Jn 2:2 are not, I believe, well established. While virtually no one denies the critical place faith and repentance play in conversion, it seems to me most incredulous to contend that either the Father's acceptance of the Son's propitiation, or the Son's success in actually "obtain[ing] eternal  redemption," ultimately rests upon the activity of a sinner.

"It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-- that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." 1 Corinthians 1:30. Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

Comments

[Christopher Redman]

Timotheos,

Brother, if the Lord might grant me understanding to the extent you have spoken here, I would be much further in the journey of faith.

Chris

[Timotheos]

Hello Chris,

Thanks - you are very kind. I hope that your understanding of my post was not hindered by the semi-rambling manner in which I present my thoughts. This is a huge topic and requires careful thought - a practice which sometimes eludes me, he he he.

Grace to you,

Timotheos

Grace to you,

Timotheos

[Keith Schooley]

For what it's worth, I also thought Timotheos's observations were both well-thought-out and offered with much grace. As might be expected, I do have quibbles, which I've detailed on my own blog, and submitted a trackback here to easily get to the page.

For the Reader's Digest version, it seems to me that Timotheos ultimately begs the question of how one gets to the meaning of a virtual hapax legomenon (only two occurrences in the NT, both in 1 John). How are we to find out how John's original readers would have understood the word, if not to look in the OT? After all, they wouldn't have had access to John Murray's "Redemption--Accomplished and Applied" to find out what it meant! ;-)

[peter]

Dear Brother Timotheos,

Thank you for your response to my and Keith's post. And, also to Keith for posting a mini-version here of his full rejoinder to Timotheos at The Schooley Files (I encourage you to take a peek over there at their dialog).

I would dearly love to break in to the conversation between Timotheos and Keith. However, I very much enjoy Keith's responses. Besides, it is Keith's proposal they are discussing, not mine :)

I do want to post a few things in response to Timotheos.

First, while I agree wholeheartedly, Timotheos, that Calvin surely was not a "Calvinist" and that his students systematized his theology in such a manner as, in your words, "outdoing" Calvin himself, I wonder why you would bring that up. That happens to be my very point, my Brother!

So, what should we then call Calvinists today, if they have "outCalvined" Calvin? HyperCalvinist? I don't think so unless one is willing to have his tires slashed or a dead chicken in his mailbox :)

Well, how about Deluxe Calvinists? Nah...Or High-Octane Calvinists? Ummm...This problem it seems will continually haunt Calvinists who insist on Calvinism but who, under scruitiny, will abandon Calvin.

Moreover, you write: "Your selection of readings from Calvin provide a moderated corrective to some of the excess that attaches itself to the man..." Thank you, Timotheos. However, I am wondering how what you later write squares with the former statement: "We should not be to quick (nor happy) to run away with only part of Calvin's gown in our hands, ay?" But Timotheos: if you only take the part of Calvin you like or agree with, how is it not that you definitively are walking away with only a partial robe?

One final note to your very fine response to my post, Timotheos. You record in a lengthy section: "It would be a mistake, however, to draw from your selections the conclusion that Calvin still did not view the work of Christ in atonement as an actual remission of sin and as definite in its effect and scope...But he was, as Paul helm notes, "committed to definite atonement," though surely not in the familiar terms of today's Calvinist."

For me, Timotheos, to show, as Professor Helm believes, in the face of the evidence assembled on the original post, where over and over Calvin spoke of Christ dying for the human race, Calvin was nevertheless "committed" to definite atonement seems to me more than a stretch. Rather, it's imaginary. Plus, beyond merely his commentaries, his Institutes mention Christ dying for the race of men. For example, in Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 1, Calvin writes: "...all that he [Christ] has said and done for the salvation of the human race...".

But even more telling, Timotheos, my Brother, is Calvin's statement in contradistinction to your conclusion about his view of atonement. You write: "It would be a mistake, however, to draw...the conclusion that Calvin still did not view the work of Christ in atonement as an actual remission of sin..." Read closely Calvin's words and compare them with yours: "First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us...for, as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him."(Institutes, B3,C1, S1). This sounds very much like what both Keith and I have been saying about the atonement being provisionary in nature and not applicable until faith hooks us in. In fact, Calvin, in the very same passage concludes: "It is true that we obtain this by faith."

Schucks, Timotheos: Keith and I--at least at this juncture--are evidently more Calvinist than you! :)

I trust you have a great and peaceful day. With that, I am...

Peter

[Timotheos]

Good Morning Brethren,

Thanks for the rejoinder, Keith - I'm working on a follow up post, though it is evident that I am much slower on the "uptake" than you. If you would just slow down a dadgum minute...;~)

Your other posts in this thread were also very good, and required me to adjust my initial response to take into consideration your other posts in my response. I'll do my best to get that out here expeditiously.

Concerning the virtual "hapaxes," it just so happens that I have in my library a very rare copy of Murray's Redemption, recovered from an Alexandrian palimpsest, which of course would have been available to John and his readers. So there you have it! Let me know if you'd like a glimpse of it...Heh heh.

I will address the observation you mention above, but we are not really in disagreement. Though I see the OT finding its unique and often surprising fullfillments in the NT, I certainly do not think that the OT is out of bounds for our investigation into John's statements. Sorry if I construed such a notion in my previous post. Hopefully I can clarify that more fully in my next post. Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[Timotheos]

Hello Peter,

Just saw your post after my last. So here's a quickie answer. Most of what I typed in response to you was, in fact, agreement with you. The comment about the gown was a reference to any who would love to run off with pieces of Calvin's gown, all the while shouting they have the whole thing. All systems of theology (in my admittedly narrow experience) seem generally incapable of accounting neatly and completely for the bottomless depths of revelation. My study of Covenantal/Dispensational theology has made this fairly clear to me. It is difficult - if not a little painful - to try and force a five-fingered glove onto a seven-fingered hand. So, the reason I brought up that point (which was your very point) was to show we share a common point - though its application to us is somewhat dissimilar.

Though Calvin was, in some respects, no Calvinist, and the selections you quote are not unfavorable to your position on the atonement, I think you nevertheless still have pieces of the gown. Some might even conclude that Calvin contradicted himself, which I find neither strange nor rare. Even over a lifetime of sounding the depths of Scripture through the shifting lens of a mortal mind progressing to its own dissolution, the great Calvin could not maintain strict precision and consistency, even across the short span of his own life. We should not be surprised by this, as it will be the report after you and I are gone and others pore over our writings (if any others actually bother to look at what we have written).

I knew you were more Calvinist than me, but I'm not at all sure what that means...he he.

I think we should call Calvinists who outstrip Calvin, um...zealous...or maybe "Calvinites" (in contrast to the more classic "Calvinist.")

Grace,

Timotheos

[volfan007]

peter,

would you consider giving your thoughts on 2 peter 2:1 for the five pointers to see? this verse seems to be a very clear verse against limited atonement as the five pointers see it.

volfan007

[Keith Schooley]

Peter - Given the venue, I'm honored to be named as an honorary Calvinist! (It's fitting that this happened completely without my knowledge and cooperation--and yet I feel irresistably drawn to accept the honor!) Ah, feels like seminary days again.

Timotheos - Don't let the speed of my replies deter you. As I wrote elsewhere, well-considered over time is much better than ill-considered and speedy. I just happen to have a wierd schedule where I can put a lot of time into blogging, and it's my sole creative/theological outlet at the moment.

[peter]

Keith,

Sorry, my Brother Keith. I could not resist the urge to lump us both in with the old Geneva Reformer...

Timotheos,

I don't know. I feel Calvin is much too sophistocated to have contradicted himself quite the way you seem to suggest. Perhaps once or twice...in passing thoughts, etc. Sure. But exactly the same as you and I (more you than me:) will probably be caught in an inconsistency? And so often and under so many different ocassions as Calvin? I think you're reaching. Please don't take that as an "ad hominen" :)

Grace to you both. With that, I am...

Peter

[Keith Schooley]

Peter, don't apologize! I was being sincere. Calvin was a great thinker; I just disagree with him regarding his view of election.

[peter]

Keith,

He was, wasn't he! Actually, it was more of a funny. I knew you wouldn't mind being associated with such a profound thinker.

Interestingly, Keith, I do know some Calvinists, if I associated them with Jacob Arminius, I think they may send me a virus :)

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Selah,

It is good to see you make it thru the thick jungle back home :) Timotheos was worried about you...we all were! :)

With that, I am...

Peter

[c b scott]

Peter,

I could find no email address so I hope you forgive my speaking off subject here. Your comment on Brad's post is truly flawed. I said, in no way, that the truth of anything could take away from the Authority of Scripture. I was speaking to the perfection of Scripture and the imperfectness of any other document. I spoke not to authority or truth of Scripture or a truthful document. The substance of my comment and a post on my blog was relating to the absolute supremacy of Scripture over all documents of human origin. Did you read my comment before you commented that Brad's answer was clear? Also why did you use the phrase Authority of Scripture rather than Inerrancy of Scripture which would have better represented what I said? And, again why did you not answer my question concerning the Virgin Birth?

cb

[peter]

CB,

Thank you for posting here, my Brother. And, it is quite alright to ask your question on this thread--unless, of course, it turns into a long pursuit.

First, the answer is Yes. I read your post. I hardly ever comment on post I do not first of all read.

Second, CB, you wrote: "Your comment on Brad's post is truly flawed." I am afraid i need a tad more understanding how such a little line of mine is "truly flawed." Care to be a little more clearer, my Brother?

In addition, CB, I do not know how to respond to your question about my use of "Authority of Scripture" rather than "Inerrancy of Scripture" which, in your view, would have "better represented what you said." Do you not like "Authority of Scripture"? I can assure you, I did not mean it as a way to dilute your view. Besides, my Brother CB, if you desired just to use "Inerrancy", it seems odd to me that you would begin your post with "Infallibility of Scripture" not "Inerrancy of Scripture". In fact, you use "infallible" or "infallibility" 7 to 1 over "inerrant". The real question, my CB, is why I did not use Infallible rather than Authority :)

Finally, CB, I did answer your question on the Virgin Birth. But the way I remember it, CB, you did not quite like my answer. But, it's still the same. I haven't changed. Should you then desire a refresher, perhaps you can go back to the stream on your blog and gain a second peek.

Grace my Brother CB. I trust your evening well. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

selah,

God bless ya, gal. vols are the university of tn volunteers. good to hear from ya.

volfan007

[peter]

Volfan,

As for tackling the verse from 2 Peter, I will be glad to in the future. Thanks always for your participation, Volfan.

SelahV,

I especially liked your call to just be "Christian". Is it possible? I don't know anymore. Perhaps we need to drop that and be Disciples. Perhaps Disciples of Christ have it right for once :)

Peace. Glad all is well in OKIE. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Selav

BTW, Actually, I designed the banner at the top :)

No foolin.

[peter]

All,

SelahV sends her regret about the recent links from her name to unsitely sites. The godless cyberleaches never stop!

At any rate, she will post again here when she gets it straightened out.

Thanks to A Friend in Christ for alerting us to this problem.

BTW, SelahV can be read on her new site at the address below.

With that, I am...

Peter

http://journals.aol.com/faithspaces/faithspaces/

[selahV]

Timotheos: loved your corn and Peter's potatoes. Goes great with the meat my hubby delivered via Bible Study last Sunday. Had a bit of desert when I explored what you believe in your Statement of Faith. Yummy! Especially when washed down with a cup of Volfan's coffee. selahV

[selahV]

Where is everyone? Which site? I've been reading blogs for days and can't find anyone. Are you all on revivals? Are you on retreats? Sabatticals? Sp? Or are you actually carrying out the great commission? I miss your dialogs. please come home. selahV

[peter]

SelahV,

Thank you for missing me! Actually I've been on the road for a spell. I plan to post tomorrow from a book I've been reading.

As for the others, I do not know where they may be holding up. Perhaps they are just taking in a few reflections from our Wonderful Lord...

I hope you have a great evening, SelahV. With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. I linked your site to mine. I think you will do well:)

[selahV]

GEESH...Thanks peter :~}] <= like my double chin? selahV