J. Matthew Pinson, Arminius' Position on the Atonement of Christ

One of the frequent misrepresentations made by our interlocutors in their zeal to challenge Arminian doctrine is the charge that Arminians are by default subscribers to the Governmental theory of the Atonement of Christ. While this theory does have a substantial ground among our Wesleyan-Methodist brethren, it is not the common position of classical or Reformed Arminians, Free Will Baptists or several other groups that share aspects of our soteriology. As with all atonement theories, they are just that, theories developed to express a theological perspective of the intricacies of Christ's work at Calvary. None of us hold a lock on such understanding and all of us might be and are likely to be wrong on some aspect of whatever theory we subscribe to. Nonetheless, it is prudent to keep the record clear on what we as classical Arminians do subscribe to. The following essay was published a few years ago by the President of Free Will Baptist Bible College in Nashville, TN, J. Matthew Pinson, himself a noted Arminian scholar. The link to the original article is noted below.


THE NATURE OF ATONEMENT IN THE THEOLOGY OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS
J. Matthew Pinson

Jacobus Arminius is one of the best known and least studied theologians in the history of Christianity. His writings have been neglected by Calvinists and Arminians alike. Calvinists have disliked him because of his opposition to scholastic predestinarian theology. Most Arminians have neglected him because what little they have read of him reminds them more of Calvinism than they like. Arminius scholar Carl Bangs is correct when he says that most modern treatments of Arminius assume a definition of Arminianism that does not come from Arminius. Bangs states that most interpreters of Arminianism

begin with a preconception of what Arminius should be expected to say, then look in his published works, and do not find exactly what they are looking for. They show impatience and disappointment with his Calvinism, and shift the inquiry into some later period when Arminianism turns out to be what they are looking for—a non-Calvinistic, synergistic, and perhaps semi-Pelagian system. 

This is the approach many scholars have taken toward Arminius regarding his doctrine of atonement. For example, the Calvinist scholar Robert L. Reymond has said that the Arminian theory of atonement is the governmental theory, which “denies that Christ’s death was intended to pay the penalty for sin.” He claims that the governmental theory’s “germinal teachings are in Arminius.” Similarly, well-known Wesleyan-Arminian scholar James K. Grider states: “A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred
in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism.”

Recent scholars have taken one of two positions on the soteriology of Jacobus Arminius. One group says that his theology was a development of the Dutch Reformed theology of his day, while the other says that it was a departure from those Reformed categories. Scholars such as Carl Bangs and John Mark Hicks fall into the first category, while Richard Muller is a recent example of scholars who fit the second.

This article is representative of the first perspective. It argues that Arminius’s concept of the nature of atonement was consistent with the theology of atonement that characterized Reformed theology in the seventeenth century. This conclusion is not surprising, given Arminius’s description of himself as a Reformed theologian and his repeated affirmation of the Belgic Confession of Faith and Heidelberg Catechism. He made this clear in a letter to the Palatine Ambassador, Hippolytus a Collibus, in 1608: “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with us the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent.” Given the dearth of scholarship on Arminius’s theology of atonement and the current debates on the nature of atonement in the evangelical community, an understanding of Arminius’s doctrine of atonement provides fresh and valuable insight.

Read the full published article here.

What Did Christ’s Death Accomplish?

As never ending as this battle is between Calvinists and most of the body of Christ, the answers provided never seem to satisfy the rhetorical inquiries of our Calvinist friends. One of the reasons for this, I believe, is due to the Calvinist tendency to view the extent of the atonement with the purpose of confirming their particular soteriological perspective.  “For God so loved the world” is forced to mean “God so loved His Elect or classes of men in the world”. It amounts to a read of theology into the text of scripture. By doing so, they reject responses that are logical and reasoned from the text of scripture itself. Forlines offers the following perspective and solution to the Calvinist insistence.

“Calvinists argue that, if Jesus paid the full penalty for the sins of the whole race, all for whom Christ died must of necessity be saved. This is true since His death settles their account and therefore forms the necessary basis for their forgiveness. Either Christ died for everybody and everybody would be saved, or He died only for the elect and only the elect will be saved, or so the argument goes. It is thought that for one who believes in the satisfaction view of the atonement that the only way to escape universal salvation is to believe in limited atonement. 

The answer is found in the kind of substitution involved. Christ died for the whole world in a provisionary sense. He suffered the penal wrath of God for sin, but that fact alone does not place His death on everybody’s account. It is effectual for the individual only as it is placed on a person’s account. It can be placed on a person’s account only as a result of union with Christ. Union with Christ is conditioned on faith. 

The Calvinists may want to insist that the objection is valid and that Christ died only for the elect. The only way this argument could have any validity would be to deny the possibility of provisionary atonement. If there can be no provisionary atonement, it does follow that if Christ died for a person his justification is never provisionary but always real. 

In explaining the view of the atonement, Louis Berkhof comments: “The Calvinist teach that the atonement meritoriously secured the application of the work of redemption to those for whom it was intended and their complete salvation is certain”. 

A close look at what Berkhof said will show that it does not rule out the provisionary principle in atonement. He says that the atonement “makes certain” the salvation of those for whom it was intended. He did not say that the atonement automatically saved everybody for whom it was intended. Calvinists do not teach that the elect are justified before they experience faith.  They teach that the person for whom Christ died will of a certainty be justified, but they do not consider a person justified until he experiences faith as the condition of justification. Thus, atonement is provisionary until the time it is applied. The only way to deny the provisionary nature of the atonement is to consider all people for whom Christ died to be justified before they experience faith. 

Once we accept that atonement is provisionary, we invalidate the objection that penal satisfaction either leads to universalism or limited atonement. Provisionary atonement applied on the condition of faith and on the grounds of a union with Christ answers this objection and sustains the penal satisfaction view.” 1

Therefore with that last portion of Forlines statement we can turn to John 3:16 and accept it as given rather than reinterpret the passage through any manner of sectarian lens. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 AV)

To ask the question what did Christ’s death accomplish is little different from asking for whom did Christ die for. Jesus accomplished a propitiatory sacrifice reconciling God with man and made individually efficacious through faith and union with Christ. He accomplished a great and glorious provision through which all men might be saved even though I believe most are not and that due to their love of their sins and rejection of the things of God. Much more could be stated however I would recommend a particular resource in addition to Forlines. The Arminian Confession of 1621 would be an excellent source to gain a much greater perspective of Arminian theology on a number of topics. 2

1.       Classical Arminianism, F. Leroy Forlines, ed. J. Matthew Pinson, Randall House, Nashville, 2011 pp 192-193  

2.       The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans & ed. Mark A. Ellis, Pickwick, Wipf and Stock, Eugene, 2005

The Importance of the Atonement - Forlines

... Of all the events in the experience of Christ, His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His return, His death stands central. As important as the other events are, both in themselves and in relation to His death, the death of Christ remains central, because apart from atonement there would be no forgiveness of sins. Christianity would be nonexistent. It is the birth that makes the death of Christ possible, but it is the death that makes the birth important. It is the resurrection that makes possible the application of the benefits of His death. It is the death that makes His resurrection important and makes the one who has been restored to life the Redeemer.

It is of the utmost importance that we maintain a sound doctrine of atonement. The study of the atonement must be done with the whole personality, not just the rational mind. While a study of atonement is fascinating in its logical consistency, it must go deeper than that to be comprehended. It must grip the heart also. There is nothing that sheds light on the serious of holiness and sin like the atonement that God provided to bring forgiveness of sin. A proper view of atonement puts seriousness into the whole study of theology. Any system of ethics that does not read from atonement the seriousness of sin and understanding of God's holiness and God's love that is seen in atonement will be grossly inadequate. Any view of grace that is not grounded in the understanding of sin, holiness, and the high regard for law that is manifested in atonement will be empty, shallow, and shot through with the tendencies of antinomianism…(1)

1. Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, F. Leroy Forlines, ed. Pinson, pp 199-200, (Nashville, Randall House, 2011)

Calvinist Trees Blocking the Christian Forest

Once in a while an argument is encountered or a speaker is engaged in a long monologue that you wish the presenter could have stepped back and taken a more sound approach with his argument. Instead we are left with a spurious design and empty, fallacious rhetoric. This is often the case with Calvinist apologetics and with a recent post by R.C. Sproul, the tradition continues.  More than a few Calvinists have recommended Sproul's seminal book Chosen By God as a representative tome of modern Calvinist thought. I read it quite some time ago and found it to be a continuation of the expected arguments I've encountered far too many times from Calvinists of all stripes. A straw man is constructed, an argument devised to tear it down and the ensuing victory party all proceed from the same tainted arguments over and over again. The same is true with the brief extract from "Chosen" that Sproul has posted on his website.

Sproul has built an argument using John 3:16 to oppose a position that is rarely made i.e. that non-Reformed (non-Calvinists) stake a position on this passage to argue that man has some innate ability to freely choose to come to the LORD. He states "... What does this famous verse teach about fallen man's ability to choose Christ? The answer, simply, is nothing. The argument used by non-Reformed people is that the text teaches that everybody in the world has it in their power to accept or reject Christ ...". Unfortunately for Sproul, he has dedicated considerable capital to dispelling this straw man without addressing the more appropriate argument that Arminians such as myself make with John 3:16. No classical or Reformed Arminian I know of argues for the Pelagian position of innate goodness and ability on the part of fallen man to do anything whatsoever with regard to a first step or a last or any step in between. Instead, this universal passage and the most often quoted verse in scripture is a clear denunciation of the spurious Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. It tears down the idea that God reprobated a large percentage of mankind for his glory and showed some sense of partiality for an "elect" independent of foreknowing their faith. Even John Calvin in his commentaries regarding this chapter of John acknowledges the universal application of Christ's atonement without exception.

R.C. Sproul, instead of taking another victory lap around the ashes of your little bonfire from several years ago, perhaps you could address the true importance of the passage and attempt to address actual Arminian doctrine instead of the fabrications of your rather ill-informed polemic.

Crazy Calvinist Corner

Along with a myriad of troubles reconciling the goodness and Justice of God with Calvinist doctrine, occasionally one of today’s neo-Reformed will offer an interpretation that just falls flat on its face from the weight of its eisegesis.  Consider the following passage from the Apostle Peter.

“ ¶ But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” (2Pe 2:1-2 AV)

This is a particular teaching that is used to refute Calvinist limited atonement as well as lend some support for the falling away of souls once saved. The former issue seems the stronger application in this case. The phrase “the Lord that bought them” is generally seen by most commentators to refer to the purchase of souls or the redemption secured by Christ. John Calvin stated the following in his commentary regarding this passage.

Even denying the Lord that bought them. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Hence, that the doctrine of the gospel may remain whole and complete among us, let this be fixed in our minds, that we have been redeemed by Christ, that he may be the Lord of our life and of our death, and that our main object ought to be, to live to him and to die to him. He then says, that their swift destruction was at hand, lest others should be ensnared by them. 

Aside from the apparent contradiction between Calvin’s thoughts and the limited atonement position of today’s neo-Reformed, Calvin is clearly referring to the purchase as redemption and attaches this redemption to the very false teachers warned about in the passage. It is an odd Calvinist commentary given the dogma of TULIP however I think most Arminians would generally agree with him.

To avoid the outwardly Arminian inclinations of the passage, today’s crazy Calvinist in the corner insisted that the redemption acquired through Christ’s purchase was a non-atoning redemption. How he arrived at that without reading a book of his theology into the text is beyond me but nonetheless that is the defense. I cannot find a non-atoning redemption or purchase in my bible.  Perhaps my Calvinist fellow will help me.

Scriptural Extent of Christ’s Atonement

Speaking of the extent of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, John Wesley stated of its reach "…just as wide as sin extends, the propitiation extends also…"¹. To suggest otherwise would be to declare Christ insufficient for the His purpose revealed in scripture. If Jesus came to be a propitiation or appeasement, a satisfaction for the sin of the whole world, then His work cannot be limited to satisfy the philosophical demands of any theological perspective. A clear reading of scripture presents the work of Christ as a satisfaction for God on behalf of all mankind, the whole world. Robert Picirilli in quoting W.G.T. Shedd, a Calvinist, provides:

"Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner… If it were made, but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation… In this state of things, the atonement of Christ is powerless to save. It remains in the possession of Christ who made it, and has not been transferred to the individual. In the scripture phrase it has not been imputed… After the vicarious atonement has been permitted and provided, there is still another condition in the case: namely, the sinner shall confess and repent of the sin for which atonement was made, and trust in the atonement itself²"

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (Joh 1:29 AV)

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." (1Jo 2:1-2 AV)

"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (1Jo 4:14-16 AV)

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, [and] lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (1Ti 2:1-8 AV)

This last passage from Paul's fist letter to Timothy sums up the truth of Christ's atoning sacrifice as well as any other in scripture. We have an exhortation to pray for all without distinction to meet the expectations of the LORD who desires all to be saved. The provision for such is made by Christ as a ransom for all. For those who desire scripture to be first and philosophy second, there is little room for denying the universal extent of Christ's work of atonement.

1. Expository Notes on Ist John, John Wesley
   
2. Robert Picirilli, Grace Faith Free Will (Nashville, Randall House Publications, 2002), p132

An Atonement for All the World

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1John 2:1-2 AV)

That seems to be a strong statement in support of the universal extent of the work of the atonement at Calvary however our Calvinist friends are quick to dismiss the scope of the atonement by insisting the phrase whole world is exclusive to the elect of the whole world. I have never understood how they think themselves capable of projecting such a philosophy upon the passage. Is it reasonable to suggest the Apostle John had such a scheme in mind when he wrote this epistle? I believe it is a very hard stretch to make this passage fit the Calvinist paradigm especially when we consider how John used "world" elsewhere in his epistle.

"I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." (1John 2:12-17 AV)

The above passage, taken from the same letter makes a sharp contrast between the saints and the entirety of the world from which we came. It strikes me as incredulous that the Apostle could be referring to the unrevealed elect through the use of "whole world" when he made such a strong contrast shortly following that statement. We find this again latter in the same letter.

"We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. [And] we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen." (1John 5:18-21 AV)

How could it be that the whole world could ever mean the unrevealed elect in our midst when the world, the whole world, that same whole world mentioned in 2:1-2 lies completely in wickedness. The contrast between those that lie in wickedness and the saints that have received an understanding through the coming of the LORD is stark and undeniable. The whole world spoken of by the Apostle can only represent that whole world each of the saints once was a part of and have now come out of. It commands an understanding of the universal provision of the atonement rather than the philosophical reaching of a limitation in order to buttress an aberrant view.

While I do not hold that a limited atonement as devised by Calvinists (married and one with the unconditional election of Dort) constitute an anathematized doctrine as the elders of Orange determined, it certainly sits as a rebutted, aberrant doctrine by the words of the Apostle and one teaching in particular that is justified in being completely rejected by the saints of God. ( Similar arguments have been made by others concerning these particular passages. I recently encountered Robert Picirilli making very much the same argument)

All for Some and Some for All or Some Such …

I was browsing through a few articles earlier on the SEA site and came across a recent article looking at a few questions and troublesome scriptural passages that some of our Reformed brethren seem to struggle with. The entire piece is certainly worth running through but one intriguing question caught my attention. How do the Reformed explain 1 Tim 2:4? My experience has been that the Calvinist will defer "all men to be saved" to mean all classes of men yet the suggestion of classes does not seem to be suggested at all in the full context of the passage. When we examine the full context of Paul's instruction to Timothy it is notable that all men or simply all is a common theme from verses 1 through 8. Examining this further we see an exhortation by Paul for the benefit of all men and he focuses even on a subset of men that certainly are not all elect as we know there are ruthless rulers and authoritarians in our day as in his. He follows this with the clear instruction that God desires to see all men saved. Is there any rhyme or reason why the all men of God's desire should be any less than the all men of Paul's supplication? Let's look at the passage from the KJV.

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." (1Ti 2:1-8 AV)

One common objection I encounter with the statement "Who will have all men to be saved" is the rejoinder "Why are all men not saved if God will have them all saved?" I have heard this from the Universalists as well even though I make no connection between Calvinists and Universalists for their own sakes. The reply to such a line of reasoning is found in the context of the whole passage. The phrase does not address what God is going to do but rather offers what God desires and in noting this we also can see the encompassing purpose of the exhortation, that being the vehicle of prayer and supplication. I think it is important to note in grasping this urgency of prayer and intercessions the last phrase of the passage, "without wrath and doubting". The Christian should never pray for the deliverance of souls in any measure of anger at the soul or with so much as a doubt his prayer could be useful. How can we doubt our Gospel message to the soul on the other end of our reach? Paul's intent was to preach, pray, exhort, and entreat to every soul never doubting they too could be reached for he stated God's very word as …

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth …"