Na: John Piper on Not Begrudging God His Self-Exultation
by
Motte Brown
on May 29, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Tim Challies blogs a lot of conferences and says he's never seen any speaker generate more excitement than John Piper. He said, "Piper's a rock star everywhere I go, no matter what audience demographic he's speaking to." And based on what I saw, I don't doubt it. People were holding up Piper signs and the crowd gave him a standing ovation before he began.
In keeping with the conference discernment theme, Piper began, "It takes more discernment than it first seems to know what pleases God." And the short answer is, God pleases God. He then gave a series of questions and answers that helped clarify this thought:
- Who is the most God centered person in the universe? God
- Who is uppermost in God's affection? God, not you
- Is God an idolator? No
- What is God's chief jealousy? To be known, trusted and obeyed
- What is the chief end of God? To glorify God and enjoy Himself forever
Do you bristle at this? If so, Piper said it may be because you need to adjust your lenses on what it means to be God-centered. He asked, "Are you God-centered because God is supremely valuable to you or because you believe you are supremely valuable to him?" Deep down, he said, people believe that they are at the center of God's affections.
Piper acknowledges that God's self-exultation may sound unloving to some. But, he said, that's only because we have defined love the wrong way. We define love by being made much of, but Piper said that throughout redemptive history, the Bible has defined it this way (and I'm paraphrasing here quite a bit):
Love labors, plans, and suffers to enthrall the beloved with that which will totally and eternally satisfy their souls. And God is the one being in the universe who, in order to do that, must be self-exulting. If He didn't do this, He would be hateful. The essence of God's love is to do whatever He has to do to make us enthralled with Him.
Piper said a lot of other things which are worth exploring in this Monday afternoon session. You can find them here at Desiring God.
1. San Soo had the following to say on May 29 at 7:36 PM:
I don't doubt that Piper has many good things to say. The problem is that if Piper's theology is correct, then the ability to enjoy God forever is very limited. Piper's Calvinism does not allow for God to invite everyone into the love of God. That's a very sad thing.
2. Dr. Ransom had the following to say on May 29 at 8:26 PM:
John Piper's books and materials on "Christian hedonism" and the Biblical truths of God's self-worship and desire for self-glorification have revolutionized my view of Scripture, and Life, the Universe and Everything. For indeed that is the answer to the Ultimate Question about the purpose of creation: it is for God's glory.
I regret missing Piper this year but I certainly hope he will be returning next year (as I will be returning, "Deo volente" to stay for the whole conference this time).
Did they happen to mention plans for next year's Louisville shindig, Motte?
3. Chris Krycho had the following to say on May 30 at 9:24 AM:
Awesome! I'm definitely downloading that and listening to it now. :-)
4. Vincenzo had the following to say on May 30 at 1:54 PM:
I think that God shows His glory for the benefit of mankind and so mankind will seek him and find what they need in Him. I know Piper touched on this in his sermon.
However, I think we need to use a little discernment here. Piper's sermon leaves the impression that our lives are merely a means to an end for God. At times he seems to depict God as an egotistical, glory-loving narcissist who spends His time staring in the mirror at Himself, which is totally contrary to His nature. It also makes Jesus' death seem to be nothing more than to help God "save face". Yes God is God and He is supreme, yet meekness and humility are in His character. The fact that it cost Him everything for our redemption should tell us that. How many times have you heard a parent say they would die for their child? I believe that is what was on God's heart when He died for us.
5. Isaac McPheeters had the following to say on May 30 at 4:12 PM:
San Soo, I'm confused from your comment. You say "Piper's Calvinism does not allow for God to invite everyone into the love of God."
God does not invite everyone into the kingdom. He does not even offer salvation to the fallen angels or to Satan. Why? I don't know, but it's for his glory.
6. Vincenzo had the following to say on May 30 at 5:18 PM:
Actually, Isaac, God's invitation into His kingdom is for anyone who accepts it. I believe the Holy Spirit is drawing men as God does not want anyone to perish. Sadly many people choose to reject God to their own peril.
7. San Soo had the following to say on May 30 at 5:18 PM:
Isaac-
I'm not sure what confuses you about my post, but it seems you and I disagree. I believe that God DOES invite everyone into the Kingdom. I find nothing in Scripture that claims that God's invitation is only for a particular group of people. It may not be the case that everyone responds to God's call, but the call is made.
I believe Calvinism is one of the worst heresies ever invented. Excluding people from God's love and mercy on the basis that "it's for His glory" does not make any sense. What's the point of the Cross then?
As for fallen angels, they cannot be redeemed because they have been solidified in their rebellion. In the same way some angels cannot fall because they have been solidified in their obedience.
8. xeres had the following to say on May 30 at 9:50 PM:
Calvinism vs. Arminianism..... after 500-600 years, the issue of which Protestant thought wins still up in the air. There's one thing true though is that God has no joy over the death of a unsaved sinner. Just for the record, my theological view is influence by the wesleyan-holiness tradition and the evangelical reformed tradition
9. Adam had the following to say on May 31 at 9:27 AM:
San Soo,
The point is that the Bible explicitly says that God does not invite angels into the kingdom. All of the angels that fell are doomed forever, without any chance of repentance [2 Peter 2:4]. How, therefore, can it be the case that God invites everyone into his kingdom? And, if there is nothing wrong with God eternally condemning the angels without a way out, what is wrong with him doing the same to human beings?
Hence, when you say:
As for fallen angels, they cannot be redeemed because they have been solidified in their rebellion. In the same way some angels cannot fall because they have been solidified in their obedience.
You are simply proving our point. What is wrong then for us to say that human beings are solidified in their rebellion against God? This is something that is all over the Bible:
Genesis 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Jeremiah 13:23 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.
John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
Romans 8:7-8 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Hence, if we can show that man is in the same position as you say the angels are in, then you can have no objection to Calvinism at all.
I believe Calvinism is one of the worst heresies ever invented. Excluding people from God's love and mercy on the basis that "it's for His glory" does not make any sense. What's the point of the Cross then?
I would turn the question around to you and ask what the point of a cross that doesn't actually save anyone is. If you believe Christ died for everyone, then the cross cannot, by necessity, save or perfect anyone for whom it was made. And yet, the work of the cross is stated all over as perfecting those for whom it is made [Hebrews 10:10, 14], saving [Luke 19:10], putting our faith and hope in God [1 Peter 1:21], and brings us near to God, and brings us peace [Ephesians 2:13-14]. Of course, you these things cannot be true, given your view, because if the cross of Christ does all of that, then you are forced into being a universalist. So, then, the question is what the cross of Christ does on your view. Does it actually save people, or does it just make men savable?
Finally, you call Calvinism a "heresy." Does that mean you are calling John Piper a heretic? Does that mean that Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Urlich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, the Crafters of the Westminster Confession of faith, the Puritans, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, B.B. Warfield, John Bunyan, R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, et al. are all heretics? Such would appear to be prima facie absurd. Not only that, but I have many Arminian friends that do not say that Calvinism is heresy. Your position appears to be an extreme position that will not allow for honest scholarly debate within the Christian church.
Xerxes,
It is still up in the air in what sense? In that not everyone has been persuaded? If that is the case, then every theological dispute is still up in the air as arians and trinitarians, monophylites and diophylites, Gnosticism and anti-dualists, and every other theological battle that has ever taken place in the church are still going on, and the conclusion still up in the air. The fact that people are not persuaded by a particular argument does not mean that the argument is inconclusive. Persuasion is subjective; proof is not. Hence, in what sense is it "still up in the air?"
BTW, to both of you, have you ever read John Piper's DSS The Justification of God? I would be interested to see how you would handle his response to the arminian objections to Romans 9:22-23.
Adam
10. xeres had the following to say on May 31 at 10:10 AM:
I said:
>>Calvinism vs. Arminianism..... after 500-600 years, the issue of which Protestant thought wins still up in the air.<<
When I meant by up in the air, I don't mean persuasion. What I mean is that the issue of which Protesant thought wins is still in question. I hope I cleared that up.
11. San Soo had the following to say on May 31 at 3:16 PM:
The Bible never says why angels are lost forever. Theologians and philosophers must hash out such questions. We do have principles to work with, however. First of all, angels are not a race like man. If there were a way to redeem angels, then it would be on a one-to-one basis. Because Adam represents mankind, so Christ represents mankind. There is not an individual Cross for every human. Angels are a different story.
Next, angels likely had knowledge that Adam and Eve did not have. When they fell, they fell permanently, which is not the case with man. Fallen angels cannot be redeemed because they have a will that is forever stuck in rebellion. There is no way to redeem them, yet to be unredeemed is their permanent choice.
Man is indeed caught up in sin, but man's destiny is not solidified until after death. God sets a boundary marker for our lives. If we die in rebellion we will remain in rebellion. We do not know when we will die, which is why we must always be ready.
The idea that the Cross is worthless if it is available to all is unbiblical, and it does not fit the Biblical ethic of deontology. First, the Bible clearly states that God wills for all men to be saved (2 Peter), and God does NOT delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18). If Calvinism is true then God does NOT will for all to be saved, and He DOES delight in the death of the wicked because it is His will that they perish without Him. Next, the idea that the Cross must have a guarantee of saving someone otherwise it's a worthless act both robs the Cross of its beauty, and takes a step away from Biblical ethics. A good act is a good act irrespective of the outcome. The fact that people do respond does not make the Cross greater (after all, no one can add to the work of the Cross). The Cross can save everyone. God did not die only for the sins of a particular group of people (as Calvinism teaches).
As for Calvinism being heresy, you can decide who's in and who's out. The point is that the Scriptures are clear that God is love, all people need a savior, Jesus died for all, God is not far from anyone, and that people will find God when they seek Him with all their heart. If Calvinism is true, and if God is love, and if it is better to go to Heaven than go to Hell, then Calvinism would have to lead to universalism, not the other way around.
Finally, for anyone who is a Calvinist, you cannot be sure of your own salvation because it's possible that you are among the non-elect who believes he/she is one of the elect. There is no proof that you belong to God. Any "proof" you can come up with can be used by an unbeliever to "prove" the same assertion.
12. David had the following to say on Jun 1 at 8:19 AM:
San Soo –
Good post, but I was wondering if you (or another Arminian) could answer some questions for me. It sounds like you are very passionate about this subject, and that you are well informed, so I would value your (collective) opinion.
First – about Ezekiel 18. There is an almost identical passage in Ezekiel 33:11 “11Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?” The word pleasure in Ezekiel 33:11 is the same Hebrew word used in 1 Sam 2:25b that is translated “will” (read the story for context of Eli’s sons) – “But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.” It is pretty clear that they did not turn from their ways because God wanted to put them to death. How would an Arminian reconcile these two truths? (Another good question would be – how would a Calvinist reconcile these two truths?)
Second – How do you explain passages like Rev 5:9 (read in context) – “9And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation…” The word that I am focusing on is people. He purchased people (ESV, NKJV). Men (NASB). Individuals. Not the opportunity for people to turn, but by His death on the cross individual PEOPLE. How would an Arminian explain this passage?
Third – I completely agree with you that “man is caught up in sin”. The essential question is “how deep does that rebellion go”? Adam did a very good job of listing texts that show that man has a ‘morally inability’ to turn from his ways without the saving work of God (see his quoting of Jer 13:23, John 6:44, Rom 8:7-8, 1 Cor 2:14). If we understand Total Depravity as the Bible teaches it the rest of TULIP necessarily follows. So what happens at conversion? How would an Arminian explain texts like Eph. 2:5? 2 Cor. 4:6? It seems pretty clear that something happened – namely that God happened. Did we, as humans, overcome our moral inability inherited from Adam (as unfair as that sounds in a western culture, it is Biblical truth) to turn from our sins and believe? Or did God do a work in us to open our eyes to the beauty of the cross so that we could do nothing but believe?
Fourth - This is something that I have really struggled with in my thoughts about Arminianism. Please help me understand where I am wrong in this scenario of the Arminian perspective. Person A and Person B are sitting in church for the first time, and Jesus Christ is publicly portrayed as crucified for them (Gal 3:1). Person A chooses to believe, and Person B walks out and never comes back. At the end of eternity, the only different between Person A and Person B is that Person A CHOSE to believe the gospel and Person B didn’t. Now, if this is true, it seems to me that Person A has something to boast in. Standing before the throne of God he can say, “I chose it. I, ME, chose it. You died the death, but I CHOSE to believe it.” Because of something in Person A, he chose to believe. Does this not seem to conflict with the Gospel? The gospel says that there is nothing good in you. You are desperately wicked, and nothing you can do can save you from that. The good news is that Jesus Christ did it for you. He lived the perfect life you couldn’t live. He took the punishment you deserved. You get His righteousness - even though you don’t deserve it - and it is by His work alone that you are saved. If my salvation is based in something Christ did, where is my boasting? If I understand that my being in God is not because of something in me, something about me, or something I’ve done, I am LEVELED by His grace. I wake up every morning with a new perspective on how much I don’t deserve what I have, and how great the cross is. I wake up marveling at the cross, asking myself “Why? Why did you pick me? Why did you send your perfect son to die for me? I don’t deserve it!” The end result is humility and a bowing before God.
Do those two ideas not seem to conflict?
Thanks for your time in response! I look forward to the conversation that ensues.
13. Mark Willard had the following to say on Jun 1 at 10:59 AM:
San Soo, so what proof do you have that you belong to God? Even if Arminianism is true, you could still be self-deceived when really, truly, deeply, in your heart of hearts you don't believe the Gospel. In fact, if Arminianism is true, the situation is much more terrifying, because in that case, your eternal state is based on the current, changeable, internal state of your heart. The promise of 2 Timothy 2:19 is fairly shallow comfort in that case. You cannot have any confidence in God's eternal purposes. Whether Arminian or Calvinist, our confidence in our redeemed state must come from where the Bible tells us to draw our confidence -- the outward evidence of salvation in our lives. See 2 Peter 1:3-11.
Also, I could be wrong, but to me it looks like your rejection of Calvinism has more to do with what you perceive as the implications of it rather than a close examination of the Biblical texts in question. Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and John 6:44 (along with a ton of other passages throughout the Bible) say what they say, and there's no way around that. It won't do to say "But we can't see how to reconcile that with God loving everyone." If the Bible teaches that God loves everyone, and the gospel is to be preached to all, and God is not willing that any should perish, and we can't come to Jesus unless we are called by God, and some were predestined to salvation, others to destruction, then it's all true and we have to figure out how to reconcile that. Calvinism is an attempt at that. Arminianism fails to do justice to three things that are repeatedly, repeatedly stated in the Bible: God's absolute, total sovereignty over everything, the inability of man on his own to come to God, and God's eternal predestination of everything. We need to get all the Biblical truth and then try to reconcile it rather than ruling out some Biblical truths because we can't see how those truths could be reconciled with the Biblical truths we like more.
14. xeres had the following to say on Jun 1 at 11:27 AM:
When will the battle between Calvinism and Arminianism ever end?
15. Paul had the following to say on Jun 1 at 11:55 AM:
Isn't the whole issue of conditional verses unconditional election a bit of a distraction?
Basicly we're talking about either people being saved or unsaved now, but not being sure until the day of judgement, or no-one being saved until we are all judged. Yes there's a difference, but does it actually have any practical impact on the way we should live our lives now?
Either we are not yet saved and we should "continue to work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in [us] to will and to act according to his good purpose", or we are already saved, and we should, er, "continue to work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in [us] to will and to act according to his good purpose".
Or am I missing something?
16. Mark Willard had the following to say on Jun 1 at 12:16 PM:
Paul, I think there are a TON of practical implications of having confidence in God's sovereignty. John Piper lists just ten of them here.
And even if there were no practical effects for how we should live, it would still be important because it effects how we think about God, which in turn effects everything. For me, having confidence in God's absolute sovereignty has given me an immense peace as I think about the future. I know that no matter what happens, in my life or anyone else's, God has predestined it since before He created the universe. I still need to live my life in light of the gospel because I'm commanded to, and I'm in a very limited way, one of the means God uses to accomplish his eternal purposes, but no matter what, I know God is in control. Additionally, it's helped me to love God a lot more. When I realize that even my faith was accomplished by God's design and through his power, it's incredibly humbling and drives me to worship. So, suffice it to say, I think this is very important and not a side-issue.
17. Philippa had the following to say on Jun 1 at 1:42 PM:
OK, this Arminian lass wants to interrupt, and what I have to say has nothing to do with predestination or election. This sentence, from Motte Brown's article, practically leapt out at me:
People were holding up Piper signs and the crowd gave him a standing ovation before he began.
Now, I'm a mildly charismatic Anglican who doesn't mind happy-clappy worship, but even I am taken aback by a bunch of Christians treating their favourite speaker - however gifted and godly - like he's a rock star ...
or the Pope!
Or even, Lord forbid, Benny Hinn.
Yes, I do have my tongue firmly in my cheek.
But being serious now: does anybody else here, Calvinist or Arminian or whatever-ian, ponder on the irony of Protestants criticising our Catholic brethren for believing in papal infallibility ...
... and then indulging, however innocuously, in what is in effect hero-worship?
I have no axe to grind with John Piper, btw. This is not a comment about him personally but a particularly weird aspect of evangelical subculture. Given the subject matter of Piper's talk, I find it even more ironic!
18. San Soo had the following to say on Jun 1 at 9:16 PM:
I want to respond to the posts that were posted in response to my comments. I can't do that right now, but I will respond within the next day.
Why does everyone suppose I'm Arminian? Calvinism and Arminianism aren't the only options.
19. Paul had the following to say on Jun 2 at 9:47 AM:
Mark,
I don't believe that conditional election does imply that God is not sovereign.
The Bible contains evidence of both free will and predestination, and it is very difficult to understand how these two apparently contradictory concepts can coexist. I'm not sure that we can ever produce a theology that fully explains that.
If unconditional election is correct though, I don't understand it. It would appear that in this lifetime we are pre-programmed robots performing a script that God has written for us, for his pleasure. That in itself would be fine (though perhaps a little sinister), but I don't see how it relates to or prepares us for eternity.
20. Mark Willard had the following to say on Jun 2 at 1:31 PM:
Paul, without launching into a doctoral dissertation, I think the answer to your question about unconditional election is actually found in the verse you quoted in your earlier comment. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12b-13) It is both human will and God's will working together. God foreordained what should happen from before creation, and our wills are the means by which it is accomplished. Jonathan Edwards wrote the "dissertation" on this in his book On The Freedom of the Will.
As far as conditional election implying that God is not sovereign, it does so in that God is not sovereign over whether or not one will believe. In Arminianism, your salvation is based on whether or not you choose to believe, rather than God predestining your belief from before creation. See Ephesians 1:3-14. If we are to believe all the Bible says about God's sovereignty, he is completely sovereign over everything -- including our actions, emotions, and beliefs. There is nothing in existence that does not submit to his will. Obviously there are still some elements of mystery, but the Bible explicitly says repeatedly that God is in complete control over everything. The objection that most people raise is that if God is in control over everything, and he loves everyone, and is not willing that any should perish than why are not all saved? Notice, Calvinism and Arminianism have the same problem here. And the answer must be that God values something more than universal salvation. A Calvinist would answer that God values His own glory more than universal salvation. An Arminian would answer that God values human free will more than universal salvation. Judge for yourself which fits better in the context of the entirety of Scripture.
21. Paul had the following to say on Jun 3 at 6:45 PM:
Mark,
To answer your last question first, I would give you a third answer, that God values praise and glory that is brought to Him voluntarily more than universal salvation. In effect, this is similar to your Arminian answer, but with the focus on God, where it rightfully belongs.
I am a little confused by your earlier statement that "it is both human will and God's will working together.", because if "God foreordained what should happen from before creation", then there is surely nothing can be defined as "human will", as all will is dictated by God. The logical conclusion of this would be that nothing can be immoral, because everything that happens has been predestined according to God's will.
I think the most difficult question to answer is that of why God brings into existence people who will later perish at all? That is a problem for both an Arminian who believes God has foreknowledge of their unrepentance, and a Calvinist who believes God has directed their unrepentance. Neither choice is particularly palatable, but I would be inclined to believe that God has created beings that have the capability and freedom to ignore his sovereignty for a finite period, because that is the only way of making us sophisticated enough to be able to commune with Him and express meaningful worship.
22. Mark Willard had the following to say on Jun 4 at 6:26 PM:
Paul,
To answer your last question first, the best answer to that is found in Romans 9. It's not the answer we'd like to hear (or at least I know it's not what I prefer), but that is all we're given in Scripture. And essentially the answer is: "God wills that some should perish; who are you to question Him?" It's an assault on our pride and requires us to trust in God, much like Calvinism as a whole. Notice that the question that Paul is answering is "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (v. 19) This question assumes that God's will is the reason for their unbelief. Not only that, but prior to answering this, Paul lists examples of events in the Old Testament where God actively hardened Pharaoh's heart and actively chose (not foreknew, chose) Jacob over Esau before either one of them had been born.
"I would be inclined to believe that God has created beings that have the capability and freedom to ignore his sovereignty for a finite period"
If you can show me any evidence of this in Scripture, at all, I would be very interested. I also think it's interesting that you're choosing to believe this because it's what you're "inclined to believe." No one likes Calvinism upfront. After being taught it, I struggled against it for months, sometimes with tears. So did John Piper. Jonathan Edwards wasn't convinced of his own conversion until he began to like the doctrines of Calvinism at age 19 (even though he had always believed it). Calvinism is an assault on our pride and to our limited understanding. It doesn't totally make sense or seem fair at first. However, as I said in an earlier comment, we can't "choose truth" based on preferences.
"I am a little confused by your earlier statement that 'it is both human will and God's will working together.', because if 'God foreordained what should happen from before creation', then there is surely nothing can be defined as 'human will', as all will is dictated by God. The logical conclusion of this would be that nothing can be immoral, because everything that happens has been predestined according to God's will."
The Bible repeatedly talks of God's sovereign control of EVERYTHING, and yet holds humans and angelic beings responsible for their actions, and also maintains that the fact that God causes men or demons to commit evil acts does not make Him guilty of evil. This is one of the "mysteries" of Calvinism that I alluded to in an earlier comment. The question is, if these things are taught in Scripture, are you willing to believe them, even if you can't totally understand how it all works? The sheer weight of passages speaking of God's providential control over everything is enormous, and there's not even a hint that He limits, restrains, or in any other way counteracts this aspect of His character. Here are just a few passages that speak to God's providential control of human actions; in no particular order:
-Acts 4:27; 17:26
-Job 14:5
-Proverbs 20:4; 21:1
-Proverbs 21:1
-Ezra 1:1; 6:22
-Psalm 33:14-15; 139:16
-Genesis 45:5; 50:20
-Exodus 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20; 10:27; 14:4; 14:8 (as referenced in Romans 9)
-Joshua 11:20
-Judges 14:4
-1 Samuel 2:25; 16:14
-2 Samuel 16:11; 24:1
-Job 1:21-22 (cf. 1:12)
-1 Kings 22:23
I could go on, but hopefully that's enough for now. I've seriously barely even scratched the surface of all the passages in the Bible that make reference to God's total, complete sovereignty over everything, including the hearts of men.
One last point -- between all three of your comments, you made only one Bible reference in presenting your argument. I'm not trying to offend, but this is one of the reasons I was convinced of Calvinism. Inevitably, whenever there's a debate over this and both sides are pressed for their hardest arguments, Calvinists turn to Bible passages. Arminians turn to "logical conclusions."
23. Paul had the following to say on Jun 6 at 3:02 PM:
Mark,
Romans 9 is interesting. In context, the chapter as a whole is mainly about the apparent injustice of God splitting families and nations apart, by saving some people and destroying others. The part that you quote specificaly does indeed refer to God hardening Pharaoh's heart to serve his purposes and fortelling his call of Jacob, though I'm not sure that you can make the distinction between God actively choosing Jacob in advance or foreknowing that Jacob would develop a character that was ready for His call. Even verses 25 & 26 speak of the hope that some of those who were first destined for destruction will be redeemable, so far from saying that God willfully creates people for destruction, the chapter is about second chances and mercy for some of those who don't fully deserve it.
I have briefly looked at the other references to the word harden, and there seem to be a number of references both to God hardening hearts and to people hardening their own hearts. As you might expect, the Old Testament mainly talks of God hardening hearts (with the exception of some Psalms and Proverbs), while most of the New Testament references talk of people hardening their own hearts. Perhaps both we and God harden our hearts as a result of/in response to our sinful actions.
I've also looked up your other references. They can be split into two catagories, some of them refer to specific instances where God has influenced someone's heart to make them carry out a specific action (I'm not going to deny that God has and will continue to do that), while the rest refer to God planning the general movements of groups or people or controlling someone's health or lifespan. None of them actually speak of God pre-determining anyone's eternal destruction.
I'm sorry that I have not given you more references, so I'll try to rectify that:
Acts 17:27-30 - You've quoted some of the earlier verses of this chapter, but if you read on, you find that God "commands all people everywhere to repent".
Titus 2:11 - says that "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men"
Hebrews 4:12-13 - implies that the word of God uncovered, then judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, rather than implanting them.
John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
John 7:17 - "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."
Matthew 22:14 - "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
There are also a whole load of verses that support the idea that we must maintain our faith in order to keep our salvation. I'm not going to list these because I've said enough already, but they do seem to suggest that God saves his decision until the day of judgement.
One last point from me too. Thanks for prompting me to find the time to go off and do a decent chunk of bible study, I'm quite busy right now, and needed the encouragement.
24. Mark Willard had the following to say on Jun 6 at 8:00 PM:
Paul,
This has been a good discussion, and I'm glad to participate in it. I'm not sure if you mean last point as in this discussion is finished, or last point for that comment, but I wanted a chance to respond to some of what you had to say.
"Romans 9 is interesting. In context, the chapter as a whole is mainly about the apparent injustice of God splitting families and nations apart, by saving some people and destroying others."
It's actually about one nation – Israel. Paul is answering the charge of injustice on God's part in not saving all Israel, despite the fact that they received the promise of salvation in the Old Testament. The point that Paul makes is that not all (physical) Israel is (spiritual) Israel (vv. 6-8) and that only some of physical Israel is spiritual Israel, and spiritual Israel even includes those who are not part of physical Israel (v. 24) and the promises were really made to spiritual Israel. But that is neither here nor there. In the midst of explaining this, Paul makes several crucial points about the nature of God's election, predestination, and reprobation. That is very relevant to the current discussion and cannot be dismissed based on a supposedly limited context. Indeed, a true understanding of the context will show that Paul is explaining how salvation works, and how God is just to choose whom he will.
"The part that you quote specificaly does indeed refer to God hardening Pharaoh's heart to serve his purposes and fortelling his call of Jacob, though I'm not sure that you can make the distinction between God actively choosing Jacob in advance or foreknowing that Jacob would develop a character that was ready for His call."
Actually you can. "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call" (v. 11, emphasis mine) Paul is explicitly saying that this has nothing to do with anything Jacob has done or will do, but with God's call.
"Even verses 25 & 26 speak of the hope that some of those who were first destined for destruction will be redeemable, so far from saying that God willfully creates people for destruction, the chapter is about second chances and mercy for some of those who don't fully deserve it."
First off, none of us deserve mercy at all. But regardless, I think you're misinterpreting vv. 25-26. If you look at the two verses immediately preceding, you'll see that (a) the people Paul is talking about in vv. 25-26 were indeed "vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (v. 23) and (b) that the point of Paul quoting Hosea is to show that some of those whom God has called are from the Gentiles, not just Jews (v. 24) and that this had been planned by God long beforehand – so that it is even included in Old Testament prophecy.
"I have briefly looked at the other references to the word harden, and there seem to be a number of references both to God hardening hearts and to people hardening their own hearts. As you might expect, the Old Testament mainly talks of God hardening hearts (with the exception of some Psalms and Proverbs), while most of the New Testament references talk of people hardening their own hearts. Perhaps both we and God harden our hearts as a result of/in response to our sinful actions."
I would agree that both our wills and God's will are active in terms of our hearts and our salvation. I made this point in an earlier comment. The question is, who takes initiative? Aside from the considerable difficulty you have in dealing with the numerous texts that speak of man's depravity to the extent that he cannot come to God on his own (they've been posted in prior comments; John 6:44 is one that jumps to mind), you also have to deal with, again, Romans 9. As noted earlier, Paul uses examples of Pharaoh and Jacob to draw out a general principle. As stated in verses 15-16: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." I also think it's interesting to note, with regards to Pharaoh, God promises to harden Pharaoh's heart (Exodus 4:21; 7:3) long before the first instance of the Bible recording Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Exodus 8:15).
"None of them actually speak of God pre-determining anyone's eternal destruction."
Here's a few (emphases mine):
Romans 9:21-24 "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"
1 Peter 2:7-8 "So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.' They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."
Jude 4 "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
"You've quoted some of the earlier verses of this chapter, but if you read on, you find that God 'commands all people everywhere to repent'."
I totally agree. He does. A Calvinist has no trouble agreeing to that. The gospel is freely offered to all, and should be proclaimed to all. All men have a duty to repent and believe the gospel. Those that fail to do so will be eternally punished for it. This is not in any way contradictory to the belief that God elects some to salvation. The objection most people have though, is how is it fair for God to command someone to do something they're unable to do? (i.e.: Commanding a non-elect person to repent and believe the Gospel.) However, see Matthew 5:48. Without God's grace, we are as unable to be perfect as a natural person (without the Spirit's regenerating power) is able to accept the Gospel (see 1 Corinthians 2:14). Not only that, but again, Paul's answer from Romans 9 must be re-visited. Who are you, O man, to question your creator? It is God who decides what is fair. Not us.
"Titus 2:11 - says that 'the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men'"
So what is the nature of this grace? Is it saving grace? If it is, you're forced to be a universalist. If the passage merely means that the gospel is offered to all, then again, a Calvinist has no trouble agreeing to that. See above.
"Hebrews 4:12-13 - implies that the word of God uncovered, then judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, rather than implanting them."
I think it'd be more accurate to say "uncovers," but regardless, the point is that God knows the hearts of men. It says nothing either way about election, reprobation, or predetermination. Again, the fact that God has foreordained everything from before creation does not mean that our will is meaningless. Our will is the means by which his will is exercised. God works in and through us (cf. Philippians 2:12-13). This is called the doctrine of concurrence. Necessarily, how this works exactly is in some ways mysterious; and as stated earlier, doing justice to it requires a 300-page research paper, not a blog comment. Again, I would encourage you to check out Jonathan Edwards' On The Freedom of the Will as to my knowledge it's the most thorough treatment of this topic and he explains it far better than I (or probably anyone else) ever could.
John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."
So what does this passage mean from an Arminian perspective? Did Jesus pay for every single person's sins on the cross? If he did, then why would anyone go to hell? Their sins are already paid for. Where's the justice there? The way I would understand this verse is that Jesus' death is sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and valid everywhere. John is telling his readers that it reaches beyond their community out to the uttermost parts of the earth.
John 7:17 - "If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."
Again, see concurrence in my response to Hebrews above.
Matthew 22:14 - "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure how that passage could be seen as doing anything but supporting Calvinism. Few are chosen. Not few "choose." (Even though, as I said earlier, even if it said that few choose, a Calvinist has no problem with that.)
"There are also a whole load of verses that support the idea that we must maintain our faith in order to keep our salvation."
Again, a Calvinist has no problem with this either. The doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints maintains that those who abandon the faith were never saved to begin with. The saints are preserved by God, and because of that they persevere. I don't know of a single Calvinist who thinks that you can be elect, apostasize, and then still go to heaven. If you apostasize, you aren't/weren't elect. The warnings to remain in the faith are there to encourage Christians to persevere and by doing so to show themselves elect (cf. 2 Peter 1:3-11).
"I've said enough already, but they do seem to suggest that God saves his decision until the day of judgement."
So is this a god with foreknowledge or without? Does he exist within or outside of time? A god who's not sure what he's going to do until the day of judgement is a pretty scary thought to me. Maybe I'm missing something in your description though.
The biggest problem with your argument in general is that any verse that implies that human decisions and actions are relevant regarding salvation fits perfectly fine into a Calvinist understanding of scripture. However, if Arminian theology is correct, there should not be a single verse in all of scripture that in any way implies that God predestines some unto salvation. As I've hopefully shown, that is not the case. There are far too many verses that speak of God's will as not only a catalyst, but the initiator in salvation. Until you can account for all of these passages, Arminian theology seems to be flying in the face of scripture.
Also, I still do not see any verses that imply that God limits or restrains his sovereignty. Verses speaking of human decisions or human actions don't suffice as noted above. If you can show me anything in the Bible that speaks of, or even hints at God negating his sovereignty, I would reconsider my position.
25. Mandi had the following to say on Jun 7 at 10:44 AM:
Mark Willard, I must say that while I admire your zeal, I found reading through this post most dizzying! :)
I guess a question I have in my mind to you is what do you think the Body of Christ believed -- and how did they live that belief -- before John Calvin came around and saved the day many centuries after the Lord's Disciples and Apostles evanglized and discipled others, and after the Scriptures were canonized? How could Calvin's ideas be true if the consistent witness of Scripture and the life of the Church -- the same undivided Church that the Holy Spirit inspired to canonize the books of what we know today as both OT and NT -- is not in keeping with his ideas? Why would we bother to try to fulfill the Lord's command to preach the good news to everyone, if there were people He chose not to be with Him anyway? Why would He bother to die on the cross for everyone, to give everyone a chance to live eternally with Him if the price He was paying was only for a few? None of this is to negate God's foreknowledge that many people will not answer His call to them, but foreknowledge and controlling people's actions are two different things. Free will was His idea, after all. And He seeks a relationship of love with us; we are free children, not pawns. Of course I'm not saying that I will be saved by my free will choice to follow Christ, since I am saved by living (as opposed to dead) faith through His grace. But God will not force me to live my life in Him if I don't want to. Or are you saying that He would? I don't understand.
-------------------------------------
Philippa,
I do agree with your post about the disturbing tendancy to do what you've described...especially since no one knows the end of anyone who hasn't yet left this world...because some people have great starts, but don't "finish the race" with Christ (not saying Piper will do this, just that we're better off looking for examples of Christian heros amongst those who have passed this life and finished it with Christ and gone before us to live with Him.)
26. Mandi had the following to say on Jun 7 at 12:34 PM:
Just to be clear, I'd pose the same questions to followers of Jacobus Arminius' teachings too.
I.e., ("I guess a question I have in my mind to you is what do you think the Body of Christ believed -- and how did they live that belief -- before [Jacobus Arminius] came around and saved the day many centuries after the Lord's Disciples and Apostles evanglized and discipled others, and after the Scriptures were canonized? How could [Arminus'] ideas be true if the consistent witness of Scripture and the life of the Church -- the same undivided Church that the Holy Spirit inspired to canonize the books of what we know today as both OT and NT -- is not in keeping with his ideas?")
God bless.
27. Mark Willard had the following to say on Jun 7 at 10:10 PM:
Mandi,
You make a good point. Whenever doctrine comes into dispute, it's important to look at the historic beliefs of the body of Christ, so long as it's clear that Scripture still holds the final authority. It is true that Calvinism as a system of 5 points did not exist prior to the 16th century; however, examination of the Biblical texts shows that the ideas of Calvinism are contained within the Bible and have been taught by the Church since its inception (even in the words of Jesus -- see John 6:44 and John 10:7-18). Additionally, one of the catalysts of the Reformation, aside from a re-examination of the Biblical texts, was a re-examination of the Church fathers. Augustine of Hippo in particular was very influential in the thought of Calvin and Luther. Augustine, living from 354AD - 430AD made explicit reference to total depravity, unconditional election, and predestination (though he may not have called the doctrines by those names) in his writing. Much of this was done in response to the teachings of Pelagius, who was denounced by the Church as a heretic for his denial of original sin and total depravity at the Council of Carthage in 418AD.
"before John Calvin came around and saved the day"
By referring to the doctrines in question as Calvinism, I may have given the false impression that I believe they are dependent on John Calvin's beliefs/teachings. The doctrines predate Calvin; he merely rediscovered and systematized them. (And actually, the systematization as "5 points" was in response to the 5 articles of Remonstrance, which was a response to Calvin's teaching led by Jacobus Arminius.) While I look at Calvin as one of the heroes of the faith and admire him greatly, I do not agree with everything he taught, and I do not agree with Calvinism merely because he taught it. To avoid this confusion, some have taken to calling Calvinism "the doctrines of grace" which is a name that I actually do prefer. However, since Calvinism is shorter to type out, and more widely recognized/understood, I've used that term in this discussion.
Finally, merely because Calvinism was not taught (or at least not all points of it were) by the Roman Catholic church prior to the Reformation does not invalidate it as true doctrine. If that were the case, we'd have to throw out justification by faith alone also. I don't think anyone here wants to do that.
"How could Calvin's ideas be true if the consistent witness of Scripture and the life of the Church -- the same undivided Church that the Holy Spirit inspired to canonize the books of what we know today as both OT and NT -- is not in keeping with his ideas?"
Your question is correct in that if what Calvin taught is not consistent with Scripture, it's invalid. However, if you've read my previous comments, I've tried to show that Calvinism is indeed explicitly taught in Scripture. For more on that in an easier to read format than blog comments, I'd recommend What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism from Desiring God.
"Why would we bother to try to fulfill the Lord's command to preach the good news to everyone, if there were people He chose not to be with Him anyway?"
Well, most obviously, because He commands us to. But also because our witness is the means by which He appoints that the elect should hear the gospel and be converted. You can see this in Acts 18:9-11. Far from election being a reason to abandon evangelism, God reassures Paul that because of His purpose in election, Paul should go on preaching the gospel -- there are elect people in Corinth that have not yet heard it. Paul himself uses this same reasoning in his final letter to Timothy -- the fact that God has elected some to salvation is Paul's motivation for enduring hardship and continuing to proclaim the gospel, for the sake of the elect. (see 2 Timothy 2:10)
"Why would He bother to die on the cross for everyone, to give everyone a chance to live eternally with Him if the price He was paying was only for a few?"
What you're bringing up here is the doctrine of definite redemption (aka limited atonement) -- the third and most disputed point of Calvinism. I think it's helpful, to avoid confusion, to state exactly what the Calvinist position is here: Christ's death, while infinitely sufficient to cover the sins of as many or as few people as God wishes, only effectively paid for the sins of the elect. In other words, Christ's death did not pay for the sins of those who will not place their faith in Him and obtain salvation (even though it theoretically could have). The reasoning for this doctrine is as follows. Many Scripture passages speak of Jesus dying for the elect (all emphases mine):
-"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." John 10:11, and a similar statement in v. 15
-"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." Acts 20:28
-"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all [in context speaking of the elect], how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" Romans 8:32
-"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" Ephesians 5:25
-"but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [again, in context, speaking of Christians]" Romans 5:8
and that's not an exhaustive list. In addition, if Christ paid for the sins of every person to ever live, why would anyone ever go to hell? If Christ absorbed all the wrath and due penalty for their sins on the cross, why would they still need to pay it themselves in hell? One could say that they go to hell for rejecting Jesus, not for their sins; however Romans 5 seems to suggest otherwise. Essentialy the question that is raised then, is what did Christ accomplish by dying on the cross? Did He save men, or merely make them savable? If He died for everyone, then He didn't save anyone by dying on the cross -- or else you're forced into universalism. If He saved those he died for on the cross, then He necessarily died only for those who would be saved.
Nonetheless, a free offer of the gospel can and most definitely should be made to everyone. As noted above, we are commanded to -- and the knowledge that some are elect and will receive the gospel and convert is assurance that our witnessing is not in vain. Aside from that, we don't know, and have no way of knowing, who is and isn't elect. Now as far as why Jesus would do it -- the answer (or at least part of it) seems fairly obvious to me. To pay for the sins of the elect. And it is especially important to note that the doctrine of definite redemption in no way teaches that someone could want to come to Christ and find they are unable to because He hasn't paid for their sins. If someone genuinely wants to come to Christ, that in itself is a sure indication that they are elect, and He has.
"Free will was His idea, after all."
Can you find me any evidence in Scripture that would suggest that we have free will in the sense that we are not under God's sovereign control and/or are able to resist His will? Also if that is the case, are we able, on our own, to do anything good, including come to Christ without Him first initiating our conversion by regenerating us? John 6:44, Romans 9:19, 1 Corinthians 2:14, among other passages, would seem to suggest otherwise.
"And He seeks a relationship of love with us; we are free children, not pawns. Of course I'm not saying that I will be saved by my free will choice to follow Christ, since I am saved by living (as opposed to dead) faith through His grace. But God will not force me to live my life in Him if I don't want to. Or are you saying that He would? I don't understand."
Again, God's sovereignty over us does not mean that our will is meaningless. God's sovereignty works in such a way that He works in and through our wills (see Philippians 2:12-13). This seems to be the most common misunderstanding here about Calvinism. As I said in an earlier comment, the fact that God has predestined all things does not negate the fact that our wills are active and necessary. If I drop a pencil, it's 100% because God predestined that I should do so, and 100% because I chose to (or I'm just clumsy!). Sometimes Scripture requires us to believe things that we can't fully or concretely understand. Can anyone explain to me exactly how the Trinity works? Concurrence, I believe, is much the same way. How can an action be 100% caused by God and 100% caused by the creature? I don't know exactly, but that's what Scripture teaches. I read a phrase-long summary of the differing views on sovereignty by theologian Bruce Ware that I think may help explain this in simplest terms:
-Open Theism: Uncertain Hands of God and Men
-Arminianism: Independent Hands of God and Men
-Calvinism: Coordinated Hands of God and Men
And the question must not be, which do we like most? Or which seems to make the most logical sense? But which has the most support in Scripture? I would like to point out once again, that most of the time, objections to Calvinism are not based on the Biblical texts but on what are perceived to be the necessary implications of Calvinism. (i.e.: Why would we evangelize? Doesn't that make God responsible for sin? etc.) I believe that we should determine our theology based on what is taught in Scripture and then wrestle with the implications of it, rather than rejecting a doctrine outright because we don't like what we think it implies. I've already done more than my share of trying to show that only Calvinism makes sense of both the extent of God's sovereignty and our own responsibility as revealed in Scripture. If you still have trouble with what you think the implications of that must be, or can't figure out exactly how that would work, again, I would recommend that you check out On The Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards. If that seems like too much work to get through, John Piper makes some reference to the main points of the book and how it corrects the errors of hyper-Calvinism in his talk Holy Faith, Worthy Gospel, World Vision. In any case, I feel like in the past few posts I've been just repeating the same point (namely, the doctrine of concurrence) and I'm not sure there's much else I can say on that.
I'm not sure if this will be the end of the discussion or not, but I just wanted to say again, that I was glad to participate in this, and hope that it's been helpful for all sides -- I know it has been for me. I'd also like to apologize if at any point I was arrogant or too forceful, or was arguing to prove myself right rather than arguing for the glory God gets and the joy we get when we believe true doctrine.
28. Mandi had the following to say on Jun 13 at 3:04 PM:
Mark Willard,
Just a quick note to say that I actually really admire the passion with which you write, though I disagree with you on some points...I appreciate you having written back, and the tone you've used...I'm actually in the throws of planning the bulk of my upcoming wedding right now (about 12 weeks away and almost nothing done yet!), but I'll try my best to look up the passages of Scripture you've linked me to, as I think I'd need to read them to see what you're trying to get at...the ones you've quoted in full have not convinced me of your point.
As it happens, I think some of my issues with some of the arguments on this post are related to ones I hope to get to on a post also by Motte re: Mark Dever on Christian Disagreement.
29. Mark Willard had the following to say on Jun 14 at 10:50 AM:
Mandi,
I appreciate you writing back as well, and for Pete's sake -- I think your wedding is more important than a blog discussion! Don't let this distract you if you've got a lot to do there.
From what you've said on this comment and others, it seems to me that your issue is primarily with two things: the historical basis for Calvinism and Definite Redemption (AKA Limited Atonement). As I've been thinking about and reading up on God's sovereignty (specifically in regards to salvation) I've had some more thoughts on both of those (and learned some new things) that I think may help clarify those two issues.
Historical Basis
The problem with determining the Church's historical position on an issue such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism, is that neither existed as a named system with five points prior to the 17th century. Thus, trying to project either system onto the early Church or Church fathers will ultimately be anachronistic. A good example is the question of Protestant vs. Roman Catholic theology in the early Church. Because those two schools of thought didn't exist prior to the Reformation, you'll often find some of both in all of the Church fathers, and ultimately, the question usually becomes one of emphasis. (It's also important to note that the Church fathers, on many issues, disagreed amongst themselves.) For example, few of the Church fathers seem to support Roman supremacy, yet most of them seem to believe in baptismal regeneration. As noted earlier, Augustine had a more or less Calvinist understanding of total depravity and God's sovereign predestination of all events. Augustine is considered by many (reformed and non-reformed alike) to be one of the most Biblical and theologically wise Church fathers in history. And although I do not know for certain, I would imagine he is not the only one with Calvinist doctrines in his writings. Ultimately though, unless you're very exclusive in your definition of "the Church," the Church throughout history has not been unanimous on all issues. That is why it is inerrant Scripture that must be the authoritative arbiter in doctrinal disputes.
Definite Redemption
Despite my attempt at careful wording, I think I may have implied some un-Biblical things in my description of Definite Redemption. Calvinists do not believe that God only loves the elect. We affirm that God loves everyone, and in some sense, died for everyone. There are numerous texts that speak of God loving the world and Christ dying for the world that cannot be ignored. When Christ died on the cross, He purchased common grace for the entirety of humanity throughout history. The fact that God "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust," (Matthew 5:45) was purchased through Christ's blood. Every breath that every human being takes when he/she is allowed to live a second longer instead of being condemned to hell for eternity was purchased by the blood of Christ. This is true for all times, people, and places. (Romans 3:21-26) Remember, our sins are not just forgiven, they are paid for. And anything that we get that is not hell, is something we do not deserve (and something God would be unjust to give us) that Christ had to suffer the consequences of our sin for. In this sense Christ died for and loves all men.
But Christ also loves and died for the Church in a special way. I once heard Bruce Ware give a very good analogy of this. Ephesians 5:25 says "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Imagine if your fiancé sat down next to you and and said, "Honey, I love you... But also keep in mind that as a Christian I'm commanded to love everyone and so I love you in the same way I love every other person in the world." What could Ephesians 5:25 mean except that Christ loves and gave Himself up for the Church in a unique way that He did not give Himself up for everyone outside the Church? Christ gave himself up for the Church in that He effectively and definitely purchased not only common grace for them, but the forgiveness of all their sins, the revival from spiritual blindness and deadness necessary for them to see and accept Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10 & 2 Corinthians 4:3-6), a faith that is strong enough to persevere, and ultimately, the fullness of their redemption resulting in their glorification. All of this, Christ purchased for us on the cross, and is not of ourselves... at all. Calvinists believe that Christ's death was effective -- that is, everything He purchased with His death will come to fruition. (cf. Romans 8:28-30 & John 17:20-26) Nothing He did was wasted. Desiring God states this succinctly and clearly when they say:
"...it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need—namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity."