By Pastor Bruce Oyen
E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com
In this posting I will evaluate some statements by the well-known author and 5-point Calvinist, Jay Adams. His statements are in red, to easily distinguish them from mine.
However, let it be understood that I have much respect for Adams, though I do not personally know him. He is a dedicated Christian brother, and a serious Bible student and scholar. I decided to analyze his statements because he is very outspoken in his belief in 5-point Calvinism, which I consider to be unscriptural. I also know the use of his name in the title of this posting will get the attention of those who are familiar with him through his many books.
Speaking of the books of Jay Adams, let me recommend to you preachers a book of his that recently I read with pleasure and profit. Here is a link to it so you can take a look-see at it:
An Analysis of Some Of His Statements In His Book, "Competent To Counsel"
The first statements are from his famous book called, "Competent to Counsel." In this section of the book, Adams wrote about the work of the counselor as it relates to evangelism. Here is a quote from chapter 5, which is titled "The Pastor As A Nouthetic Counselor." (The quote is from page 70 in my early edition of the book): "Their work is to confront unsaved men with the universal offer of the Gospel. This offer is genuinely made to every man, but only God can bring life to dead souls to enable them to believe. He does this when and where and how he pleases by his Spirit, who regenerates, or gives life leading to faith. But counselors, as Christians, are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of his own, that he bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all whom the Father had given to him might come unto him and have everlasting life. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for he cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died. But the counselor's job is to explain the gospel and to say very plainly that God commands all men to repent of their sin and believe in Jesus Christ."
Let me say these things about these statements by Adams:
How can he tell us "This offer is genuinely made to every man," when he says Christ did not die to save every man? Why would God have us genuinely offer something to everyone that, according to 5-point Calvinism, God Himself has not intended for everyone?
The Calvinist will say that we don't know whom God intends to save, so we must offer the Gospel to everyone. Adams believes that God has chosen only certain persons to be saved by faith in Christ. He believes that the Holy Spirit irresistibly causes only those persons to have faith in Christ. And he believes that Jesus Christ died to save only those persons. Therefore I ask, how can it be a sincere offer, when he believes these things about salvation?
It reminds me of an experience I had many years ago. A friend offered to let me use his riding lawnmower whenever I needed it. Well, one day I asked to borrow it. But I told him I could tell he had some hesitation about loaning it to me. He then admitted he had assumed I would not ask to borrow it. It was not a sincere offer to use the mower, after all.
Jay Adams wrote: "As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for he cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died."
Consider these points about these two sentences:
First, it is wrong to say we cannot tell someone Christ died for him or her. It is wrong, because the Bible very plainly teaches otherwise. Here are some verses that prove Calvinism is wrong:
1 Timothy 2:4 - 6 tells us that God "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." These verses tell us about two "alls": God "will have all men to be saved," and, Christ Jesus "gave himself a ransom for all."
Hebrews 2:9 says "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
1 John 2:2 says this of the Lord Jesus Christ: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
Second, besides those clear Biblical statements that contradict Calvinism, thereare others that lead to the same conclusion. For example:
Romans 5:6 says, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." We know the Bible teaches that all of us are unrighteous, sinful, ungodly (Romans 3:10 and 23). We know the Bible teaches that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Therefore we conclude that we can say he died for all of us.
1 Timothy 1:15 says: "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." The same logic can be used when considering Paul's statement in that verse. The logic is this: We know the Bible says we all are unrighteous or sinners (Romans 3:10 and 23). We know the Bible says Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). Therefore we conclude that we can say he came to save all of us.
Jay Adams said this: "As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for he cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died." Therefore I ask, how does he know Christ died for him? If Adams says it is because he is now a saved man, he is basing his belief on a strictly subjective thing.
The Bible does not anywhere say that we know whom Jesus died to save because they claim to be Christians, or because they seem to be Christians. Instead, it teaches that those who claim to be Christians, and whose behavior gives evidence of their being Christians, and who claim to believe the doctrines of the Bible, should be accepted as Christians. This is one of the points of the first two epistles or letters of the apostle John.
But the way to know if Christ died for us is altogether a different matter. It is based on objective statements of the Bible. And such objective statements are found in the verses such as the ones given above: 1 Timothy 2:4 - 6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2. As C. R. Stam put it in his book,"Divine Election And Human Responsibility,": "If Christ did not die for all, how do you know he died for you?" (page 66). Stam also wisely wrote: "But if Christ died only for the elect (a small minority of mankind), and He didn't say He died for you, then you are not basing your faith for salvation on the Word of God, are you?" (page 68)
An Analysis Of Some Of His Statements on His Blog Spot
Some Calvinists think a "general atonement" is a partially wasted atonement. They believe that if Christ died to save everyone, and not everyone gets saved, then some of the atonement was wasted. The following quote proves that Adams believes this to be true. The quote is taken from his blog spot. Here is a link to it:
Jay Adams' words are in red to easily distinguish them from mine.
Limited Atonement
March 4, 2009 by Jay Adams
All Christians believe in limited atonement.
“No,” you say. “I don’t.”
Oh? Well, let’s see. Do you believe that God has the desire for all to be saved?
“Certainly.”
Do you believe He has the power to save all men?
“Of course.”
Then, why aren’t all saved?
“Because some won’t believe.”
So, He limited His own power to save on the basis of man’s willingness to believe?
“Well . . . “
Let’s take it a step further. The atonement didn’t actually bring God and men together, did it?
“What do you mean?”
Christ’s death didn’t actually atone for all men-the word means to bring about at-one-ment (bringing God and man together after their estrangement because of sin).
“Well, no. But it made atonement possible for all.”
So, there, you’ve admitted that Jesus’ atonement was limited-only those who believe are saved. If what He did actually atones-and not merely makes atonement possible-then all would be saved. If He paid the penalty for everyone’s sin, everyone would go to heaven because his sins would be paid for. God couldn’t punish Jesus and the unbeliever if the latter’s sins were actually paid for. That would be double jeopardy.
“Yes, but Jesus made salvation possible for all.”
So, then, if all are not saved
- What Jesus did on the cross was limited by man; not for all, since the sins of only those who believe are forgiven.
- What Jesus did on the cross was limited in its power to save.
- What Jesus did on the cross was ineffective (limited) in the case of most men.
- What Jesus did on the cross was limited (incomplete) because it requires man to make it effective.
If the Arminian is correct, Jesus‘ death saves no one. His death atones for no one. It is the Doctrine of Total Limitation! It is limited in what it can do because it depends upon man’s belief to make it effective. It was partially (limited) in its effect. The Arminian believes in atonement that is limited in its power to save. That’s total limitation.
Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that the death of Christ was effective and actually brings about the salvation of all those for whom He died. There is no waste in the atonement, it effects atonement for all of the elect. No one is lost for whom Jesus died. All of those whom God intended to be saved will be saved because Jesus’ death actually procured salvation for them rather than simply making it available.
Let us now analyze some of what Adams wrote: First, Adams seems to have made a false contrast between "limited atonement" and its opposite, often called "general atonement." He wrote: So, there, you’ve admitted that Jesus’ atonement was limited-only those who believe are saved.
He knows that to 5-point Calvinists "limited atonement" has reference to extent of the atonement. In their minds, its extent was limited to those whom God had chosen to save. Jesus died only for them. He ought also to know that most of us who believe in a "general atonement" readily admit we believe the extent of the atonement is very far-reaching: Jesus died for all. But we believe that only those who believe in Him will be saved by it. So, for him to say non-Calvinists also believe in a "limited atonement" is to misuse the terminology.
But even he as a 5-point Calvinist believes that only those who believe in Christ will be saved by His death. He wrote this: If the Arminian is correct, Jesus‘ death saves no one. His death atones for no one. It is the Doctrine of Total Limitation! It is limited in what it can do because it depends upon man’s belief to make it effective. Does Adams believe "the elect" will be saved by the death of Christ, if they do not believe in Him? I think not. Let's hope not. An armload of Biblical statements from the New Testament bear abundant witness to the fact that, as Acts 16:30 and 31 teach, a sinner must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. To believe otherwise is to believe a seriously false doctrine.
Second, Adams wrote: God couldn’t punish Jesus and the unbeliever if the latter’s sins were actually paid for. That would be double jeopardy. This is nothing less than unscriptural Calvinistic logic. Not one verse of Scripture can be quoted to support this reference to it being "double jeopardy" if someone for whom Jesus died ends up in hell.
Therefore, consider these verses once more:
1 Timothy 2:4 - 6 tells us that God "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." These verses tell us about two "alls": God "will have all men to be saved," and, Christ Jesus "gave himself a ransom for all."
Hebrews 2:9 says: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."
1 John 2:2 says this of the Lord Jesus Christ: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
From these verses we see the extent of the atonement: it was for everyone. In other words, in contrast to 5-point Calvinism's claims, Jesus actually did pay every one's sins, but only those who believe in Him get the benefit of it. We who are non-Calvinists refuse to let unscriptural Calvinistic logic about so-called "double jeopardy" rob us of the obvious meaning of Biblical statements such as are found in 1 Timothy 2:4 - 6; Hebrews 2:9; and 1 John 2:2.
Third, Adams wrote: Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that the death of Christ was effective and actually brings about the salvation of all those for whom He died. There is no waste in the atonement, it effects atonement for all of the elect. No one is lost for whom Jesus died. His reference to "waste in the atonement" if someone for whom Jesus died does not get saved is another example of unscriptural Calvinistic logic. Can we find any such talk in the Bible itself? I have read the Bible at least 50 times, and have never come across the idea in its pages.
Let's me argue against this Calvinistic view in this way:
God has provided beef, poultry, fish, and other meats for our sustenance. If someone chooses to be a vegetarian, have these meats gone to waste? No.
God has provided water for us. If someone chooses to dehydrate himself to death, has water been wasted? No.
God has provided the sun for us. If someone chooses to never go out in the sun, has it been wasted? No.
God has provided air for us. If someone chooses to asphyxiate himself, has the air been wasted? No.
God has provided love through family and friends. If someone chooses to live in isolation from others, has that love been wasted? No.
Now, then, since we know that, according to 1 Timothy 2:4 - 6; Hebrews 2:9; and 1 John 2:2, God has provided an atonement for everyone, we must conclude that only unscriptural Calvinistic logic would suggest to us that it has been wasted on those who never become Christians.
Quotes about The Atonement
The following quotes come from different sources. Like the others, they are in red to easily distinguish them from my words.
Unger's Bible Dictionary gives this definition of the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible: "In accordance with the force of these terms of Scripture the atonement is the covering over of sin, the reconciliation between God and man, accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that special result of Christ's sacrificial sufferings and death by virtue of which all who exercise proper penitence and faith receive forgiveness of their sins and obtain peace."
Unger's Bible Dictionary, in the "Summary" section on this subject, says these things about the extent of the atonement: "(f) The atonement is not limited ,but universal in the extent of its gracious provisions (Heb. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5,6; 4:10; Rom. 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14). (g) The universality of the atonement does not lead to universal salvation. The greater offer of salvation may be, and often is, rejected, and when the rejection is final the atonement avails nothing for the sinner (Mark 16:16; John 3:36; Heb. 10:26 - 29)."
Unger's Bible Dictionary, in the last paragraph of the whole article on the subject "atonement" says this: "The extent of the atonement is much less discussed than formerly. Many Calvinists have departed from the view they once strenuously held, that the atonement was for the elect only."
Unger's Bible Dictionary, obviously, was written before the more-recent resurgence of crusading Calvinism. Oh, for a return to the good days of which Unger wrote!
Doctrine For Difficult Days is a good book by the late J. Vernon McGee. The Foreword was written by a recognized Biblical scholar, the late John Walvoord, the longtime President of Dallas Theological Seminary. The book has a chapter on the subject of atonement. Here is part of what McGee said: "First of all, I want to deal with the word atonement. The Hebrew word for atonement is kaphar, and it only means 'to cover.' That's all in the world atonement means. I realize there has been an attempt to simplify it by making a play on words, by calling atonement 'at-one-ment.' May I say that though the concept may be there, it is not the meaning of the word at all, because the word means 'to cover.' And it is strictly an Old Testament word."
The International Standard Bible Dictionary has a lengthy article on the subject of atonement. Part of it has to do with the extent of the atonement. Consider the following quote from the ISBE, accessed through The Blue Letter Bible website: (4) Another question over which theologians have sorely vexed themselves and each other concerns the extent of the Atonement, whether it is available for all men or only for certain particular, elect ones. That controversy may now be passed by. It is no longer possible to read the Bible and suppose that God relates himself sympathetically with only a part of the race. All segregated passages of Scripture formerly employed in support of such a view have now taken their place in the progressive self-interpretation of God to men through Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 #Joh 2:2). No man cometh unto the Father but by Him (Joh 14:6): but whosoever does thus call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:32; Ac 2:21).
In Conclusion
If we follow this important principle of interpreting the Bible: "If the plain sense of Scripture makes sense, seek no other sense," we will reject 5-point Calvinism's unscriptural doctrine of "limited atonement," and we will accept the Scriptural doctrine that God the Father sent His Son Jesus Christ to die to save everyone, but they must believe on Him to be saved, just as we read in 1 Timothy 4:10, which says: "...we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of them that believe."
No comments:
Post a Comment