I have lately taken to thinking that there is really no stability in the idea that Christ made no atonement whatsoever for the non-elect. Try as I might I don't see how it is defensible to say that the death of Christ on the cross is of no benefit to them. If Christ doesn't buy at least a temporary pardon for the non-elect then there is no such thing as common grace, but common grace is explicitly affirmed in Scripture. If He doesn't make an atonement in any way then for some men salvation is flatly impossible regardless of whether they believe or not. But John 3:16 indicates that those who believe will be saved.
High Calvinism then is based on a logical chain of reasoning and arguments that I think is more correct and water tight in hyper Calvinism. Most Calvinists are saved from a full commitment to hyper-Calvinism because they are unwilling to follow through on the logical conclusions of their beliefs, and that's a good thing.
In short, my suspicions are that High Calvinism looks like a muddy and unstable middle ground that gives way to either the moderate or Hyper position when pressed.
1 comment:
hey there,
You are right. The hyper makes consistent what is inconsistent in high Calvinism.
The classic-moderate does the same but moves in the other direction.
Are you on theology list? Weve been hammering this out again. Jim Beale has posted some very very good critiques of high Calvinism.
Thanks,
David
Post a Comment