You left out this part: “Christ died as a substitute for sinners to provide a bona fide offer of salvation to all people”.

If the atonement is limited, the substitution is only for the elect, not for all people.

As for the acronym, TuDip might be better… cause it’s kind of a Dippy doctrine!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Seems like standard “limited atonement” to me. That was never the best term for the doctrine, though. But it worked for the acronym. A better term is “Definite Atonement”, but what’s a TuDip?

Keith

I like the little bit of Canajan, eh? It beats ‘huh’ all hollow!

I don’t read much of Piper. The hyphenated word thing is a bit distracting, to say the least. No doubt it is his personality, but it seems to call attention to him rather than to what he says. He ought to try to break himself of that habit.

Yes, it was interesting that he takes the time to explain his views. We can’t always do that and to some extent the labels do help, but it is helpful to explain what you mean, especially as you are working through an argument on the topic.

BTW, he would seem to be more on the Amyraldian side from that description. It sounds like he doesn’t hold to a limited atonement, exactly, from that description.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

If you don’t like hyphenated words ending in ing, then you must go crazy reading Piper.

I’m not the biggest fans of the hyphens myself (although read Piper and friends enough and it rubs off on ya). However, that wasn’t my point. My point was that he explained what he means by Calvinist. He doesn’t assume common understanding or usage.

Have I ever mentioned how much I am against hyphens? The trend du jour is to call oneself a xxx-xxx Christian. I personally think the hyphens do a lot of pointing at ME. Look at me! Look at what kind of a Christian I am! Somehow I think they deny the point they are trying to make.

But maybe that’s just me.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3846:saying-what-you-believe-is-clearer-than-saying-calvinist&catid=79:commentary&Itemid=137

Man, we’re coming to agreement! Better be careful or we’ll be going neo…

Well, I think the term biblicist isn’t really adequate. I know what I would mean by it, but you are right that it doesn’t of itself communicate what I would be trying to say with it. Usually, in these discussions ‘non-Calvinist’ is more descriptive.

I tend to value Biblical Theology over Systematic because I have more confidence in the ‘thus saith the Lord’ nature of its conclusions … although there are disagreements over interpretation in this field also, as we well know. But while Systematic has value, it’s weakness is that parts of its conclusions are not revealed, but arrived at by human understanding. Thus it isn’t ‘thus saith the Lord’, but ‘thus saith Calvin’ or ‘Arminius’ or ‘Amyraut’ or ‘Don Johnson’. (Just thought I’d put my name up in light there….)

I am cautious about fully embracing any system of theology in consequence of this view.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Words don’t mean anything by common sense. They have meaning by stipulation or by usage. When we discover that we are using the same term to refer to different things and that there is no current or historical agreement on the use of that term — like with “free will” — we should clarify and/or stipulate.

Some words/terms, though, do have historically stipulated meanings — like Calvinist and Arminian. They refer to historical positions/groups. Therefore, one can appeal to the history in defense of a definition/understanding.

Of course, even here, when we discover that we are using these terms differently in a discussion, we need to clarify.

Anyway, I guess I see you final point. But, I still think that Biblical Theology is a better term for what you’re getting at.

Hi Keith (and Brian)

As you speak of it here, you speak as if everyone means the same thing by the “sovereingty of God” and the “freewill of man.” However, this is exactly where the discussion sits — what does the Bible say about these things? What do you mean by “freewill”? Do you mean the same thing as “responsible”? Not everyone does. What do you mean by “sovereign”? etc. Accepting tension does nothing to define these terms.

That’s true. But see, even when we have more concrete terms than Biblicist, we still have problems communicating because we mean different things by them. The theology wonks have created the terms “compatibilist free will” and “libertarian free will” in order to distinguish meaning, but it extinguishes the meaning of “free will” by itself in any common sense approach (my opinion). We can get very pomo about all this and find that no terms have any meaning if we carry on like this.

So… back to the term at hand, if Biblicist describes a position (like Calvinist or Arminian), I agree it communicates very little. If it speaks to a methodology, I think it says something.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Actually, well instructed Calvinists don’t emphasize God’s sovereignty over man’s responsibility. And, well instructed Arminian’s don’t emphasize man’s responsibility over God’s sovereignty. They both accept the tensions between these two truths here. However, they believe that the Scriptures address/define these two truths differently. They disagree over what the Bible says about these truths.

Yes, we must — as the Bible does — maintain that God is sovereign and that man is responsible. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree. The argument isn’t about the necessity of both “rails” (in your illustration), or about both “rails” being connected. The argument is over the definition and nature of each rail and how they are connected.

You say: “Using the sovereignty of God/freewill of man tension . . .”

As you speak of it here, you speak as if everyone means the same thing by the “sovereingty of God” and the “freewill of man.” However, this is exactly where the discussion sits — what does the Bible say about these things? What do you mean by “freewill”? Do you mean the same thing as “responsible”? Not everyone does. What do you mean by “sovereign”? etc. Accepting tension does nothing to define these terms.

I have no problem with someone saying, “I reject Calvinism and I reject Arminianism, here’s what I believe . . .” However, it does no good to say, “I’m a Biblicist because I hold Calvinism and Arminianism in tension.” That statement just reveals a misunderstanding of both Calvinism and Arminianism and it uses the term “Biblicist” to mask the misunderstanding.