Kenneth Hynek • 24th Aug 2009 • Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Christianity, History, Religion, Protestantism, Religion, Theology • atheism, Calvinism, Christ, DRB, exegesis, God, Jesus, John C. Wright, John Calvin, limited atonement, reason, resurrection, Sex, sexual revolution, the Church, Theology, US
Near the very end of John C. Wright‘s series of articles — in the final article, in fact — was buried a comment that made me reflect on a certain tenet of Calvinism: limited atonement.
Like most Calvinist teachings, limited atonement is bollocks, though not because it is patently false. Rather, it mixes truth and falsehood in some measure. Unlike some other Calvinist tenets, it’s not the sort of thing that’s nice in theory but not workable in reality; the errors with this doctrine are purely within the realms of Theology, exegesis, and reason.
And in fact, arguing against the tenet is quite easy. Far too many Protestants — including and perhaps especially those of a Calvinist bent — like to use John 3:16 as a forum or email signature. And while there’s nothing wrong with using Scripture in this capacity, there is a problem in that they often use this particular verse in ignorance of its complete meaning. This is especially the case for those who believe that false doctrine called limited atonement.
What does John 3:16 say, then? In the DRB, it is rendered thusly:
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
For completeness, we should also consider the two verses that follow.
For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world: but that the world may be saved by him.
He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
One could exegete these three verses to assault another Calvinist tenet as well, but let’s table that matter for now and focus on two key points regarding atonement that the above verses teach, concerning its scope and the means by which man can attain its saving power.
John separates these two categories remarkably well. Concerning the first — atonement’s scope — he is explicit: “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son…that the world may be saved by him.” Christ was sent into the world to save the world, not just an “elect” subset of the world. John makes no bones about this! The Gospel does not say that “God so loved his own, as to give his only begotten Son…that his regenerate may be saved by him.”
At this point, we could almost stop; noting only as much as we have already done is actually sufficient. Limited atonement — basically, that Christ’s death and resurrection only atoned for the sins of “regenerate” Christians — is obviously false, as Scripture itself indicates. Christ was sent to save all the world, and as such His death must necessarily have atoned for the sins of all the world.
So why does Calvinism teach limited atonement?
There was a recent incident in the US in which a deranged man shot up an exercise class at a gymnasium, before turning the gun on himself. On his blog, discovered some hours later, he detailed his reasons for killing…but also talked at length about his former pastor’s somewhat liberal stance on what Christ’s atonement meant. In his (errant) view, Jesus had already atoned for the sins he was about to commit, so he had to fear no eternal condemnation for either his pending murders or his present-day atheism.
Presumably, he received a rather rude awakening when he pulled the trigger for the final time.
Now, why do I mention this?
It is not, by any means, a new heresy, this teaching that since Christ atoned for the sins of all, all are saved regardless of their deeds or beliefs. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of the name of the relevant historical heresy that taught this…but I am fairly certain that such a heresy was seen in the earlier days of the Church.
I half-suspect that in inventing the doctrine of limited atonement, Calvin was attempting to argue against this heresy; that he was doing so in a way itself heretical is rather ironic. Oh, to be fair, the doctrine also proceeds, logically, from other Calvinist tenets — if one is going to believe that some people are born already, and then inexorably, damned, it’s not exactly a leap of great distance to likewise believe that Jesus did not die to atone for the sins of all mankind. It may be patent stupidity to believe as much, but it’s not illogical.
The problem, however, is that such a view isn’t really defensible from Scripture.
Oh, one could attempt to sneak the limitation in by the back door and argue that BELIEF (or disbelief) is predestined. This addresses the other category John talks about — how mankind accesses the salvation that flows out of Christ’s atonement for our sins. About this point, John is fairly specific: “…whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting…he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John does leave it to later authors — Paul and James, especially — to expand upon what it means to believe in Christ, and Jesus himself gives plenty examples of what the full implications, obligations, and responsibilities of being a believer are.
And to be fair, one could get into a lengthy discussion about whether individual men and women are, in fact, predestined to believe, or predestined to eschew belief, in Christ.
But equally, so what? The issue is atonement, which we’ve already established cannot be limited, else Scripture be found to teach falsely. Even if some are predestined to never come to the faith necessary for access to the salvation that flows from that atonement (and I’m granting a very big “if” there*), this does not in any way mean that atonement itself is limited.
Now, I mentioned John C. Wright, and the good reader could be forgiven for wondering at this point just where he fits into the picture. As I noted previously, he said something that got this train of thought moving for me. Here, then, is his observation:
Christ bled and died for my enemies, the Leftists and the sexual revolutionaries, as well as for those tempted by sexual sins and lures. Not only must I pray for my enemies, I must do so even though that act or prayer holds me up to their derision. Since Christ died for them, I cannot hold these people up to the scorn they deserve, or mock their weaknesses, since those things are of secondary or even of no importance in the grand scheme of things.
What this statement got me thinking about was the implications of, especially, the first sentence if it were somehow proven that limited atonement was a valid and true doctrine. Do you see how the calculus would change, good reader? For, if Christ did NOT die for the sins of our enemies, if He did not bleed for them, then we need not pray for them…indeed, since they are inexorably damned, it would be a waste of breath and effort to do so! And since Christ did not die for “them,” there is no reason to spare them scorn, mockery, or derision for their weaknesses and sins.
One could even go so far as to argue that one’s enemies cannot be called “children of God,” and so need not even be thought of as brothers and sisters…which, in turn, means that one is free to pour out even hatred upon them, without fear of bring condemned as a murderer.
You laugh, good reader, but I’m not inventing anything here; I have heard such arguments before.
And indeed, we can see exactly such sentiments expressed in the writings and deeds of John Calvin, who once wrote that he would sooner murder — or see murdered — a good friend rather than see the man revert to being a ‘papist,’ and whose persecutions of Catholics were substantially more vicious and cruel than the persecutions Catholics are accused (rightly or wrongly) of carrying out against early Protestants.
Whatever spirit the man felt himself being led by, it was not the spirit of Jesus. And in like manner, whatever spirit gave rise to this doctrine of limited atonement was not the spirit of Christ.
One can only pray, then, that this alien spirit did not lead Calvin’s soul to ruin, just as one must pray that following his poisonous teachings will not lead millions more souls to ruin.
What else can one do? Christ died even for Calvin, and for those who continue to preach his bilgewater doctrines.
* * *
* I cannot state in strong enough terms how odious a doctrine Calvinist predestination is. If we were to abstract life as a swimming pool, in which those who come to know salvation are those able to tread water for a set time, Calvinist predestination would be the teaching that Jesus deliberately holds some people’s heads under the water and drowns them…”for the glory of God.”
It’s an ugly teaching, and a temptation I struggle to resist (and then more often than I care to admit) is the temptation to hope that it is a damnable teaching.
Powered by the iPod Touch.
Kenneth Hynek • 20th Aug 2009 • Health, Aberrant Sexuality, Religion, Atheism, Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Christianity, Society, Men and Women, Health, Reproduction, Health, Sex • atheism, Catholicism, faith, fornication, homosexual, John C. Wright, marriage, natural law, Sex, sexual revolution, SyFy, Wikipedia, women
The always-excellent John C. Wright, hopefully bringing to a close a lenghty debate on his blog, offers up a multi-part explanation of the argument that swung him ’round — and then during his years as a militant atheist — to support traditional marriage.
In order, the articles are:
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part I (preamble and explanation)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part II (key questions)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part III (the argument)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part IV (the argument, continued)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part V (on law, marriage, and fornication)
- APOLOGIA PRO OPERE SUI part VI (concluding remarks)
The good reader might be wondering what prompted Wright to embark on such a long-winded explanation of the formation of his views. A read of this earlier article, and several that follow, might be worthwhile. It seems that in making a comment expressing his disagreement with a recent concession by SyFy, under pressure from proponents of the “homosexual agenda,” to include more gay characters in their shows, Wright attracted the ire of a large mob of amateur (and possibly a few professional) pro-gay agitators. The usual trolling ensued: hundreds of off-topic and/or insulting comments were left on Wright’s blog, his publisher evidently contacted, and his Wikipedia page was vandalized.
(Because the tolerant Left is so abundantly tolerant, not to mention secure in its philosophy, that it must work to silence any opponent, and also secure his economic ruin if possible. For such is Leftist tolerance: the Left tolerates its own, and bars no holds against “the other.”)
In particular, Wright was also accused of being anti-gay (or pro-marriage) because of his Catholicism, his Christian faith. Hence, his articles, a means of demonstrating that his faith did not lead him to be pro-marriage; if anything, his becoming pro-marriage was a first stepping stone toward his eventual faith.
His arguments touch on natural law, of course — he draws heavily on the “laboratory of real life” (to use the sublime Sheavian term) in articulating his position, and also leverages principles of law and economics, as well as Stoic virtues. If nothing else, then, his arguments demonstrate — while remaining entirely secular, mind — that reality comports with Catholic teaching in regard to human Sexuality and marriage. The Libertine approach (as Wright calls it) of modernity (set in place by the sexual revolution) leads to ruination…and on the way completely disadvantages and devalues women…whereas the Catholic position upholds the dignity of same, and proposes a reasonable defence thereof.
Some would call this an irony. At least, the foolish would.
It’s an interesting set of articles, good reader. Do read them all.
Kenneth Hynek • 13th Aug 2008 • Religion, Catholicism, Health, History, Society, Men and Women, Health, Reproduction, Health, Sex, Society • abortion, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, birth control, contraception, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, David Blankenhorn, divorce, Economic Journal, Gary Sandefur, George Akerlof, Humanae Vitae, John C. Wright, Judith Wallerstein, Lionel Tiger, marriage, Mary Eberstadt, men, Nobel Prize, Pope Paul VI, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Religion, Sara McLanahan, Sex, sexual revolution, Stephanie Coontz, the Church, women
John C. Wright has the details
, linking to an article at First Things by Mary Eberstadt that looks at modern evidence, gleaned from sociological and sociobiological research and studies concerning the course and state of society, which demonstrates that the predictions of Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical have all come true.
Unfortunately.
Let’s begin by meditating upon what might be called the first of the secular ironies now evident: Humanae Vitae‘s specific predictions about what the world would look like if artificial contraception became widespread. The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.
…
Consider, as Wilcox does, the Nobel Prize-winning economist George Akerlof. In a well-known 1996 article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Akerlof explained in the language of modern economics why the sexual revolution — contrary to common prediction, especially prediction by those in and out of the Church who wanted the teaching on birth control changed — had led to an increase in both illegitimacy and abortion. In another work published in the Economic Journal ten years ago, he traced the empirical connections between the decrease in marriage and married fatherhood for men — both clear consequences of the contraceptive revolution — and the simultaneous increase in behaviors to which single men appear more prone: substance abuse, incarceration, and arrests, to name just three.
Along the way, Akerlof found a strong connection between the diminishment of marriage on the one hand and the rise in poverty and social pathology on the other. He explained his findings in nontechnical terms in Slate magazine: “Although doubt will always remain about what causes a change in social custom, the technology-shock theory does fit the facts. The new reproductive technology was adopted quickly, and on a massive scale. Marital and fertility patterns changed with similar drama, at about the same time.”
To these examples of secular social science confirming what Catholic thinkers had predicted, one might add many more demonstrating the negative effects on children and society. The groundbreaking work that Daniel Patrick Moynihan did in 1965, on the black family, is an example — along with the critical research of psychologist Judith Wallerstein over several decades on the impact of divorce on children; Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s well-known work on the outcomes of single parenthood for children; Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur’s seminal book, Growing Up with a Single Parent
; and David Blankenhorn’s Fatherless America
, another lengthy summarization of the bad empirical news about family breakup.
…
In sum, although a few apologists such as Stephanie Coontz still insist otherwise, just about everyone else in possession of the evidence acknowledges that the Sexual revolution has weakened family ties, and that family ties (the presence of a biologically related mother and father in the home) have turned out to be important indicators of child well-being — and more, that the broken home is not just a problem for individuals but also for society. Some scholars, moreover, further link these problems to the contraceptive revolution itself.
Consider the work of maverick sociobiologist Lionel Tiger. Hardly a cat’s-paw of the pope — he describes Religion as “a toxic issue” — Tiger has repeatedly emphasized the centrality of the sexual revolution to today’s unique problems. The Decline of Males
, his 1999 book, was particularly controversial among feminists for its argument that female contraceptives had altered the balance between the sexes in disturbing new ways (especially by taking from men any say in whether they could have children).
Equally eyebrow-raising is his linking of contraception to the breakdown of families, female impoverishment, trouble in the relationship between the sexes, and single motherhood. Tiger has further argued — as Humanae Vitae did not explicitly, though other works of Catholic theology have — for a causal link between contraception and abortion, stating outright that “with effective contraception controlled by women, there are still more abortions than ever. . . . Contraception causes abortion.”
Catholics, and the Pope, were poo-pooed from pretty much every quarter for speculating that elevating birth control to the status of a social norm — or even a social expectation — would ultimately cause many more problems than it would solve. The opinion of the Church was considered to be one of ignorance, backwardness, and fear.
Instead, it has been shown to have been nigh-prophetic…which, unfortunately, means that society has indeed suffered a great detriment that it could potentially have spared itself.
Kenneth Hynek • 16th Jul 2008 • Society, Men and Women, Health, Reproduction, Health, Sex, Society • Australia, Betty Page, Dove, feminism, Marilyn Monroe, Mission Australia, Sears, Sex, sexual revolution, women
Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred link to an article from Quadrant that discusses the pressures that modern young women often find themselves facing. It’s a pretty terrifying read, and I also think it’s a rather damning indictment of feminism and the various social changes that have emerged out of, or parallel to, that movement. Oh, don’t get me wrong — early feminism achieved some good ends. But suffrage and wage equity were one thing; abortion and the “liberation” of sexuality were quite a different thing, and then not nearly so beneficial.
Trends in popular culture, the insidious creep of the cult of bodily perfection, the dominance of fad diets, billboards and magazines depicting flawless female forms, all play a part. Then there’s the commercial interests of companies marketing the promise of success in life through the bowling-ball breasts preferred by readers of Zoo.
Another significant factor is that the movement for women’s equality was overtaken by the movement for Sexual licence — the sexual revolution. To be free has come to mean the freedom to wrap your legs around a pole, flash your breasts in public, girls-gone-wild style, or perform acts of the oral variety on school-boys at weekend parties in lieu of the (as traditionally understood) goodnight kiss.
IN AN AGE OF “Girl Power”, many girls are feeling powerless. They are facing unprecedented social pressure, their emotional and psychological well-being at risk in ways never before imagined.
I understand that the 1950s weren’t exactly all that and a bag of chips for women, and that’s unfortunate. But it has to be said: back then, things were a lot more…well…wholesome. “Sex sells” was hardly the norm in marketing, and the televisions and billboards were not plastered with nudity and just-shy-of-soft-core-pornographic imagery. One might have been able to thumb through a Life magazine and note the presence of a lingere add or two, but even these were reasonably tasteful when compared against even what one can sometimes find in the Sears catalogue.
Heck, even the pinup girls were normally proportioned, and had figures that any reasonably healthy women wouldn’t have to starve herself to emulate. For whatever scandals might have surrounded Betty Page or Marilyn Monroe, their figures were normal and healthily proportioned; they weren’t Photoshopped, nor were they expected to be. Nowadays, one can hardly see a woman (or a man) in a magazine or newspaper who hasn’t had their picture retouched in some fashion.
The body has become a project that a girl has to work on full-time. If she stops to even take a breath, she might gain weight. Too many girls are trying to imitate half-starved celebrities, and are obsessed with trying to conform to impossible-to-attain highly sexualised images. Some sobering statistics:
A Mission Australia national survey (2007) of 29,000 young people aged eleven to twenty-four found that body image was the most important problem for them — ahead of family conflict, stress, bullying, alcohol, drugs and suicide.
The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health found that between 40 per cent and 82 per cent of young women were dissatisfied with their weight and/or shape.
Close to 20 per cent of adolescent girls use fasting for two or more days to lose weight. Another 13 per cent use vomiting. Others rely on slimming pills, chewing but not swallowing food, smoking and laxative abuse, as found in the 2006 National Youth Cultures of Eating Study.
One in 100 adolescent girls suffers anorexia.
An estimated one in five is bulimic.
One in four teenage girls wants to have plastic surgery, according to reports in August last year.
To say nothing of the hyper-sexualized images one sees constantly thrown at young women from every angle. Dove is maybe the one exception to this trend, what with their “Campaign for Real Beauty” and their use of normally-proportioned women in their marketing campaigns. Still, one notes that Dove does make and market products that ostensibly are to be used to “firm up” the skin and keep it “looking young”, thus stoking the fires of the dissatisfaction with body image that plagues many women today.
And much of this can be traced back, I think, to when feminism and other movements sought to “liberate” sexuality, especially female sexuality. The outcome of such a goal should have been predictable — once sex was no longer something “special”, titilation was fair game for marketers. And like the old maxim about Labour Day and white clothes, once sex was liberated it was only a matter of time before women who didn’t look and dress a certain way, and who didn’t “put out” when it was demanded of them, would be thought of as having committed some kind of faux pas.
Feminism, at its outset, did some great things for women. But in the wake of the sexual revolution and its disastrous results, it would seem that the drive to “liberate” women has only left them in heavier, more tightly fastened shackles.
Update: Welcome, Steynians!
