A Palatable Calvinism: Limited Atonement In The Theology Of John Piper

By David H. Wenkel, M.A.

[Bible teacher, Winnetka Bible Church]

Regardless of whether one thinks favorably or unfavorably about him, the ministry of John Piper has silenced those who accuse five point Calvinists of destroying the impetus for missions and evangelism.[1] How has this been accomplished? The success and widespread acclamation of Piper’s books and other resources is impressive in light of his theological stance, especially that of limited atonement. The doctrine of limited atonement, elsewhere called particular redemption or definite atonement does have difficulties and has historically been the source of great debate. One’s position on the doctrine of the atonement has many logical and theological implications: some theoretical, some practical. How one understands Christ’s cross manifests a crucial role in theological issues such as the Gospel call and assurance. This article suggests that Piper’s Calvinism, specifically his doctrine of limited atonement, has taken on certain modifications that enable his theology to be widely accepted without great controversy.[2]

Piper’s Official Position

John Piper’s website is clear that he adheres to the five points of Calvinism (TULIP). On this website, he specifically addressed the matter of limited atonement and briefly defended his position. The explanation of limited atonement includes two important points. First, Piper and the Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff asserted, “in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.”[3] This is important to note because it connects God’s intentions in the cross particularly with the elect, propitiation is solely for the redeemed and none else.

Secondly, Piper and Bethlehem Baptist created a second or dualistic intention in the cross: “We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense.”[4] He continued citing biblical evidence for this position.

1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is “the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers— from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16)—is made possible because of the cross.[5]

This is crucial because it introduces the issue of duality in his doctrine of atonement. Therefore, Piper can tell all people that Christ died for them—he simply does not know how or to what extent. Though this dualist intention is present, he clearly stated that “Christ died for all the sins of some men.”[6]

Amyraldianism

How does this perspective correspond with traditional Reformed theology? This is an important question as Reformed theology has been by no means uniform. Since at least the seventeenth century, Reformed theology has responded of necessity to strands of theology within its ranks that have been found aberrant by those adhering to a more stringent system of limited atonement. An example of this is the debate which continues today over John Calvin’s own view of the extent of the atonement. Calvin’s own views aside, there were definitely theologians within the Reformed churches who held to a Calvinistic system that differed from both Arminianism and the more stringent forms connected with a strong view of limited atonement. The name of this more mediate Calvinistic system is often termed Amyraldism, or Amyraldianism, after Moises Amyraut.

It is important to note that this was actually a much wider movement than one man.[7] The view of the atonement held by Amyraut was taught at the theological school of Saumur, France. Amyraut modified certain doctrines regarding Christ’s work in what is understood to be the traditional Calvinist position.[8] Roger Nicole, provided a helpful synopsis of Moises Amyraut’s theology.

In his [Amyraut’s] Traité de la Prédestination (1634) he claimed that God, moved by his love for mankind, had appointed all human beings to salvation provided they repent and believe. He sent his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for the sins of all mankind in order to implement this purpose.. .. Grace thus is seen as universal in the provision for salvation but as particular in the application of it.[9]

The teaching of Moises Amyraut, his teacher John Cameron, and others at the French academy of Saumur made an impact on the acceptability and apologetics of the Calvinist Gospel call. This was done with the confidence that their position on the extent of the atonement was commensurate with both the Synod of Dort (1618) and the teachings of John Calvin.[10] Martin Klauber explained how this teaching made Calvinism more palatable.

One of the main Roman Catholic objections against reformed theology was that Calvinism minimized the love and justice of God in favor of God’s decrees. The concepts of mediate imputation of Adam’s sin and hypothetical universalism upheld the reformed doctrines of the depravity of man and divine election while emphasizing that God offered each individual the fair opportunity to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.[11]

The traditional view of limited atonement takes care to avoid giving unbelievers the notion that Christ’s death was specifically for them before they believe. This avoids presumptuous speculation on the extent of Christ’s work on the cross. The Gospel is simply to believe and repent rather than introducing common formulas such as “Christ died for you.”[12]

Given this background, it is pertinent to consider the issue of Piper’s soteriology and its relationship to Amyraldianism and limited atonement. While the specific matters of the Gospel call and assurance are addressed specifically, the thrust of the case for considering Piper’s soteriology as Amyraldianism rests on how these areas relate to the core idea of God’s will. It is being asserted here that a reasonable case can be made that Piper’s position on the atonement differs from the traditional Reformed doctrine of limited atonement.

Piper did seek to extricate himself from the appearance of Amyraldianism. In their broad case against Calvinism, Walls and Dongell argued that a dualistic approach wherein “Christ died for the elect in a different sense than he died for the non-elect” goes against the “substance” of the traditional limited atonement view.[13] For this reason, supporters of the traditional view of limited atonement such as B. B. Warfield have labeled these tendencies in generations past as “inconsistent particularism.”[14] The official statement regarding limited atonement on Piper’s website explicitly denies Amyraldianism in concept, though not by name.

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy—IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.[15]

Two key tenets are denied by such a statement. First, it is denied that the death of Christ made all men savable. Secondly, that the atonement created a hypothetical situation wherein all people can be saved on the condition of faith.

Piper also posited a further attempt to strengthen his position on limited atonement by stating, “The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died ‘especially.’”[16]

It is fairly certain that Piper would decry the label of Amyraldian due to his assertion that the atonement is “definite.”[17] He may even believe that his position on the atonement is commensurable with a traditional view of limited atonement. However, Piper’s discussions on the death of Christ suggest that he does not follow this traditional view. In spite of this, many of his works exhibit certain tendencies which evidence a hypothetical universalism which is the theological heart of Amyraldianism. The case for re-labeling Piper’s soteriology needs to be grounded on his perspective of God’s will. His official explanation of TULIP as set forth on his webpage entitled “Are There Two Wills in God?: Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved” introduced a dualistic approach to God’s will. The introductory statement of this essay states:

My aim in this chapter is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for “all persons to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.[18]

Throughout this essay he argued from the Bible that it is wrong to think that one can be reductionistic about the complex will and thoughts of God. This is grounded in his theology of Christian hedonism which is theocentric. While God has a real and genuine desire for all to be saved he is “committed to something even more valuable than saving all,” that is, the “full range of God’s glory.”[19] This explains why God has what can be rightly considered to have a dualistic or multi-intention approach to salvation. According to Piper, God desires all to be saved and desires that only the elect should be saved. This he argued, is a well repeated biblical pattern.

This analysis of Piper’s soteriology seeks to trace how this dualism has effected his doctrine of limited atonement and several of its corollary doctrines.

Historically speaking, it seems that he has indeed moved away from the traditional view of limited atonement. A. A. Hodge, for example, averred that a position of “two wills or purposes in God in respect to man’s salvation” is a system identical to the position of Amyraut, Cameron, and the theological school of Saumur.[20] Perhaps this is a signal that the features of modern day Calvinism is changing. By examining the Gospel call and assurance it will be determined whether Piper can maintain his propositions against Amyraldianism.

The Gospel Call

What exactly is the good news of the Gospel? Certainly both limited atonement proponents and others would point to Christ, but the issue requires more specificity. Certain questions get to the heart of this matter regarding the nature of the Gospel call. For example, how is an unbeliever to know that God loves him? Should unbelievers be told that Christ loves them if this love was shown primarily in the atonement, which is limited in scope? Does the Gospel call consist of a universal statement of God’s love, calling sinners to faith and repentance? How this call is framed and of what it consists are important questions because one’s view of the atonement plays a large role in the answers given.

Integral to Piper’s “Christian Hedonism” is pointing to God as the source of joy. That God is the source of everlasting joy is central to the Gospel call.[21] Believers are to evangelize by “showing a dying soul the life-giving beauty of the glory of God, especially his grace.”[22] The nature of Christ’s limited atonement does little to hinder Piper from pointing all people to the availability of this life-giving beauty and attracting glory. This is, in a manner of speaking, already a hypothetically universal atonement, for all people must suppose that God’s glory in the cross can be their source of joy. Piper illustrated: “This is how the Gospel is defined. When we are converted through faith in Christ, what we see with the eyes of our hearts is ‘the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God’ (2 Corinthians 4:4).”[23] In another place he summarized the Gospel call as follows: “This ‘calling’ is the merciful act of God to remove natural deadness and satanic blindness, so that we see Christ as true and good.”[24]

The Gospel call of Piper gives great emphasis on the cross as displaying God’s glory, but does it also display his love in a universal fashion? Piper’s use of John 3:16 brings a complexity to the answer. On the one hand, Piper brings both believers and non-believers into a personal appropriation of Christ’s work through his use of key pronouns. He asked, “How shall God love us?”[25] However, Piper moved quickly to the issue of “eternal life” which is to “know God and his Son, Jesus Christ,” who is the only one who can satisfy one’s soul because of His “excellence” or glory.[26] It is not clear that Piper’s quick move to glory did justice to John’s emphasis on God’s love.

In Piper’s writing it is hard to distinguish between God’s love and God’s glory; and this is purposefully so.[27] The love of God is considered penultimate and God’s glory ultimate.[28] He stated, “In fact, that is what divine love is in the end: a passion to enthrall undeserving sinners, at great cost, with that will make us supremely happy forever, namely, his infinite beauty.”[29] In his book The Passion of Jesus Christ, it is hard to understand how this glory calls a sinner individually with an assurance that is personally available. What is important to note is that God’s love is not demonstrated in being a substitutionary sacrifice, rather it is in the infinite measure of glory. The “degree” is emphasized rather than the legal nature of propitiation. In his review of The Pleasures of God, Bruce Ware’s understanding of the Gospel call of Piper is similar.

If God is not satisfied in being God, there is no reason we should think our satisfaction will be found in him. But, happily, God’s call to come to him to find what truly satisfies (e.g. Isa 55:1–3; Jer 2:11–13; Matt 11:28–30; Rev 22:17) is predicated on his own knowledge and experience of possessing the only true delight there is, in none other than in himself.[30]

Ware’s assessment highlighted the fact that the biblical basis for a Gospel call of glory is not without biblical merit; the issue is whether Piper’s limited atonement prevents an equally biblical Gospel call of love that is demonstrated in a substitutionary sacrifice. For Piper, the Gospel call does focus on the cross and the love shown therein; but it is primarily a love that leads to the excellencies and glory of Christ which can satisfy and attract unbelievers.

When setting forth a Gospel call of love, the love flows not from propitiation or substitution but from the very fact that the Son of God was crucified. Piper asked, “What if. .. God really is the most admirable being in the universe? Would this not imply that God’s summons for our praise is the summons for our highest joy? And if the success of that summons cost Him the life of His Son, would that not be love (instead of arrogance)?”[31] Here, it is difficult to find room for a Gospel of love for the unsaved wherein they can know Christ died as a substitution. Though assurance is discussed in the next section, it is sufficient to note that the sinner can be assured that God loves him or her because of the objective fact that the command to find joy in the cross cost the Father the life of his Son. This conjoining of love and glory would not be so problematical if one could be certain that love toward the sinner as its own theme is not flattened by the theme of glory.

At the very point when one could suggest that the theme of glory in the cross totally overshadows the theme of love in the cross, Piper surprised the astute reader. It would seem a natural theological conclusion to stress the joy-filled, attractive glory of the cross rather than its message of salvific love, which is only as broad as the elect for the classical limited atonement position.[32] However, Piper seemed to disavow Warfield and the classical Calvinist tradition of limited atonement by presenting a “dualism” or a hypothetical universalism. On the same page wherein the extent of the atonement is limited to those who trust Christ, he made the following Gospel call: “But when, by grace, we waken to our unworthiness, then we may look at the suffering and death of Christ and say, ‘In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the [wrath-absorbing] propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:l0).”[33] Elsewhere he stated, “The measure of God’s love for us is shown. .. [in] the degree of his sacrifice in saving us from the penalty of our sin.”[34]

Clearly Piper did not completely believe that Christ was the propitiation for all people, which would be the absolute antithesis of the limited atonement position. What he seemed to be doing was moving the reader to appropriate Christ by hypothetically assuming that Christ’s death was for him or her. Piper does not know if this love connected with propitiation is objectively true, but at times he assumed it to be so, creating a Gospel call that is essentially Amyraldian in nature. A message of God’s love to all was crucial to Amyraut who stated, Christ “died to fulfill the decree of the Father, which proceeded from an equal love to all.”[35] Again, according to A. A. Hodge, this is a modification of the classical limited atonement view. Hodge averred that a “love of mankind in general, coexisting with a good pleasure to allow the majority of those so loved to perish, some without even the knowledge of the redemption provided at such cost, and others without any saving interest in it” is antithetical to the traditional view of limited atonement.[36]

The preface of Don’t Waste Your Life yields a key fact in this analysis: Piper wrote this particular book for an audience of both Christians and non-Christians.[37] While making clear statements regarding a limited atonement, Piper also brought the reader (both Christian and non-Christian) into a literary “us” which appropriates Christ as a hypothetically universal atonement. He wrote, “To bring us to this highest and most durable of all pleasures, God made his Son, Jesus Christ, a bloody spectacle of blameless suffering and death.”[38] Again, he brought the reader into an assumption that the extent of Christ’s death was specifically for the reader: “To bring us to this highest and most durable of all pleasures, God made his Son, Jesus Christ, a bloody spectacle of blameless suffering and death. This is what it cost to rescue us from a wasted life.”[39] Other references invited the reader to assume with John Piper not simply a participation (us) but an understanding and appropriation of the cross that is personal (my). In one of his short meditations it is clear that the reader should appropriate these statements: “Christ became my damning record of bad (and good) deeds. He endured my damnation.”[40]

There is then a tension that exists in the Gospel message of Piper. On the one hand, his Christian Hedonism focuses on the infinite glory and joy that God displayed in sending His Son to die on the cross. There is a universal love, but it is not clear that a sinner can know good news of God’s love that is rooted in a substitutionary sacrifice.

Assurance

One’s doctrine of the atonement has a significant impact upon the doctrine of assurance. On the unlimited atonement side of the debate, R. T. Kendall stated, “Had not Christ died for all, we could have no assurance that our sins have been expiated in God’s sight.”[41] Likewise, M. Charles Bell stated, “We have assurance in union with him [Christ] on the basis of his work of atonement.”[42] Those ascribing to limited atonement, such as J. I. Packer, state that assured faith is based solely upon “the sufficiency of Christ, and the promise of God.”[43] Assurance for the “limited atonement” position is thus ex post facto in connection with conversion because as Roger Nicole explained, “assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.”[44] Those on the “unlimited atonement” side view the Gospel as providing its own objective assurance of faith: Christ died for you, Christ loves you and this is assured by virtue of His blood shed for you. [45] The central issue in this section is whether assurance is viewed as the essence of saving faith or whether assurance comes after saving faith when one’s works may be considered.

In the classical limited atonement model, God’s salvific intention and will are oriented exclusively upon the elect. However, Piper drifted from this position in his essay “Are There Two Wills in God?” He clearly demonstrated that God often operates with more than one intention, making the case that the “simultaneous existence of God’s will for ‘all persons to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion.”[46] Nevertheless, how does the sinner know this “will for all to be saved” applies subjectively? Is the atonement part of this revelation and the ground of assurance? Randall Zachman asked this relevant question: Is assurance predicated “on the basis of what God has done for us once for all in Jesus Christ, revealed to us in the gospel through the Holy Spirit? Or do we know this on the basis of what God is doing in us through the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit?”[47]

Understanding Piper’s doctrine of assurance means understanding his theology of “Christian Hedonism.” Central to his “Christian Hedonism” is the joy that is found in knowing Christ. He defined limited atonement as “the assurance that indestructible joy in God is infallibly secured for us by the blood of the covenant.”[48] Having an assurance of this joy is a decisive issue because while Christ’s person and work may be infinitely sufficient in the classical view of limited atonement, this is not primarily due to God’s intentions for the whole world. While most who adhere to limited atonement believe that the Gospel can be offered genuinely because of Christ’s infinite sufficiency, rarely is Christ viewed as being offered as a source of joy to all men. A believer’s joy is a knowledgeable faith that Christ has done something on the cross. Piper stated, “That very statement is the key to endurance and joy. ‘Christ Jesus has made me his own.’”[49] However, when is this knowledge that “I am his own” possible?

When addressing Christians, Piper freely pointed to the atonement as the objective ground of assurance: “And He is for us. The gospel is the good news that, because of Christ’s blood and righteousness, we are justified by faith alone, and God is for us forever.”[50] In a different book, he connected assured faith with joy, “I am saying that gladness in God is the goal of all saving work, and the experiential essence of what it means to be saved.”[51] He continued, rooting the subjective in the objective: “So when I speak of making someone glad in God. .. I include the all-sufficient redeeming work of Christ in death and resurrection (Romans 3:24–26).”[52] Here, joy is the essence of an assured faith which is confident in the cross for salvation. In Future Grace, he stated, “The hand that turns the key is faith, and the life that results in living by faith in future grace.. .. By faith I do not merely mean the confidence that Jesus died for your sins, but also the confidence that God will ‘also with him freely give us all things’ (Romans 8:32).”[53] These references speak of a joyful assurance in the objective (what God has done), but the imminent issue is not addressed because it is not clear whether this joy in redemption and propitiation is offered to the unbeliever as integral to the Gospel.

Piper specifically addressed assurance and the approximate question: How can I know that I am of the elect? Before addressing this matter, he stressed specifically his primary view that that Christ’s death is limited in extent. Regarding the cross, he asked:

“For whom? It says, ‘Christ loved the church and give himself up for her’ (Ephesians 5:25). ‘Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13). ‘The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give himself a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).[54]

Piper’s question leads to the following: Am I among the “many”? In this case, it seems the logic of particular redemption side prevails. He did not assure the reader that the cross itself testifies to the sinner that he or she is among the “many.” Faith is not described as an act of “appropriation” or a grasping of infinite joy; rather, he stressed verses such as Acts 16:31, 10:43, Romans 10:13, John 1:12, and 3:16 to impress upon the reader the command to simply believe. In this case, one can assume that assurance is a more subjective matter as it seems that Piper was intending to hinge assurance on one’s belief or unbelief.[55] The self, or, what God is doing in individuals primarily testifies of God’s will.

Piper’s answer to that of Zachman’s question was that neither the objective nor the subjective exclude the other. The role of subjectivity was explained in his more detailed exposition of the doctrine of assurance: Taste and See. He began the work by disavowing that either God for us (the objective warrant) or God in us (the subjective warrant) dominates the other; he desired to hold both in tension. He viewed the objective warrant as “the finished work of Christ on the cross” and the subjective warrant as “our faith” which is composed of both “spiritual sight of glory (or beauty) in the Christ of the gospel” and “a warranted resting in this glorious gospel.”[56] Initially it appears as though even the subjective is composed of an outward look to Christ. However, the question of “ground” reappears. Both the spiritual sight of Christ and the resting are explained in identical terms: seeing and understanding that Christ is “glorious.”[57] In light of Christian Hedonism this means that faith is finding joy in the offer of the joy of the glorious cross. However, this is somewhat circular because one has not been assured that this substitutionary sacrifice is extended to all. The “joy” is either grounded on a hypothetical universalism or it is a commanded joy that is not grounded in a universal atonement. In other words, one can only have a certainty that Christ on the cross is pro nobis (i.e. for him) until he views Him in His glory and rests upon Him in faith. If one grants with Piper that Christ did not die for all, assurance of salvation is not grounded in a knowledge that Christ is in one’s place, but rather that Christ is simply glorious on the cross without any reference to the sinner.

Assurance in the theology of John Piper is closely related to his view of the atonement. The cross of Christ demonstrates the full glory of Christ which is divine love; it is what calls the sinner to ultimate joy and satisfaction. It is because this glory is infinite that it is sufficient for a universal Gospel call and a corresponding assurance; one could surely say that this glory is enough to satisfy. Nevertheless, herein lies a difference between Piper and Amyraldianism: the later emphasizes that assurance is the essence of faith that Christ was on the cross for all sinners, whereas the former emphasizes that assurance is based on the fact that Christ’s death is sufficient to meet God’s demand for joy in him.

That there is an objective and a subjective side to assurance which must be held together necessitates an objective grace and a subjective grace. The objective grace of the cross must communicate to the unconverted that Christ is for him or her; subjective grace from the Holy Spirit confirms this with faith. A. A. Hodge viewed the distinction between objective and subject grace as an Amyraldian doctrine that deviated from the Reformed tradition on limited atonement. He noted that Amyraut held that objective grace rendered salvation universally available to all men and that subjective grace was designed for the elect alone and graciously gave the ability to believe the Gospel.[58] Hodge averred that Christ was only offered as objectively as he was subjectively received. In other words, “the actual ends effected are the exact measure of the real ends designed.”[59] Piper did not exactly follow either model exactly by accepting the distinction between objective and subjective grace on the one hand, while on the other hand insisting at times that faith is required for one to know that God has a salvific stance toward a specific sinner.

The question of whether Piper is truly following in the legacy of John Calvin is a difficult question because the process of answering it requires an immersion in a whole litany of debates over historical theology (the scope of which is beyond this article). To summarize, contemporary theologians like Bell, Clifford, Daniel, Kendall, Thomas, (in addition to the Saumur schoolmen) and others believe that Calvin taught a universal atonement and a view of faith that had assurance as its very essence. Assuming this position, Piper differed from both Calvin and Luther, who maintained, “the conscience—whether of the infidel or the believer—cannot testify to itself as to God’s will toward us.”[60] Zachman explained that the “testimony of a good conscience has a legitimate place in both Luther’s and Calvin’s theology; yet such testimony does not tell us about the grace or favor of God toward us, but only about the sincerity of our response to that grace in faith and love.”[61]

By not allowing the objective warrant of the cross of Christ to supersede faith, one’s works are always a part of assurance in Piper’s theology. In other words, one can only have a certainty that Christ on the cross is pro nobis until he views Him in His glory and finds himself resting upon Christ in faith. If one will grant Piper that Christ did not die for all, one can only have assurance of salvation until enough works are produced to testify to one’s own conscience whether there is actual evidence of this faith. Therefore, saving faith is not, by Piper’s definition an assured faith because while it will always produce works instantaneously, these works may not be self evident to the believer instantaneously. This a posteriori syllogism is as follows: “Christ died for all who believe and repent; but I believe and repent; therefore, he died for me.”[62] This is similar to Francis Turrettin who stated, “even all those who hear the Gospel are not bound to believe directly and immediately, that Christ died for them, but mediately.”[63] Piper’s view, like Turrettin’s, arguably falls under the scrutiny of Kendall’s thesis wherein he argued that the Puritans followed a model that departed from Calvin and made assurance subjective via personal introspection of works.

Again, a tension exists within Piper’s soteriology. The cross offers infinite joy and satisfaction in God but the faith that appropriates this is not fully assured. This is in conjunction with some theological language that invites the sinner to find assurance in appropriating Christ and His work based upon the hypothesis that Christ was one’s substitute and redeemer on the cross.

Conclusion

There is an internal paradox within Piper’s view of limited atonement. On the one hand he affirmed, “there is no dispute that Christ died so that we may say to all persons everywhere without exception: God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you may have eternal life.”[64] On the other hand, he denied that “God intended to make salvation possible for all persons.”[65] Consequently, must one tell the world that “Christ died for your sins” all the while knowing such was not God’s intention? Unfortunately, Piper’s theology of God’s will and the possibility of multiple intentions is not applied consistently to this problem. This paradox is often solved via a hypothetical universalism but not in a strong enough way to label him as fully Amyraldian. He cannot fully maintain his case against Amyraldianism, but nor should he be labeled as such without qualification.

Combining Christian Hedonism with limited atonement presents difficulties that destroy the congruity of Piper’s theology. Piper responded to the demand for joy in God as secondary by stating: “They say things like, ‘Don’t pursue joy; pursue obedience.’ But Christian Hedonism responds, ‘That’s like saying ‘Don’t eat apples; eat fruit.’ Because joy is an act of obedience. We are commanded to rejoice in God.”[66] For Piper, duty-faith is essentially equal to duty-joy; they are one and the same. However, what is referent for this duty-joy? It is joy in a limited atonement as classically understood? This is a difficult question. In some places this joy is not presented as immediately being connected with a propitiatory sacrifice because it cannot be immediately known as such. When limited atonement presents a significant challenge to the Gospel call and assurance, some aspects are modified in an Amyraldian-like manner in order to provide for appropriation of Christ as a propitiation. The sinner is called to find joy directly and immediately in “Christ for me.” In such cases the parlance of palatable Calvinism is this: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him whom one is to assume to be the savior and redeemer of all men.[67]

Notes

1. For example, he stated, “Our confidence in evangelism comes from God’s freedom to ‘have mercy on whomever he wills’ (Rom 9:18).” John Piper, The Justification of God, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 11.
2. This entire article was sent to John Piper’s assistant, Justin Taylor, to ensure that Piper’s theological position was represented fairly.
3. Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff, “What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism,” rev. ed. [booklet on-line] (1985; Minneapolis: Desiring God, 1998, accessed 23 August 2005); available from www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid. Francis Turrettin also affirmed that blessings to reprobates come from the cross, but he did not explore a strong duality of wills as Piper did. Francis Turrettin, The Atonement of Christ, trans. James R. Wilson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 125.
6. Bethlehem Baptist, “Five Points of Calvinism” [on-line].
7. The following definitions see hypothetical universalism as the heart of Amyraldianism and/or Amyraut’s theology: Melanie Parry, “Amyraut,” in Chambers Biographical Dictionary (Edinburgh: W & R Chambers, 1990), 42; Andrew T. B. McGowan, “Amyraldianism,” in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, ed. Trevor A. Hart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 12–13.
8. It is debated as to whether Amyraut followed Calvin’s view of the atonement. Alan C. Clifford, Calvinus: Authentic Calvinism, A Clarification (Norwich: Charenton Reformed Publishing, 1996).
9. Roger Nicole, “Amyraldism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 17.
10. Roger Nicole disputed that this was a true defense of Calvin. Roger Nicole, review of The Controversy Over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–1650: Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances, by F. P. van Stam, Westminster Theological Journal 54 (Fall 1992): 394.
11. Martin Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction and Translation,” Trinity Journal 11 (Spring 1990): 106-07.
12. Compare with J. I. Packer on the puritan John Owen: “Preaching the gospel, he [Owen] tells us, is not a matter of telling the congregation that God has set his love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them, for these assertions, biblically understood, would imply that they will all infallibly be saved, and this cannot be known to be true.” J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 139.
13. Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, Why I am Not a Calvinist (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 12.
14. Warfield listed Amyraldianism under the title “inconsistently particularistic” and he criticized it as having the same problems as the “Lutheran and the Arminian.” B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Avinger, TX: Simpson Publishing Company, 1989), 17.
15. Bethlehem Baptist, “Five Points of Calvinism” [on-line].
16. Ibid.
17. John Piper, Taste and See (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2005), 252. The chapter referenced here includes statements that Piper preferred an infralapsarianism over a supralapsarianism due to his statements about God’s passive actions toward the reprobate.
18. John Piper, The Pleasures of God: Revised and Expanded (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000), 313.
19. Ibid., 333.
20. A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 375. Hodge seemed to view God’s eternal and present will as being singular and having a singular salvific intention in the cross.
21. “Following a no-God—whatever his name or whatever his religion—will be a wasted life. God-in-Christ is the only true God and the only path to joy.” John Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), 38. Compare with statements concerning joy as duty in John Piper, The Dangerous Duty of Delight (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2001), 27.
22. Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life, 34.
23. Ibid., 40.
24. John Piper, The Passion of Jesus Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 105.
25. Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life, 35 (emphasis added).
26. Ibid., 35.
27. “Christ’s dying for his own glory and his dying to show love are not only both true, they are both the same.” Piper, Passion of Jesus Christ, 82.
28. Piper, Taste and See, 44.
29. Piper, Passion of Jesus Christ, 29.
30. Bruce Ware, review of The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God, by John Piper, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (December 2001): 755.
31. John Piper, Life as a Vapor: Thirty-One Meditations for Your Faith (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 159.
32. For example, Francis Turrettin viewed “a love of God towards the whole human family” as an Arminian tenet. Turrettin, The Atonement of Christ, 119.
33. Piper, Passion of Jesus Christ, 21 (emphasis in original). Compare with this statement: “No, Father, love is this: At great expense you made yourself my glory and my boast.. .. You sent your Son, the blazing center of your glory and your love.” Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life, 186.
34. Piper, Passion of Jesus Christ, 28.
35. Moises Amyraut, as quoted by Frances Turrettin, The Atonement of Christ, 155.
36. Hodge, The Atonement, 363.
37. Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life, 9. Other books such as Life as a Vapor used inclusive language but did not specify or have an obvious intention toward nonbelievers.
38. Ibid., 38.
39. Ibid., 38.
40. Piper, Passion of Jesus Christ, 33.
41. R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 14. G. Michael Thomas also asserted that there is no assurance through the direct act of Beza and adherents of limited atonement. G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536—1675) (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 58. Compare with a similar view from Robert S. Candlish, The Atonement: Its Reality, Completeness and Extent (New York: T. Nelson and Sons, 1861), 224.
42. M. Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology: The Doctrine of Assurance (Edinburgh: The Handsel Press, 1985), 25. In this area, Bell agreed with Kendall and argued at length that this was John Calvin’s view.
43. Packer, Quest for Godliness, 140.
44. Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement,” Westminister Theological Journal 47 (Fall 1985): 206.
45. “It is false, however, that all men are bound to believe that Christ died for them simply and absolutely.” Turrettin, The Atonement of Christ, 177.
46. Piper, The Pleasures of God, 313.
47. Randall Zachman, The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 1. Compare with Piper, Taste and See, 86.
48. Piper, Taste and See, 73.
49. Piper, Passion of Jesus Christ, 49.
50. It could be argued that this statement is thinking after conversion, being in a book primarily for Christians. Piper, Life as a Vapor, 169 (emphasis in original).
51. Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life, 104.
52. Ibid., 104 (emphasis in original).
53. Piper, Future Grace (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1995), 13 (emphasis in original).
54. Piper, Passion of Jesus Christ, 30–31 (emphasis in original).
55. This assertion is somewhat tentative as it is unclear what he intended to communicate by quoting all of these verses without an explanation.
56. Piper, Taste and See, 87.
57. In the first instance, he stated, “For faith to be real there must be a supernatural ‘light’ that God shines into the heart to show us that Christ is glorious” and in the second instance he stated that people are not saved because “they have never come to see the glory of Christ as compellingly glorious.” Ibid. (emphasis added).
58. Hodge, The Atonement, 360. Compare with Francis Turrettin’s statements against those who believe “Christ died with an intention to save all, provided they would believe.” Turrettin, The Atonement of Christ, 119.
59. Ibid., 361.
60. Zachman, The Assurance of Faith, 6
61. Ibid., 6.
62. Turrettin, The Atonement of Christ, 188.
63. Ibid., 177.
64. Piper, Taste and See, 326.
65. Ibid., 326.
66. Piper, The Dangerous Duty of Delight, 13.
67. Ibid., 21.