Response to Robert Reymond's Ten Lines of Evidence

Quite recently, I received a paper entitled, Ten Lines of Evidence for the Doctrine of Particular Redemption, by Robert Reymond. I have never heard of Reymond, but a quick trip to Google tells me he is a Ph D from Bob Jones University (is that a Calvinistic school??). He is a former prof at both Covenant Theological Seminary and Knox Theological Seminary. He now preaches in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It is obvious from his article that Reymond is a Hyper-Calvinist. For a good article on what Hyper-Calvinism is, check out what Phil Johnson (a solid five point Calvinist) says.

Hopefully, in the next few posts, I will post a point by point response to his Ten Lines of Evidence. David, my helpful online brother has already provided me with a good response, and I will be posting his contributions as well. I will always identify who the speaker is.

So here we go with his first argument which he entitles, The Particularistic Vocabulary of Scripture .

What he is referring to, of course, is the fact that some Bible verses tell us that Christ died in particular for believers, who are described as the church, his sheep, the elect, etc. Here is an example.

21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins”(Mt 1:21).

In my presentation, I dealt with this category of verses using this particularistic language by pointing out the logical fallacy that is often committed here. Don Carson speaks about this fallacy in his book, Exegetical Fallacies. It is the fallacy referred to as the Negative Inference Fallacy. He puts it this way.

"It does not necessarily follow that if a proposition is true, a negatve inference from that proposition is also true. The negative inference MAY be true, but this cannot be assumed." (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 101)

Here is a plain example of a negative inference.

a. All Big and Tall people can shop at that store
b. Raymond is neither big or tall
c. Therefore Raymond cannot shop at that store.

My conclusion (c) is not valid, because my particularist vocabulary did not go far enough. It is not exclusive vocabulary. I did not say ONLY Big and Tall people can shop at that store.

This is by far the most common exegetical mistake that supporters of Limited Atonement are making. They take the particular vocabulary of the New Testament and make it exclusive.

Reymond sees this and he does not commit the negative inference fallacy. Here is what he says.

It is true, of course, that logically a statement of particularity in itself does not necessarily preclude universality.

But then he goes on to try to prove that this category of texts where believers are mentioned in particular is still evidence of a particular atonement.

Reymond says:But it should also be evident that one of these particularizing terms—the “elect”—clearly carries with it the
implication that some are excluded from the saving intention and salvific work of Christ.
David responds: the term elect only denotes specificity and emphasis, not particularity and in no way denotes exclusivity. So if we say, Christ died for all men generally, but for the elect especially, then his argument is incorporated into our paradigm and we can say thanks for the input. This argument would work against someone who said Christ died for all in the exact same way, with no differentiation at all.

Werner: Along the same line of argumentation Reymond then turns to the passage in John 10, where Jesus speaks about His sheep. And he says, incredibly:

...how does it come about that one is his sheep? By believing on him? Not at all. Jesus said to the Jews, not (as it is often represented): “You are not my sheep because you do not believe,” but: “You do not believe because [ὅτι, hoti] you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to [believe] my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:26–27).

This is very telling. He claims that we do not become his sheep by believing. This is classic hyper-calvinism. He wants to emphasize the sovereignty of God to the extent that he wipes all human responsibility off the board. There is certainly plenty of other clear texts making belief the condition necessary to become His sheep.

Granted, Jesus says plainly in this chapter that the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep. Without resorting to the Negative Inference, how does this demonstrate that Jesus did not die for the sin of the world? This passage does not preclude that whosoever will may become his sheep by faith. This text certainly delineates sheep that belong to Jesus (believers) from those that do not belong to Him. And clearly, belief is a hallmark of those who belong to Him. But to infer from this that it is impossible for these other sheep to become his sheep by believing in Him is reading 20th century theology back into a first century inspired text.

It is as if the atonement as a standalone component is what makes them his sheep. Let's hear what WGT Shedd has to say about the atonement"

It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner: "By faith are you saved" (Eph. 2:8); "he that believes shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation.

Here is David's comment:
Lets grant that they do not believe because they are not his sheep. Lets convert the terms thus: you do not believe because you are not the children of Abraham. The point is, the “true” children of Abraham would have the faith of Abraham.

Next Reymond says:
Another example is Ephesians 5:25, where Paul teaches, first, that Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. From this juxtaposition of these two verbs, it may be inferred both that the church enjoyed a special existence and a standing before Christ such that he “loved” her prior to his “giving” himself for it, and that his love for his church was the motivating power behind his “giving” himself for it. Second, Paul teaches that the husband is to love his wife just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. But if Christ does not love his church in a special way, different in kind from the way he loves all other people, and if the husband is to love his wife just as Christ loved the church, then the husband is to love all other women in the same way that he loves his wife—surely a grotesque ethic! For Paul’s comparison to have any meaning for his readers, Christ’s love for his church must be construed as a special particularizing, distinguishing love.

Werner: He seems to admit that Jesus Christ loves sinners who are not a part of the church(in a different sort of way, just like I ought to have a general love towards all other women. Not so grotesque after all!) Does Christ have a special love for the Church? Or course He does.
David:There is the point then. All this could preclude is the denial of the claim that Christ died in a special way for the elect. :-)

Stay tuned... more to come.