What is the gospel?  In March, John Piper posted a hypothetical conversation between a “5-pointer” and someone with whom that “5-pointer” was sharing the gospel.  The intention of the blog post was to highlight the “doctrine of definite atonement,” and its impact on correctly sharing the gospel message.

I am not a “5-pointer” but I share similar Calvinistic notions of God’s sovereignty in working through salvation.  Piper’s hypothetical conversation highlighted several fundamental flaws in the “limited atonement/particular redemption/definite atonement” doctrine.

In Piper’s imaginary conversation between a Calvinist evangelist and a lost person, he seems to think that those popular Baptists would have imprecisely led someone to believe that their indiscriminate offer could be confused with universalism.  I honestly don’t see how this unfortunate, imaginary conversation is of any value, but to extol a particular tenet of Reformed doctrine, and to set up a false strawman in order to do so.   I think the hypothetical conversation is disingenuous, condescending, and de-edifying.  The laziest of popular, lay evangelists mention grace through faith as a condition for receiving the benefits of Christ’s universal provision for sin.  I have been through multiple lay evangelism training programs – even one that attempts to use the somewhat simplistic “evange-cube.”  Some could rightly be accused of Semi-Pelagianism, or that man in his own mind and will takes the first steps toward God, but I have never seen universalism as an unfortunate misinterpretation of their gospel presentation.  The reason, precisely, is that these popular evangelists are rightly focused on faith as the prerequisite for salvation – or as they would likely articulate it, the free gift has to be “accepted.”  And, they are right.  Piper surely knows this.  Does Piper actually think that to arm a 5-pointer with such an interchange is helpful?

In the theological debates that occur regarding the Calvinist doctrine of “definite atonement,” one of the tenets of this system is the notion that God has two “wills” regarding the salvation of individuals.  5-pointers would submit that God’s general or revealed will is a desire that all men are saved, which is biblical.  They would then argue that since there is no constraint on God’s power, knowledge, or goodness, he does everything that he desires; so God must have a second hidden or secret will that only the elect are saved.  In the Reformed system, there seems no attempt to reconcile these seemingly contradictory wills.  God desires that all are saved, but an alternate hidden will renders his revealed will, practically, null and void.  The problem, of course, from a non-5-pointer’s perspective is that this presents an impugnation of God’s character.  God offers salvation to all, but in fact, it is not really offered.  The 5-pointer’s description of the general will, to the non-5-pointer, is a shill – it’s a sham.

Calvinists indicate based on such verses as John 3:16, 1 Timothy  2:4, etc. that God has a universal will or better, desire to save all, but in his sovereignty does not.  If this does not make sense to you, you are not alone.  Even many who hold to a strong view of God’s sovereignty in salvation have a problem with this dual will construct (Keathley, Craig, Driscoll).

Salvation is indeed a monergistic work of God.  However, with individual people, salvation is always articulated in scripture as man making a conscious choice to place his faith in Christ.  Or, as Akin and many others have preached, God elects those whom He will save, but does so in a way that does no violence to man’s free will.  Sharing the true gospel is critical.  A periodic reminder and re-focus on the gospel’s precise composition in light of modern evangelism programs is a worthy aim – and for that, Piper should be commended.  But, he should extol the gospel more and Calvinism less in order to hit the target.