The question is: on whose behalf did Christ offer himself a sacrifice? On whose behalf did he propitiate the wrath of God? Whom did he reconcile to God in the body of his flesh through death? Whom did he redeem from the curse of the law, from the guilt and power of sin, from the enthralling power and bondage of Satan? In whose stead and on whose behalf was he obedient unto death, even the death of the cross? These are precisely the questions that have to be asked and frankly faced if the matter of the extent of the atonement is to be placed in proper focus. ... The question is precisely the reference of the death of Christ when this death is viewed as vicarious death, that is to say, as vicarious obedience, as substitutionary sacrifice, and expiation, as effective propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. In a word, it is the strict and proper connotation of the expression "died for" that must be kept in mind (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 62. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955).
... Did Christ come to make the salvation of all men possible, to remove obstacles that stood in the way of salvation, and merely to make provision for salvation? Or did he come to save his people? Did he come to put all men in a salvable state? Or did he come to secure the salvation of all those who are ordained to eternal life? Did he come to make men redeemable? Or did he come effectually and infallibly to redeem? (p. 63)
... The saving efficacy of expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption is too deeply embedded in these concepts, and we dare not eliminate this efficacy. ... Whether the expression "limited atonement" is good or not we must reckon with the fact that unless we believe in the final restoration of all men we cannot have an unlimited atonement. If we universalize the extent we limit the efficacy (p. 64).
... It is necessary for us to discover what redemption or atonement really means. And when we examine the Scripture we find that the glory of the cross of Christ is bound up with the effectiveness of its accomplishment. Christ redeemed us to God by his blood, he gave himself a ransom that he might deliver us from all iniquity. The atonement is efficacious substitution (p. 75).
Read about Murray's analysis of the nature of the atonement to more fully understand why Christ's work of obedience, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption; are inescapably limited to believers.
Showing posts with label Limited Atonement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Limited Atonement. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
John Owen: Christ's work of mediation is for His people, not for "all" and "everyone" who ever lived
It was his “church” which he “redeemed with his own blood,” Acts xx. 28; his “church” that “he loved and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church,” Eph. v. 25–27. They were his “sheep” he “laid down his life for,” John x. 15; and “appeareth in heaven for us,” Heb. ix. 24. Not one word of mediating for any other in the Scripture. Look upon his incarnation. It was “because the children were partakers of flesh and blood,” chap. ii. 14; not because all the world were so. Look upon his oblation: “For their sakes,” saith he, (“those whom thou hast given me,”) “do I sanctify myself,” John xvii. 19; that is, to be an oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his resurrection: “He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,” Rom. iv. 25. Look upon his ascension: “I go,” saith he, “to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for you,” John xiv. 2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is it not to “save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him?” Heb. vii. 25. Not one word of this general mediation for all. Nay, if you will hear himself, he denies in plain terms to mediate for all: “I pray not,” saith he, “for the world, but for them which then hast given me,” John xvii. 9.
... To me nothing is more certain than that to whom Christ is in any sense a Saviour in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace here and glory hereafter.
(John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
... To me nothing is more certain than that to whom Christ is in any sense a Saviour in the work of redemption, he saves them to the uttermost from all their sins of infidelity and disobedience, with the saving of grace here and glory hereafter.
(John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Excerpts from Spurgeon's "A Defense of Calvinism"
I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory.
... Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."
... What circumstances were those in our power which led us to elect certain persons to be our parents? Had we anything to do with it? Did not God Himself appoint our parents, native place, and friends? Could He not have caused me to be born with the skin of the Hottentot, brought forth by a filthy mother who would nurse me in her "kraal," and teach me to bow down to Pagan gods, quite as easily as to have given me a pious mother, who would each morning and night bend her knee in prayer on my behalf? Or, might He not, if He had pleased, have given me some profligate to have been my parent, from whose lips I might have early heard fearful, filthy, and obscene language? Might He not have placed me where I should have had a drunken father, who would have immured me in a very dungeon of ignorance, and brought me up in the chains of crime? Was it not God's Providence that I had so happy a lot, that both my parents were His children, and endeavoured to train me up in the fear of the Lord?
John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards." I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine. I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word on his knees. I said to him, "I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it. Pray, by all means, and the more, the better, but it is a piece of superstition to think there is anything in the posture in which a man puts himself for reading: and as to reading through the Bible twenty times without having found anything about the doctrine of election, the wonder is that you found anything at all: you must have galloped through it at such a rate that you were not likely to have any intelligible idea of the meaning of the Scriptures."
... What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."
... If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
... All the purposes of man have been defeated, but not the purposes of God. The promises of man may be broken—many of them are made to be broken—but the promises of God shall all be fulfilled. He is a promise-maker, but He never was a promise-breaker; He is a promise-keeping God, and every one of His people shall prove it to be so. This is my grateful, personal confidence, "The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me"—unworthy me, lost and ruined me. He will yet save me ...
... I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work. Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wouldst find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now. They have come from the East, and from the West, from the North, and from the South, and they are sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of God; and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number.
There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
... The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
... I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as the orthodox. We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles. It is that vein of free-grace, running through the sermonizing of Baptists, which has saved us as a denomination. Were it not for that, we should not stand where we are today. We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you find holier and better men in the world?" No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it "a licentious doctrine" did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven. If they knew the grace of God in truth, they would soon see that there was no preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are elect of God from the foundation of the world. There is nothing like a belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my Father's affection, which can keep me near to Him from a motive of simple gratitude. Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have an erroneous belief without by-and-by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other. Of all men, those have the most disinterested piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe that they are saved by grace, without works, through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Christians should take heed, and see that it always is so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified afresh, and put to an open shame.
(Spurgeon, "A Defense of Calvinism")
... Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God."
... What circumstances were those in our power which led us to elect certain persons to be our parents? Had we anything to do with it? Did not God Himself appoint our parents, native place, and friends? Could He not have caused me to be born with the skin of the Hottentot, brought forth by a filthy mother who would nurse me in her "kraal," and teach me to bow down to Pagan gods, quite as easily as to have given me a pious mother, who would each morning and night bend her knee in prayer on my behalf? Or, might He not, if He had pleased, have given me some profligate to have been my parent, from whose lips I might have early heard fearful, filthy, and obscene language? Might He not have placed me where I should have had a drunken father, who would have immured me in a very dungeon of ignorance, and brought me up in the chains of crime? Was it not God's Providence that I had so happy a lot, that both my parents were His children, and endeavoured to train me up in the fear of the Lord?
John Newton used to tell a whimsical story, and laugh at it, too, of a good woman who said, in order to prove the doctrine of election, "Ah! sir, the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards." I am sure it is true in my case; I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I should never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that great Biblical doctrine. I recollect an Arminian brother telling me that he had read the Scriptures through a score or more times, and could never find the doctrine of election in them. He added that he was sure he would have done so if it had been there, for he read the Word on his knees. I said to him, "I think you read the Bible in a very uncomfortable posture, and if you had read it in your easy chair, you would have been more likely to understand it. Pray, by all means, and the more, the better, but it is a piece of superstition to think there is anything in the posture in which a man puts himself for reading: and as to reading through the Bible twenty times without having found anything about the doctrine of election, the wonder is that you found anything at all: you must have galloped through it at such a rate that you were not likely to have any intelligible idea of the meaning of the Scriptures."
... What did He foresee about my faith? Did He foresee that I should get that faith myself, and that I should believe on Him of myself? No; Christ could not foresee that, because no Christian man will ever say that faith came of itself without the gift and without the working of the Holy Spirit. I have met with a great many believers, and talked with them about this matter; but I never knew one who could put his hand on his heart, and say, "I believed in Jesus without the assistance of the Holy Spirit."
... If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
... All the purposes of man have been defeated, but not the purposes of God. The promises of man may be broken—many of them are made to be broken—but the promises of God shall all be fulfilled. He is a promise-maker, but He never was a promise-breaker; He is a promise-keeping God, and every one of His people shall prove it to be so. This is my grateful, personal confidence, "The Lord will perfect that which concerneth me"—unworthy me, lost and ruined me. He will yet save me ...
... I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work. Think of the numbers upon whom God has bestowed His grace already. Think of the countless hosts in Heaven: if thou wert introduced there to-day, thou wouldst find it as easy to tell the stars, or the sands of the sea, as to count the multitudes that are before the throne even now. They have come from the East, and from the West, from the North, and from the South, and they are sitting down with Abraham, and with Isaac, and with Jacob in the Kingdom of God; and beside those in Heaven, think of the saved ones on earth. Blessed be God, His elect on earth are to be counted by millions, I believe, and the days are coming, brighter days than these, when there shall be multitudes upon multitudes brought to know the Saviour, and to rejoice in Him. The Father's love is not for a few only, but for an exceeding great company. "A great multitude, which no man could number," will be found in Heaven. A man can reckon up to very high figures; set to work your Newtons, your mightiest calculators, and they can count great numbers, but God and God alone can tell the multitude of His redeemed. I believe there will be more in Heaven than in hell. If anyone asks me why I think so, I answer, because Christ, in everything, is to "have the pre-eminence," and I cannot conceive how He could have the pre-eminence if there are to be more in the dominions of Satan than in Paradise. Moreover, I have never read that there is to be in hell a great multitude, which no man could number.
There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
... The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
... I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as the orthodox. We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles. It is that vein of free-grace, running through the sermonizing of Baptists, which has saved us as a denomination. Were it not for that, we should not stand where we are today. We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you find holier and better men in the world?" No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it "a licentious doctrine" did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven. If they knew the grace of God in truth, they would soon see that there was no preservative from lying like a knowledge that we are elect of God from the foundation of the world. There is nothing like a belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my Father's affection, which can keep me near to Him from a motive of simple gratitude. Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have an erroneous belief without by-and-by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other. Of all men, those have the most disinterested piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe that they are saved by grace, without works, through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Christians should take heed, and see that it always is so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified afresh, and put to an open shame.
(Spurgeon, "A Defense of Calvinism")
Berkhof on the Purpose and Extent of the Atonement
[The atonement] secured for those for whom it was made: 1) A proper judicial standing through justification. This includes the forgiveness of sin, the adoption of children, and the right to an eternal inheritance. 2) The mystical union of believers with Christ through regeneration and sanctification. This comprises the gradual mortification of the old man, and the gradual putting on of the new man created in Christ Jesus. 3) Their final bliss in communion with God through Jesus Christ, in subjective glorification, and in the enjoyment of eternal life in a new and perfect creation. All this clearly obviates the objection so often raised against the penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement, namely, that it has no ethical bearings and offers no basis for the ethical life of the redeemed. It may even be said that it is the only doctrine of the atonement that offers a secure basis for a real ethical life, a life that is rooted in the heart through the operation of the Holy Spirit. Justification leads right on to sanctification.
... It may be laid down, first of all, as a general principle, that the designs of God are always surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the actions of man. This applies also to the purpose of saving men through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it had been His intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man. It is admitted on all hands that only a limited number is saved. Consequently, they are the only ones whom God has determined to save.
... The sacrifical work of Christ and His intercessory work are simply two different aspects of His atoning work, and therefore the scope of the one can be no wider than that of the other. Now Christ very definitely limits His intercessory work, when He says: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me." John 17:9. Why should He limit His intercessory prayer, if He had actually paid the price for all?
... And if the assertion be made that the design of God and of Christ was evidently conditional, contingent on the faith and obedience of man, attention should be called to the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ by His death purchased faith, repentance, and all the other effects of the work of the Holy Spirit, for His people. Consequently there are no conditions on which the fulfillment is simply dependent on the will of man. The atonement also secures the fulfillment of the conditions that must be met, in order to obtain salvation, Rom. 2:4; Gal. 3:13,14; Eph. 1:3,4; 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Tim. 3:5,6.
... We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance. Now the Arminians maintain that such an offer of salvation cannot be made by those who believe that Christ died only for the elect. ... The following remarks may be made in reply: (a) The offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is simply the promise of salvation to all those who accept Christ by faith. (2) This offer, in so far as it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion. Moreover, it is contingent on a faith and repentance such as can only be wrought in the heart of man by the operation of the Holy Spirit. (3) The universal offer of salvation does not consist in the declaration that Christ made atonement for every man that hears the gospel, and that God really intends to save each one. It consists in (a) an exposition of the atoning work of Christ as in itself sufficient for the redemption of all men; (b) a description of the real nature of the repentance and faith that are required in coming to Christ; and (c) a declaration that each one who comes to Christ with true repentance and faith will obtain the blessings of salvation. (4) It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonize the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately. ...
(Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth, pp. 392-398)
... It may be laid down, first of all, as a general principle, that the designs of God are always surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the actions of man. This applies also to the purpose of saving men through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it had been His intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man. It is admitted on all hands that only a limited number is saved. Consequently, they are the only ones whom God has determined to save.
... The sacrifical work of Christ and His intercessory work are simply two different aspects of His atoning work, and therefore the scope of the one can be no wider than that of the other. Now Christ very definitely limits His intercessory work, when He says: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me." John 17:9. Why should He limit His intercessory prayer, if He had actually paid the price for all?
... And if the assertion be made that the design of God and of Christ was evidently conditional, contingent on the faith and obedience of man, attention should be called to the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ by His death purchased faith, repentance, and all the other effects of the work of the Holy Spirit, for His people. Consequently there are no conditions on which the fulfillment is simply dependent on the will of man. The atonement also secures the fulfillment of the conditions that must be met, in order to obtain salvation, Rom. 2:4; Gal. 3:13,14; Eph. 1:3,4; 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Tim. 3:5,6.
... We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance. Now the Arminians maintain that such an offer of salvation cannot be made by those who believe that Christ died only for the elect. ... The following remarks may be made in reply: (a) The offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is simply the promise of salvation to all those who accept Christ by faith. (2) This offer, in so far as it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion. Moreover, it is contingent on a faith and repentance such as can only be wrought in the heart of man by the operation of the Holy Spirit. (3) The universal offer of salvation does not consist in the declaration that Christ made atonement for every man that hears the gospel, and that God really intends to save each one. It consists in (a) an exposition of the atoning work of Christ as in itself sufficient for the redemption of all men; (b) a description of the real nature of the repentance and faith that are required in coming to Christ; and (c) a declaration that each one who comes to Christ with true repentance and faith will obtain the blessings of salvation. (4) It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonize the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately. ...
(Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth, pp. 392-398)
Monday, February 15, 2010
John Owen's classic argument against hypothetical universalism in the doctrine of the atonement
John Owen discusses the agents of redemption -- specifically, God the Father in this context -- and teaches that the Father sent the Son and that He laid the punishment due to sin upon Christ. Of the latter work, Owen writes:
We conclude, then, this second act of God, in laying the punishment on him for us, with that of the prophet, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” Isa. liii. 6: and add thereunto this observation, that it seems strange to me that Christ should undergo the pains of hell in their stead who lay in the pains of hell before he underwent those pains, and shall continue in them to eternity; for “their worm dieth not, neither is their fire quenched.” To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:— God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, bk. 1, ch. 3, emphasis added)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Stanley Gower: Arminianism stands on two rotten pillars
THERE are two rotten pillars on which the fabric of late Arminianism (an egg of the old Pelagianism, which we had well hoped had been long since chilled, but is sit upon and brooded by the wanton wits of our degenerate and apostate spirits) doth principally stand.
The one is, That God loveth all alike, Cain as well as Abel, Judas as the rest of the apostles.
The other is, That God giveth (nay is bound, “ex debito,” so to do) both Christ, the great gift of his eternal love, for all alike to work out their redemption, and “vires credendi,” power to believe in Christ to all alike to whom he gives the gospel; whereby that redemption may effectually be applied for their salvation, if they please to make right use of that which is so put into their power.
The former destroys the free and special grace of God, by making it universal; the latter gives cause to man of glorying in himself rather than in God, — God concurring no farther to the salvation of a believer than a reprobate. Christ died for both alike; — God giving power of accepting Christ to both alike, men themselves determining the whole matter by their free-will; Christ making both savable, themselves make them to be saved.
This cursed doctrine of theirs crosseth the main drift of the holy Scripture; which is to abase and pull down the pride of man, to make him even to despair of himself, and to advance and set up the glory of God’s free grace from the beginning to the end of man’s salvation. His hand hath laid the foundation of his spiritual house; his hand shall also finish it. (Stanley Gower, Attestation in Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
The one is, That God loveth all alike, Cain as well as Abel, Judas as the rest of the apostles.
The other is, That God giveth (nay is bound, “ex debito,” so to do) both Christ, the great gift of his eternal love, for all alike to work out their redemption, and “vires credendi,” power to believe in Christ to all alike to whom he gives the gospel; whereby that redemption may effectually be applied for their salvation, if they please to make right use of that which is so put into their power.
The former destroys the free and special grace of God, by making it universal; the latter gives cause to man of glorying in himself rather than in God, — God concurring no farther to the salvation of a believer than a reprobate. Christ died for both alike; — God giving power of accepting Christ to both alike, men themselves determining the whole matter by their free-will; Christ making both savable, themselves make them to be saved.
This cursed doctrine of theirs crosseth the main drift of the holy Scripture; which is to abase and pull down the pride of man, to make him even to despair of himself, and to advance and set up the glory of God’s free grace from the beginning to the end of man’s salvation. His hand hath laid the foundation of his spiritual house; his hand shall also finish it. (Stanley Gower, Attestation in Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
Thursday, February 4, 2010
R. Scott Clark: Limited Atonement (excerpts)
The doctrine of definite atonement holds that Christ has saved a great multitude. This is the teaching of several places in Scripture (Heb 12:22-23; Jude 1:14; Rev 7:9-10). It is not that we expect only a few to be redeemed, but rather we simply reject the teaching that Jesus has either redeemed everyone who ever lived or that he has only made it possible for everyone to be saved. In fact, the doctrine of definite atonement is not narrow at all since we hold that Scripture teaches that every single person whom Jesus intended to redeem he has redeemed.
... We also reject the moral government theory of the atonement that Jesus died primarily as an example. To be sure Jesus did set an example (1 Pet 2:21) but Scripture makes clear that the work of Christ was much more than that. He was our substitute, as 1 Peter 3:18 says explicitly, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous".
... A robust doctrine of sin is essential to understanding the doctrine of the atonement. To the degree one tends to downplay the nature or effects of sin (original or actual) then to that degree one also tends to downplay the need for a substitutionary Savior.
... Thus choice which the Christian faces then is not between a "limited" and "unlimited" atonement, but between a "definite" or "indefinite" or between a "person" or an "impersonal" atonement. It is the Reformed contention that God's Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity. It is our view that Jesus did not die to make salvation available or merely possible, but that when he said "It is finished" (John 19:30) he was declaring that, as the once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27), he had completed the work which his Father gave him to do (John 6:57; 10:17-18).
... Since in Adam we have all sinned we must make satisfaction to that justice either by ourselves or by another. We, however, cannot make satisfaction by ourselves since we sin daily and thus daily increase our guilt.
Romans 5.12-21 also makes it clear that Adam's sin is also our sin, that is it has been imputed (credited) to everyone who has ever lived. We are biologically connected to Adam, but Scripture is much more concerned about our legal union with him and its consequences, chiefly, death.
... Scripture consistently makes God the moral standard against which all moral acts and claims are measured. The law is an expression of God's nature and so sin is an offense against God personally. God does not clear the guilty.
... Thus there must be a satisfaction for that sin. Since the earliest recorded moments of human history after the fall, man has known that there must be a substitute, a just representative to take the place of sinners. Righteous Abel (Gen 4:4; Matt 23:35) brought a living offering, a blood offering. Hebrews 12:4 teaches that Abel brought a better sacrifice than Cain. Why was Abel's better? Is there something inherently better in a blood offering than in a grain offering? One would think not, but Hebrews goes on to say that "God spoke well of his offerings." Abel's offering was superior because it was a blood offering, because the blood testified our need of a Savior, of the principle of justice, "eye for eye" (Ex 21:24) hence Hebrews 12:24 teaches that Abel's bloody sacrifice was a pointed picture, shadow or type of the better, perfect blood offering to come, that of the Lamb of God himself, Jesus.
... One of the reasons that there is confusion about the extent of the atonement is that Christians do not always understand well what it is that Christ came to do.
... Why is God "faithful" and "just" when he forgives us? Because Jesus Christ the righteous has paid the penalty for his people, he has turned away God's wrath for his people and therefore they may enter boldly into the Holy of Holies (Hebrews 10:19). We are not able to stand before God because he averts his eyes or overlooks our sins, but rather, because Jesus Christ has paid the debt in full and satisfied God's righteousness.
... The Apostle Paul teaches precisely the same thing in Romans 3:25,26:
God presented Him (Jesus) as the place of propitiation, through faith in His blood, for of a demonstration of His Righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins committed beforehand in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness now in this season in order that He might be just--righteous, and the one--declaring righteous--the one (having) faith in Jesus (my translation).
... Underlying much of our discussion thus far has been the assumption that Jesus came intentionally to redeem his people. That is, it was never his intention to propitiate the wrath of God for everyone who ever lived. Rather it was his intention to redeem all of his people completely.
... This Biblical particularism is perhaps no where so powerfully evident as in the Servant Song in Isa 52:13-53:12. Beginning in 52:13 God presents his "servant" (Ebed). His work benefit "many nations (52:15)." As the prophecy is progressively disclosed, the servant is "despised" and "we esteemed him not." The relations are now considered between "us" and the servant. Thus in 53:4 he took up "our" infirmities" and in v.5 he was "pierced for our transgressions." Thus the expression "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" has a definite context. The "all" here refers to those for whom the servant will suffer and die, but this is not everyone who ever lived. This is clear in v. 11 where the Servant is said to "justify many." Again in v. 12 the Servant "bore the sin of many." We know of course from the Gospels and from Acts 8:26-35 that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 8 is none other than Jesus Christ. Thus the Servant Jesus is said to have suffered and died the "many", i.e., his people, not for everyone who ever lived.
... As one can see, a problem arises in the interpretation of "world" in John's writings. What if neither Jesus, the speaker, John the writer nor the Holy Spirit who caused John to write meant to communicate "everyone who ever lived" but, something else? In fact, he did mean to communicate something else. Just as the opening clause is not about the quantity (if one can speak of such things) of God's love, so kosmos does not speak of the quantity of those for whom Jesus died, but the quality. Even though he used it 78 times in his writings, the Apostle John used the word kosmos consistently in this qualitative sense.
... In fact the word "all" is frequently used in a relative sense to describe a certain class or kind of person. In Titus 2:11, Paul says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Has saving grace actually appeared to everyone who ever lived? No. Therefore "all" (pas) here must be taken in some restricted sense. Paul simply means, "has become widely available." We could multiply examples. Does "all" in Titus 1:15 mean that "everything possible" is "pure"? No, rather "all things" (panta) means "everything of certain already proscribed set of things." In Matt 10:22 Jesus says that "all men shall hate you because of me." Did he mean to say, "everyone who ever lived"? No, this is an example of the sort of hyperbole which Jesus used frequently to make a point.
What of Hebrews 2:9, which clearly says that Jesus "suffered death so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." How will the Calvinist/particularist wriggle out of this noose? By reading v.9 in the context of v.10! The text continues to say, "In bringing many sons to glory..." so that the "everyone" of v.9 refers to the "many" of v.10, for whom Jesus did not just make salvation possible, but whom he "bringing" to glory.
The best illustration of this is perhaps a passage which some have seen as proof positive that Jesus must have intended to die as the substitute for everyone who ever lived, is a passage which many have taken to contradict the doctrine of definite atonement,1 Timothy 4:10. Scripture says in part, "we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior (soter) of all men, and especially of those who believe." At first blush it would seem that, if Hebrews 2:9 did not put and end to definite atonement, surely this passage must.
Recent research by Steve Baugh has shown, however, that, read in context, this passage is not concerned with the extent of the atonement. The key is Paul's use of Soter. Firstly, he notes, what does it mean to juxtapose "Savior" (one who saves eternally) of believers but especially of believers? Of course believers are saved, but if "all men" means everyone who ever lived, then, they are all saved and we should become absolute universalists, in which case it is not just Calvinists who must change their views, but also Arminians who must abandon their half-way position and become absolute universalists.
The answer is that, in this passage, soter does not mean "one who saves eternally" but rather means "benefactor." As Steve Baugh notes, in "Paul's day, soter was a common title or description of men, emperors and deities." In fact, there was a statue in Ephesus, where Paul ministered for a considerable period, dedicated to Julius Caesar, on which he was hailed as "the universal benefactor of human life." Paul's point, in the flow of his argument, is that, no, it is the ascended King Jesus, who rules at the right hand of the Father, who is the "benefactor of all men especially of those who believe." Taken in the sense of common grace, this passage is not about the extent of the atonement, universal or otherwise.
... If one accepts that Jesus died as a propitiatory substitute for all his people, there are really only two alternatives, definite atonement or absolute (total) universalism. Either he saved everyone who ever lived, or he saved all those whom he loved.
... Indeed, Calvinism and Arminianism agree that Christ did not actually redeem everyone who ever lived, thus the question is not even whether there is a "limit" to the extent of the atonement, but rather, what is the nature of the limit? Is limited by God's choice and design or by free human choices?
It is our contention that Scripture teaches that Jesus did not fail. Rather where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. As the Second Adam (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 44) Jesus actively obeyed God's perfect Law perfectly, and suffered all the wrath which was due to us, his people, for whom he died (Phil 2:5-11).
... In itself, Christ's death is not limited in its potential, rather it is definite in its intent and personal in its application.
(Excerpted from: R. Scott Clark, Limited Atonement)
... We also reject the moral government theory of the atonement that Jesus died primarily as an example. To be sure Jesus did set an example (1 Pet 2:21) but Scripture makes clear that the work of Christ was much more than that. He was our substitute, as 1 Peter 3:18 says explicitly, "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous".
... A robust doctrine of sin is essential to understanding the doctrine of the atonement. To the degree one tends to downplay the nature or effects of sin (original or actual) then to that degree one also tends to downplay the need for a substitutionary Savior.
... Thus choice which the Christian faces then is not between a "limited" and "unlimited" atonement, but between a "definite" or "indefinite" or between a "person" or an "impersonal" atonement. It is the Reformed contention that God's Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity. It is our view that Jesus did not die to make salvation available or merely possible, but that when he said "It is finished" (John 19:30) he was declaring that, as the once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27), he had completed the work which his Father gave him to do (John 6:57; 10:17-18).
... Since in Adam we have all sinned we must make satisfaction to that justice either by ourselves or by another. We, however, cannot make satisfaction by ourselves since we sin daily and thus daily increase our guilt.
Romans 5.12-21 also makes it clear that Adam's sin is also our sin, that is it has been imputed (credited) to everyone who has ever lived. We are biologically connected to Adam, but Scripture is much more concerned about our legal union with him and its consequences, chiefly, death.
... Scripture consistently makes God the moral standard against which all moral acts and claims are measured. The law is an expression of God's nature and so sin is an offense against God personally. God does not clear the guilty.
... Thus there must be a satisfaction for that sin. Since the earliest recorded moments of human history after the fall, man has known that there must be a substitute, a just representative to take the place of sinners. Righteous Abel (Gen 4:4; Matt 23:35) brought a living offering, a blood offering. Hebrews 12:4 teaches that Abel brought a better sacrifice than Cain. Why was Abel's better? Is there something inherently better in a blood offering than in a grain offering? One would think not, but Hebrews goes on to say that "God spoke well of his offerings." Abel's offering was superior because it was a blood offering, because the blood testified our need of a Savior, of the principle of justice, "eye for eye" (Ex 21:24) hence Hebrews 12:24 teaches that Abel's bloody sacrifice was a pointed picture, shadow or type of the better, perfect blood offering to come, that of the Lamb of God himself, Jesus.
... One of the reasons that there is confusion about the extent of the atonement is that Christians do not always understand well what it is that Christ came to do.
... Why is God "faithful" and "just" when he forgives us? Because Jesus Christ the righteous has paid the penalty for his people, he has turned away God's wrath for his people and therefore they may enter boldly into the Holy of Holies (Hebrews 10:19). We are not able to stand before God because he averts his eyes or overlooks our sins, but rather, because Jesus Christ has paid the debt in full and satisfied God's righteousness.
... The Apostle Paul teaches precisely the same thing in Romans 3:25,26:
God presented Him (Jesus) as the place of propitiation, through faith in His blood, for of a demonstration of His Righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins committed beforehand in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness now in this season in order that He might be just--righteous, and the one--declaring righteous--the one (having) faith in Jesus (my translation).
... Underlying much of our discussion thus far has been the assumption that Jesus came intentionally to redeem his people. That is, it was never his intention to propitiate the wrath of God for everyone who ever lived. Rather it was his intention to redeem all of his people completely.
... This Biblical particularism is perhaps no where so powerfully evident as in the Servant Song in Isa 52:13-53:12. Beginning in 52:13 God presents his "servant" (Ebed). His work benefit "many nations (52:15)." As the prophecy is progressively disclosed, the servant is "despised" and "we esteemed him not." The relations are now considered between "us" and the servant. Thus in 53:4 he took up "our" infirmities" and in v.5 he was "pierced for our transgressions." Thus the expression "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" has a definite context. The "all" here refers to those for whom the servant will suffer and die, but this is not everyone who ever lived. This is clear in v. 11 where the Servant is said to "justify many." Again in v. 12 the Servant "bore the sin of many." We know of course from the Gospels and from Acts 8:26-35 that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 8 is none other than Jesus Christ. Thus the Servant Jesus is said to have suffered and died the "many", i.e., his people, not for everyone who ever lived.
... As one can see, a problem arises in the interpretation of "world" in John's writings. What if neither Jesus, the speaker, John the writer nor the Holy Spirit who caused John to write meant to communicate "everyone who ever lived" but, something else? In fact, he did mean to communicate something else. Just as the opening clause is not about the quantity (if one can speak of such things) of God's love, so kosmos does not speak of the quantity of those for whom Jesus died, but the quality. Even though he used it 78 times in his writings, the Apostle John used the word kosmos consistently in this qualitative sense.
... In fact the word "all" is frequently used in a relative sense to describe a certain class or kind of person. In Titus 2:11, Paul says, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Has saving grace actually appeared to everyone who ever lived? No. Therefore "all" (pas) here must be taken in some restricted sense. Paul simply means, "has become widely available." We could multiply examples. Does "all" in Titus 1:15 mean that "everything possible" is "pure"? No, rather "all things" (panta) means "everything of certain already proscribed set of things." In Matt 10:22 Jesus says that "all men shall hate you because of me." Did he mean to say, "everyone who ever lived"? No, this is an example of the sort of hyperbole which Jesus used frequently to make a point.
What of Hebrews 2:9, which clearly says that Jesus "suffered death so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." How will the Calvinist/particularist wriggle out of this noose? By reading v.9 in the context of v.10! The text continues to say, "In bringing many sons to glory..." so that the "everyone" of v.9 refers to the "many" of v.10, for whom Jesus did not just make salvation possible, but whom he "bringing" to glory.
The best illustration of this is perhaps a passage which some have seen as proof positive that Jesus must have intended to die as the substitute for everyone who ever lived, is a passage which many have taken to contradict the doctrine of definite atonement,1 Timothy 4:10. Scripture says in part, "we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior (soter) of all men, and especially of those who believe." At first blush it would seem that, if Hebrews 2:9 did not put and end to definite atonement, surely this passage must.
Recent research by Steve Baugh has shown, however, that, read in context, this passage is not concerned with the extent of the atonement. The key is Paul's use of Soter. Firstly, he notes, what does it mean to juxtapose "Savior" (one who saves eternally) of believers but especially of believers? Of course believers are saved, but if "all men" means everyone who ever lived, then, they are all saved and we should become absolute universalists, in which case it is not just Calvinists who must change their views, but also Arminians who must abandon their half-way position and become absolute universalists.
The answer is that, in this passage, soter does not mean "one who saves eternally" but rather means "benefactor." As Steve Baugh notes, in "Paul's day, soter was a common title or description of men, emperors and deities." In fact, there was a statue in Ephesus, where Paul ministered for a considerable period, dedicated to Julius Caesar, on which he was hailed as "the universal benefactor of human life." Paul's point, in the flow of his argument, is that, no, it is the ascended King Jesus, who rules at the right hand of the Father, who is the "benefactor of all men especially of those who believe." Taken in the sense of common grace, this passage is not about the extent of the atonement, universal or otherwise.
... If one accepts that Jesus died as a propitiatory substitute for all his people, there are really only two alternatives, definite atonement or absolute (total) universalism. Either he saved everyone who ever lived, or he saved all those whom he loved.
... Indeed, Calvinism and Arminianism agree that Christ did not actually redeem everyone who ever lived, thus the question is not even whether there is a "limit" to the extent of the atonement, but rather, what is the nature of the limit? Is limited by God's choice and design or by free human choices?
It is our contention that Scripture teaches that Jesus did not fail. Rather where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. As the Second Adam (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 44) Jesus actively obeyed God's perfect Law perfectly, and suffered all the wrath which was due to us, his people, for whom he died (Phil 2:5-11).
... In itself, Christ's death is not limited in its potential, rather it is definite in its intent and personal in its application.
(Excerpted from: R. Scott Clark, Limited Atonement)
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
C.H. Spurgeon: "Particular Redemption" is Gospel Truth
They [the Arminians] believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by His death?” we answer that question by asking him another — “What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold — we are not afraid to say that we believe — that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number;” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them. (C.H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, emphasis added)
Sunday, January 31, 2010
A.W. Pink: The Atonement makes salvation certain for all who believe and for whom Christ died
Speaking generally, only two views or interpretations of the Cross have received much favor among the professed people of God: the one which affirmed that the Atonement was effected to make certain the salvation of all who believe; the other which supposed that atonement was made in order to make possible the salvation of all men. The former is the strict Calvinist view; the latter, the Arminian. Even here, the difference was not merely one of terms, but of truth over against error. The one is definite and explicit; the other indefinite and intangible. The one affirms an Atonement which actually atones (i. e. fully satisfied God for those on whose behalf it was made); the other predicates an Atonement which was a sorry failure, inasmuch as the majority of those on whose behalf it was supposed to be offered, perish notwithstanding. The logical and inevitable corollary of the one is a satisfied, because triumphant Savior; the other (if true) would lead, unavoidably, to a disappointed, because defeated Savior. The former interpretation was taught by such men as Wickcliff, Calvin, Latimer, Tyndale, Bunyan, Owen, Dodderidge, Jonathan Edwards, Toplady, Whitefield, Spurgeon, etc. The latter by men who, as theologians, were not worthy to unloose their shoes.
… . If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then the sin of unbelief was too. That unbelief is a sin is clear from the fact that in 1 John 3:23 we read, "And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." Refusal to believe in Christ is, therefore, an act of flagrant disobedience, rebellion against the Most High. But if all the sins of all men were laid upon Christ (as it is now asserted), then He also endured the penalty for the Christ-rejector's unbelief. If this be so, then Universalism is true. But it is not so. The very advocates of the view we are now refuting would not affirm it. And therein may be seen the inconsistency and untenableness of their teaching. For if unbelief is a sin and Christ did not suffer the penalty of it, then all sin was not laid upon Christ. Thus there are only two alternatives: a strictly limited Atonement, availing only for believers; or an unlimited Atonement which effectually secures the salvation of the entire human race.
… The fact that Holy Writ does declare that the wicked shall yet be judged "according to their works" is incontestable evidence that they will have more to answer for, and will suffer for something more than their rejection of Christ.
… If Christ be the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ be the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought. (A.W. Pink, The Atonement
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Bahnsen: The Atonement Must be Limited in Extent
If it be said that before creation the Father singled out in election those whom He destined to save and that the Spirit's activity of bringing men to repentance and faith is operative (to that extent) only in the lives of God's elect and yet that Christ offered up His life for the purpose of saving every single individual, then the unity of the Trinity has been forsaken. For in such a case Christ clearly sets out to accomplish what God the Father and Spirit do not intend to do; Christ here would be out of harmony with the will and purpose of the other two persons of the Trinity. Hence anyone who expounds "four-point Calvinism" has inadvertently destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity (by dissolving its unity) and is logically committed to a polytheistic position.
It should also be noted that the doctrine of particular redemption is necessary to the orthodox view of Christ's substitutionary atonement; the only alternatives to it are universal salvation or salvation by works (both are unbiblical). If Christ atoned for the sins of all men then all men will be saved, for a righteous God cannot condemn a man twice; if the man's sins have been atoned, he cannot be sent to Hell on the basis of them. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ through his sacrifice made a full and actual (no potential) redemption; "who gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a peculiar (chosen) people" (Titus 2:14); "he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21; "he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).
It is clear that Christ presented an actual and not potential redemption on the cross; the gospel is good news, not good advice, it tells us what has been accomplished, not what might come about. Upon the cross Christ cried out "It is finished"; nothing was left to be done, for full atonement had been made. Hence, if Christ (as it is suggested) died for every man, all men shall be saved without exception; yet scripture clearly does not teach universal salvation. And if (contrary to scripture) it is responded that Christ's redemption is only potential, to be made actual when the sinner believes, then salvation is said to depend finally on something the sinner does. And that is tantamount to salvation by works (as well as being based on an erroneous view of Christ's atonement.
... Particular redemption is the only triune, monotheistic, substitutionary, personal, effectual, and biblical (hence, orthodox) doctrine of Christ's atonement; all else (including fundamentalism's redemption for every individual) are doctrines pleasing to men but unsatisfactory in their Theology, anthropology, and soteriology. Sola Scriptura! (Greg Bahnsen, Limited Atonement)
The Bible knows no other kind of atonement but a sutstitutionary atonement; it is a ransom payment in exchange for the sinner’s life and freedom. Christ was delivered for our offenses (Rom. 4:25) and gave Himself for our sins (Gal. 1:4); that means that He died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6) – those who are in bondage to sin (John 8:34) and dead in trespasses (Eph. 2:1). Christ gave Himself in order to redeem us from this iniquity and purify us unto good works (Titus 2:14). He went to the cross as a lamb without blemish (I Pet. 1:18-19), being the substitutionary sacrifice in the place of sinners (Eph. 5:2). As our passover sacrifice (I Cor. 5:7), Christ redeemed us by His blood (I Pet. 1:19). Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22), and thus Christ entered the holy place and through His blood “obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). By this redemption, He secured forgiveness for our sin (Col. 1:14), freedom from the power of Satanic bondage (Heb. 2:14-15), and newness of life (Rom. 6:4). The Savior has paid the price which actually obtains our full redemption; how great a salvation! Anything less than this would not be biblical atonement.
With this background in mind, it should be evident that if the atonement is universal, then every single man is in fact redeemed. None can be lost. Jesus, knowing His own, laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:14-15), and thereby gives them eternal life so that they shall never perish or be snatched from His hand (John 10:27-29). Those for whom Christ died are actually redeemed, not just potentially redeemed; eternal life has been secured for the objects of Christ’s atoning love. Thus if Christ laid down His life for every single individual, then every person shall be eternally saved – nothing being able to snatch them from Christ’s hand. Of course, that means that even the man who dies cursing God is saved; his response to the gospel call was not really needed in order for him to escape God’s wrath. Since the atonement is substitutionary and secures its effect, then even the unbeliever for whom Christ (allegedly) died would have to be saved – or else injustice is attributed to God for double indemnity (taking penal recourse for a man’s sins twice), but if unbelievers shall be saved, there is no need to evangelize them at all! Only the doctrine of particular atonement requires the proclaiming of the good news, for that doctrine teaches that only believers shall be saved (John 3:36). The extent of the atonement is restricted to those who will have saving faith in Christ, those to whom He gives eternal life, those whom He calls His “sheep.” Proclamation is God’s appointed way of gathering in all His elect, all those for whom Christ gave His life as a substitutionary ransom. However, if the atonement applies to every man, then proclamation is not required; since even unbelievers are under the Passover blood of Christ, God will pass over them in judgment even though they have heard and rejected, or never heard at all, the gospel message.
… If Christ’s atonement does not bring one completely to salvation, then it must be completed by man. The ground of one’s salvation is not restricted to Christ’s gracious work but now must encompass the contribution of the sinner – namely, his own work of faith. Here, faith is included in the basis for salvation rather than being seen as the instrument of God’s saving grace, but making man’s activity a contribution to his salvation is bad news. First, it undermines the wholly gracious nature of salvation. It turns faith into a work accomplished by man in order to make up what is lacking in Christ’s atonement. Instead the Bible presents faith (as every other blessing) as a result of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension; it is, not man’s work, the gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9). The universalist says that the cross plus your faith save you; the particularist says that the work of Christ on the cross results in your saving faith. It makes all the difference in the world whether man’s faith is added to the atonement or flows from the atonement; it is just the difference between grace and self-salvation. Secondly, a universal atonement is bad news because it would prevent all men from being saved – since no man can bring himself to faith (John 3:3, 19 with I Cor. 1:18, 2:14). If you call men to finish their salvation by actualizing Christ’s potential atonement by their own faith, you ask them to do what they are unable to do; thus the atonement ends up applying to nobody. A universal atonement either deprives us of gracious salvation or makes salvation impossible; we no longer see “the praise of the glory of His grace wherein He has made us accepted in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:6-7). (Greg Bahnsen, Limited Atonement)
It should also be noted that the doctrine of particular redemption is necessary to the orthodox view of Christ's substitutionary atonement; the only alternatives to it are universal salvation or salvation by works (both are unbiblical). If Christ atoned for the sins of all men then all men will be saved, for a righteous God cannot condemn a man twice; if the man's sins have been atoned, he cannot be sent to Hell on the basis of them. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ through his sacrifice made a full and actual (no potential) redemption; "who gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a peculiar (chosen) people" (Titus 2:14); "he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21; "he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).
It is clear that Christ presented an actual and not potential redemption on the cross; the gospel is good news, not good advice, it tells us what has been accomplished, not what might come about. Upon the cross Christ cried out "It is finished"; nothing was left to be done, for full atonement had been made. Hence, if Christ (as it is suggested) died for every man, all men shall be saved without exception; yet scripture clearly does not teach universal salvation. And if (contrary to scripture) it is responded that Christ's redemption is only potential, to be made actual when the sinner believes, then salvation is said to depend finally on something the sinner does. And that is tantamount to salvation by works (as well as being based on an erroneous view of Christ's atonement.
... Particular redemption is the only triune, monotheistic, substitutionary, personal, effectual, and biblical (hence, orthodox) doctrine of Christ's atonement; all else (including fundamentalism's redemption for every individual) are doctrines pleasing to men but unsatisfactory in their Theology, anthropology, and soteriology. Sola Scriptura! (Greg Bahnsen, Limited Atonement)
The Bible knows no other kind of atonement but a sutstitutionary atonement; it is a ransom payment in exchange for the sinner’s life and freedom. Christ was delivered for our offenses (Rom. 4:25) and gave Himself for our sins (Gal. 1:4); that means that He died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6) – those who are in bondage to sin (John 8:34) and dead in trespasses (Eph. 2:1). Christ gave Himself in order to redeem us from this iniquity and purify us unto good works (Titus 2:14). He went to the cross as a lamb without blemish (I Pet. 1:18-19), being the substitutionary sacrifice in the place of sinners (Eph. 5:2). As our passover sacrifice (I Cor. 5:7), Christ redeemed us by His blood (I Pet. 1:19). Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22), and thus Christ entered the holy place and through His blood “obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). By this redemption, He secured forgiveness for our sin (Col. 1:14), freedom from the power of Satanic bondage (Heb. 2:14-15), and newness of life (Rom. 6:4). The Savior has paid the price which actually obtains our full redemption; how great a salvation! Anything less than this would not be biblical atonement.
With this background in mind, it should be evident that if the atonement is universal, then every single man is in fact redeemed. None can be lost. Jesus, knowing His own, laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:14-15), and thereby gives them eternal life so that they shall never perish or be snatched from His hand (John 10:27-29). Those for whom Christ died are actually redeemed, not just potentially redeemed; eternal life has been secured for the objects of Christ’s atoning love. Thus if Christ laid down His life for every single individual, then every person shall be eternally saved – nothing being able to snatch them from Christ’s hand. Of course, that means that even the man who dies cursing God is saved; his response to the gospel call was not really needed in order for him to escape God’s wrath. Since the atonement is substitutionary and secures its effect, then even the unbeliever for whom Christ (allegedly) died would have to be saved – or else injustice is attributed to God for double indemnity (taking penal recourse for a man’s sins twice), but if unbelievers shall be saved, there is no need to evangelize them at all! Only the doctrine of particular atonement requires the proclaiming of the good news, for that doctrine teaches that only believers shall be saved (John 3:36). The extent of the atonement is restricted to those who will have saving faith in Christ, those to whom He gives eternal life, those whom He calls His “sheep.” Proclamation is God’s appointed way of gathering in all His elect, all those for whom Christ gave His life as a substitutionary ransom. However, if the atonement applies to every man, then proclamation is not required; since even unbelievers are under the Passover blood of Christ, God will pass over them in judgment even though they have heard and rejected, or never heard at all, the gospel message.
… If Christ’s atonement does not bring one completely to salvation, then it must be completed by man. The ground of one’s salvation is not restricted to Christ’s gracious work but now must encompass the contribution of the sinner – namely, his own work of faith. Here, faith is included in the basis for salvation rather than being seen as the instrument of God’s saving grace, but making man’s activity a contribution to his salvation is bad news. First, it undermines the wholly gracious nature of salvation. It turns faith into a work accomplished by man in order to make up what is lacking in Christ’s atonement. Instead the Bible presents faith (as every other blessing) as a result of Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension; it is, not man’s work, the gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9). The universalist says that the cross plus your faith save you; the particularist says that the work of Christ on the cross results in your saving faith. It makes all the difference in the world whether man’s faith is added to the atonement or flows from the atonement; it is just the difference between grace and self-salvation. Secondly, a universal atonement is bad news because it would prevent all men from being saved – since no man can bring himself to faith (John 3:3, 19 with I Cor. 1:18, 2:14). If you call men to finish their salvation by actualizing Christ’s potential atonement by their own faith, you ask them to do what they are unable to do; thus the atonement ends up applying to nobody. A universal atonement either deprives us of gracious salvation or makes salvation impossible; we no longer see “the praise of the glory of His grace wherein He has made us accepted in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:6-7). (Greg Bahnsen, Limited Atonement)
Thursday, January 28, 2010
John Murray: "Limited atonement" is inescapable due to the nature of the atonement
In a word, the atonement is bound up with its efficacy in respect of obedience, expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption. When the Scripture speaks of Christ as dying for men, it is His vicarious death on their behalf that is in view and all the content which belongs to the atonement defines the significance of the formula "died for." Thus we may not say that He died for all men any more than that He made atonement for all men. (John Murray, The Atonement)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)