Posts Tagged ‘A. H. Strong’

Driscoll’s Unlimited, Limited Atonement, Part 2

Posted: February 6, 2012 in Christ
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
15

Driscoll’s Unlimited/limited Atonement is unlimited in the benefit of the atonement. The benefit of the atonement is similar to Common Grace which some of the Reformed men have accused him of teaching. No where does Driscoll state that the provision of Christ’s death is unlimited.

Driscoll quotes Charles Haddon Spurgeon to support his unlimited, limited view: Spurgeon in a sermon that he titled “General and Particular” dealt with this very issue. He’s my dude. He said, “There is a general influence for good flowing from the mediatorial sacrifice of Christ. And yet it’s special design and definite object is the giving of eternal life to as many as the Father gave him.” He teaches both positions: that in one sense Jesus died for everybody and we’re all benefited by that. But in a saving way for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus only died in that sense for the elect that the Father has given him.

Near the end of his sermon, Driscoll states “All of that to say I believe Spurgeon is absolutely right, that the person and work of Jesus has benefited us all. We all have great benefits from Jesus.”

What are the Common Grace benefits of Christ’s death for all according to Driscoll?

1)Human dignity and value

2) Charity

3) Rule of law

4) Private property

5) Education

Wherever Christianity has spread, these common grace benefits have followed. This is the unlimited aspect of Jesus’ atonement according to Driscoll. The fourth view of atonement is the unlimited provision of Christ’s atonement for the world. This is the preferable view.

4. Unlimited Atonement is the belief that the death of Christ accomplished two purposes: He provided the basis for the salvation of all people and He secured the salvation of believers.

The position is also referred to sometimes as Amyraldianism or three or four-point Calvinism.

In France the controversy continued largely around Moise Amyraut (Moses Amyraldus) who taught at the Academy of Saumur and John Cameron who also taught for a short time at the same school. Both men did not believe in limited atonement. Amyraut became the theological father of four-point Calvinism . . . Such men as Charles C. Ryrie and John Walvoord could be classified as four-point Calvinists (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, pages 2 and 5).

“The Scriptures represents the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 771).

“Christ most certainly died to secure the salvation of those who believe and it is our conviction that the Bible teaches that Christ died to provide a basis of salvation for all men” (Lightner, p. 46).

A. Biblical references that relate the atonement to believers only.

All five-point Calvinists inevitably foster to some degree a limitation upon kosmos references pertaining to the soteriological import. This limitation is usually shown by pointing out references (such as Luke 2:1; Jn. 1:10; 12:29; Acts 11:28; 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6; Rev. 13:3, etc.) that cannot mean everyone within the world. Such limited redemptionists as Symington, Pink, Berkhof, and Shedd may be consulted. It must be conceded that such references as above, and others, could have such a limitation placed upon them (Bowman, p.30).

Hodge is an example of this reasoning: “Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a denial of the doctrine that He died equally for all” (Charles Hodge, p. 549).

These passages do not state that Christ only died for believers. Because Christ died for the whole, He also died for a specific part. But to say that Christ only died for believers contradicts the universal passages. Isaiah 53:5 says that Christ died for Israel: “He was wounded for our transgression.” Does this mean that only Jews can be saved? Isaiah 53:6 says Israel was sinful: “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Is total depravity limited to Jews? Matthew 1:21 says that “Christ shall save his people from their sins.” Would limited redemptionists say that Gentiles cannot be saved because of this verse? In Galatians 2:20, Paul limited the death of Christ to himself: “The Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Does this mean that Christ only died for Paul and none other because of the limitations of Galatians. 2:20?

B. There are verses that teach Christ died for all people.

Peter in 2 Peter 2:1 teaches that the Lord died for all people, even those who do not get saved, and thus, false teachers. Both Dr. Bowman and Charles Ryrie give extended explanations of this verse. Both Dr. Bowman and Ryrie state that limited redemptionists explain that this verse does say that the Lord “bought” the false teachers, but that this verse is what the false teachers claimed and Peter only recorded their denial. One example is Louis Berkhof.

The most plausible explanation of these passages is that given by Smeaton, as the interpretation of Piscator and of the Dutch annotations, namely, “that these false teachers are described according to their own profession and the judgment of charity. They gave themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion? (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941, p. 397).

However, the normal sense of language has Peter stating the fact that these false teachers denied the Lord who paid for their sins on the cross, thus stressing the depth of their apostasy.

I like the way Robert Lightner ends his book The Death He Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement on page 148 with a proper conclusion and moment of worship of Christ our Savior, who died in our place, and the whole world.

The death Christ was a death in the place of all men—a death which accomplished a work that completely satisfied God the Father. It was a death which provided life for every member of Adam’s lost race who has ever lived or ever shall live—a death that made it possible for the Father to be just and at the same time the Justifier of any sinner who does nothing more that receive Christ as personal Savior.

Driscoll’s Unlimited, Limited Atonement, Part 1

Posted: February 6, 2012 in Christ
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
19

Mark Driscoll set off a controversy among some of the reformed, whom he called, ”Young, nitpicking, theologically geeky, Calvinist crazy-makers who are like a rock in my shoe” when he preached his modified Calvinist position on the death of Christ which he calls “The unlimited, limited atonement.”  Click to hear the sermon http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement.

Did Christ die for all people (unlimited atonement) or just believers, i.e., the elect (limited atonement)? Or was Christ’s atonement a unlimited, limited atonement?

There Are At Least Four Different Views

1. Universalism is the belief that all people eventually will go to heaven.

Driscoll does a good job at refuting universalism and also unitarianism in his sermon on unlimited, limited atonement.

Why is this view wrong? The following references refute this view (Lk.16; Rev. 20:11).

Limited atonement people, however, accuse unlimited atonement people of Universalism. Limited atonement people quote Mt. 20:28 as proof. “For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give his life a ransom for many.”

No man pays a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it is paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is not sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates. The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly sacrifice is offered (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, vol. 2 p. 548).

Dr. Bowman agrees that “ransom” in Mt. 20:28 with the preposition anti (in exchange for) used with ransom is limited to believers.

Soteriologicaly, the “many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) would be limited to only those set free by the purchase price . . . Therefore, this preposition anti is not necessarily a proof for universal provision as it views those only who are actually purchased. However, it does not exclude the fact that Christ’s death was in behalf of (or, for the benefit of ) others as will be discussed later (Dr. Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p.25).

Dr. Bowman went on to discuss the preposition “huper” which does have a universal provision meaning as in 1 Tim. 2:6 where Paul said that Christ gave himself a ransom “for all men” (antilutron huper panton).

Paul combines the two words and uses the preposition huper which carries the idea of substitution as well as the connotation of benefit. Five-point Calvinists limit the panton (“all”) to a relative sense of all races (Jews and Gentiles) or to all kinds of men. But it is obvious that Paul is using anthropos in a generic sense as referring to mankind not classes or races. Compare the “all men” (vss. 2, 4) and “men” (v. 5) with the tous andras of verse 8. The panton modifies the noun (“men”). It would be rather unnecessary and redundant to say that God desires that all classes of men be saved (v.4) and that Christ is a mediator between God and all races or kinds of men (v.5). This is unnecessary as God’s decree is not necessarily concerned with races but with individuals (Dr. Bowman, pages 27, 28).

Here is how Millard Erickson answers this view:

Equally compelling is 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul says that Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all.” This is to be compared with the original statement in Matthew 20:28, where Jesus had said that the Son of man came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” In 1 Timothy, Paul makes a significant advance upon the words of Jesus. “His life” (tan psuchan autou) becomes “himself” (haeuton); the word is “ransom” (lutron) appears in compound form (antilutron). But most significantly here, “for many” (anti pollon) becomes “for all” (huper panton). When Paul wrote, the words of the tradition (i.e., as they appear in Matthew) may well have been familiar to him. It is almost as if he made a deliberate point of emphasizing that the ransom was universal in its purpose (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pages 830, 831).

These comments by Dr. Bowman and Erickson also refute the Five-point Calvinist’s definition of “all” meaning “all without distinction” verses the biblical definition of “all” which is “all without exception” in passages like 1 Tim. 2:1-6.

2. Arminianism is the belief that Christ died for all.

In 1609, the Five Arminian Articles or the Remonstrance were written by the followers of Jacob Arminius “in opposition to those parts of the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism which stressed what came to be known as the five points of Calvinism, which were later set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p.36).

The Five Points of Arminianism

I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.

II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.

III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.

IV. This grace may be resisted.

V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation. (Roger Nicole, “Arminianism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, p. 64).

Article II of the Five Arminian articles elaborates the meaning of Christ’s death. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the work of the Gospel of John 3:16 (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III New York: Harper and Son Publishers, 1919).

Robert Lightner insightfully informs as to the true meaning of this apparently harmless statement and the importance of the word “obtained.”

The crucial point of this statement regarding the purpose and extent of the atonement centers in the word “obtained.” This is precisely the Arminian view, not only that Christ’s death provided salvation for all but that His death obtained it for all.  This explains, of course, why Arminianism believes each member of Adam’s race possesses sufficient grace to be saved . . . this strikes at the very heart of that great Biblical doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity means that man possesses nothing nor can he do anything to merit favor before God . . . This means in reality that the decision to believe or not to believe is quite unrelated to the election purposes of God or the effectual working of the Holy Spirit but rests ultimately and entirely with the individual (The Death Christ Died, pages 37-40).

The sufficient grace of Arminianism is in contrast to efficacious grace of God or the effective calling of the Holy Spirit referred to by Ryrie in chapter 56 in Basic Theology.

3. Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect.

The views of the Arminians set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610 were examined and rejected as heretical at a national Synod in Dort, meeting from 1618 to November 13, 1619. Not only did the Synod reject the Remonstrance position but it also set out to present the true Calvinistic teaching in regard to the five matters called into question.

This they accomplished by stating what we know today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The term Calvinism was derived from the great reformer John Calvin (1509-1564), who along with many others expounded these views.

The “five points of Calvinism” presented at the Synod are as follows: (1) total depravity; (2) unconditional election; (3) limited atonement, or particular redemption; (4) irresistible grace, or the efficacious call of the Spirit; and (5) perseverance of the saints or eternal security (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p. 40).

What is ironic about the Calvinistic view of limited atonement is that Calvin did not hold to it.  Here is a quote from Calvin’s commentary on Galatians: “God commends to us the solution of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Paul Hartog has written a new book on Calvin’s view of atonement where he documents Calvin’s view. Click here for a PDF http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf

Because of the difference between Calvin and his followers, Driscoll calls himself a Calvin not a Calvinist.

Concerning the limited atonement view that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect Dr. Bowman comments:

This is most certainly correct but this writer feels that such is too narrow to encompass the obvious Scriptural data concerning the provision that has been made for all men. Assuming this to be correct for sake of argument then the provisionary nature of Christ’s death is also an aspect of the divine decree (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p. 5).

Most limited atonement advocates believe in some form of “double predestination.”  “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly foreknew were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed” (Calvin, Christian Institutes, 2:23).

The term “double predestination” itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more that the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to “double predestination”—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settle is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4) (Phillip Johnson, Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism, www.spurgeon.org/-phil/articles/sup_infr.htm,p.1)

Condemnation in Scripture is based on the sinner’s actions of rejection, not God’s reprobation (2nd Thess. 1:8).

Often the phrase, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, is use by unlimited redemptionist, but incorrectly used as Robert Lightner states.

Though those among Calvinists who accept limited atonement thus confine the extent of the atonement to the elect, it should not be thought that they limit the sufficiency or value of Christ’s death. This they do not do. The usual statement coming from them is to the effect that the death of Christ was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect. This statement is intended by limited redemptionists to satisfy those who object to their limited view. But does it really answer the difficulties raised by the scriptural passages which teach the universality of the atonement? What they really mean when they say Christ’s death was sufficient for all is that His blood was of such infinite value that no more could have been required of the Father had He intended the Son’s death to extend to all men (Lightner, p.43).

1. Five point Limited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in the value of the atonement as just presented by Lightner. This view has the provision of Christ’s atonement only for the elect.

2. Unlimited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in provision for all. Driscoll never uses the word provision in his unlimited view and therefore I see his view as not fully Biblical. Only Unlimited Atonement has provision for all not just the elect.

In Part 2, we will examine how Driscoll’s view is different from some limited atonement views and also present the fourth view of atonement: unlimited atonement view.


Why I Am Not a Five or Six or Seven Point Calvinist! (Part 1)

Posted: January 30, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
17

Here is how Matt Perman, director of strategy at Desiring God in Minneapolis, MN., describes what Piper means when he describes himself as a “seven point Calvinist:”

When John Piper says he is a “seven point Calvinist,” he does so half jokingly and half seriously. Historically, there are five points of Calvinism, not seven. Piper isn’t seeking to add two more points, but is simply calling attention to his belief in the traditional five points (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints) in a way that also points toward two additional “Calvinistic” truths that follow from them: double predestination and the best-of-all-possible worlds.

The “sixth” point, double predestination, is simply the flip side of unconditional election. Just as God chooses whom He will save without regard to any distinctives in the person (Ephesians 1:5-6; Acts 13:48; Revelation 17:8), so also he decides whom He will not save without regard to any distinctives in the individual (John 10:26; 12:37-40; Romans 9:11-18;1 Peter 2:7-8).

1 Peter 2:8 seems to be the verse that would appear to most substantiate double predestination. Thomas Constable’s explanation of 1 Peter 2:8 at bible.org refutes double predestination:

“‘In the immediate context it is not so much a question of how Christian believers perceive Christ as of how God (in contrast to ‘people generally’) perceives him, and of how God consequently vindicates both Christ and his followers.’[73]

To what does God appoint those who stumbled, unbelief or the stumbling that results from unbelief? In the Greek text the antecedent of “to this” (eis ho) is the main verb “stumble” (proskoptousi), as it is in the English text. “Are disobedient” (apeithountes) is a participle that is subordinate to the main verb. Therefore we would expect “to this” to refer to the main verb “stumble” rather than to the subordinate participle “are disobedient.” God appoints those who stumble to stumble because they do not believe. Their disobedience is not what God has ordained, but the penalty of their disobedience is (cf. Acts 2:23; Rom. 11:8, 11, 30-32).[74]

The doctrine of “double predestination” is that God foreordains some people to damnation just as He foreordains some to salvation. This has seemed to some Bible students to be the logical conclusion we should draw because of what Scripture says about the election of believers (e.g., Rom. 9; Eph. 1). However this is not a scriptural revelation. The Bible always places the responsibility for the destiny of the lost on them for not believing rather than on God for foreordaining (e.g., John 1:12; 3:36; 5:24; 6:47; Rom. 1—3).

“. . . the point of 1 Peter 2:6-8 is to demonstrate the honored status believers have because of their relationship with Christ.”[75]

Unconditional election is the Biblical view, but double predestination is not the flip side to unconditional election.

I want to now examine two Scriptural texts (Ephesians 1:3-6; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14) that teach unconditional election and present objections raised concerning this docrtine and also address why unconditional election does not demand double predestination.

Ephesians 1:3-6

1. Who chose? God chose us before we chose him.

“God’s election was before the foundation of the world. He did not choose us only after we chose Him (Eph. 1:4)” (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1997, p. 314).

2. Whom did He chose? Two views.

Corporate Election. Did God only choose a group? This is the view of Dan Esterline, as quoted by Ryrie, “What did God choose before the foundation of the world? The church. Not individuals, but the body of Christ” (p. 311). Individuals are not elected until they are believers in Christ, says this view.

Another representative of the corporate view is Clark Pinnock. “Christ is the chosen One in and through whom in corporate solidarity with Him the church is selected to be God’s own. Not one is ever chosen on his own, that is, outside of Christ, or apart from incorporation into the church” (Clark Pinnock, gen. ed., The Grace of God, the Will of Man, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing company, 1989, p. 228).

Individual, Pretemporal Election. This is the preferable view. Ryrie believes that “election emphasizes God’s free choice of individuals to salvation. When Paul uses the verb he uses it in the middle voice, indicating that God’s choice was made freely and for His own purposes (Eph. 1:4). Election is unconditional and individual” (p. 312).

3. When did he choose us?

Not at Salvation. Pretemporal, that is, “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13).

4. Why did he choose?

To produce holy living, “That we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).

Objection to Unconditional Election: “It tends to immorality, by representing men’s salvation as independent of their own obedience.”

After Strong raises this common objection, he answers it.

“Salvation is not independent of our obedience” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology). 1 Peter 1:2 says that obedience is necessary for salvation. “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” We obey what Scriptures tells us do in order to be saved: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior (Acts 16:31).

Moreover, election will make us holy. Nothing under the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit can make a Christian more holy than the thought that he is chosen. “Shall I sin,” he says, “after God hath chosen me? Shall I transgress after such love? Shall I go astray after so much lovingkindness and tender mercy? Nay, my God; since thou hast chosen me, I will love thee, I will live to thee” (Spurgeon, p. 29, 30).

In my next post we will consider if hyper-Calvinism includes or excludes double predestination or just the absence of evangelism.


The Security of the Believer, Part One

Posted: February 18, 2011 in Security of the Believer
Tags: , , , , , ,
16

Lucy and Linus, now famous little people in Charles Schulz’s cartoon Peanuts, are staring out the window. The rain is pouring down. Lucy speaks: “Boy, look at it rain . . . what if it floods the whole world?” Linus answers: “It will never do that. In the 9th chapter of Genesis, God promised Noah that would never happen again, and the sign of the promise is the rainbow.” Lucy is looking directly at him as he is speaking. She turns back toward the window, smiles big, and announces: “You’ve taken a great load off my mind.” To which Linus responds: “Sound theology has a way of doing that.”

Allegedly, in 1789, Ben Franklin said, “Nothing is certain but death and taxes.”

Let’s add one more certainty: the eternal security of every child of God. Like Linus, this should take a great load off your mind. People still carrying this load have lots of questions.

Is once saved always saved biblically true?

Is the person who made a profession but only came to church briefly really saved?

Does God kept us saved without our co-operation?

Do we have any responsibility in the matter of eternal security?

Which of the following statements by leading theologians would you say is true.

Baptist theologian A. H. Strong’s belief about perseverance

“Every believer, has a charge to keep; and the keeping of ourselves is as important a point of Christian doctrine as is the keeping of God” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907, p.882).

Baptist theologian Millard Erickson’s belief’s about perseverance

While Hebrews 6 indicates that genuine believers can fall away, John 10 teaches that they will not. There is a logical possibility of apostasy, but it will not come to pass in the case of believers.  Although they could abandon their faith and consequently come to the fate described in Hebrews 6, the grace of God prevents them from apostasizing . . . Consider as an analogy the case of parents who fear that their young child may run out into the street and be struck by a car. One way the parents can prevent that from happening is to build a fence around the yard. That would prevent the child from leaving the yard, but would also remove the child’s freedom. Try as he or she might, the child could not possibly get out of the yard. That is the idea some persons have of what perseverance is. Another possibility is for the parents to teach and train the child regarding the danger of going into the street and the importance of being careful.

This is the nature of the security which we are discussing. It is not that God renders apostasy impossible by removing the very option. Rather, he uses every possible means of grace, including the warnings contained in Scripture, to motivate us to remain committed to him. Because he enables us to persevere in our faith, the term perseverance is preferable to preservation (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker,1985, p.994).

Calvinism’s belief about perseverance

Calvinism’s position is represented by the Synod of Dort’s statement.

The Synod of Dort’s statement on perseverance of the saints in Dec. 17, 1618:

By reason of these remains of indwelling of sin, and also because of the temptations of the world and of Satan, those who are converted could not persevere in that grace if left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who, having conferred grace, mercifully confirms and powerfully preserves them therein, even to the end (Peter Y. De Jong, editor, Crisis in the Reformed Churches, Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968, p.254).

Also representing the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-46).

Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance Of The Saints

1. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved (Grudem, p.1187,  1188).

Arminianism’s belief about perseverance

The Synod of Dort’s statement was in response to the Arminian Remonstrant’s position against perseverance also presented at that meeting as follows:

“True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish” (Jong, p.228).

Roman Catholicism’s belief about perseverance in opposition to the Reformation is stated in the Council of Trent in 1545-1563

“If anyone maintain that a man once justified cannot lose grace, let him be accursed”

1. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER IS TRUE BECAUSE

A. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because “We are Kept by the Power of God” (1 Pet. 1:3-5).

Dr. Robert Lightner sees a double security in verses 4 and 5.

Such is the heavenly possession of every believer. Peter added that it is “reserved in heaven for you.” “Reserved” means “closely guarded” or “preserved.” There are no conditions attached to this promise, no “ifs” or “buts” about it. Personal faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior guarantees the recipient of God’s grace a secure inheritance. An inheritance reserved for the heirs and the heirs kept for the inheritance mean double security. Concerning those possessing the inheritance described in verse 4, Peter said, “who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (v.5). The word “kept” is a military term in the original . . . Since it appears in 1 Peter 1:5 in the present tense, the emphasis is upon the continual process of being garnished or guarded. How the child of God needs this protection! What assurance it brings to know each saint has it (Robert Lightner, Sin, The Savior, and Salvation, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991, pages 236, 237).

How does God guard and protect believers by his power? “. . . through faith.” God energizes and sustains our faith.

How long will God energize and sustain our faith? “. . . unto salvation ready (prepared) to be revealed in the last time.” God will energize and sustain our faith until the final phase of our salvation, that is, our future glorification and all that is included in our future inheritance.

This is the answer to the Arminian objection that eternal life or the perseverance of the saints is dependent on the believer’s continued belief in Christ: God is the reason we continue to believe. “Lord, I believe, help thou mine unbelief” is our constant cry to which God continually answers.

B. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Love (Rom. 8:31-39).

C. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Obligation to Complete our Salvation (John 6:40).

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

“It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that everyone who truly believes in Christ will remain a Christian up to the day of final resurrection into the blessings of life in the presence of God” (Wayne Grudem, page 789). The Arminian response to this promise is voiced by Grant R. Osborne in Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts. Osborne states that John 6:35 conditions eternal life on the present tense of believing not just the initial act of believing for salvation (p.171).

Wayne Grudem answers this charge. While it is true that Jesus here speaks not just of initial saving faith but of a faith that continues over time, the verse does not go so far as to specify that ‘everyone who believes continuously until his or her death will have eternal life,’ but rather simply says that ‘everyone who is presently in a state of believing in Christ’ will have eternal life and Jesus will raise him up at the last day. The verse speaks about all who presently are in a state of believing in Christ, and it says that all of them will be raised up by Christ at the last day (Wayne Grudem, p. 789).

D. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Answer to His Son’s Prayer (Heb. 7:25).

Does God the Father answer his Son’s prayers? Jesus in John 11:41 and 42 answers that question.

E. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God’s Promise for Trials and Temptations (1 Cor. 10:13).

F. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by Christ’s Promise (John 10:28).

“I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Nor can we pluck ourselves out of God’s hands or this promise is not foolproof. God knows that we are our greatest enemy.           

G. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by the Seal of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30).

The Holy Spirit is God’s “earnest” or down payment by which God commits himself to fulfill by giving us the rest of the inheritance in heaven. The God who said, “Owe no anything” (Rom. 13:8) will pay his debts.

H. The Doctrine of the Security of the Believer is True Because We are Kept by God in Order to Enjoy Assurance (1 John 5:13).

In Part 2, I will answer objections to the doctrine of the security of believers.

Justification by Faith ALONE, Part 2

Posted: January 21, 2011 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
22

Justification by Faith ALONE is Taught in Scripture

1. Justification declares us righteous.

A. H. Strong defines justification as “that judicial act of God by which, on account of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, he declares that sinner to be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his favor. God did condemn; he now acquits. God did repel; he now admits to favor. Justification is an act of God external to the sinner (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p.849).

The reason sinners must be declared righteous is the Fall of Man. We are not only polluted or sinful in our nature (Romans 3:10-18) but we are guilty in our standing before God (Romans 3:19).

2. Justification changes our legal standing before God. It is a forensic act.

The word is not foreign, however, to ordinary language. It appears daily in the news media, particularly with reference to criminal investigations and trials. We hear of ‘forensic evidence’ and ‘forensic medicine’ as we listen to the reports of criminologists, coroners, and pathologists. Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings. The term forensic is also used to describe events connected with public speaking. Schools hold forensic contests or events that feature formal debates or the delivery of speeches. The link between these ordinary usages of forensic and its theological use is that justification has to do with a legal or judicial matter involving some type of declaration. We can reduce its meaning to the concept of legal declaration (R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995, pp. 95, 96).

A. Before the cross, Christ was innocent, not guilty.

 “He who knew no sin, became sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). On the cross, God made Christ sin. Christ did not become personall sinful; his legal standing before God became guilty because our sins were imputed or put on his account.

B. Before salvation, we were guilty, not innocent in our standing before God.

“He who knew no sin, became sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). At salvation, God made us righteous. We did not, as a result of justification become personally righteous; our legal standing before God became righteous because Christ’s righteousness was imputed or put on our account. Now we are no longer guilty and condemned (Rom. 8:1).

We became personally righteous because of regeneration not justification.

Regeneration is an of God in us; justification is a judgment of God with respect to us. The distinction is like that of the distinction between the act of a  surgeon and the act of a judge. The surgeon, when he removes an inward cancer, does something in us. That is not what a judge does—he gives a verdict regarding our status. If we are innocent he declares accordingly. The purity of the gospel is bound up with the recognition of this distinction. If justification is confused with regeneration or sanctification, then the door is opened for the perversion of the gospel at it center (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955, p. 121).

 3. Justification does not make us personally righteous.

Justification is not based, as Roman Catholicism says, on our righteousness or an infusion of righteousness. Justification is based on Christ’s righteousness imputed or put on our account. Romans 4:5 says that God justifies the ungodly. Roman Catholicism teaches that God justifies the godly.

Here is The Council of Trent’s statement on the infusion of righteousness:

For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine  into the branches (John 15:1f.), continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God (Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent, p. 41). In other words, God strengthens us to do the good works that merit salvation.

Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott explains: “According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, justification is ‘sanctifying and renewing of the inner man’. . . . The instrumental cause of the first justification is the Sacrament of Baptism. . . . For the justified eternal life is both a gift of grace promised by God and a reward for his good works and merits” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. Patrick Lynch, Rockford: Tan, 1960, pp. 251, 257, 264).

If the Sacrament of Baptism is the first instrumental cause of justification–by the way, Scripture says, faith alone is the instrumental cause of justification (Romans 3:28)–what is the second instrumental cause of justification? The Sacrament of Penance according to chapter 14 of Trent’s sixth session:

“Those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the grace lost. For this manner of justification is restoration for those fallen, which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost” (Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent, p. 39).

The problem is that God demands a perfect righteousness and we can not live a perfect life. This was Paul’s great confession in Philippians 3:9, “And being found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God, by faith.”

4. Justification restores us to divine favor.

Romans 5:1, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” Justification is not just negative, declaring us not guilty, but justification is positive, because Christ’s righteousness is on our record and in place of our sins.

In Romans 4:7, 8 Paul quotes Psalm 32. “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”

That means all of our sins are forgiven and gone, and in their place is the righteousness of Christ and that sins can never again be imputed or put on our account.

Failure to apprehend this positive aspect of justification as restoration to favor is the reason why so many Christians give little joy and little enthusiasm in their religious lives. The preaching of the magnanimity and generosity of God makes the gospel “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). Edwin M. Stanton had ridden roughshod over Abraham Lincoln in the conduct of a case at law in which they had been joint counsel. Stanton had become vindictive and even violent when Lincoln was made President. But Lincoln invited Stanton to be Secretary of War, and he sent the invitation by Harding, who knew of all this former trouble. When Stanton heard it, he said with streaming eyes: “Do you tell me, Harding, that Mr. Lincoln sent this message to me? Tell him that such magnanimity will make me work with him as man was never served before!” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907, pp. 857, 858).

Justification By Faith ALONE, Part 1

Posted: January 21, 2011 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
21

Since the first century, justification by faith alone has been attacked by the enemies of the gospel and defended by her friends. Paul wrote the entire Galatians epistle to refute the legalism of justification by faith plus works preached by the Judiazers. Paul’s very first statement on justification by faith alone was in Galatians 2:16: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

Three times, Paul repeated, “We are not justified by works; we are justified by faith,” which translated means, we are justified by faith alone.

Justification by Faith ALONE is Rejected by Roman Catholics

Nothing has changed in this battle except the names. The Roman Catholic Church is the modern Judiazers who promote justification by faith plus works. Their position was stated clearly at the Council of Trent (1564) and has not changed. The following is Canon 24 from the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema. (Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with the English Translation, trans. H. J. Schroeder, London: Herder, 1941, p. 45).

John Calvin was the defender of the faith in this case as seen in his rebuttal:

That God visits the good works of the godly with reward, and to the former adds new and ampler grace, we deny not. But whoever asserts that works have the effect of increasing justification, understands neither the meaning of justification nor its cause. That we are regarded as righteous when we are accepted by God, has already been proved. From this acceptance, too, works derive whatever grace they had (John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent: With the Antidote, ed. And trans. Henry Beveridge, 1851, in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, ed. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, 7 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1983, 3:158).

The Roman Catholic Church’s position has not changed since 1564 as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 declared:

“Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori, Mo.: Liguori, 1994, p. 482, par. 1992).

Justification by Faith ALONE is Rejected by Evangelicals

In 1994, Evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders got together to agree on what they commonly believed and produced a 26-page document called Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT).  Some of the evangelicals who signed were Charles Colson, Bill Bright, Os Guinness, J. I. Packer, Richard Mouw, Mark Noll, and Pat Robertson.

“There were representatives from the Charismatic community, the Southern Baptist Convention, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Fuller Theological Seminary. Their purpose is clearly stated: We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission.”

And what is the common conviction concerning justification: “We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ” (Evangelicals and Catholics Together:  The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, released March 29, 1994. Available from BASIC Truth Ministries, P.O. Box 504M, Bay Shore, NY 11706, p. 5).

The problem with this statement is not what is said but what is glaringly absent: the word “alone.” Roman Catholicism believes in justification by grace through faith in Christ but NOT in justification by grace ALONE through faith alone in Christ alone.

ECT admitted that there are differences between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics and made a list of the differences “in doctrine, worship, practice, and piety that are frequently thought to divide us are these:

1. The church as an integral part of the Gospel or the church as a communal consequence of the Gospel.

2. The church as visible communion or invisible fellowship of true believers.

3. The sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the church.

4. The “soul freedom” of the individual Christian or the Magisterium (teaching authority) of the community.

5. The church as local congregation or universal communion.

6. Ministry ordered in apostolic succession or the priesthood of all believers.

7. Sacraments and ordinances as symbols of grace or means of grace.

8. The Lord’s Supper as eucharistic sacrifice or memorial meal.

9. Remembrance of Mary and the saints or devotion to Mary and the saints.

10. Baptism as sacrament of regeneration or testimony to regeneration (p.10).

 Again the problem is what is left unsaid: The doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine is not mentioned as a difference in what Evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe about justification. Contrast this accommodating attitude with Paul’s outraged attitude in Galatians 1:8 toward the Judiazers who also taught works for salvation: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

For Round Two of ECT see Should Christian Leaders Sign The Manhattan Declaration? Part 1 and 2.

In fact, the difference is what perpetrated the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. Having rejected the authority of both the Pope and church councils, already excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms in April, 1521, refused to recant his doctrines. The doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is what Luther called alien righteousness, i.e., righteousness because God’s justification is not based on the righteousness we produce but only on the righteousness of Christ which he puts on our account:

A Christian is righteous and holy by an alien or foreign holiness—I call it this for the sake of instruction—that is, he is righteous by the mercy and grace of God. This mercy and grace is not something human; it is not some sort of disposition or quality in the heart. It is a divine blessing, given us through the true knowledge of the Gospel, when we know or believe that our sin has been forgiven through the grace and merit of Christ . . . . Is not this righteousness an alien righteousness? It consist completely in the indulgence of another and is a pure gift of God, who shows mercy and favor for Christ’s sake (Martin Luther, What Luther Says: An Anthology, ed. Ewald M. Plass, 3 vols. St. Louis: Concordia, 1959, 2:703).

For this truth, Luther was willing to die.

In Part 2, we discuss what is the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Active and Passive Obedience of Christ Revised

Posted: November 16, 2010 in Sin
Tags:
23

“So important is eternal life that the Bible gives us many illustrations so that no one will miss the message. To the farmers, Jesus talked about soil and seed. To the shepherds, He talked about sheep. To beggars, He talked about a great feast that God had spread. To lawyers, He talked abut justification. To the housewife, He talked about a coin that had been lost and had to be found. But when you use the word ‘imputation,’ you find God speaking to the banker, because it is a financial term . . . . Our English word ‘imputation’ comes from the Latin word which means ‘to reckon, or credit, to one’s account.’ When you go to the bank or the savings and loan association and deposit money, imputation takes place. They deposit that on your account, and they write it on your record . . . . Right in the middle of that word ‘impute’ you have p-u-t, righteousness put to our account” (Warren Wiersbe, Key Words of the Christian Life, Lincoln: Back to the Bible, 1982, pages 55, 56, 58).

On what basis did God impute or “put” righteousness on our account?

There are two different answers to this question, depending on whether you are Covenant or Dispensational.

The basis is the sufferings of Christ on the cross, according to some dispensationalists like Charles Ryrie.

“The sufferings of Christ in His death have been labeled His passive obedience in classical Protestant theology. This passive obedience stands in contrast to Christ’s active obedience which refers to the obedience exhibited during His lifetime. . . . The sufferings of Christ’s life, though real, were not atoning. . . . Strictly speaking, then, only the sufferings on the cross were atoning. It was during the three hours of darkness when God laid on Christ the sins of the world that Atonement was being made” (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1999, p. 282).

The basis is the life and death sufferings of Christ, according to Covenant theologians like Wayne Grudem.

“Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience, would be counted for us. Sometimes this is called Christ’s ‘active obedience,’ while his suffering and dying for our sins is called his ‘passive obedience.’ Paul says his goal is that he may be found in Christ, ‘not having a righteousness of [his] own, based on the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith’” (Phil. 3:9) (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zonderman, 1994, pp. 571.

Paul is contrasting works for salvation through the Law, which he kept as a sinner, with salvation through faith in Christ’s cross work. We place our faith in Christ’s death in order to receive His righteousness. Nothing in this passage speaks about Christ’s life sufferings or His active obedience in His life.

Ryrie mentions the three basic imputations in chapter 37 of Basic Theology.

   A. The imputation of Adam’s sin to the race (Rom. 5:12-21).

   B. The imputation of man’s sin to Christ (2 Cor.5:21; 1 Pet. 2:24).

   C. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers (2 Cor. 5:21). Was this imputation based on the life sufferings or death sufferings of Christ? This is a debate today.

I will contrast the difference between the Covenant and Dispensational view in each of the three imputations.

A. The imputation of Adam’s sin to the race (Rom. 5:12-21).

Covenant View or the Representative view

In the Representative view, we did not sin in Adam, but Adam sinned and God imputed original sin to each sinner because of what our Representative did. “The conclusion to be drawn from these verses is that all members of the human race were represented by Adam in at the time of testing in the Garden of Eden. As our representative,  Adam sinned, and God counted us guilty as well as Adam” (Grudem, p. 495). In Grudem’s view God doesn’t punish us for someone else’s sin.

Dispensational View or the Seminal view

The argument goes like this: The Seminal view says that because we were in union with Adam when he sinned in the Garden that God is just in punishing each of us with death. “We die because we sinned in Adam” is Paul’s argument in Romans 5:12. “Participation is the ground of merited imputation” of sin to each sinner (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:29).

Covenant View of Origin of souls (Creationism)

Because we did not actually sin in Adam, God creates each soul depraved. “God gives each child a human soul that has tendencies to sin” (Grudem, p. 485).

Dispensational View or Traducianism

Sinful souls are inherited from parents because we sinned in Adam.

B. The imputation of man’s sin to Christ (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet: 2:24).

Covenant View: Christ was our Representative on the cross.

“God regards the human race as an organic whole, a unity, represented by Adam as its head. And God also thinks of the race of Christians, those who are redeemed by Christ, as an organic whole, a unity represented by Christ as head of his people (Grudem, p. 496).

Dispensational View:We were in union with Christ in His death on cross.

“We should not permit our use of the term ‘imputation’ to be hindered by the fact that certain schools of theology, notably the Federal school, have attached to it an arbitrary meaning—holding that God imputes sin to men, not because they are sinners, but upon the ground of a legal fiction whereby Adam, without their consent, was made their representative. We shall see, on the contrary, that (1) in the case of Adam’s sin imputed to us (2) in the case of our sins imputed to Christ, and (3) in the case of Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer, there is always a realistic basis for the imputation, namely, a real union. (A. H. Strong, p. 594). We died with Christ at the cross(Rom. 6:6; 2 Tim. 2:11).

C. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers.

Covenant View

Christ’s Active Obedience or Life sufferings. The righteousness of Christ who perfectly kept the Law is imputed to believers. Christ’s Passive Obedience or Death sufferings. Sins of believers are pardoned by Christ who suffered the penalty of the broken law on the cross.

Dispensational View

Only Christ’s death sufferings are vicarious. See discussion below.

The life sufferings of Christ are called the Active Obedience (Preceptive Obedience according to Robert Reymond in his Systematic Theology) of Christ. Christ was obedient in life.

The death sufferings of Christ are called the Passive Obedience (Penal Obedience according to Robert Reymond) of Christ. Christ was obedient in death. Reformed or Covenant Theologians like Reymond, Berkhof, and Grudem believe that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers was based on Christ’s life and death sufferings.

“By the former (Preceptive or Active Obedience) he made available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed to those who put their trust in him. By the latter (Penal or Passive Obedience) he bore in himself by legal imputation the penalty due to his people for their sin. His perceptive and his penal obedience, then, particularly as the latter came to expression in his cross work, is the ground of God’s justification of sinners, by which divine act they are pardoned” (Reymond, p. 631).

Preceptive or Active Obedience of Christ’s life imputes His righteousness to us is The Covenant View.

Penal or Passive Obedience of Christ’s death pardons our sins.

The Dispensational View sees only the death sufferings as the basis of imputed righteousness.

The imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers is based on Rom. 5:18, 19 and especially one phrase from verse 18: di henos dikaiomatos or as NKJV translates: “through one Man’s righteous act.” The one righteous act referred to is the death or sufferings of Christ on the cross which imputed Christ’s righteousness to believers i.e., the Passive Obedience of Christ. This is in contrast to the condemnation imputed to sinners “through one transgression” (NET) or the one act of disobedience of Adam in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:6). In other words, the imputation of righteousness to believing sinners is based on the sufferings of Christ in His death not the sufferings of Christ in His life.

Does di henos dikaiomatos mean “through one righteous act,” i.e., the death of Christ? The Dispensational View

NKJV translates “through one Man’s righteous act”

NET translates “through the one righteous act”

ASV translates “through one act of righteousness”

NIV translates “so one Man’s act of righteousness”

Does di henos dikaiomatos mean “through the righteousness of one,” i.e., the life and death of Christ?

The Covenant View

Covenant Theologian Charles Hodge translates “through the righteousness of one” and explains why the other translation is impossible: “It is inappropriate, in as much as we are not justified by one act of Christ, but by his whole life of obedience and suffering” (Hodge, Commentary on the Epistles to the Romans, pages 173, 174). In other words, because the other translation does not fit my theology.

This debate today is basically between Covenant and Dispensational Theologians as to which sufferings of Christ are redemptive.

Dr. Bowman in his notes on Soteriology or Systematic Theology III on page 7 addresses this issue.

“Christ suffered in life and in death. Were His life sufferings redemptive? Berkhof intimates that the life sufferings as well as death sufferings redeemed (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1953, pp. 336-39).

Theologians usually go to one of two extremes. Either His life sufferings are neglected or included as a part of His redemptive work.

1. Life sufferings (Non-atoning). The theological purpose for these sufferings was to prove Christ’s love and compassion. His life sufferings are seen in the following passages (1 Pet. 2:21; Matt. 8:14-18; Isa. 53:2-4a; John 11:35; Matt. 23:37; Lk.19:41; Heb. 5:7).”

None of the verses that describe the life sufferings of Christ mention any redemptive benefit. Dr. Bowman next in his notes describes the vicarious sufferings of Christ on the cross.

2. Death sufferings (Vicarious).

“The word vicarious comes from an adjectival Latin word, vicarious, and means, one who takes the place of another, a substitute. The noun form, vicar (Latin vicaire), is used in R.C. theology of the pope who supposedly represents Christ on earth.

Theologically, Hodge defines the word thus: ‘. . . that Christ was in a strict and exact sense the substitute of his people, i.e., by divine appointment, and of his own free will, he assumed all our legal responsibilities and thus assumed our law-place binding himself to do in our stead all that the law demanded of him when he suffered the penalty due us, and rendered the obedience upon which our well-being was made to depend’ (Archibald Alexander Hodge, The Atonement, 1953, p, 390).

The word that more aptly designates the idea is substitution. Substitution will later be discussed under two prepositions: anti and huper.

Our sins were imputed to Christ on the Cross (Isa. 53:6, 12; John 1:29; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18).

The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is related to the imputation of Adam’s sin to sinners.

Covenant Theologians say the Representative view of imputation of sin to sinners better explains the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believing sinners than the Seminal view.

The argument goes like this: In the Representative view, we did not sin in Adam, but Adam sinned and God imputed original sin to each sinner because of what our Representative did. Likewise, we did not do any righteous act in Christ on the cross to merit imputed righteousness. Because Christ is our Representative on the cross, like Adam was our Representative in the Garden, God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us based on what Christ did, not what we did in Him on the cross (Grudem, pages 494, 495).

Scripture does not make this logical connection. Just because something is logical in a system of theology does not mean it is biblical. Limited atonement is logical in the system of strict Calvinism; Christ died for the elect, but the Scriptures do not teach that Christ died only for the elect: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16). Scripture does teach that we sinned in Adam.

So the doctrine of the imputation of sin to sinners is related to the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believing sinners.

The Seminal view says that because we were in union with Adam when he sinned in the Garden, that God is just in punishing each of us with death. “We die because we sinned in Adam” is Paul’s argument in Rom. 5:12.

We not only sinned in Adam and therefore die, but we also were in union with Christ in that we died with Him and therefore we live as the Scriptures teach: “Our old man was crucified with Christ” (Rom. 6:6). “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live” (Gal. 2:20).

According to Paul in Romans 4:8, because the righteousness of Christ has been put on our account, sin can not be put on the same account: “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

“It seems that there was a man in England who put his Rolls-Royce on a boat and went across to the Continent to go on a holiday. While he was driving around Europe, something happened to the motor of his car. He cabled the Rolls-Royce people back in England and asked, “I’m having trouble with my car; what do you suggest I do?” Well, the Rolls-Royce people flew a mechanic over! The mechanic repaired the car and flew back to England and left the man to continue his holiday. As you can imagine, the fellow was wondering, “How much is this going to cost me?” So when he got back to England, he wrote the people a letter and asked how much he owed them. He received a letter from the office that read: “Dear Sir: There is no record anywhere in our files that anything ever went wrong with a Rolls-Royce” (Wiersbe, p. 16). Sin was imputed to each of us because we have sinned. Our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross and His righteousness was imputed to us at salvation and therefore no sin can be put on our record. There is no record anywhere in Heaven that any believer ever sinned.

Origin of the Soul

Posted: March 19, 2010 in Sin
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

What does the statement “Like father like son” mean? Of course it means we are like our parents in some ways. We inherited something from mom and dad. What did we inherit? Perhaps our looks or the lack of looks. Mannerisms. Personality. I was in Cracker Barrel once and was reading some of the signs for sale. One read, “I child proofed the house, but they still got in.” Another read, “If it were not for coffee, I would not have any personality.”

We inherited our physical and immaterial soul from our parents. At least that is one view of three major views. The three major views are the preexistence of soul view: the creationist view which is not to be confused with the  creationist view of the universe and man, and the traducianist view.

I. The Preexistence of the Soul View

Church father, Origen, believed these preexistent souls fell into sin and this is the reason for the differences in persons now. “Origen looks upon man’s present material existence with all its inequalities and irregularities, physical and moral, as a punishment for sins committed in a previous existence” (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 196). A. H. Strong mentions Polanus’ teaching that God gives souls to boys at forty days and to girls at eighty days after conception (Strong, Systematic Theology, p.491). This view is similar to the reincarnation in Eastern religions. This view cannot be true because Rom. 5:12 teaches that sin began with Adam not preexistent souls. Otherwise these preexistent souls were not sinners. Also this view denies the doctrine of eternal punishment for individuals who die without Christ (Luke 16:19-31).

II. The Creationist View of the Soul

This is view commonly held to by Reformed theologians. Robert Reymond, who believes in Traduciansim, is an exception. This is Charles Hodge’s position. Here are some of Hodges arguments. This view is consistent with the Scriptures such as Ecc. 12:7 “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” In Isa. 57:16, God refers to “the souls which I made.” In the chastening passage of Heb. 12, the author writes: “We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” Another argument from Hodge is that Christ’s sinlessness could only be true if His soul were created (Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, pp.70-76).

In response to Hodge’s first argument that these passages teach that God created souls, we would say that God created each person’s body and soul indirectly by means of parents. Even Wayne Grudem who advocates creationism says “that God usually acts through secondary causes. Even if we say that God is the ‘Father of spirits’ and the Creator of every human soul, just as he is the Maker and Creator of each of us, we must still also affirm that God carries out this creative activity through the amazing process of human procreation” (p. 485). In Psalm 139:13-14 David says God created him in his mother’s womb. How did God create David? Directly or indirectly?  Not by forming David out of the dust of the ground but indirectly through his parents. When Isa. 57:16 says God made souls, He did so through parents.

Hodge’s second argument concerning the sinlessness of Christ as proof for creationism is simply answered by making Christ the exception. Christ is not only the exception of not inheriting a sinful soul from His mother but He is the exception in many areas. His birth was an exception. He did not have a human father. His sinless life was an exception. He had no sin nature. His physical resurrection was an exception. He arose never to die again.

A major objection to creationism is the idea that God creates directly or indirectly a sinful soul. Wayne Grudem, who believes in creationism of each individual soul, admits “that God gives each child a human soul that has tendencies to sin” (p. 485). Charles Hodge apparently seeing the difficulty of God creating a sinful soul stated: “It is moreover a historical fact universally admitted, that character, within certain limits, is transmissible from parents to children. Every nation, separate tribe, and even every extended family of men, has its physical, mental, social, and moral peculiarities which are propagated from generation to generation” (p. 253).

III. The Traducian View

Only once did God breathe into man’s nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 2:7). God created woman from the rib of Adam in Gen. 2:22. From Adam and Eve came the next person (Gen. 4:1). What is transmitted from parents to a child at conception and birth? Not just a physical resemblance or the material. But spiritual and moral tendencies: both good and bad.

The bad is inherited. “Heredity in God’s visiting of sin to the third and fourth generation” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 496). This statement is based on Ex. 20:5: “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.” An example is Abraham’s weakness to lie was passed on to the fourth generation. Abraham lied in Gen. 12:13 about Sara being his wife two times in Gen.12:13 and 20:12 when he said “Sara is my sister.”  Abraham’s son, Isaac carbon copies the lie in Gen. 26:7: Rebecca “is my sister.” Jacob, Isaac’s son, lies in Gen. 27:19: “I am Esau thy firstborn.” Jacob’s sons lie to Jacob about Joseph in Gen. 37. This is certainly a challenge to parents to check and correct sins in their lives lest those sins be repeated and punished in their children.

This subject has bearing on inherited sin and imputed sin. Inherited sin or our sin nature came from our parents but imputed sin came directly from Adam. There is a connection with the origin of the soul and inherited and imputed sin.

The Reformed view says that Adam was our representative and when he sinned God counted all people sinners not because we sinned in Adam but because our representative sinned. This is called the Federal Headship view or Representative view of original sin. Allegedly, this agreement was spelled out in the so-called Covenant of Work between Adam and God. Consequently, God creates each soul sinful because we were not present spiritually in Adam when he sinned.

The other view teaches that we actually sinned in Adam and therefore die because our sin. This view is called the Natural or Realistic Headship or Seminal view. God punishes each person with death not because of someone else’s sin, Adam our representative, but justly because we sinned in Adam. Because we sinned in Adam, each person is born with a sin nature inherited from our parents who inherited their sin nature from their parents all the way back to Adam. 

Here is Strong’s statement of the Representative position. “With Adam as their representative God entered into covenant, agreeing to bestow upon them eternal life on condition of his obedience, but making the penalty of his disobedience to be the corruption and death of all his posterity. In accordance with the terms of this covenant, since Adam sinned, God accounts all his descendants as sinners, and condemns them because of Adam’s transgression. In execution of this sentence of condemnation, God immediately creates each soul of Adam’s posterity with a corrupt and depraved nature which infallibly leads to sin, and which is itself sin” (Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 612-613).

Millard Erickson also makes this connection. “The two major approaches see the relationship in terms of federal headship and natural headship. The approach that sees Adam’s connection with us in terms of a federal headship is generally related to the creationist view of the origin of the soul. This is the view that the human receives his physical nature by inheritance from his parents, but that the soul is specially created by God for each individual and united with the body at birth (or some other suitable moment). Thus, we were not present psychologically or spiritually in any of our ancestors, including Adam. Adam, however, was our representative. God ordained that Adam should act not only on his own behalf, but also on our behalf. The consequences of his actions have been passed on to his descendants as well. Adam was on probation for all of us as it were; and because Adam sinned all of us are treated as guilty and corrupted. Bound by the covenant between God and Adam, we are treated as if we have actually and personally done what he as our representative did….The other major approach sees Adam’s connection with us in terms of a natural (or realistic headship). This approach is related to the traducianist view of the origin of the soul, according to which we receive our souls by transmission from our parents, just as we do our physical natures. So we were present in germinal or seminal form in our ancestors; in a very real sense, we were there in Adam. This action was not merely that of one isolated individual, but of the entire human race. Although we were not there individually, we were nonetheless there. The human race sinned as a whole. Thus, there is nothing unfair or improper about our receiving a corrupted nature and guilt from Adam, for we are receiving the just results of our sin. This is the view of Augustine” (Erickson, Christian Theology, pp. 635-636).

SERMON: SEALED by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14)

Posted: September 26, 2009 in Ephesians Class, Sermons, The Holy Spirit
Tags: , , , , ,
13

Billy said to Jimmy, “My Dad has a list of names of men that he can wipe and your daddy’s name is first on it.” Jimmy went home and told he daddy, “Daddy, I have something to tell you. Billy’s dad has a list of names of men he can wipe and your name is first.” Jimmy’s dad went to see Billy’s dad and rolled up his sleeves. “Is it true you have a list of men you can wipe and my name is on it.” Billy’s dad responded, “That is right.” Jimmy’s dad replied, “You can’t do it and what are you going to do about it?”

Billy’s dad said, “Well, I guess I’ll just take your name off.”

Did you know, child of God, God has your name on a list, and He will never take it off?  In Luke 10:40, Jesus said, “Rejoice because your names are written in heaven.” We call this the doctrine of eternal security or the perseverance or preservation of the saints and this blessed truth is the result of the sealing of the Holy Spirit. In John 10:28, Jesus gave a powerful promise of security:

“I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish.” William Mounce in his Basics of Biblical Greek states the significance of the double negative (ou ma) with a subjunctive verb (apolontai).

This chapter describes a fascinating combination used by the Greek language to show emphasis: it is the use of the two negatives ou ma with a subjunctive verb to indicate a strong negation about the future. The speaker uses the subjunctive verb to suggest a future possibility, but in the same phrase he emphatically denies (by means of the double negative) that such could ever happen. This linguistic combination occurs about eighty-five times in the New Testament, often in significant promises or reassurances about the future.

In Jesus’ description of himself as the Good Shepherd in John 10, he gives one of the most treasured of these promises: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish [ou ma apolontai]” (10:27-28a NIV). It would have been enough to have ou with a future indicative verb here, but Jesus is more emphatic. The subjunctive combination strongly denies even the possibility that any of Jesus’ sheep would perish: “they will certainly not perish,” “they will by no means perish,” is the sense of Jesus’ assertion. This is reinforced by the addition of the phrase eis ton aiova, “forever.” Jesus’ emphatic promise is the bedrock of assurance and godly motivation for every one of his sheep! (William Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, p. 281).

Do you agree or disagree with what Baptist theologian, A. H. Strong says about the security of the believer:

“Perseverance is, therefore, the human side or aspect of that spiritual process which, as viewed from the divine side, we call sanctification. It is not a mere natural consequence of conversion, but involves a constant activity of the human will from the moment of conversion to the end of life” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907, p. 881).

Theologian Louis Berkhof disagrees with Strong’s emphasis on perserverance being the human side and sanctification being the divine side because “this is certainly liable to create the impression that perseverance depends on man. The Reformed, however, do not consider the perseverance of the saints as being, first of all, a disposition of the believer. They even stress the fact that the believer would fall away, if he were left to himself. It is strictly speaking, not man but God who perseveres. Perseverance may be defined as that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit in the believer, by which the work of divine grace that is begun in the heart, is continued and brought to completion. It is because God never forsakes His work that believers continue to stand to the very end.” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1941, page 546).

WE HAVE ETERNAL SECURITY BECAUSE OF THE SEALING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

1. Who Seals The Believer?

There are three passages that specifically mention the sealing of the Holy Spirit: 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30. According to 2 Cor. 1:22, God the Father is the agent who seals believers with the Holy Spirit. The last reference informs that believers are sealed in the Holy Spirit: “Grieve not the holy Spirit of God in [gk. en] whom you are sealed” (Eph. 4:30).

2. When are Believers Sealed?

At the time of conversion.

Eph. 1:13 reads in the Greek, “in whom having believed [aorist participle] you were sealed [aorist passive indicative] with that Holy Spirit of promise.” At the moment the sinner put his faith in Christ, he is sealed in the Holy Spirit.

3. Who are Sealed in the Spirit?

All believers are sealed, even the carnal Corinthians (2 Cor. 1:22). One carnal Corinthian had even committed incest. Believers who sin are chastened by the Lord; not cast out (Heb. 12:6-8). Eternal security is not a license to sin (Eph. 4:30-32). The sealing of the Holy Spirit is the basis for not sinning; not making an excuse to sin. Eph. 4:30-32, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God in whom you are sealed.”

“It should be noted that the Scriptures nowhere exhort any believer to be sealed. This would imply strongly that it is a universal experience, since it need not be sought by any. If it were not universal, then one would expect to find at least one, if not numerous, exhortations to be sealed, as is the case, for instance, with the filling of the Spirit” (Charles Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, Chicago: Moody Press, 1965, page 81).

4. Why are Believers Sealed?

The two verses in Ephesians on the sealing of the Holy Spirit give the believer security in his/her faith.

Eph. 1:13 promises that believers are sealed in the Holy Spirit who is the “guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it.”

The Greek word translated “guarantee” in this passage (arrabon) is a legal and commercial term that means ‘first installment, deposit, down payment which obligates the contracting party to make further payments.’ When God gave us the Holy Spirit within, he committed himself to give all the further blessings of eternal life and a great reward in heaven with him. This is why Paul can say that the Holy Spirit is the ‘guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it” (Eph. 1:14). Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994, page 791.

Eph. 4:30 promises that believers are sealed unto the day of redemption or the rapture. This is God’s promise of security to each believer.  Once the believer is in heaven in his glorified body, he will not need the sealing of the Holy Spirit to keep him saved.

5. What Does Sealing Mean?

Sealed meant ownership. A Biblical example is in Rev 7:1-8; 9:4; 14:1-5. The 144,000 believing Jews are sealed in the absolute most difficult of all times, the seven year Tribulation Period. Because they are sealed by God, they are preserved and not killed by the anti-Christ. If God can keep the sealed believers in the Tribulation Period surely He can keep us in less difficult times.

SERMON: REDEMPTION by God the Son (Ephesians 1:7-12)

Posted: September 26, 2009 in Sermons, Ephesians Class, Atonement, Christ
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Mark Driscoll set off a controversy among some of the reformed, whom he called, ”Young, nitpicking, theologically geeky, Calvinist crazy-makers who are like a rock in my shoe” when he preached his modified Calvinist position on the death of Christ which he calls “The unlimited, limited atonement.”  Click to hear the sermon http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/christ-on-the-cross/unlimited-limited-atonement.

Did Christ die for all people (unlimited atonement) or just believers, i.e., the elect (limited atonement)? Or was Christ’s atonement a unlimited, limited atonement?

There Are At Least Four Different Views

1. Universalism is the belief that all people eventually will go to heaven.

Why is this view wrong? The following references refute this view (Lk.16; Rev. 20:11).

Limited atonement people, however, accuse unlimited atonement people of Universalism. Limited atonement people quote Mt. 20:28 as proof. “For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give his life a ransom for many.”

No man pays a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it is paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is not sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates. The effect of a ransom and sacrifice may indeed be conditional, but the occurrence of the condition will be rendered certain before the costly sacrifice is offered (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952, vol. 2 p. 548).

Dr. Bowman agrees that “ransom” in Mt. 20:28 with the preposition anti (in exchange for) used with ransom is limited to believers.

Soteriologicaly, the “many” (Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45) would be limited to only those set free by the purchase price . . . Therefore, this preposition anti is not necessarily a proof for universal provision as it views those only who are actually purchased. However, it does not exclude the fact that Christ’s death was in behalf of (or, for the benefit of ) others as will be discussed later (Dr. Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p.25).

Dr. Bowman went on to discuss the preposition “huper” which does have a universal provision meaning as in 1 Tim. 2:6 where Paul said that Christ gave himself a ransom “for all men” (antilutron huper panton).

Paul combines the two words and uses the preposition huper which carries the idea of substitution as well as the connotation of benefit. Five-point Calvinists limit the panton (“all”) to a relative sense of all races (Jews and Gentiles) or to all kinds of men. But it is obvious that Paul is using anthropos in a generic sense as referring to mankind not classes or races. Compare the “all men” (vss. 2, 4) and “men” (v. 5) with the tous andras of verse 8. The panton modifies the noun (“men”). It would be rather unnecessary and redundant to say that God desires that all classes of men be saved (v.4) and that Christ is a mediator between God and all races or kinds of men (v.5). This is unnecessary as God’s decree is not necessarily concerned with races but with individuals (Dr. Bowman, pages 27, 28).

Here is how Millard Erickson answers this view:

Equally compelling is 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul says that Christ Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all.” This is to be compared with the original statement in Matthew 20:28, where Jesus had said that the Son of man came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” In 1 Timothy, Paul makes a significant advance upon the words of Jesus. “His life” (tan psuchan autou) becomes “himself” (haeuton); the word is “ransom” (lutron) appears in compound form (antilutron). But most significantly here, “for many” (anti pollon) becomes “for all” (huper panton). When Paul wrote, the words of the tradition (i.e., as they appear in Matthew) may well have been familiar to him. It is almost as if he made a deliberate point of emphasizing that the ransom was universal in its purpose (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, pages 830, 831).

These comments by Dr. Bowman and Erickson also refute the Five-point Calvinist’s definition of “all” meaning “all without distinction” verses the biblical definition of “all” which is “all without exception” in passages like 1 Tim. 2:1-6.

2. Arminianism is the belief that Christ died for all.

In 1609, the Five Arminian Articles or the Remonstrance were written by the followers of Jacob Arminius “in opposition to those parts of the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism which stressed what came to be known as the five points of Calvinism, which were later set forth at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p.36).

The Five Points of Arminianism

I. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.

II. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.

III. Man is so depraved that divine grace is necessary unto faith or any good deed.

IV. This grace may be resisted.

V. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point which needs further investigation. (Roger Nicole, “Arminianism,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960, p. 64).

Article II of the Five Arminian articles elaborates the meaning of Christ’s death. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the work of the Gospel of John 3:16 (Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, III New York: Harper and Son Publishers, 1919).

Robert Lightner insightfully informs as to the true meaning of this apparently harmless statement and the importance of the word “obtained.”

The crucial point of this statement regarding the purpose and extent of the atonement centers in the word “obtained.” This is precisely the Arminian view, not only that Christ’s death provided salvation for all but that His death obtained it for all.  This explains, of course, why Arminianism believes each member of Adam’s race possesses sufficient grace to be saved . . . this strikes at the very heart of that great Biblical doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity means that man possesses nothing nor can he do anything to merit favor before God . . . This means in reality that the decision to believe or not to believe is quite unrelated to the election purposes of God or the effectual working of the Holy Spirit but rests ultimately and entirely with the individual (The Death Christ Died, pages 37-40).

The sufficient grace of Arminianism is in contrast to efficacious grace of God or the effective calling of the Holy Spirit referred to by Ryrie in chapter 56 in Basic Theology.

3. Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect.

The views of the Arminians set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610 were examined and rejected as heretical at a national Synod in Dort, meeting from 1618 to November 13, 1619. Not only did the Synod reject the Remonstrance position but it also set out to present the true Calvinistic teaching in regard to the five matters called into question.

This they accomplished by stating what we know today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The term Calvinism was derived from the great reformer John Calvin (1509-1564), who along with many others expounded these views.

The “five points of Calvinism” presented at the Synod are as follows: (1) total depravity; (2) unconditional election; (3) limited atonement, or particular redemption; (4) irresistible grace, or the efficacious call of the Spirit; and (5) perseverance of the saints or eternal security (Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, p. 40).

What is ironic about the Calvinistic view of limited atonement is that Calvin did not hold to it.  Here is a quote from Calvin’s commentary on Galatians: “God commends to us the solution of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Paul Hartog has written a new book on Calvin’s view of atonement where he documents Calvin’s view. Click here for a PDF http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf

Concerning the limited atonement view that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect Dr. Bowman comments:

This is most certainly correct but this writer feels that such is too narrow to encompass the obvious Scriptural data concerning the provision that has been made for all men. Assuming this to be correct for sake of argument then the provisionary nature of Christ’s death is also an aspect of the divine decree (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p. 5).

Most limited atonement advocates believe in some form of “double predestination.”  “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly foreknew were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed” (Calvin, Christian Institutes, 2:23).

The term “double predestination” itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more that the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to “double predestination”—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settle is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4) (Phillip Johnson, Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism, www.spurgeon.org/-phil/articles/sup_infr.htm,p.1)

Condemnation in Scripture is based on the sinner’s actions of rejection, not God’s reprobation (2nd Thess. 1:8).

Often the phrase, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, is use by unlimited redemptionist, but incorrectly used as Robert Lightner states.

Though those among Calvinists who accept limited atonement thus confine the extent of the atonement to the elect, it should not be thought that they limit the sufficiency or value of Christ’s death. This they do not do. The usual statement coming from them is to the effect that the death of Christ was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect. This statement is intended by limited redemptionists to satisfy those who object to their limited view. But does it really answer the difficulties raised by the scriptural passages which teach the universality of the atonement? What they really mean when they say Christ’s death was sufficient for all is that His blood was of such infinite value that no more could have been required of the Father had He intended the Son’s death to extend to all men (Lightner, p.43).

1. Five point Limited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in the value of the atonement as just presented by Lightner. This view has the provision of Christ’s atonement only for the elect.

2. Driscoll’s Unlimited/limited Atonement is unlimited in the benefit of the atonement. The benefit of the atonement is similar to Common Grace which some of the Reformed men have accused him of teaching.

3. Unlimited Atonement sees the atonement as unlimited in provision for all. Driscoll never uses the word provision in his unlimited view and therefore I see his view as not fully Biblical. Only Unlimited Atonement has provision for all not just the elect.

4. Unlimited Atonement is the belief that the death of Christ accomplished two purposes: He provided the basis for the salvation of all people and He secured the salvation of believers.

The position is also referred to sometimes as Amyraldianism or three or four-point Calvinism.

In France the controversy continued largely around Moise Amyraut (Moses Amyraldus) who taught at the Academy of Saumur and John Cameron who also taught for a short time at the same school. Both men did not believe in limited atonement. Amyraut became the theological father of four-point Calvinism . . . Such men as Charles C. Ryrie and John Walvoord could be classified as four-point Calvinists (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, pages 2 and 5).

“The Scriptures represents the atonement as having been made for all men, and as sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited, but the application of the atonement through the work of the Holy Spirit” (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 771).

“Christ most certainly died to secure the salvation of those who believe and it is our conviction that the Bible teaches that Christ died to provide a basis of salvation for all men” (Lightner, p. 46).

A. Biblical references that relate the atonement to believers only.

All five-point Calvinists inevitably foster to some degree a limitation upon kosmos references pertaining to the soteriological import. This limitation is usually shown by pointing out references (such as Luke 2:1; Jn. 1:10; 12:29; Acts 11:28; 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6; Rev. 13:3, etc.) that cannot mean everyone within the world. Such limited redemptionists as Symington, Pink, Berkhof, and Shedd may be consulted. It must be conceded that such references as above, and others, could have such a limitation placed upon them (Bowman, p.30).

Hodge is an example of this reasoning: “Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a denial of the doctrine that He died equally for all” (Charles Hodge, p. 549).

These passages do not state that Christ only died for believers. Because Christ died for the whole, He also died for a specific part. But to say that Christ only died for believers contradicts the universal passages. Isaiah 53:5 says that Christ died for Israel: “He was wounded for our transgression.” Does this mean that only Jews can be saved? Isaiah 53:6 says Israel was sinful: “All we like sheep have gone astray.” Is total depravity limited to Jews? Matthew 1:21 says that “Christ shall save his people from their sins.” Would limited redemptionists say that Gentiles cannot be saved because of this verse? In Galatians 2:20, Paul limited the death of Christ to himself: “The Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Does this mean that Christ only died for Paul and none other because of the limitations of Galatians. 2:20?

B. There are verses that teach Christ died for all people.

Peter in 2 Peter 2:1 teaches that the Lord died for all people, even those who do not get saved, and thus, false teachers. Both Dr. Bowman and Charles Ryrie give extended explanations of this verse. Both Dr. Bowman and Ryrie state that limited redemptionists explain that this verse does say that the Lord “bought” the false teachers, but that this verse is what the false teachers claimed and Peter only recorded their denial. One example is Louis Berkhof.

The most plausible explanation of these passages is that given by Smeaton, as the interpretation of Piscator and of the Dutch annotations, namely, “that these false teachers are described according to their own profession and the judgment of charity. They gave themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion? (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941, p. 397).

However, the normal sense of language has Peter stating the fact that these false teachers denied the Lord who paid for their sins on the cross, thus stressing the depth of their apostasy.

I like the way Robert Lightner ends his book The Death He Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement on page 148 with a proper conclusion and moment of worship of Christ our Savior, who died in our place, and the whole world.

The death Christ was a death in the place of all men—a death which accomplished a work that completely satisfied God the Father. It was a death which provided life for every member of Adam’s lost race who has ever lived or ever shall live—a death that made it possible for the Father to be just and at the same time the Justifier of any sinner who does nothing more that receive Christ as personal Savior.

Older Entries