Of all the five points of Calvinism, limited atonement is the least affirmed and the least understood. So often we here sermons where the minister remark in an evangelistic message to a mixed crowd of Christians and non Christians that Jesus has already taken your punishment and paid for your sin, and for the sins of everyone. But has Christ paid for the sins of Christians and non Christians alike, even of those who are never saved? Has Jesus atoned for the sin of unbelief so that even those who never trust in Christ are pardoned? How are we to understand the atoning work of Christ and its application?
What did the atonement accomplish
The new testament uses different words to describe the different aspects of the atonement. The four terms show how Christ's death met the four needs that we have as sinners:
(Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 1999, p 255)The new testament uses different words to describe the different aspects of the atonement. The four terms show how Christ's death met the four needs that we have as sinners:
- We deserve to die as the penalty for sin.
- We deserve to bear God's wrath against sin.
- We are separated from God by our sins.
- We are in bondage to sin and to the kingdom of Satan
These four needs are met by Christ's death in the following ways:
- Sacrifice/ subsitutute. ( Heb. 9:26)
- Propitiation ( 1 John 4:10)
- Reconciliation ( 2 Cor. 5:18-19, Colossians 1:13-14)
- Redemption ( Mark 10:45, 1 John 5:19, Col. 1:13-14)
Christ's atoning work can be said to have accomplished:
1. Redemption and reconciliation
2. legal substitution
3. Christus victor
W can see all three in Colossians 2:12-15: (1) "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, (2) having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stodod against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. (3) He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him."
The purpose of substitutionary atonement is that "we have been justified by his blood [and]... saved by him from the wrath of God" (Rom. 5:9). The basis of the texts that set out the cause of the atonement lies not in our "free will" but rather in God's own pleasure (Isa. 53:10) purpose ( Eph. 1:5, 9, 11) and love (John 3:16) to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). The cross not only demonstrates God's justice but filfills God's justice as opposed to a horribly cruel object lesson (Rom. 3:25-26)
For who did Christ die?
This question has been commonly rephrased to ask whether the atonement provided by Christ is "unlimited" or "limited". If Christ's atonement is unlimited, it is sufficient and intended to save every person without exception. If it is limited, it is sufficient and intended for the elect only. Against those who make a travesty of Calvin's doctrine, he writes that "there is ready pardon for all sinners, provided they turn back to seek it"(Inst. III, 24, 16). The problem is that "no one seeks God", therefore Christ's sacrifice for all only becomes effectual in those God has elected from all eternity.
Christ's sacrifice is certainly sufficient for all, but as Calvin argues, it is not intended or efficient for all. "God has not closed the way to salvation to any order of men"(Inst. III, 24, 16). Though the Scripture says that God "wants all men to be saved"(1Tim.2:4), Calvin argues that in this passage Paul was making it clear that it was no longer true that only Jewish people could appeal to God for salvation. This is clear that in verse 7 Paul says “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” To say otherwise, that God has purposed the salvation of all mankind when it is apparent that the great majority of our fellow men are dying in sin is to say that God is disappointed and defeated. This is how we must interpret Calvin's understanding of "limited atonement": Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all, "mercy is extended to all", and salvation is announced "to all men indiscriminately"(Inst. III, 24, 17). Since "no one seeks God" Calvin asserts that "only those whom He has illumed do this"(Inst. III, 24, 17), and that God "does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others"(Inst. III, 21, 1). Jesus confirms this when he says that His blood is poured out for "many" not for "all" (Matthew 26:28) as he dies for His church and not for the world as Ephesians 5:25-27 clearly explains "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." The very name Jesus is given to him because "He will save His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21) not all people.
J I Packer says the Arminian concept, as debated at the Synod of Dort in 1618, declares that "Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe." (J I Packer, "Introductory essay," in John Owen, the death of death in the death of Christ: A treatise in which the whole controversy about universal redemption is fully discussed (1852, reprint 1959) p 4)
The assumptions of the Arminian theology of the atonement are:
- a denial of God's wrath and the necessity of his justice being fully satisfied by Christ's death,
- a rejection of the principle of substitution in this relationship between God and sinners
- an emphasis on the exemplary character if Christ's death as inciting human love and obedience rather than on its expiatory character as providing the sole basis for our acceptance before God.
In Arminian theology the person who fails to embrace the saving work of Christ with faith is ultimately left without the expiation and washing away of their sins, the propitiation of the cross where God's wrath was satisfied and the satisfaction of God's justice. R C Sproul says:
"In this view faith is not only a condition for redemption but also one of the very grounds of redemption. If the atonement is not efficacious apart from faith, then faith must be necessary for the satisfaction of divine justice. Here faith becomes a work with a vengeance because its presence or absence in a sinner determines the efficacy of Christ's work of satisfaction for this person...."When we speak of the sufficiency of the atonement, however, we must ask the question, is it a sufficient satisfaction of divine justice? If it is sufficient to satisfy the demands of God's justice, then no one needs to worry about future punishment. If God accepts payment of one person's moral debt from another, will he then exact payment of the same debt later by the person himself? The answer is obviously no. This means that if Christ really, objectively satisfied the demands of God’s justice for everyone, then everyone will be saved. It is one thing to agree that faith is a necessary condition for the appropriation of the benefits of Christ's atoning work, for justification and its fruits. It is quite another to say that faith is a necessary condition for the satisfaction of divine justice. If faith is a condition for God's justice to be satisfied, then the atonement, in itself, is not "sufficient" for anyone, let alone for all. Full satisfaction is not rendered until or unless a person adds to the atonement his faith. Again Arminians will protest that they do not, in fact make faith a work of satisfaction. Faith is a necessary condition, they say, not a work of satisfaction. But the question remains, is divine satisfaction effected without faith? If so, then faith is clearly an element necessary for satisfaction, an element that we supply." (What is reformed theology, 1997, p 165-166)
This leads John Stott to remark that “Any notion of penal substitution in which three independent actors play a role – the guilty party, the punitive judge and the innocent victim - is to be repudiated with the utmost vehemence.” (John stott, the cross of Christ, 1986 pp 158)
John Owen writes the following on the question For who did Christ die saying:
"The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!""
He goes on to say:
"First, if the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extend of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, if the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? let none tell me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for (as it is in the third inference) the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and required satisfaction of them for whome, by his own acknowledgement, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient."
John Owen writes the following on the question For who did Christ die saying:
"The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
- All the sins of all men.
- All the sins of some men, or
- Some of the sins of all men.
- That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
- That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
- But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!""
He goes on to say:
"First, if the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extend of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, if the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? let none tell me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for (as it is in the third inference) the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and required satisfaction of them for whome, by his own acknowledgement, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient."
Unlimited atonement dismantles all five points of Calvinism
If atonement is unlimited, and therefore intended for all, then it logically flows that some resist the grace of God extended through the offer of atonement. If grace is resistible, this nullifies the effectual nature of God's irresistible grace. If Grace can be resisted it means that we are not totally depraved but have some faculty, some island of righteousness from which we can choose or reject God. And if we are not totally depraved, election is not unconditional as salvation then becomes conditional upon man's choosing of God. We therefore make man at the centre as sovereign and make God contingent upon man. This kind of God gives us no assurance to hold on to those whom He calls to himself.
To argue against limited atonement is to argue for the disunity of the trinity
If one was to argue for the arminian doctrine of unlimited atonement they must argue likewise for the disunity for the trinity as the implication is that, though the Father has chosen some to be saved, the Son sheds his blood for a different group to those the father sent him to save, with the Spirit again working in another group, though not effectualy calling. Rather we find that the trinity is united. They are one in mission and purpose in election. Those the father predestined from all eternity, the son was obedient in his mission to atone for, and the spirit worked with the Father and the Son to apply Jesus death and words savingly and effectually. This is confirmed by Jesus many times saying such things as:
“I am the good shepherd.I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep....you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:14, 26-30)
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:37-39, 44)
“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours....And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. " (John 17:6-9, 19)
If atonement is unlimited, and therefore intended for all, then it logically flows that some resist the grace of God extended through the offer of atonement. If grace is resistible, this nullifies the effectual nature of God's irresistible grace. If Grace can be resisted it means that we are not totally depraved but have some faculty, some island of righteousness from which we can choose or reject God. And if we are not totally depraved, election is not unconditional as salvation then becomes conditional upon man's choosing of God. We therefore make man at the centre as sovereign and make God contingent upon man. This kind of God gives us no assurance to hold on to those whom He calls to himself.
To argue against limited atonement is to argue for the disunity of the trinity
If one was to argue for the arminian doctrine of unlimited atonement they must argue likewise for the disunity for the trinity as the implication is that, though the Father has chosen some to be saved, the Son sheds his blood for a different group to those the father sent him to save, with the Spirit again working in another group, though not effectualy calling. Rather we find that the trinity is united. They are one in mission and purpose in election. Those the father predestined from all eternity, the son was obedient in his mission to atone for, and the spirit worked with the Father and the Son to apply Jesus death and words savingly and effectually. This is confirmed by Jesus many times saying such things as:
“I am the good shepherd.I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep....you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:14, 26-30)
“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:37-39, 44)
“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours....And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. " (John 17:6-9, 19)
No comments:
Post a Comment