People who don't believe that God chose people to be saved before the foundation of the world not based on anything they had done good or bad usually appeal to John 3:16 for their case. Does John 3:16 really teach that Jesus died for the entire world? Well, in a sense, yes, and, in a sense, no. Watch the video to find out. (Posted with permission of CrossTV Part of the series "The Sovereignty of God" http://www.crosstv.com ) |
People who don't believe that God chose people to be saved before the foundation of the world not based on anything they had done good or bad usually appeal to John 3:16 for their case। Does John 3:16 really teach that Jesus died for the entire world? Well, in a sense, yes, and, in a sense, no. Watch the video to find out. (Posted with permission of CrossTV Part of the series "The Sovereignty of God" http://www.crosstv.com ) |
This is the long-awaited third part of a series I began quite some time ago, a series which I am writing not primarily to rehash the theology of each of the points or to provide an exhaustive apologetic of Calvinism, but to draw some fresh application and to show what these doctrines mean to me as I ponder them and attempt to live in light of them. I hope to show that these doctrines of grace are more than "mere theology," but can be integral in living out the Christian faith. I am assuming that my readers are, by and large, familiar with the Points of Calvinism. Still, I will provide a brief explanation of the doctrine before drawing application.
The "L" in the TULIP acronym refers to Limited Atonement, though, like many people, I prefer to speak of Particular Redemption (or, with Michael Horton, to speak of "Mission Accomplished"). Just as the "Total" in "Total Depravity" and the "Unconditional" in "Unconditional Election" can cause people to immediately draw wrong conclusions about the theology, so they "Limited" in "Limited Atonement" can make it seem that the work of Christ is somehow limited in a way that is outside of God's control. This is, of course, impossible and just plain wrong. The doctrine of Particular Redemption says something like this:
Christ took only the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross, providing a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. He did not provide only the potential for atonement, but actually provided the effectual atonement. His death secured everything necessary for salvation and this includes faith, which the Spirit graciously applies to the lives of the elect. Though Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (or given) to the elect and hence the atonement is not limited in its power, but in its extent. The reason for this limited or particular nature of the atonement is that were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ's work a failure. Thus, by way of short summary, the scope of Christ's atonement is limited to those who are predestined to salvation and the primary benefits of this work is given only to those who believe.
Here is a way of illustrating the doctrine.
This is a picture of a bridge. To elaborate a little bit, we could say that it is a partial bridge. It doesn't look broken, as if a piece of it fell away, but rather looks like it was built that far and then work simply ceased. It spans about half of what appears to be a pretty sizable river and then just ends (or begins, depending which direction you approach it from). I have no idea where this bridge is, what the circumstances are surrounding it's state or if it has a name (though it would be interesting to know, wouldn't it?).
Consider this river for a moment and let it represent the chasm between God and man - the chasm created by man's fall into sin. On the bank of the river stands a man who represents humans in their fallen state, living on this earth. He gazes across the gap to the far side where he can glimpse God, and glimpse heaven. Now how will he get to heaven? This bridge can serve as an illustration of a doctrine known as "unlimited atonement" or "conditional universalism." This is a doctrine that is the very opposite of Particular Redemption and in effect it states that it was never God's will to save any specific person. Rather, it was God's will to do all He could to save all men, provided they would do the little bit that He could not. In other words, the death of Christ erected this bridge which extends across part of the chasm. Man need only swim out into the current and hoist himself onto the bridge. From there he can walk safely into heaven. And if you look again you will see that this is a wide bridge, able to carry many people. This bridge is wide enough for anyone, but extends only part of the way.
Now consider a second bridge that looks like this:
This bridge is quite a bit different from the last. Notice that rather than extending only halfway, this one extends from one bank to the other. Notice also that it is narrow, much narrower than the other. This bridge represents the doctrine associated with Calvinism that we know as Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. This bridge spans the entire gap between God and man, though is not so wide as to carry all men, but only some. Where the first bridge was able to carry all men part of the way, this bridge carries some men the entire way.
Hebrews 12:2 tells us that Jesus is the "founder and perfecter of our faith." He not only began but also finished the bridge. With His blood He "ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation," (Revelation 5:9) not merely providing the potential for their redemption, but effectually redeeming them when He cried out "It is finished!"
When I wrote about the "T" in TULIP I said that the doctrine of Total Depravity stands as the great equalizer and when I wrote about the "U" in TULIP I said that it stands as the great humbler. When I ponder the doctrine of Limited Atonement and think about how it must be more than mere doctrine and how it must impact my life, I am continually drawn to the word "confidence." This is not a confidence in myself, my own ability or even in my own status as a Christian, but a confidence in the Father and in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I like how Michael Horton in his book Putting Amazing Back into Grace describes this doctrine as "Mission Accomplished." The Arminian understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did a great work of redemption but who did it for all men, both those who would be redeemed and those who would not. This is really conditional universalism, as Christ died for all men universally, the condition being that people must use their free will to embrace and accept Him. But the Reformed, biblical understanding of this doctrine presents a Savior who did the work of redemption for those whom the Father had chosen. He did not just do a work that had great potential to save, but a work that effectually saved.
Because Jesus Christ died for those who are His, and from the perspective of eternity, died for those who were already His--who had been chosen from before the foundations of the world--He accomplished what He set out to do. This doctrine gives me confidence that God will always and ever do exactly what He says. It gives me confidence that the promises of the Bible are not dependent on my initiative or my response, but are dependent on the very nature of God. What God says will surely come to pass because He provides the power to accomplish what needs to be done. Jesus Christ did not die for all men and then await my response to His work. Rather, He died for me and waited only for the time that the Spirit would begin to stir my heart and would call me to Himself. This gives me such confidence in God for it speaks so strongly of the way He works. It tells me that God acts sovereignty and depends upon no one but Himself. This stirs my heart, for I know that if He left the choice to me, I would reject Him every time. My heart swells with gratitude when I think that He died specifically and knowingly not for the mass of humanity, all of whom would willingly reject Him, but for the ones He had known from all eternity and the ones that He would draw to Himself.
We'll continue this series (hopefully without as big a gap between entries) with the "I" from TULIP.
Comments from Caleb Kolstad @ http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
“Book III contains sixteen arguments against the “general ransom” idea. All except the third have a directly exegetical basis and aim to show that this idea is inconsistent with the biblical witness to Christ’s work. Between them, they deal with every significant category and concept which the Bible employs to define that work. These arguments are primarily aimed at “4-Pt” Calvinists and/or Arminians.
Arguments:
(The next five arguments form a group on their own. They have a common form and are all taken from the biblical terms in which Christ’s work is described.)
Pastor Joseph Flatt provided the following answers to common objections against particular redemption:
1. The gospel cannot be offered freely to all men if the atonement is limited. However, this free offer is valid only a limited basis (salvation is offered, not the provision of it). Christ’s work and the offer of the gospel made indiscriminately are not necessarily co-extensive with the offer. Yet, our task is to share the gospel indiscriminately. We should preach the gospel to all men (Rom 1:16, Mt 28).
2. How can I tell men that God loves them and died for them? You can’t and you shouldn’t. This is not how you should approach the unbeliever. Tell them they’re sinners and must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved, etc.
3. This view limits God’s love. Yes, it does. Rom 9:13; Ps 5:5, 11:5. If God’s love is measured by how far it extends, then the general redemptionist also limits it (it’s not available for angels . . .). But God does love every man in a non-redemptive sense; in that he gives common grace to every man. God has compassion on men everywhere, but this is different from a redemptive love for all men—a distinction in His love.
4. The sin question has been cared for by Christ for all men; people go to hell for their unbelief. But Scripture lists sins for which people will go to hell.
5. The passages which exhort men to believe and be saved argue for the potential nature of Christ’s death on the cross (the “whosoever will” passages).
Final thoughts:
For the Calvinist, the atonement is like a narrow bridge across the chasm; for the Arminian, it’s a wide bridge that doesn’t span the chasm. There’s a disconnect between a Savior who died for all men and the Father who doesn’t save everyone. Why the difference?
For a definitive defense of this position please read “The Death of Death In the Death of Christ” by John Owen.
One Response to “Atonement: questions and answers”
Phil Johnson summarizes the 5 points of Calvinism this way at http://www.sfpulpit.com
We’ve been taking note of five important truths implied in the eight words of 1 John 4:19 (“We love Him because He first loved us”). I alliterated the five implications of that text I highlighted for you, but if you simply give them slightly different names, they spell TULIP:
* The perverseness of our fallen state—that’s the doctrine of Total Depravity.
* The priority of God’s electing choice—that is the doctrine of Unconditional Election
* The particularity of His saving work—that, as we saw, entails the doctrine that is often called Limited Atonement.
* The power of His loving deliverance—that, once more, is the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.
* The perfection of His redemptive plan—that is nothing other than the doctrine of Perseverance.
Of all the letters in TULIP, “L” is perhaps the most controversial. “Limited atonement” is the way most describe what I prefer to call “definite redemption.” Unfortunately, the word “limited” conjures up an idea of a feeble god, unable to redeem all of mankind. In that line of thought, non-Calvinists accuse Calvinists of heresy – of believing in a God that is limited versus a God that is infinite.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Typically (as was true in my case) when one begins to study Calvinism, the “L” is always troubling. But does this “troubling” come from a reaction to error or from a reflex to something that opposes our preconceived notion? I believe many react against limited atonement because, for over 100 years now, American Christianity has been saturated with semi-pelagian theology. We have always been taught that when the Bible says that Jesus died for the world, “world” means every single individual who has ever lived or will ever live.
But does “world” always mean every individual, past, present, and future? Does “all” always mean every single person, or can we ask the question “all of what?”
To understand Bible truths we must practice one of the basic rules of biblical interpretation: never allow the implicit to overrule the explicit. What is inferred is to be harmonized with what is explicitly stated. Begin with what is clearly stated, and fit into it what is possibly implied. If something that you believe is implicit contradicts what is explicit, then forsake the implicit and hold to the explicit.
For example, the Bible teaches explicitly that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men (1Tim 2:5). Therefore, when Jesus told John, “behold thy mother” (John 19:27) was He implying that Mary was a co-redeemer? No. That would contradict the explicit teaching 1 Tim. 2:5.
Likewise, John 3:16 and other verses that imply a universal atonement (i.e., “world”, “all” must mean every individual) are to be harmonized with the explicit teaching of Definite Imputation or Definite Redemption. As I stated in my last post, Christ’s sacrifice did not make salvation possible for all, but definite for some.
Romans chapter 5 is a passage that clearly teaches a definite redemption. Notice the following verses:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Regarding verse 12:
1. All have sinned. Does “all” mean “all”? Yes, except for Jesus. So “all” almost means every individual.
2. Why are all sinners? Because of one man – Adam.
Regarding verse 13-14
1. This looks like an objection, but it is a concession. There was no Mosaic Law before Moses, but there was still a Law of God, and that Law was transgressed in the Garden of Eden.
2. This is why everybody from Adam to Moses still died. Death is a consequence of sin. All that die do so because of sin. Even infants who “had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression” die because of sin.
Regarding verses 15-16
1. Why do some die who never sinned after the similitude of Adam? Because sin was definitely imputed to them through Adam.
2. The difference between Adam’s offense (sin) and Christ’s free gift (righteousness) is:
a. Adam’s sin is definitely imputed to all his natural seed.
b. Christ’s righteousness is definitely imputed to all His spiritual seed by grace.
Regarding verses 17-19
1. We have an excellent example of how the words “all men” and “many” can mean either “every single individual” or all of the saved or many saved.
2. Judgment is definite for all men (of Adam’s seed), therefore righteousness is definite for all men (of Christ’s seed). To take “all men” to always imply every single individual would be Universalism, and that would contradict the explicit teaching that many will suffer God’s eternal judgment.
3. Same with verse 19, many (Adam’s seed) were made sinners, and many (Christ’s seed) are made righteous.
Paul is emphasizing the definite nature of both imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Adam’s sin is definitely imputed to all; Christ’s righteousness is definitely imputed to some. The differences are in the conveyance of the imputation (one by nature, one by grace) and the effects of the imputation (one is death, one is life). But both are definite and not just possible.
This is a passage that explicitly teaches definite redemption.
I leave you, as I often do, with a quote from the Prince of Preachers. Spurgeon said:
Many divines say that Christ did something when he died that enabled God to be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for he died for them all, they say; and yet so ineffectual was his dying for them, that though he died for them they are damned afterwards. Now, such an atonement I despise — I reject it. I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.
