I. Salvation Accomplished:
The Death of Christ
A.
The Eternal Plan of Redemption
1.
The eternal plan of redemption is expressed by
the biblical phrase: “the blood of an eternal
covenant” (Heb. 13:20).
2.
It is demonstrated by God’s eternal decree to provide salvation for man.
a.
II Tim. 1:9
b.
Acts 2:23—Jesus
was crucified by the predetermined
and foreordained plan of God.
c.
Rev. 13:8
(1) This verse can be
translated to mean either that the Lamb was slain from foundation of the world
or that our names were written in book of life from foundation of the world.
(2) Either way the result comes
out the same: the plan of salvation was not an afterthought; God was not caught
off guard.
d.
I Pet. 1:19-20—The Lamb was
foreknown before the foundation of the world.
e.
Tit. 1:2—God promised eternal
salvation before time eternal.
3.
Economic Trinitarianism & Salvation
The plan of salvation involved the agreement of the Persons of the Trinity to
assume particular administrative roles or functions in saving man.
a.
The
Father Originated the Plan of Salvation.
(1) Eph. 1:3-6
(2) 1 Pet. 1:19-20
b.
The Son Provided Salvation through His Substitutionary Death.
(1) 2 Cor.
5:21—He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might
become the righteousness of God in him.
(2) Eph. 1:7-12—In Christ we
have redemption.
(3) Heb. 7:22; 10:5-10
(4) 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18
(5) Rev. 1:5
c.
The Holy
Spirit Applies Salvation to the Life
of the Believer.
(1) Jn. 3:5—Christians
are “born of the Spirit..”
(2) Eph. 1:13-14—We are “sealed” by the Spirit.
(3) Tit. 3:5—He saved us by
the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.
d.
Berkhof’s Summary
Statement:
“In the economy of redemption there is, in a sense, a division of labor: the
Father is the originator, the Son is executor, and the Holy Spirit the
applier….This can only be the result of a voluntary agreement among the persons
of the Trinity….“
4.
Some
False Views that Deny the Eternal Plan of Redemption
a.
Mormonism
“Predestination is the false doctrine that from all eternity God has ordained
whatever comes to pass, having especial and particular reference to the
salvation and damnation of souls.” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 588)
b.
Sun Myung Moon (Unification Church)
Jesus failed in his mission, which was to provide both physical and spiritual
salvation. When God saw that Christ’s crucifixion was inevitable he put plan
“B” in place: to die and provide spiritual salvation only. It remains for a
second messiah (i.e., the Lord of the Second Advent—presumably Moon himself) to
provide physical salvation by marrying a perfect wife and producing a race of
perfect children.
c.
YWAM, H.
Roy Elseth, Richard Rice, et al.
God doesn’t even know the future, and so couldn’t know for certain that Adam
would sin and that redemption would be needed. Once he saw that it was needed, then he implemented the plan.
(1) Statement by Rice on Acts
2:23: “Some biblical statements indicate that Christ’s enemies and executioners
in the final analysis acted in harmony with God’s plan (Acts 2:23; 4:28).
But this need not mean that their actions were predetermined and that they were
simply doing what God planned and/or foresaw for them….”
(2) Rice comments on the
meaning of the expression, “slain from the foundation of the world”: “The
original formulation of the plan from ‘the foundation of the world’ (1 Pet. 1:20) does not necessarily imply that the
intrusion of sin in human affairs was a foregone conclusion. It only means that
God had perfectly prepared for every possible development, including this most
unfortunate one.”
B.
The Biblical Importance of Christ’s Atonement for Sin
1.
Christ’s
Death is Foreshadowed in Old Testament Prophecy.
a.
It is Demonstrated in the Old Testament “Types.”
(1) Gen. 3:21—The
animal or animals slain by God to provide coats of skin for Adam and Eve
(2) Gen. 8:20-22 cf. Eph. 5:2—The sweet smelling sacrifice offered by Noah
(3) Gen. 22:13-14 cf. Rom. 8:32—The ram
offered by Abraham in place of Isaac on Mount Moriah
(4) Ex. 12:1-28 cf. 1 Cor. 5:7 —The Passover lamb first offered in Egypt
(a)
Also see Isa. 53:7 (Christ a
lamb led to slaughter)
(b)
Jn. 1:29 (Christ the lamb of God who
takes away the sins of the world)
(c)
1 Pet. 1:19
(precious blood of Christ the lamb)
(5) Lev. 1-7—The
Levitical Sacrifices
(a)
The Levitical sacrifices were
instituted by God and not by man.
(b)
Heb. 9:9; 10:1, 4—These
sacrifices of the OT could not bring spiritual cleansing.
(c)
1 Cor. 5:7—The
sacrifices did point forward to the perfect and efficacious sacrifice of
Christ.
(d)
Gen. 15:6 (“Abraham believed God”) cf. Rom. 3:25-26
(Christ an atoning sacrifice through faith
in his blood); Heb. 11:4; 9:15 –
These sacrifices needed to be accompanied by genuine faith from the offerer. Then on the basis of Christ’s future work, the
believing offerer would be justified.
(6) Lev. 16 (cf. Heb. 9:6-12, esp.
vv. 7, 11-12)—The Day of Atonement
b.
Christ’s
Death is Described in the Old Testament.
(1) The main focal points of
the OT prophetic Scriptures are the sufferings of Christ and the glories that
should follow, that is, Christ’s first and second advents (1 Pet. 1:10-11).
(2) Ps. 22; Isa.
52:13-53:12—These prophetic passages emphasize the
details of Christ’s death.
(3) Ps. 16:10-11 (Christ’s body
will not see decay) cf. Acts 2:27-28—These passages foretell Christ’s resurrection.
2.
Christ’s
Death is Prominent in the New
Testament.
a.
The death of Christ is mentioned in the NT more
than 175 times.
b.
It is assumed and implied in many other
instances.
c.
We should emphasize what the Bible emphasizes:
Christ’s death, resurrection and return.
3.
Christ’s
Death is the Purpose of the
Incarnation.
a.
Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45—The Son of Man
came (incarnation) to give his life a ransom (death) for many.
b.
Heb. 2:14—Christ
shares our humanity so that his death can destroy death and Satan.
c.
1 Jn. 4:10—God
sent his Son to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins.
4.
Christ’s
Death is Seen in the Proclamation of the Gospel.
The heart of Paul’s gospel was the death, burial and resurrection of
Christ—1 Cor. 15:1-
5.
Christ’s
Death is Seen in the Provision for Salvation.
Only Christ’s death provides salvation by grace through faith—Rom. 3:21-26.
C.
Erroneous Views of Christ’s Death
The views discussed in this
section are heterodox in their understanding of Christ’s work on the cross. However,
it is important to know about them because they are still widely disseminated
throughout the church.
1.
The Accident Theory
This is a naturalistic and rationalistic approach. A
number of Unitarian Universalists and others hold
this doctrine.
a.
Explanation
Christ died because of the general reaction of His contemporaries to His
teachings and activities. While the death of such a good man was unfortunate,
His death has no special significance for anyone else.
b.
Refutation
(1) Christ’s death was not
accidental but intentional and providentially decreed by the Father (Acts. 2:23) and volitionally
determined by the Son (Matt. 27:50; Jn. 10:17-18; 19:30).
(2) Christ could have avoided
death had He desired to do so (Jn. 10:17- 18; Matt. 26:53).
(3) This view denies the deity
and authority of Christ as well as the authority of the Scriptures.
2.
Ransom to Satan Theory
This view was held by some early church theologians and fathers, such as Origen, the Cappadocian Fathers,
etc. It has also been revived in modern times by C. S. Lewis in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
a.
Explanation
(1) Christ’s death was a ransom
paid to Satan who rightfully possessed man because of man’s sin. Satan was
willing to exchange his human captives for Christ and His power. Satan was
deceived and defeated by God being incarnated in Christ.
(2) Hebrews 2:14-15 would be a
biblical passage used in support of this view.
b.
Refutation
(1) While Satan does possess
the unsaved in the spiritual sense of bondage and control (Jn.
8:44; Eph. 2:2; Col. 1:12-14),
it is wrong to assume that man’s sin gives him a rightful possession of sinful
man.
(2) God does not owe Satan
anything nor is God obligated in any way to pay Satan for claiming the human
creatures which He (God) created in the first place.
(3) The ransom price
(redemption) of sin was not paid to Satan but offered as a satisfaction of
God’s righteous demands.
(4) Satan knew that Christ was
the Son of God, and God’s purpose was not to deceive Satan but to defeat Satan
through the work of Christ on the cross (Matt. 4:3; Heb. 2:14).
3.
The Moral Influence Theory
This was popularized by Peter Abelard (12th
century) and was/is commonly held by modern-day liberalism.
a.
Explanation
(1) The incarnation,
sufferings, and death of Christ are to soften human hearts and to lead them to
repentance.
(2) Christ’s death manifested
the love of God and this should move men to do good (2
Cor. 5:14-15).
b.
Refutation
(1) It is true that love
motivated the Father to send Christ to the cross for sinners (John 3:16), but He saves by His substitutionary
sacrifice and not by His example.
(2) This theory denies that
Christ’s sacrifice was propitious in relationship to God (Rom. 3:25) and substitutionary
in relationship to man (2 Cor. 5:14-15).
(3) It wrongly denies that
God’s righteousness demanded the death of Christ if salvation was to be
provided for sinful man (Acts 4:12;
1 Pet. 2:24; Rom. 3:25-26).
4.
The Example Theory
This theory was held by, e.g., Faustus Socinus in the 16th century.
a.
Explanation
(1) This theory is very similar
to the Abelardian view above. Socinus
actually claimed Abelard as his inspiration.
(2) Christ died as a martyr
because He was faithful and dutiful towards the principles which He taught. We
should learn from Him to be faithful and dutiful towards the truth. Simple
repentance and reformation are sufficient for salvation.
(3) Christ has made known to us
the way of salvation, which we may achieve by imitating him.
b.
Refutation
(1) This teaching denies the
scriptural viewpoint of Christ’s person and work and the natural man’s
condition of spiritual death and total depravity (2 Cor.
5:21; Eph. 2:1; Rom. 7:18).
(2) It denies the necessity of
personal regeneration for the salvation of the individual (Jn.
3:3, 5).
(3) In reality, Christ’s
example is intended only for the sanctification of the believer and not for the
salvation of the unbeliever (1 Pet. 2:21,
24).
5.
The Governmental Theory
This theory is associated with Hugo Grotius (17th
century) and later the famous revivalist Charles G. Finney (19th
century). It has been held more recently by some connected with Youth With a Mission (YWAM) and others.
a.
Explanation
(1) Christ’s death was not to
satisfy the righteous demands of a holy God; rather it was required to show
God’s displeasure over sin. Had God not shown his displeasure over sin, his
creatures would have lost respect for him and his “moral government.” Once God
made it clear that he was displeased with sin (i.e., through Christ’s death),
God was then able to forgive freely, i.e., without any payment.
(2) Christ did not suffer the
equivalent penalty for the sins of the world, but God did accept what He did
suffer as a substitute for our penalty.
(3) This substituted suffering
on the part of Christ moves men’s hearts to repentance which in turn brings
forgiveness and secures salvation.
b.
Refutation
(1) The theory is illogical. If
God wanted to demonstrate his displeasure against sin, he should have punished
the worst sinner he could find in order to make an example out of him, rather
than afflicting his most holy and innocent Son.
(2) Christ’s death was a
propitious sacrifice (Rom. 3:25).
(3) Christ’s substitutionary suffering was an equivalent penalty to that
penalty which all sinner deserved (Jn. 1:29; 1 Jn. 2:2). It
is a payment, not something put in the place of a payment.
(4) Christ’s death is not
merely the means to move men to repentance, but it is the sole basis for man’s
salvation. (See the earlier criticism of the moral influence theory.) Faith and
repentance are always the means and never the basis for salvation.
6. The
Born-Again Jesus Theory
This theory is held by a number of teachers and lay persons associated with the
Word of Faith Movement. Some of its main
proponents are Paul Crouch, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth
Copeland, and Fred Price.
a.
Explanation
b.
Refutation
D.
Provisions of Christ’s Death
The meaning and significance of Christ’s death is best seen by a presentation
of its provisions, whereby a holy God can righteously save sinful man.
1.
Substitution
for Sinners
a.
Definition: “Christ suffered God’s
punishment of sin in the place of sinners.”
b.
Support
(1) Direct biblical statements
affirming substitution
(a)
Isa. 53:6, 10—The LORD laid
our iniquity on him.
(b)
Mt. 20:28—Christ gave his life a
ransom for many
(c)
Rom. 5:8—While
we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
(d)
2 Cor. 5:21—
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become
the righteousness of God.
(e)
1 Pet. 2:24—He bore our sins in his
body on the tree.
(f)
1 Pet. 3:18—Christ died once for
all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God.
(2) The Significance of Greek Prepositions Involved
(a)
Note the ambiguity in the English preposition “for.”
(b) Anti (ajnti)—clearly and consistently means “in place of” or
“instead of.”
i.
See e.g., Mt. 2:22; 5:38.
ii.
Therefore, when it is used in connection with Christ’s
death (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6), it
teaches that Christ died as a substitutionary
sacrifice for man’s sin.
(c) Huper (uJper)—Sometimes
means in place of
i.
See e.g., Jn. 11:50; Rom.
5:6-8; 2 Cor. 5:15,
21; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:18).
ii.
Sometimes this preposition can mean for the benefit of.
iii.
See Philemon 13 for non-atonement substitutionary
usage.
(3) The Old Testament Sacrificial System also Demonstrated Substitution.
(a)
Lev. 1:4—The offerer laid his hand upon the head of the sacrificial
animal to indicate the transfer of his sins to the offering.
(b)
Lev. 16:15-19—The goat that
was slain pictured the substitutionary offering for
sin.
(c)
Lev. 16:20-22—The sins of the
people were confessed over the live goat, and he was sent into the wilderness
to indicate that sins atoned for by the dead goat were borne away.
c.
Results
(1) It is a substituted
punishment. Hence, we are no longer
liable to punishment.
(a)
It is important to make a distinction between chastisement and punishment.
i.
Chastisement has the personal betterment of the
offender in view. (See, e.g., Heb. 12:5-11.)
ii.
Punishment, on the other hand, is a consequence meted
out to satisfy justice (Rom.
13:4).
(b)
God’s law threatens punishment for our disobedience.
But now the threatenings of the law have been met
because Christ bore our punishment for us.
(c)
The practical result: God does not punish us for our
sins.
i.
Rom.
8:1—No condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
ii.
1 Pet. 2:24; Isa. 53:10—The penalty of sins for all men were borne in the person of
Christ.
(2) The Righteousness of Christ is
Imputed to the Believers Rom.
3:22-26; 2 Cor. 5:21.
2.
Propitiation
to God
a.
Definition
In biblical usage propitiation means that the sacrifice of Christ has satisfied
God’s wrath against sin (Rom. 1:18;
Eph. 2:3;
5:6) due to the demands of His holy character (1 Jn. 2:2). See also
Rom. 1:18; Eph. 2:3; 5:6; 1 Jn. 2:2.
b.
Relation to OT sacrifices
(1) OT sacrifices did not in
themselves propitiate God.
(2) The OT sacrifices did
typify and point forward to the perfect sacrifice of Christ.
c.
Greek WordsUsed:
(1) Hilasmos (1 Jn.
2:2; 4:10)—Propitiation
(2) Hilaskomai (Lk.
18:13; Heb. 2:17)—To propitiate
(3) Hilasterion (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:5)—Propitiatory
d.
Other
Words Used:
(1) Atonement
(a)
The word “atonement” (Heb. kippur) is found only in Rom. 5:11 (KJV) in NT where it is translated from katallage, which is better rendered
“reconciliation.”
(b)
The word “atonement” is “theologically flabby” because
it is imprecise. That is, it merely indicates that God and man have patched up
their differences but fails to specify how this occurs. (See the following
discussion on “reconciliation,”below.)
(2) Satisfaction
This word comes from the Latin (satisfactio) and is fundamentally
equivalent to “propitiation.” It means that Christ satisfied the wrath of God.
e.
Results
(1) Through Christ’s work of
propitiation, God has been propitiated or satisfied that the full penalty for
sin has been paid (Isa. 53:10-11; Jn. 19:30).
(2) God can now righteously:
(a)
Forgive the believer’s sin
(b)
Count the believer righteous
3.
Redemption
from Sin
a.
Definition
Redemption involves the payment of a price to release a person from bondage.
See Col. 1:12-14 and cf. Jn. 8:34 with v. 36.
b.
Terminology
Three different Greek terms are used to express more
fully the significance of the doctrine of redemption.
(1) Agorazo (Matt. 13:44; 1 Cor. 6:20; 2 Pet. 2:1)—”To pay the
ransom price.”
(a)
The means (Rev. 5:9)—God has purchased us by the blood
of Christ.
(b)
The purpose (1 Cor. 6:20)—That believers
might glorify God in their bodies.
(2) Exagorazo (Gal. 3:13)—”To remove from the
market place.”
(3) Lutron (Matt. 20:28)—”To effect a full release.”
Cf. John 8:36. The full price for sin has been paid by the
Savior so that the believer is accepted in Christ and freed from the penalty of
sin (Rom. 3:24-26; Eph. 1:6-7).
(a)
The
means (Rom. 3:24 [apolutrosis]; 1 Tim. 2:6 [antilutron]; Heb. 9:12
[lutrosis];
1 Pet. 1:18-19 [lutroo]—The substitutionary death
of Christ.
(b)
The purpose (Tit. 2:14
[lutroo]—To purify and possess a
people zealous of good deeds.
c.
Summary: “Thus, the doctrine of
redemption means that because of the shedding of the blood of Christ, believers
have been purchased, removed from bondage, and liberated.”
4.
Reconciliation
for man
a.
Definition
(1) Reconciliation in an objective sense means that through His
death, Christ has changed man’s alienation from God so that he can now be
saved.
(2) Reconciliation in a subjective sense means that the believer
in Christ has been changed from enmity against God to friendship and fellowship
with God.
b.
Terminology
(1) Katalasso (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor.
5:18-20 cf. 1 Cor. 7:11)—To
change or reconcile.
(2) Katallage (Rom. 5:11)—Reconciliation.
(3) Apokatalasso (Col. 1:20)—To reconcile completely
or “to bring back to a former state of harmony.”
c.
Operation
(1) Means of provision (Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:18,19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, 22)—Through the blood of
Christ’s cross.
(2) Means of appropriation
(Rom. 3-4; 5:1,17)—By faith.
d.
The Object of Reconciliation
(1) Man is reconciled to God
rather than God being reconciled to man.
The Scriptures never speak of God being reconciled to man but always of man
being reconciled to God. God never reconciles Himself to man since this would
require the middle voice which does not occur in connection with
reconciliation. God does reconcile man to Himself as seen in the active voice
which does occur frequently with reconciliation. Also, man is spoken of as
being reconciled to God, and this principle is seen in
the passive voice with God as the agent acting upon and in behalf of man. Man
is also spoken of as having “received the reconciliation” (Rom. 5:11).
(2) God has
been propitiated through Christ’s death rather than reconciled because of any
enmity on His part, since God cannot sin (Jas. 1:13).
Man has made himself an enemy towards God rather than God making Himself an
enemy towards man. God’s holy and righteous character has been offended by
man’s sin, and God needs to be propitiated or satisfied that the penalty of
man’s sin has been paid for so that He can righteously reconcile man to
Himself. God, not man, requires propitiation, and man, not God, requires
reconciliation.
e.
The Purpose of Reconciliation
(1) Immediate purpose (Col.
1:20 cf. Eph. 2:16-17)—To reconcile man to God and thereby establish peace in place
of enmity.
(2) Ultimate
purpose (Col. 1:22)—”In order to present you before Him holy and blameless and
beyond reproach.”
E.
The Extent of Christ’s Death
1.
Statement
of the Issue
a.
Christians sometimes disagree on the extent of the atonement. The question is
whether God intended to pay for the sins of each and every person or whether
the work of Christ was intended only to pay for the sins of the “elect” (the
“elect” means those who are predestined to salvation).
b.
Reformed theologians hold to a view popularly
labeled as “limited atonement.” According to this view, God intends that
Christ’s work be “limited” only to those sovereignly
elected. Other theologians—most notably Arminians and
Lutherans—argue that God intends Christ’s work to be “unlimited,” in the sense
that God intends that it apply to each and every person.
2.
The “Limited Atonement” Theory
a.
Statement
of the Theory
(1) The Reformed position is popularly called “limited atonement.”It is the “L” in “TULIP.”
(2) This label is somewhat misleading. The term “limited” could imply some
kind of limiting defect in the work of satisfaction, but this is certainly not
what the Reformed theologians wish to convey.
(3) The real issue here is God’s intent
in providing satisfaction for sin, regarding the objects of the satisfaction.
In other words, for whose sins did Christ intend
to make satisfaction? This question is “the pivot on which the controversy
turns.”
Riissen states the question succinctly:
“. . . the question is of the counsel of God in sending the Son
into the world and of the intention of Christ in dying; whether it had respect
to men one and all, that Christ put himself in their place and satisfied for them
and obtained remission of sins and salvation; or only to the elect.”
(4) Simply speaking, the
Reformed say that Christ intends to make satisfaction for the elect, and does
not intend to make satisfaction for the reprobate. A corollary to this is the
notion that satisfaction is actually made for those whom Christ intended to
make it. Or, to say the same thing negatively, none of those for whom Christ
intends to render satisfaction fail to partake of the satisfaction
(5) Consequently, it might be best to characterize the Reformed position as
“particular” or “definite satisfaction,” since Christ intends to secure
satisfaction for specific individuals (i.e., the elect) rather than simply make
salvation potentially available to all mankind.
b.
Sufficiency v. Efficiency Distinction
(1) The Reformed Scholastics did not wish to
denigrate Christ’s work in any way. So
they stated that Christ’s work is sufficient
(Latin: sufficienter)
for the sins of all. As Wollebius states, the work considered in itself
“. . . would suffice for the redemption of ten worlds.”
(2) According to Riissen,
Christ’s satisfaction would have satisfied for the sins of one and all, “if so
it had seemed good to God”; since it was of infinite value, it was quite
sufficient for the redemption of all mankind, “if it had seemed good to God to
extend it to the whole world.”
(3) But it is the last part of Riissen’s
statement that is the real crux of the matter, “if it had seemed good to God to
extend it to the whole world.” The
Reformed contention is that it was not God’s will to extend redemption to the
whole world. Thus, the Reformed make a
distinction between the sufficiency
of Christ’s work to save all mankind, and the efficiency of the work in actually securing salvation.
c. The Logic of Limited Atonement in Reformed system
(1) In the Reformed understanding, Christ’s death
does not merely make salvation provisional or possible. Christ actually secures salvation through His sacrifice. Olevian utterly
rejects the notion that “that the grace of sacrifice has been scattered in the
air, in order that he who would might snatch it for himself.”
(2) This is the only conclusion consistent with the
logic of Reformed system. Given
unconditional election and irresistible grace (which themselves follow
inevitably from radical depravity and total inability), particular satisfaction
is the fitting, if not logically necessary, conclusion.
(3) Shedd: “Since redemption implies the application of Christ’s
atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be
affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God,
and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election…. The tenet of limited
redemption rests upon the tenet of election, and the tenet of election rests
upon the tenet of the sinner’s bondage and inability. Soteriology
here runs back to theology, and theology runs back to anthropology. Everything
in the series finally recurs to the state and condition of fallen man. The
answer to the question, How is the atonement of Christ savingly
appropriated? depends upon the answer to the question,
How much efficient power is there in the sinful will to savingly
trust in it? If the answer be, that there is efficient power, either wholly or
in part, in the sinful will itself to believe, then faith is either wholly or
in part from the sinner himself, and is not wholly the gift of God, which is
contrary to Eph. 2:8; and justification does not depend wholly upon electing
grace, which is contrary to 1 Pet. 1:2; and redemption is not limited. But if
the answer be, that there is not efficient power in the sinful will itself,
either wholly or in part, to savingly believe, then
faith is wholly the gift of God; is wholly dependent upon his electing grace;
and redemption is limited by election, as is taught in 1 Cor.
3:5: “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, by whom
ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man;” and in Rom. 9:16: “It is not
of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth
mercy.”
(4) In the order of the decrees, God elects
particular individuals to salvation.
Then God actually secures the salvation of the elect by having Christ
render satisfaction for their sins. For these
individuals God also provides the faith which is the sole condition for
apprehending this satisfaction for them.
d. Reformed Arguments for Particular
Satisfaction/Limited Atonement
(1) The Reformed understand the Scriptures to teach
that Christ’s mission and death are intended for particular men, sometimes
designated His church, His body, His sheep, etc.
(a)
Christ died for “many” and not for “all” (Matt. 20:28 cf. Mt. 1:21;
Jn. 10:11,15; Acts 20:28).
(b)
Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for it
(Eph. 5:25 cf. Jn.
10:15).
(2) The Reformed say that the objects of Christ’s
intercession and His satisfaction are one and the same individuals (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1‑2; Rom. 8:34). But they deny that Christ interceded for all
men universally; they say he interceded only for the elect. In support they
cite Jn. 17:9, where Christ states, “I pray for them:
I pray not for the world but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine.”
(3) The Reformed argue that the opposite
view—universal satisfaction—portrays Christ as a partial, imperfect Savior.
They say that if one posits a universal satisfaction, one must conclude that
Christ was the author of obtaining
but not applying salvation for the
unsaved.
3.
Unlimited
Atonement Theories
a.
Statement of the Theory
(1) Essentially, unlimited
atonement theory is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. That is,
he intended to extend the benefits of his atoning work to each and every
person, not just to the elect.
(2) Various versions of this
view have been held: Universalism, Lutheranism, Arminianism,
and Amyraldianism.
b.
Universalism
(1) Universalism is the
teaching that everybody will be saved.
(2) The universalist argues that Christ intended to save each
and every person through his work on the cross. But they further argue that
Christ’s work does in fact save every person.
(3) Universalism is a teaching
that gained some popularity in this country around the time of the Revolutionary
War (e.g., through men such as John Murray and Hosea Ballou)
and is still found in many churches.
(4) This view is widely
rejected by evangelical Christians as unscriptural.
(5) Universalism is easily
refuted by:
(a)
The doctrine of hell
(b)
The fact that not all people have faith, which is
clearly the condition on which salvation is appropriated
c.
Lutheranism and Arminianism
(1) Although Lutherans and Arminians differ on a great many points (e.g., the freedom
and ability of the human will), on this question they are traeted
together because they use similar arguments against the Reformed view of
limited atonement.
(2) Both emphasized those biblical passages which apparently speak of God’s
saving concern for the whole world.
(a)
John 3:16—This passage says that God love the world, not just the elect.
(b)
1 Tim. 4:10—Christ
is the savior of all men, but
especially of believers.
(c)
1 Jn. 2:2—Christ is the propitiation not only for our
sins but for those of the entire world.
(d)
2 Pet. 2:1—The heretics mentioned in this verse—who clearly are not
saved—are nevertheless in some sense “bought” by the very Lord they deny.
(e)
The Lutherans
charge the Reformed with a logical error.
They point out that passages which assert His death for His sheep do not
prove that He died only for His
sheep. Gerhard points out that the
particular is included
in its universal. It is fallacious to limit the universal by the particular.
(f)
In this same
connection, the Lutherans deny that the word “many” used in passages such as
Matt. 26:28 limits those for whom Christ died, since the term “many” is often
used for “all,” as in Ps. 97:1; Dan. 12:2; Rom. 5:19.
(3) The Lutherans deny that Christ
interceded only for the elect.
(a)
They admit that He
does not intercede for those who died in impenitence and are in hell. But they assert that He intercedes generally
for all who still live in the world, “and still have the gate of divine grace
standing open before them, whether they be elect or
reprobate.
(b)
At this point the
Lutherans made a distinction between “general” and “special” intercession. General intercession is Christ’s prayer to
the Father for all men, that His death might be applied to them. Special intercession has only the regenerate
in view, that they might be built up in faith and holiness.
(4) Another argument is that the
reprobate could not be justly held accountable for not believing in the Son of
God if His death does not pertain to them.
(a)
Gerhard states that
the reprobate cannot be condemned for rejecting that which, by an antecedent
decree, does not pertain to them.
(b)
The Calvinistic
view leads to the absurdity that God condemns them for not having faith in a
sacrifice which was in truth never intended for them.
(c)
Following this line
of reasoning, the Lutherans argue that since God offers the benefits of Christ’s death to all men, He must—assuming
the truth of Calvinism—be guilty of hypocrisy, since “. . . He
would call the unbelieving to repentance and the kingdom of Christ, whom nevertheless He would exclude therefrom by an absolute decree.”
(5) I think the fundamental
issue, though, is that the Lutherans and Arminians
deny unconditional election and irresistible grace. If these are the underlying
foundation for the limited atonement theory, then it follows that any systems
denying these would also deny limited atonement.
d.
Amyraldianism
(1) Origin of the Theory: This
theory is named after Moses Amyraut, of the school
of Saumur in France.
(a)
The theory is also called “Amyraldianism.”
(b)
It is Calvinistic in the sense that it holds to
unconditional election and total inability.
(c)
However, it wants to be able to affirm the
“universalistic” passages concerning Christ’s work.
(2) Statement of the Theory
(a)
Christ was
appointed to be savior to all men equally.
(b)
However, God
foresaw that because of the wickedness of all men, none would believe in
Christ. Therefore, by a special decree
of election, God gives certain particular individuals the gift of faith.
(c)
These individuals
are then able to experience Christ’s saving work, while the remainder of
mankind is left to perish in unbelief.
(3) Similarities and Differences Between Amyraut and Standard Reformed System:
(a)
This is definitely not an Arminian
system because there is no synergism.
(b)
Unconditional election is also affirmed.
(c)
However, in
standard Reformed system, the decree of the death of Christ comes after the decree to elect particular
individuals. In Amyraut’s schema, the decree of the
death of Christ comes before the
decree of election.
(4) Opposition by the Reformed
(a)
They point out the logical inconsistencies in Amyraut’s theory.
i.
It presents Christ’s as double-minded.
ii.
On the one hand,
Christ supposedly wills salvation for all, that it might be applied to
them. But then He wills to grant faith
only to a select few--and apart from this faith His redeeming work cannot be
applied.
(b)
Turretin delivers a strong broadside against the
view. He says it makes a mockery of the
infinitely wise and holy Jesus, who in effect says, “I desire that to come to
pass, which I know neither will nor can take place; and I am even unwilling
that it should, for I refuse to communicate the only means by which it can ever
be brought to pass, and the granting of this means depends upon myself alone.”
(c) The absurdity, according to Turretin,
is obvious. Christ both wills and does
not will the salvation of the same individuals in Amyraut’s
system. Christ dies with the intent of saving whom He does not intend to save
(since He does not grant them faith, apart from which they could never
experience salvation).
4. The Order of Salvation (Ordo Salutis)
a.
Supralapsarianism
b.
Infralapsarianism
c.
Amyraldianism
d.
Lutheranism
e.
Arminianism
§ Two: