WM 290: Sermon Review: Five Dangers of Calvinism: Part 4

 

JTR

WM 289: Sermon Review: Five Dangers of Calvinism: Part 3

 

JTR

WM 288: Sermon Review: The Five Dangers of Calvinism: Part 2

 

JTR

WM 287: Sermon Review: The Five Dangers of Calvinism: Part 1

 

JTR

Calvin on human depravity

More from Calvin’s commentary on Romans 9:

Did Calvin believe that the image of God in man had been completely obliterated through his fall into sin? This will be a caricature of what will later be called “total depravity.” Calvin, however, presents a more nuanced view here:

It is true that we are all born blind, but still, amidst the darkness of corrupt and depraved nature, some sparks of continue to shine, so that men differ from brute beasts. Now, if any man, elated by proud confidence in his own opinion, refuses to submit to God, he will seem—apart from Christ—to be wise, but the brightness of Christ will strike him with dismay; for never does the vanity of the human mind begin to be discovered, until heavenly wisdom is brought into view.

JTR

WM 92: Rejoinder to a Lutheran's Objections to Limited Atonement

I have posted Word Magazine 92: Rejoinder to a Lutheran's Objections to Limited Atonement (listen here).

Jordan Cooper is a young Lutheran minister serving a congregation in Illinois (Faith Lutheran Church in Watseka). He also directs Just and Sinner Publications, hosts the Just and Sinner Podcast, and has an active youtube channel.

By his own report, Cooper is a former Calvinist and often expresses various criticisms of Reformed theology. He has written a critique of Reformed theology: Jordan Cooper, The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology (Wipf and Stock, 2015).

I got an email back in November from someone who called my attention to an 18 minutes video posted by Jordan Cooper in April 2017. The video is titled, “Five Problem with Limited Atonement” (see it here).

Here is part of the email:

The main reason I’m contacting you is to request a topic for one of your podcasts. I would love to hear your response to a Lutheran pastor by the name of Jordan Cooper. He has an 18 minute YouTube video on the “5 Problems with Limited Atonement”….

I have an older brother, who introduced me to Calvinism many years ago who is now considering Lutheranism. He’s the one who sent me the video claiming that it contains a “powerful argument” against particular redemption right from the book of Hebrews.

In this episode I want to review and respond to Cooper’s critique of limited atonement. Here are some notes from my review:

Jordan Cooper’s Five Problems with Limited Atonement:

First: The Bible speaks of many who fell away but (who) were also bought by the blood of Christ.

He mentions two texts:

1.    Hebrews 10:29

Response: Is this a description of an apostate or a warning against becoming a backslidden believer who brings shame to the name of Jesus? I think it is the latter.

2.    2 Peter 2:1

Response: See John Owen’s assessment that these were “saints in show” and not genuine believers.

Second: Many texts speak about the universal nature of Christ’s saving work.

He mentions the following texts:

1.    1 John 2:2

Response: This verse does not refer to universal atonement but to the universal scope of the gospel: that all kinds of men (Jews and Gentiles) will be saved.

2.    1 Timothy 2:4

Response: 1 Timothy 2:4 is also a passage related to the universal scope of the gospel: that all kinds of men (Jews and Gentiles) will be saved. To measure the importance of that theme for Paul see Ephesians 3:1-6.

3.    1 Timothy 4:10

Response: See a blog post I recently wrote on this verse, as one of the prooftexts in the 2LBCF (1689) in the chapter on Providence (5:7). There I point out that this verse is not addressing salvation of all men but God’s providential care for all men, and especially for his saints.

Third: Limited Atonement is incompatible with the free offer of the gospel.

Response: Holding to the Biblical doctrine of the atonement in no way hinders the faithful preaching of the gospel. In fact, it is those who preach general atonement who weaken and distort the preaching of the gospel.

For a response to this see, J. I. Packer’s Introductory Essay in John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Banner of Truth, 1959): 1-25 (esp. 16-17, 19).

See also David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism & The Call of the Gospel (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1980).

Fourth: The book of Hebrews

Response: The book of Hebrews is in no way incompatible with the Reformed view of salvation. It exalts Christ as the once for all sacrifice. It is written to Jewish believers in order to exhort them to persevere in the faith. Aside from its pastoral purpose, it also has an evangelistic purpose, as it undoubtedly would have been read in congregations that would have included both believers and unbelievers.

John Owen completed seven volumes of commentaries on Hebrews and retained a consistent view of Reformed soteriology throughout (see here). Any so-called objections passages in Hebrews will find a satisfying interpretation in Owen.

I have preached a 46-part sermon series through the book (see here). I did not find anything within Hebrews to contradict Reformed soteriology.

Fifth: The words of Jesus

Cooper mentions Christ’s prayer from the cross in Luke 23:34 (BTW, We can confidently uphold the text of this prayer as genuine! See this post). Yes, we can say that his prayer was answered, not that in all who rejected Jesus were saved or given the hypothetical possibility of salvation, but that some were actually saved and had their sins forgiven under the preaching of the Gospel (see Acts 2:22-24, 37-38).

He mentions Judas and Christ’s words in the upper room to the disciples in Luke 22:19: “This is my body which is given for you.” Whether Judas was present or not is irrelevant. Jesus was not saying that he would die for Judas. His death would be for the elect. Even today, false professors take of the Supper unworthily.

Finally, he notes Christ’s prayer for the disciples in John 17:12. How could this apply to Judas?

He fails to pick up on the fact that in John there is peculiar language that is used for the choosing (election) of the disciples for service as disciples that does not have to do, necessarily, with Christ’s choosing (election) of the disciples for salvation (see John 6:70-71; 15:16). So, there is nothing inconsistent with saying, Jesus chose the Judas to be among the twelve, but he did not choose him for salvation.

Concluding Response:

It is typical of those who reject limited atonement (the Biblical doctrine of redemption) to raise objection passages like these.

As we have demonstrated, when rightly divided these passages do not contradict limited atonement.

If they did, Scripture would be incoherent. It is those who hold to general or universal redemption who must explain how they make sense of the passages that, we believe, so clearly teach limited atonement, or particular redemption, including:

Isaiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The onus is on the defenders of universal atonement to exegete and interpret how these passages support their position.

Additional resources:

Sermons from sermonaudio.com:

My sermon series on the doctrines of grace

Alpheus Atkins’ 2017 Youth Conference series on the doctrines of grace

More blog articles on this topic:

Nine Observations on Limited Atonement

Limited Atonement: Responding to Objection Passages

He tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9)

Behold the Lamb of God (John 1:29)

JTR

The Vision (12.15.17): The Saviour of all men (1 Timothy 4:10)

Image: Snow on holly bush, December 2017, North Garden, Virginia

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday's sermon in the 1689 confession series.

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe (1 Timothy 4:10).

The final paragraph in chapter five of the 1689 Baptist Confession, “Of Divine Providence,” stresses God’s special care for his church:

Paragraph 7. As the providence of God doth in general reach to all creatures, so after a more special manner it taketh care of His church, and disposes of all things to the good thereof.

The first prooftext listed is 1 Timothy 4:10. This is a verse much disputed by our Arminian friends, who like to see it as a proof for “universal” redemption, as opposed to particular redemption or limited atonement.

I believe, however, that the framers of the confession were very intentional in their use of this prooftext at this point. By citing it here, they were making the point that this verse does not address the doctrine of salvation or redemption but providence.

Look at the context. Paul is writing to encourage the young minister Timothy, urging him to remember that in the midst of difficult labors and the suffering of reproach, he should trust in the living God. He is not addressing here the doctrine of salvation, but that of providence. In this context he refers to the Lord as “the Saviour (Greek: Soter) of all men.”  This term can indeed can be used to refer to the God of the Bible as a Redeemer. It can also, however, be used to refer to God as a Provider. The Romans could refer to their emperors as “saviors,” not meaning that they provided spiritual salvation, but material protection. To call God “the Saviour of all men” here would be parallel to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:45 that God causes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on both the just and the unjust.

In his commentary on this verse, John Calvin sees the main point as being that believers lose nothing of God’s providence when they are tried by adversity. He thus takes “Saviour” here as “a general term” denoting “one who defends and preserves.” He concludes that Paul’s meaning here is “that the kindness of God extends to all men.” If God’s goodness and care extends to all men, then, “how much more is it experienced by the godly, who hope in him?”

Matthew Poole, likewise, takes “Saviour” as used here to mean, “The Preserver of all man, the Preserver of man and beast.” He compares this verse to Psalm 33:18-19, where one finds a similar stress on God’s preservation of his people. Poole adds:

This seemeth rather to be the sense of the text, than to understand it of eternal salvation, for so God is not the actual Savour of all; besides that the text seemeth to speak of a work proper to the Father, rather than to the Son.

Poole does indeed raise a major issue with the Arminian interpretation. If “the Saviour of all men” is taken as a reference to general atonement, it lends support to the unsavory notion of universal salvation, a concept clearly counter to the Biblical witness (cf. John 3:36).

So, 1 Timothy 4:10 does not contradict the doctrines of grace. When Scripture is “rightly divided” it must be interpreted as a testimony to God’s special care for his people. If he provides for all men, will he not, all the more, provide for his own dear people?

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

The Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1629)

Note:  Below is the text of the Confession of Cyril Lukaris (1572-1638) taken from this site (thanks to VLB for noting the link). Dennis Bratcher says it was published in Geneva in 1629, though its authenticity has been challenged by some Orthodox.  It was refuted in the Jerusalem Synod of 1672.  Note in chapter two:  "we believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church."

The Confession 

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople, publishes this brief Confession for the benefit of those who inquire about the faith and the religion of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, in witness to God and to men and with a sincere conscience without any dissimulation.

Chapter 1.

We believe in one God, true, Almighty, and in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Father unbegotten, the Son begotten of the Father before the world, consubstantial with the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father by the Son, having the same essence with the Father and the son. We call these three persons in one essence the Holy Trinity, ever to be blessed, glorified, and worshipped by every creature.

Chapter 2.

We believe the Holy Scripture to be given by God, to have no other author but the Holy Spirit. This we ought undoubtedly to believe, for it is written. We have a more sure word of prophecy, to which you do well to take heed, as to light shining in a dark place. We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority.

Chapter 3.

We believe that the most merciful God has predestined His elect unto glory before the beginning of the world, without any respect of their works and that there was no other impulsive cause to this election, but only the good will and mercy of God. In like manner before the world was made, He rejected whom He would, of which act of reprobation, if you consider the absolute dealing of God, His will is the cause; but if you look upon the laws and principles of good order, which God’s providence is making use of in the government of the world, His justice is the cause, for God is merciful and just.

Chapter 4.

We believe that one God in Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible. Invisible things we call the angels, visible things we call the heavens and all things under them. And because the Creator is good by nature, He has created all things good, and He cannot do any evil; and if there is any evil, it proceeds either from the Devil or from man. For it ought to be a certain rule to us, that God is not the Author of evil, neither can sin by any just reason be imputed to Him.

Chapter 5.

We believe that all things are governed by God’s providence, which we ought rather to adore than to search into. Since it is beyond our capacity, neither can we truly understand the reason of it from the things themselves, in which matter we suppose it better to embrace silence in humility than to speak many things which do not edify.

Chapter 6.

We believe that the first man created by God fell in Paradise, because he neglected the commandment of God and yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. From thence sprung up original sin to his posterity, so that no man is born according to the flesh who does not bear this burden and feel the fruits of it in his life.

Chapter 7.

We believe that Jesus Christ our Lord emptied Himself, that is He assumed man’s nature into His own substance. That He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the ever virgin Mary, was born, suffered death, was buried, and risen in glory, that He might bring salvation and glory to all believers, Whom we look for to come to judge both quick and dead.

Chapter 8.

We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ sits on the right hand of His Father and there He makes intercession for us, executing alone the office of a true and lawful high priest and mediator, and from there He cares for His people and governs His Church adorning and enriching her with many blessings.

Chapter 9.

We believe that without faith no man can be saved. And we call faith that which justifies in Christ Jesus, which the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ procured, the Gospel published, and without which no man can please God.

Chapter 10.

We believe that the Church, which is called catholic, contains all true believers in Christ, those who having departed their country are in heaven and those who live on earth are yet on the way. The Head of that Church (because a mortal man by no means can be) is Jesus Christ alone, and He holds the rudder of the government of the Church in His own hand. Because, however, there are on earth particular visible Churches, every one of them has one chief, who is not properly to be called [head] of that particular Church, but improperly, because he is the principal member of it.

Chapter 11.

We believe that the members of the Catholic Church are saints, chosen unto eternal life, from the number and fellowship of which hypocrites are excluded, though in particular visible churches tares may be found among the wheat.

Chapter 12.

We believe that the Church on earth is sanctified and instructed by the Holy Spirit, for He is the true comforter, whom Christ sends from the Father to teach the truth and to expel darkness form the understanding of the faithful. For it is true and certain that the Church on earth may err, choosing falsehood instead of truth, from which error the light and doctrine of the Holy Spirit alone frees us, not of mortal man, although by mediation of the labors of the faithful ministers of the Church this may be done.

Chapter 13.

We believe that man is justified by faith and not by works. But when we say by faith, we understand the correlative or object of faith, which is the righteousness of Christ, which, as if by hand, faith apprehends and applies unto us for our salvation. This we say without any prejudice to good works, for truth itself teaches us that works must not be neglected, that they are necessary means to testify to our faith and confirm our calling. But that works are sufficient for our salvation, that they can enable one to appear before the tribunal of Christ and that of their own merit they can confer salvation, human frailty witnesses to be false; but the righteousness of Christ being applied to the penitent, alone justifies and saves the faithful.

Chapter 14.

We believe that free will is dead in the unregenerate, because they can do no good thing, and whatsoever they do is sin; but in the regenerate by the grace of the Holy Spirit the will is excited and in deed works but not without the assistance of grace. In order, therefore, that man should be born again and do good, it is necessary that grace should go before; otherwise man is wounded having received as many wounds as that man received who going from Jerusalem down to Jericho fell into the hands of thieves, so that of himself he cannot do anything.

Chapter 15.

We believe that the Evangelical Sacraments in the Church are those that the Lord instituted in the Gospel, and they are two; these only have been delivered unto us and He who instituted them delivered unto us no more. Furthermore, we believe that they consist of the Word and the Element, that they are the seals of the promises of God, and they do confer grace. But that the Sacrament be entire and whole, it is requisite that an earthly substance and an external action concur with the use of that element ordained by Christ our Lord and joined with a true faith, because the defect of faith prejudices the integrity of the Sacrament.

Chapter 16.

We believe that Baptism is a Sacrament instituted by the Lord, and unless a man has received it, he has no communion with Christ, from whose death, burial, and glorious resurrection the whole virtue and efficacy of Baptism proceeds; therefore, we are certain that to those who are baptized in the same form which our Lord commanded in the Gospel, both original and actual sins are pardoned, so that whosoever has been washed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are regenerate, cleansed, and justified. But concerning the repetition of it, we have no command to be rebaptized, therefore we must abstain from this indecent thing.

Chapter 17.

We believe that the other Sacrament which was ordained by the Lord is that which we call Eucharist. For in the night in which the Lord offered up Himself, He took bread and blessed it and He said to the Apostles, "Take ye, eat, this is my body," and when He had taken the cup, He gave thanks and said, "Drink all of this, this is my blood which was shed for many; this do in remembrance of me." And Paul adds, "For as often as ye shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death." This is the pure and lawful institution of this wonderful Sacrament, in the administration of which we profess the true and certain presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; that presence, however, which faith offers to us, not that which the devised doctrine of transubstantiation teaches. For we believe that the faithful eat the body of Christ in the Supper of the Lord, not by breaking it with the teeth of the body, but by perceiving it with the sense and feeling of the soul, since the body of Christ is not that which is visible in the Sacrament, but that which faith spiritually apprehends and offers to us; from whence it is true that, if we believe, we do eat and partake, if we do not believe, we are destitute of all the fruit of it. We believe, consequently, that to drink the cup in the Sacrament is to be partaker of the true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same manner as we affirmed of the body; for as the Author of it commanded concerning His body, so He did concerning His blood; which commandment ought neither to be disremembered nor maimed, according to the fancy of man’s arbitrament; yea rather the institution ought to be kept as it was delivered to us. When therefore we have been partakers of the body and blood of Christ worthily and have communicated entirely, we acknowledge ourselves to be reconciled, united to our Head of the same body, with certain hope to be co-heirs in the Kingdom to come.

Chapter 18.

We believe that the souls of the dead are either in blessedness or in damnation, according as every one has done, for as soon as they move out of the body they pass either to Christ or into hell; for as a man is found at his death, so he is judged, and after this life there is neither power nor opportunity to repent; in this life there is a time of grace, they therefore who be justified here shall suffer no punishment hereafter; but they who die, being not justified, are appointed for everlasting punishment. By which it is evident that the fiction of Purgatory is not to be admitted but in the truth it is determined that every one ought to repent in this life and to obtain remission of his sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, if he will be saved. And, let this be the end.

This brief Confession of ours we conjecture will be a sign spoken against them who are pleased to slander and persecute us. But we trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and hope that He will not relinquish the cause of His faithful ones, nor let the rod of wickedness lie upon the lost of the righteous.

Dated in Constantinople in the month of March, 1629.  Cyril, Patriarch of Constantinople

Cyril Lukaris: The Calvinist Patriarch of Eastern Orthodoxy

Since my oldest daughter is serving now in the Peace Corps in a nation that is predominantly Eastern Orthodox, I have been trying to do some reading and studying on this branch of the Christian tradition (which I am sure they would see as the root!).

To this end, I’ve been reading John Anthony McGuckin’s The Orthodox Church:  An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), which my daughter gave me as a Christmas present, BTW.

With my parallel interest in the text of Scripture, among the first sections I turned to in the book were those on Scripture and tradition.   I have not found McGuckin extremely helpful here, but in his discussion of “symbolical books” (collections of authoritative doctrinal and liturgical sources) he says some interesting things about the Reformation and an apparently Calvinistic patriarch named Cyril Lukaris (1572-1638).  Here is McGuckin:

[The symbolical books] were predominantly put together in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the effects of the Protestant Reformation were being dimly felt to impinge on life in the Eastern churches….  One of the central texts in the list was the result of the explicit impact of the Reformation.  One of the seventeenth century patriarchs of Constantinople, Cyril Lukaris, had issued a statement of faith which many at the time believed had moved towards being an implicit endorsement of Calvinism.  It caused considerable alarm among the Orthodox (pp. 111-112).

He proceeds to describe how this resulted in the synod of Jerusalem in 1672 defining the Orthodox response to Protestantism.

A quick look at that intrepid source, Wikipedia, notes how Cyril Lukaris’ Calvinism was opposed, and he was eventually, yet apparently unrelatedly, assassinated by strangulation on the orders of the Ottoman Sultan and later came to be venerated in modern Orthodoxy as a Hieromartyr (priest or bishop-martyr).

Lukaris’ legacy as a “Calvinist Patriarch” is apparently disputed by the Orthodox.  See this article, “The Myth of the ‘Calvinist Patriarch,’” in response to an article in Credenda Agenda on Lukaris, and also this article “The ‘Calvinist Patriarch’ Cyril Lucaris and His Bible Translations” by Antony J. Khokhar.

One wonders what might have been if Reformed theology had gained a foothold in Orthodoxy or if there are any pockets of it still….

JTR

Doctrines of Grace: Perseverance of the Saints

I completed the Doctrines of Grace sermon series in Lynchburg Sunday evening with a message on The Perseverance of the Saints.

Doctrines of Grace Series: Irresistible Grace

 

Note:  I continued our Doctrines of Grace series in Lynchburg on Sunday evening with a message on the "I' in TULIP:   Irresistible Grace.  Below is the opening to the message including a definition of this doctrine:

 

Irresistible grace is the doctrine that God graciously applies the redemption purchased by Christ to the saved in such a way that their hearts are utterly and gladly taken captive to Christ.  The redeemed are drawn by God’s Spirit to trust completely in Christ for their salvation.  God lovingly overcomes any stubborn resistance to him and makes the redeemed his glad and willing servants.

We have already discussed man’s state in sin and his total inability to seek God (T); God’s plan to save mankind and his sovereign election of those who would be saved (U); and God’s accomplishment of redemption through Christ’s death on the cross (L).  We now come to the application of that redemption to the hearts of sinful men so that through faith in Christ they are saved (the I of TULIP).  This is where the doctrines of grace demonstrate a robust trinitarian thelogy:  the Father elects; the Son redeems; the Spirit applies redemption.

Imagine the following scenario:  Two people hear the gospel preached.  One is converted and becomes a solid believer.  The other is left cold by the gospel and remains in his unbelief.  What made the difference in the response of the two men?  The Arminian says the difference is merely that the first man chose God and the second man did not.  The Arminian implies that there was some special quality within or some work performed by the first man that distinguished him in the eyes of God from the second man.  The doctrines of grace say that the first man was saved by a sovereign act of God’s free grace alone.  The first man would have been just as indifferent to the gospel as the second man if the Spirit of God had not graciously drawn him to Christ.

Limited Atonement: Responding to Objection Passages

 

 

Note:  Last Sunday in Lynchburg, we continued our series on the Doctrines of Grace.  I did a follow-up to my message on “Limited Atonement” with a message on “Objection Passages to Limited Atonement.”  Below is part of the introduction to the message along with the eight objection passages I reviewed:

Many of the objections raised against the doctrine of Limited Atonement relate to the interpretation of various passages using the word “all.”  Those who object usually take for granted that the word “all” in every instance refers to “all humanity.”  When read in context, however, the word “all” very often refers to “all the elect.”

We make this kind of discernment in everyday life.  One might hear the following report on the news:  “There was an accident involving a single vehicle with four passengers.  All were killed.”  Upon listening to this report, one does not suppose that all human beings were killed or that all the people in the city were killed in the accident.  The context makes clear that “all” refers to all the passengers.  Knowing the context is a key to right interpretation.  Many read the Gospels and the epistles as universal missives to all humanity, rather than as communication written to a particular audience.  This clouds their ability to understand these passages.

Many also confuse the astonishment expressed in the New Testament over the fact that both Jews and Gentiles (all kinds of men; men from the whole world) are being saved.  Paul, for example, is staggered with amazement that in Christ “the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ through the same gospel” (Eph 3:6).  Some confuse this emphasis with the notion that all men without exception are redeemed (universalism) or potentially redeemed (Arminianism).

Here are the eight objection passages reviewed:

1.  John 1:29

 

2.  John 3:16

 

3.  John 12:32

 

4.  2 Corinthians 5:14-15

 

5.  1 Timothy 2:1-7

 

6.  2 Peter 3:9

 

7.  1 John 2:2

 

8.  2 Peter 2:1

Nine Observations on Limited Atonement

I continued the Sunday evening series on The Doctrines of Grace at the Lynchburg Reformed Baptist Mission with a message on Limited Atonement.  In the message, I offered nine observations on this doctrine: 

 

1.  We might prefer to refer to this doctrine as “particular redemption.”
 

2.  All evangelical believers who reject universalism hold to some form of “limited atonement.”

3.  Limited Atonement makes the best sense of the scriptural description of redemption.

4.  Limited Atonement makes the best sense of the logic of the plan of salvation.

5.  Limited Atonement is required for an adequate understanding of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement.

6.  “Universal Atonement” makes salvation only a potential possibility and not an assured reality.

7.  “Universal Atonement” opens up some unseemly possibilities.

8.  Those who hold to “Universal Atonement” have shown a historical tendency to drift toward theological liberalism and universalism.

9.  As with the doctrine of Unconditional Election, this doctrine is to be held with humility and care.

JTR

Nine Objections to Unconditional Election Answered

Note:  I preached last Sunday in Lynchburg on "Unconditional Election" in our Doctrines of Grace series.   Since I didn't get that sermon recorded, today I posted a podcast that covers the same teaching material.  Below are nine objections or queries challenging the doctrine of unconditional election that I mention in the message:

1.       Does election in the Bible refer to God’s election of individuals to salvation or to something else?

This question often takes one of three forms:

First, some might ask, “Could passages that speak of God’s choosing refer to the election of nations or groups and not to individuals?”

Response:  Scripture clearly assumes God’s sovereignty extends not merely over corporate bodies but also over individuals (see Prov 16:9; Psalm 139:16; Matt 10:30).  Paul says in Ephesians 1:4 “he chose us.”  He was writing to a specific group (the saints at Ephesus in 1:1), not a generic or hypothetical audience.  We should also not forget that groups and nations consist of individuals. It seems odd that some evangelicals who stress the importance of personal evangelism or “soul-winning” will make appeal to this argument, avoiding the most natural interpretation of the texts cited above.  God chooses individuals for salvation!

Second, some might ask, “Could these passages refer to God’s election (choosing) of Christ?”

Response:  Although it is clear that Christ, as the second person of the Godhead is appointed in the secret counsel of God to the work of incarnation and redemption according to the covenant of redemption, the language of election is applied repeatedly and specifically in Scripture to the people who are to be redeemed.

Third, some might ask, “Could these passages refer to God’s election of believers to sanctification and not to salvation?”   In this regard, particular appeal is often made to Romans 8:29 which speaks of believers being “predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.”

Response:  It is agreed that full sanctification (glorification) is the final stage of salvation.  All those who are saved eventually achieve a state of final sanctification commencing either at their deaths or at the Lord’s coming and finding consummation at the final resurrection.  In places like Romans 8:29-30, Paul is addressing the entire process of salvation.  The process of sanctification, however, does not proceed until one is saved.  So, the issue of election to sanctification for the believer cannot be used to sidestep the necessary beginning point in the entire process of salvation, which is election.  

2.      Does election mean that God’s choice of those who will be saved is merely random?

Some critics have falsely described the doctrines of grace as a version of the children’s game:  “Duck, Duck, Goose!” with the God of Calvinism making it “Duck, Duck, Damned!”  Scripture affirms, however, that God’s choices are never arbitrary.  God’s election is according to his own mysterious purposes and counsels.  Indeed, these are often hidden from us, but all his decisions tend toward the end of God’s own ultimate glory.  The Lord spoke through the prophet Isaiah, saying, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,’ says the Lord.  ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, And my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isa 55:8-9).  The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar, after being humbled by God, likewise affirmed, “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.  No one can restrain His hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Daniel 4:35).

3.      Could it be that God simply foreknows those who will freely choose Christ and then elects them?

First, note that Romans 9:11 specifies that the election of Jacob and Esau was not according to their future actions.  Romans 8:29 (“For whom he foreknew, he also predestined…”) is often cited  by those who suggest the “foreknowledge” explanation of election.  In response, the point needs to be made that “foreknowledge” does not merely refer to awareness of future factual events but to relationships.  The Bible often speaks of a man “knowing” a woman (e.g. Gen 4:1:  “Now Adam knew Eve his wife….).  This does not mean that he possesses factual information about her actions, but that he has an intimate relationship with her.  It is this understanding of “knowledge” that should guide the interpretation of Romans 8:29.

Finally, the “foreknowledge explanation” really does not solve the problem of divine responsibility.  If God foreknows that some will believe in Christ while other will reject Christ, why does he not alter circumstances so that those who reject him will instead respond in faith to Christ?  The responsibility for salvation remains firmly with God alone.

4.      What about those who are not saved?

There are at least two views on this question.

The first position is to argue that God actively elects persons both to salvation and damnation (cf. John 12:37-40; Romans 9:22-23; 2 Tim 2:20; 1 Peter 2:7-8; Jude 1:4).  God elects (chooses) both the saved and the reprobate.  This is called double predestination.

The second position is to argue that God is active in electing the saved but passive in allowing the wicked to persist in their sinfulness (see Rom 1:24; Eph 4:17-19).  Those who reject Christ are not actively damned by God, but they are passed over and left in their self-chosen sin.  This view is generally reflected in the major Reformation era confessions and their successors.  The Second London Baptist Confession (1689), for example, states that some are predestined to eternal life to the praise of his glorious grace while “others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation to the praise of his glorious justice.”

It is also certain that God is glorified in both the damned and the saved.  Those who are unsaved are the fit objects of God’s wrath and glorify God’s justice for eternity.  The saved, however, glorify both the justice of God, as their sins have been laid upon Christ, and his gracious mercy in saving them through no merit of their own. 

5.  Is this doctrine unfair?

Those who raise this question usually do so on the basis of two false assumptions.  On one hand, they assume that there are people who want to be saved who are not saved, simply because God did not choose them.  This view does not take seriously the damage that sin has done to the spiritual life of mankind.  No sinner wants to be saved unless God first changes his heart.  Paul notes that apart from God’s grace “there is none who seeks after God” (Romans 3:11).

On the other hand, some suggest that the doctrine of election means there are people who do not want to be saved, who are saved.  Again, such a hypothetical person does not exist.  No one is pulled kicking and screaming into the kingdom.  Once a sinner experiences the new birth he gladly trusts and follows after Christ.

The apostle Paul anticipated the charge of unfairness in Romans 9:14:  “What shall we say then?  Is there unrighteousness with God?  Certainly not!”  Paul reminds his readers that God is sovereign, having mercy and compassion on whomever he will (see Rom 9:15).  Likewise in Romans 9:19, Paul anticipates the objections of some:  “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault?  For who has resisted His will?”  Paul then silences the critics with these words:  “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?  Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?”’ (v. 20).  

The problem with the fairness argument is that it places a human view of justice above the revelation of God’s sovereignty.  Scripture affirms the Godhood of God.  Whatever God chooses to do is by definition the very standard of everything that is good, right, just, and true.  Once more look at the words of Nebuchadnezzar:  “No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have you done?’” (Dan 4:35).

6.      What about human responsibility?

The doctrine of election is not inconsistent with human responsibility.  The Second London Baptist Confession notes that God decrees “whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby God is neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature….”  Those who are not saved are completely responsible for their own end.  The wicked pay the due penalty for their sin.  No one in hell will protest that God has treated him unfairly.  The sinner is responsible for his own sin and his own rejection of Christ.

On the other hand, those whom God chooses to save have their sinful will renewed.  Those who are saved must repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Without repentance and faith they will not be saved.  They respond in faith to Christ knowing that God alone deserves all praise for their salvation.

7.      Couldn’t God intentionally limit his will and then choose men for salvation conditioned on their free will choice of him?

First, this is essentially a philosophical argument rather than a Biblical argument.  Where in Scripture do we read of God’s self-limitation with regard to salvation?  Where in the Bible do we find the framework for this theory?

Second, this view again errs in its overly optimistic view of man’s free will.  It assumes that sinful, unregenerate man is seeking to know, trust, and worship the God of the Bible.  Scripture notes that no man, in his current sinful condition, will freely choose to bend the knee before the God of the Bible and his Christ.  As a proverb in 1 Samuel 24:13 puts it, “wickedness proceeds from the wicked.”

8.      Does this doctrine create pride and elitism in those who believe they are among the elect?

This is certainly possible.  Pride is a perennial and fundamental sin in all men.  The doctrine of election properly understood, however, does little to promote pride in those who embrace it.  The believer who affirms this doctrine understands that he was not saved because of any merit in himself, but purely through the grace of God.  He was not more intelligent, more spiritual, or more upright than other men.  He was simply the object of Christ’s affection through no merit of his own.  A right understanding of this doctrine deposes pride and develops humility in the Christian’s heart.

9.      Will this doctrine dull our zeal for evangelism?

Scripture teaches that God not only ordains the recipients of salvation in election, but he also ordains the means for their salvation.  In Romans 10:14-15 Paul gave this charge to preach the gospel:

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

The apostle then adds:  “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17).  All those who are chosen for salvation must have the gospel preached to them, so that they might hear and believe in Christ.  The orchestration and coordination of this is in God’s hands.  We do not know who will respond to the gospel.  We do not choose who will be saved.  We discover those whom God has chosen as we watch the elect respond in faith to gospel preaching.

In the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), Christ ordered his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the triune God, and teaching them to obey all of the Lord’s commandments. The doctrine of election, far from quenching zeal for evangelism, gives us great confidence and boldness that we will be successful in this task.  If we preach Christ, God will draw all kinds of men to himself (see John 12:32).  The greatest cross-cultural missionaries in the evangelical world have been those who held to these doctrines, starting with William Carey, the father of the modern missions movement.