The Definite Atonement

This is one of the most problematic doctrines and one that divides earnest and sincere believers.  As Augustine said, "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity."  There is room for debate on the doctrine and like eternal security, there are proof-texts for both sides:  Please read on with an open mind.

The issue in question and open to debate is this:  Did the Atonement make possible the salvation of all, or the salvation of the elect certain? Specifically: Is faith a work of man (as Rome and Arminians assert) or the gift of grace?  Or Does God save us, or enable us to save ourselves?  Was Christ's work of redemption accomplished in toto on the cross?   R. C. Sproul has made this the crux of the matter.  It is the issue argued at the Synod of Dort in 1618 that condemned the Remonstrants who objected to the Reformed position, better known as the Calvinist's schema.

To put things in perspective, it is not your grasp of the deeper truths of the Bible, but your personal application that matters:  You must believe that Jesus died and rose again for you personally to be saved.  Remember the hymns:  "Amazing love! how can it be, that thou, my God, shouldst die for me" and "Just as I am, without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me."  "Alas! and did my Savior bleed?  And did my Sovereign die?  Would he devote that sacred head For such a worm as I?" It is not your theory or apprehension of the doctrine of the Atonement that saves you.  I reiterate it takes faith to believe that he not only died but lives in victory for you individually, not to apprehend a doctrine.

As you will see there is a problem in semantics, because both Arminian and Reformed views limit the Atonement in some respect and the terminology limited and unlimited Atonement (sometimes referred to as General Atonement) are insufficient to describe what happens on the cross.  Both sides agree that there is no universal atonement that saves all.  The problem begins with the definition of atonement, which is also translated propitiation and reconciliation and even expiation--it depends upon what you are focusing on: the divine or the human side, the positive and negative aspect, one's righteousness or sin.

Calvinists, or theologians of the "Reformed" tradition, believe in the so-called "limited atonement" [better referred to as "definite atonement" (or particular redemption)--Atonement means satisfaction or to set things right and make amends (between God and man)--because "definite" implies that God has a design or purpose behind what He was doing--He always does!] and this belief in a limited atonement is a misnomer, (Arminians believe in "unlimited atonement" or that Christ's sacrifice covered everyone's sins--note that they were also known as the Remonstrants were condemned at the Synod of Dort in 1618, which created a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe).  They have limited the Atonement [also in covering every sin but the unpardonable one--that is why unbelievers go to hell!]:  they say that when Christ said "Tetelestai" or "It is finished," [not "I am finished," implying it waited for our cooperation and synergistic effort of ratification by a work of faith] that it wasn't finished completely.  In other words, He wasn't saving anyone, but only making salvation possible; it would have been possible that no one got saved. [This was their articulated position at the Synod of Dort.]

Does God actually have a design and purpose for atonement or not?  Actually, God finished salvation's work on the cross (He didn't say, "I am finished, but "It is finished.") and He ratified it on our behalf as His elect. "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9)--i.e., it is not a cooperative venture but completely the work of God who gets all the glory. "The Lord knows those who are His."   You're either limiting the extent (to whom it reaches) or the purpose of the Atonement.  God doesn't leave anything to chance.  Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

I postulate that Christ's atonement is sufficient for everyone who has faith in Christ, and no one can claim that they are on the "wrong list," as it were.  "Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."  "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."  You are either limiting the extent of the atonement (for whom) or its sufficiency and adequacy.  What they commonly assert is that the atonement is "sufficient for all, but efficient for some" or taking effect for the elect only--saying we receive or accept God's salvation to certify or complete it. We must personally appropriate His substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

If it avails for all, then you have a proof-text for universalism, as 1 John 2:2 (NIV)  proclaims:  "For He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." This verse actually means that Christ's atonement is sufficient for the sins of the whole world and ipso facto no one has an excuse because of it--specifically, salvation is not just for the Jews, who thought it was just for them.  But Christ died "...that he might taste death for everyone"  (Heb. 2:9).

The omniscience of God assures us that God knows those who are His and who will believe and who wouldn't believe. We are limiting God by saying that He waits for our ratification to complete the work.  God doesn't just see ahead who will be saved and elect them (prescient view) but elects us unto faith.  "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39).  If we study Rom. 8:29-30 to study the golden chain of redemption we can see that all that God calls get saved ("And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he justified."), and this is not the case with us, because the general call we give in evangelizing sometimes falls on deaf ears. as opposed to God's inner call that never gets rejected because of irresistible grace, and Christ gets rejected.

We are assured that anyone who believes or has genuine saving and living faith will be saved.  The only thing standing in the way of a believer is his lack of faith in receiving the free gift of eternal life in Christ by grace.  No one will be able to blame Christ for their condemnation!  Let me conclude that no one is saved by their theory of the Atonement;  There are indeed pious believers on both sides of this issue.  Soli Deo Gloria!

Are We Robots?

Arminians (those who believe in absolute, free will, and its ability to freely choose God apart from His intervention or grace) deny Providence and the absolute sovereignty of God because they believe it makes us robots or chatty dolls that God just wound up and run according to His will.  I believe in predestination, but not coercion or determinism (that God forces us with an exterior force to do something we don't want to or intend to do).  Our salvation is "ultimately in God's hands," they say, and God chooses us, we don't choose Him (cf. John 15:16).  No one would ever choose Christ if God hadn't intervened on his behalf and "by grace he believed" (cf. Acts 18:27).  Jesus made the "hard saying" that "no one can come to the Father unless the Father ... draws him..."  (John 6:44).  Many who heard this, "no longer walked with Him."

Our thoughts and intentions are our own and we are culpable for them--the Bible reveals our thoughts and intentions (cf. Heb. 4:12).  We are culpable even for our thoughts because Jesus internalized sin  (anger is like murder and lust is comparable to adultery), saying that it originated in the evil heart of man (cf.  "...out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, "and  "...for out of the heart come evil thoughts"--Matt. 15:11;19).  God's sovereignty is not limited by our freedom or actions--if God is not Lord of all, He is not Lord at all--He must, by definition, be sovereign overall, or He is not God--not even one molecule in the universe can be out of control!  God micromanages the universe in other words!  Recall Joseph saying to his brothers:  "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:20).

We are indeed culpable for our actions and thoughts in spite of the fact that God is allowing it to happen or directing it for some higher purpose--you only need look at the crucifixion and its evil that God had planned (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28).  In legal matters it is important what a person's intentions are, despite the result; God does the same in judging us.  But sincerity is not everything; People don't get saved because they meant well or were "sincerely wrong."

The working together of our actions, good and evil, with God's overall plan, is called concurrence and it is none of our business what God's intentions are or what He is doing:  "...None can hold back His hand or say to Him, "What are You doing?'"  (Dan. 4:35).    God doesn't have to explain Himself to us; we need to explain ourselves to Him!    (Cf. Job not being answered but just humbled.)  Soli Deo Gloria!

Can We Claim All God's Promises?

Modern-day evangelicalism believes that there are over 5,000 promises at last count in the Bible that can be appropriated by the believer by a so-called "name-it-and-claim-it" theology.  This is rampant and leads to "prosperity theology" that teaches that it is always God's will for the believer to be prosperous (what is meant by true prosperity is that one is blessed by God in his endeavors and they bring forth fruit) and for the Christian to be blessed in a material way.  2 Cor. 1:20 is often quoted to raise the issue:  "For all the promises of God are "Yes" in Christ..."  Or: "For, no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ."  This really means that Christ has fulfilled all the promises and according to Joshua  23:14 all of God's promises have been fulfilled (past tense); not one has failed!  God keeps His Word on account of Christ.

One thing about promises is that some appear to be and aren't, e.g., in  Proverbs, where there are just many wise pithy sayings or observations, such as if you work hard you will be rewarded with wealth. (Cf. Prov. 10:22 which reads, "The blessing of the LORD makes a person rich, and he adds no sorrow with it").  Many promises are conditional and we must meet the condition:  For example, "Delight thyself in the Lord, and He will give thee the delights of thine heart."  Some are exclusively intended for the nation of Israel and not the church per se.   Some are individualistic, like to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or David. Some are for all mankind, like to Adam, who represents all mankind and is the head of the race.

One very popular verse that is often quoted out of context and intended for Israel in captivity that He will restore them and bless them as a nation again is Jeremiah 29:11, which is so often quoted as follows:   "I know the plans that I have for you, says the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a future and a hope."  God's Plan for some of His directive will is to be martyrs or suffer for the kingdom of God and not necessarily find their so-called "city" in this life--for the patriarchs didn't receive what was promised either.  ("For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God"--Heb. 11:10.)   God does indeed have plans for His people and His intentions are good toward us and we have a future and hope for living in Christ--namely, to bring glory to God, live for Christ, and die to self.

But mark these words:  God does prosper many believers (He blesses some in all ways, but all in some ways), but prosperity is not to be looked upon as a sign of God's approbation.  Look at the prosperity of the wicked in Psalm 73 and the rebuke of the rich in the book of Amos!  Psalm 17:14 says that some have their portion in this life.   Some people leave their reward behind, and others go to their reward in heaven.    The only true and valid test of a believer is Christian love in action   (Note Gal. 5:6 as follows:  "...the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.") and the telltale sign is not achieving the American dream or any other material factor-like fame, power, or riches. When we suppose that godliness is a means of financial gain we have missed the boat, however, godliness with contentment is great gain!  (Cf. 1 Tim. 6:5-6.)

CAVEAT:  BEWARE OF REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY THAT SEES THE CHURCH AS THE HEIR TO ALL ISRAEL'S PROMISES.   Soli Deo Gloria!

He That Is Spiritual

I'm borrowing from Lewis Sperry Chafer's 1918 book He That Is Spiritual to make a point.  It used to be believed that you didn't have to make Christ Lord of your life to get saved, but only trust Him as Savior.   Au contraire, you must submit to Him as Lord as well, and accept Him for all that He is--otherwise, you are rejecting Him!

I recently went to a Bible study that an "Arminian" said that there are three kinds of people: unbelievers, carnal Christians, and spiritual Christians  (I sensed this as an urgent and critical issue to address).  My task is to refute this as erroneous thinking because it can lead to many fallacious deductions.  Let's nip this doctrinal credo in the bud!

 Paul said that he could not address the Corinthians (3:1) as "spiritual" but only as "worldly" or "carnal."  "As mere babies in Christ!" They had the "mind of Christ," but were only immature spiritually.  He wasn't creating a new type of believer but reaching out to where they were because a good teacher knows his listeners.  One of the biggest controversies among evangelicals in the '80s was the so-called "easy-believism." (basically assent or acquiescence and not heartfelt faith and the premise that one can "accept Christ" as Savior and not as Lord, thus dichotomizing His offices--we can distinguish them, but not separate them because we must accept them both or we not accepting Him).

A. W. Tozer said, "The Lord will not save those whom He cannot command. He will not divide His offices.  You cannot believe in half-Christ.  We take Him for what He is...."   This is the assumption that salvation is by believing alone apart from any submission to Christ's Lordship, in other words, that salvation is free but it doesn't cost you anything either--salvation is a free (but not cheap) gift to those who "accept Christ" for who He is and what He did on our behalf--discipleship can cost you everything, even the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom.  This controversy goes back to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the persecuted and martyred Lutheran pastor in Nazi Germany, who proclaimed the effect of "cheap grace."  Salvation is indeed free, but don't call it cheap or easy!

This made a whole new category of Christian known as the carnal believer.  Any believer can be carnal or spiritual at times and need milk at times to restore to fellowship--you are not a different brand of  believer just because you can't handle solid food yet.  "We are all one in Christ."  Just because one is carnal doesn't mean he is a carnal Christian, but that he is a Christian who is carnal!  What can happen with the false category of "carnal Christian" is that a person can be living in sin and say, "Oh, it's all right, I'm a carnal Christian!"  We should treat said person as an unbeliever when we see no fruit, and not let him get away with sin. One of the church's duties is discipline.  "If anyone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness..."  (Gal. 6:1). 

All Christians have the "mind of Christ" (there is no elite type of believer or privileged class) and all have their spiritual eyes opened to understand the spiritual dimension and doctrines of the Bible.  The illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit is at work in all believers.  There are two kinds of sinners: lost and justified (or unsaved and saved)!  Luther said we are at the same time just and sinners (per Gal. 2:17)! Christians aren't really called sinners, but sin even though they are justified in God's eyes and treated as just.  Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for their lack of spiritual growth, and the fact that they are sinning. The believer doesn't practice sin according to 1 John 3:9.  They are behaving like immature believers that don't know anything and Paul must tell them the basics all over again or start from scratch, as it were because they hadn't progressed on their own--does Paul need to feed them the milk of the Word all over again?

The issue should be what is saving faith, not what is easy-believism since that lends itself to semantic problems.   One must believe in the heart, not just intellectual assent, to be sure, and more than just agree to dogma because it is not a credo that saves us, but a person to know!   We need to get to know Jesus, not just a church dogma.  Doctrine is necessary, but not sufficient; it isn't enough and we must live out our faith and translate our faith and creed into deeds.  I have no beef with some believer who loves the Lord, even if there is disagreement on a doctrine--we must accept him who is weak in faith.  The strong need to increase in love and the weak in knowledge.  The Scripture distinguishes between the natural man and the spiritual man.  Unbelievers are natural men and cannot fathom Scriptural truth, because they are blind and dead spiritually, and not quickened by the Holy Ghost in regeneration.   God quickens faith within us and it is a supernatural work that gives God the glory.

We are not given free rein to live in the flesh and to "continue in sin, that grace may abound," but given power in the Spirit to become slaves of righteousness, instead of sin; for our sinning proves our slavery, it doesn't demonstrate our freedom!  It should be noted that Christianity is the only faith that is based on divine accomplishment, not a human achievement.

Faith and repentance are divine works in us (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25; Acts 11:18; Acts 18:27; John 6:29; Phil. 1:29; et al.); they are not pre-salvation works or preparations for us to merit salvation in any way; salvation is not merited by any work and we are not saved by works (faith and repentance are not human works), but by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide) and in Christ alone (soli Christo); the only question is what we mean by these terms.  Faith is manifested by obedience only and not be lip service alone; faith must be translated into deeds to be real genuine saving and living faith (true faith is not static).     Soli Deo Gloria!