8/25/10
We come to the crux of the matter with the third letter of the TULIP acronym. The reformed position embraces a limited atonement as the “L” stands for, but others believe that Christ’s atonement for man’s sins includes all men. So what they believe is that the atonement of Christ was unlimited in nature. According to Louis Berkhof this is the only question that can be asked: “Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question.”1 Simply defined, unlimited atonement means that Christ made atonement for all men’s sins. To say that Christ’s atonement was limited means that Christ made atonement for only those he predestined beforehand should inherit eternal life, that is, to those he elected for salvation. R.C. Sproul argues that the Arminian position reduces faith from a gift of God to something we must exercise in order to please him. In other words faith is an element that has its surety in works. He says, “In this view faith…becomes a work with a vengeance because its presence or absence in a sinner determines the efficacy of Christ’s work of satisfaction for this person.”2 Just what do I mean by faith being a work instead of faith being a gift of God because advocates of Arminian doctrine may strongly disagree with Sproul’s statement? Berkhof states it this way, “…if the assertion be made that the design of God and of Christ was evidently conditional, contingent on the faith and obedience of man, attention should be called to the fact that the Bible clearly teaches that Christ by His death purchased faith, repentance, and all the other effects of the work of the Holy Spirit, for His people. Consequently these are no conditions of which the fulfillment is simply dependent on the will of man. The atonement also secures the fulfillment of the conditions that must be met, in order to obtain salvation.”3 What he is saying here is that the atonement of Christ first of all deals with the sin debt of his people. Once the debt is satisfied He begins, at the same time, the process of working out our salvation through faith within the new nature that He gives. The idea here is that it is Christ and not us that works righteousness. He does not enable us to do it ourselves. He does it Himself through a finite vessel set aside for noble purposes.
There is nothing I would rather see than for family and friends of mine coming to a proper understanding of true faith. For I would argue as convincingly as I can that the proper concept of faith is what is at stake here. If a person responds to the Gospel is it because they have the faith necessary to believe or is because God has given them the gift of faith in order to take hold of the truths of the Gospel message? There is a difference. One simply originates in the heart of man; the other has been given by God in order to respond favorably to His overtures of love. In the first view faith becomes merely a condition for redemption. But not only this, it is the very grounds of it. In other words, if the atonement of Christ is not efficacious apart from faith, then it (faith) must be necessary for satisfaction of divine justice for sin.4 Look at it this way. The scriptures say that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6) and this is true. But you must not think the Hebrew text is saying that this faith is something we possess and must exercise in order to stay in favor with God, because we also read in Ephesians 2:8 that God extends his mercy through faith and that this process is a gift that God extends. The Philippian text communicates this truth more implicitly, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake”5 Acts 13:48 talks about God’s sovereign will in the process of conversion. “…and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Here inequitably we see that faith is a gift, not discovered within the heart of man, but coming from God who gives it as a necessary element in order to respond favorably to His calling. But perhaps my argument is not that convincing. After all, nobody is questioning whether faith is of God or not – the ability for a man to respond in faith does not necessarily disprove that Christ’s death did not make salvation possible for all men. When they embrace Christ by faith they have merely taken hold of the gift that God made available to all men in order to believe for themselves anyway. But the charge stands that in perceiving faith in this way places it in the category of works instead of leaving it on its proper shelf under the listing of gifts given by a God who sovereignly chooses those He has in mind to save according to his perfect will. Berkhof makes an interesting analysis when he points out that the doctrine of Christ’s unlimited atonement to all men logically leads to absolute universalism. This means that it leads to the belief that all men are actually saved. But the Arminians stop before they get to this point. But Berkhof scolds them by saying that they “cannot stop at their half-way station, (they) must go all the way.”6
I need to continue this for this doctrine is too weighty to be treated in a single post. There are many roads a person could turn down and arguments be made one way or the other. I will not pretend to handle them all but will conclude this doctrine with a second final post and see what we can conclude.
-Joe
Notes:
1 Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1938 (1996), p. 394.
2 Sproul, R.C., Grace Unknown – The Heart of Reformed Theology, Baker House, 1997, p. 165.
3 Berkhof, p. 395.
4 Sproul, p. 165.
5 Philippians 1:29
6 Berkhof, p. 395.
9 comments:
Good stuff Joe! I really like your taking the time to go through this. We are currently going through Ephesians in our church. Some really great stuff i'm sure you will like. Take a listen some time (http://www.gracemaryville.com/Sermons/Series.aspx?SeriesID=24). I look forward to your future posts. I hope your family is doing well.
Jay
Hey, its good to hear from you Jay. Glad you liked it. Ephesians is a great book I hope to do a study on after I am finished with Romans this winter when I have more time for writing and studying. But it is good to gather around good resources to help.
-Joe
Catholics and some Protestants & “Bible only” Christians believe in the universal or unlimited atonement of Christ, i.e. that He died on the cross for all men, the Elect (those predestined to heaven) and the Reprobate (those predestined to hell).
The scriptural support that Christ died on the cross for everyone is overwhelming, among which:
And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Corinthians 5:15)
And they sang a new song, saying: ”Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation," (Revelation 5:9)
Other verses like John 4:42 refers Christ as the Saviour of the world; 1 Timothy 4:10 calls God as the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe; Hebrews 2:9 says that Christ tasted death for every one and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: ‘So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.’
He affirms that he came ‘to give his life as a ransom for many’; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.
The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: ‘There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 605.
Catholic Teaching and Limited Atonement
I don't think there's any point getting into another Limited vs Unlimited Atonement debate, so I'll just say quickly what Scripture and Tradition have to say on the matter:
Scripture
St. John says: "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
The issue here is the use of the 2 phrase "not for ours only" and "sins of the whole world".
This is diametrically opposed to the doctrine of limited atonement.
It reminds me of the doctrine of sola fide where Calvinists interpret "not by faith alone" as "by faith alone", and "wills that all men be saved" as "doesn't will that all men be saved".
(Kind of like the Catholic case: "A bishop should be the husband of one wife" interpretted "A bishop shouldn't be the husband of one wife" - but we don't believe in sola scriptura so we at least have a reason)
Tradition
In any case, I think the whole thing is just another great example of the failure of the Reformation doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture.
As Calvinists and Arminians prove by their continued existence, Scripture does need an interpreter, Moses' seat must be replaced with the chair of St. Peter.
The Patristic evidence is also in complete opposition to the doctrine, as the classic formulation was that Christ died for those whose nature he assumed, meaning all of humanity.
"Christ Jesus our Lord, as no man who is or has been or ever will be whose nature will not have been assumed in Him, so there is, has been, or will be no man, for whom He has not suffered-although not all will be saved by the mystery of His passion.
But because all are not redeemed by the mystery of His passion, He does not regard the greatness and the fullness of the price, but He regards the part of the unfaithful ones and those not believing in faith those things which He has worked the rough love (Galatians 5:6), because the drink of human safety, which has been prepared by our infirmity and by divine strength, has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal." - Council of Quiercy 853 CE
Hi Michael it is good to hear from you. I checked out your blog and quite honestly you probably need to look a little deeper into Luther's writings and the history behind the reformation. But that is not the purpose of my comment here. My comment is on the subject of which you seem to have some misunderstanding on, that is the "L" in the TULIP acrostic. So after some study this morning and thoughtful reflection I wish to draw your attention to the words of our mutual Lord in John 3:16 & 17:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son..."
"but in order that the world might be saved through him."
World or kosmos in the Greek has both a wide and narrow sense to it. It can refer both to those who inhabit the earth as well as in a moral sense i.e: worldliness.
Let's look at other passages found in John. Let's look specifically at the High Priestly prayer of Christ:
John 17:2: "to give eternal life to all whom you have given him."
John 17:6: "whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word."
John 17:9: "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours."
John 17:11: "I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world."
John 17:14: "I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world."
John 17:16: "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world."
Here we have God loving the world (being sent into it) and also not loving it (does not pray for it). This appears to be a contradiction. How can we join them together?
Can there be any other explanation but this one: God loves those in the world whom the Father has given to the Son. He came to the earth to redeem them to Himself so that they might be where He is.
Seems like a case for limited atonement to me.
All scripture ought be read in light of God's elective purpose that man cannot in anywise thwart. Every one of your passages that you say proves that universal salvation is the norm, must not contradict the rest of scripture that purports to demonstrate God's elective measures he exercises towards His children.
In Christ,
-Joe
Tortoise,
John is writing a Gospel account that zeros in on the deity of Christ. He is speaking to those who believe i.e. the Church of God. More specifically to those within a narrow border probably Israel. But the world is obviously larger than Israel. The Pax Romana enabled the Gospel of Christ to spread quickly throughout the known world. This is the world that John is talking about. Israel was attached to its traditions so much that they wanted to regulate new believers who were accepting Christ from the Greek world. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy didn't he? They tried to get the new believers to follow the law. It was Christ + something. It is still that way today isn't it?
I personal accept and believe in "sola scriptura" or more completely Sola Fide - Sola Gratia - Sola Scriptura simply because it is not scripture + something or faith + something or grace + something else. James and Paul come from two compatible perspectives on faith.
Firstly, it is impossible without faith to please God (Hebrews 11); Paul points to faith being prerequisite to believe But James says that faith without works is dead. His point is that if you say you believe then you will do good works. Totally compatible approaches.
Lastly, you are not saying anything different than the Arminians who agree with you on unlimited atonement. But you really need to rethink your understanding of the scripture you referenced for proof. I already said this to Michael Gormley.
-Joe
Dear Joe,
Protestant churches cannot teach that they are the 'One True Church' which Jesus Christ founded because none of them can trace their origin back 2000 years to Jesus Christ when He founded His Church in Matthew 16:18.
If all Protestantism was united in the Holy Spirit, then how can you explain that Calvinists believe Baptism is a Sacrament, but Baptists do not?
How do you explain that Lutherans say that Mary is the Mother of GOD, but Evangelicals say she is not?
How do you explain that Episcopalians believe man has free will, yet Presbyterians deny it? You can go on and on through all 38,000 non-Catholic Christian sects and see differences of opinion. If all Christian Churches taught the same thing then there would be only one Church, as there was for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
The Catholic Church Stands Alone!
Joe,
There are many Bible verses which tell us that individual interpretation of the Bible simply cannot be done without divine assistance...
Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures."
So it took Jesus Christ to open the minds of the Apostles so that they could teach others in the truth.
Do you believe likewise that Jesus Christ opened the minds of each of the leaders of all those 38,000 non-Catholic sects? If so, why is there so much disagreement between them?
Acts 8:27-40, the eunuch was trying to read Isaiah when Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?" But he said, "Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?"
Since Philip had been filled by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, he was able to explain the truth of Isaiah to the eunuch.
2Peter 1:20, St. Peter said, "This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION." I do not see how Peter could have said it any plainer than he did here. Why do Protestants ignore verses such as this one?
2Peter 3:16-17, St. Peter said, "...In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, WHICH THE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE DISTORT, JUST AS THEY DO THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES ALSO, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BE ON YOUR GUARD LEST, CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF THE FOOLISH, YOU FALL AWAY FROM YOUR STEADFASTNESS."
Here is a very clear warning that it is easy to fall into error by private interpretation of Scripture.
Michael and aka Tortoise?
On Divisions in the Church:
1 Corinthians 3:1-17
There is great liberality in doctrine between protestant denominations. The scriptures do not forbid such diversity though all things will be equalized once we see our Lord face to face. Paul in this passage talks about the type of divisions that are problematic. This being said, not all protestant churches agree rightly and certainly the Catholic Church has plenty of problems - too many to list regarding false doctrine/tradition (where I wonder where some of this stuff is in the holy scriptures etc!) I just attended a Mass recently - by the way. My pastor was raised Catholic and my family, on my father's side, is practically militant regarding the Catholic Church as I gather you are based on your web site. You are NOT going to send me down that fruitless path because it is not serving anyone in their pursuit of truth. So after I do my best to answer your charges I will not hear of this again unless you have something of value to give to the discussion and topic at hand instead of your jaw about the Catholic Church being the only church as your comments imply. That goes for your altar ego Tortoise too.
There is little doubt in my mind, putting the details aside and tending to the person of Christ and the grace he offers freely enabling men to believe, is that there are two ways of understanding His grace and the Catholics can be grouped together with the Arminian churches of Protestantism. I am obviously making a general statement. But if you want to read about what I mean I invite you to peruse the blog; I give ample evidence and proof. As far as your accusation (to me) about adding to scripture etc (Tortoise) you really should not throw stones. Again there is plenty on the blog to defend my viewpoints that suggest the Gospel viewed from a reformed position is superior. The logic, reasons and biblical evidence is overwhelming. your appeal to tradition and history really carries little weight. I'll look to the book of Acts, Romans, etc as how the church of God (the people of God) really ought to behave themselves. As far as Luther is concerned, I think he did the right thing in separating himself from the heinous abuses that pervaded Christendom at that time. That memory still leaves a bad taste even today in the mouths of those who might have listened to the Gospel of our Blessed Redeemer. In conclusion to this digression, the scripture declares that what you think about these matters God will make clear to all who are mature (Philippians 3:15). So I pray that you would listen instead (be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry) to what some of these "protestant" churches are saying about the person of Christ and seek to do His will.
In Christ,
Joe
Post a Comment