Posts Tagged ‘Particular Redemption

28
May
18

If God is For Us

 

In Romans 8:31, Paul asks his readers to begin to draw encouraging conclusions and he does so by asking a series of rhetorical questions intended to lead them to rejoice in the absolute certainty of their final glorification. It should not escape our attention that he does so, not by asking them to focus on a decision they have made but on the salvific work of the Triune God.

In that verse, Paul asks his readers to begin to draw encouraging conclusions and he does so by asking a series of rhetorical questions intended to lead them to rejoice in the absolute certainty of their final glorification.

It is to the first series of questions that I would like to draw your attention and then leave you with a question. Paul asks, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?” Then, as evidence that God is for believers, he writes concerning this God, “He that did not spare his own Son but delivered him up for us all [In the context he is clearly referring to all those who have been foreknown, predestined, called according to his purpose and justified by his grace through faith in Christ.]” then asks, “How shall he not along with him [the greatest gift he could give] freely give us all things [all the lesser gifts that belong to salvation including glorification].” His point is that if God is for us and if Jesus gave his life for the purpose of securing our redemption, our glorification is certain. In whatever sense God “gave Him up for us all,” He also “gives (the same people) all things.” After all, the “will he not also along with him freely give us all things?” is clearly rhetorical and expects an emphatic “Yes,” not an “I will…If you decide.”

I am amazed at the number of professing Christian people who will quite unabashedly state that Jesus did not save anyone by his death. Additionally, they will be quick to add that it was their faith that saved them. If one should ask them about the origin of that faith, they never seem to even question the idea that God has given a measure of faith to everyone without exception, then it is up to us to decide for or against Jesus. Apparently, the idea of God giving a measure of faith to every person is taken from a gross misrepresentation of Romans 12:3 that speaks of God granting to each believer a measure of faith for the exercise of the gift God has given them. There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that has granted to sinners universally the ability to believe.

It is difficult to blame these people because they are merely parroting what they have been told from “Evangelical” pulpits. In fact, I think they are rather astute in drawing the conclusion from what they have heard that Jesus did not save anyone by his death. If he accomplished no more for those who would believe than for those who will perish for eternity, his death, in itself, did not save anyone. If his death did not save everyone it was intended to redeem, it could not have, in itself, saved anyone it was intended to redeem.

We often hear the analogy of a ship being dispatched for the rescue of shipwreck victims who are in danger of drowning. To effect this rescue, the captain of the ship instructs his crew to throw a life ring into the water. He must not do anything more because if he did, he might violate the free will of the perishing. Apparently, since he has not determined to save any of these victims but merely to give them the potential for salvation by tossing the life ring, it is conceivable they will all perish because he clearly cares more about the preservation of their free will than about their rescue. If any are rescued, it will be solely because they made the right decision and grabbed the life ring. The life ring is nothing but the means of rescue. The true savior is the victim who is willing to use the means provided to get himself to safety.

This is far different from the image the Bible paints for us. In the biblical picture, the victims are murderous and pillaging pirates who have attacked the very ship that is being sent for their rescue. They are hostile toward the captain and his crew and would rather perish than dine at his table. At his own peril, the captain’s son dives into the frigid water, overcomes their hostility and brings them to safety. Had they been left to the ability of their wills, their doom would have been certain.

The question I would like you to ponder is this. Assuming for the sake of argument that synergists are correct in their views, would one not have to assume that God is for every person without exception and that he gave his Son to make salvation possible for every sinner without exception? Would we not have to conclude that God gave up his Son in that sense for every sinner? And if that is the case, how can one escape the conclusion that God has pledged himself to grant “all things” that belong to salvation including glorification to every sinner without exception?

Advertisements
03
Feb
16

CALVINISTIC EVANGELISM–CHAPTER FOURTEEN–VICTORIOUS REDEMPTION (PART TWO)

Exegetical Evidence Continued

Propitiation Vindicates God’s Righteousness (Romans 3:24-26)

 

In the first two and a half chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul has labored to demonstrate the universal need for justification before God. His argument has emphasized the vast gulf that exists between God’s unsullied holiness and unbending righteousness and the sinner’s rebellious depravity and aggravated guilt. He has distilled this argument succinctly in chapter one, verse eighteen. He wrote, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold [hold down or suppress] the truth in unrighteousness.” This verse reveals to us not only the sinner’s failure to live in conformity to God’s law but also his rebellious suppression of God’s truth wherever and in whatever way that truth is revealed (See chapter three and seventeen of this book for a fuller treatment of this passage). He has concluded the entire section by quoting or alluding to a number of Old Testament passages that assert that there is not even one member of Adam’s fallen race that is righteous in God’s holy sight.  All, both Jews and Gentiles are under sin (3:9), “. . .all sinned and are falling short of God’s glory” (3:23). Yet, Paul boldly states that believers have been justified freely by grace (3:24). The logical question that should leap to everyone’s mind, at this point, concerns the essential character of God himself. Does God’s absolute sovereignty over his creation allow him simply to overlook his creatures’ persistent violations of his righteous standard, or must even God act in keeping with his standard of righteousness? What are we to make of texts like Exodus 34:6 and Nahum 1:3 that tell us that God will by no means clear the guilty? Is that not precisely what he has done in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 4:5)? How could God have declared Abraham, David, and a multitude of other believers during the Old Testament period righteous in his sight when they were clearly guilty of grievous violations of his holy law? This was the great question that plagued C. H. Spurgeon while he was in the conversion process. He wrote, “I felt that it would not satisfy my conscience if I could be forgiven unjustly. But then there came the question, “How could God be just, and yet justify me who had been so guilty” (Spurgeon, n.d., 16-17)?  It is just at this point that the gospel preacher must pour the healing balm of the gospel into those gaping and festering wounds that have been left by the ravages of sin. It is significant that Paul did not broach this issue until he had identified his readers as those who had been “justified freely by his grace.” It is at this point, and not before, that he begins to explain what God was accomplishing in setting forth his Son [publicly placarding him] as a satisfaction of his wrath [propitiation] in his blood, through faith. God intended Christ’s redemptive work not merely to form the basis for the sinner’s justification, but to publicly vindicate his own righteousness in declaring sinners to be righteous. Paul’s argument was that God had pardoned [had passed over without punishing them with the full penalty they deserved] the sins of many who lived during the Old Testament period without any visible basis for doing so righteously. The good news Paul preached was that God has thoroughly satisfied his own rigorous demands of strict justice, so that he might be both just and justifier. It would be unrighteous of God and unsatisfying to the awakened sinner’s conscience for him to justify sinners without his demands having been satisfied.  In commenting on the peaceful relationship the justified enjoy with God, Charles Hodge wrote,

 

Peace is not the result of mere gratuitous forgiveness, but of justification, of a reconciliation founded upon atonement. The enlightened conscience is never satisfied until it sees that God can be just in justifying the ungodly; that sin has been punished, the justice of God satisfied, his law honored and vindicated. It is when he thus sees justice and mercy embracing each other, that the believer has that peace which passes all understanding; that sweet quiet of the soul in which deep humility, in view of personal unworthiness, is mingled with the warmest gratitude to that Savior by whose blood God’s justice has been satisfied, and conscience appeased (Hodge, 1953, 206).

 

I have offered a brief explanation of this passage primarily to show the timing of the gospel proclamation, “Christ died for you/us.” This message is not intended for those who prefer their sin over righteousness, but for those who have been brought, by grace, to embrace Christ in the free offer of the gospel.

 

In addition to this, there are several other observations I would like to make before leaving this passage. I do not intend to elaborate on these points, but simply state them in the form of questions/propositions and leave it to you to draw conclusions. Consider the following:

 

  1. The phrase “sins that are past” does not refer to pre-conversion sins, but to sins committed prior to the dawning of the New Covenant era.
  2. Christ’s work of propitiation mentioned here related not to those who were yet to be born and to whom this work would either be appropriated by libertarian free will or applied by effectual calling, rendering it effectual for those to whom it was applied or not applied at all if they continued in unbelief. For those about whom Paul speaks in this passage, justification [or non-imputation of sins] had already occurred before Jesus completed the work of propitiation. In this case, the work could not be considered “potential” since the application [or non-application] had occurred before the propitiation was made.
  3. If God’s righteous requirements needed to be met in the work of propitiation in order for him to be just in justifying sinners, what would be required for him to be righteous in condemning sinners for whom Jesus had fully satisfied God’s righteous wrath toward them? For the Arminian/Amyraldian, this question can only be answered by supplying the word “potential” before the word propitiation, but unfortunately for them, the phrase “potential propitiation” never occurs in Scripture.
  4. It should be clear that the propitiation in view was offered for a particular purpose in reference to “the sins God passed over” without the full punishment they deserved. There is nothing mentioned in this passage about any work of satisfying God’s wrath on behalf of those whose sins he had not passed over. Are we to believe God intended Jesus’ work of propitiation to satisfy his wrath on behalf of those who had already perished in pagan darkness and unbelief when he died? Sound reason would dictate that God did not intend the propitiatory work of Christ to satisfy his wrath for those who had already died and were facing condemnation in judgment.

 

Objective Reconciliation While We Were Enemies (Romans 5:1-12)

 

In the entire context of Romans five through eight, Paul is driving home a single point. That point is that God will certainly bring all his justified people to glory.  If God has justified us, he will certainly glorify us. Paul has set forth this theme by saying “we rejoice in hope [confident assurance] of the glory of God” (5:2). Consider the broad outline of this passage. We are certain to be glorified because:

I.We have a new relationship with God (5:1-11).

II.We have a new representative before God (5:12-19).

III.We are under a new reign (5:20-21).

Parenthesis in which Paul considers four objections answered by “May it never be!” (μἠ γἐνοιτο) (6:1-7:25)
A.  Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound 6:1-14)?

B.  Shall we continue in sin because we are not under law but under grace (6:15-7:6)?

C.  What shall we say? Is the Law Sin (7:7-12)?

D.  Did that which is good [the Law] become death to me (7:13-25).?

 

IV. We are under a new rule and ruler—the ministry of the Spirit (8:1-17).

V.  Paul describes the glory that shall be and assures his readers that it is certain because we have the “first-fruits,” namely, the Holy Spirit who now helps our weaknesses (8:18-27).

VI.  We are the objects of divine resolve (8:28-30).

  • Conclusion: What shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can prevail against us (8:31-39).
  1. He has delivered up his Son for us, he will certainly grant us every other gift of his grace that belongs to our salvation, including glorification (8:32).
  2. God has justified his elect ones. Who is going to successfully accuse us before the supreme court of the universe (8:33).
  3. Christ is the one who died for us, rose for us, sits at God’s right hand for us, and intercedes for us. Who will successfully condemn us (8:34).
  4. Nothing whatsoever shall separate us from Christ’s love. Through him who loves us, we are more than conquerors (8:35-39).

 

It is important that we understand to whom Romans 5:1-11 was addressed. Since we considered that issue in Chapter Two of this book, I will refer you to that chapter. Suffice it to say that when Paul made reference to “us” in this passage, he was not referring to “us human beings” but to “us believers.” His argument in these verses is that since we have a new relationship with God through Christ’s work of reconciliation, it is certain that we will be saved by his life. The entire passage speaks to us of a new relationship that God has established between himself and believers. When he wrote, “Therefore, being justified through faith, we have peace with God. . .,” he was not referring to a feeling of tranquility that results from having been forgiven. Instead, he was referring to the fact that we have now been introduced to a new standing with God, in which his holy enmity against us has come to a decisive end. His argument throughout this section of the Epistle rests on the establishment of this new relationship that God has accomplished through the death of his Son.

 

Christ’s work of reconciling sinners to God is closely related to his work of propitiation. His work of propitiation focuses our attention on the problem of God’s wrath and his gracious provision in the sacrifice of his Son to satisfy his righteous demands and quell his holy wrath. His work of reconciliation focuses our attention on the sinner’s estrangement from God and his redemptive activity in restoring sinners to a state of amity. Because of Christ work of reconciliation, believers have now become God’s friends. Paul’s argument is that if God loved us and gave his Son to reconcile us to himself when we were his enemies, he will certainly not cast us away now that we are his friends.

 

It is important that we observe several important factors in this passage before we arrive at a conclusion concerning the objects of redemptive design:

 

  1. It is into the hearts of believers alone that the Holy Spirit has abundantly poured out God’s love (v.5).
  2. The Spirit demonstrates that love in his ministry of “glorifying Christ by taking the things of Christ and showing them unto his people” (see John 16:14) by pointing us to his victorious redemptive work. The word “For” (γάρ) links verses five and six. Nothing demonstrates God’s love for his people so effectively as the fact that he has given the best that heaven could offer to die for the vilest and most recalcitrant rebel who will repent.
  3. When Paul writes about Christ dying for the ungodly, he is not concerned with the identity of those for whom he died but the nature of those for whom he died. He died not for godly people but for helpless sinners. It was while we still sinners that Christ died for us [the same people into whose hearts the Holy Spirit has poured out his love] (v.8).
  4. Justification by Christ’s blood (v. 9) is parallel to “being reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” while we were enemies. This objective work of reconciliation did not occur at the point of application, but at the point of accomplishment. At the point of application, believers were no longer at enmity against God and his holy hostility was no longer engaged against us.
  5. Reconciliation in verse ten does not refer to our putting away our unholy hostility toward God but to God putting away his holy enmity toward us. Like justification, reconciliation is an objective work of God, i.e., a work that occurs outside of us.
  6. Paul distinguishes between the objective work God has accomplished in Christ’s death (v. 10) and the subjective reception of that reconciliation “. . .through whom we have now received the reconciliation” (v.11). Those who receive the reconciliation are those and only those for whom God has objectively accomplished this work in the death of his Son.
  7. The “much more then” statements in verses nine and ten introduce an a fortiori Paul’s argument is that if God has granted us a greater gift, he will not withhold a lesser gift. If he has given his Son to die for us while we were still his enemies, he will certainly save us [in the ultimate sense of that word] from wrath through him.

 

Paul is not speaking here of a potential reconciliation but of an objective reconciliation that God accomplished in the death of his Son. His argument is not that if we have “now received the reconciliation” so that God has not only put away his holy enmity toward us but we have cast away the weapons of our rebellion against him, we are certain to be saved from wrath through him. Instead, he argues that if God loved us when we were still his enemies, he will certainly save us [glorify us] in connection with his resurrection life.

 

Based on Paul’s argument in this passage, if we insist that Jesus died for every sinner equally and in the same way, we must conclude that God will ultimately save every sinner from wrath through him. Alternately, we could conclude, as many have done, that the work of Christ did not secure the final salvation of any for whom he died. If Jesus’ death did not secure the salvation of everyone for whom he died, it did not secure the salvation of anyone for whom he died. That would be “limited atonement” indeed.

 

Paul returns to this argument in chapter eight of this Epistle where he asks, “If God is for us, who can be [prevail] against us?” He answers the question using the same greater to lesser argument.  He writes, “He that did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not, along with him [the greater gift], also graciously give us all things [the lesser gifts].” (Rom. 8:32).  The “all things” about which he writes are all things that belong to salvation, including glorification. There is not the slightest hint of potentiality here. His argument is that if God has given his Son to die for us, our final glorification has been secured. The “for us all” in this context cannot refer to all sinners without exception but to the foreknown [fore-loved], to those whom God has predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, to the called according to his purpose, to the justified etc. If we understand “us all” to refer to the entire human family, we must conclude that God has promised the enjoyment of every spiritual blessing to every person without exception.

 

Christ Our Representative Head (Romans 5:12-19)

 

Since I expounded on this passage in relation to the imputation of Adam’s sin in the chapter on “The Nature and Extent of the Sinner’s Fallen Condition,” I will simply ask you to refer to that chapter for a review of its structure and general argument. Suffice it to say that the apostle was expounding on the typical relationship that exists between Adam and Christ. Understanding that relationship is essential to understanding the absolute certainty of the believer’s glorification. The essential point of theological correspondence between Adam and Christ is that they are both divinely appointed representatives of those who are united to them by divine decree. Paul’s point in this passage was not simply to introduce the doctrine of original sin as an interesting theological exercise without any particular connection to his overall argument, but to advance his argument concerning the firm ground of the believer’s justification and the consequent certainty of his glorification. That argument is quite simple. The believer’s justification is absolutely secure and his glorification certain because neither his justification nor his glorification depends on the perfection of his obedience or the tenacity of his faith, but on the obedience to death of his representative.

 

Paul is not here setting forth the possibility of justification and ultimate glorification for all without exception but the certainty of these blessings for all represented by Christ in his obedience and death. Just as the death and destruction that have occurred as a result of Adam’s transgression are not potential in nature, so the life and blessings that have resulted from Christ’s obedience are not a mere offer of grace but grace itself. For this reason, the “all” in the first half and the “all” in the last half of verse eighteen cannot be co-extensive. The first refers to the “all” represented by Adam and the second refers to the “all” represented by Christ. Paul’s argument in these verses is that just as Adam’s transgression guaranteed the condemnation of all those he represented, so Christ’s obedience has guaranteed the justification and ultimate glorification of all those he represented. Just as it was in the act of Adam’s transgression that we (by divine decree) were condemned, so it was in the act of redemption that we were (by divine decree) objectively justified.

 

All for Whom Christ Died Will Die with Him to the Reigning Power of Sin (Rom.6:1-10)

 

In Romans six, one, Paul begins to deal with an objection to his teaching about the freeness of justification before God. He had stated that sin and guilt can never be so great that grace cannot super abound in forgiving the guilt of that sin (see Rom. 5:21). In verse one of chapter six he introduces an objection (whether real or anticipated) to this teaching. It is as follows, “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may overflow [increase]? His answer is powerful. He writes, “May it never be, for how shall we who have died to sin, go on living in it?” His teaching is this: If Christ has died for us, then we have died with him to the reign of sin over us. He does not say “If Christ has died for us, we OUGHT TO DIE with him,” but “we have died with him.”

 

Paul expressed this idea in 2 Cor. 5:14-15.  He was explaining why he lives to please Christ and does not continue to please himself. He answered, “Because the love of Christ [probably Christ’s love for him] controls us. The word translated “controls” has the idea of confining and restricting.  Christ’s love did not allow Paul to go on living for himself.  Then he wrote, “. . . we have come to this decision because if one died for all, then all died. . .” The A.V. has translated this verse differently but without any textual justification. In that version, the text reads “if one died for all then were all dead,” but the verb “died” is in the same tense in both parts of the verse. In both cases, it should be translated “died.”

 

If we insist that Jesus died for everyone without exception, then we must conclude that everyone without exception has died [or will die] with him to the reigning power of sin. This clearly is not the case.

 

 

Christ’s Work of Sacrifice and His Work of Intercession Are Inseparably Linked (Romans 8:34)

 

In Romans eight, verse thirty-four, Paul asked, “Who is he that condemns? Then answered, “It is Christ that died, who is also risen, who is even at God’s right hand, who also makes intercession for us.” It should not escape our attention that he had, in the previous verse, made reference to the absolute judicial invulnerability of God’s elect to condemnation. He wrote, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God who justifies.” He did not intend to deny that there are many who will rise to accuse us. Instead, he denied that anyone could be successful in an attempt secure a guilty verdict from the Supreme Ruler of the universe.

 

Sound reason would lead one to understand that the reference to “us” in verse thirty-four refers to none other than “the elect” who are the acquitted ones of verse thirty-three. In fact, the references to “us” and “we” throughout the entire passage designate believers/elect ones. Additionally, verse thirty-four states four reason why God’s elect cannot be successfully prosecuted. It is not God’s love for his elect that forms the basis for our justification before him. Instead, it was his love that moved him to accomplish the redemptive work that formed the righteous basis for our full pardon. Thus, there is a clear link between the acquittal of the “elect” in verse thirty-three and the redemptive work of Christ in verse thirty-four. If the result of Christ’s redemptive work is the justification of the elect, that consequence must have been by divine design and intention.

 

Additionally, as in other passages of the New Testament, there is here a clear link between Christ’s sacrificial death and his work of intercession. His work as our advocate involves the perpetual presentation of his redemptive work before the Father’s throne. We must never imagine that he advocates for anyone other than those for whom his propitiatory sacrifice was offered and visa versa. The writer to the Hebrews teaches the same truth but couches it in a different theological motif. He writes, not of an advocate before a court, but of a high priest before the ark of the Covenant. The blood the high priest sprinkled on the mercy seat was sprinkled for none but those for whom the sacrifice had been offered in the outer court of the Tabernacle. The work of sacrifice and the work of intercession are co-extensive. If we insist that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice to redeem all without exception, we will not be able to escape the conclusion that he is also interceding for all without exception.

 

One of the favorite proof-texts of those who insist on the potential universality of Jesus’ redeeming work is 1 John two, verse two. Yet, one would think few would argue that Jesus is actually acting as an advocate for unbelievers who will finally perish in their sins. If such is the nature of his advocacy, believers need better advocate. The ground of our confidence is that “If anyone should sin, we have an Advocate with Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one, and he is the propitiation for our sins. . .” If even one of those whose case he pleads is finally lost, then all for whom he acts as advocate may be lost. And if such should prove to be the case, then all the ground of the believer’s blessed consolation has crumbled.

 

Jesus’ advocacy and his propitiatory sacrifice are inseparably linked. If we understand the phrase “whole world” to refer to every individual without exception, we cannot escape the conclusion that his advocacy will prove in the end to have been a miserable failure and can grant the believer no present solace. If Jesus is the propitiation for those who will finally perish, he will have also been their ineffectual advocate, and if they can be lost notwithstanding his best efforts on their behalf, believers have no security or ground of confidence.

 

When a person stridently contends that we must tell every sinner, “Jesus died for you,” he is insisting that we proclaim to the unconverted a message they do not need to hear. The only message they need to hear is that God has commanded them to repent and that he promises that if they do so, he will freely and abundantly pardon them. An unintended consequence will be that in proclaiming that Jesus accomplished no more for believers than for those perishing in their sins, we rob believers of the ground of their joy and consolation.

 

Our ground of exultation is that there is no one, not even God himself, who will condemn us because “It is Christ that died for us, rose for us, sits at the Father’s right hand for us and makes intercession for us.” Augustus Toplady has beautifully expressed the believer’s ground of confidence in the words of one of his great hymns: He wrote,

 

Complete atonement thou hast made,

And to the utmost farthing paid

Whate’re thy people owed;

How then can can wrath on me take place,

If sheltered in thy righteousness,

And sprinkled with thy blood?

 

If Thou hast my discharge procured,

And freely in my room endured

The whole of wrath divine,

Payment God cannot twice demand,

First at my bleeding surety’s hand,

And then again at mine.

 

Universal atonement abolishes that foundation without remedy.

 

Preaching the Saving Work of Christ

 

If Jesus’ redeeming work was not intended to secure the salvation of every sinner, how can we preach the gospel freely to all without exception. To answer this question, I have paraphrased a passage from Robert Haldane’s commentary on Romans. These were his comments on Romans chapter five.

Many seem to believe if they are going to proclaim the gospel they must tell every sinner Christ died for him. Additionally, they believe that if Jesus did not die to take away the sins of every individual, they cannot preach the gospel. This is very erroneous. The gospel declared that Christ died for the guilty and that the guiltiest sinner who believes shall be saved… ‘It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’ even the chief of sinners. The gospel does not tell every individual to whom we addressed it that Christ died for him. Instead, it simply tells him that if he believes, he will be saved. On this basis, we can proclaim the gospel to every sinner. It is only after a person has believed the gospel that he can know Christ died for him individually. Since the Bible reveals that whoever believes shall be saved, it is quite consistent to proclaim the gospel to all sinners and declare that they will be saved if they believe. If the guiltiest person in the human race should believe, it is an absolute certainty that he would be saved. If anyone feels he cannot proclaim the gospel freely and has difficulty calling everyone to faith unless he can say, “Jesus died for every member of the human race,” he does not clearly understand what the gospel is. It is the good news that Christ died for the guiltiest who believe, not that he died for every individual whether he should believe or not [emphasis mine]. To the truth that every person who believes shall be saved there is no exception. The only sins that will not find God’s forgiveness are those that belong to sinners who refuse to believe the gospel; if they believe, they will be saved. . ..

Some would have a problem calling sinners to believe in Christ if His redeeming work was not intended for every sinner. This is no different from the difficulty some experience when they feel restrained in calling on sinners indiscriminately to believe the gospel because they know God will never save those he has not chosen for eternal life. Here is where they go wrong. According to the commandment of the everlasting God, we are to make the gospel known to all nations for the obedience of faith. It is certain those whom God has not graciously chosen and for whom Christ did not die will never believe. These are secret things that belong to God alone. They will be made known at the proper time. . .. We are not to inquire first, either for ourselves or others, about the identity of the chosen ones or the redeemed before we determine to whom we should preach the gospel. We must preach it to all, assured that whoever believes it shall receive forgiveness. When we believe the gospel, we come to understand for ourselves that Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree. We learn that, from the beginning, God has chosen us to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

The work of Christ is of unlimited value. The reason all are not saved by it has nothing to do with insufficient value but simply because it was not intended to redeem all. In itself it was valuable enough to take away all the sins of mankind, had that been God’s intention. If Christ’s sacrifice had not been sufficient for all, it would not have been sufficient for anyone. Every sinner who will be saved needed a redemptive act of unlimited value; no more could be required to redeem every individual. We proclaim the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work to all who hear the gospel. We invite all to rely on it for pardon and acceptance. We address them as freely as if we knew God had designed it for them from all eternity. All who rely on it in saving faith shall surely experience its power and unlimited value (Haldane, 1966, 203).

Conclusion

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this inquiry is that the death of Christ was intended not merely to provide the possibility of salvation for sinners, but to effectually accomplish salvation for those God has chosen.  As should be clear, no true Calvinist questions the abundant sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work. The only issue dividing evangelicals is whether his death was intended to save all, to make all savable, or effectively to secure the salvation of a multitude no man can number. Since, as I have shown, his death guaranteed freedom from the reigning power of sin, effectual intercession and final glorification for all for whom He died, we can arrive at only one conclusion. God intended Jesus’ death effectively to secure these spiritual blessings for all those, but only for those, who believe the gospel.

It is not faith in the promises of God or faith in Christ that justifies sinners before God, it is Christ who justifies, through faith. Faith does not form any part of the basis of our justification. It is not that Jesus did His part by dying, we do our part by believing, and these acts taken together turn God’s wrath away. No,

 

Jesus paid it all.

All to Him I owe;

Sin has left a crimson stain,

He washed it white as snow.

 

Haldane, Robert,  The Epistle to the Romans, (London:The Banner of Truth Trust), 1966.

Hodge, Charles, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,) 1953.

Spurgeon, C.H., All of Grace, (www.philmorgan.org), nd.

 

Please visit my author’s page–www.amazon.com/author/randyseiver

 

02
Feb
16

CALVINISTIC EVANGELISM-CHAPTER FOURTEEN-Victorious Redemption (Part One)

 

There is perhaps no issue that impacts our evangelistic proclamation as deeply as that of the nature of Christ’s redeeming work. Those who believe in salvific synergism, i.e., that salvation results from a combination of God’s work and the sinner’s cooperation with him, have insisted that we cannot proclaim the gospel unless we are able to say to every sinner we meet, “Jesus died for you.” The issue I would like to consider in this chapter concerns the accuracy of that contention. I would assert that not only is that idea erroneous but that it is highly destructive to the biblical gospel.

 

The Issue

 

Before we proceed with a consideration of this doctrine, I would like to clarify the issue under discussion. I want to say at the outset that I do not regard a glib citing of a list of out of context proof-text a legitimate approach to resolving this issue. It is naïve and simplistic to suppose that such an intricate issue can be resolved by locating texts that use the words “all,” “world,” and “every man,” in relation to Christ’s death. Is there anyone who would argue that the apostle Paul actually met and preached the gospel to every person in the known world? I suspect not, yet I can offer a clear text that states unequivocally that he warned and taught every man. He wrote, “. . .which is Christ among you, the hope of glory whom we preach, warning every man and teaching every man that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 2:27-28). Would it be reasonable to accuse a person who suggested that the words “every man” in these verses does not refer to every individual on the face of the earth of failure to believe the Scriptures? I think not. Yet, those who believe Jesus is a redeemer who truly redeems are often accused of pursuing a philosophical system and failing to believe the Scriptures.

 

The concern of the New Testament writers was to show that Jesus’ redeeming work was universal in the true sense of that term. They used the word κόσμος (kosmos) translated “world” to refer to sinners from every nation as opposed to sinners from the nation of Israel alone. One of the clearer expressions of this idea occurs in the song of the redeemed in Revelation, chapter five, verse nine. John wrote, “. . .and they sang a new song saying, ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals because you were slain and redeemed to God by your blood, men from [ἐκ—out of] every kindred, tongue, people and nation.” This accurately describes what the writers often meant when they used the word κόσμος (kosmos). It is exegetically irresponsible  simply to assign an English dictionary definition to a biblical word, then plug it in every time we encounter that word. Those who insist that κόσμος must always mean every person without exception bear the burden of proof to establish that contention. Additionally, we need to understand that the word “all” is often used to denote all without distinction and not all without exception. If we are to make any progress in understanding this important issue, it will require more than a proof-text approach to the matter. Instead, we will need to engage in a careful, exegetical study of the pertinent theological passages that relate specifically to this issue.

 

Since it is beyond the scope of this somewhat cursory examination of the foundation for biblical evangelism to scrutinize this issue in great depth, I would refer you to the author’s short book, A Faulty Compass: An Examination of Arminian Presuppositions, available at Amazon Kindle Books. For a fuller treatment of this issue I would recommend Definite Atonement by Gary Long Th.D., From Heaven He Came and Sought Her by David and Jonathan Gibson, Christ, Our Penal Substitute by Robert L. Dabney, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, by John Murray, and of course the classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen.

 

One of difficulties we face in dealing with this issue arises from a misunderstanding of the doctrine itself. This misunderstanding is due, at least in part, to faulty labeling. The Calvinistic doctrine has been referred to as “Limited Atonement” and this label has led to false suppositions. It has led to the assumption that Calvinists are concerned above all else to restrict the boundaries of divine beneficence. As I have tried to reflect in the title of this chapter, the true focus of the doctrine is that Jesus is a victorious redeemer who actually redeems his chosen people. In the days when the church actually sang theological hymns, we used to sing a song titled, “I will sing of my Redeemer” by Philip P. Bliss. The last line of the chorus reads like this— “On the cross, he sealed my pardon, paid the debt, and set me free.” The issue is whether those words are true or not. If the salvific synergists [usually known as Semi-Pelagians or Arminians] are right, then those words are in error.  In their view, Jesus did not seal anyone’s pardon on the cross. Professor John Murray wrote the following insightful comment,

 

Whether the expression “limited atonement” is good or not we must reckon with the fact that unless be believe in the final restoration of all men we cannot have an unlimited atonement. If we universalize the extent, we limit the efficacy. If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement itself is not efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. They have a “limited” atonement and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character. We shall have none of it (Murray, 1955, 64).

 

If we insist on telling every sinner we meet that Jesus died to redeem him, something no first century preacher ever told his unbelieving hearers, we unwittingly cut the theological legs from under much of the apostolic argumentation in the New Testament Scriptures. I want to consider several of those apostolic arguments later in this chapter, but for now I want you to understand that in telling sinners something they do not need to hear, we rob believers of truth they do need to hear. Our hope rests on the redeeming work of Christ alone, not on his death and our faith.

 

Three Evangelical Views

 

There are three main evangelical views regarding the nature of Jesus’ death; the Arminian view, the Amyraldian view, and the Calvinistic view.  These three groups view the death of Christ in radically different ways. Which of these do you think can most accurately speak of “the saving work of Christ?”

 

The Arminian View

 

The first is the Arminian view that Jesus’ death was intended to save all sinners but actually saves no one but believers.

 

That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (The Remonstrance, Article 2).

 

The Amyraldian View

 

The second is the view of the “hypothetical universalists” also known as Amyraldians, that Jesus’ death was universal in its scope in terms of its design which was to give all sinners the potential of salvation. According to this view, Jesus died equally for all sinners, yet, his death did not, in itself, secure the salvation of anyone. Only the application of Christ’s redeeming work secures salvation for the elect.

 

Moїse Amyraut posited the idea of two separate divine decrees relative to the redemptive work of Christ. According to him, God first decreed to provide redemption for every sinner, on the condition that they believe; a condition he acknowledged no sinner in a state of nature would be able to fulfill. According to him, Christ’s work was not only sufficient for all but was intended for all. Yet, he did not posit this idea in the sense that it secured the salvation of any sinner in particular. In reality, according to his view, the work of Christ in itself did not objectively accomplish the salvation of any sinner.

The second divine decree concerned the application of redemption to the elect. He argued that, by this second decree, God intended to bring the elect absolutely to saving faith.

 

He wrote,

 

. . .for this was the most free Counsel and gracious Purpose both of God the Father, in giving his Son for the Salvation of Mankind, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, in suffering the Pains of Death, that the Efficacy thereof should particularly belong unto all the Elect, and to them only, to give them justifying Faith, and by it to bring them infallibly unto Salvation, and thus effectually to redeem all those and none other, who were from all Eternity from among all People, Nations and Tongues, chosen unto Salvation.

 

Such statements form the source of the popular formula, “Sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.” Such a statement is fine as far as it goes, but it falls short in that it fails to specify the source of this efficiency. Was the work of Christ efficient in itself, or did it only become efficient in its application? The work of Christ was sufficient for all because of the nature of the person who died, not because of a second and contradictory decree that designed that it would be offered equally for all but with no saving efficacy in itself. According to hypothetical universalism, the death of Christ did not, in itself, secure salvation for anyone. It is because of this contradiction that the arguments that are usually leveled at the particular redemption position, if granted, would also be effective in arguing against the divine decree. It is my view that the true difficulty in understanding and accepting “limited atonement” is not so much with the concept of a limitation in Christ’s redeeming work as it is with the decree that determined that not all would be the objects of saving grace. Unless we accept a Universalist position, we must acknowledge that the effectiveness of Christ’s redeeming work is limited to believers.

 

The view that Jesus’ death was particularly designed for the elect in its application alone and not in its design faces a logical problem. One would assume that those who hold this view believe God has decreed all that actually occurs. If it happens in time, it must have been planned in eternity. If God the Father has limited Christ’s redeeming work in its application to the elect only so that only they actually come to saving faith, that limited application must have been decreed before time began. That is, if God designed Christ’s work to be applied only to the elect, he must have intended it to redeem only the elect. Its design cannot be both limited and unlimited at the same time unless one is content with the idea that God is self-contradictory. In reality, the entire idea of “sufficiency for all” seems irrelevant since Christ’s work only needs to be “sufficient” for those to whom God applies it in effectual calling.

 

Amyraut’s intent seems to have been to insure that no one could accuse God of injustice because he did not provide a remedy for his sins. The argument would run like this–If Jesus did not die for a person with the intention of saving him on the condition that he believe the gospel, he could plead in judgment that he was condemned not through his own fault, but for the lack of a remedy. In truth, if no remedy existed for anyone, all would be justly condemned and without a legal defense before God. It is not the existence of a remedy and one’s refusal of it that is the cause of guilt and condemnation. Sinners stand condemned as the result of sin. As we shall see, arguments such as those posited by hypothetical universalists are unnecessary since Calvinists generally agree that the work of Christ is abundantly sufficient to save every sinner if they should believe the gospel and that his death guarantees the salvation of the guiltiest sinner who will believe. Additionally, The Canons of Dort clearly state that sinners perish by their own fault and not through any deficiency in the work of Christ.

 

It is important to remember that the gospel call does not require sinners to believe Jesus died with the intention of saving them in particular. No biblical evangelist ever said to a sinner or to a group of sinners indiscriminately, “Jesus died for you.”  The promise of the gospel is that if you believe it, you will be saved. To this, there is no exception.

 

The Calvinistic View

The third view is the Calvinistic view that Jesus’ redeeming work is unlimited in its value, but particular in its design. It was designed actually to accomplish the salvation of God’s elect. In all these views there is a limitation. The first two view the work of Christ as limited in its effectiveness; it did not actually and objectively accomplish the salvation of anyone in particular. In regard to the second view, there was no objective accomplishment of propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, or justification. If we were to take either of the first two views, we could not speak of “the saving work of Christ,” since His sacrifice was offered equally for all. If it, in itself, did not accomplish the salvation of all for whom He died, it did not, in itself, accomplish the salvation of any for whom He died.

As we have seen, there is no debate over the sufficiency of Jesus’ redeeming work. Both Arminians and Calvinists acknowledge its sufficiency. His death was more than sufficient to redeem every sinner who has lived, is living, or shall ever live. It possesses such value because of the dignity of the one who was crucified. If he chose to save every sinner who ever existed, He would need to do no more than He has done. A.A. Hodge wrote,

 

Christ’s righteousness, therefore, consists of his obedience and death. That righteousness is precisely what the law demands of every sinner in order to justification before God. It is, therefore, in its nature adapted to all sinners who were under that law. Its nature is not altered by the fact that it was wrought out for a portion only of such sinners, or that it is secured to them by the covenant between the Father and the Son. What is necessary for the salvation of one man is necessary or the salvation of another and of all. It is also of infinite value, being the righteousness of the eternal Son of God, and therefore sufficient for all (Hodge, 1972 420).

 

The Canons of Dort make it clear that the issue in this doctrinal dispute has nothing to do with a limitation in the value and sufficiency of Jesus’ redemptive work. If all repented and believed, all would be saved. Additionally, it is clear that there is to be no limitation in the freeness of the gospel offer. The issue is whether God designed Christ’s redeeming work to make it possible for all to be saved without accomplishing the salvation of anyone in particular or to accomplish the salvation of all who would believe, i.e. those the Father had given the Son in the decree of election. I want to quote a rather large portion of the Canons so that you will be able to see these statements for yourself.

 

Canons of Dort–Second Head of Doctrine, “The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby.”

 

Article 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

 

Article 4. This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.

 

Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to all whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

 

Article 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect of insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

 

Article 7.  But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.

 

Can you imagine a stronger affirmation of the abundant sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work? Surely, the most committed Arminian could never have stated the truth about the sufficiency of Christ’s death more forcefully.

The real issue we need to address is whether God intended Jesus’ death merely to provide the possibility of salvation for all sinners or infallibly to secure salvation for every sinner the Father gave to the Son before he created the world. The answer of the of the Canons is this— “According to the sovereign counsel of God, the saving efficacy of the atoning death of Christ extends to all the elect [and to them only], so as to bring them infallibly to salvation” (Emphasis Mine).

 

The Design of Jesus’ Redemptive Work

 

Since there is little disagreement among evangelical Christians concerning the value of Jesus’ redeeming work or the freeness of the gospel offer, we need to focus on what the Bible teaches about the Father’s intention in sending his Son and the Son’s intention in coming. Was it God’s intention in sending his Son merely to make salvation possible for everyone but with the possibility that everyone might be damned despite his best efforts? Did Jesus give himself as a sacrifice merely to make sinners savable or did he die to secure the salvation of those the Father hand given him to redeem?

 

Potential or Actual?

The first issue concerns whether Scripture speaks Jesus’ death as potential or as actual. Did Jesus die merely to make it possible for us to be saved or did He die to secure the salvation of his elect people by His redemptive work?

The following are just a few of the many verses that speak about Jesus’ redemptive work on behalf of His people. Notice that these verses all represent His sacrificial death as an actual work of reconciliation, redemption, propitiation etc.

“You shall call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

“. . .to care for the church of God which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

“For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Romans 5:10).

“And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight” (Colossians 1:20-21).

“When he had made purification of sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3).

“But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all [for all time], having obtained eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:11-12).

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18).

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

Notice all these verses indicate it was His work on the cross, not the application of that work, that accomplished the salvation of His people. For example, the reconciliation about which Paul writes in Romans 5:10 is objective, not subjective in nature. That is, it occurred outside our experience, “when we were still enemies.”

Additionally, notice the words “potential” and “possible” are not even implied in any of these verses relative to the work of Christ. His work is represented as an actual accomplishment, not a tenuous provision.

 

This is the Will of Him Who Sent Me

 

Since, as we have seen, the issue is the design of Christ redeeming work, it would seem to make sense to examine passages of Scripture that state the purpose of the Father in sending his Son and the unity of the Trinity in pursuing that design. There is no paucity of biblical passages that actually address this issue. Jesus addressed it quite unequivocally when he said, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day” (John 6:38-39). I want to revisit this passage when I discuss “prevenient grace” vs. effectual calling/drawing, but for now I would like to make a few observations about these two verses:

 

  1. There is an indissoluble unity of purpose among the persons of the Trinity in the plan, accomplishment and application of redemption. Jesus here stated that he had not come down from heaven to pursue a purpose that was different from or contrary to his Father’s will. He had pursued that line of argument extensively in chapter five of this Gospel.
  2. As he did in verse thirty-seven of this chapter, he here employs a negative statement to emphasize a positive truth. When he said, “. . .he who comes to me, I will never by any means cast out” (v. 37), he intended his hearers to understand that he would by all means save and keep all who came to him in genuine faith. In stating that it was the Father’s will that he should not lose one individual of all that he had given him, he intended to emphasize the point that it was the Father’s will that he should certainly secure the salvation of all those he had given him.
  3. It was the work of the Son to secure the salvation of all those the Father had given him in the eternal decree. It was not the work of the Son to make salvation a possibility for all, so that the Father and the Spirit or alternately the sinner’s libertarian free will might make salvation effectual in the application phase of redemption. He said, “. . .that of all those he has given me, I should lose nothing [or I should certainly save and keep].” In John ten, verse sixteen he stated that he had other sheep that were not of the fold of Israel. It should be clear to any unbiased reader that these sheep were not yet believers since he said “them also I must bring, and they shall [future tense] hear my voice. . .” Please notice that he does not say “I must make it possible for them to be brought” but “I must bring them.” It was his work to secure their salvation. Additionally, Jesus prayed in his intercessory prayer, “. . .since you have given him authority over all flesh to give eternal life to all you have given him” (John 17:2). It was the work of the Son to secure eternal life for those given to him in the eternal decree, not to provide a possibility of salvation.
  4. The phrase, “raise it up again at the last day” points up the unity of the Trinity in the accomplishment of redemption. In verse thirty-nine, Jesus used it to refer to both those the Father had given him and to those he would certainly save and keep. He describes these people in verse forty as those who “see the Son and believe on him” and declares that he will raise them up on the last day. In verse forty-four he not only affirms the sinner’s inability to respond positively to the gospel apart from the Father’s drawing, but uses this phrase again to show that all those who are thus drawn by the Father will be those who “see the Son and believe on him.”

 

In his intercessory prayer recorded in John seventeen, Jesus clearly stated the purpose of the mission his Father had given him. He prayed, “. . . Father the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh [humanity], to give eternal life to all whom you have given him”(vv. 1-2). The phrase beginning, “to give eternal life” is a purpose clause beginning with the word, hina, (in order that).  The Father’s purpose in giving Jesus all authority is clear. That purpose was to give eternal life to all those the Father had given him.  His purpose was not to make it possible for all to be saved if they chose to believe on him, but to give eternal life to God’s chosen people.

 

Even John 3:16, a verse touted by synergists to prove the universal but ineffectual good wishes of God for no one in particular, states the particularistic purpose of the Father in giving the Son.  It was in order that “the ones who believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus did not die to make salvation possible for everyone but to make it certain for all who would believe.

 

Exegetical Evidence

 

Since I have stated my view that ripping texts from their context and using them as proof-texts is illegitimate, it seems incumbent on me to show how this doctrine is set forth contextually in the New Testament Scriptures. I intend to do that by considering the argument of the apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans and related passages. It is in such contexts that we begin to understand how essential this doctrine is to our understanding of God’s good news.

 

I have stated more than once in this book that the assertion “Jesus died for you” was never part of the message that first century preachers proclaimed indiscriminately to sinners. A careful examination of the biblical record will demonstrate that to be true. Still, someone is bound to object that Paul included the phrase “. . .how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. . .” in his description of the gospel he preached (see 1 Cor. 15:1-4). In light of this, how can we contend that this was not a part of the good news he had preached to them? The answer is that we do not deny that Paul proclaimed Jesus’ death for sinners as part of the good news he preached. What we contend is that the timing of that proclamation was entirely different from its proclamation in modern preaching. In modern “evangelism” the preacher/witness often begins where he should end. As we shall learn from our examination of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and related passages, his declaration that Christ died for us or for our sins is a message he reserved for those who had been justified through trusting God’s gracious promise to pardon every rebel who bowed before the throne of the exalted Christ. He proclaimed that message to explain how God could, in righteousness, declare guilty rebels to be righteous in his holy sight. Additionally, “Christ died for us” formed the foundation of the believer’s assurance of glorification. The apostle did not argue that believers are certain to be glorified because we have believed Christ died for us, but because Christ has objectively secured our salvation by his redemptive work.

 

Though it is far beyond the scope of this brief consideration of Christ’s redemptive work to provide a detailed exposition of every pertinent passage in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and related passages,  in part two of this chapter, I would like us to consider the following elements of Paul’s argument and how they relate to that doctrine:

 

  1. God intended Jesus’ work of propitiation not merely to form the righteous basis for the justification of sinners but also to vindicate himself in the justification of sinners (Rom. 3: 24-26).
  2. Christ’s death objectively accomplished our reconciliation with God while we were still enemies. He will not cast us off now that we have become his friends having “received the reconciliation” through faith (Rom. 5:1-11).
  3. Jesus’ obedience as the head and representative of all in him, secured their justification just as Adam’s representative act of disobedience had guaranteed the condemnation of all in him. Adam did not represent those in him because they had chosen him as their representative. He was their head by divine decree and appointment. In the same way, Jesus became the representative of believers not because we chose him to represent us, but because the Father appointed him as our representative head (Rom.5:12-19).
  4. Everyone for whom Jesus died also died with him to the reigning power of sin (Rom. 6:1-10).
  5. If God has given us the greatest gift possible [he did not spare his own Son for us all], he will also grant us every other spiritual gift that belongs to our salvation including glorification (Rom. 8:31-32).
  6. Paul linked Jesus’ death with his intercessory work and argued that he who died for us and intercedes for us will certainly not condemn us (Rom. 8:34).

As I expand on these elements of Paul’s argument in the second part of this chapter, I think it will become clear that the synergist’s insistence that Jesus died equally and in the same way for every sinner without exception, cuts the theological legs from under that argument and must, for that reason, be rejected.

 

Hodge, A.A., Outlines of Theology, (London:The Banner of Truth Trust), 1972

Visit my Author’s Page–www.amazon.com/author/randyseiver

 

27
Feb
12

Abundant Redemption–the all-sufficiency of Christ’s death

Recently, a blogger on another page asked me what I mean when I say “the work of Christ is sufficient for all” and why I feel the need to affirm such a doctrine since the design of his death was to redeem only the elect. He felt such a statement must arise from an attempt “to placate Arminians or otherwise soften unpopular doctrine.” Anyone who knows me understands I never go out of my way to placate anyone or soften the harsh edge of any biblical teaching. Truth is truth! If I believe it is truth, I intend to proclaim it. The following is the answer I gave him in an effort to clarify my position on the issue.

1. As regards the purpose and design of Christ’s redeeming work, that purpose was definite and particular. He did not die in a well-meaning but futile and ineffectual effort to redeem all sinners. His intention was never at cross purposes with the Father’s decree.

2. Additionally, I do not believe the purpose of his death was to make all men savable in the hypothetical universalism sense, though, in reality, all could be justified by the same redeeming works if God enabled them to believe and avail themselves of the free offer of the gospel. The gospel announces that anyone who wishes may come, and the promise of the gospel is that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

3. The redeeming work of Christ is of such a nature that had he intended to save only one sinner by that work, he would have accomplished what every sinner needs to put him or her right with God. Since all sinners are of the same sinful lump and are all at heart equally destitute of spiritual merit or goodness in the presence of God, what one sinner needs is what every sinner needs. It is not as if there is a great vat of merit to be filled by the blood of Christ that contains only enough to forgive the sins of the elect and once that is exhausted there is no more. Instead, there is a fountain opened for sin and uncleanness, and any sinner who wants to be clean may (note, I did not say “can”) come and be washed clean in the blood of the lamb. This is no attempt “to placate Arminians or otherwise soften unpopular truth.” It is simply a statement of the fact that if his death is sufficient for the elect, it is also sufficient for all other sinners since the nature and necessities of the elect are no different from those of any sinner.

When I proclaim the gospel, I tell my hearers “Christ died for the most guilty sinner who will believe the gospel.” When I teach believers I tell them “Jesus, according to the Father’s design, effectively secured your salvation on the cross.” When I call on sinners to repent, the issue is not whether they are elect or whether Christ died for them with a particular design, but whether they will heed the gospel call and trust God’s promise to save all who call on him. The gospel is not addressed to elect sinners; it is merely addressed to sinners. Any sinner who trusts God promise of forgiveness will be saved.

The difference between the Calvinistic position and the Amyraldian position is that the latter posits that Christ’s death was not intended to redeem any sinner in particular but merely to render all sinners savable. For this reason, it is sometimes called, “hypothetical Universalism.”* Thus, any limitation that exists in Christ’s redeeming work is in its application, not in its design.

The Calvinists position maintains the converse position. The intent and purpose of Christ’s redemptive work was the effectual redemption of his chosen people. Because of his nature and the nature of his redemptive works it was incidently sufficient for all. The reason I have never liked the mantra, “Sufficient for all but efficient for the elect” is that it seems to support the Amyraldian scheme. I would state the issue the other way around. Christ death was designed for the everlasting salvation of the elect, and in the process was sufficient for everyone. One of the reasons for acknowledging the sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work is that it removes that issue from the discussion. We agree that Christ’s work is sufficient; now we can talk about the real issue, i.e., what was God’s purpose in sending his Son? And, if he died for everyone, what did he accomplish for them?

If all things are ordained by God and there is a limitation in the application of redemption, that limitation must have been previously designed by God.

*I have never liked having my views misrepresented, nor is it my wish to misrepresent the views of others. Though I personally see little difference between what I have stated concerning the “Hypothetical Universalist’s” view and what one of our visitors has insisted is truly their position, I want to try to be fair in my attempt to state his position to his satisfaction. If I understand his position correctly, it is that in the HU view the intention of Christ’s death was two-fold. 1) It was intended to render satisfaction for every sinner, and 2) It was intended to secure the application of that satisfaction to the elect and to the elect alone. I also perceive that he wishes these views not be juxtaposed to Calvinism since they were proposed and held by men who are to be found under Calvinism’s broad tent.

The only point I was making is that what I have suggested in this post is not in agreement with this view however one may wish to state it. In my view, there is no indication in Scripture that Jesus’s death was intended to render satisfaction to God’s justice for any but those given to him by the Father before the world was created.