Our third point of Calvinism to discuss is Limited atonement. While we go through this point, it is important to keep the first two points in view. Total depravity and Unconditional election have given us the following picture. God is looking out from eternity on a vast sea of dead people who are all fallen in Adam. Jesus comes into the picture and becomes a singular light. He sends the Holy Spirit who brings some huge number of the dead back to life, due to no merits of their own. And now we come to the How was it done section.
The atonement is a short hand for the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross. The Calvinist view of the atonement is a propitiating vicarious penal sacrifice. Let’s go through these three adjectives. Propitiation is a combination of two ideas. The first idea is that the sacrifice of Jesus did more than cover up our sins; it washed away or cleansed our sins completely. The second idea is that our relationship with God that was damaged by the outrage of our sin against God is repaired and fully restored by Jesus. Vicarious means just what Webster says that it means. Jesus acted on our behalf, as a substitute for us. Penal means that this is a legal declaration; this implies rather directly that a judgment has occurred. This idea of judgment is hugely important in terms of the redemptive history that unfolds throughout the Bible. And finally, the noun sacrifice refers back to the OT sacrificial system that was set up as a type and shadow of the true sacrifice that was to come, so that we would recognize the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross for what it is.
The next question that is often asked is for whom did Jesus die and rise again? For whom is this ultimate sacrifice? Going back to the first image above, of the sea of dead people, some of whom have now been raised with Jesus, it is clear that the atonement was for these people. That is what is meant by Limited atonement.
Paul discusses this topic in great detail in Romans, but let us go through the usual arguments against limited atonement. The first issue is that there are passages that state that Jesus died to take away the sins of the world. The term world is viewed to mean by some that all men receive this atonement from Jesus. This idea is extended by some Universalists to mean that the Gospel must spread not only to all corners of the world, but that all men must be converted before the Last Day. This is not the view of redemptive history that we get in the Bible. Jesus tells us plainly, in many places, that not all men will be saved. If that is the case, why would Jesus die for people that He knows will not be saved? Calvin’s answer is that He didn’t. Die He did and for all of His people from all corners of the world. That is the view of all the world that Calvinists take, that Jesus died for all of the elect from all times from all corners of the world.
Another issue is that raised by Arminius. The above paragraph is wrong in his mind. Jesus did die for all of the people, but His sacrifice did not necessarily provide salvation. A person must accept the gift. This turns the gift of Grace into a work of acceptance instead of the passive receiving of Grace through the work of the Holy Spirit. Paul has stated quite plainly that man contributes nothing to the equation. But there is a second more insolent problem with the Arminius formulation. By definition, this would mean that Jesus was not powerful enough to save everyone that He set out to save. This conception of Arminius diminishes God, and it makes God impotent in many instances. That is not a picture of the God that I worship. My God created the universe and stretches out beyond time. Such a God as this cannot be impotent in any regard. Such a God does exactly what He means to do, no more and no less. Therefore, Calvinists view the receivers of the benefits of the atonement to be the elect, and only the elect.
Another more liberal argument is from Charles Finney, who was a lawyer. He could not conceive of a legal justification that involved substitution. There is no justice, in Finney's mind, if Jesus acted vicariously on the behalf of anyone else. Jesus’ sacrifice was efficacious solely for Himself. His life provides us with an example of Christian living, that through pious adherence to the Law, we may reach salvation through the Law as Jesus did. This view is wrong on so many levels. To begin, if Jesus successfully fulfilled the Law, what was the point of his death? If the wages of sin are death, but Jesus lived a sinless life, why was His death necessary? Did He not earn the reward of life for His sinless life? Finney’s theology can’t answer that question. The next problem is that the OT types and shadows point towards vicarious sacrifice. Lambs and doves are offered as atonements, cover ups, for sin throughout the OT. Clearly, the issue of a vicarious sacrifice is intended by scripture. Finally, Finney completely denies the Covenantal relationship of Adam to mankind. In the same way that Jesus cannot vicariously atone for our sin, we cannot be vicariously in the condition of sin through Adam. In other words, Finney commits the Pelagian heresy and denies Original sin.
I use Finney as an example for a reason. Finney is championed by so many modern American Evangelicals as the greatest spreader of the gospel since Paul. The problem is that what he was advocating was clearly not The Gospel. He denied Original Sin; he denied the efficacy of the Resurrection for anyone not named Jesus Christ; he created a works based system of salvation that wasn’t even the Rabbinical code of the Old Covenant. If we throw rocks at Judaizers and the so called Messianic Jewish movements, how much larger stones should we throw at Finney and his followers?
So, in summary, what is Limited Atonement? This is the doctrine that the Resurrection accomplished what the Bible says that it accomplished: justification through the Blood of Jesus and His resurrection for all of His elect. The atonement has 100% penetration and 100% efficacy for His elect. This means that 100% of the elect benefit and 100% of the elect receive the full measure of this benefit. The atonement has nothing to do with the reprobate. That is what is meant by limited. This is NOT to say that Jesus is limited in any way. This says instead that His redeeming actions are limited for the benefit of His elect only, that He himself selected.
--Troll--
No comments:
Post a Comment